ALTGELD'S REASONS FOB PARDONING
court, in the presence of other jurors not yet examined, lectured him as
" Why not? What is to prevent your listening to the evidence and acting
alone upon it? Why can't you listen to the evidence and make up your
mind on it?"
But the juror still insisted that he could not do it, and was discharged.
H. D. Bogardus, flour merchant, stated that he had read and talked about
the Haymarket trouble; had formed and expressed an opinion, still held it,
as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants ; that he was prejudiced; that
this prejudice would certainly influence his verdict if selected a juror. "I
don't believe that I could give them a fair trial upon the proof, for it would
require very strong proof to overcome my prejudice. I hardly think that you
could bring proof enough to change my opinion." He was challenged on the
ground of prejudice.
Then the court took him in band, and after a lengthy examination got
him to say: " I think I can fairly and impartially render a verdict in this case
in accordance with the law and the evidence."
Then the challenge was overruled.
Counsel for defendants then asked the juror further questions, and he
replied: "I say it would require pretty strong testimony to overcome my
opinion at the present time; still, I think I could act independent of my opinion. I would stand by my opinion, however, and I think that the preponderance of proof would have to be strong to change my opinion. I think the
defendants are responsible for what occurred at the Haymarket meeting. The
preponderance of the evidence would have to be in favor of defendants' innocence with me."
Then the challenge for cause was renewed, when the court remarked, in
the presence of jurors not yet examined: " Every fairly intelligent and honest
man, when he comes to investigate the question originally for himself, upon
authentic sources of information, will, in fact, make his opinion from the
authentic source, instead of hearsay that he heard before."
The court then proceeded to again examine the juror, and as the juror
persisted in saying that he did not believe he could give the defendants a fair
trial, he was finally discharged.
These examinations are fair specimens of all of them, and show conclusively that Bailiff Ryce carried out the threat that Mr. Favor swears to. Nearly
every juror called stated that he had read and talked about the matter, and
believed what he heard and read, and had formed and expressed an opinion,
and still held it, as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants ; that he was
prejudiced against them; that that prejudice was deep-rooted, and that it
would require evidence to remove that prejudice.
A great mar^y said they had been pointed out to the bailiff by their employers, to be summoned as jurors. Many stated frankly that they believed
the defendants to be guilty, and would convict unless their opinions were
overcome by strong proofs; and almost every one, after having made these
statements, was examined by the court in a manner to force him to say that
he would try the case fairly upon the evidence produced in court, and whenever he was brought to this point he was held to be a competent juror, and