Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-12-05
WELCOMES : :
BRIEF FILED
TESTIMONY AS TO THE
OF MONEY IN THE ALLEGED
PURCHASE OF VOTES.

Helena, Dec. 5.-Counsel for John r
welcome in his disbarment proceedings
pe1ore the supreme court filed their brief
late yesterday afternoon.
The brief is long, containing with. the
abstracts OF evidence and the citations
from authorities over 10000 words.
After commenting upon the principles
mat should DerVade such an investiga-
ton as this, the brief, commenting upon
the failure of the accused to take the
stand, says: @t|
THE argument that the accused is not
entitled to any consideration because ne
failed to testify. or that there is to be in
ferred from his failure to testify the
truth of the facts stated by the witnesses
for the prosecution, is based upon a
wrong theory of aw. The failure of the
accused to testify does not create a pre-
sumption against him in his case, for
the reason that the acts charged cOnSti-
tute 2 crime
After quoting a number of authorities
in support of the above. the brief takes
up the question of aecused's character
evidence, contending, with the aid of
! other authorities, that it is highly COM
petent. Thu claim is made that it was
a "discreditable circumstance that
While the specifications names Gallwey,
Normoyle and Mckay as persons to whom
offers of money was made, no evidence
to that effect was offered.
The brief then deals in detail with the
evidence as to the payments of money
to others than Whiteside and Clark. The
Warner evidence is dismissed, as having
no weight. AS to Geiger, the evidence
barring what Whiteside testified as to
Welcome receiving overtures from Gel
ger, which is styled absurd, if not false,
the circumstantia offer as to the money,
styled as 'of no value whatever in this
action The accused's counsel see
nothing in the evidence against HObsOn,
contending that the offer as to the bank
stock transacted because it was imma-
terial. The evidence of Cason against
Marcyes is attacked as unreliable and
Sason's letters received from Clark, one
of which contained $500, are called zen
tireiy innocent and simply represent a
liberal payment for legitimate election
eering expenses" The charge as to the
offer of money to Poindexter to purchase
the votes of the three Beaverhead men,
bers is called a mere suggestion or talk"
a charge that is unproven. The offer of
Biekford to Sullivan is claimed to be
barred because Sullivan solicited it.
Concerning the charge that Jacqueh was
paid $40, 600 IN effort is made to show a
! conflict of evidence between Whiteside
and Rector.
Considerable space is devoted to an eff
| fort to show that the charges about Carr
receiving money from Welcome through
Whiteside were ~unfounded. Some OF the
testimony is quoted and the claim is made
that the envelopes offered as haYing CON
tanned the money furnished nos prod to
strengthen Whiteside's statef1ent of
| where the money came FROM. Dealing
with the Meyers case, the brie1.coniends
! that the fact Whiteside paid Mm $4,000
does not corroborate Whiteside's state
ment as to where the money was secured.
1.-The testimony of Meyers as to the
conversation with Bickford not only does
not corroborate this latter transaction,
but if it occurred, would be a circum-
stance to show that this latter transac-
ton never occurred. If Meyers had re-
pulsed the offers which he alleges were
made him by Minshall and Bickford with
the strength of purpose testified to by
him, it would be unreasonable to suppose
that any one would have sent White
side, a perfect stranger, to Meyers with
such an offer. In view of all the cir
cumstances in this case. there can be no
controversy but what Whiteside went
to Meyers of his own volition n con-
certed and arranged for his own purpose
all of the circumstances about which
Meyers testified to as having occurred
between him and Whiteside.
The balance of the brief deals with the
testimony of Whitcside and Clark, which