The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1893-07-12

WY, we nave Talked dDOuU IL Unorc
a great many times and l have al
ways expressed my opinion. 1 believe
achdt 1 haze read an the papers; I belieue
that the parties are guilty. acoa.ld try to
go by the eridence, but IN this case 1t ec0,ald
be d,cfal hard sCork for me to do 1t.
He was challenged a second time
on the ground of being prejudiced;
was then again taken in hand by the
court and examined at length, and
finally again said he believed he
could try the case fairly on the evil
dence, when the challenge for cause
was overruled for the second time.
FL. N. Smith, hardware merchant,
stated among other things that he
was prejudiced and had quite a de-
cided opinion as to the guilt or inno-
cence of the defendants, that he had
expressed his opinion and still enter
taided it, and candidly stated that he
was afraid he would listen little
more attentively to the testimony
which concurred with his opinion
than the testimony on the other side;
that some of the policemen injured
were personal friends of his. He was
asked these question:
q. That is, you would be willing to
have your opinion strengthened and
hate very much to have it dissolved?
A. I would.
@. Under these circumstances do you
think that yOu could render a fair and I'M
partial uerdict?
4. don't think could.
9. You think you ecoe.ld be prejudicedg
A. think I acOatld be because MAJ feel
aotgs are gerry bitter.
Q. Would yoatr prejudice IN any soay
influence yoat IN coming at an opinion, IN,
drriving at q uerdicts
A. / think it would.
He was challenged on the ground
of being prejudiced, was interrogated
at length by the court, and was
brought to say he believed he could
try the case fairly on the evidence
produced in court. Then the chal-
lenge was Overruled."
1t is not a question whether the
doctrines preached by the defendants
were right or wrong, pardonable or
damnable, but simply whether it was
fair to force men to be tried by such
jurors. The judge plead with the
citizens summoned, man after man,
to say he could try the case on evil
dence, so that he might override the
"challenge for cause" and force the
defendants to use and exhaust their
right of general challenge, and thus
finally leave them defenseless against
any kind of jurymen.
Rush Harrison, in the silk depart
ment of Edison Keith & Co., was ex-
amined at length; stated that he had
deep-rOoted conviction as to the
guilt or innocence of the defendants.
He said:
1t would have considerable weight
with me if selected as juror. It is
pretty deep-rOOted, that opinion is,
and it would take large prepOnder-
ance of evidence to remove it; it
would require the preponderance Of
evidence to remove the opinion now
possess. I feel like every other good
citizen does. 1 feel that these men
are guilty; we don't know which; we
have formed this opinion by general
reports from the newspapers. Now,
with that feeling, it would take
some very positive evidence to make
me think these men were not guilty
if should acquit them; that is, what
l mean"
This man was challenged for cause;
but the judge took him in hand and
finally overruled the challenges! And
this in the United States of America
in the 10th century,
Whole columns are devoted to
similar cases. The governor adds:
These examinations are fair speci-
mems of all of them, and show con-
clusively that Bailiff Ryce carried
out the threat that Mr.. Favor swears
to. Nearly every juror called stated
that he had read and talked about
the matter and believed what he had
heard and read, and had formed and
expressed an opinion, and still held
it, as to the guilt or innocence of the
defendants; that that prejudice was
deep-rOOted and that it would require
evidence to remove that prejudice.
A great many said that they had
been pointed out to the bailiff by
their employers to be summoned as
jurors. Many stated frankly that
they believed the defendants to be
guilty, and would convict unless
their opinions were overcome by
strong proofs, and almost everyone
after having made these statements
was examined by the court in man
ner to force him to say that he would
try the case fairly upon the evidence
produced in court, and whenever he
was brought to the point he was
then held to be a competent juror,
and the defendants were obliged to
exhaust their challenges on men who
declared in open court that they
were prejudiced and believed the de-
PENDANTS to be guilty.
NOT FREE FROM PREJUDICE.
The twelve jurors whom the de-
PENDANTS were finally forced to ac-
cept, after their challenges were ex-
hauSted, were of the same general
character as the others, and a num-
Der of them stated candidly that
they were so prejudiced that they
could not try the case fairly. but
each, when examined by the court,
was finally induced to say that he be-
lieved he could try the case fairly up
on the evidence that was produced in
court alone. For example, Theodore
Denker, one of the twelve, said:
Am shipping clerk for Henry w.
King & Co. have read and talked
about the haymarket tragedy and