Helena weekly herald., 1875-07-29

Hammond's horse, or until the horse should
be found, if he was not stolen; that in rur-
suancc of this proposition he set out and
went alone to the Indian camp for this pur-
pose; that shortly after he arrived in the
Indian camp, and had made his purpose
known to the Indians, he discovered these
defendants, with others, crossing the river,
and taking up position in the coulee, fifty
or sixty yards from the Indian camp, and
from which the shooting was subsequently
done. The witness swears positively that he
did not cross the river in company with these
defendants and their party, and accompany
them as far as the coulec The testimony on
the part Of the defense is, that the Benton
party crossed the river at the instance of Far
well, who desired them to go with him for the
purpose of procuring the return of Ham
mond's horse, or else to procure some Of the
Indian horses to hold as security tor the re-
turn of Hammcnds horse, Gt does not clearly
appear which. and assured them that if they
would all go with him there would be no
trouble; that acceeding to this request, they
accompanied Farwell, crossed the river with
him and went to point beyond the coulec.
from where the firing afterwards took place,
and there stopped, while Farwell went into
the camp, which Was but few steps distant,
The testimony on the part Of the defense
further is, that subsequently and after Far
well had left the Indian camp for the purpose
of getting his interpreter, some of the Indi-
ans from the camp opened fire on these de-
PENDANTS, who then retreatcd to the coulec, but
u few steps distant, ndreturnedthe fire of the
Indians, when the killing was done which is
complained Of in this action. The theory of
the defense is in some degree corrobOrated by
Alexis de Ia Bompard, witness Cor the
prosecution, WHO testifies that he saw Mr.
Farwell go to the camp of these defendants.
saw him start with them to cross the river,
and saw him accompany them toward the
Indian camp as far rs the coulec, where
these defendants and their party stopped
while Mr.. Farwen proceeded on to the Indian
camp alone. 1t is farther strengthened, in
a negative manner, perhaps, by the fact
that these defendants knew prior to this
time, that their horses, in search OF which
they had come TO Fort Farweii, were
not in this camp, and had not been stolen
by any of the Indians of this camp;
and further, by the fact that some of
the members Of the Benton party, as i. is
called, were not engaged in the conflict. Had
how atton vln
were outnumbered three or four to one, it
seems likely that they would have mustered
to their assistance every member Of their
party. So far, then, from their going to this
camp with premedtated design to kill these
Indians, proof of which is essential to their
commitment. the weight Of testimony is
against the proposition. The preponderence
of testimony is also to the effect that the IA
dians commenced the firing, though they
were doubtless provoked to this by the appar-
emily hostile attitude of the whites Some OF
the Indians were intoxicated, and with ali
their savage fierceness intensified by drink,
it would require but little provocation TO in
ducc them to commence hostilities. An
armed party menacing their camp, no matter
for what purpose, was by no means Il slight
provocation
If these defendants and their party had
gone into the immediate vicinity of this In
dian camp, with a prenleditated design on
their part to kill, and there by their hostile
attitude provoked an attack by the Indians,
crhCa Y., @ho,,,
doubtedly be murder, and the fact that the
Indians first opened fire would be neither
justification nor excuse in the eye OF the law
nor would it tend to lessen the grade of the
mony that the most that was contemplated
by the defendants and their party in this az
gressive movement was to inlimidate the In
dians, and thus compel them to surrender the
horse or horses that Farwell sought to OBJ
tain. The conduct Of the defendants in thus
going to the camp and assuming hostile
attitude is neither to be justified nor excused.
1t was sheer folly and wantonness on their
part, but if they went for no other purpose
than that of intimidation, it amounted to no
more than an aggravated trespass, and the
killing at most was but manslaughter
The testimony of the principal witness for
the prosecution inculpates the defendan.
Hardwick, together with others of the party
whose names arenot given, in second assault,
upon the Indians sufficient length G.; time
after the conflict at the cou!ee had terminated
to afford him ample cooling time. If this
testimony was corroborated by that Of any
other witness it might possibly warrant bis
commitment for assault with intent 10 COM