ALTGELD'S REASONS FOR PARDONING
was equally balanced, would you dicide one way or the other in accordance
with that opinion or your prejudice?
A. If the testimony was equally balanced I should hold my present
Q. Assuming that your present opinion is, that you believe the defendants guilty, would you believe your present opinion would warrant you in
A. I presume it would.
Q. Well, you believe it would; that is your present belief, is it?
A. Yes, sir.
He was challenged on the ground of prejudice.
The court then examined him at length, and finally asked:
Q. Do you believe that you can sit here and fairly and impartially make
up your mind, from the evidence, whether that evidence proves that they are
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not?
A. I think I could, but I should believe that I was a little handicapped
in my judgment, sir.
Thereupon the court, in the presence of the jurors not yet examined,
Well, that is a sufficient qualification for a juror in the case; of course,
the more a man feels that he.is handicapped the more he will be guarded
W. B. Allen, wholesale rubber business, stated among other things:
Q. I will ask you whether what you have formed from what you have
read and heard is a slight impression, or an opinion, or a conviction.
A. It is a decided conviction.
Q. You have made up your mind as to whether these men are guilty or
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It would be difficult to change that conviction, or impossible, perhaps?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It would be impossible to change your conviction?
A. It would be hard to change my conviction.
He was challenged for cause by defendants. Then he was examined by
the court at length and finally brought to the point of saying that he could
try the case fairly and impartially, and would do bo. Then the challenge for
cause was overruled.
H. L. Anderson was examined at length, and stated that he had formed
and expressed an opinion, still held it, was prejudiced, but that he could lay
aside his prejudices and grant a fair trial upon the evidence. On being further examined, he said that some of the policemen injured were friends of hii
and he had talked with them fully. He had formed an unqualified opinion aa
to the guilt or innocence of the defendants, which he regarded as deep-seated,
a firm conviction that these defendants, or some of them, were guilty. He was
challenged on the ground of prejudice, but the challenge was overruled.
M. D. Flavin, in the marble business. He had read and talked about the
Haymaiket trouble, and had formed and expressed an opinion as to the guilt
or innocence of the defendants, which he still held and which was very strong;