The Anderson daily intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson, S.C.) 1914-1915, 1915-03-03

One of the most interesting incl
dents of the forenoon session of Se5urt
was the drawing of the jury to sit in
Judgment upon the six men who are
on trial. Contrary Co general expec-
tatioIs. little time was required to
select the IL men who are to decide
the fate OF the defendants. The pro-
cess OF empanelling the Jury reuuir-
ed but an hours time. but Il took the
thirty-sixth man or the vcnire TO COM
plete the panel
AT the request Of the solicitor, the
Jurors were sworn upon their voir
dire. or the SO names drawn out of
the box. 13 were objected to as Jurors
Dy the defense ana five by the State.
while six were stood aside by the
cnurt for cause. An Interesting phase
OF the examination OF the Jurors was
the question pr6p8unded in several
instances by the soficitor as to wheth-
CT the juror would convict n white
man OF lynching a negro, if I'm his
Judgment the testimony showed that
there was no reasonable doubt as to
the guilt of the. accused. -
The defense objected to this onea-
tionY being put to the Jurors because
Of the form Of the Interrogation. as
serting that. no such offense as pIynch-
Ing" was to be found in the statutes
and that the iisfeRdants were not on,
trial for ommitttng ANY such ofYense
as that. The court oSerrulea the oh
lection, giving as hts grounds for so
doing that IL juror answered that
he would not. convict a white man oi
lynchfng negro, NO matter how con-
vincing the evidence. IL showed that
the Juror was not without bias, Il, i;;,,,
ease upon which be- Eoaia he ca!,s<;
upon to try. -
OF the So talishiitesaa drawn for ,tury
duty but two made the unqualified
statement that they would not convict
q white man OF lynehing a, negro.
They were promptIy stood aside by
the court. In another instance or two
the falismen were not very emphatic
In their opinion on this point, and
were excused by the State. The de-
Tense rejected several Jurors who stat.
ed that they would not convict white
man OF lynching negro. but as to
whether the objections 70 the Jurors
we're made solely on this point, II is
not known. At any rate. they accept,
ed three or more jurors who stated
that they would convict a white man
OF lynchinR a negro, provided the
testimony showed there was no reas-
enable doubt as toshis guilt u,
The talismen summoned for SER.
vice on this Jury and the disposition
made of each one. drawn sre as fol-
lows. Ys5 :. x !
]. c. Seaborn, accepted. 80 81
w. r. Hutchinson, rejected by de-
IA c. Bentley. ptated In reply. 10
question by solicitor with reference
to his views on lynehing that. ne would
convict a white man OF iynchIng a
negro. provided he thought the white
man guilty. Rejected By tb a defer
@. E. DnBose. asked same question
as to views on lynching and 4 gave
same answer. Rejected by defense.
u. c. Burns. asked same question
as to lynching; gave same answers;
accepted. q
], A. Durham. rejected by State.
y. J.. Marrett. s.Sod aside by court
as he was related within sixth degree
to one Of the defendants. 8
II. b. Owens, rejected by defense.
J, G. Lee. stood aside " court as he
was over the constitStionei age limit.
j. T. Walter, accepted. 8
Otto Shamaksr, rejected by defense.
u A. Smith, asked yiews ON lynch
question and replied he would con-
sict rejected by defense.
7. G. Bibb, asked as 10 lynch ques-S
ZION and gave same reply; rejected
by Sthte. l5s- -.
w T. Burton. accepted. q
nj 7 Brown, accented.
= A. II. Adams. asked siews ON iynnh-
ing and gave same answer that he
would convict. Rejected by defense.
u. D. Bright.lauestioaed as IS views
on lynch question:: replied that he
would not conyict q Nlzita fsitzn of
lynching negro; stood aside by
court. 3
q. L. Barker replied that he would
senyict Tor lynchins; accepted 5,
Z Elins Woodall acesptesi.
III. J. Sly. rejected BY defense:
G. W. bylas, replied he would con-
yiet for lynching. Reiected BY state.
: a. O. M3rriss. stood aside on &C.
count OF age.
u. 3. Lucas. resected ny defense.
Joe w. Davis. renliesi fiat ~, San,,t;l