Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-06-22
HAYWOOD WILL
HAVE TO DEFEND
Court Refuses Application for Or
der Directing the Jury to
Aoquit Prisoner.
DEFENSE WILL OPEN MONDAY.
Atty. Richardson Made Able Argument
For His Ciient--Senator Bofah
Fully Answered Him.

Boise, Ida, June 21.--when the state
today closed its case against William
%. Haywood. charged with the muir
der of Frank Steunenberg, the de-
tense made an unsuccessful attempt to
secure from the court an order direct
ing tho jury to acquit the prisoner.
Judge Woods ruling, which requires
the defense TO meet with evidence the
case that the state has presented, was
made at 5:l5 o'clock. and it was then
arranged that Haywood's counsel
should make their opening statement
and present their first testimony on
Monday next.
When the trial opened this morning
It was stipulated that the record should
show that the date ot the draft sent
by Haywood 10 Jack SimplSins late in
1905 was Dec, 81 and after that the
prosecution proceeded TO show by a
handwriting expert that George Petit
bone, using the names OF -. Woit
and r. Bone mace two remittances
of money to Harry Orchard at san
: Francisco through the Pacific Postal
Telegraph company in the fall 90 l9Ul,
The state next called Jim Seahorn,
colored horse trader who swore that
ne SOLO Il morse ana puSEN " QlNlleilN
In Denver In 1905, and identified Hay
wood as one of the men who rode with
Orchard. After that the defense ad-
mitted that in June, 1908, Haywood
sent SIS to Steve Adams at ogden ana
when the Decessary showing had been
made on the record the prosecution
formally rested
The motion for an instruction TO the
jury to acaut was by agreement pre-
scented at the Afternoon session, and
the Jury was sent back to the jury
house out of hearing OF the argument.
Atty. Il. F. Richardson made the
principal argument in support OF the
motion in long. carefully prepared
and eloquent speech, He took Tor his
guide the Idaho statute which forhids
conviction upon the uncorroborated
testimony OF an accomplish and quot
ing many authorities in support of his
contention that there must be cphNln-
cling confederation entirely Independent
of the testimony of the accomplish,
made an analysis of all tho testimony
offered. He declared that none OF the
testimony could stand without the sup
port of Orchards story, and that inc
statute specifically forbade it's accept
ance under those circumstances. lie al
so argued that the testimony of Or
chard was the only showing that in
any way connected Haywood with the
crime and that the statute forbade
conviction under those circumstances.
Senator Borah who also spoke for
the state, argued with like force and
eloauence, that Haywood's connection
had been Independently shown and
that Orchards testimony had been cor
roborated by independent ctrcunl-
stances and evidence He also sub
mitted general argument to show
that the state had established the eX-
istence OF general conspiracy In
which Haywood was participant,and
In which he strongly developed the all
legged connection OF Pettibone and
Slmpkins.
Clarence barrow, who closed pleaded
that there was not a shred OF evidence
in the case capable Of standing without
the rotten thread OF Orchard S
story" to sustain 1T and that the plain
provision of the idaho statute made the
duty of the court clear. He ridiculed
the idea of Il general conspiracy and
contended that # the most liberal al
iowance We're mace for the entire show
ing of the state that It would not
make out a case against the prisoner
worthy of submission TO the jury.
Immediately after court was called TO
order after the recess Il. +. Richard
son, for the defense, announced that he
had filed motion With the clerk of the
court. Judge Wood dismissed the jury
IN charge of the bailiffs. pending the
reading Of fhe motion and the argu-
nent.
MOTION FOR ACQuITTAL.
The text Of ;he motion is as follows;
Now on the 2lst day of June, a. d.
1907, comes the above named defendant
William D. Haywood. by his attorneys.
and moves the court to advise the jury
in the above entitled case to acquit the
defendant, William ID. Haywood, in ae-
cordance with section 1877 of the re-
vised statutes Of the state of Idaho, for
the following reasons and each and ev-
cry one Of them, to Wit;
''First-Because the only testimony
which tends to connect the defendant.
William D, Haywood. with the homi-
eide charged in the Indictment herein
is that OF Harry Orchard, who testi-
fed that he was an accomplish In the
commission OF said offense.
"Second-Bccause the testimony OF
the alleged accomplice in this case is
uncorroborated by any other evidence
which. In Itself and without the aid OF
the testimony of the accomplice. tends
10 connect the defendant with the COM
mission of the offense charged.
'Third-Because the confederation OF
the accomplish witness In this case Is
not sufficient. since IL falls TO show the
commission OF the offense or the cir
cumstances thereof IN any way which
either connects OF tends to connect this
defendant herewith.
"Fourth--Because the testimony IN
this case Is wholly insufficient 10 war
rant the rendition of verdict. or the
announcement OF sentence thereof, un-
der section 1871 OF the revised statutes
OF tho state of Idaho,