The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-10-19
Given Searching Examination in
Mcnamara Case.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
Judge Has Not Yet Ruled on
Latest Point.
Jury Is Carefully Guarded by
the Officers.

Los Angeles. Oct. 19.=Edward c.
Robinson. a talesman. who saws he Is
| opposed to labor unions and believes
that the Los Angeles Times was blown
up by dynamite, underwent extensive
examination today in the McNamara
trial at the hands of Attorney Le-
compte Davis, who was seeking basis
for challenge for cause. The examin-
alton steadily contested by District
Attorney John ID. Frederick. brought
many rulings from Judge Walter Bord-
well, but counsel and spectators alike
centered their interest in the courts
expected decision in the big issue as
TO whether talesman who believes
the Los Angeles Times was dynamited,
but is unprejudiced regarding the
guilt OF James b. Mcnamara. may or
may not be an acceptable juror so far
as this view is concerned.
No one but the judge knew at tho
opening of court when the ruling
would be made. but its importance in
determining who shall say whether
Mcnamara caused the death of Chas.
J. Haggerty, who was killed IN the
Times disaster, attracted many persons
VINO sat IN the court room patiently
for an hour before court opened. In
cidentally the examination elected
from Attorney Davis the longest Ques-
ton asked thus far. One of the court
stenographers having taken a consid-
cradle part of il. left in the middle
and when the question was ordered
reread, only the last half. taken by
another stenographer. was left in court
and the question had to be put again.
Robinson finally admitted that he
had discussed the matter with his son
and with one neighbor. Previously he
said he had not talked with his son
about the explosion.
Promises to Disregard Prejudices.
IF it were disclosed to you during
the trial that the Times was destI oy-
ed by dynamite and human agency.
would you give any weight at all TO
member of organized labor2"
objection here, however. was over
ruled.
mo" was Robison's answer.
$50. If 1t we're proved that the de-
fendant was a member OF organized
labor you could disregard that fact?"
And you Will do so if chosen as a
YES"
You said yesterday that you had
expressed your views to certain people
on the case, what were these views?"
There was a question in my mind
as to how it was destroyed"
Did you discuss whether IL was
dynamite or gas"
NO"
you said yesterday that you had
a version of it; what was that2"
Simply that I did not know how
it was destroyed"
You had made some effort to as
certain how it was caused? ?"
mo
did you ever associate the destruc-
tion Of the Times with labor unions2"
Il did not"
II gained the impression when you
said yesterday that you and your son
never discussed labor unions that you
also refrained from talking with him
about the disaster because IL might
II
correct?"
Yes"
Didn't Discuss Disaster.
Now, il the question of labor un-
ions in connection with the destruction
Of the Times never entered your
mind. why did you fear to talk with
him about it?"
Il never felt like bringing up the
subject"
II may have
when you did. your son took the
view that labor unions had nothing to
do with it and you took the view that
labor unions did2"
NO; he said If labor unions did do
it. he wished they would catch the
guilty parties"
so the matter of labor unions in
connection with the blowing up OF the
Times was discussed ~
Objection to question was sustained.
why didn't you tell us yesterday
what your son said? You told US you
did not talk to your son about the
Times explosion"
L didn't think it was necessary;
didn't think IL was Of much import
ance."
"Are you Withholding anything
else?"
The district attorney objected that
the question impeached the Jurors We
rGcity. but the court allowed a ques-
ton asking If he had told all OF his