The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1907-06-22

There may appear some repetition IN
my statements to your honor, out VIII
repeat because | desire to impress upon
your honor's mind, beyond shadow
doubt, that in all this mass of matter
there is no basis for the statement that
this evidence connects Haywood with the
murder of Steunenberg.
The Registered Letters.
I'VE have the assistant postmaster CT
san Francisco, who testified to regis
tered letter having been received Wit
under the name of Green, received 4
sckage and telegram from ane j.
Wolff But / maintain that. be
Orchard there is not one Scintilla Of ev-
idence to connect Haywood with the muir
der of Steunenberg. and even II IL were
proved that Haywood over his own sig
nature or in A signed letter had sent
Orchard money. there is no Urect evil
dence to show that Haywood had any
thing to do with the murder or win lie
conspiracy, which, it is alleged, was
rowing commission to go out ana murder
any one Haywood wanted killed"
Quickly passing through the indicator
mine and Colorado Incidents Mr. Rich
ardson named the witnesses and in each
case impressively insisted that Haywood
had not been connected by the testimony
urless 0rcha DIS story was used to boil
ster it up.
Drafts in Favor of Simpkins.
Taking up the drafts issued by Hay
wood in favor Of Jack SimplIns, Rich
aTdson said these were innocent transac-
tons He oWelt at some length on the
draft, dated Dec q, 1905. in favor of
Simpkins.
This too. was an innocent transaction
and only Orchard proves any connection.
You are obliged to leave Orchard cut.
At this point MIR. Richardson's aTgu-
ment remained conferred for longer time
than any he had covered. He traced the
draft and concluded that the evidence
was useless as showing Haywood's con-
nection. Here Richardson, changing his
manner, raised his voice.
Attorney Became Emphatic.
Il would say to your honor" he shout
ed, that if Haywood were guilty of the
blowing up Of the indicator mine, which
he is not; if Haywood We're guilty of the
attempt upon Gabbert, which he is not;
acy on the life of Peabody, which ne
is not; if he killed Wally which he did
not; if he planned to kill Bradley, which
he did not;-even il all these things We're
true, which they are nOt-all this would
be insufficient to connect him of a crime
on the body of Steunenberg. These were
all crimes committed in states other than
the state of Idaho and this man Haywood
stands charged only with a crime com
mitted within the borders of the state of
Idaho.
We come, therefore, to the PROPOSE
tion-by whom does this man stand con-
nected with the murder of Steunenberg,
except by the mouth of the man who sat
in that witness chair and whose unsup-
ported word is not worthy of belief by any
living persona"
Here for the first time Richardson
reached the point of defamation He
turned to the witness chair and shook MS
clenched fist at the place where Orchard
sat for nearly a week under his cross
n Orch ard
he Kissed the words and turned from the
chair with gesture expressive Of the ut
most contempt.
Sheer for Peabody.
Governor Peabody came here He has
Deen interviewed everywhere in this coun-
try and through many states has at
nOunced the things he would testify r.
when he got here When he gets hers
what does he do? He tells us that after
giving up office, he went TO his home in
Canon City and commenced to remodel
his house and that some one pointed out to
him man as Thomas Hogan. That's
From witness to witness, Richardson
passed, continuing his review of their les
timony and in each case asserting that
there vas nothing to connect Haywood
with the murder falling up the evil
dence of G.. w. Stuart, who testified yes
terday to having heard Haywood eriti-
else and denounce Steunenberg in 1895
during the troubles in the Occur d. AIenes
Richardson said:
Why, your honor, we can find 5000
men IL Idaho who are guilty of the muir
DER Of Steunenberg if a denunciation of
SteuEenberg made man guilty of that
murder Here was Haywood whose
Drothers were oppressed and imprisoned
without trial. and harshly treated, and i'm
strong language he criticised and de-
nOunced the action of the man who was
responsible for the conditions then exist
ing This was in 1899, and Steunenbere
was killed in 1905. Why, your honor. are
We going to accept such language at such
a time as evidence on which to hang this
man? ~
Law and Facts.
Now, your honor, ! have shown YOU
the law and l have given you the facts
as to the evidence. l have presented this
case with all candOr
Iris case has been discussed from one
end of this country to the other-by the
newspapers and by all people, until we
found extreme difficulty in getting Jury
1t seems TO me that to leave this case to
a jury from this community is to leave it
TO passion and prejudice when the rules
OF law ought to dispose of it here and
now If this were an ordinary case I be-
iieVe no court would be slow to act along