OCR Text |
Show THE HAYES CASE. Pcrhup wo may ln p inioned fnrngiln reterrlnif to this celebrMted ensn. Our mih repsnn for doing fo 1 the iinjnner in which on.- former stale uent wim received re-ceived li.v the mujortty of Hie pres. nnd a very Mitall p' rcenliujo of the people who know iiuylliliijr iihntit the case. The nppllcutloii of Hurry Ilayin for pardnu for he I'eltcnn Toltit tuiinleis conies up befi'lo the Slnto boiird of pardons tiexi Suttitday, Mny (lib In this roiii'ccMdn we may i-ay llmi thu pepple of TJiati cthinfy, who die most In eietted. are enililed to protection from this I inn nl and that the people of Utah cniiiiiv, who me most eguiz-tiit eguiz-tiit of i hit fiics of the Pelican Point .niirders, do not favor the pntilon of Hayes. Why? Hcauso IIaye wiir convlcleil on the slrottgest possiltlu vl-dencu vl-dencu to lio a ili-pperulo murderer, and nnthliig has slneu beuu prtsent.ed to prove his iiiuncHhcn. We believe the people are enililed tr. tlil protection and should receive It. Now tt few woids In'regtiril (o the aspect or sfiniu of the Stain papers upon this question. Moat or iheiu wem lo follow t he Suit Inke Herald anil Tribune, like n puck of bounds nficr n lender, and yet neither paper h-is deduced a luteal conclusion JusMfvlnit II tyes' relent"-, h. I only ba'rt supposition, based on nfll-davits nfll-davits ImpllC'itlng Wrlubt. Wo mny sav Hint wn expected hi ore the nfll-iliivlisin nfll-iliivlisin regaid to Wright wpro miidc public, i hat they would oxonerntu Hayes. They bill to do so. The most they can honestly bo said lo do, In to Imp Icuie Wright, Sonio of thu press cniiitu tits of thu Slalo ,ljvo been amusilig. One chiri:e I lint The Utah County Ukmocuat opposes the par-don par-don of Hayes became we deslro to vindicate vin-dicate Democrat olllelnls. Why. bless ynlirsoul, tirother, tlie preient nlllclals of Utah county , nru Di-iuoctntlu the same us t ho fni mer. We curtiilulv do not wiiut. to."vlndlcuto" nan mid dls-Imragu dls-Imragu the other, or vice versa. Thu fuel 1, all wu iloniitml Is Justlco to Hayes, and to iho people, und to the law. Another paper, w'n won't nainu lUgutssiipreinely ridiculous. It says tlmt the present evidence against Wright Is ns strong ai tbo former evl-deueu evl-deueu against llnyes. cnnsequeully Hates must be Innocent and hluuild hu released. What r.itl Soiuo pooplu lay grunt stress .'in thu Peierson nlll'l.iviL now In the hnuils of I lie bout d of pardons par-dons nnd condemn In round terms ex-SlieillT ex-SlieillT Drown of Utah county on the string h or that aliened $300 offer for evidence to convict Huyes. Now, wu don't bellcyu that Peterson ntllduvU Is true. Do on? Sherltr Slorrs says be lielives It ls.it Ho and that Poletsou can hu coiivlut. d oi peijury. What do you think of that, you that nru howling about our dcrouso of "fotmer Denm emtio olllcmls"? 'u bellevu ihut Sheriff Storrs is doing all tlmt mortal man, directed by u clear brain uud honst eonvietlims, can do to clear up thu Pcllcnii Point murder mystery. That hu will succeed, wu believe. That ha lias yid succeeded, wu do uot bolluve. Wo have no personal Interest la this iimtter except as a citizen of Utah eon my and of the cointiiim.v. alth of Utah, and wedcslro that only justice Itu done. Tbo local Trlbunn corru-xpurtdetit corru-xpurtdetit recuntly Infers that wu arm-g arm-g itu too much to ritrselr In tbiscusu anil hiive no right to dicuuu to.tlie lomd of pardons. Perhaps tbo borird uf pardons knows mure than we do;pnr Imps .hoy uio cool hefted mid a ow to dec slot), wo hope so, but ut least as n citizen wo have the right to demand uf thu board pfipartlotjs protection fjtu covleted criminals and wo Uo dctuund It In the rjsme of tho people pf this couoty. SeDtlBieat'caay be all right; . ii II . ,t .It Is n terrtliJi' Jhlnir .to Juc'ircjiritio n hilnmn beliio for life when he, U Innn-CP"i. Innn-CP"i. I tit lltive wm pr-'Ven riiII'v ''be-vond ''be-vond tbo periidven'ttre of a'abmht." nnd until he Is proven Innocent should remain behind ibe bars, fie hnd fair mid honest trial and hl Jodiro wns honest nnd Incllm d to bp nierejful, yet. h wns proven fftillty, und we' beilevo wn triilltv The fact still remains Hint ni'lfher Jintgn, Jmy. pro'ccutnr or nr-resting nr-resting oftlcer hnv slgeed his petition for reloiio. Whv? Ilirniie Hmv sttH believe him gitllly, 8. It. Thurmnn led tin- proeciltinri In the Ilnyrs cisn. nnt from nersoiinl prejudice, but lis n pub-lie pub-lie duty. He today in firmly believes Haves guilty ns on Hie dav the Jury relumed their verdict. Yet. ho Iris prolmlily exnnOned the evidence mro cirefnlly Minn any other nun in Utib. mid wlilt ul. lenst ns dlspnsionito a mind It ls trim Hint. Hie ; i ill I n v 1 1 now before thpbonrd Implicate Wr'ghl, luit'litti" p'spect. do they exonernte Huyes. Tin' theory of the priwefutlnn l. the tnsl was that Tlnyes hnd nn nc-complice, nc-complice, nnd the strnngsi efforts of he Stnte were dlrcc'ed toward the discovery dis-covery of that iccoiupllcn. Thet It wns Wright Is nuwt. possible mid probable, but if so, Haves l -is guilty ns thouirh he neled nlnnn. Impulsn should not uovern such mailer. It will not do to ' (1 v off on a tnnirent;' tho evidence aunlnst Hnves Is 'ilmost uholuto even with Wrluht. Lt Wrltfht I'O found and the case re-opened und fully anal-yz'-il, but In the m antlnie let Have lie kept where be belongs, behind tint burs ns a crlmlnnl convicted of the highest pncslble ( rlnin nirnliin humanity human-ity and the coinnionw ahh, j |