Willmar tribune., 1909-09-22

and 1ree from CRIMINAL 1nteut, cluAey
declared.
It is difficult to interpret the impres.
sion that was made on the mind OF the
court. Ordinarily convicted prisoners
accept sentence in silence. Warren's
course petrif1ed with astonishment the
court, to whom his remarks were ad-
dressed. An age seemed to have
elapsed before Pollock recovered suf1i-
ciently to proceed. 1t was very ev1.
dent that he did not know what to say.
Undoubtedly he had made up his mind
as to the severity of the sentence, but
this speech from the prisoner appar-
emily upset his plans. Now he vibrated
between doubt and despair. Warren,
possibly with note of defiance. had
announced that he did not ask or ex-
pect clemency or mercy: that he was
not guilty and was not conscious of
having committed an onense. The
United States district attorney had de.
manded that the full penalty of the
law, five years in the penitentiary and
a $1,000 fine, be inflicted.
Inc CouTI IN OOuOtS 0uI 6TOUOOUCSo
Sentence.
With halting tones and in q manner
plainly denoting the confused condi:
ton of his mind, Pollock began the
pronouncement of the sentence with
an apology in part and an attempt at
argument in reply to Warren's speech.
According to the Fort Scott Tribune,
Warren's impassioned address made
! most profound impression.
''The fact that Judge Pollock stated
he had given the case weeks and
weeks of deliberation and had hardly
known what to do shows that Warren
may have had some merit in his claim
that the government had sanctioned
kidnapping. The speech Mr.. Warren de.
livered will be kept as treasure by
many who are with him in this case. -
declared the Tribune.
Warren's Great Speech.
The speech, which is destined to be-
come immortal in revolutionary lit
erature. is as follows:
l wish to call the attention Of the
court to the fact that this case is the
outgrowth Of the kidnapping of three
workmen by the agents Of the great
mining corporations, with the con-
nivance of the state officials of Idaho
and Colorado. The kidnapping Of these
workingmen was acquiesced in by the
president and sanctioned by the SUI
preme court Of the United States.
In referring to the manner in which
these worklngmen were taken from
their homes as kidnapping wish it un
derstood that no less distinguished 8
parsonage than Justice McKenna OF
the supreme court of the United States
used this term in dissenting from the
opinion Of his associates. Justice Nc
Kenna, after reviewing the facts laid
before the supreme court, said:
In the case at bar the states. through
their officers are the offenders. They b!
an illegal exertion Of power deprived tn,
accused Of constitutional right.
Kidnapping is a crime, pure and simple
T. All of the officers Of the law ar
supposed to be on guard against this
-" But how Is it when the law becomes
the kidnaper-when the officers Of tn
p law, using the forms and exerting 1T
power, become abductors? This is not {
distinction without a difference, anothe
: form of the crime Of KIDNAPPING, distin
guished only from that committed by al
individual by circumstances If stat
may say to one within her borders an
upon whom her process Is served, Il will
not inquire how you came here: I mus
execute my laws and remit you to pro
ceedings against those who have wrong
nd clA ~,l1 l11@ tr0ot A4n ~
3 fenses? May she claim that by mer
, physical presence within her borders al
accused person is within her jurisdiction
denuded of his constitutional rights
though he has been brought there by he
violence? And constitutional rights tn
e accused (the three workingmen l hav
$ alluded toy in this case certainly did have
q and valuable ones
p Justice McKenna voiced my view
e and the views of every law abiding cit
|. tZcn on this important matter touchtn
d the rights Of the individual. But tn
l. supreme court declared otherwise an
4 refused to grant the relief asked fo
d by these workingmen and guarantee
It to them by the constitution of the Uni
e ed States and by every considerable
n Of fair play and justice.
o To Test the Supreme Court.
t. It was during the heat of this stru,
gle between the Western Federatio
q Of Miners and the wealthy Mine Owl
+ ers' association of the west that col
o ceived the idea Of Offering a rewar
l. for Ex-Governor Taylor, who, as WI
u generally known, was fugitive fro
9 justice from his home state Of Ke,
% lucky and in hiding in Indiana, pr
tected from the service Of requisite
J. by the governor of Indiana, who's
e. position was Endorsed by Governt
,e Roosevelt of New York and evel
e prominent Republican politician ~
% newspaper in the United States.
ID Would the supreme court hold to !
ID opinion that kidnapping was not
a. crime If the victim was 4 msmb
pr Of the Republican party and repr'
p sentative Of the capitalist e,ass7
ST not believe that the $1,000 offered
VI the Appeal would induce any man
es undertake the abduction of Mr.. Ia
s' lor. as for seven years the state
49, Kentucky had standing reward
IN 100000 for the capture Of the MI
q. derers of Governor GOebel, for viii
rt crime Taylor had been indicted by {
e. Franklin county grand jury in Ja1
ut ary, 1900.
X Similar to Other Rewards.
~ But did expect that the offer