The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-08-02
DARRON|' rs WORKS MAY
co BEFORE THE JURY
Unique Stipulation Entered
Into by Opposing Counsel
in the Bribery Case.
HEATED VERBAL CLASH
Writings of the Defendant In
jected Into the Trial by AS
Sistant District Attorney.

Los ANGELES. Aug. IA unique
stipulation was made today by opposing
counsel In the Darrow bribery trial. It
was that all OF the published works Of
Clarence s. Darrow be admitted into
evidence and copies Of his novels. es
says and lectures be furnished to the
OF leisure. District Attorney Fredericks
sent to the stipulation.
Except for this incident and a heated
verbal encounter between Assistant Dis
trict Attorney Ford and Chief Counsel
Rogers OF the defense, the day was fea-
tureess
The defendant again gave no direct
responses. His most common reply was
II don't recall; but perhaps / did," or
something of like nature.
Nearly every phase OF the case was
gone into, by Ford and IT was indicated
that Mrs Bert II. Franklin, wife OF the
principal witness for the prosecution,
would be called by the state in rebuttal
Emphatic Denial.
Did you not say TO Mrs. Franklin on
the day Of your arrest, Now, Mrs.
Franklin. don't be too hard on me?' "
asked Franklin.
II did not" declared Darrow en-
phatically, "eIther by language, gesture,
writing. cipher or in any other way in
substance or effect"
Darrow's writings were injected into
the case when Ford produced copy OF
an address on Grimes and Criminals
given by the defendant before the pris-
oncrs in the Cook county Jail, in Chi
cago. and read from It the following
paragraph:
There Is no such thing as crime as
the word Is generally understood. ] do
not believe there Is any sort Of distinc-
tion between the moral condition OF the
people In and out Of Jail One is just
as good as another, The people here
can no more help being here than the
people outside can avoid being outside
I do not believe that people are In jail
because they deserve TO be, They arr
In 1all simply because they cannot aver
! It on account OF circumstances which
are entirely beyond their control anc
for which they are In no way responsi
bIe."
rows state Of mind last November.
Rogers Protests.
Attorney Rogers protested that II wa
unfair 10 select an Isolated paragraph
from the phamphlet and Judge Hutto
agreed that Darrows state Of mind coul
not be determined by lectures and ad
dresses upon different subjects
The defense said II would not objec
, to the reading of excerpts from Oar
rows works II all OF them were adopte
into evidence and the jurors provide
with copies. to which the prosecutio
assented but short time later Distrlt
Attorney FrederIcks recalled his agree
rlept.
, Questioned information concerning tn
effect of Franllin's arrest upon th
negotiations for the compromise pleas
, the McNamaras cases, Darrow insiste
that he had n right to fear the effet
, on the settlement.
II know that II affected the settle
! ment." said Darrow. 1T cost j. j. II,
l more years" He explained that the di:
2 trict attorney. prior TO the arrest
a Franklin, had consented 10 term Of te
, years for the elder Mcnamara broth
and later insisted upon fifteen years
Darrow appeared more at case today.