The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1906-10-13

Chicago, Will make the closing argu-
ment for the accused.
Mr.. Richardson made an eloquent
argument. consuming an hour and a
half, asking the court to reverse the
action of the Idaho courts and order
the men released on a writ of habeas
corpus and give them an opportunity
to return to Colorado. He declared
that the three men were kidnapped
in accordance with conspiracy b.
tween Governor Gooding, Governor
Peabody and Prosecuting Attorney
Van Duyn, and were unlawfully car
ried to Idaho, where they were in
dicted. His sole argument hung on
the contention that Van Duyn, in
order to procure a requisition for
Meyer, Haywood and Pettibone,
made an affidavit that these three
men were in the State of Idaho on
the date of the murder of Frank
Steunenberg," when, he declared, it
was known to Van Duyn. Gooding
and Peabody that all three were in
Colorado on that date.
Holds States Violated Law.
This alleged conspiracy, being be-
tween state officials charged with en-
forcing the law, he declared, made
Colorado and Idaho responsible.
Jurisdiction by Idaho courts having
been acquired by conspiracy. there
was no jurisdiction.
"The constitution and the law is
framed to protect the criminal as
well as the law-abiding citizen" he
declared, and he characterized the
action OF Idaho and Colorado as
showing tendency towards anarchy.
''It is BETTER" said he, that thou
sand murderers should go at large
than that the Constitution and an act
of Congress be made the playthings
of those who desire to attain certain
ends"
Hawley Defends Van Duyn.
Mr.. Hawley's argument consumed
less than an hour, but he covered
the entire field. He was unwilling
to admit that the charges of con-
spiracy were true, and declared that
the whole Plea for the defendants
rested on the assumption that there
had been a conspiracy between the
n niol nf hn tmn
states. Speaking of Mr.. Van Duyn's
affidavit, Mr.. Hawley said that und-
er the laws of Idaho; as interpret
ed by the courts, a person charged
with crime must be charged as a
| principal. Under the law, 1t was ne
cessary and proper for Mr.. Van Duyn
| to say that Meyer, Haywood and
Pettibone were personally present
| in Idaho on the day that the explo-
sion of the bomb killed Mr.. Steun-
enberg. He declared that there was
nothing to justify the charge that
the present proceedings were found
ed on the perjury of Van Duyn, or
to justify the charge of conspiracy
among the officials of the two states
but, conceding that the contention OF
the defense was correct, he said that
the Supreme Court is not now in q
position to take action on this ap.
peal.
Fuller's Significant Remark.
| Mr.. Richardson, In his argument
had charged that when Moyer, Hay
wood and Pettibone were arrested
they we're promptly spirited away
on special train and were not al
lowed to see friends or attorneys
Mr.. Hawley said that there had beer
no undue haste in removing them t.
Idaho, as their train left in the morn
ing after their arrest.
Chief Justice Fuller interrupted t.
express the opinion that he saw nj
reason why officers sent to procure
the labor men should not leave will
them Immediately. II they desired.
"These charges of collision.
said Mr.. Hawley, ARE absolutel,
groundless. Having demurred, tn
prosecution does not admit the al
legations made by the defense. 9TH
question of how the defendant
reached Idaho cannot be a subjec
of judicial inquiry" he said. 1.-THE
are there and the question is lar
they guilty or innocent? If the pre-
curing was irregular. the parties at
, Quoting them could be tried for kid
mapping or the defendants could su
for damages"
Defendants Delay Trial.
In closing, Mr.. Hawley said: u
7 the defendants were innocent, the
would demand trial and invoke tn
/ assistance of the courts. so that thei
innocence could be demonstrate