The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1907-05-07

therefore. left in the dark by the in
dIctment
The list of prccedents and authorl-
ties quoted scores of cases. including
the famous causes of Tilton vs.. Beccher,
the people Of New York against Tweed,
and the Chicago anarchist cases,
MI Richardson reviewed the only
Idaho precedent, and contended as to
The time Of making the motion that 1T
WAS proper at any day before inc tflal.
The court asked if the case had not
been ready for trial for about year.
Mr.. Richardson replied that nearly n
wear ago the defense had demanded
trial.
Mr.. Richardson, after pause, con
tinuing, said that Haywood had just
drawn his attention TO the fact that
last year the defense had been
pcremptorilv refused permission to file
any pleading because of the appeal TO
the Supreme Court Of the United
States pending
Mr.. Richardson oontendcd that the
Indictment only showed that Gov.
Steunenberg had been killed by n
bomb, that Haywood was charged with
conspiring to have Steunenbcrg
murdered, and that Haywood was
charged with being present and
actually committing the crime, an as
sertion that everyone knew TO be un-
true. 'FMr, Haywood said the al.
tornev. tknows all that he did at all
times, but he does not know what wit
ncsses may come here and testify lie
is entitled TO know the overt act
charged against him. The indictment
gave the prisoner absolutely no lnfor-
nation as TO the nature of the
charge against him. Mr.. Richardson
concluded ut 1l:25 o'clock
Contention of the State.
Senator Borah, who began at once
for the State, suld that the defense
was not seeking particularization of
the indictment. but possession of the
evidence by which the State hoped
TO prove its case, He then explained
that the charge that Haywood was at
Caldwell when the murder was COM
mitted was necessary under the Idaho
statutes He drew attention TO the fact
that the Indictment had previously been
attacked in the usual method. and
said that it had beer upheld. lie sald
Idaho statutes for granting bills OF
particulars,
Senator Borah said that the lndlct-
mcnt as to murder was surely spccinc
enough to show the prisoner the exact
nature of the charge he must meet The
demand for particulars as to the con"
spiracy was demand for the evidence.
Senator Borah declared that the in
dictment could not more completely
show The prisoner the character of the
charge he must meet. 1t clearly show
ed the circumstances and date or the
crime. furnishing all the facts neces'
sary 10 an Indictment.
"Were there any circumstances, ne
asked, ''under which the State could
bo required TO produce its proof and
evidence at this time?''
Senator Borah concluded his argument
opposing the motion shortly after 2
O'Clock. He declared the defendants
were asking for the evidence in the
case, and not for n specification Of the
charge as contemplated in criminal pro-
ceedure- Senator Borah further said
that neither the statutes of Idaho nor
the decisions of the courts anywhere
provided that the defendants in a case
of this character were entitled to the
Darrow Heard for Defense.
Clarence Darrow of the defense ad-
dressed the court. He said that about
all there was TO the provision was that
If the court thought 1t was fair to have
the bill of particulars it could grant It,
1t was all within the discretion of the
court, and if the court declined the
motion the supreme court of the State
could not reverse its ruling. The fact
that there was no statute on the subject
in Idaho, did not affect the matter of
the power Of the court. 1t was purely a
question of fairness and justice TO the
defense,
'Mr Borah says we do not want a
better pleading, but that we are after
the evidence, - said Mr.. Darrow "'We |
are, Why not? Why are we not entitled |
TO know what the evidence Will show so
that we may prepare to meet it3''
Mr.. Darrow pointed out that there
had been no disclosure Of evidence at
preliminary lhearing and that the State
had carefully concealed its case. He |
SAID that the prosecutors were not
trappers seeking victims, this was
civilized community and the prisoners
were entitled to fair treatment. He
declared that the Orchard confession
should be placed before the counsel.
he impassionately declared that it was
unjust TO bring these prisoners one
thousand miles from home, and not give
them fair chance 10 openly meet the
case, The case of the State was n mys-
terry, that unfairly handicapped the ac.
cused. He asked that the particulars be
given and said the defendants were
entitled to adjournment If necessary. in
order that their rights might be pro-
tected.
Not Ready for Trial.
Mr.. Darrow said that counsel for
the defense had only the newspapers
for a source Of information. It was
as much the duty of counsel for tho
prosecution 10 protect the prisoners as