Special Correspondent· for The Outlook at the Boise Trial

The Haywood Trial: A Review'iL

BY LUKE GRANT

I N the picturesque .md beautiful cityof Boise ended recently the first act

, in one of the most stirring dramas ofmodern times. The curtain was rungdown when an Idaho jury pronouncedWilliam D. Hayw'ood, Secretary of theWestern Federation of Miners; not guiltyof the murder of ex-Governor FrankSteunenberg. The second act is set forOctober I, when George A. Pettibone,the alleged co-conspirator of Haywood,will be placed on trial for his life.

No wonder the eyes and ears of thecountry were turned toward the littlecity in the Boise valley. It was anabsorbing tragedy in real life that wasbeing enacted. As plot and counterplotwere revealed, they showed a disregardfor human life on one hand and a dis­regard for human rights and libe'rties onthe other that seemed almost beyondbelief.

When the curtain rose, ProsecutorHawley announced that the State wouldhow a criminal conspiracy based on

murder and assassination that wouldhock civilization. The leaders' of thisonspiracy, he chalged, were officers of

the Western Federation of Miners, whohnd left in their footsteps a trail ofhuman blood all over the inter-mountain·()untry. "We will show you," saidI lawley, "that the killing of Frank'l unenberg was but an incident in this"iminal conspiracy, and that a score of

III n have met violent deaths at theIlI\nds of hired assassins. We will showIlll that a regular scale of prices for

III III'CI r was set by the leaders of thisnnRpiracy, anel that Harry Orchard andt, 'v' Adams were two of the paid

II Ilssins."f,','0111 th blowing up of the Bunker

11111 f\ncl Sullivan mill in the Creur.1 1 In' district ill I R( 9 :lnd the killi'ngf WI) 111l'11 h 1111 11I'IIIl'c1 Illob of lInion

lIIlrlfli , tlil' ('1111 plllll' WII 1I'II('('d Sl('!>\I tr I 1111111 lllllflt Ii II rH11i1 01 HII\\Ili 'll

berg's gate, December 30, 1905. Thatgate, wrecked by a bomb explosion andbespattered with the blood of the formerGovernor of Idaho, was held up to themental vision of the twelve men in thejury-box, the critics who were to passjudgment on the tragedy. In the sixyears through which this criminal con­spiracy 'was said to have run, it wasshown that twenty-one persons had.been killed by shot and bomb. It was'shown that others were spied upon,hounded and tracked by assassins withmurder' in their hearts, and that theirlives were spared only through luckycircumstances. That, in brief, was thepicture drawn by the prosecuting counseland exposed to the view of the jury andthe audience, which comprised all thepeople of America.

Before attempting to show whether ornot this picture was overdrawn, it maybe well to throw another on the canvas­that drawn by AttorneJ Darrow for thedefense. This picture showed honestworkingmen, stripped to their waists,working twelve hours a day in the millsand smelters to increase the dividendsof the wealthy mine-owners. As thetick :ning and deadly fumes of arsenicarose from the melting ore, they para­lyzed the arms and legs of the workers.The teeth in their jaws loosened and fellout. Five years is the average length oflife of workers uneler such conditions.Then the Western Federation of Minerswas formed, and it spread out its pro­tec!ing wings to the helpless and almosthopeless workers. It built and main­tained stores, libraries, hospitals, andunion halls for the comfort and educa­tion of its members, It supported thesick, buried the dead, and cared for thewidows and orphans. To render lesseffective the work of the union, secretspies in the employ of the mine-ownersg-ained admission and planned andplott'd Lo betray their associates. The

855

THE OUTLOOKTHE HA YWOOD TRIAL: A RE VIE W

856

goal of the union was an eight-hour work­day for the men in the mills and smelters:An agitation for an eight-hour law wasstarted, and it was passed -.by the Legis­lature. It was declared unconstitutionalby the Supreme Court of Colorado. Theunion redoubled its efforts, and a con­stitutiona:I amendment was submitted tothe voters- of the State. It was carriedby a majority of 46,000 votes in a totalvote of 97,000. Then the mine-owners,more interested in dividends than in thesafety of human life, wer~ pictured ashaving shamelessly corrupted the Legis­lature to prevent the carrying out of themandates of the people. The eight-hourlaw was not passed. The miners reliedon their organization securing for themthe relief that a corrupted Legislaturedenied them. They went on strike.Then Mr. Darrow skillfully rolled backthe covering and exposed more of thepicture to view. It revealed the Statemilitia, officered and commanded bymine-owners, despoiling the homes, thestores, halls, and libraries of the unionminers, and driving them at the bayonet'spoint from the district where many ofthemowned homes. Appeals to the civilcourts were unavailing, for the soldierydefied the civil courts.' Mr. Darrowironically remarked: ". Flags were hungat half-mast as a fitting tribute to the

, death of law and the triumph of order."Strange that such a picture should

move a jury of farmers who had noexperience with industrial strife I It wasa plea of justification rather than adefense. Haywood was on trial, chargeddirectly with the murder of Steunenberg.On this charge Colorado's labor warshad no bearing, yet they consumed moretime than any other phase of the trial.The attorneys for the prosecution openedthe way by charging a general conspir­acy, of which the killing of Steunenbergwas an incident, and the attorneys forthe defense, by inference, said, "Ifwe're bad, you're worse;" and theyattempted to show a counter-conspiracyto .disrupt the Western Federation ofMiners.

Throughout the whcile trial Mr. Dar­row insidiously implied justification. Hetalked continuously of a class war andthe oppression of th p rby, th· ri ·h.

24 August

The jury decided' that the State hadfailed to connect Haywood with theconspiracy charged, and the Court ruledthat the defense had not shown a coun­ter-conspiracy; but while the plots werebeing unfolded new light was thrown onthe' methods resorte'd to both by mine­owners and miners in prosecuting indus­trial war in the Rocky Mountains.

Here it may be said that there wasa difference of opinion among counsel forthe presecution about the scope the trialshould take. Senator Borah, the brill,iant young attorney who assisted in theprosecution, was opposed to going out­side the Steunenberg murder. Hewantedto place Orchard on trial for that crimeand not use him for a witness. He con~

tended that if the officers of the WesternFederation of Miners were guilty of thecrimes laid on their shoulders by Or­chard, the State of Colorado shouldprosecute them. He was overruled byGovernor Gooding, who, listening toDetecti\'e McParland. believed that hewas destined to be the 'public official whowould bring to justice the men responsi­ble for a long series of revolting crimes.That a number of mysterious mUJdershad been committed in the mining campswas a matter of common knowledge. Theperpetrators had gone unwhipped ofjustice, and Orchard's confession seemedto furnish the explanation. So CO\'

eruor Gooding declared that he would 1)<'unworthy to fill the office of chief exeCl!tive of a great State if he did not try III

unearth the whole conspiracy and brilll-(to justice the guilty parties.

Detective McParland was given CUIlIplete charge of working up the evid 'IH','for the prosecution after he obtai 111,11Orchard's confession. It did n t I,·quire great ingenuity to obtain that (;1111

fession, for, confined in a cell (or I h,'first time in his life, Orchard's 'III I\'religious training came back to his IlIilHIThe enormity of his crime: I' S' h ·flll"

his eyes, and he was rcady to 'ollrl' III

the first person who apr ':11",11 /1 11I11I1

thetic enough to list n, ProhnlJl1 IIIbelieved that h ' would /1[1V 'hi, own 11t'\ II

by incriminatinl{Olh '1'" hili lh.'1 WII 1111

eviden" l rodll '\'11 lIl!dlllf Ih" II III 1.1show that hu WII PIIIIll \ II 1111111111 II'It ,hOllld h, Ilid i, II II1I til 111'111

1907

land that he di,d not manufa<;ture any ofthe evidence, in spite ot the many claimsto.' th~ ~cQntrary. At least there wasnothing in the trial to prove that he did.The verdict of the jury, however, provedthat such evidence, whether manufac­turedor not, is regarded with as muchsuspicion in 'an agricultural 'communityin the West as in an industrial centerin the East.

On' Orchard's testimony the wholecase of the prosecution was based. Inmany of the details that testimony wascorroborated by outside witnesses, butwith Orchard eliminated the tragedy atBoise would have been like the play ofHauilet with the gentle Dane left out.One side tried to prove that Orchardtold the truth, the other side that he lied.

It was a revolting story of crime thatOrchard told on the witness-stand, but,shocking though it was in many details,it was of' absorbing interest. From hisparticipation in the blowing up of theBunker Hill and Sullivan mill in 1899,this monumental criminal told of onemurder after another that he had com­mitted with a nonchalance that wasamazing. He neither spoke in a boast­ful way of his crimes nor did he appar­rently show any contrition. He displayedno feeling, except on one occasion whenhe was taunted by Attorney Richardsonon cross-examination. Then the tearsrose in his eyes, and he said he had beensuch an unnatural monster that he hadalmost despaired of divine forgiveness,and was now telling his story as a dutythat he felt he owed to himself, to society,and to God. Not once did he hesitateto answer questions'of a personal nature,although the answers showed himself inan unfavorable light; neither did he seekto conceal anything that appeared favor­able to the defendant. There was nomalice apparent in his manner.' He toldhow Haywood stopped his plans to blowup a boarding-house in Globeville, where

n hundred and fifty non-union menw re housed, as freely as he told howth' sam Haywood complimented himon blowing up the Independence depotl\nd th' I illing f fourteen men.

1\ 'ltd 'rs of Th Outl k are familiarw [h Ih,' cl'ilil '/1 whi h Or hard onf ss cr11 01111111 l d; hul it ill" H • I.'y to l' .( 'J'

857

to them ~gain to shcivy- how far the testi­mony of the assassin was corroborated,or' how much it was discredited by wit­nesses" for the defense. Following theblowing up of the Bunker Hill. mill, inwhich Orchard participated only as oneof a mob, although he said he lightedone of the fuses, his next crime was com­mitted in Cripple Creek in November,1903.. He told of planting a bomb in theshaft of the Vindicator mine, which at thetime was operated with non-union men.It was so arranged that the raising of asafety bar would discharge a revolverinto a box of giant caps, and thus explodefifty pounds of dynamite. Throu~h amistake th~ bomb was placed on thesixth level, which was not being workedat the time. About a week later Super­intendent McCormick and ForemanBeck entered the sixth level and wereblown to pieces. Fragments of a revol-.ver, twisted into shapeless scrap-iron,were produced in court to corroboratethe story. For this crime Orchard saidhe was complimented by Moyer andHaywood, the former giving him $20and the latter $280 at the time. BothMoyer and Haywood on the witness­stand .denied having paid the money orof having any knowledge of the crime,and there was no corroboration of Or­chard's word on that point. The defensetried to show that the explosion mighthave been the result of an accident.Thomas Wood, a witness who impressedall who heard him with the apparenttruthfulness of his testimony, swore thathe had seen a box of powder on theeighth level of the mine on the morningof the explosion. McCormick and Beck,he said, went from the eighth to thesixth level, and'the box of powder dis­appeared about the same time. Beckcarried a revolver in his hip-pocket.The inference was that the superintend­ent and foreman carried with them thebox of powder to the sixth level; thatthe revolver dropped out of Beck's pocketand caused the explosion, and that themen were thus accidentally killed, Woodhad worked in the mine but a day and ahalf before the explosion occurred. Afterthis alleged crime, Attorney Hawley saidthat Orchard was placed" on the chosenlist (murdere~s" by Haywood.

THE OUTLOOK THE HA YWOOD TRIAL: A J( E VIE W858

The -n'ext crime to which Orchard-con­fessed was the shooting of DetectiveLyte Gregbry, in Denver. In cold, blood,and while in a drunken condition, this'man was shot to death on a public street.Orchard said he was accompanied bySteve Adams at the time, and that Petti­bone pointed the victim out to the assas­sins and furnished them with the shot­guns to kill him. Gregory had beenactive in a number of labor troublesagainst the Western Federation ofMiners, arid also against the UnitedMine Workers, and the explanation ofthe defense was that he was probablykilled by some personal enemy. NeitherAdams nor Pettibone was placed on thestand to contradict Orchard, althoughhe implicated both in the crime. ,

Shortly after committing this murder,Orchard swore, he was delegated byHaywood to go up to the Cripple Creekdistrict and" pull something off," as theannual Convention of the Western Fed­eration of Miners was in session at thetime, and a split was threatened becauseof differences among the delegates re­garding the conduct of the strike. Nospecific instructions were given to himexcept that Haywood remarked, "Youcan't go too fierce to suit me." The" something:' that was" pulled off" wasthe blowing up of the Independence.depot, which killed fourteen non-unionmen and maimed a score of others. Inthis awful crime Orchard said he wasassisted by Steve Adams. It was shownthat Adams left the district next dayand assumed the alias of Steve Dickson.Orchard went in another direction, andchanged his name to Thomas Hogan.The defense did not deny that Orchardcommitted this outrage, but implied bythe testimony of several witnesses thathe was acting as the agent of the Mine-

, Owners' Association at the time. It wasargued that' the commission of such acrime could only react against the menon strike, and subsequent events provedthat this was true; for it was~the follow­ing day that the deportatio~s of unionmell began. Here, again, Adams mighthave contradicted Orchard's story wereit untrue, for Adams was never accused

,of being an agent of the mine-owners.He was always an enthusiast on the

24 August

union side. Yet Orchard's statementimplicating Adams was left unchallenged.

From Independence Orchard returnedto Denver, where he said he' was'fur­nished with money by Pettibone, andstarted on a fishing and, hunting tripthrough Wyoming. He lost his moneygambling, and returned to Denver,and,as the authorities were looking for him,he said he was sent to San Francisco tobe out of the way and incidentally tokill Fred Bradley. Bradley was thesuperintendent of the Bunker Hill mineduring the troubles in 1899, and wasthe man who called on Steunenberg fortroops. It was one of the inconsisten­cies of the defense to try to show thatOrchard had a personal motive in seek­ing the death of Steunenberg, and thathe had no hand in the explosion whichtook place at the door of the Bradleyresidence in San Francisco. It wouldappear reasonable to assume' that ifOrchard was embittered against Steu­nenberg for sending troops to the Cceurd'Alene, he would be' equally bitteragainst the man who was responsiblefor having them sent.

When Orchard reached San Francisco,he found that Bradley was absent inAlaska. For two months he waited forthe return of ·his victim. During thistime it was shown by records in thepost-office and in a telegraph office thathe was supplied by Pettibone withmoney. The defense claimed that it wasOrchard's own money, which he left inPettibone's safe to be sent as he requiredit. If that claim is true, the prosecutionpointed out, it was singular that Pet! i­bone in sending the money should allone occasion sign his name on the appli­cation blank at the telegraph office as" J. Wolf" and on another occasion as"Pat Bowen." The money was tele­graphed t6 Orchard under the name of"H. Green," and identification waswaived. It was proved beyond .douhlthat the waiver of identification wa:; inPettibone's handwriting. Certain Iy th 'I'<'

was an air of suspicion alout suchtrans~ctions, and Petti bon . Wfls notplaced on the witn'ss-sland to 'xplllinthem.

While awaiting Bradl' 'Ii I'dum ()I

chard be'cam a quuintl:c1 wit h tilt j{1 t)('j\1

1907

wh<? supplk<il ,the B~a41ey family withgroceries. Through .J;his,grocer he got

,:jntrQqnoed to the servant-gir,ls, and inthis ,way gained access to the house.He rented a room overlooking the Brad­ley flat, where he could watch the Wil·dows. Shortly after Bradley's returnthe family milk was poisoned. Bradleydiscovered that the milk tasted bitter,

.and it was left unused. A chemicalanalysis showed the presence of strych­nine in large quantities, Orchard saidhe put strychnine in the milk, and if hedid not, no explanation was offered forits being there. The explosion tookplace early in the morning. The nightprevious Orc,hard paid his room rentand gave nO,tice that he was going toleave. He did leave a few minutesbefore the explosion occurred. Afterhe had vacated his room the landladytestified that she found shavings of woodand of lead that were left behind. Or-

,chard said he fastened the bomb to theBradley door and covered it with a door­mat, When the door opened, the explo­sion took place; it wrecked the frontof the building and threw Bradley outinto the street. Portions of the door-

. mat were removed from Bradley's handsand face by a surgeon. In Bradley'sdeposition, which was read in court, hesaid he was smoking a cigar when heopened, the door and that a flame shotout from the end of the cigar. He wasthrown violently to the floor and thenhe felt a lifting sensation and found him­self between the car tracks in the middleof the street. He smelled the fumes ofgas and did not smell dynamite, althoughhe said he was familiar with the odor ofblasting powder. The owner of thebuilding sued the' gas company and wasawarded heavy damages. It was shownthat gas was escapmg in the buildingsome time previous to the explosion.One of the servant-girls swore that sheopened the door about half an hour be-

I -fore the explosion to take in the morningpap 1', and she did not smell- gas, Or-hal'l left San Francisco shortly after

disg'llis d as a soldier, and D. C. Copley,1\ III 'll1b 'I' of the Executive Board of theWeslC:rJl F>d 'ralion f Miners, assistedhlin III IIl'rfl' ling' t.h' disl-:'uis, aI' Ylldndlll'd 11l1i1 Ill' goll' I Ill' illlprl'Hsion frOiIl

859

Orchanfs talk that, the latter mighthave had something to do with,th~,Brad­

ley Hplosion, All ,this was shown byindependent witnesses, and in summingit up Senator' Borah said: "And. yetyou twelve intelligent men are asked tobelieve that Orchard went to San Fran­cisco to gamble witb soldiers, and thathe hung around the Bradley residencefor two months waiting for a gas explo­sion to take place," The jury wasevenly divided between the story of thebomb and the theory of a gas explosion.

Still lusting for blood, Orchard testifiedthat on his return to Denver he' spentthe next few months seeking an oppor­tunity to assassinate Governor Peabody,Justice Gabbert, Justice Goddard, Sher­man Bell, and others who had beenantagonistic to the Western Federationof Miners. He was shown to have beenassociating with Haywood and Pettiboneat the time, Jliving in the house of thelatter for several weeks, but outside ofhis word there was nothing to show thateither of them had any knowledge ofhisnefarious schemes, A bomb was plantedin a vacant lot for Justice Gabbert; butthe intended victim avoi~ed the trap,and a mining engineer named Walleywas killed by it. ,Walley's death remaineda mystery up to the time of Orchard'sconfession. ' Soon after the death ofWalley, Orchard said, he planted a bombunder the sod, at the gate of JusticeGoddard's residence. This bomb wasdug up seven months later and was ex­hibited in court. The defense pointedout the improbabilily of a b mb remain­ing hidden under th ~ cI on a w ·U-k 'ptlawn for s'ven III nlh~ wit.hout b -ill!;,discovered, and inferredlhat it had b 'nplanted by detectives f I' th' purpos'of being "discovered" to corroborateOrchard's story,

The last act of Orchard's criminalcareer was the killing of Steunenberg,and it was this crime which the jury hadto ~onsider in reaching a verdict. Inhis' closing ar~ument Senator Borah toldthe jury that Haywood must be con­victed on the Steunenberg murder if hewas convicted at all. Orchard sworethat Moyer, Haywood, and Pettibonewere all present when he was sent told:lho to murder Steunenberg. Hay-

THE OUTLOOK

vanced if Haywood died a martyr t th'cause.

The verdict was a surprise to many ofthe people of Boise who watched the trialclosely. A disagreement was all thatmost of the friends of the defendantexpected, because of the many complica­tions and issues involved in the trial.The jury followed the instructions of theCourt, and gave the defendant the benefitof the" reasonable doubt" to which thelaw provides that he was entitled. It isreasonable to assume, in view of theverdict, that the State did not present aconvincing case, for certainly the defensewas neither strong nor consistent. WhenOrchard finished his direct .testimony, amajority of those who heard him believedthat he lied. When Attorney Richardsonfinished his direct cross-examination ofOrchard, a majority believed that he wastelling the truth. It seemed incrediblethat a witness could withstand such across-examination without contradictinghimself, unless he was telling the truth.In his closing argument Attorney Rich­ardson took a day to explain why'Orchard had a personal motive in seek­ing Steunenberg's death, and then heclosed by asserting that at the time ofthe murder the assassin was a Pinkertondetective. Such inconsistency was ap­parent all through the cross·examinationof Orchard. One moment Mr. Richard·son would endeavor to show that Orchardwas a detective, and in the next breathhe proved that on one occasion he stolea sheep in order to get food to liveupon. Attorney Darrow tried to makeit appear that the future of organizedlabor depended on the outcome of tlietrial, but he did not ask anyone to be~

lieve that the murder of, Steunenbergwas the result of a plot between mine­owners and detectives. ,That appearedtoo preposterous even to M,r. Darrow.He was willing to admit that Orchard

mmitted the inurder, and that he waspI' bably assisted by Simpkins, but ar­gu d that both had personal motives.Th tat di 'cr dited the personal mo­liv th 'ory gor atly I y pI' ducing deedsIllld 1" ords provinl-:" that Or hard soldhill illl 'I' 'sl ill Ih' 11'1' 'lll's min' Ilion;Ihn,1I twl'lve 11 1011 !h, IIdo1"(' 11(' 1I11t! 10

IIIW Iht ;\\'11" d',\I\'II\' til t,kl 1111 Ill'

. 861NR V.fRW

'OLlllt r laGor tr ul I,s. The evidencepI' d II 'd to SLiI p rt th' allegationof .Ila)'wood's Inw)' 'rg that Orchardwas a c1ctectiv in th employ ofthe mine·owners was far fr m con­vincing, He himself readily admittedthat he got money from D. C. Scott, adetective for the Florence and CrippleCreek Railroad. He informed Scott ofa proposed ~ttempt to wreck a traincarrying non-union miners.. That, how­ever, was a few days before the Vindi­cator explosion, where his criminalcareer really started. Scott paid him inall about $45 and furnished him with arailway ticket to Denver to get ac­quainted with the officers of the WesternFederation of Miners. That fact wasproyed; but, aside from six or sevenmeetings with Scott at that time, there.was no evidence that Orchard had anyfurther connection with detectives. Sev­eral witnesses testified to subsequent

'meetings between Orchard and detect­ives, and other witnesses swore that suchmeetings could not have taken place.It was a question of veracity, and notconvincing either way. Had Orchardbeell a detective hired by the mine­owners to get evidence against the laborofficials, he certainly 'would have pre~

served letters and telegrams which it wasshown he received. Instead of doing sohe destroyed every scrap of such evi­dence. Senator Borah probably hit thetruth when he ~aid, " If Orchard had notturned State's evidence, he would nowbe on trial, and the emin 'nt ouns 1from Chicago would be d ,r 'nding himwith all the eloquence h' poss 'ss 'S in­stead of denouncing him as th' III ; ~

despicable monster on earth." Whilumuch of the defense of Ilaywood 'Wll­

sisted of denunciation of del' ,tiv 'S, it i.a fact that Darrow had for IIIOllths (\number of detectives working' (or him,

From the mass of testimoll)', with itsmany inconsistencies and contradi tions,one fact stands out prominently. 1"1' III

August 10, 1903, when Orchard went allstrike jn Cripple Creek, until Decemb 'I'30, 1905, when he killed Steunenberg, h 'did no work in the mines or elsewh 1' ..

Ihiring' that p riod he was shown to1111 V , Imv\:!I,t! throllg'hollt th' Slat~s of( 'ilimlldll, W IIllIillH', Idllho, Wllshillg'tO",

THE HAVWOO190724 August

officers of the W~stern Fed.~ration ofMiners before if appeared in the news­papers that Hogan was a member of-theorganization, or' before his identity asOrchard was discovered. 'The onlything which tended to show that hemight be a member of the organizationwas a souvenir postal card addressed toCharles H. Moyer which was found inhis trunk.

The day after his arrest Orchardreceived an unsigned letter which heafterward swore was in the handwritingof Pettibo~e. He said it was in answerto a request for $100. The letter waspostmarkeq at Denver and dated Decem­ber 30. It read in part: "Friend Tom:Your letter received. That was sent toJack December 21 for you. He shouldhave sent it so you would have it bythis lime." A draft for $100 sent byHaywood to Jack Simpkins under dateof December 21 was produced in courtin explanation of the veiled languagecontained in the unsigned letter. Thedefense explained the draft by saying itwas part of the salary and expenses due

, Simpkins as a member of the ExecutiveBoard, which he requested Haywood tomail direct to his home before the Christ­mas holidays.

Before Orchard made his confession--about January 27, 1906-it was shoWIlthat Attorney Fred Miller went to Dell­vel' and was paid by Haywood a retainerfee of $1,500 to defend Orchard at thepreliminary hearing at Caldwell.

These were the circumstances, outsideof Orchard's testimony, upon which lheprosecution hoped to fasten guilt on Haywood, and the jury agreed that they wel'l'not strong enough to warrant convictioll.

The trial was fair and impartial. Thl'instructions of the Court to the jury w 'n:decidedly favorable to the defendant, orat least they were so understood by Lill:jury. For more than twelve monlllHdemagogues throughout the country hav\'been trying to make it appear that Ill\'whole trial was a plot betw' '11 min\'owners and State officials to hanl{ 1'11110

cent men. To :om' r th !'l{' d\'I1I11goglies the verdi t was a disnp(loiIlIIlH'III,

, as, by a p' III i:u 111 'I hod or "\'11 011 III/!understo d 0111, h Illl'lI\ (,Iv\' , IllIIyb ,Ii 'v 'd thllt :-jOdlllllllll would III' lid

wood, furnished' him money an,d Petti­bone help,ed him pack a bomb weighingforty pounds in his trunk, and then ac·companied him to the railway station.Both Moyer and Haywood flatly deniedthis story. The facts showed that Or­chard went to Nampa, situated a fewmiles from Caldwell, the home of Steu­nenberg, and that he registered at ahotel as "Thomas Hogan." He trailedSteunenberg for a time, "learning hishabits," he said, and went .to Wardnerto meet Jack Simpkins, a member of theExecutive Board of the Western Federa­tion of Miners. The two returned toCaldwell, Simpkins registering at thehotel as "J. Simmons." They roomedtogether for a few days, during whichtime the first unsuccessful attempt onthe life of Steunenberg was made. Thatwas about November 16, 1905, and twodays later Haywood, in Denver, wroteMrs. Orchard stating tLar the last heheard of Orchard he was in Alaska.Simpkins left Orchard in Caldwell, andwent. to Denver to attend a meeting ofthe Executive Board. Steunenberg was

'killed December 30, and two days laterOrchard, under the name of ThomasHogan, was arrested as a suspect. OnDecember 3 Orchard, in the Caldwelljail, received a telegram from AttorneyFred Miller, of Spokane, stating thatMiller' would start for Caldwell- in themorning to look after his defense.Orchard had made no request for coun­sel to defend him. Attorney Miller gotas far as Walla Walla and turned back,and the following day, December 4,Simpkins sent a cipher telegram to Hay­wood, in Denver, which read: "Cannotget a lawyer to defend Hogan. Answer."Next day Attorney Sullivan, of Denver,called on Hogan in jail. It was shownthat during the next few days Haywoodsent a number of telegrams and lettersto the secretary of the local union atSilver City instructing him to employAttorney John F. Nugent to look afterthe interests of the organization in con­nection with the arrest in Caldwell.Nugent replied that he could not seewhere the interests of the Federationwere involved. It ~hould be understood

'that all the steps described to defendthe Caldwell suspect were taken by th '

860

THE OUTLOOK

and California, and he always had money.He said he got it from the officers of theWestern Federation of Miners and theydenied the statement, but no other sourceof his income was shown.

At the beginning of the trial the prose­cution hoped to corroborate Orchard'stestimony through Steve Adams. Thelatter was brought from a jail in Wal­lace, where he is being hdd awaiting asecond trial for murder, in the hope thatthe defense would put'him on the witnesscstand. The lawyers for the defense weretoo shrewd. While in jail with Orchardin the spring of 1906, Adams made aconfession said to be more revolting inits details than the one made by Orchard.It not only corroborated Orchard's story,but revealed a number of shocking mur­ders of which Orchard had no knowledge.Adams went with the officers of the -Ia wto Colorado and pointed out the spotswhere some of his victims were buried.He threw light on murders committed

. in 19Q1 and 1902 which up to that time .had 'remained mysteries. Adams after­ward repudiated the confession, sayingthat it was untrue and was obtained bymeans of threats. By various methodsthe prosecution tried to ,get that con­fession before the jury. . Mr. Hawleytaunted the defense with not puttingAdamsonthewitness-stand. Mr. Richard­son frankly stated that the one side wasafraid to and the other side dared not.

In spite of Mr. Darrow's eloquentplea on behalf of organized labor,the labor movement was not on trial atBoi·se. The Western Federation ofMiners was not on trial, though manyseemed to think it was. Mr. Hawley inhis opening statement said that the West­ern Federation of Miners under its present

leadership was a criminal organizal JOIl

and should be wiped out. He exonl'lated the rank and file, ..however, frol!!any criminal intent; Such exoneral il .11

was not necessary. Not once durillf.the trial was it shown that a local ullioll

'had advocated violence. 'All the rcp,>! I~

of the secret spies introduced by III"defense failed to show a. single instIll( I'where a local union had counseled IiIII'lessness. It was Clearly demonstril i<'''that the Western Federation of Millt'lIlis not. a criminal organization, tholll'.11some individual members may be nillilnals.

NatJlTally, organized Ia:bor throug-holllthe country rejoic'ed at the verdict. Thillwas not because organized labor was Oil

trial and was vindicated, but beC:III~111

organized labor was loth to bclil'I'Ithat one of its representatives could 111 1

guilty of the crimes with.which HaywollIlwas charged. It rejoiced when he IVII

found not guilty after a fair trial.The result of the trial will dou hi In

have a stimulating influence 011 I hpfuture of the Western'. Federatioll IIIMiners, although that future was 11111

dependent on the issue. The best. pltHl1of that is that the membership incrciuwdby 15,000 during the past year, wllilllthe Secretary was languishing ill IIIIdaho prison. The trial will ha VI' II

purifying effect on the organizatioll,While Haywood will remain truc 10 1111principles which he believes and ild,,"ca!es, his experience during the 1'",,1eighteen months has sobered hilii. IIis safe to say that he will heed thc advlll'given him an hour after his acquitt:d 1I1'his' counselor and friend, Mr. 1111111Murphy, who said: "Bil-I, in your 1111111

of triumph be humble.".