[306] But these statements give no just notion of the manner of impanelling the juries in the trials of the Liberators. As they were all similarly conducted, it will be proper here to quote, from the graphic sketches of an eye witness, a description of the impanelling of the jury who tried Edwin Coppie.
Let me endeavor to represent to you how some of the jurors in these cases are qualified. A stolid and heavy man stands up before the judge to answer the necessary questions. His countenance is lighted only by the hope of getting a chance to give his voice against the wounded man upon the ground. You can see this as plainly as if he told you. Judge. Were you at Harper's Ferry, sir, during these proceedings? Juror. No, sir. Judge. You are a freeholder of this county? Juror. Yes, sir. Judge. Have you heard the evidence in the other cases? Juror. (Eagerly.) Yes, sir. Judge. I mean, if you have heard the evidence, and are likely to be influenced by it, you are disqualified here. Have you heard much of the evidence? Juror. No, sir. Judge. Have you expressed any opinion as to the guilt of these parties? Juror. Yes, sir, (eagerly again.) Judge. Are you, then, capable of judging this case according to the evidence, without reference to what you have before heard said? Juror. Yes, sir. Judge. Have you any conscientious scruples, which will prevent you finding this man guilty, because the death penalty may be his punishment? Juror. Yes, sir, (promptly.) Judge. I think you do not understand my question. I ask you if you would hesitate to find this man guilty, because he would be hung if you did? Juror looks around puzzled, overcome by the abstract nature of the proposition? Judge. This man will be hung if you find him guilty. Will that certainty of his being hung prevent you from finding him guilty, if the evidence convinces you he is so?