The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-08-02

of Clark as United States senator and
against the indictment of Welcome for
alleged acts of bribery, is not material
to this motion. Whiteside does not saw
that the grand jury which investigated
the charges of bribery were moved by
this local sentiment, or that the grand
jury were corrupt or acted from i'm
proper motives, or that the Judge of the
district court was in any Way or at
all, so affected or was influenced in any
degree by it. We have, therefore, elm
mated the entire matter of alleged
prejudice or sentiment from our consid-
Grafton. The record before us then
shows the following condition Of af-
fairs; the matter of the alleged bribery
Of members of the legislature in con-
nection with the election of a United
States senator was inquired into by a
grand jury called by the Hon. Sidney
II. McIntire, judge of the district court
of the First judicial district; that the
grand jury made report, stating that
they had examined A witnesses and
various papers, documents and other
legal evidence touching the charges of
bribery of members of the legislature.
and had considered all the evidence
that they believed could shed any light
upon the questions of bribery, perjury
or conspiracy, but that they had not
sufficient evidence before them. in their
judgment, to warrant a conviction by
a trial jury, and that for these reasons,
presumably, no Indictment was found
or presented.
The Action of the Grand Jury,
1T next appears that the attorney
general at the time that the grand jury
made their report consequent upon their
investigation upon matters relating to
alleged bribery, perjury and conspir-
acy, asked the court to empanel another
grand jury to take up the investigation
of these same charges accompanying
the request with the statement that,
as an item of evidence, there was 500
900 alleged to have been deposited with
Whiteside in consideration of votes 10
be cast for Clark for senator. and that
so long as this evidence existed. and
with all of the participants appearing
before the grand jury, as shown by the
testimony. their investigation, which
resulted in no findings of bribery or
perjury, was incomplete. The judge of
the district court refused to empanel
another grand jury. and ordered
the partial report as made by
the grand jury to be filed, and di-
rected the grand jury to retire and con-
tinue their labors. No further inVesti-
cation was had respecting the bribery
charges and no further proceedings
have been instituted under the criminal
statutes of the state charging Welcome
with bribery or any other Offense, nor is
there pending now in any court any
charge for any acts of bribery alleged
to have been committed by Welcome
as set forth in the petition for disbar-
ment filed in this court
The Lower Courts Non-Action.
"In our opinion it matters not what
the reasons We're which moved the
judge of the district court to deny the
request of the attorney general to i'm
panel another grand jury. Assuming
that the motion was addressed to his
whether or not he acted
wisely or unwisely is not of import
ance. The fact that he declined to
act is material, however, and has been
considered of significance by us. The
evidence heard by the grand jury, and
which accompanies the showing now
made by the attorney general is also
material The failure to lay this evil
dence before the lower court when it
was asked to call another grand jury
cannot control the exercise of our dis
cretion in this original proceeding to
disbar. The office of that testimony in
this court, and at this time. is to sup
port the application of the attorney
general by furnishing reasons why we
should, in our discretion, hear these
tHdTSeS, u inquire llllO llG llulll Ol
which we have original jurisdiction.
For this purpose the evidence is COM
petent. And we are cited to no statute
or decision against its use for such
purpose.
Evidence Tends TO Show Bribery Con-
spiracy.
1--WE have examined the evidence. 1t
tends strongly to show bribery of mem
bers of the legislature, or conspiracy.
If it is true, and there was bribery,
1t tends strongly to show bribery of
members of the Legislature. or con-
spiracy If 1t is true, and there was
bribery, 1t tends further to directly
inculpate Welcome, a member of the
bar of this court. On the other hand,
if it is untrue, Welcome is entirely
by the necessary conclu-
sion from the evidence that there has
been a conspiracy, which impicates
others in greViOus crimes. 1t must be
laid down as a reiteration of our form
er decision, that a lawyer who is guilty
of wilful bribery of members of the
legislature is unworthy of the hOnors
and responsibilities accompanying the
office OF an attorney at law. and if after
fair, impartial and searching investi-
CATION, a lawyer be clearly proved
guilty of such an offense, it is due the
profession and to the courts of which
he is an officer and to the state that
his license to practice be revoked. or
that he be suspended from the per-
of the duties of his high office
for a stated period of time"
Attorney General Nolan's Course. j
The court quotes from a pertinent
decision by Lord Chief Justice Cock
burn, also from an argument by Chief
Justice Whipple, and, continuing, says:
1T is not necessary that, as a condition
precedent to the exercise of the juris-
diction of this court in a disbarment
proceeding. repeated efforts be made
to secure an Indictment for crime. Nor
will We hold that 1t is requisite that
the attorney general appeal several
times to one judge, or one time to sew
eral judges. to impanel a grand jury
to investigate charges of bribery where
there has been an Investigation into
the very charges which are made the
for disbarment proceedings
by grand jury, duly impaneled under
the forms of law and specially directed
to inquire into the truth of such
charges. We did not hold. and We
shall not now decide, that an unusual
and extraordinary procedure be invoked
l.,