The Billings gazette. [volume] (Billings, Mont.) 1896-1919, 1908-03-20
SENTENCED 10 DEATH, WITH.
REcoMME NDATtoN THAT SEN
#ss TENcE BE COMMITTED.
JUDGE IS BITTER
Believes that Orchard Told the Truth
and That Meyer, Haywood and Pet
tibone Were Guilty-Explains Why
He Believes Murderer Should Not
Be Hanged at All.

stating that he believed that Harry
Orchard in his testimony in the trials
Of William D. Haywood and George
Pettibone for the murder Of former
Governor Steunenberg told the exact
truth, attempting to conceal nothing,
Judge Fremont Wood in the district
court today recommended that the
state board of pardons commute Or
chard's sentence Of death to imprison-
ment in the state p%enitentiary. The
sentence Of death was pronounced in
accordance with the plea Of guilty en-
tered by Orchard on Tuesday OF last
week when arraigned. Judge Wood
presided at both the Haywood and
Pettibone trials.
In sentencing Orchard and in rec
ommending the Communication Of his
sentence, Judge Wood reviewed the
testimony from the time Of the kill
ing Of Frank steunenberg to the pres
emit, including the arrest Of Orchard,
his confession, the arrest Of Charles
=. Meyer, president of the Western
Federation Of Miners, together with
William d. Haywood, secretary-treas-
urer Of the anne organization, and
George "A. Pettibone; the trials OF Hay
wood and Pettibone, and the plea of
guilty entered by Orchard to the
charge Of murder in the. first degree,
the punishment for which under the
Idaho statutes is death.
Believes His Story.
In regard to the testimony Of Or
chard in the trials Judge Wood said:
II am more than satisfied That the
defendant now at the bar Of this court
awaiting final sentence has not only
acted in good faith In making the dis
closures that he did, but that he also
testified fully and fairly to the whole
truth, Withholding nothing that was
material and declaring nothing which
had not actually taken place.. During
the two trials to which Ihave referred
the testimony Of the defendant covers
. long series Of transactions involving
personal relations between himself
and many others.
1T was the particular province OF
the court to observe and follow this
witness upon the former trials, and !
am Of the opinion that no man living
could conceive the stories Of crime
told by the witness and maintain him
self under the merciless fire OF cross
examination Of the leading attorneys
Of the country unless upon the theory
that he was St%estifying to facts and
circumstances which had an actual ex-
istence within his own experience.
Couldn't Invent It.
IA child canEtestifyStruly and main.
tain itself on cross-examinauon. A
man may be able to frame his story
and testify to a brief statement OF
facts involving q short single trans:
action. But I cannot conceive Of q
case wner. even the greatest intel
lect could tabrfcate astory Of crime
covering years Of duration. With con-
stantly changing scenes and shifting
OF characters, and maintain that. story
with circumstantial detail as to times,
places, persons and particular circum-
stances and under as merciless a
cross-examination as was. ever given
q witness in an American court I'M
less the witness thus testifying was
!. speaking truthfully and without at
tempt to mtsrepresent or conceal. Be.
n! Neying az / do that this defendant
\ acted in good;afaith and that when
called as a. witness for the state he
and .withhe.d nothing, ] can
'moresreaaily fulfill the duty that ! con
ssfder the trawsimposes uponme.s
sfsas@I6 pas5tngfupont4 this question Il
80 sii1mnarmaaterial that jniiries in the two
ca;site,sg' have declared that they were
,te,,satsfied with tie gy,uhi1t Of the de
f9hdants On trial. The statute Of the
state, imposes q bar to a conviction
q tAss testimony Of an accomplice
alliope. 20 matter though he may be
believes, hhy the jury. unless there Il
other and independent evidence tend
Ing to connect the. defendant on ;trial
with the commission Of the crimes.
What Verdict Meant.
And again, In each Of the .casei
tried, the court. at the written request
Of each OF the defendants, instructed
the jury that 2 verdict of not guilty
did not mean that the defendant on
trial raj innocent, but rather that
his guilt had not been proven beyond
sa reasonable doubt In the manner and
form prescribed by law. For these
reasons It Is at once apparent that the
verdict OF the juries referred to are
not necessarily at variance with tie
views hero expressed.
ASIDE from the reasons already
given tor the Recommendation above
made there u another feason In my
opinion which should appeal. strongly