The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1893-07-19
AN OBJECT LESSON.
How Popular Intolerance Packs
JurieS and Sends men to the
GallOWS.
The Dangerous Power of the
Courts and the Press.

We want it clearly understood that
we have no sympathy with Anar-
chism. 1t is an attempt to overthrow
all government; while the peoples
party seeks to extend the powers of
government, for the benefit of the
people. Ana,chism could only find
lOdgment in brains driven to mad
ness by old-world oppression and
wretchedness. There is no place for
it in these United States. and will
not be, we trust, ever in the future.
Governor Altgold quotes the de-
cision of the Supreme court of Illi-
nois, in the Cronin case. in which
the courts said:
1t is difficult to see how, after a
juror has avowed fixed and settled
opinion as to the prisoners guilt, a
court can be legally satisfied of the
truth of his answer that he can rem
der fair impartial verdict, or find
therefrom that he has the qualifica-
tion OF impartiality, as required by
the Constitution. Under
such circumstance it is idle to in
quire of the jurors whether they can
return just and impartial verdicts.
The more clear and positive were
their impressions of guilt. the more
certain they may be that they can
act impartially in condemning the
guilty party. They go into the box
in state of mind that is we'll cal
culated to give color of guilt to all
the evidence, and if the accused es-
capes conviction it will not be be-
cause the evidence has not estab-
lished guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, but because an accused party
condemned in advance, and called
upon to eXculpate himself before a
prejudiced tribunal, has succeeded in
doing so. \ To try a cause by
such jury is to authorize men who
state that they will lean in their
finding against one of the parties,
unjustly to determine the rights of
others, and it would be no difficult
task to perdict even before the evi-
dence was heard the verdict that
would be rendered. Nor can it be
said that instructions from the court
would correct the bias of the jurors
who swear they incline in favor of
one of the litigants.
The theory seemed to be that If q juror
could in any ao0y be bro,lqht to ans,cer
h0t he could sat as ON impartial Juror,
that declaration Of itself rendered hin,
competent. Such q uieao, If 1t acos enter
tanned, aUds q total misconception of the
luaU. X X
The governor further says:
No matter what the defendants
were charged with they were enti-
tied to fair trial, and no greater
danger could possibly threaten our
institutions than to have the courts
of justice run wild or give way to
popular clamOr, and when the trial
Judge in this case ruled that relatiue
Of one of the men eU7,O aUds killed au0s q
competent juror and that after the
man had candidly stated that he was
deeply prejudiced and that his re-
latiOnship caused him to feel more
strongly than he otherwise might,
and when in scores of instances he
ruled that men who candidly declared
that they believed the defendants to
be guilty; that this was a deep con-
viction and would influence their
verdict and that it would require
strong evidence to convince them
that the defendants were Innocent;
when in all these instances the trial
Judge ruled that these men were COM
petent jurors, simply because they
had, under his adrOit manipulation,
been led to say that they believed
they could try the case fairly on the
evidence, then the proceedings lost
all sem hi q ncQ Of y fair trial
And again the governor says:
The Judge certainly told the truth
when he stated that this case was
without precedent, and that no ex-
ample could be found in the law
books to sustain the law as above
laid down. For, in all the centuries
during which government has been
maintained among men, and crime
has been punished, no Judge in a
civilized country had ever laid down
such rule before. The petitioners
claim that it was laid down in this
case simply because the prosecution,
not having discovered the real Grim
inal, would otherwise not have been
able to convict anybody; that this
course was then taken to appeaSe the
fury of the public; and that the judg-
ment was allowed to stand for the
same reason. I will not discuss this.
But taking the law as above laid
down, it was necessary under it to
prove, and that beyond reasonable
doubt, that the person committing
the violent deed had at least heard
or read the advice given to the
masses, for until he either heard or
read it he did not receive it, and if
he did not receive it, he did not COM
nit the violent act in pursuance Of
that advice, and it is here that the
case for the state fails; with all it's
apparent eagerness to force convic-
tion in court, and his efforts in de-
Tending his course since the trial,
the Judge, speaking on this point in
his magazine article, makes this
statement: 1T is probably true that
Rudolph Schnaubelt threw the
bomb," which statement is mere
surmise and is all that is known
about it, and is certainly not suffi-
cient to convict eight men on. In
fact, until the State proves from
whose hands the bomb came, it is
impossible to show any connection
5.a Is