Juror Jacob Wertheimer--"I voted as I did (for acquittal) because there was a reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether or not Glass had authorized the giving of the money. There were too many others that might have been the ones." Juror Charles P. Fonda--"I voted not guilty. It was simply a question of whether Glass paid over this money as charged. Five of us did not believe that the Prosecution produced sufficiently convincing evidence to find the defendant guilty." Juror Michael C. Samuels--"The evidence did not link Glass up. So far as the bribery went, it might have been done by another official of the company than Glass." Juror Hugo Schnessel--"There was always something lacking in the evidence to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. It seemed to me that possibly some one else other than Glass might have paid over the money." [292] Of the delaying tactics in the Glass case, The San Francisco Call in its issue of August 14, 1907, said: "Anything to delay trial and judgment is the policy of the accused bribe givers. Every day's proceedings in the retrial of Glass provides ample proof to convince the most skeptical citizen that the last thing desired by the men charged with debauching the boodle Board of Supervisors is prompt determination of the issues on their merits, and every pettifogging move for delay, every cunning attempt to betray the court into technical error is confession of a case too weak to be given to a fair jury on a plain showing of the facts. The attitude of the lawyers for Glass is sufficient to indicate that he needs lawyers of their peculiar expertness--'distinguished attorneys,' Heney calls them--'distinguished for their ability to defeat justice.' "Judge Lawlor's unhesitating denial of a motion to permit the lawyers for Glass to shift their ground in the midst of the impaneling of the jury and hark back to an attack on the validity of the indictments, and his sharp reprimand to Attorney Coogan for his method of misleading talesmen by adroitly framed questions, ought to expedite this trial. Lawlor has a reputation for dealing sternly with legal tricksters and for compelling counsel in the cases that he hears to get down to business and keep at it. At the same time his record on the bench is that of a just judge and always impartial. It is because he is impartial and stern that crooked lawyers, with crooked clients, deem it 'hard luck' when their cases are assigned to Lawlor.