, 1891-09-18

me that q spirit Of fairness would have
suggested to Judge Blake that he eithel
answer my letter. stating what he hae
told me in Laramie. so that l might hav'
had the SAME published in the paper il
which the general charge of REPRE-
hensible deportment' was made, or tina
he himself write TO the Sun and maxi
the correction.
The charge against me-, as it is now
specifically made. not in the court, but il
the forum of a newspaper" where every
reader is both judge and jury, is that /
made an affidavit in the case-that the
affidavit misrepresented the facts-not,
however. %willfully misrepresented-the
charge does not go to that extent; but
that having been an attorney in the case
l should not have made the affidavit. L
do l know of any rule of professional
ethics. which forbids an attorney In any
case from making an affidavit in that
case, if be is called upon to do SO, pro.
| vided. however, that the affidavit faith
| fully represents the facts as be under
stands them, and / would be obliged tor
light IDOL the subject if 1 am IN error.
At the time 1 made the affidavit l was
no longer in the case as attorney. The
affidavit Is no Misrepresentation; instead
of being colored in favor of Conway it
does not 20 far enough in his favor. At
the risk of being tedious and tiresome in
this explanation I will give In detail nv
connection with Mr.. Conway and what
occurred in his case to nv knowledge in
and out of court.
On Wednesday, Sept. 2, 1 was in Cas-
per to consult with Mr.. Hodge, who was
under indictment for granddaughter. The
Conway trial had been going on for two
days; the Jury had been obtained Tuesday
noon and evidence having been heard on
the part of the prosecution all of Tues
day afternoon. | was in court We'd
pesday morning when it opened. The
counsel for Conway informed the court
that Mr.. Stoll. who WAS one oS the de-
fsnd.nt's attornevs had. "a he had been
;nsormea le,t n, Tho morn,ng train
.Judve Rlake after c-omment;no a, Mr.
s,oIrs dan.rrro s,.,ad H., h. could
With NV consent anno;nt me tn sss;st IN
the defen.e arose in court and an
nornoed that rnasr M c;rcuu.tance
conld 7 consen, 10 defend the accused.
Counsel for Tho desense then reopested an
.d;orrnment If the oourt for thirty min
ntss for consultation The court granted
the r.ouest. During the interval be-
tween the adjournment ot court and its
com;ng In T me, the nrosecut,ng
attorney Mr. Butler. and his as
s~oci.te. Mr.. Davidson. and we
talked together freely about the case.
learned from them that the prosecution
would be satisfied with a plea of murder
in the second degree. I left them AND
went to Mr.. Buffers office, L had scare,
reached there when l was sent for by th,
court. / obeyed the summons. Judg,
Blake said to me that he had concluded
to appoint me to assist in the defense
That all he would expect of me was to sr
by the counsel for the defense and make
suggestions to them as occurred to me
during the trial and to render to them
such assistance as lay in my power. Al
every lawyer knows. was Obliged TO obey
this order. From that moment l was, il
law, one OF Conways attorneys, bound
under my oath to bring to his defense
my best skill and ability; to see that ever,
advantage which the law gave him wa
invoked In his behalf. L did SO. and
have no apology to make to and one fol
what l did.
The evidence for the prosecution closed
on Thursday afternoon. An adjourn
ment was asked for by the defense unit
Friday morning. 1t was granted. A
consultation with my associates, Messrs-