Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1907-05-06
CROWDS CONE TO THE TRIAL
Haywood Case Attracting Large humber
from Outside City Of Bsis@
NO FURTHER DELAY IS ANTICIPATED
Attorney for state Gives His views N
why the Case Had Not Been
BreaEht TO Trial Before
Present Perm.

BOISE. Idaho May 5.-Practicaly every
available room in Boise has been reserved
for lawyers, witnesses or newspaper men
in attendance on the court which will try
William ID. Haywood on the charge of
murder OF former Governor Steunenberg.
While there is little or no public discussion
OF the case, the undercurrent Of interest
runs strong. and every incoming train
brings additions TO the very large number
OF people connected with the case who are
already on the ground.
That there might be some delay has been
intimated from time to time, but the fear
of this has now been dissipated by state
ments emanating from both sides. Clar-
ence Darrow Of Chicago and e. F. Rich
ardson Of Denver, jointly leading counsel
for the defense OF Haywood, have both
stated that they are ready for trial. Coun-
sci for the prosecution, James II. Hawley
and Senator W. e. Borah. who have been
engaged especially are Of the opinion that
there will be no further delay. An APP
! pllcation for a bill OF particulars filed by
| the defense, will be argued tomorrow
morning before Judge Fremont Wood, who
will try the Haywood case but az HIS de-
cision is not appealable It is not thought
/ that this will cause any postponement.
HavIey on Question of Delay.
| James H. Hawley, the leading counsel
| for the prosecution, was asked today to
explain the reasons for the delay in the
1 trial of Haywood, Meyer and Pettibone
Much comment has been caused through
out the country by this delay. 1t has beer
charged that the state has willfully caused
the delay and that the. prisoners have been
kept In confinement without trial for an
unwarranted period. Mr.. Hawley said;
I ota 80 he nj
States treating Of appeals to the United
States supreme court from United States
circuit courts in habeas corpus where a
| prisoner is held by state courts makes null
and void any action of the state pending
an appeal. The great majority Of courts
Of last resort hold any action on the part
! of the trial court absolutely void until the
decision of the supreme court Of the United
States has been actually rendered.
1T will be seen, therefore, thatif in May
1906, we had proceeded with the trial be-
fore the decision of the supreme court
had been rendered, the defendants would
have been discharged as they could not q
second time be put in jeopardy of theiI
| lives
Senator Borah and myself, acting fol
the state, shortly before the converting OF
the district court Of Canyon county, ir
May, 1906, called the attention of the de-
PENDANTS attorneys to this provision of the
United States statutes and stated in
letter to them that we were ready and
anxious for an immediate trial, and If they
| also were ready they should arrange mat
tiers so that we could proceed to trial with
out harm being worked to the defendants
We pointed out that all of their rights
would be saved II the appeal from the cir
cult court was dismissed
"The attorneys for the defendants an
swered our letter declining to dismiss the
appeal and expressing themselves as fear
full that a question of Jurisdiction nigh
arise upon the proceedings of the suprem,
court of this state, which would be iniuri
GUS to them If the appeal from the Unitet
States circuit court was Dismissed.
"On the opening day of the state distric
| court in May 1906, we called the attentio:
Of that court to the section OF the United
States statutes and the court, after du
reconsideration, held that no proceeding
could be had in that court as long as tn,
appeal from the United States circuit cour
was pending in the United States suprem
court. This ruling necessarily continued tn
cases until the appeal was disposed OF.
Delays in the trials OF criminal case
almost invariably work hardships upon tn
prosecution and operate in favor of tn
defense am not complaining because tn
defendants did not go on with the trial II
May of last year by the dismissal of tn
appeal mentioned They acted within thei
legal rights in refusing but the refusa
/ should have precluded themselves or thei
friends complaining of the delay"