The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-02-24


Montana. was on the witness stand during
practically all the time the Committee on
Privileges and Elections Of the Senate was
in open session. The feature of the day
was the contention between counsel on
each side of the case and members of the
committee in the matter of points of law
raised during the hearing.
Mr.. Nolan represented the State of Mon
tana before the grand jury of Lewis and
Clarke county in the Welcome proceedings.
and then represented the Supreme Court
OF Montana in the trial before that tribunal
of John b. Welcome a lawyer. charged
with bribery, which trial resulted in his
disbarment Mr.. Nolan, before entering
upon the practice of the law, was court
stenographer. and during the grand jury
proceedings made a stenographic report,
partly verbatim and partly in narrative
4 form of the testimony. The testimony thus
obtained was used in the disbarment trial
before the Supreme Court. The notes Of
! the grand jury proceedings were also made
part of the memorial which was pre-
/ scented 10 the Senate. on December 4. and
! on which the investigation OF Senator
! Clark's right TO a seat in the United States
! Senate is based.
When the witnesses against Senator
Clark came under the cross examination
of former Senator Faulkner. leading ctln-
sci for Senator Clark he took them to task
for discrepancies and contradictions in
their testimony as given before the grand
jury and reported by Mr.. Nolan, and their
testimony in chief before the Committee
on Privileges and Elections of the Senate.
The first legal question to arise yester-
day was to the right and the propriety of
the presence of the Attorney General of
State in the grand jury room The conf
mon law was quoted az considerable length
and English and American statutes were
freely consulted. Mr.. Nolan said that this
point had been fought over in the disbar-
ment trial before the Supreme Court. and
his position was sustained.
The next question TO come up was
whether the Attorney General had the
right TO reveal to the Supreme Court mat
tiers that had occurred in the grand jury
room-grand jury secrets. The contest
over this question was a serious one. and
considerable time vas devoted to ii.
difficult problem was encountered when
the Attorney General was questioned by
Representative Campbell counsel in chief
for the memorialists. with a view to con-
tradicting witnesses for the defence who
had denied that they had given before the
grand jury the testimony accredited TO
them in the report made by the Attorney
General
When the committee was called TO order
by Senator Chandler Mr.. Faulkner an
nounced that he was ready TO rest the case
of his client. except that he might have o
examine few witnesses In rebuttal of any
further testimony that might be offered on
the other side. The chairman said that the
committee desired 10 confer with counsel
on both sides, and for that purpose he or
dered that the committee room be cleared
OF all other persons.
Half an hour afterward the doors were
reopened, and Charles W. Clark. Senator
Clark's son was recalled and examined by
counsel on the other side. and questioned
as to some items OF payment made by him
as testified TO Thursday. The most impor-
tant of these was the $4,000 given to Nc
Dermott. lie was asked how McDermott
had paid ont such a sum before he was re-
imbursed. and Mr.. Clark said he had done
so by checks on Clark & Bros Bank.
Their total lad been DISCHARGED by the one
check of $4,000. McDermott had kept and
submitted to him memorandum of his ex-
penditures. and the witness had the1 drawn
the check.
Attorney General Nolan WIS called by
the anti-Clark counsel, and made state
ment as To the provisions OF the election
law of the State He was asked whether he
had any knowledge of Mr.. Daily attemptil g
10 dictate to any officer of the State as 10
his official duties, and he answered in the
negative Mr.. DAILY had never requested
him ia do. or 10 refrain from doing any
thing in relation to his official duties. The
witness was in Helena during the Sena-
torial contest, but had taken no part what
ever in II. Heshad conducted the examina-
tion Of witnesses in the grand jury room.
and had made stenographc report of
their testimony. He had told the grand
jury that they would have to make find
ing one way or the other-he did no, care
which. AS long as the $4,000 was there az
evidence Of the fact either OF bribery or OF
conspiracy, be said the grand jury would be
derelict If it did not bring in an Indictment
against Welcome for bribery or against
Whiteside for conspiracy.
Senator Peitus-On what principle did
you feel authorized to present the testi-
mony before the Supreme Court in the
Welcome disbarment case?
Mr.. Nolan found ample authority TO
sustain the position ] took. There was a
motion made by counsel for Welcome TO
strike from the record III testimony given
before the grand jury, on the ground that
IL was secret and that it was against public
policy TO have ii presented TO the Supreme
Court in that way. The matter was argued
elaOorately, and the court sustained my
position.
Mr. Campbell proposed to examine the
witness on the notes taken by him before
the grand Jury, so as to contradict some
Of the testimony of witness before the
committee and after a coiloluy between
counsel and members of the committee per-
mission TO do so WIS given.
MIR. Campbell asked the witness TO pro-
duce the testimony of 4. J. Steele given
before the grand jury. Mr.. Faulkner OBJ
jected that Mr.. Nolan ought not to be
permitted 10 give his impressions of what
some witness said before the grand jury.
Mr.. Nolan having admitted that he had
not his original stenographic notes. He
also objected on the ground that the wit
ness should not be permitted to dlvulge
what had taken place in the grand jury
room.
Mr.. Campbell said that the cross exam
nation of witnesses as 10 what they had :
testified TO before the grand jury had been
begun by the defence II would be use
less cross examination If man were al
lowed to come before the committee and
deny or repudiate his previous testimony
II the other side were not TO be permitted
TO attempt to show just what was testi-
fed 10 before the grand jury
Mr.. Chandler said that Mr.. Campbell
was right in his statement that the de-
fence had cross examined witnesses upon
the report of their testimony before the
grand jury. and the question was whether
the committee would receive as evidence
anSTEITEEe tendency " sasgs to I, a