The Mena weekly star., 1907-05-09
couusel for William D. Haywood Seek to Know What Evidence
 Prosecution Has.
InlHO HAS NO LAW COVERING THE CASE
Lawyers for Defense Argued that it Was Only Matter for the Discre- ton of the Court to Dccide-Sen- ator 5orah, for Prosecution, op- posed Nthe Motion.

A bill of particulars In the case of William D. Haywood. charged with the murder of Former Gov. Steunenberg, was commenced before Judge Fremont Wood at 10:15 a. m., Monday morn- ing. By direction of the court Hay wood was brought up from the coun- tv iaiI below to attend the hearing on on the motion.
 Sheriff Shad Hodgin and two deputies brought the noted prisoner into the room and gave him scat at the table of his counsel. He was not handcuffed. Senator Borah rep resented the state and Messrs. Rich- ardson and Darrow the prisoner.
 Mir. Richardson opened the argu- ment for the motion in the prisoners behalf Mir Richardson opend his argument by reading the indictment of Haywood, Mover, Pettibone, Or chard and Simpl1ins, charged with the murder of Gov. Steunenberg.
 The motion for the bill of partlcu- lars recites the absence of the de- fendants from Idaho at the time the crime was committed and that the in- dictment contains no information that would show the overt acts by which the state hopes to prove the guilt of the accused.
 When counsel had finished reading the motion Judge Wood interrupted to say: You know, MT. Richardson, that our state has no statute providing cases"
 T know that such is the case" re- piled Mir Richardson. "and l also know that the supreme court of Idaho has had Its attention directed to the subject but once. Such a motion, however, as your honor, well knows. always directs itself to the sound discretion of the court
 MT Richardson again drew atten- lion to the absence of Haywood from the state at the time of the murder and argued that he was entitled to the information sought by the motion. He quoted and explained number of authorities in support of his conten- ton that under general rules of law the defendants are entitled to have particulars when indictments do not clearly set them forth. The defend ants being out of the state at the time of the crime, the prosecution must have evidence to connect them by conspiracy or otherwise with the actual killing This evidence the de- terdants were entitled to have in order that they might prepare to meet it.
 MT. Richardson concluded at 11:25 and Senator Borah at once commenced his arH.lent for the state
 Senator Borah, who began at once Tor the state. said that the defense was not seeking a standardization of the indictment but possession of the evidence by which the state hoped to prove it's case.
 He then explained that the charge that Haywood was at Caldwell when me murder was committed was neces- sary under the Idaho statutes. He drew attention to the fact that there was no provision in the Idaho statutes TOT granting bills of particulars.
 senator Borah said that the indict- ments as to murder was surely specific enough to show the prisoner the exact nature of the charge he must meet, me demand for particulars as to the conspiracy was a demand for evi- dcnce
 Senator Borah further said that neither the statutes of Idaho nor the ueeision of the courts anywhere pro- Ftued that the defendants in case ot this character were entitled to the ostails of the evidence against them
 senator Borah concluded his argu- meht shortly after F o'clock. Clar' ehce Darrow followed Senator Borab nitn the closing argument in support of the motion.
 ne said that about all there was to uhe provision was that if the court 'nought 1t was fair to have the bill VI particulars it could grant It. It was all within the discretion of the eouIl and if the court declined the uoVoh the supreme court of the s'aee could not reverse it's ruling. The 'aCt mat there was no statute on the supleet in Idaho did not affect the matter or the power of the court It "as purely a question of fairness and SusOice to the defendant. MT. Borah aass we do not want better pleading
 ' 'nat We are after the evidence ? s9iu MT, Darrow. We are. Why @o'' Why are We not entitled to know mnat the evidence will show so that
 may prepare to meet it?"
 ~ lhe conclusion of MT. Darrow's s sument he stated that the subpoenas m ,he state had been issued in "nA and 1t had been impossible for u,. ueiense to secure the names of nn. 0l'nesses- To this Senator Borah re- Sa S.isu that 1t was true the subpoenas ba peeh Issued in blank because had of prosecution revealed the namcs ha, 'ner witnesses they would not co., r,e oeen able to get them to rhs st w,,s. house Senator Borah said that mo1. ,su' 'n 'le last s4 hours two of their sss g important witnesses from Colo ' Asa ilsappsAsaa.