Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1885-02-20

until . o'clock.
Recess.
THIS AFTERNOONS PROCEEDINGS.
Mr.. Angel opened for the defense:
This controversy has evidently elic
tied considerable public interest.
With it or its merits we have nothing
to do. The question to be decided
here is purely one of law: whether
the acts Of the defendants have
been such as would render them
amenable to the law? lst--Whether
there has been an otfcnse committed?
1nd-Are the defendants here ans
werable for that offense?
Mr.. Ruick, for the prosecution,
said if the defense did not contine
themselves to the scope of their mo-
ton, the prosecution would demand
the right to open and close.
The Court agreed with the prose
cution. The defense state they mis-
unprecedented the grounds of the mo-
ton.
The defense stated the Substantial
ground of their motion to be that the
onense charged has not been made
out.
Mr.. Harris-Can l be heard?
l The Court-Certainly, sir.
Mr.. Harris-To permit discus
l sion of the motion-that we have
J.. failed-is to turn us over to the de-
. tense with mouths closed. They want
n to force the prosecution in the place
/. that the defense should occupy. To
n rob us of the opportunity of present
# ing our case; l hope this will not be
It permitted; l implore it as a right be
It longing to the prosecution.
d The Court-The gentleman mis-
}. construcs the scope Of the motion.
t. Mr. Angel want the motion
!. amended.
Q. The Court-The defense must con
It fine itself to the motion, as it is o
d record.
re Mr.. Angel-We are here as de
IS PENDANTS and, while not begin!
D. anything, have certain rights. Th
r. question is that the alleged conspir
IN acy has not been made out.
ne The Court-No, sir. The question
I'd is, has legal conspiracy been es
n. tablished by the evidence?
Mr.. Angel-Then stand corrected
again. This offense is one that one
had it's foundation in the commo
law. This law was not the result {
;s numerous cases upon the subject. bu
originated in a statute. But we clail
IA that that statute is not the law {
It. conspiracy in this country; that la
provided that no set of men shoul
9. conspire to coerce other men, or to il
timdatc them, in regard to what the
should and should not do in the wa
H. of labor; it is more strict than OF
law; in this Territory. Section | 10
en- the Crimes and Punishments Act
It's the only one which gives the Onl
rule upon which conspiracies can
ir- prosecuted; it excludes all other la,
Authorities are cited in support
d. this position. If the complaint
not good at common law, it exclud
if all other ottenses; neither the cor
mt, plant nor the proof show how Il
he conspiracy was to be executed. Th
lin conspiracy having been the essence
led the ottcnse, he wishes to point out t
Ike difference between cOnspiring to
YER an unlawful act, and conspiring to
Sc by legal means an act contcmplat
by law. The law permitted men
urt combine to resist reduction OF WAC
ar or to maintain its rate. The law
by this country protects trades unio
the ism, but trades unionists must use
yes force, no violence, no unlawful meal
wi unemployed workmen can agree up
of the rate of wages for which they "
,se- work; they can combine to secure
ing There is no penal act in this Tel
tory that prevents men from consp
, in ing to coerce others to abstain FRI
AIDE work. The oftense may be cover
We bv "assault,' 'unlawful assembl
lcts etc, but not by conspiracy.
two claim that, so far rs these men
he'd concerned, there is not scintllla
one evidence to show that they agreed
no maintain wages by unlawful mea
row They did not combine to keep
wages but by lawful means. The
tice scnce of this otfense--if ottense tn
nts' bc-is conspiracy to, by viol
4 to means, stop men from going TOW
ight If the prosecution have succeed
osc. in showing that this Miners Uni
ion at this meeting, agreed TO use viol
the or unlawful means to stop and |
and vent work, then the conspiracy
OBJ proved. If there is any doubt a
the the intent Of the agreement, the |
heir lift of the doubt must be given
had the defendants. The Court is
not quircd to do so.
Overt acts are no part of the or
dis of conspiracy: they are simply
the aggravation. The gist of the Off
Their consists in the agreement. Overt
this are not evidence against conspil
ould unless connected with it; the cons
end acy and its contamination are di