New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-10-14
barrow Makes Protest.

clarence :. Da~row, chief 81 counsel Tor
the defence. made the argument against
accepting Nelson as a juror. after he had
been challenged on grounds OF bias, earlier
i7 tie day.
no section Of the criminal code can
change 4 mans constitutional rights was
his opening statement. A defendant must
no. tried by a jury. not by ratification
meeting. Never before have I seen an Of
foa- ~ the state asking the defence 10
lake Juror who has sworn that he has
hold an opinion for months as 10 the de-
fe-darts guilt or innocence. and that IT
would take strong evidence to remove that
opinion"
The Legs stature in cnactnS the Pena.
code. added Mr.. Darrow, perhaps thought
% take away some OF the safeguards that
s.--ourd ufe." and no remarked:
81 presume we could convince the state s
attorney here II we got proof enough
Hs .rrmated that a ruling adverse TO the
Contention regarding Nelson would be con-
ederad ground for appeal and It was upon
'H.s point that Mr. Horton in his address
-,a.-lred the court.
40 court ~ appeal" he said. would
ever undertake 20 investigate such a case
unless there was great
~ DON'T think the court cares 10 consider
t-e possible action ~ court Of review.
Interrupted Judge Bordven. and all counsel
seemed 20 agree.
Mcnamara throughout tho afternoon sat
against the rail, caspi0g his knees with
Die hands and looking steadily at his
counsel
Talesman Under Examination.
10 was 1919 O'Clock when court convened.
r s. Poruenbush was selected 10 mn the
vacancy ,r tho panel District Attorney
r--ge-.cLr informed the court tnat he
would BIKE % withdraw hie objection 20 the
Unanswered question directed 20 Z. r. Mel
son or Wednesday. The question was.
"W.tr reference to tho officers and men
who dl-ec, tho mama cement If the affairs
30 labor unions do yol believe that the
great majority of them Gro lawless mem
Ls~o7ute Davis ~ once asked the ques-
zion ~ N- Nelson. who replied. OF do not
h1terc can answer that question. I do
DOT know ar,r hing about the officers.
'Wlr what Is YOUR belief about them
curr know anything @p"r' them
Sou seem f0 hesitate before ansN crlh-.
raEs r"l any doubt
Won realize tho defendant rs on trial for
matter That concerns labor ani-aiI'Hh
an sou have mo- opinion amour ''' .,le
N-ifr nd rho officers being 'a"I1SS mon
"A great many arc and g. great man!
About half and halt. ren"r
could NOT draw that line.
~ rol Thought q great majority you
= ny mind nss made w..
Don't you know, Mr. \e'scn. naf on
are rrefIj..el aralns. officers Of the labor
Unions
N. r should say rct co."
Th. s,ar. objected 20 tne limo ~ qHes-
fonlr- as assuming that fn. r'uire71"'
knsW that r1e defendant was member Of
'-zan'zed labor and said that no e'l"fn''
'r proct 20 that effect had been INTRODUCED.
TO you DENY that t1e defendant IS.
asked SIR barrow.
Nc arc not giving tosum. ms, an
.Nfred - Ray Horton. Of counsel Tor me
rate. or want 90 state I'm open court
so'd Mr. barrow quickly, that TINS u,-
''noan- b. member II organized labor.
BIZ. Davis continued:
i ,ou we're q member OF organized Ia
aNQ iuu were 81 defendant, "obi" !v"
mar O. lurvman iu the box sutL a"
Ls'i Guild give tAc defendant al. 4-N-
There Is uo evidence in the ease on the
r'i ~ unions So Tar as ] can see.
H 'ther words. you have such an on,
avas % would take erldenee 10 reverse
3D.. Nelson admitted tlat TO- Rad r'a1
-e"sio.er reports OF the case.
'A ygu read q. j.. McMaulrals test,
81. q. i're tho grand jury, a. putiai4e"
NJ 10. Angeles FSam.ncr ~
f..-5io 'H7h ! ever have. b"t ! nave
b..l, r. upon the statement that you have
1.t mat 49, g. NetfauIE4I gave DflH