The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-03-18
Sentence Pronounced on Harry
Orchard by Judge Wood.
Accompanied by a Recommends
ton That 1t Be Committed.
BELIEVES HIS STORY
Court Thinks That the Mur-
derer Told the Truth
In His Evidence at the HayWo'u
and Pettibone Trials.

Caldwell. Idaho, March 1S.-Statlns
that he believed that Harry orcnsi0 a!, ~
in his testimony in the trials OIL " -,
liam d. Haywood and george
Pattibone for the murder OF eA-N'
ernor Frank Steunenberg, tolo Lie
exact truth, attempting to cohce"A
nothing, Judge Fremont WOOD III ~
di<trict court today recommended
that the state board of pardons colh-
,,,,,+a Orchards sentence of death 10
IMPRISONMENT in the state pehiee -
tiary. The sentence of deatn W
nronounced in accordance VIII WS Ia
plea of guilty entered Oy ar
tuesday of last week wnen a. a.
raiened Judge Wood preslded a.
both the Haywood and PettlOolie
trials raconn-
mending the commutatlon oL niS 80
tence. Judge Wood reviewed the case
fronn the time of the killing OF frdIIk
csteunenberg to the present, 1hcluulns
tba arrest of Orchard, his contesslon'
the arrest of Charles E. Moyer. pres
dent of the Western FederdtloIl u
Miners: William D. Haywood, secre
.a,.,-0treasurer of the federation and
George A. Pettibone, the trla4s "
HAYWOOD and Pettibone and the plea
of guilty entered by Orcharo 70 t
charge of murder in the first destee,
the punishment 1OT WIIAOA
Idaho statutes is death ,.a
In regard to the part or OrcHalU
in the trials, Judge Wood sald'
Has Faith in Him.
sI am more than sarisf1ed thdt lne
defendant now at the bar or this court
awaiting final sentence has not olily
acted in good faith in making the diS-
oIoS11ras that he did, but that he also
testified fully and fairly to the Wnole
+rI1+h withholding nothing thal was
material and declaring nothing Whlch
had not actually taken place.
ut was the particular province ol
+be court to observe and follow TINS
witness upon the former trials and l
am of the opinion that no man living
could conceive the stories or CRIME
told by the witness and MAINTAIN MIN
self under the merc1less nre OF tne @
leading cross examination attorneys
of the country, unless on the theory
that he was testifying TO facts ana
circumstances which mad an actual
existence within his own experience
A child can testify truly ana main
tain itself on cross exam1natlon.
man NAV be able to frame his story
and testify to a brief statement OF
IA cts involving a short single transac-
ton But 1 can not conceive oI d
case where even the greatest lntenec-
+uallv can conceive a story OF CRIME
covering years of duration, with con-
stantly shifting scenes and changing
4Iaracters and maintain that story
with circumstantial detail as to times,
places persons and particular cir
cun1stances and under as merciIesS
cross examination as was ever given
a witness in an American court unless
the witness testifying was speaking
truthfully and without attempt 10
rnisrepresent or conceal.
"ReIieving as / do that this defeno-
ant acted in good faith, and that when
called as a witness for the state he
told all and withheld nothing, 1 can
the more readily fulfill the duty that
I consider the law imposes upon me-
Corroborating Evidence Lacking.
''In passing upon this question 1t is
inlmaterial that juries in the two cases
tried have declared that they were not
satisfied of the guilt of the defendants
on trial. The statute of the state I'M
poses bar to a conviction on the
testimony of an accomplice alone, no
matter IL he be believed by the jury,
unless there is other independent evil
dence tending to connect the defend.
ant on trial with the commission or
the crimes. And again, in each or the
cases tried the court at the written
request of each of the defendants. in
structed the jury that verdict of not
guilty did not mean that the defend
ant on trial was innocent, but rather
that his guilt had not been proven
hevond a 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 neecs sarily at vari-
ance with the views here expressed.
I am thoroughly satisfied that under
the facts in this case the court has a
plain duty to perform and that the
authorities quoted leave no alterna-
tive in the matter, and under these
authorities the defendant must be
recommended to the clemency of the
hardening board with the full assur~
a. a. I@,1 1,of
the equitable title to mercy which the
defendant has acquired by testifying
20 the truth will not be sacredly ac-
corded to him by the board in which
power to pardon or commute is vest
I'd by the state constitution. The
Recommendation of the court to the
pardon board is that the sentence of
the court about to be imposed upon
this defendant be commuted and that
the death penalty be renitted. Aside
from the reasons already given for this
recommendation there is another
reason in my opinion which should ap-
peal strongly to the court to the par
doning board for remitting the death
penalty against the defendant For
several years a series of atrocious
crimes have been committed in this
and other states and the confession
and testimony of this witness is the
first direct evidence which has been
received fixing responsibility for a
considerable number of said crimes"
Reviews Era of Crime.
Judge Wood referred to the crimes of
arson and murder in 1899, which cul-
minated in the blowing up of the Bun
ker Hill and Sullivan concentration and
the death of two men and to the fact
that although a thousand men were in
yolved only one man was Identified and
punished therefor in the state courts.
Orchard and Dewey. who at the
time was miner in the Occur DAlenes
are the only two men of the large num-
ber concerned" said Judge Wood, who