Tacoma Opium Trial: An Accomplice’s Testimony Threatens W. H. Horr

TACOMA, July 27.—[Special.]—The sensation in the Horr smuggling trial today was the witness introduced by the government in the person of Guy, an accomplice of W. H. Horr. Guy was indicted by the grand jury before Horr was, and it now turns out from the evidence that they claim he had been in the employ of Horr, at Portland, to purchase opium for him and sell it on commission. He says he paid $4 a pound and his expenses for doing the business. He had taken down a twenty-pound package and received $10 from a Chinaman located at 14½ Second Street, in that city. Next he went out with a package of five pounds, and was arrested with the same in his possession.

Judge Hanford held that he would not charge the jury to convict Guy as an accomplice on the testimony of other accomplices, but he added: “There is other evidence here.” The government introduced the sister of a woman who swears she saw Guy go into Horr’s house empty-handed and later carry a small package wrapped in a newspaper. This package Guy says was opium to sell to Horr at Portland.

The defendant considered this pretty corroborative evidence, but finally the case was submitted to the jury for argument, and the court adjourned until 10 a.m. to-morrow, after Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Roberts had concluded his statement to the jury.

The government’s attorneys held that in some cases, such as the one under consideration, the court should charge the jury to weigh the evidence of the accomplice, who is the principal witness for the prosecution. Besides, it was argued that if it was accepted that Guy was an accomplice, Horr would be equally guilty. It is expected that Horr will fight the case on appeal, should he be convicted. Guy has not yet been sentenced. He pleaded guilty to the charge of smuggling. Inasmuch as he had not been imprisoned, and had made his statement implicating Horr, additional weight should be given to his story. Guy stated for himself that he was summoned before the grand jury and simply made a true statement of the facts.

In moving for a non-suit, which was denied, Mr. Lewis argued that the McKinley bill left no penalty for opium smuggling. The court was of the opinion that such could not have been the intention of Congress. It is claimed on Horr’s behalf that only corroborative evidence was presented by Mrs. Ward and her husband, who, it is claimed, are interested in the informer’s fee. Neither Horr nor any of his seven witnesses was put on the stand.