The Yakima herald. [volume] (North Yakima, W.T. [Wash.]) 1889-1914, 1906-05-16

Macarthur, Joseph Mckee, Richard H.
Armsworthy and George Kohls, jury
men in the case of the state against
Charles w. Camp, Lewis H. Alger,
William j. Metzger and Lewis NJ.
Head, for the alleged digging up Of
an Indian body, and the conveying of
1t away, rendered their verdict in
Judge Nichols court yesterday af-
ternoon, regardless of the statements
in the press, prejudicial to the case,
and cleared the four young men, de-
claring it to be their opinion tnat the
men were not guilty of the offense
that had been charged against them.
This verdict ends one of the most
interesting cases ever tried in a JUS
tice court in this county. 1t ends the
persecution of four young business
and professional men of this city who
were not guilty as charged, and, in
the language of Attorney Snively in
his address to the jury, who came
out west for the purpose of making a
name for themselves and starting
anew in the life that they looked for
ward to. as the elimination of a ca
reer that would be looked back upon
with pride and satisfaction"
The alleged grave digging case was
quickly disposed of by the jury that
passed on the facts. A verdict of not
guilty was rendered within ten min
utes after the case was submitted.
The sensation of the day occurred
when Mr.. Snively ELECTED from one Of
10 CO 49, e. hot
man in the buggy from which Salus-
kin got the skull, testified to by him,
was not any one of the young men
charged. Saluskin had identified
two of the defendants as driving this
buggy; but it developed that he was
mistaken, the same as he was mistak-
en- to begin with as to the identity
of the skull, having first stated to the
officers that IT was the skull of his
son.
At the close of the states case, the
ready to argue the case on the testi-
mony of the prosecution. Mr.. Krutz
opened for the state, and made very
vigorous presentation of the states
case. He was followed by Mr.. Thomp-
son, who Occupied but few minutes,
directing his efforts to a presentation
of the law of the case, and placing in
the lime light a few of the principal
features of the case. He stated that
the feature that stuck out like a sore
thumb was the attempt to hold up
the defendants for $4,000. In an elo-
quent peroration he stated that this
was not the first 4old-up by an Ind
ian in this county: that % years ago
husband and wife named Perkins
were held up by Indians near the Rat
tlesnake hills, and buried alive: that
then it was the question of burying
the human being alive. and now it
was case of disinterring the Indian
dead: that from that day to the pres
ent time the Indians. who pay no tax
es, have been holding up the tax-pay-
ers of this county for large expenses
in courts in criminal cases.
Mr.. Snively followed Mr.. Thomp-
son, and in his usual clear, forcible
style, analysed the testimony. He
dwelt on the fact that not a particle
of testimony had been introduced in
proof of the allegations of the COM
plaint. That the prosecuting witness,
Saluskin, had been mistaken in the
identity OF the head, and mistaken as
to the identity of the defendants.
When Mr.. Snively stated that a
man named Saluskin had been hung
for participation in the Perkins MUIR
der, Mr.. Parker took isue with him,
and a spirited discussion took place.
Mr.. Snively closed by pronouncing
yyh fa Nd
challenged Mr.. Parker to point out
one bit of evidence that in any way
established the guilt of the defend
ants.
Mr.. Parker closed the argument
for the state. He took exceptions to
the remarks Of the counsel for the de-
Tense. and denied that there was any
attempt at a hold-up. He said that
he would himself testify that propo-
sitions for settlement were not made
by him.
During the course of the remarks
OF Mr.. Krutz, when the prosecuting
attorney had reached the earnest por-
ton OF his strenuous address, when
he was about to point out the alleged
guilty defendants, when his face was
red and his voice husky with exer-
tion. dog began to bark. 1t was
several minutes before Sheriff Grant
was able to restore order, and the
greater part of the effect of Mr..
Krutz's clear argument was lost by
that one small incident.
A little later in the case. when Mr..
Parker was talking, during the dis
cussion between himself and Mr..
Snively as to the identity of the Ind
ians who perpetrated the horrible
Perkins murders. Mr.. Krutz, taking
sides with Mr.. Parker and against