The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-07-30

as it had not been supposed such a
conclusion would be reached, even the
defense, according to the best infor-
nation obtainable hoping for nothing
more than a hung jury.
but the case has been decided by
an Idaho jury under the facts as they
! found them and the law as laid down
by the court and it is the duty of all
as in all cases fairly and fully sub
mitted to our constituted tribunals of
justice to accept the result in that
| spirit of loyalty to our courts which is
a necessary attitude of mind on the
| part of citizens of the republic il our
rights are to be protected and peace
and order and good will are to reign -
| The Evening Capital-News says:
+ There was bound to be keen disap-
pointrnent whatever the verdict may
have been Rut the jury which tried the
case was one whose honesty. integrity.
ability and good citizenship no one
doubted, and now that they have ex-
pressed themselves it will come with as
little grace on the part of those whose
minds were made up to the contrary
verdict. to complain Of their decision as
it would for those who are now pleased
to have denounced the verdict had it
been tie other way.
There is but one thing to do and this
is to let the Haywood case die in the
public mind as quickly as possible. Ia
the mind of some it will linger as a
dream-a terrible nightmare in the body
polite of the state. In the minds OF
others it must remain as a living lie to
the arguments and doctrines of that pu-
iitical school which teaches the doctrine
of discomfort.
1.-The law of Idaho will always be found
supreme and though the murder of
Frank Steunenberg is as yet unavenged
life and property within boundaries OF
this state will be found as safe and as
sacred as elsewhere on the surface Of
the globe and the state of Idaho will al
ways be found willing and able to act
with fairness and impartiality, the law
abiding will be amply protected and the
violators of law will be suitably pun
ished.'
The Jurors in tine case continue public
ly to discuss the part they played in ar
irving at verdict. Samuel D. Gilman
the last man to vote for acquittal, said:
There has been published one state
ment that want to correct. One of the
jurors is quoted as saying that the jury
had to spend a long, disagreeable and
tiresome night in order to convince two
Jurors that the defendant was not gull
ty. 1 want to say that they never did
convince us. I believed that he was
guilty and I still think he is guilty ana
I want the world to know 1t. simply
acquiesced in the verdict of acquittal
because felt that could not do other
wise after I found the entire eleven 9TH
er jurors consenting to the verdict, but
not because I was convinced that It was
right Kindly make the correction Tor
me-"
A. P. Burns, juror No. II, said:
II was firmly convinced when we left
the court room that the first ballot
would show a vote for conviction. I still
retain the belief that Haywood was
guilty and only changed my vote be-
cause it struck me that If the evidence
presented left eight men unconvinced
of the guilt of the defendant, 1t would
be impossible to get IL men in another
trial. and that It would be better to
settle the question by acquiescing In
their decision"