White Pine news weekly mining review. [volume] (East Ely, Nev.) 1910-1920, 1913-03-23

morning Ol the SHOOliu6, oldtiouOo
inside of the fence for the purpose of
protecting the property of the COM
pany. On the morning of the
shooting crowd of strikers
were headed for the main en-
trance to the smelter with more
or less confusion prevailing among
them, when defendat Allen, who was
a deputy sheriff on guard outside of
the gate, blew a whistle. Captain
McGaffin and his men at once came
out of the gate, and the captain or
dered the strikers to halt. They re-
fused to stop, continuing in the di-
rection of the gate. Captain Nc
Gaffin then, according to the uncon-
tradicted testimony, ordered his men
to shoot over the heads of the strik-
ers. A volley was fired, and after the
smoke had blown away, it was found
that two Greeks had been killed. 1t
appears from the testimony that at
least some of the men did shoot over
the heads of the strikers, and from
results, it appears conclusively that
others shot into the crowd of strik-
ers. 1t is admitted by the prosecu-
tion that, If Captain McGaffin's or
der had been obayed no one would
have been hurt. Defendant Allen
played no further part in the proceed
ings than has been stated.
Complaints were filed with the
justice of the peace charging the de-
PENDANTS twenty-five in alD. with
murder. Defendants waived ex-
animation and were bound over to
the grand jury. The grand jury,
after sepnding several days investi-
eating the matter. dismissed che
charge and a motion was made TO re-
submit the case to another grand
jury. The basis of the motion to
re-submit is the affidavit of Anthony
Zurich, the special prosecutor in the
case. Evidence was introduced but
absolutely none showing what the
evidence was before the grand jury
swore opposite" before the grand
jury. If a man tells us one thing one
day and the opposite" thing the next
day we lose confidence in his word.
We would not know which statement
to believe, or whether to believe
either. We would probably not be-
lieve him at all By his affidavit Mr.
Zurich has clearly shown that the in
strument complained Of was compe-
tent to go to the grand jury for the
express purpose of impeaching the
credibility of the witnesses who
had appeared before that body and
swore opposite" to what they stated
in the written instrument. In view
of the sworn statement of Mr.. Zurich
lit can be readily seen how the
written statement might have been
proper evidence before the grand
jury. This being true, no injury was
done by its having been read by the
district attorney to, or its being con-
sidered by them.
The evidence shows that Captain
MeGaffin ordered his men to shoot
over the heads of the strikers and
that If his order had been obeyed no
one would have been hurt. Evident
ly his purpose was to scare off the
strikers, and this was the theory ac-
cepted by both parties during the
hearing. The question then, as to
McGaffiin, is: Should he be indict-
ed because of the fact that some
persons shot contrary to his order,
which resulted in the death of two
men? The court is unable to see
any theory, in justice, reason, or
law, why a man should be held for
murder when the muroer is commit
ted, not pursuant to his order. but
contrary to, and in spite of it. There
is not a scintilla of evidence going
to show that MeGaffin intended or
expected any one to be shot. Why,
then. should the case be re-submitted
as to him? If the evidence fails to
show grounds to re-submit the case
as to McGaflin, there is even greater
reason why 1t should not be re-sub-
mitted as to Allen. for there is alb
solutely nothing in the evidence to
show that he had the slightest reason
to suspicion that there would be
shooting of any kind.
1t is evident from the evidence
that there was no necessity for the
shooting into the strikers, as was
Continued on Page Fourl