OCR Text |
Show THE HAY liS CASE. An Interesting nnd Valttablo Communication. Pitovo. Utah, April 20, 1800. Editor Dkmociiat Your statement of yesterday's Demociiat that you defer de-fer expression of opinion without further fur-ther study if tho Hayes caso Is highly commendable, nnd I would not ventuto to address you If I had not given the mnttor serious thutigtit. I carefully read, nnd nurtlv re-road tho five pages in lust Sunday's Trlbuno, nnd sonio I comments In that and other papers, and I cannot agree with some of tho conclusions that seem to have been formed. I cannot find as much ns ouo fact in nil the flvo pages that Is not un-, tlrely consistent with tho guilt oft Ilnycs. when viewed in the lluht, of tho general opinion of thoso who heard tho evidence at tho trial to tho effect that Hayes wns probably not nlouo in j the deadly acts. I I am at n loss to fully understand why tho article wns published just tho day before tho board of pardons was expected to act upon tho caso, unless it was designed to influence public opinion, opin-ion, and possibly the board in his favor. Thero Is n peculiarity about this application ap-plication for pardon that demands careful care-ful consideration. So far ns I can loam no Juror who sat on tho case Inn been asked to inquire into tho fids supposed to have been newly discovered, hut on tho contrary this vordleo has been harshly criticised, whereus wo in this county, who have wuichcd tho case, know that the Jury wus composed of some nf the fairest, soundest, just mon wn have in the county, and when their verdict was returned it was universally approved except that those who dislike vapltal punishment felt sorry that there wus not a recomendntion for imprisonment imprison-ment for life. 'J he application It seems Includes un uilloavlt to tho effect that John A. Brown, ex-shenll, offered $300 to one Peterson to testify against Hayes; what was that forV It does not affect Hayes' guilt. Why seek to besmirch the character of a gentleman whom wo all know was u just, although energuilo otllcer, nnd would scorn to think for a moment of seeking to con-yiot con-yiot ti man by anything but fair means and by evidence that Is strictly true. The fact that such un nlllduvlt is presented pre-sented so taints tho application that it ought to be carefully scrutiulzcd In all its parts. Why Is the fact made pronilnont that there were only a very few exceptions taken nt the trial? Is it intended to be understood that Hayes' counsel did not properly dufend him. That will not do In re with those who uttiuded tho trial. He wus ably defended, nnd had so fair a trial that his attorney did not Uud It uucessary to tuke many exceptions. It may seem all right to Salt Lako pnpers to clMiuor for the put don of Hayes; In charity wo will excuse them on tho theory that "distance lends on-ohuntment on-ohuntment to their views;" but the p ople of Uinh county have sonio rights which oven Suit Lako uewspapers may sonio day respect. There are two sides to this matter. You uro right, Mr. Editor, to "study thi case," uud if you see as 1 do that it may be truo that "Wright" is guilty, it does not follow that Hayes Is Innocent. Inno-cent. In fact I canuot see how any one who hoard tho trial can have any doubt as yet, at least, of his guilt. It la time lo call a halt of thoso who do not know tho facts adduced at tho trlul. And it is duo the State uud this couuty that the Bldo of the public bo beard, and when the board of pardons act that they be fully advised of all the facts, und If Hayes Is innocent lot blm go free, but not because ho bus got up u one-sided statement und awakens a sentiment in those who know nothing about tho real facts in tho case. Spectator. Ex-Sheriff Brown Objects. In regard to curtain affidavits In the Hr.ycs case, ex-Sheriff Brown of Utah county publishes the following statement state-ment In today's Tribune; Editor Tribune: lu tho Jssuo of your diihy paper of Sunday la -cornice-lion with the history o.tliu Hayes case, as herein eat forth, you pablUb what purported to ho the substnnco of tho affidavit of one L. O. Peterson.ln which my namo was Mentioned, nnd in which I was represented us offering hint tho sum of MOO to testify ngalnst said Hayes at the trial. In justice to myself, my-self, and for tho Information of the public, whoso opinion was evidently sought to he Influenced hy tho state mtnl, I dtii o to siy, and do now say, that tho affidavit as published, in every essential particular Is absolutely falso and groundless. In this connection I also dclro to state that that portion of thn affidavit of ono J. T. Williams, wherein it is represented in substancu that I ob tninod tho history of George H.Wright from a case containing books, sold under un-der execution, is also false nnd untrue., I mil unwilling that either tho public nr tho Stnto board of p inions should bo Imposed upon by filso affidavits or 8tatoiuents niado concerning myself. If requested by the Statu board of pur-dons, pur-dons, or any person Interested, I Hin willing nt uny time io make affidavit to tho facts above set forth. Respectfully yours, John A. Hnowx, Ex-Sheriff Utah County. Pnovo, Utah, April 21, 1890. I In conversation with Tub Demo-chat Demo-chat man J. T. Williams, now deputy sheriff of Utnh county, today reiterates reiter-ates his assertions in tho affidavit published pub-lished In the Tribuuo Inst Sunday. |