The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-05-26
MAN WHO PLOTS CRIME
GUILTY LIKE MURDERER
On That Statute in Idaho William D. Haywood
Must Stand Trial for Assassination Of Former
Governor Steunenberg- Feature of Case /
ny @. p. CONNOLLY.

ny G. p. CONNOLLY.
Tho Idaho law has, In felony cases.
abolished the cotnmon-law distinction
| between I'm accessory before the fact
and principal. The man who plans
crime Is treated exactly the same
us the man who actually commits It,
Any person concerned in tho commits
sion or felony. whether he directly
| commit the net himself or aid and abet
In It's commission, though not present.
is prosecuted and punished as a prin
cipnl. or chief actor in tho crime, Just
| as II ITO had been present and taking
part. Tho same legal wording used in
| tho Indictment against the person nc
tually committing the crimo IL used
In charging the accessory. Tho Access
sorry may be tried and punished.
though tho principal himself be not
| prosecuted. Also, Idaho's law pro-
vides that a party who commcncoa an
offense outside tho State which Is con-
suinmated within her borders may be
punished in Idaho; though he be out
| or Idaho at tho timo tho crimo is nc
| tually committed
Under these provisions OF tho Idaho
law. Owen M. Van Duyn, tho prose-
cutting attorney at Caldwell, on Feb
ruary H. 1906. acting upon the con-
fession made by Harry Orchard, pre-
pared separate complaint In each case
against Charles H. Meyer. William D..
haywood. George a. Pettibone and
john L. Simpkins in which complaints
he swore that on December 30, 1905.
each OF these parties, in Canyon coun-
". Idaho. set off the bomb that killed
Steuncnbcrg. This was what the law
itself said they had done, IL the owl
| dence upon which Van Duyn based his
charge was true.
In support of his application for a
| requisition for Meyer, Haywood and
Pettibone, then In Colorado Van Duyn
made an affidavit in each case, in which
nc swore. that the defendants were in
Idaho on the day OF tho murder and
We're fugtives from the justice of tho
State. Neither Meyer. Haywood nor
Pettibone was actually in the State OF
Idaho on the day of the crime, nor for
n long time prior thereto This was
the so-falled "perjured affidavit" II
was a compliance with n legal form.
If, as has been widely charged Van
| Duyn, tho prosecuting attorney. in
making this affidavit, perjured him.
| self. then the law commanded IT. and
| every member OF the grand jury who
found the indictments in the words
of the'statutc violated his oath. PERU.
~. however. implies wilful forswenring
] There Is nice distinction hero. It is
| the ono question that has caused more
| discussion than any other In the case
| so far. The county attorney knew that
while actually the defendants were not
| in Idaho, they were technically and
constructively So II the law was lame
| was no to err on ~, eifrn of Justice or
of truth? That he did not perJure him
self In the ordinary sense of that term
is evident.
The Denial of Hnbens Corpus Rights
On these papers. Governor Gooding
/ OF Idaho issued his requisition on Gov.
ernor Jesse L. Mcdonald, of Colorado
who honored it. The State of Idaho,
through It's agents. made secret ar
rangcments for bringing the defend
ants into the State UnCer the Con.
stitution of the United States. and tn,
decisions OF the courts. in order to
bring any person within the definition
OF fugitive from Justice" such per.
son must have boz 40 crime
was committed, actually present In the
State where the crime was committed
and have fed therefrom: or, he mus,
have gone of his own free will within
the borders of the violated State sub
sequent TO the crime and have after
ward departed from 1t.
These decisions apply merely to tn
law OF requisition, and not to tn
right of a state to punish a citizen o
another State for crime committee
| within its own borders, provided
secure his presence. In other words
under the peculiar phase OF the law
If the slow methods OF legal procedur
are resorted to, and the prisoner
afforded an opportunity to secure
writ of habeas corpus before beini
brought into the State in which he
charged, he will be released: but II tn
most secret and expeditions method O
kidnapping is applied. and he is sue
cessfuly brought into the State de
manding him. he will be held--one o
those legal riddles over which the lay
man shakes his dubious head. Unde
these decisions. had Meyer, Haywoo
and Pettibone secured writ of habea
corpus in Colorado or any other Stat
but Idaho. the courts, on proof tina
i they were not actually In Idaho o
the day Steunenberg was killed. woul
have been compelled to release ther
from custody. Admitting they WEI
guilty, the law could not reach then
TIE courts of Colorado could oo' bav
tried them as accessories in Colorad
to @ murder committed in Idaho. Moyel
HAYWOOD and Pettibone could hav
avoided all prosecution. Guilty or no
they might have had an asylum frol
Justice for all time under the writ Q
habeas corpus in Colorado, or any othe
State but Idaho. If they are guilty, TN
law would have countenanced q gray
miscarriage Of justice. Tho courts 9
Colorado could not have tried them 1o
murder. Mrs. Botkin. who sent 1roi
California the box Of poisoned cand
to Elizabeth Dunning in Delaware. wa
tried for murder in California
But in that case the crime was part
committed in California by the sendin
t of the box. and without the wi'fui al
of any other person. and the laws 9
California were framed to meet sue
a case Mrs. Botkin was, IN fact,
principal, and not an accessory
Tho courts have called attention tim
ana again to this paradox of the law
but neither Congress nor the Legisla
4 lures OF the different States seem
have needed the decisions. An imas
mary state line surely ought not to D
a barrier against Justice, but, as tn
law now is. it may be made so.
t There has never been any law in on
! country which requires any office
Nf aSf n a