The Daily Missoulian. [volume] (Missoula, Mont.) 1904-1961, 1913-03-09

balloting and in a short time two
were won over by those who desired
conviction. The jury never at any
time stood II for conviction and one
for acquittal. Foreman Pettingitl,
whose request for Instructions when
the jury first reported shortly after
10 o'clock was construed to that eff
feet, aid that he meant no such thing.
Eight to tour was the nearest the jury
ever came to a decision. he declared.
Darrop received the disagreement
calmly. The stir in the courtroom
that followed the erroneous impress
sion that the jury had stood II to one
had IN a measure prepared him to ex-
rect either a disagreement or a con
~viction, and his only comment at the
end was, Il will continue to fight
Former Judge O. w. Powers, who
was one of Darrow.s counsel, declared
that the disagreement had a]stounded
him.
Il cannot understand it, he said.
THE instructions and the evidence
were all in our favor. The court in
timated as strongly as he could that
the case should be dismissed
Powers then expressed the opinion
that the district attorney would not
dare to bring the case to trial March
81, the date set for retrial by Judge
Conley.
Deputy District Attorney Ford. who
prosecuted barrow, said he would not
try the case again, but made it plain
that he was speaking only for him
self, and that the final decision as to
whether to try Darrow again or dis
miss the Indictment was up to Dis
trict Attorney John D. Frcdericks.
Can Have 1t.
Il understand barrow wants a new
trial. He can have it, said Captain
John D.. Fredericks, district attorney,
after the disagreement of the jury had
been reported to him. II was conf
dent" Fredericks continued, that this
jury would convict him and in ccnse-
quence had not considered the posi-
bility of a new trial again after a dis
agreement"
barrow was bonded at $4,000 under
the Balm indictment. He will remain
At liberty under this bono pending
final disposition of the case.
Fredericks, in commenting further
on the DarroW case, declared that
Darrow's admission on the witness
stand that he had given Guy Bid
dinger, the chicago detective, who
aided in the investigation of the Nc
Namara conspiracy. money, was
enough to cause his disharment as a
lawyer.
81 rnnn,,, c,,I th,f thp h1 " acSHri1.
ton of Los Angeles take action"
Part of Darrow's own address was
responsible for the outcome of the
trial, according to one of the jurors,
who asked that his name be not used.
It. was hat part of DarroW's speech
in which he declared that although
the bomb which destroyed the Times
building killed 30 men, the McNa-
maras were not murderers, but work
ers who believed they We're helping a
great cause. one of DarroW's own as
sociates expressed the same belief.
To Recall Fredericks.
Plans Of labor unions to start IA
movement for the recall of District
; Attorney John d. Fredericks because
Vi 1IIS dlIllltNlt i'N l "'o anu ~
ward Clarence S barrow, the attorney
whose second trial on a jury-briberN
charge ended in disagreement, We're
announced today by A, J. Mooney,
secretary of the Los Angeles county
building trades council. Mooney stated
that the movement is backed not only
BY the organization of which he is sec
rotary, but also by the Los Angeles
county central labor council. He de-
clared that F'redcricks, before his last
| election, had promised "a square deal
to the w~orkingmen,' but that since
the election he had "double-crossed'
them.
"Fredericks' action in forcing the
second trial of Clarence S. barrow
gave impetus to the present move
ment,' said Mr.. Mooney. "Petitions
will he circulated in a few days"