The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1907-05-18

ton to a law passed recently by the leg
islature giving the state ten peremptory
challenges instead OF five, as was the
former practice. The court desired to
hear argument as to whether the statute
applied to the Haywood case. The de-
Tense announced that they held a brief on
the question and the court ordered argu-
ment on the point to proceed at once.
The arguments soon led to another clash
at arms among the opposing attorneys.
Mr.. Hawley said the authorities all held
that laws which simply affected proceed
ure were applicable to cases where the
crime was committed before the enact
ment Of the statute.
Why the Law Was Passed
Mr.. Richardson. for the defense, ad-
mitted the weight of authorities was as
Mr.. HawIey stated. but he claimed that
the law, approved March s, 1907, was I'M
questionabiy passed 10 meet the emer-
gency of the Meyer. Haywood and Petit
bone cases, giving the prosecution ten In
stead OF five peremptory challenges. Tn
der these circumstances, he believed the
case would be considered differently by
the authorities.
Mr.. Hawley resented the inference of
the defense, declaring it was calculated
to prejudice the states case before the
jury.
Judge Wood told Mr.. Richardson that
unless he had some other reason to give
he was ready to ruiz He declared he
would not assume for moment that the
legislature had anything but proper mo-
tives in passing the new law. He con-
Guided by holding that the law applied TO
the case on trial, and the defense would
be allowed ten challenges
The defense noted an exception.
Challenged by Prosecution.
The challenge being with the prosecu-
ton. A. l.. Ewing, the farmer who had
occupied the fcreman's seat since the
first day of the trial. was excused. Mr..
xr-1o ffT-cf ov77tv oA RI AZ
feet of President Roosevelt's ''undesira-
BILE citizens letter. said his sympathies
were always with ''the under dog"
Thomas B. Cess, real estate and insur-
ance agent, was called to replace Ewing.
He said he was originally from Missouri,
and Democrat. He had formed no opin-
ion. and had no prejudices in the matter
whatever. Asked IL he had seen today s
papers, he declared he had not read them.
He was accepted by both sides without
challenge for cause.
Defense Uses Its Rights.
The defense used its second peremptory
challenge against ". W. Bisby, a real
estate and fire insurance broker. at No.
TO- Edward L. Miller, hotelkeeper, who
was called TO replace him.. had a fixeu
opinion and was allowed to co.
J. F. Koelsch. brother of County At
torney Koelsch. was called and excused
after he said he had a suspicion that
the defendant was guilty.
John Fisher, rancher, was put through
thorough examination. He said he had
some prejudice against circumstantiaI ev-
Idence, but IL il was given color by actual
evidence he would consider 1t. Asked by
the defense IL he had any prejudice
against a socialist. Fisher replied that he
did not know much about socialism, but
from what he knew he did not think much
of II.
He was asked If he read today's papers
containing the Orchard Interview, but said
he had not. He read all he saw about the
case, including the presidents letter.
They had no Influence on him. however,
and he felt that after hearing the evil
dence he would know more about the
case than MIR. Roosevelt. Fisher was
accepted by both sides as juror No. 10.
Prosecution Gets Another.
The prosecution then peremptorily chal-
lenged Joel Matthews. a farmer at No. 2,
who was selected late yesterday after
noon.
Amos Bosser, a rancher and Democrat
was excused because of a fixed opinion.
Isaac BedeIl, a farmer, was called to
seat No. ?. and passed by the state as
court adjourned until 10 a. m. tomorrow
Bedell will be examined by the state in
the morning.