The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-05-22
Will REACH
JURY TODAY
Continued from Page -

Continued from Page II
ture Investigations, where he thunder
ously demanded 10 be sworn and al
lowed TO give testimony to remove the
cloud that had been cast On his hon
SSty- Then according to the minutes
OF the county court, he (Geddes and
ChristoDherson to the contrary not
wtthstanding) was witness and testi-
fed that he had never given any of the
selectmen money or anything of value
Tor any purpose whatever. Now he
comes on the witness stand and testi-
lies that he gave Morris $4,000 for cor
irupt purposes. Hayken, by his one
instance, is impeached so that no reli-
ance can be placed in any of mis- state
ments. This man Hayken represented
himself as pure and innocent, he
didn't even know what working"
meant until Joseph r. Morris corrupt
ed him. Morris, according to his tale,
was the evil spirit whispering in his
ear, which had seduced him and his
firm from the paths of virtue. This was
too absurd, absolutely ludicrous. The
II. 3. incident which Hayken said was
an error and meant J. R. NJ. was refer
red to by counsel The letters of Hay
ken to his firm were taken up and
with his testimony on the stand point
ed out.
NO PROOF BUT HAYKEN'S.
Counsel argued that there was no
proof outside of the evidence of Hay
ken that Morris had been guilty
of any crime. Morris testified
that he knew nothing of the $1,000
which Hayken put in an envelope and
left with Frank Knox. 1t was never
traced to Morris; it was never given
TO him. He never called for it. He
knew nothing about it. This action Of
Hayken, like most of his other &C.
lions, was ine1plicab BILE; they stood like
Chinese puzzle-had never been
solved yet and possibly never would
He gave the testimony with the sword
OF the many indictments hanging over
his head; to get clear from these he
had to give such testimony as would
be of some use to the prosecution if it
didn't come as the prosecution de-
sired, the sword might fall. Counsel
contended that outside of Martin Hay
ken's testimony there was nothing to
show quit and the jurors were by their
oaths bourd TO return verdict of not
guilty, even at the risk of the criti-
clsm OF the entire community.
The fact that Hayken's letters to his
firm went to show that Cahoon and
Bamberger were guilty of demanding
and receiving brides from him. and
the fact that Hayken on the witness
stand testified that Ca3oon and Bam-
berger were honest and had no part
IN the alleged boodling, was comment
ed on by counsel al length. and the
inconsistency shown and the impossi-
bility of convicting any man on such
testimony urged.
INNOCENT MEN ACCUSED.
Judge Powers referred to the sus-
picion the letters of Hayken had cast
on a dozen innocent men, whose wives
and families were thankful that at
last Hayken had gone on the witness
stand and, as far as he could, removed
the cloud he had originally cast on
them. He mentioned the Indictment
against Joseph NJ. Watson, which was
procured on the insinuations of Hay
ken. Watson had died under the dis
grace of that indictment. II had
aaStened his death, if it was not the
direct cause of it, Mr.. Watson had
been unable to prove his innocence
IN his lifetime. but it had been estab-
lished after his death.
THE BIG CRANK.
Counsel reverted to the statement of
Hay1en that he was smoothing down
the big crank and the school board. Il
would like TO see," said Judge Powers.
the man who could smooth down
Colonel Nelson. He would be a clever
er man than Martin Hayken. Colonel
Nelson is a man of strong Individual
ity, who cannot be hoodwinked; he has
a way Of taking the bit in his teeth
and going where he pleases. Hayken
said if his efforts with Colonel Nelson
failed, the others would sit on him.
Those who undertake to sit on Colo
mel Nelson would find they were at
tempting to sit on a humble bees nest.
but this only shows the character of
the stuff this man wrote to his firm
THE MINING DEAL.
Counsel then referred to the mining
deal which Hayken has declared was
fraud, and that the contract was
signed last January to cover up the
fraudulent transactions. Counsel ar
gued that the prosecution had failed
10 show that the contract was other
than what it purported to be, and
therefore 1t must stand. The indict-
ment 10 make the contract was that by
50 doing Hayken expected to secure
The good will of Morris and at the
same time take the chances of getting
a valuable mine. His motive for keep
ing it secret was apparent. He was
writing his firm that he wanted money
for Doodle purposes, with that money
he bought the mine, and as he thought,
at the same time obtained the good
will of Morris. He dare not have it
made public. Counsel claimed that the
defense had established the truthful
ness of Delaney, and that if Delaney
told the truth in regard to this mining
contract then Hayken told a lie.
Judge Powers claimed that Mr. Vari-
an the brightest crosS-examiner at the
par, had failed TO shake the testimony
OF the defendant and the prosecution
failed TO put Hayken on the stand to
rebut Morris testimony. Counsel said
The evidence could be reconciled on the
theory that Hayken paid Morris for the
mine with the money he received from
his firm, and part of this money he
sent to his wife. Hayken admitted his
personal expenses for the month of
August were $500, received from the
firm, when in reality he was sending
it to his wife
Hayken had to swear Morris into the
penitenuary to gain his own freedom
His testimony was bought at the price
of his liberty. He was forced to con-
fess, to swear to things that were not
true, like the men in the dark ages,
who, on the rack under physical tor
ture, were forced to make confessions
Which were known to be untrue.
A WALKING INTERROGATION