The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-11-24

FRIDAY NOR.
wholesale methods almost an entire leg
lsiative assembly.
IT have already stated that character
proof is Of little avail Win lne laets
| which are the subject OF ihNesllsatioi
undisputed and uncontradlcteu. In a
criminal case this is so. IN pioceeo-
ing civil in it's nature 1t Is iilucn more
So.
THE doctrine is announced in the
case of United states Vs. Johnson in the
Following language:
I'm this case the defendant, Ihomas
Johnson, puts his good character IN
evidence, to show that lie aio hoL eoii, :,
init this offense. III cases Oh aouot soou
| character Is essential as Il means % ue-
| tense; but where the charge is apSolu.e-
| ly proven, it can be Of no AVIAN. tor
| instance If YOU are satisfied from the
evidence in this case that the witnesses
for the government have spoken inc
truth with regard to the DEFENDANT,
| you believe that their evidence Is True,
| and 1t satisfies your mind that thefe
| was a conspiracy as charged; that the
| defendant was present on the occasion
| of the conspiracy referred to. ana look
part in it; and that he fired on the posse
OF the officers, or in the direction o.
those officers. it would be your duty 10
| find him guilty, although they may
have proven the good character OF the
| defendant.
! "'Good character is but circum-
stance to be considered in connection
| with all the evidence, in determining
| the question of guilt or innocence. But
If the evidence Of guilt 10 complete ana
| convincing (Which implies a consloera-
ton of the evidence Of previous good
al, p<,%n Ill ttnf
| then 1t Is well settled law the evidence
| of previous good character cannot and
ought not avail"-Hirscham vs. People,
| 101, ILL.,. sos.
| However good mans character
may be, that alone will not entitle him
to an acquittal. They (the jury can
| only acquit when due consideration
of all the testimony in the case, includ-
| ing that in regard to defendants char
acter either convinces them that de-
| PENDANT is innocent or raises In their
| minds a reasonable doubt Of his guilt
People VS.. Gleason. l New, 17S.
lis there any evidence in the record
that denies the substantive proof in
volving the accused and others?
IF Mr.. Welcome had gone upon the
stand and denied the commission of the
acts charged he would then be in a sit
uation to urge favorable consideration
of his good character. This is equally
true with respect to the others who
were actors in this conspiracy. They
were available, many of them were In
the court during the proceedings, and
their failure to testify is proof conclu-
sive as Holy Writ that the acts alleged
to have been committed by them were
committed as testified to.
I'm re Randel, SO N. E., page HOG,
decided on the 2sth of February last,
was a disbarment proceeding in which
it was alleged that Randel committed
specific acts that untitled him to con-
tinue in the practice of the law. Upon
hearing, as in this case, he declined to
testify. The court, commenting upon
this, used the following language:
1.-The defendant declined to be sworn
in his own behalf at the trial. This
refusal to testify raises the legal pre-
sumption of the truth of these facts.
which must have been known to the
defendant, and which he failed to con-
tradict. This is in no sense criminal
prosecution, and the statutory rule of
no presumption in such cases does not
apply.
Evidence assailing the character Of
Mr.. Whiteside and Mr.. Clark was Of
fered. 1t is needless to discuss it's force
or relevancy The law presumes that
witness character Is good, and IL
any finding were to be made upon the
evidence adduced the court would be
compelled to find that the character OF
the witnesses named was not success
fully assailed. The responsibility and
standing of the persons who testified to
the good character of the witnesses
Whiteside and Clark as contradistin-
guished from the standing and motives
Of those who were called to assail their
character leaves no room for doubt on
the score Of the standing and reputa-
ton of the gentlemen named.
1.-THE case as submitted involves two
theories-one the criminal conduct OF
the accused by himself and through
others in attempting to bride and in
bribing members of the Sixth legisla-
tive assembly in behalf Of the candi-
dacy of W. A. Clark for United States
senator. Sustaining that theory is proof
uncontradicted that money was used
corruptly by Mr.. Clark and that ru-
mors of the corrupt use of money pre-
vailed generally, and that in his cleo
ton, starting out with a few men,
bers, by gradual accessions of members
a majority of the legislative assembly
was secured. That to secure that ma
jority party lines and party fealty We're
obliterated, despite the invocation of
political prestige to maintain party in
tegrity. To sustain that theory is the
Mr.. Cason, Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Clark,
Mr. Myers, Mr. Poindexter and Mr..
Sullivan.
ITO sustain the other theory is the
vague statement of counsel that there
Is in existence. and has been for years,
a political aggregation known as the
Daily gang with no evidence suggest
i've in the remotest degree of the use
of money to entrap or for other pur-
poses during the session of the Sixth
legislative assembly.
Mr. Welcome is an officer of the
court and charged with the commission
of high crimes uniting him to con-
tinue in the practice of the law. The
proof of his completely and guilt comes
from varied sources, and among the
witnesses who testified are officers of
the court He does not deny the COM
mission of those acts, and, upon his
suggestion, it is intimated that the
court should relieve him from culpa-
bility and place stigma upon some of
it's officers and upon reputable men
a., "a ~ 1t,,tf lie