Page 13

Judge O. N. Hilton in the Joe Hill Case

The following excerpts have been taken from the able argument of Judge Hilton
before the Utah Supreme Court. Joe Hill will be executed on October 1 unless enough
pressure is brought to bear on the governor to stay the execution. Every REVIEW
reader should write at once to Governor Spry, Salt Lake City, Utah, denouncing the
infamous procedure of the courts in this case, and demanding that Joe Hill be given
clemency. Do it now.

1st. We do not believe Joseph Hillstrom guilty of the crime for which he has
been convicted.
2nd. We do not believe that he had a fair trial.
3rd. We have learned that the jurors were not selected in the usual way.
4th. The defendant was practically without council when he was on trial for his
life
5th. No motive was shown for the crime for which he was convicted.
6th. The conviction was found upon the flimsiest kind of circumstantial evidence.
Believing these to be the facts, we the undersigned, demand that the death sen-
tence in the case of Joseph Hillstrom be set aside and clemency extended.

The young man in this information named
as the defendant was convicted, as the record
discloses, of murder in the first degree and
sentenced to be shot. He is of more than
ordinary culture and intelligence, converses
fluently and well, although English is not his
native speech; has never in his life been con-
victed of a criminal offense, not even a mis-
demeanor; without a single vicious or bad
habit, not even that of using tobacco, bright,
clean in mind and alert of body he stands now
in this court, as he did before the jury which
condemned him, entitled to every gracious
right and privilege vouchsafed him by the
constitution and laws of this state, which, as I
assert. were for the most part wholly denied
him on trial. and a conviction obtained which
shockingly violates every consideration of rea-
son and humanity.
Assuming that in this state, as in most of
the others where I have had occasion to ap-
pear begore the Supreme Court, that is from
the oral argument that the court receives its
first impression of the case, before proceeding
with a discussion of the errors assigned, it
will aid the court, I feel, to state the salient
features of the case.
I was not present at the trial in the court
below; hence I cannot as fully acquaint the
court with the atmosphere of the trial, as I
could through personal presence.
This disadvantage, however, is fully com-
pensated, from the fact that I am able to take
an impersonal and altogether unprejudiced
view of the case, as my knowledge comes from
a careful study of the abstract in the court
here.
And after a most painstaking study of the
facts as they appear, I feel warranted in say-
ing to this court, and in saying with emphasis,
that every element essential to conviction (1)
identification beyond a reasonable doubt, (2)
proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, (3)
absence of motive, (4) the denial of the sub-
stantive right of personal presence and by
counsel, are so wanting in the case, and the
constitutional safeguards prescribed to assure
a fair, impartial and unprejudiced trial--a trial
that results in conviction upon guilt alone --
have been so utterly disregarded, and that even
this cursory presentation, based as it is solely
on the record, will convince this court that
the verdict cannot stand and the sentence must
be set aside.
Facts of the Case
On the night of January 10, 1914, the de-
ceased, J.S. Morrison, with his two sons, was
in his store, here in the city, engaged in rou-
tine duties of a tradesman. There was evi-
dently an apprehension in the mind of the de-
ceased, for he loaded his revolver (Abs. 86),
placed it in the ice box, where the door had
been removed, and where the gun would be
right at hand, and about ten o'clock two men
came in, exclaiming, "We've got you now,"
and began shooting, firing, it seems, some five
to seven shots, killing J.S. Morrison and his
son Arling Morrison.
Such a tragedy, in the midst of a busy city,
on a prominent street, could have been
prompted by only one motive -- REVENGE.
There must have been hot anger and deadly
wrath moving the assailants to this desperate
deed at such a time and under such a risk.
Naturally every feeling of good citizenship
is alert not only to discover the murderer, but
to visit such a punishment as to deter others
from such an awful crime-- I say an awful
crime, the highest crime known to the law
of nature, and the thing that even the most
primitive society is organized to protect
against.
But, in this crisis, we should never avenge
in hot haste and add to private assassination
the horrors of a judicial murder---for when an
innocent man is convicted and executed the
command "thou shalt do no murder," is de-
liberately broken and crime stalks insolently
along, unwhipped of justice.
Then the duty devolving on this court is,
as I take it, to know to a moral certainty,
that certainty that excludes all reasonable
doubt. the identity of the criminal agent and
to so connect him with the crime that there is
no reasonable doubt of his guilt.

We the undersigned citicens endorse
the above protest
-----------------------------
John Hulsman
Jos Culper Lopez Wash
C.P. Price
WA Nichols
Arvilla M Nichols Port Stanley Wash
Maggie M Culp Lopez Wash
Maude N Rairdon
CD Stedelin Lopez Wash