Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-03-13
Mr., CONNOLLY
MAKES REPLY
Analyses Attitude Of County
Attorney Holmes.
REPEATS STATEMENTS
Special Att0rr eys Conducted Hurst'S
PrOsecution-In Supreme
Court.
REPEATS STATEMENTS

C. P. Connolly was asked by an Inter
Mountain reporter if he had any reply to
make to the communication of County
Attorney Holmes of Dawson county,
which appeared in Saturdays issue Of
the Inter Mountain. Mr.. Connolly re-
piled that he had read the communica-
ton. but had been very busy. attending
to the Gilman case and had not time to
give the communication the necessary
attention.
However," said Mr.. Connolly, latter
reading Mr.. Holmes article, I can only
say that l still repeat n reafiirm every
statement 1 lave made in my former
communications in regard to this
matter. 1 have made these statements,
and at the proper time l shall prove
them. There is one thing in MI. Holmes
statement which, on it's face, shows the
unreliability of his alleged facts. He
says that his duty as county attorney re-
quired him to direct and conduct the
prosecution of the Hurst case before the
%coroner's jury, the committing magis-
trate and in the district court. There
are $50 pages of the record in this case in
the district court. There were 4S wit
nesses examined 0 n the part of the state.
and the record discloses that fact that
Mr.. Holmes examined just six of these
witnesses, and their direct examination
takes up just exactly nine and one-half
pages OF the record, nearly One-half OF
the nine pages being devoted to objec-
tiOns on the part of the defendants ceun-
sci to the form of the questions. In all
the evidence taken at the preliminary
examination, Mr.. Holmes examined only
one witness, a man by the name of Harp
ster, whose examination takes up a lit
tie over one page of that record. The
record shows that all the other testimony
in the case was elected by special coun-
sci in the case. two of whom appeared
upon the trial and seem to have taken
entire charge of the whole case, n n
of whom prepared the statement to which
Mr.. Holmes appends his signature and
which was published in the Inter Mount
ain on Saturday. The attorney general
himself, it is admitted by all parties, was
present at the %cOroner's inquest, having
gone SEQ miles for that purpose. The
state was likewise represented at the corr
Oner's inquest by one of these same spe-
cial attorneys. This does not speak very
highly for Mr.. Holmes. Two of the spe-
cial counsel who appeared in this case
on behalf of the state and who appear to
have had entire charge of the case have
the reputation of being among the ablest
lawyers in eastern Montana. They APP
peared in the supreme court and argued
the case before that tribunal, neither the
attorney general nor Mr.. Holmes, the
county attorney, taking any part in the
presentation of the case before the SUI
preme court, although I am reliably in
formed, the attorney general was in Hell
n at the time.
"The strongest point the gentleman
who prepared the statement for MI.
urday's Inter Mountain, makes is that
the supreme court ave passed upon this
case. The first thing 1 did in his entire
investigation was to read the opinion OF
the supreme court. The statement pur-
porting to emanate from Mr.. Holmes
opinion. The supreme court says of the
only evidence that there really was
against Hurst, which was the testimony
of Frank Gilmore, that the jury heard
the whole of Gilllnore's testimony and
the contradictory evidence. They saw
him and an opportunity to observe his
manner upon the stand. His credibility
and the effect which was to be given his
evidence We're clearly for the jury to de-
termine. They We're fully instructed as
evidence. and this court cannot say that
they abused their power or disregarded
their duty. Moreover, the trial Judge
saw and heard this witness testify. It
was within his province, If hot satisfied
with the verdict. to set it aside and grant
a new trial. This he refused to do. We
cannot say that he abused his discretion.
This court cannot try the case de noyo
Cor again or anew, and thus invade the
province of the trial court by passing up
on questions of fact and the credibility
of witnesses"
1.-THE fact that the supreme court says
that the question of whether or not to
grant Hurst. a new trial was practically
in THE hands of the judge who tried the
case. easily accounts for the fact that the
relatives of Mr.. Hurst banked the judge
after the trial for his fairness. IF one
man held in his hands the power Of INV
life or death, or that Of any relative Of
mine. I a I'M inclined to think that 1 should
endeaVor i'll any way to win the favor of
that Judge. knowing that later on he
would have 1t In his power to say to me
whether I should be granted a new trial
or suffer the sentence Of DEATH"
I'm reading the opinion in the Hurst
case. however," said Mr.. Connolly, IT
was reminded Of an opinion rendered by
the supreme court in the case of the
State VS.. WEIGH, published In, the 55th
Pac. Rep. at page 927. and which was
decided just one year before the decision
by the supreme court Of the Hurst case,
That case came from the same district
as this one. and 1t was prosecuted by one
of the gentlemen who vas a special pros
ecutOr for the state in the Hurst case.
The cou in that case says 1t is evil
dent from an inspection of the transcript.
that the attorneys for the state were al
lowed, against the repeated objections Of
the defendant. and over his exception. to
comment on the Information and COM
plant as If the allegations Of each were
true. This. conduct was most prejudicial
to the defendant and was error. Even In
the heat of trial and in the ardor Of adj
vocacy the county attorneys and their
assistants ought to realize that their duty
never requires them to disregard the