The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-07-18
LACK OF MOTIVE is
SHOWN BY EVIDENCE
Arrangements Made for Plea
of Guilty by McNamaras
Before Arrest of Detec-
tive Bert Franklin.
OS ANGELES. Cal, July IL
The original agreement between
/ representatives of labor and

IL representatives of labor and
capital in Los Angeles, by which
the MCNAMARA case wes to be ended
| forever, was disclosed in detail by
Fremont Older, editor Of the San Fran,
cisco Bulletin. who took the stand to-
| day for the defense in the bribery trial
of Clarence 8, Darrow. The introduc~
tion Of this testimony was permitted
| by Judge Hutton on the showing OF
the defense that it would prove lack
of motive on the part Of Darrow tor
the bribing of Juror Lockwood, but
the ruling WAS made only after tho
greater part of the days session had
been consumed by arguments.
The original agreement, as outlined
by Older, contemplated the pleading
Of guilty by James B. Mcnamara and
the fixing of his punishment at life
imprisonment. For this the prosecu-
tion not only was to dismiss all other
cases growing out Of the dynamiting
of the Los Angeles Times, but to de-
stroy all evidence then in possession
of the prosecution. Another clause in
the agreement was to the effect that
representatives of Los Angeles capital
were to recognize the labor unions.
Would Not Consent.
The question had arisen, witness
said, of the unwillingness of District
Attorney Fredericks to consent to the
dismissal of the charge against John
j. Mcnamara, aud it had been agreed
by Mr., Darrow that il the prosecution
insisted upon it, 81. J.' also would
continue the trial.
Just before adjournment, Juror M
f. Williams asked the witness: "Did
you know at that time that the Nc
Namaras were guilty7"
"Well, L had no definite or legal
knowledge that they were. but I as
sumed so, was the reply.
Here Juror L. A. Leavitt broke in:
"What did you mean by throwing
J. J. to the wolvesf" asked the juror,
fDid you recommend that one go free
and the other be punished, knowing
both wero guilty7"
Explains Attitude.
The witness explained his attitude
by saying that he did not believe in
the doctrine Of "an eye for an eye
aud a tooth for tooth - He thought
that justice could be done without TAX
ing any more human life.
Summoned to Los Angeles by tele-
gram from Darrow aud Lincoln Stef.
fens, the magazine writer, Mr. Older
said that upon his arrival here on No
vember 23 of last year, he was ap-
prised by Mr.. Steffens of the plan
upon which the latter was working
with prominent employers and citizens
Of Los Angeles for truce between
labor and capital.
At a subsequent conference with
Darrow and Steffens, the witness said
he was shown memorandum of the
agreement by the author.
Hitch in Plan.
There was hitch in the plan. &C.
cording to Older and Harry Chandler,
son-iu-law of General II. G. Otis,
owner of the Los Angeles Times went
to District Attorney Fredericks to gain
the latter s consent to the agreement.
After this conference, Mr.. Darrow in
formed Older that Fredericks would
not agree to any plan by which j. j,
McNamara could escape punishment.
~ contended," continued tho wit
ness, whose examination was con-
Quoted by Darrow, "that Mr. Darrow
would be misunderstood by labor men
If no agreed to the proposition"
"What was my attitude9" asked
Darrow
"Well, you declared that You were
employed to save the lives of these
men, and that this personal issue
should not be raised. -
The witness said that at this time
he WINS told nothing had been said to
the McNamara brothers about the pro-
posed agreement,
Mr.. Darrow asked the prosecution to |
produce Bert H Franklin and John II. |
Harrington tomorrow morning, but he
did not disclose his reasons for desir |
ing the presence Of the state 8 princi- |
pal witnesses.