The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-02-22
WELCOME TELLS HIS STORY.
- HE DIsBURsED MONEY IN
CLARK SENATORIAL FIGHT.
-.s mt some s25.aoO or s3o.OOO
paring the Session of the Legis-
s.t,re, hut None of the Money
.w..t to influence Legislators.

wAsHrNGTON, Feb. 2.-John p. Well
- continued his testimony in the Clark
TO-DAY, Mr.. Faulkner resumed his
.ss,,an,ug upon specific allegations by
s<sr..ses for the prosecution. involving
- name OF welcome. The first questions
s - out. as they were intended to.
80 Sanials hut these were unexpectedly
s.sied and the witness was turned over
!. ,be prosecution at an early hour in the
~. arst question related 10 the testi-
-.arv Of Mark Hewitt. the essential parts
= which we're contradicted.
raulkner asked What amount OF
,ooaey did you use in the senatorial con-
tsstT' -,
..nurt with exactness, but think spent
fcm $1,000 ia $4,000 | know what /
assd upon my own checks, but In addi-
IN I got money at different times from
w. clark and also let him have money
NJ kept no account whatever, so that It
vould be next to impossible TO give exact
esures On my own account l checked
cut $3.50
sHow ala you spend the money!
.on the lobby: bringing people 10 Hell
.na, defraying their expenses there, and
10 paying them often so much per diem
" experience, limited though II rs, Is
mat In politics you never get returns
nom more than one-quarter OF the money
expended"
member OF the legislature for the purpose
q influencing hts vote?"
MOT dollar"
Denies All bribery.
Here the examination In chief was con-
eluded and Mr.. Campbell took the wit
ness
spid you pay any of this money to any
member Of the LEGISLATURE" he asked as
his first question.
NO. sir; not dollor," was the reply.
He said he had kept no memorandum OF
his expenditures, but that he could name
some Of the persons to whom he had given
money A. J Steele was one OF these. He
had given that gentleman from 5000 to
F,oM
Mr. welcome said that he had no per-
sonal knowledge OF Charles Ciark's pur-
chase Of land from State Senator Warner,
but had heard rumors of such "A transac-
ton
How He Drew the Money.
Mr.. Welcome said that he had procured
fhe H5.oc0 on his checks from the Montana
National bank drawn ON the bank OF
Clark Bros lie had drawn sl0o at one
time and ZOO at another. and had taken
sorne big bills, some of denominations Of
~ and 5000
What was the necessity OF drawing so
much money at one timer asked Mr.
CAmpbeli
4 did II because was told when ar
riyed at Helena that there was a largo
Dbby there and considerable money would
h needed. ] got the large sums at one
time to avoid Inconvenience.
Was II any more inconvenient 10 90 TO
the bank and get checks cashed than TO
60 for change for large billsf'
Not bit, but there was no necessity
fpr several checks. l thought IL more de-
sirable TO give large checks than several
snail ones
Asked for information as To hts stay in
heiena after Clarks election Welcome
said u related 10 the effort 10 get the cor
porntion bills. ia2 and 1874. through. lie
said there was an Item OF $500 In his
amounting In this case that he would not
want to 70 In because Il involved his re-
alton OF attorney 20 hia client. the Bos-
ion and Montana Company.
Was any part OF that sum thrown over
ssnator Geiger's transom2" asked Sena-
tor TurIey
II Was not was the reply.
Why We Did Not Defend Himself.
Campbell asked Welcome why he had
not testified In his own defense In the case
Tor his disbarment before the Montana
supreme court
Ny reason was" he said. that | con-
siderrd II absolutely useless 20 go on the
ssand because | believed the supreme
court had made NJ its mind as To how TO
decide the case, ana that no testimony
would have made any difference"
You we're willing. then. TO rest under
ihs imnutation east upon YOU without say
ma htthlng IN your own behalfG"
was I was willing to leave IL To the
people OF Montana"
How could YOU expect favorable YER
act from the people when you made no
nslsment?"
The people knew that the court was
nal unbiased Ia the matter. II was a
'pnie Of common conversation
We gave as his reason for believing that
We SQUIRT was projudiccd against him. the
s""fts decision upon the preliminary
question ~ The demurrer which was filed
h thar case
A. a lawyer" he said. II felt after
mat that there must be some reason why
" court wanted 90 take cogniEance OF
sae matter and was convinced that the
seaft WAS prejudlced against me"
Feared Daiy Was nribins.
~ Welcome said he had feared during
w campaign that there would be an ef-
so't en the part OF the DAILY people 20
wv Nlarks votes away from him when
" became evident that he had enough
sss TO elect, lie HAD not otherwise
s sAssd 81 bribery, and II there was any
..'oefy, direct or indirect. on the part ~
''afk people. he had known nothing
We had talked more or less with
- 'iafS about the expenditure OF
mea'A IN their ceatros, but nothing
MNfn than to discuss whether money