The White Pine news. [volume] (Ely, Nev.) 1906-1910, 1908-03-20
JUDGE ASKS ORCHARD Be
SPARED FROM DEATH
After Passing Sentence Advances Strong Reasons
For CIemency-- Declares Firm Belief That Orch
ard Has Told Truth And Says Prosecutions Are
Not Through Wth---Orchard Reiterates Claims

CALDW ELL. Idaho, March 19.-
Stating that he believed that Harry
Orchard, in his testimony in the
trials of William ID. Haywood and
George Pettibone for the murder of
Ex-Governor Frank Steunenberg.
told the exact truth. attempting to
conceal nothing. Judge Fremont
Wood, in the district codrt at Cald-
well, recommended that the state
board of pardons commute Orchard 5
sentence of death to Imprisonment in
the state penitentiary. The sentence
of death was pronounced in accord
ance with the plea of guilty entered
by Orchard Tuesday OF last week
when arraigned. Judge Wood pre-
sided at both the Haywood and Pet
tibone trials.
In regard 10 the part of Orchard
in the trials. Judge Wood said:
The rule upon the equitable right
to the recommendation for partial
or complete immunity depends is
based upon the assumption that the
accomplice thus used as witness
has acted in good faith and testified.
fairly and fully. to the whole truth
so far as it relates-t to the entire trans
action, involving both himself and
his accomplices or co-defendants. !
am more than satisfied that the de-
fendant now at the bar of this court
awaiting 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.
During the two trials to which |
have referred the testimony of the
defendant covered long series of
transactions. involving personal rela-
tions between himself and many
others In the first trial he was sub
jected to the most critical cross ex-
animation by very able counsel for
at least six days, and | do not now
recall that at any point he contra
dicted himself in any material mat
ter. but on the other hand disclosed
his connection with the commission
of many other crimes that were prob
ably not known to the attorneys for
the state. at least not brought out
by them on the direct examination
of the witness. Upon the second
trial referred to the same testimony
was given most thorough and crit
ical cross examination of the witness
followed. and in no particular was
there any discrepancy in material
matter between the testimony given
IL .s,,1 a
with the testimony given by the same
witness on the former trial.
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 liv-
ing could conceive the stories of
crime told by the witness and main
tain himself under the merciless fire
of the leading cross examination at
torneys of the country. unless upon
the theory that he was testifying to
facts and circumstance which had
an actual existence within his own
experience.
"A child can testify truly and
maintain itself on cross examination
A man may be able to frame his
story and testify to brief statement
of facts involving short single
transaction. But | cannot conceive
of case where even the greatest in
tellect can conceive story of crime
covering years of duration. witt
constantly shifting scenes and chang
I ing characters. and maintain thai
story with circumstantial detail as
to times, places. persons and partic
ular circumstances, and under a.
merciless cross examination as was
ever given witness in an American
court. unless the witness thus testi
flying was speaking truthfully ant