The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-05-07
Haywood's Attorneys
Want Particulars.
DEFENSE OPENS FIRE
In SIEUNENBERG CASE
Counsel for Prisoners Charge State
With Undue Secrecy.
Declaring This Their First Chance to
Face Issue I'm Open, Defense
Attorneys Surprise State
with Technical Move.

Boise, Idaho, May 6-Judge Fremont
will ON Wednesday next decide II, or
former Governor Steunenberg, William
Haywood is entitled to receive at the
hands of the state a bill of particu-
lars specifying the overt acts charged
against him. The motion of the de-
Tense for this disclosure of the state
was argued at length today and at the
conclusion of the discussion the court
announced that 1t would make decis-
ion at the time stated.
The prisoner. under guard of Sheriff
Hodgins and two deputies was brought
into court for the argument, and OF his
counsel. both Frank Richardson. oil
Denver, and Clarence barrow of Chi
cago, pleaded In his behalf. Senator
Borah alone spoke in behalf of the
state, although James H. Hawley, his
associate, was in the court room when
the proceedings began.
"Defendants i'm Dark"
The discussion, always earnest, was
characterized at times by deep feeling
and dramatic intensity. Mr.. Richard
son, who opened the argument, con-
tended that the indictment was lack
ing in particularly; that it left the de-
PENDANTS in the dark to the nature OF
the case to be presented to them and the
defendants were entitled to more
specific showing of the case. He sub
mitted an extended brief. citing a great
number of authorities and presidents
in favor of his contention.
Mr.. Borah, in reply, declared that the
defense was seeking disclosure of the
proof in the hands of the state rather
than more perfect pleadings and asser-
ted that the reports contained no sim
gle authority that would support such
a contention.
Mr.. barrow. who closed the argu-
ment, began by saying that 1t was the
purpose of the defense to secure dis
closure of the evidence in the hands OF
the prosecution and asked why the de-
tense was not entitled to such show
Ing.
Hits mt Prosecution.
He made a spirited attack upon the
attitude of prosecution towards it's wit
nesses and evidence, describing 1t as
mysterious, unfair and unjust. He as
serted that the only question involved
was one of fairness ana justice to the
accused; laid stress upon the difficulty
of securing testimony from distant
points and the danger to the defense OF
Surprise testimony and passionately
asserted that the rights of the prison
ers were as much in the hands of the
prosecution as in the keeping of the
defense.
In answer to Judge Wood. Mr.. OAR
row said that the defense was not ready
to go to trial, but Mr.. Richardson in
terreupted him with the qualification
that the defense was as near ready I'M
der the circumstances where the case
of the state was withheld, as 1t would
ever be.
The motion for the bill of particu
lars reeites the absence of the defend
ants from Idaho at the time the crim
was committed and that the indictmen
contains nothing that would show act!
by which the State hopes to~prove thu
guilt of the accused.
When Mr.. Richardson, counsel TO
the defense, had finished reading TIN
motion. Judge Wood interrupted t.
say:
you know, Mr.. Richardson, that ou
State has no statute providing for {
bill of particulars in such cases.
Il know that such IS theccase,' re
piled Mr.. Richardson, land I also know
that the Supreme Court of Idaho hal
had its attention directed to the sub
ever, as your honor we'll knows. III
reefs itself to the sound discretion o
the court"
Haywood Entitled 20 "BiI."
Mr.. Richardson again drew dtten
ton to the absence of Mr.. Haywood
from the state at the time of the ordel
and argued that he was entitled 10 thu
information sought by the motion. II,
quoted and explained a number of au
thorities In support of his contention
that under general rules of law tn,
defendants are entitled to have par
ticulars when indictments do not clear
ly set them forth. The defendants be
ing out of the State at the time of tn,
crime, the prosecution must have evf
dence to connect them by conspirac,
or otherwise with the actual killing
This evidence the defendants were On
titled to have, in order that the,
might prepare to meet 1t.
Mr.. Richardson declared that the in
dictment did not charge each with ;
specific conspiracy or general con
spiracy. and did mot show whether l
was alleged that the defendants haC
conspired to murder only Governor
steunenberg or to murder a numbci
of persons. The accused, he said, was
therefore left in the dark.
Declares Motion Proper.
Mr. richardson reviewed the onl,
idaho precedent available and con
tended as to the time of making tn
motion that 1t was proper at any do.
before the trial. The court asked !
the case had not been ready for tria
about a year Mr.. Richardson replied
that nearly a year ago the defense hat
demanded q trial.
Mr.. Richardson after pause con
tinued, saying that Haywood had jus
drawn his attention to the fact tina
last wear the defense had been perem
torily denied permission to file an,
pleading because of the appeal to tn
Supreme Court of the United State
pending.
Mr.. richardson contended that tn
indictments only showed that Cover
nor Steunenbergl had been killed by
bomb, that Haywood was charged witt
conspiring to have Steunenberg muir
dered and that Haywood was charged
with being present and actually com
hitting the crime. an assertion tina
everyone knew to be untrue.
Haywood In Dark.
Mr.. Haywood" said the attorney
KNOWS all that he did at all times
but he does not know what witnesse
may come here and testify. He Is en-
titled to know that an overt act i