Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-11-15
IMPARTIAL RULINGS.

ed men that the rulings of the supreme
court in the Welcome case. published
in these columns yesterday, were emil
nently just. 1t would have been mani
testify unfair to associate the defend
ant with conversations concerning
bribery not had in his presence. and
there can be no rational objections
urged against requiring men suspected
of having received money illegally to
explain their udden acquisition of
wealth. BY so doing they can dispel the
suspicious of their most inveterate enc
mics and put their aceusers to shame.
Ordinarily, a rule of practice in the
lower courts that would compel a man
to give publicity to his private financial
affairs, in order to relieve himself of
a mere suspicion. might be carried to an
extreme that would become an abuse of
personal rights. On the innocent man it
might work an unjustifiable hardship.
and perhaps a positive injury, while the
guilty man would fall back on his legal
reserve as to discriminating himself. and
thus defeat the ends in view. But in
the character of the action before the
supreme court it becomes necessary for
that body to carefully weigh the merits
of every circumstance tending to show
either the guilt or the innocence of the
accused. AS there is no appeal from it's
decision, and an investigation along al
most n line calculated to bring out
tha f antc will NOT 1a,. +la fo,,~lal:z.-.
for a re-trial on technicalities that
might defeat the ends of justice, the
court doubtless believes that no form of
testimony that leads up to the unfold
ment of truth should be ruled out. 10
those who look upon the Welcome trial
from an impartial standpoint, and
whose conclusions will be adapted to the
facts adduced, the course pursued by
the supreme court as to the admisa-
bility of evidence seems eminently Just
and proper.
Those who are behind the prosecution
of that gentleman should congratulate
themselves on the elimination OF that
portion of the testimony relating to con-
versations had about bribery. with
which Mr.. Welcome was not connected.
I1au that testimony in its entirety re-
manned in the record, and a transcript of
1T been submitted to the senate of the
United States, in the pending contro-
Nersy over the seating of Mr.. Clark in
1hat BODY, it might hav shown Mr..
"hlteslde, the prosecuting witness. in
a very unenviable light. In the testi-
mony that was ruled out occurs the
conversation had between Mr.. White
side and Mr.. Anderson, in which the
former tried his best to induce the latter
70 accept a bride to vote for Mr.. Clark
for senator. It was not until after Mr..
Anderson positively refused to yield to
such an inducement that Mr.. Whiteside
explained to him that he was only try
ing TO lay a trap for Mr.. Clark. In the
senate chamber a wrong construction
might have been placed on this conyer-
sation, and the suspicion might have
been aroused that the explanation would
not have been given Mr.. Anderson. had
he not shown himself to he unpurchas-
dpie' III tHlS way an injustice might
have been done Mr.. Whiteside, and a
different Interpretation placed upon his
work as a detective than that which was
originally intended.
On he other hand, it would seem that
the defendant has far more to gain than
he has to lose through the e~xplanation,
made by men suspected Of accepting
brides as TO how they acquired the wealth
imputed to them. AS matters now stand.
the charge is openly made in the columns
or the press that certain individuals who
We're comparatively poor at the opening
of the legislative session have since dis
played a great deal of wealth, and the in
ference is thrown out tina senatorial bril-
berry is behind it all. If the men so accus-
ed Will make an accounting that is salts
factory to the court, ii will not only clear
Mr.. Welcomes skirts but it will prevent
their financial affairs from being drag p
ged before the senate committee and their |
names heralded over the world as the
possible recipients of ill-gotten gains.
Therefore, it is clear that the rulings