Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-06-03

l Though the proceedings in the trial
 of the eight strikers in the superior
 court yesterday grew yly moaotoaous ! towards the time to adjourn the ex- l tremely large audience never seemed l to weary The weary process of chal l lenging jury panel of fifty was new l to the crowd and very interesting evi- l dently. One by one the jurors took l the stand, responded to questions as l to whether or not they opposed or ia 1 vored labor organizations, and if they l did, what were their reasons. The
 responses were peculiar. Some of them l had no prejudice against unions, but | did not quite agree with their meth
 ods. Some had no objection to the
 principles of such societies, but did moi | like the results. Some maintained
 that workingmen had as much right
 to organize as any other body or class l of men, but they had received inlpres l sions Oh the labor question which they ! thought would not entitle them to sit l on the case. One man, builder II | Seymour, had no objection to labor uii l ions, though not long ago he experi-
 enced some trouble on their account l Another juror said he would be in l clined to favor the evidence of a non l union man against that of a unior l man. Mostly, all of the jurors arc | farmers. Men whom the average per son would think would be acceptable | to the defense were excused by the de fense. Once or twice juror seemed so much in doubt as to his feelings or l the labor question and on union mer ] that the court deemed it advisable tc l question him. Each prisoner is en- l titled to four challenges. The first 1 four were 1aRen on behalf of Winne l gar, the second on behalf of Marsh | the third on behalf of Willis Vande
 mark, the following four for his broth CT and so on The state excused as
 many as did the defense and many l were also excused by the court. Al 5:15 o'clock business was suspended
 and at that time nine jurors had been selected.
 Business was resumed this morning with four jurors to be drawn. Everett B. Clark of Orange,a seed grower and dealer, one of the selected nine Jurors, having been excused by the court Be fore business was suspended last even ing Judge Thayer and the attorneys held a consultation and the court or dered another panel of thirty more jurors from the towns that were not al ready drawn from except Waterbury. This drawing took place with all possi- ble dispatch. Clerk Marsh losing no time in getting to the superior court in New Haven. The following were drawn and che warrants issued to a staff of constab1es in waiting. that the jurors could be summoned in time to be on hand ttis morning. The fol- loiwng Jurors were drawn: New Ha- ven, John Rembert, Charles W. Ross, JohR F. Shanley, Orton A. Rose, Carl Romberg; Derby, Benjamin L. Leon ard Moves D. Baldwin, Terrence s. man: Ansonia, Eli H. Wakelee. Wilbur F. Page, Harrison c. Miles, Albion H. Vandercook, Harrison B Tolles; Bran- ford, John B. Russell. T.. Merriam, John A. Greenwell, Taylor Linsley, Bert Stevens; Wolcott, Frederick Am drefWs, Francis E Cole, Homer Atkins: East Haven. Frank B. Hitchcock, Levi l.. Bradley, Samuel F. Bradley, O. How ard Stepp; Beacon Falls. Matthew H. Tttley,- George T. Clark, John L. Lines.
 Immediately upon court opening, MT Kennedy filed challenge against the new jury panel. which is more positive and stronger than that which ha filed yesterday. Following is the challenge:
 Tn the above entitled cause the de- fendants challenge the array of thirty jurors drawn June ?. 1903. to appear June 3. 1903, for jury duty in the above entitled cause, because.
 1. Said jurors were drawn on June ? 1903, at about 8 o'clock in the even ing of said day by Samuel T. Marsh, Esq, in the presence of Albert F. Dun- ham, Esq, the sheriff of the county.
 2. That the names of the jurors so drawn were shown to and commJ1ni- cated to William H. Williams. Esq, at torney for the state, who prosecutes the defendants, although the said Marsh refused to show the names of said jurors So drawn or to communi- cate any information as to the jurors so drawn to the attorneys for the de fendants immediately after they were drawn.
 B. The names of the jurors so drawn were not communicated to the defend ants counsel until after o'clock in the forenoon on June 3. 1903, by the said Clerk Marsh.
 4. The said Clerk Marsh was re quested by the attorneys for the de- fendants to allow them the same op- portunities which the states attorney should be granted as to the jurols drawn, but he neglected and refused to impart the same information to the defendants which he imparted to the states attorney, and he imparted to the states attorney the names and the residences of the jurors so drawn, and Sheriff Dunhlam also inparted the names and residences of the jurors so drawn to States Attorney Williams, and for this reason there was partiality and prejudice shown by the officers of this court in drawing, summoning and making return in reference to said panel of thirty jurors.
 B. For the reasons above mentioned and the notoriety of the transaction of which the accused are charged, and the recent drawing and sunlmoning of said jurors, the defendants have been una Fble to make any proper inquiries as to MJa rs,Ta If aa fiGnss of iI,,.o,.a ,a