Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-02-16

severe a rebuke as to have made the Sec
ond mention Of the proposition an impos-
sibility. Had there not been the posi-.
bility of a pleasantly on the part Of a
family physician, as the doctor subse-
quently explained, when the subject be-
came gossip in Helena. Mr.. Hunt would
have been justified in citing Mr.. Treacey
| for contempt of court, and would have
| been warmly %applauded by the public for
so doing.
While Mr.. Hunt expressed his belief as
to the doctors purposes on the witness
stand yesterday, he did not positively dis
avow the claim Of Mr.. Treacey that it
was only intended as a joke. 1t will be
seen, therefore. that while Mr.. Hunt told
nothing but the truth, and gave his tes-
timony in a straightforward manner that
could leave nc doubt whatever as to his
veracity and honesty Of purpose. his
statements have practically little bearing
on the case in issue until it has been es-
tablished. first, that DR.. Treacey was not
working of a $780, 900 Josh" on his
friend, and, second, that he was author
izad to act as a dispenser of brides.
The situation calls for a hearing from
DR. Treacey, and he ought to be sum-
moned at once as a witness. If he ac-
tually tried to bride a member of the SUI
preme court, public opinion will demand
his personal punishment to the extreme
limit Of the law. IF the testimony Of
Judge Hun is good enough to assist in
the expulsion of Mr.. Clark it ought to be
good enough to put DIR. Treacey behind
the bars. The doctor either attempted to
bride the associate justice of the supreme
court, or he did not. If he made the at
tempt the public will demand his speedy
punishment: if he did not make the at
tempt, the testimony of Mr.. Hunt will
ave no bearing on the senatorial case.
Unless the issues involved cam be def
nitely settled at this sitting of the COM
mittee, that body ought to withhold it's
report unil the next session of congress-.
- Al tAC AlC0kAAIlIAC, LII. 4IcdCSy HAS
been tried and convicted of attempting
to bride a member Of the supreme
court, Mr.. Hunts testimony can be used
against Mr.. Clark to good advantage, and
be given the full weight to which it will
be entitled.
The matter is a serious one, involving
not alone the reputation of Mr.. Clark
and his friends, but the standing and
of DR.. Treacey as we'll. If it
can be said hereafter that Senator Clark
was expelled from the senate on the evil
dence of Associate Justice Hunt of the
court of Montana, who testified
that DR.. Treacey tried to bribe him to
throw the Welcome case out of court,
the character of the Helena physician is
ruined for all time to come. His name
will be listed upon the permanent records
Of the United States senate as a bribe-
giver in a case of historical Importance.
The seriousness of the situation is at
once apparent. The status of the physi- |
clam should be promptly established, and
the question of his guilt or innocence
determined. Otherwise the State Medi-
cal Board will have as good a case of
moral turpitude" against him as the SUI
preme court had against Welcome.
The direct testimony Of Associate JUS
tice Pigott was in Senator Clark's favor,
n it showed that the latter's attorney
went to the expense of a special train in |
order to reach Helena and head off any
attempt to bride the supreme court, |
which injudicious friends cf the senator |
might undertake. Mr.. Pigott, however, |
placed a construction of his own upon
the statements made to him by the at
torney, and reached the conclusion that
the latter was merely making a play to !
be considered honest, after the alleged
attempt to bride Mr.. Hunt a failed.
Thus, while the statements imputed to
the attorney by Mr.. Pigott favor the
Clark side, his conclusions as to the mo- |
tives of the attorney favor the opposi-
tion. The weight of his testimony,
therefore, depends upon whether the
statements made by Clark's attorney in
his presence, or the conclusions drawn by
him as to the motive behind them, are
regarded OF greater value.
While Mr.. Pigott's testimony was clear
and i~ncisive, it has little bearing on the
case in issue. If his statements as to
the position taken on the proposed
bribery of the supreme court by MI.