Trial of the Officers and Crew of the Privateer Savannah, on the Charge of Piracy, in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York. Warburton Adolphus Frederick
those facts constituted the offence?
A. I answered before. It places me in rather a peculiar position. As I said, I want it understood distinctly, I desire to do my duty; but there is a struggle between that and my sympathy, and I am afraid to trust myself.
Q. But you can draw a distinction between your sympathy and any conscientious scruples against the punishment of death, can you not?
A. Well, sir, where it comes to the point–
Q. Allow me to put the question in another way: If you are entirely satisfied, upon the evidence and instructions of the Court, that the prisoner was guilty, your conscience would not trouble you in finding him guilty?
A. Well, sir, there would be this: I would feel that persons, under the strongest kind of testimony, have been found guilty, wrongfully, and it would operate on me—the fear that I had judged wrong on the facts, and committed murder. That feeling is very strong.
Q. If the evidence satisfied you that the prisoner was guilty, would your conscience prevent your saying so?
A. It would not now. It might in the jury-room. When it comes to the point, and I feel that I hold the life of a human being, it is pretty hard to know what I would do then.
Q. Your conscience would only trouble you if you doubted that your judgment was right?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Larocque: I submit that the juror is competent.
Juror: You must take your chances if you take me. I still think I am not fit to sit on a jury to represent the people.
The Court: I think we must take the opinion of the juror as against himself.
Set aside. [Defendants took exception.]
John Fife called, and challenged for principal cause:
Q. In a capital case, where the evidence is sufficient to convince you of the guilt of the prisoner, have you any conscientious scruples that would prevent your finding a verdict of guilty?
A. No, sir.
By Mr. Larocque, for the prisoners:
Q. Did you read the account of the capture of the privateer Savannah?
A. I did.
Q. Have you formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoners?
A. I believe not, sir.
Q. Have you formed or expressed an opinion whether the facts charged, if proved, constitute the offence of piracy?
A. I have not, sir.
Q. You think you have no bias or prejudice in this case?
A. No, sir.
Challenge withdrawn. Juror sworn.
Thomas Costello called. Challenged for principal cause.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. In a capital case, where the evidence is sufficient to convince you of the guilt of the prisoner, have you any conscientious scruples that would prevent your finding a verdict of guilty?
A. No, sir.
By Mr. Larocque, for the prisoners:
Q. You know that this case is an indictment for piracy against the prisoners. Have you formed or expressed any opinion upon their guilt or innocence?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you formed or expressed any opinion whether the facts charged against them, if proved, constitute the offence of piracy?
A. I have not, sir.
Challenge withdrawn. Juror sworn.
Tuganhold Kron called. Challenged for principal cause.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. In a capital case, where the evidence was sufficient to convince you of the guilt of the prisoner, have you any conscientious scruples that would prevent your finding a verdict of guilty?
A. Yes, sir. (Question repeated.)
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you readily understand English?
A. Pretty well.
Q. You did not understand me when I asked the question the first time?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you understand English well?
A. Yes, pretty well. There may be some words I do not understand.
Q. Did you ever sit as a juror on a trial?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you understand all the witnesses said?
A. No, because I did not hear, sometimes.
Q. Do you think you understand English well enough, so that you can hear a trial intelligently?
A. I cannot say, sir.
Q. You are not sure?
A. No, sir.
By Mr. Larocque:
Q. What is your occupation?
A. A bookbinder.
Q. Have you an establishment of your own?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The men you employ—do they speak English or German?
A. Some English—the most of them German.
Q. And you transact your business with gentlemen who speak English?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you done so?
A. Eight years.
By the Court:
Q. How long have you been in this country?
A. Seventeen years.
Q. Have you been in business all that time?
A. I worked as journeyman ten years, and have been seven years in business of my own.
By Mr. Smith:
Q. Do you think you can understand English well enough so that you can, from the evidence, form an opinion of your own?
A. I think I will.
By Mr. Larocque:
Q. You read the account of the capture of the privateer Savannah in the newspapers?
A. Yes, sir; in some German paper.
Q. Did you form or express any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of these prisoners?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you form or express an opinion whether the facts charged against them, if proved, constitute the offence of piracy?
A. No, sir.
Mr. Evarts: We think the juror's knowledge of the language is shown, by his own examination, to be such as should at least entitle the Government to ask that he should stand aside until it is seen if the panel shall be filled from other jurors—if that right exists. Your honor held, in the case of the United States v. Douglass—a piracy case tried some ten years ago—that that right did exist.
The Court: I think we have since qualified that in the case of Shackleford. It was intended to settle that debatable question, and it was held that the Act of Congress, requiring the empanneling of jurors to be according to the practice in State Courts, did not necessarily draw after it this right of setting aside. We think the objection taken is not sustained.
Juror sworn.
Matthew P. Bogart called. Challenged for principal cause by Mr. Smith:
Q.