ALTGELD S REASONS FOR PARDONING
not being a Socialist, Communist or Anarchist; but affiant has an interest as
a citizen, in the due administration of the law, and that no injustice should
be done under judicial procedure, and believes that jurors should not be
selected with reference to their knowTn views or prejudices. Affiant further
says that his personal relations with said Ryce were at said time, and for
many years theretofore had been most friendly and even intimate, and that
affiant is not prompted by any ill will toward anyone in making this affidavit,
but solely by a sense of duty and a conviction of what is due to justice.
Affiant further says, that about the beginning of October, 1886, when the
motion for a new trial was being argued in said cases before Judge Gary, and
when, as he was informed, application was made before Judge Gary for leave
to examine affiant in open court, touching the matters above stated, this affiant went, upon request of State's Attorney Grinnel, to his office during the
noon recess of the court, and there held an interview with said Grinnell, Mr.
Ingham and said Ryce, in the presence of several other persons, including
some police officers, where affiant repeated substantially the matters above
stated, and the said Ryce did not deny affiant's statements, and affiant said
he would have to testify thereto if summoned as a witness, but had refused to
make an affidavit thereto, and affiant was then and there asked and urged to
persist in his refusal and to make no affidavit. And affiant further saith not.
Otis S. Favor.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of November, A. D. 1887.
Notorary Public in and for said County.
So far as shown no one connected with the State's attorney's office has
ever denied the statements of Mr. Favor, as to what took place in that office,
although his affidavit was made in November, 1887.
As to Bailiff Ryce, it appears that he has made an affidavit in which he
denies that he made the statements sworn to by Mr. Favor, but unfortunately
for him, the record of the trial is against him, for it shows conclusively that
he summoned only the class of men mentioned in Mr. Favor's affidavit. According to the record, 981 men were examined as to their qualifications as
jurors, and most of them were either employers, or men who had been pointed
out to the bailiff by their employer. The following, taken from the original
record of tbe trial, are fair specimens of the answers of nearly all the jurors,
except that in the following cases the court succeeded in getting the jurors to
say that they believed they could try the case fairly notwithstanding their
EXAMINATION OF JURORS.
William Neil, a manufacturer, was examined at length; stated that he
had heard and read about the Haymarket trouble, and believed enough of
what he had so heard and read to form an opinion as to the guilt of the defendants, which he still entertained; that he had expressed said opinion, and
then he added : "It would take pretty strong evidence to remove the impression that I now have. I could not dismiss it from my mind; could not lay it
altogether aside during the trial. I believe my present opinion, based upon
what I have heard and read, would accompany me through the trial, and