The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1907-05-18

pose in this Joint reception of Governor
Gocding and his friend. Mr. orchard. 1t
was to influence the case at this time.
1 scarcely know how to frame my atti-
tude in proper language 1t seems TO me
that this effort to give Mr.. Orchard cred
ence must have come from the GIScl0S-
ures made here as to the attitude OF GER
tain talesmen.'
Mr. barrow characterized Orchards
statements as maudlin religious idiocy.
He said that every man must know that
the statement of the governor as to Orch
ards waiver of immunity was manlfcStly
untrue. He said it was absurd TO think
that man would Willingly put the hal
ter around his neck. Mr. barrow exon
Grated the prosecution from any hand in
the matter. but denounced the incident as
the most fragrant attempt to influence
Juror he ever saw.
Court Sends for County Attorney.
Judge Wood interrupted to ask that the
county prosecuting attorney be sent for.
Mr. barrow said he had not yet thought
enough to say what ought 10 be done in
the premises. 1t might be that the case
should not be tried at this time. we are
entitled" he went on, Ito try this de-
fendant face-to-face with ali the wit
nesses against him. l think the governor
should be called in mere before this court
Not another citizen OF the state is so
much responsible as he. He at least
should first be called If this matter
calls for contempt he should be pun
ished.''
NJ
be given TO understand what is expected
of them in the administration of justice
He closed by saying that he was pre-
pared to leave the matter to the court
Regrets of MIR. HawIey.
James H. Hawley. leading counsel for
the prosecution, followed and spoke at
considerable length. He said that he
might prejudice the case, but he dis
claimed any responsibility. Mr. Hawley
pointed out that for the last twelve
months there had been continuous cir
cuIation of papers misstating what was
evidence OF that purported to be evidence
and evidently intended to influence the
case This particular witness IOrch-
ard)." he said. has been continually re-
ferred to in a manner calculated to preJu-
dice him in the public mind. Persons who
are interested in the defense have, we
admit talked to prospective jurors. This
we have heard of and only this morning.
A matter of this kind was reported to us
as having taken place on the lawn of the
courthouse"
Returning to the case in hand Mr..
HaWley pointed out that the position of
Orchard had for the last year been con-
sistently and persistently misrepresented.
The prosecution had been besieged by
newspaper men for an interview with
Orchard
Governors Remarks Damaging.
Mr. Hawley. referring to the published
interview with Orchard, said that he
could see no reason why the authorized
/ representatives of the Associated Press
/ should not have been allowed to see
/ Orchard in order that it might give the
public information as TO the mental OF
/ physical condition of Orchard. MIR. Haw-
| lev said he saw no objection to this. He
could not see how any right of the de-
| PENDANT could be impaired. He could
/ however, understand how an interview
with the governor, purporting to give an
| expression of opinion by the governor
/ furlf hax a Ia H9WlpV
/ not believe that there was any fdee or
I the part of Governor GoOding that Nhar
/ he had to say would have any influence
/ on witnesses or jury.
/ Mr. Hawley said the prosecution heart
/ iIv deprecated anything that would in any
! Wav influence the case. So far as tbs
good taste in the matter was concerned
! he agreed with the defense. but as TO thu
! effect he entirely disagreed
1.-The court would like to be advised a.
( 10 its duties in the case said Judg'
: Wood.
Continued on Page 2.