The Billings gazette. [volume] (Billings, Mont.) 1896-1919, 1899-12-26
The Supreme Court Says the
Butte Attorney Is Guilty
of Bribery.
NO QUESTION ABOUT 1T
He Hasn't Denied 1t and Is Criti-
cised for Not Taking Wit
ness Stand.

Helena, Mont, Dec. 23.-The 50.
preme court decided the Welcome case
today, holding that the Butte attorney
must be disbarred. The decision was a
trife sooner than was generally expect
ed as rumols have been around town
for several days that the case would
not be decided before the latter part OF
next month.
Few people were in when the court
filed in and the chief justice announced
the decision. The opinion is by the
whole court.
The court begins it's opinion by re.
viewing briefly the charges of bribery
and conspiracy to hribe preferred against
Welcome as we'll as the recent proceed.
ings before the court.
The court eliminates in the discus
sion Of the case all charges based upon
information, addressing itself directly
to the question of the guilt or limo.
oenoe Of the accused, upon the specific
charges of bribery. The court says
that on account of the voluminous evil
dence taken and because disbarment
must be made in case either the charge
of bribery or conspiracy to bride is sus.
tanned by proof, the court will contne
itself to the charge of the payment of
$1,000 to W. A. Clark Of Madison
county, referring to the case Of Carr,
Whiteside and others only in SO far as
ia necessary to elucidate the Clark
charge.
The court discards those portions of
the evidence bearing upon the financial
transaction of Warner, Geiger and Hob
sou as immaterial.
The court quotes extensively from
the testimony Of State Senator CLARK
as to his meeting with Whiteside, plan
ming to meet with Welcome for the
purpose of getting the money and the
famous scene in Welcomes room in the
Helena hotel whom the money was paid
to CLARK. The court reviews the testi.
mony of Whiteside and Meyers and con.
tinuing says:
"The accused was not sworn as q
witness. but was present throughout the
hearing. At the time appointed by
this court for the accused to answer
the charges he did not appear in person.
His answer was made under the oath,
upon information and belief, Of one Of
his counsel. Thus the charges them
selves are not challenged by any direct
denial by him. The statement of Clark
and Whiteside are not contradioted by
anyone. The accused is the only one
except Carr and Steele in relation to
the Carr matter, who could deny them
or otherwise enlighten the court coll.
corning them, for it appears from the
evidence of these witnesses that not
more than one person was present with
the accused at any Of the negotiations,
except in the one instance when Clark
was paid the ten thousand dollars at
room 2O1 Of the Helena hotel.
I'm the formal charges it is alleged
that Welcome was active in the sup
port of W. A. Clark Of Butte, for Unit
ed States senator. This is admitted.
It may be further noted that in his tes-
timony Whiteside details several con-
vpersations with Welcome as to We'll
lcome's negotiations with many other
members of the assembly whose vote he
was trying to secure by the use OF
money and otherwise. The same re.
mark may be made touching the testi.
mony Of Clark.
Another circumstance, somewhat
c%orroborative of the stories Of Clark and
Whiteside, in view Of the conversation
first had by CLARK with Welcome, also
the intention of certain supporters OF
w. A. Clark of Butte il the fact that
when the election did finally take place
many democrats n republicans who
heretofore had opposed Clark's candi'
dacy shifted over and voted for him
without apparent aus Steele was
not called as a witness.
CLARK and Whiteside, prior to their
examination in this court, had twice
been examined touching these transac'
lions. once before the legislative com
mittee. and once before a grand jury
called by one of the judges Of the frs
district to inquire into the charges made
before the committee. Their statements
made on both occasions were in thu
hands Of counsel at the hearing. AND
though both were thoroughly cross
examined by able and astute question
ers and every opportunity was afforded
to test their truthfulness by a comparI
son Of these statements no substantial
discrepancies were shown. A careful
and painstaking examination Of tllel
accounts given at the hearing III SO ia
as they relate to the same matters, ais
failed to reveal any substantial contra
diction or omission. These statement
are not unreasonable in the light OF thi
whole record and it is highly improba
BILE that such a story could be deliber
atsly e~oncocted and repeated SO man.
times without being discredited il
some substantial particular.
AFTER seeing and hearing the wit
.-ls.. Ala IA