The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1907-05-06
{ THRONGED
I EVE OF TRIAL
i Interest in Trial of
wood and Others Has
Filled City.
HAVE ALREADY
COST IMMENSE SUM
" for the State Explains
al Reasons for Long
Delay of Trial.

E Idaho, May Specifically
'e,ilable room in Boise. the cap
|)f Idaho, has been reserved for
+gifnesses or newspaper men IN
e on the court which will try
-. Haywood on the charge OF
er of former Governor Frank
Ilrg. While there is little or
discussion of the case the I'M
~ of interest runs strong, ana
oming train brings additions
'ty large number OF people con
| hth the case who are already
lound.
ere might be same delay las
mated from time TO time. but
of this has now been dissi
4 statements emausting from
Fna Clarence Darrow. of Chi
e. +. Richardson, of Denver,
uding counsel for the defense
sod. have both stated that they
r. for trial. Counsel for the
IN, James II. Hawley, tnd
Fl. z. Borsh, who have been en-
uscially, are Of ;he opinion that
|n;be no further delay, An ap-
Fsfor bill of parJi.ulais, fled
X ense, will be argued tomorrow
| = to Judge Fremont Wood, WHO
he Haywood case, but as mis-
not appealahle, il is not
that this will cGuse any post
= Already Cost Fortune.
tory of the cases o' the men
18th the murder of Steunenberg
-ch delay. all of VIII ch neces-
II been expensive both to the
IDAHO and to the defense. The
IL already paid bills to the
$4,000, and n the last Sos.
e Legislature OF Idaho an ap-
70 OF $4,000 additional was
~ passed, all parties concur
Aovernor Steunenberg was as
| the Mine Owners association
sleward of $4,000 for the arrest
Enrderer. Latcr this amount
zlcd to the Mine Owners as
~ Governor Gooding, with The
r that the State of Idaho would
: cost of the prosecution of the
whoever they might be, The
'alnd raised by union iaborers
~ the country, and also an
y fund by the Miners Teder-
Ieported to be very large, and
neost of carrying on this case
ITO last will be enormous.
No. Hawley, the leading counsel
;Tosecution, was asked today 70
20 reasons for the delay in the
haywood, Moyer and Pettibone.
y nent has been caused through
= untry for this delay. Il has
i,ed that the State has wilfulIv
-, delay and that :ne prisoners
/ ( kept in confinement without
I'm rnwarranted period. .iIr.
hlaid:
" Rwley's Explanation.
,vis?d statutes of the United
t,eatiug Of appeals TO the
bEtates Supreme court from
ates Circuit courts in habeas
y ere prisoner is held by Stntc
y Res null and void any action
cate court pending an appeal.
maJority of courts of last re-
any action upon the par. of
ourt absolutely void lntiI the
pl the Supreme court of the
'ates has been actually rem.
=! be aeen, therefore. that if in
we had proceeded TO trial
Al court of this State before
pop OF the supreme cours hal
tered, the defendants would
dIschargcd. as they could not
time he put in jeopardy Of
s,r Rorah aud mvsclf. acting
tnte' shortly before the con,
~ tnc district court Of Csnyon
May. 1906, called the atten.
ne defendants attorneys To
t lsion of the United States
xnu stated in letter Ia them
..2lect that we were ready and
S)r AN Immediate trial, and if
r were ready, they should ar
'!ers so that we could proceed
lthout harm being worked TO
innts. We pointed out that
'lr rights would he saved if
- from the circuit court were
'iews of the Defense.
attorneys for the defendants
y our letter. declining to dis.
sfaPpeal and expressed them.
rcariul that question of
might arise upon the pro-
't the supreme court of this
iacn would be injurious TO them
|t5peal from the United States
irt were dismissed.
u e opening day of the State
lurt in May, 1906. we called
ION of that court to the sec
FJfe united States statutes and
rshfter due consideration held
Proceedings could be bad in
! as long as the appeal from
Icu states circuit court was
~ the United States supreme
ais ruling necessarily contin.
|rstses until the appeal was dis
[H in. the trials OF criminal
psf invariably work n hard.
- the prosecution aud operate
Iff the defense. ] am not com
eeanse the defendants did not
IN the trial in Nav of last
fthe dismissal of tho appeal
[cr They acted within their
Iwtrs In refusing, but the refusal
II Eve precluded themselves or