Montana news. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1904-191?, 1907-05-16
Tria1
Commenced
Selecting a Jury Consumes Lots of
Time-Large Number of Wit,
nesseS for Prosecution
.u,ar, v.ps,s'n ''''s


tify, for endorsement by the court on
the indictment. The indictments, he
explained, already had upon il all the
names Of witnesses who appeared be.
fore the grand jury. The defense
stated there was no objection on its
part and the court allowed the names
to be fled with the clerk.
Mr.. Hawley explained that there
might be more names to be filed later,
but that his list rs filed was complete
as far as he then knew.
Judge Wood announced that at the
close Of each session Of the court dur.
ing the trial the jury would be re,
tired and the defendant remanded
previous to adjournment and he re.
quested that all attorneys and specta.
tors keep their seats at each session
until the adjournment was announced.
The attorneys for the defense pres
ent were +. +. Richardson, C. S. Oar
row, Edgar Wilson John T. Nugent,
John NJ. Murphy. Fred Miller and
Walter Griffith; attorneys for the
prosecution James II. llawley, W. L
Borah, w. +. Stone, and Owen NJ. Van
Duyn.
About thirty members of the bar
were present.
Twelve jurors from the venire were
called to the box, and the prosecution
began its examination of them.
Z. l.. Ewing was the first man ques
toned. His examination developed
that he had been superintendent of the
Soldiers Home under Steunenherg,
but was afterwards dismissed by him
to make room for some of his political
friends. In questioning them the pro-
seeution was very particular to ask
if the jurors had ever belonged to a
union.
Ayers. a farmer, was asked whether
he took the Appeal, wilshire's Maga-
zine, OF the Miners Magazine; and
then there was some discussion as to
whether these had been sent to him
since it had become known that he was
to be juror. Darrow objected to the
close questioning in regard to the Ap.
peal, saying il was no moment as to
what papers man read. The OBJ
lection was overruled by the judge.
saying he expected to give consider
able latitude as to questioning Ayers
was challenged by the prosecution for
saying he had formed decided opin-
ion. Mr.. Richardson resisted the chalI.
cnge but il was allowed by the Judge.
The majority of the men examined
stated they had formed opinions, and it
was for this reason that most Of them
were dismissed.
The prosecution was very particular
about asking whether the men exam
incd were opposed to capital punish
ment, and whether they were opposed
to the death penalty on circumstantial
evidence.
The venire was made up almost en-
tirely of business men and farmers.
Only one laboring man, or wage
Garner, rather, was examined, and he
had worked ns sort of confidential
man for the Mutual Ditch company for
l5 years.
When Richardson took the jury that
was acceptable to the prosecution the
questioning took new turn. As ev-
cry man took his seat attorneys on
both sides closely examined their books
and records to see what their private
investigation had developed.
Ewing was questioned as to having
held an internal revenue position. 1t
developed that he had been census
taker. The men were all asked as
to whether they were related by bust
ness or otherwise TO the states attor-
neys, or belonged to the same lodge or
church. The suggestion of church in
connection with either Hawley or Bo-
rah was received with loud outlaws in
he court room. The men were ques-
toned closely by both sides as to what
papers they read, and their sources Of
information on the case.
Cathcart was dismissed because he
was opposed to capital punishment.
The defense questioned closely in re-
gard to the feeling on the labor
troubles in the Occur d'Alenes, and the
Western Federation Of Miners and It's
officers; as to the politics of the men,
and whether they were prejudiced
against those Of other parties espec.
tally Of the socialist. They we're ask.