The White Pine news. [volume] (Ely, Nev.) 1906-1910, 1908-03-20

without any attempt either 10 misrep-
resent or conceal believing as do
that this defendant acted in good
faith and that when called as a wit
ness for the state. he told all and
withheld nothing, | can the more
readily fulfill the duty that con-
slider the law imposes upon me.
In passing upon this question 1t
is immaterial 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 imposes bar to convic-
ton on the testimony of an accom-
plice alone, no matter though he may
be believed by the jury. unless there
! is other and independent evidence
tending to connect the defendant 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 verdict of
not guilty did not mean that the de-
fendant on trial was innocent, but
rather that his guilt had not been
proven beyond reasonable doubt in
the manner and form prescribed by
law. For these reasons 1t is at once
apparent that the verdict of the
juries referred to are not necessarily
at variance with the views here ex-
pressed. | 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 alternative in the matter, and un-
der these authorities the defendant
must be recommended to the clemen-
cy of the pardoning board with the
full assurance that 1t is not TO he
presumed that the equitable title to
mercy which the defendant has ac-
quired by testifying to the truth, will
/ not be sacredly accorded to him by
the board in which power to pardon
or commute is vested by the state
constitution The law imposes the
obligation upon this court to make
the recommendation for clemency.
and the statement has been made In
the authorities cited that such ap-
plication or recommendation has
never been ignored by the power to
which l. was addressed. The recon-
mendation of the court to the pardon
board is that the sentence of the
court about to be imposed upon this
defendant he eommuted and that the
death penalty be remitted.
Aside from reasons already giytn
for the recommendation as above
made there is another reason in my
opinion which shauld appeal strong
! ly TO the court and to the pardoning
/ board for remitting the death pen
atty against defendant For several
( years series of atrocious crimes
have been committed in this and
other states. and the confession and
4 testimony of this witness is the first
direct evidence which has been se-
cured fixing responsibility for a con-
siderable number of said crimes.
! The testimony in the two cases tried
revealed the fact that this defendant
as an accomplice, participated in the
crime of arson and murder in 1899
which involved the blowing up of
the Bunker Hill and Sullivan concen-
traitor and the death of two men.
( While approximately 900 men par
ticipated in that monstrous crime and
the sheriff of the county in which it
was committed was present, only one
man was identified and punished
therefore in the state courts. This
defendant upon the trials referred 10.
admitted his own connection with
and participation therein, giving the
names of several others who were
prime movers in the transaction. In
this respect he was corroborated by
one Dewey. who at the time was a
miner IN the Occur d d'Alenes, and now