The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1907-07-30
The Verdict in the
HAYWOOD Murder Case.

~ NNOSd N4I4A A4O1 >CAo~~
A dispassionate man, if he believe
III verdicts in accordance with the
rules of evidence, can not but approve
of William Haywood's acQuittal by a
verdict of not guilty, rendered Sun
day morning. for no dispaSsiOnate
man, even should he secretly believe
there was a plot and that Haywood
was a party thereto. can nationally
contend that any such plot was
proved still less that Haywood was
connected with any such conspiracy
Harry Orchards confession to a
life that ran the gamut of infamy-
murder and petty crimes, bigamy and
desertion. bestiality and treachery,
ingratitude and mercenary malice
furnished the only direct testimony
that implicated Haywood in the muir
der Of Gov. Steunenberg. UnsUppOrt-
ed. Orchards testimony was worth
less, Tor his whole life has been such
that false swearing would probably
aeem TO him a small matter, and his
whole career has been one of such
false perspectives that the irrational
ity of his expecting TO benefit himself
by such a confession would not be a
rational ground for accepting unsup-
ported statements by him about
others as true.
The first question that the Haywood
jury had to decide was whether it
was rational TO assume that, to a
man in Orchards position, false
swearing would probably seem a
small matter. They could not Judge
by themselves. Their only criterion
was the record of Orchard himself
the amazingly infamous record con-
fessed by him in behalf of the state
and proved in large part by the de-
Tense. What Orchard told of his own
infamy was attested by others, and
the jury could hardly fail, under the
rules governing evidence and deter
mining its value, to hold that such a
mans. statements about others could
not be accepted as true unless proved
so by the evidence of credible wit
nesses.
Only on one theory could Orchards
allegations regarding Haywood be &C
cepted tin TIE absence of prSof by
others) as true. That theory would
have been that his conversion and
penitence we're 10 be likened to ST.
Paurs. But such theory would
nave been = mere assumption. not
proved u The degree of credibility
that would wipe out the reasonable
doubt that a man of such infamy was
lying aoout the man on trial.
If Orchard ne put OH trial, and re-
peat against himself what he has
said in III evidence against Haywood,
then a Jury would be justified in
either absolute faith in his penitence
or doubt as TO MS sanity But until
his confession is subjected to such
test as We have indicated, no jury
evidence in accepting It as proof
against Haywood. unless supported by
collateral evidence.
Was there such collateral proof OF
Orchards assertions?
On some points, there were. In
fact, his evidence vas proved in
many details, but these were not, in
any instances, details that connected
Haywood beyond reasonable doubt
with Steunenberg's death or with any
conspiracy responsible for Steunen-
berg's death. They were, on the con-
trary, confirmation Uor the most
parD of details of public notOriety,
on which almost any shrewd man, If
he saw fit, might falsely swear to
personal knowledge with comparative
IMMUNITY.
The collateral evidence that most
nearly approached being damaging
evidence against Haywood was that
he and certain others furnished money
to Orchard and others at certain
dates, but there was no scintilla OF
proof that such funds had anything |
to do with any plot to murder, and |
against the possibility of such being /
the case, the jury could not decently |
disregard the fact that field agents.
Of a great labor union, engaged in a |
titanic struggle, would inevitably re-
ceiya money from the general officers