Omaha daily bee., 1908-03-19
WOOD SENTENCES ORCHARD
Idaho Judge Finds Death His Due,
but Recommends Commutation.
BELIEVES STORY OF MURDERER
Court Says Man who KILLED Ex-GOv-
ernOr SteunenberE Told the
Truth About His Many
Misdeeds.


and George A. Pettibone for the
murder of Ex-Governor Frank steunenberg,
told the exact truth, attempting to conceal
nothing, Judge Fremont Wood, in the dis
trict court. today recommended that the
State Board OF Pardons commute Orchards
sentence of death to imprisonment in the
state penitentiary. The sentence of death
was pronounced in accordance with the
plea of guilty entered by Orchard Tuesday
of last week when arraigned. Judge Wood
presided at both the Haywood and Petit
bone trials.
In sentencing Orchard and recommending
the Communication of his sentence Judge
Wood reviewed the case from the time of
the killing of Frank Sieunenberg to the
present, including the arrest of Orchard,
his confession, the arrest of Charles E.
Meyer, president Of the Western Fedora
tion of Miners; William d. Haywood, sec
retary- treasurer of the federation, and
George A. Pettibone, the trials of Haywood
and Pettibone ard the plea of guilty en-
tered by Orchard to the charge of murder
in the first degree, the punishment for
which under the Idaho statutes is death.
Court Believes story.
In regard to the part of Orchard in the
trials Judge Woods said:
Il am more than satisfied that the de-
fendant now at the bar of this court await
ing final sentence has not only acted in
good faith in making the disclosures 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.
ut was the particular province of the
court to observe and follow this witness
upon the former trials and 1 am of the
opinion that no man living could conceive
the stories of crime told by the witness
and maintain himself under the merciless
fire of the leading cross-examination at
torneys of the country, unless upon the
theory that he was testfying to facts and
circumstances which haS an actual exist
ence within his own experience. A child
cross-examination. A man may be able
to frame his story and testify to brief
statement of facts involving short single
transaction.
Reason for His Belief.
But cannot conceive of case where
even the greatest intellect can conceive
story of crime covering years of duration,
with constantly shifting scenes and chang
ing characters, and maintain that story
with circumstantal detail as to times,
places persons and particular circumstances,
and unGer as meroiloss crosssexaminatio7
as was ever given witness i'm an American
court, unless the witness thus testifying
was speaking truthfully and without any
attempt either to misrepresent or conceal.
Believing as I do, that the defendant
acted In good faith, and that when called
a
withheld nothing, I can the more readily
fulfill the duty that consider the law i'm
poses upon me.
I'm passing upon this question it is inn
material that juries in the two cases tried
have declared that they were not satisfied
of the guilt"
Evidence of an AccOmpIice.
Continuing, the court said
The statute of the state imposes a bar
to conviction on the testimony of an ac-
complCe alone, no matter though he may
be believed by the jury unless there Is
other independent evidence tending to con-
meet the defendant on trial with the COM
mission of crimes. And, again, in each of
the cases tried the court, at the written
structed the jury that verdict of not
guilty did not mean that the defendant on
trial was innocent, but rather that his
guilt had not been proven beyond rea-
sonabe doubt I'm the manner and form pre-
scribed by law.
For these reasons it is at once apparent
that the verdcts OF the Juries referred to
are not necessarily at variance with the
Views here expressed. l am thoroughly
satisfied that under the facts in his case
the court has plain duty TO perform, and
that the authorities quoted leave no al
Tentative in the matter, and under these
authorities the defendant must be recon-
mended to the clemency of the pardoning
board, with the full assurance that IL is
not TO be presumed that the equitable title
I 4 I.E
quired by testifying to the truth will not
be sacredly accorded to him by the board
i'm which power to pardon or commute is
vested by the state constitution. The rec
ommendation 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 remitted.
First Direct Evidence.
Aside from the reasons already given for
| this recommendation there is another rea-
son, in my opinion, which should appeal
board for remittlng the death penalty
against the defendant For several years
committed in this and other states, and
the confession and testimony of this wit
ness is the first direct evidence which has
| been secured fixing responsibility for a
considerable number of said crimes.
Judge Wood referred to the crimes OF
arson and murder in 1899 which eliminated
in the blowing up of the Bunker Hill and
Sullivan concentrator and the death of two
men, and to the fact that although 1,OOC
men were involved only one man was
identified and punished therefor in the
state courts. He continued:
Orchard and Dewey, who at the time
| was a miner In the Couer d Alenes, are the
/ only two men of the large number con
| cerned who have had the courage or dis
position to disclose the truth with refer
| ence to the crimes then committed.
| This defendant also testified Il
| a long series of most atrocious
| crimes committed by himself and
| others In the state of Colorado and he
was corrOborated in such details in relation
! thereto that there can be no doubt about
| his participation therein. While these Of
| fenses were committed I'm the state Ol
| Colorado. this state l think, under the
! circumstances is under some obligation tC
| withhold the execution of the only per,
son who has voluntarily and freely dis
! closed these transactions.
Orchard Yielding 10 RemOrse.
II is impossible to believe that such
! series of crimes can be committed with
| out one or more Of said parties sooner oil
| and Joining this defendant In confirmation
of the disclosures which he has already
made.
Again, under the circumstances involv
| ing the defendant, no good purpose can bi
! advanced by his execution, and there car
| be no demand therefor except from thosi
| ha afu Oh htr