Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1908-03-18
5 LIFE
NAY Be SPARED
Judge Wood Recommends Idaho
Board of Pardons to Com
mute Death Sentence
EXACT TRUTH SERVES HIM WELL
Because the Judge Believes Harry Or
chard Was Honest in His Testimony
During Haywood and Pettibone Trial
His Influence May Result in I'M
prisonment in State Penitentary.

Caldwell. Idaho, March 1s.-Stating
that he believed that Harry Orchard.
in his testimony in the trials of Will
lam ID. Haywood and George A. Petit
bone, for the murder Of Ex-Governor
Steunenberg, told the exact truth, at
tempting to conceal nothing, Judge
Fremont Wood, in the district court
today. recommended the state board of
pardons to commute Orchards SEN
tence of death to Imprisonment in the
state penitentiary.
The sentence of death was an
nounced in accordance with the plea
of guilty entered Tuesday OF last week
by Orchard, when arraigned. Judge
Wood presided at both the Haywood
and Pettibone trials.
Judge Reviews Case.
In sentencing Orchard and recon-
mending the commutation of his SEN
tence, the judge reviewed the case from
the time of the killing of Stuenenberg
to the present, including the arrest Of
Orchard. Regarding the part taken by
Orchard in the trials of Haywood and
Pettibone, the judge said:
'I am more than satisfied that the
defendant now at the bar of the court
awaiting final sentence. has not only
acted in good faith in making the dis
closures that he did but that he also
truth, Withholding nothing that was
material and declaring nothing which
had not taken place. 1t was the par
ticular province of the court to observe
and follow this witness upon the for
mer trials, and am of the opinion that
no man living could conceive the sto-
ries of crime told by the witness and
maintain himself under the merciless
fire of the leading cross examination
attorneys Of the country, unless upon
the theory that he was testifying to
facts and circumstances which had ac-
tual existence within his own expert
ence
"a child can truly testify and MAIN
tain itself on cross examination. A
man may be able to frame his story
and testify to a brief statement of
facts involving a short single trans
action, but j cannot conceive case
where even the greatest intellect can
conceive a story of crime covering
years of duration, with constantly
shifting scenes and changing charac-
tiers, and maintain the story with Cir
cumstantial delays to times, places,
persons and particular circumstances,
and under as merciless a cross exam
ination as was ever given a witness
in an American court, unless the wit
ness thus testifying was speaking
truthfully, and without attempt either
to misrepresent or conceal.
believing as I do that the defend
ant acted in good faith, and that when
called as witness for the state he
told all and withheld nothing, 1 can
more readily fulfill the duty / consider
the law imposes upon me. In passing
upon this question. it is immaterial
that the juries in the two cases tried
have declared that they were not sat
istied of the guilt of the defendants
on trial The statutes of the state i'm
pose lIe SQlll Ol lilS uelelludllS Oh
trial. The statutes of the state i'm
pose bar to the conviction on testi-
mony of an accomplice alone, no mat
ter tho he may be believed by the
jury, unless there is other independent
evidence tending to connect the defend
ant on trial with the commission of
the crimes. And, again, in each of the
cases tried, the court, at the written
request of each of the defendants, in
structed the jury that a verdict of not
guilty did not mean that the defendant
on trial was innocent, but rather his
guilt had not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt in the manner and
form prescribed by law.
"For these reasons it is at once ap-
parent that the verdict of the juries
referred to are not necessarily at vari-
anee with the views expressed. l am
satisfied under the facts in
this case, that the court has a plain
duty to perform, and that the author
tiles quoted leave no alternative in the
matter, and under these authorities, the
defendant must be recommended to the
clemency of the pardoning board, with
full assurance that it is not to be pre-
sumed that the equitable title to mer-
cy which the defendant has acquired
by testifying to the truth will not be
sacredly accorded by the board in
which the power to pardon or commute
is vested by the state constitution. The
of the court to the
pardon board is that the sentence of
the court about to be imposed upon
this defendant be committed. and that
the death penalty be remitted.'
The Judge gave as a further reason
for remitting the death sentence. that
as Orchard was the only person out of
a thousand men involved in the crimes
of arson and murder in 1899. which
in the blowing up of the
and Sullivan concentration
vino had voluntarily and fully dis
closed these crimes. the state was un-
der some obligation to withhold his
execution. Judge Wood after reading
his ruling. finally sentenced Orchard,