2 * (2
S.->
| ... " , - . . . . . . . . . . 3 * . . . . . ... . y - }\rº-- * tº ºx'
* - * "I -
A Qopeise History
— OF THE -
GREAT TRIAL
— OF THE –
"Chicago finapGhists
IN 1886.
CONDENSED FROM THE OFFICIAL RECORD.
By DYER D. LUM.
CHICAGO, ILL.
Socialistic Publishing Company,
274 WEST Twer. FTH STREET.
-*
.
* * * t
* * •. º
; : J
* , , l
t", -
, #



i
:
i
IE
N S
W
>
º
H
H
<!
| SPEAKERS A.
L) ESPLAINES STREET.

A. Where the bomb was thrown.
B. Where the bomb exploded.
C. Zepf's Hall.
P
" * > ... * * :
.# * **
i.e. - , - ºf...?.
^ - ~ ; , . ~~
º, *...* *. ... • , ,
FRESENACES.
A bomb! A dynamite bomb! Such was the startling intelligence which went
over the wires from the city of Chicago on the night of May 4th, 1886. Who threw
it? After a long and protracted trial the question remains unanswered. Whether
thrown by some one indignant at the raid by the police upon a peaceable, meet-
ing, an individualistic attempt to resist invasion, or thrown by some hireling to
break the great eight-hour movement which, at the time, seemed likely to compel
the acquiesence of manufacturers in the growing demand for shorter hours of toil,
the trial did not reveal. *
Yet, eight men were placed on trial for their lives, their houses searched
without process of law; they were subjected to personal abuse by city officials, de-
nounced and virtually tried and condemned by a press whose existence, as cater-
ers to capitalists, laid in creating a scarecrow and imparting to it some semblance
of reality.
Property alone found voice; Labor, aghast, avaited developments. Some
regarded it as the opening of a new struggle between these two classes, which were
now clearly seen to have a defined and divergent existence. Capital and Labor
were asserted to be pitted against each other in a new “irrepressible conflict.”
Others, alarmed at the danger to vested rights and existing social conditions,
with equal impetuosity and want of logic, fell back on the law and demanded ex-
treme measures of repression; a reign of terror set in. Property trembled for its
existence before a phantom; every way-side bush seemed a secret danger; fear
paralyzed reason, and force—arbitrary and illegal—held full sway.
Anarchy, that dread spectre that Siberian snows had not frozen; to which
under the synonym of Nihilism our dilettanti had given a quasi interest, struck
the same alarm in Chicago as it brought to the palace of the Czars. Nor was a
reign of terror lacking to the great body of wage workers. Labor Unions found
their doors closed by the police. “Suspects” were arrested, imprisoned, and their
homes searched by detectives without warrants.
Now that the sentence of death has been passed upon the men accused of
“murder,” law “vindicated” and order restored; when society has resumed the
even tenor of its way and respectable and legal jobbery can again be safely carried
on, it were well to ask: Upon what evidence were they convicted?
In the following pages an attempt is made to condense the testimony, omit-
ting nothing essential to the case. The testimony is taken from the official record
Prepared by counsel for the Supreme Court, not from the newspaper reports.
After carefully reading hundreds of pages of testimony, scrupulously scanning the
addresses of counsel for the State and carefully weighing all the facts in the case,
the writer is still at a loss to account for the verdict upon other grounds than that
of class prejudice. Prejudice as strong and envenomed as moved the narrow minds
of loyal Frenchmen in their persecution of the Huguenots, or which inspired the
breasts of loyal Englishmen in hounding Roundheads to death. True, religion did
not enter into the controversy as in France and England. The nineteenth century
A \
has passed beyond that stage of controversy. Having passed through and won
freedom in disputes regarding religious and political faiths, the great controversies
of this age are necessarily economic, questions of a social nature. The Holy In-
quisition no longer exists to compel acceptance of a religious creed, but the State
remains to crush out social heretics who will not accept its doctrine that wrong is
right, and glaring injustice to be Christian civilization. The popular god has but
changed his vestments. The dark-robed priests no longer gather around the stake
to gloat over the dying agony of the daring unbeliever in their rightuousness and
authority; the cross no longer cramps intellect and fosters injustice by the strong
hand of power. But the same dominating genius prevails and finds expression in
other directions. Heresy in social beliefs is still as vigorously denounced as ever
in former times under other dominating beliefs. Society to-day, as in the past
centuries, can rely on a horde of hirelings to relentlessly pursue, villify and punish
the heretic who dares to question and resist the existing order of things. The old
question, the only fundamental question of modern civilization, Authority versus
Liberty, is still with us. Again, as of old, the cry has gone forth from pulpit, press
and tribune—That which is must remain, while at the same time the evil genius
of authority, enforcing control over others, from its very nature is constantly
usurping new privileges and establishing more restrictions.
The eight social heretics of Chicago who dared to defend their beliefs when
tried for an act, of which it was openly admitted they were not personally guilty,
have challenged the attention of the world and the admiration of the oppressed of
all lands. Though John Brown's body has long been at rest—still, more than ever
can it be said, his soul is marching on!
A ccTSTCISL EIsrofe-s:
- OF THE -
Great Trial of the Qhicago Anarchists in 1886.
CEHAPTER I.
THE EIGHT-HOUR MOVEMENT.
The Haymarket tragedy and the trial of the Anarchists are
indissolubly connected with the great eight-hour strike of May 1,
1886. To understand the trial and the position of the prisoners on
trial we must obtain a view of that movement and of the prisoners'
relation thereto. Many and diverse have been the reports circulated
in this regard, some claiming that the prisoners were opposed to the
eight-hour struggle; others, that they were its champions; while
others again — and this has been the theory of the press—that they
but seized upon this occasion to bring about a conflict with the consti-
tuted authorities and thereby precipitate a revolution. Happily, their
own expressions are a matter of record, and they can, as they should,
be placed before the public. * t
The one great characteristic of all public questions which have
engaged the attention of statesmen in the nineteenth century is that
they have been essentially of an economic nature. Forms of religion
aud of government are questions of the past; they no longer distract
the discussions of cabinets nor excite the popular heart. The huge
black-lettered folios of polemic lore which constituted the “living
issues" of the seventeenth century gave place in the next to disqui-
sitions on the political rights of man. Parliaments ceased to worry
over theology and devoted their energies to combat and suppress the
Writings of Junius, Rousseau and Paine. - -
With the triumph of the American and French revolutions, new
issues began slowly to force themselves upon public attention. It is
Self-evident that they have not been religious in their nature. Have
they been political? Such we have thought them to be, but each year
proves that they are more and far broader. All the great questions of
the day, since England began factory legislation in 1802, have been
Economic Freedom of commerce I Corn laws Tariffs Strikes!
º
8 THE EIGHT-HOUR MOVEMENT.
All have the same inspiration in various degrees of intelligible articu-
lation. It stirred the heart of the English chartist; it moved the
pulses of the European workmen in 1848; it found audible voice in
the Commune of Paris in 1871; to-day the red flag of labor groups
the sons of all nationalities into one common brotherhood.
State patriotism is as obsolete as church creed. Nations still go-
to war, but it is now for a market. England and Russia contend for
midland Asia. France, Italy, Spain and Germany seek new colonial
dependencies for purely commercial reasons. It has become a ques-
tion of exports and imports. The productions of labor must find an
outlet to new markets to sustain commercial supremacy. Home pro-
ducers cannot buy that into which they have too often hammered and
woven their lives. A foreign market must be sought and won by other
lives. The 110,585 boys and girls under thirteen years of age employed
in English textile factories may be ragged, but English fabrics must
be exported to find them in bread.
As early as September, 1882, a convention of farmers and mechan-
ics of New England was convened at Boston. In January, 1884, a
meeting to form a general trades' union was called in the same city.
On the Fourth of July following a grand banquet was held at Faneuil
Hall; and it is a noteworthy fact that so indifferent were all not im-
mediately interested, that the committee of arrangements apologized
for the absence of a clergyman, and stated that application was made
to twenty-two religious associations for the use of a church in which
to deliver the oration, but their request was in every case refused.
Consequently they sat down to their banquet without a clerical bless-
IIlg. -
At that day, and for long since, the tariff was a vital question to
America. To-day the desperate struggle of all European powers for
a foreign market has overshadowed it with a far deeper one. True,
so-called statesmen still harp in the old strain, but workmen are ammu-
ally growing indifferent to their statistics and eloquence. At that
period, so far as there was a labor movement, it was almost entirely
confined to Massachusetts. In fact, in 1888, '84 and '85 a labor party
presented to the voters of that state a gubernatorial ticket, but few,
however, felt an interest in the matter. It was not till 1850 that Mas-
sachusetts adopted, in most of the trades, the ten-hour plan. In
the large mills a longer working day, however, still prevailed, being
twelve hours, or fourteen hours more per week, than in English mills.
In other states but little attention, if any, was bestowed upon legisla-
tion on hours of labor.
*
THE EIGHT-hour MovemeNT. 9
Immediately upon the close of the civil war an agitation for the
lessening of the hours of labor began in earnest. The great changes
made in our system of production during the interval, the colossal
fortunes made by men in army contracts, with the rapid progress to-
Wards centralization of capital under the American system of protec-
tive tariff, gave the movement a more wide-spread character. The
New England Eight-Hour League, endorsed with the eloquent support
of Wendell Phillips, aroused more attention one year than had been
evoked in the preceding thirty. Growing out of this was the Labor
Congress, which was held in the city of Baltimore in 1866.
. On June 24, 1878, the national eight-hour law passed and in the
Same year a National Labor Union was formed at a convention held
at Cincinnati with Richard F. Trevellick as president and an executive
for each of the several states of the Union. The Eight-Hour law of
1868, applying to government employes, was never rigidly enforced.
Government set the example of ignoring it and petitions to Congress
Were treated with disdain. - *
The remarkable increase in the production of wealth by the rapid
development of “labor-saving" machinery gave stability to the move-
ment. Muscles of steel were taking the place of those of flesh, and
strong stalwart men, anxious and eager to toil for others, found them-
Selves “superfluous.” Without entering further into the history of
the movement, I quote here a letter submitted to the Committee on
Depression in Labor and Business of the XLVI Congress. It will be
interesting as showing in brief the argument for the shortening of the
hours of labor, and instructive in considering the paucity of results
which have followed such appeals. It is as follows:
HoN. HENDRICK B. WRIGHT, Chairman Congressional Committee on the
Depression of Labor: †
SIR:—At your request, I gladly avail myself of the opportunity
So kindly presented to lay before your honorable committee a few
thoughts which I think have a practical bearing on the subject-matter
of your investigation. As the general question as to the causes of the
recent depression of labor opens up a broad and almost endless dis-
cussion, I shall beg leave to confine myself strictly to what I consider
#. f the causes, and wherein remedial legislation will prove bene-
C18.1.
I allude to the necessity for a reduction of the hours of labor.
The subject came before Congress in 1868, in which year what is
known as the national eight-hour law went into effect. Though still
9n the statute book, its observance is not generally nor uniformly en-
forced. As a recommendation from your committee could not but
haye weight in the struggle being waged by workingmen to secure its
enforcement, I shall briefly sketch some of the arguments with which
We press the matter upon our legislators. Dismissing the question at
10 THE EIGHT-HOUR MOVEMENT.
onče whether a law remaining unrepealed should not be enforced, let
us see if good reasons do not exist why it should be enforced upon its
own, merits. g
First, we ask it in the name of political economy. All political
economists are agreed that the standard of wages is determined by the
cost of subsistence, rather than by the number of hours employed.
Wages are recognized as resulting from the necessary cost of living in
any given community. “The natural and necessary rate of wages,”
of which we sometimes hear, is such a rate as will supply, to use the
words of Adam Smith, “not only the commodities that are indispens-
ably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the
country renders it indecent for creditable people even of the lowest
order to be without.” * -
The cost of subsistence for an average family determines the rate,
and it is for this reason that single men can save more if they will.
They reap the advantage from being exceptions to the general custom.
Women's wages are always lower because custom has not made others
dependent upon them. Wages have been and will be regulated by
existing conditions of living. In 1444 the rate of wages in England,
for agricultural labor, averaged about four pence a day, but the price
of board was only two pence.
In Rome under Diocletian and Constantine Chlorus, an agricultu-
ral laborer received, on an average, equal to twelve and a half cents
a day but the cost of subsistence was in proportion.
Second, we ask it in the interest of civilization. The battle for
the reduction of the hours of labor is a struggle for a wider civiliza-
tion. Civilization demands a prosperous, and contented people, with
increased wants and means to supply them. To refuse aid to will.
ing hands to cultivate our idle lands, to import a servile race, that
thereby the cost of subsistence may be reduced to a far lower standard
and a lower level for all be reached, and to insist on long hours of
toil when thousands are standing idle, all are heavy blows aimed at
the very foundation of our modern civilization.
A decrease in the hours of labor means rest, and rest, is invariably
accompanied by increased wants. Release the poor drudge in the
mine or the factory from his long hours of toil, and give him daily
hours of recreation and leisure and you at once raise him in the
social scale. Rest cultivates.
We insist that every reduction in the hours of labor heretofore
made has elevated the working people; that increased leisure has in-
variably produced new wants, has added to the necessaries of life,
and consequently has raised the social condition of the people. The
Setting, apart of one day in seven for rest wherein no man shall labor,
is a prime factor in the growth of civilization. We never hear the
charge that wage workers receive seven days’ pay for six days’ work,
simply because conscientious conviction has become hardened into
national custom. The cost of subsistence—what will support a
family, not what equity requires--is the test by which the standard of
wages is determined. For once the reformer and the political econ-
omist agree, and the question arises, shall eight hours a day, like six
THE EIGHT-HOUR MOVEMENT. 11
days a week, become firmly fixed as a national custom, so far as the
government can establish it? tº
The whole history of the short-hour movement in England proves
conclusively that every reduction of time in the United Kingdom has
invariably been followed by an increase of wages. When the agricul:
tural, laborers in certain counties of England secured additional
rest, but a short period was needed to see a marked difference in their
Social condition. Flowers began to blossom around their cottage
Walls, the broken gate was mended and the garden more carefully
Qultivated. Inside of these humble dwellings where the laborer had
formerly entered at the conclusion of a long days' labor only to throw
his wearied body down to rest, articles of comfort began to come ln,
and a general feeling of manliness and pride was awakened. With
increased comfort came increased wants; increased wants brought a
higher standard of wages than in those counties where the hours had
not been reduced. +
. Third, the changed relations between production and consump-
tion demand it. Should the changed condition of our industrial
System, arising from the rapid development of mechanical appliances,
Whereby hand labor has been so largely superceded, call for remedial
legislation? Political economists recognize the evil and propose to
（neet it by such measures as will preserve to the people what custom
has heretofore rendeled it indecent to be without. To do this less
hours of daily toil are essential. A reduction of hours means less
idle hands, more persons profitably employed. By increasing the
number of employed, consumption will be stimulated, over-production
Checked, and a more balanced relationship between the two estab-
lished.
In the manufacture of cotton fabrics one girl today can do what
two generations ago would have required the united labor of 100
Women, and in woolens the use of machinery has laid aside 70 per
gent of the laborers. In cutting and harvesting grain one man now
does the work that formerly would have required 384 men to perform.
In Massachusetts the effect of machinery is strikingly shown in the ,
boot and shoe trade. In 1845 the number of hands employed, 45,877,
produced 20,896,312 pairs of boots and shoes; in 1875 the number of
hands employed, 48,090, produced 59,762,866 pairs. In thirty years
the total production has nearly trebled, while the number of persons
£mployed is but slightly in excess of what it was in 1845, and far be-
low the number employed in 1855, when the census showed 77,827.
From 1865 to 1875 the number of establishments in this trade in
Massachusetts increased from 206 to 1,461. The examination of the
tables given in the state census shows that in the ten years cited, es-
tablishments have increased sevenfold; capital invested has nearly
doubled; the value of stock used has increased nearly three-fifths;
the number of pairs made has increased nine-tenths. Yet in the
Same period the number of persons employed in this one industry has
fallen off from 52,821 to 48,090 !
If we look at the other industries, wherever we find an increased
number of persons employed we will notice that the increase in pro-
due'ion is far greater in proportion. The conquest of man over
|
12 THE EIGHT -HOUR MOVEMENT.
nature is rapidly augmenting in results, but the question whether the
people are in like manner benefitted has but to be asked to be an-
8wered. Are peace and contentment more promptly realized? Are
the pangs of hunger more readily alleviated? Are the necessities of
life more easily attained 2 or, do privation and poverty remain as
marked as in the preceding century? Has not what improvement
exists in the material condition of the workingman directly followed
from the additional leisure acquired through reduction in the hours of
labor, rather than from any other source whatever?
Machinery in the boot and shoe trade, in Massachusetts has in-
creased production, Swelled the capital invested and augmented
profits, but has it lessened the toil of the poor drudge employed,
§: increased comfort to his hearth, or placed him in any higher
social condition? Labor has been saved to the employer only; the
tireless muscles of the inanimate machine have not only displaced
the living muscles in many cases, but in others have increased the
strain upon them by requiring an increased speed to keep up with the
machine.
Professor Huxley says that the seven" and a half millions of
workers in England can produce as much in six months as would have
required one hundred years ago the entire working force of the whole
world to equal. -
Mr Gladstone, in a careful estimate of the production of wealth
in Great Britian during the present century and up to the year 1870,
finds that the aggregate that has been acquired in this period is
equal to that of the whole previous period from the landing of Julius
Caesar, 55 years before the birth of Christ, and that the wealth pro-
duced between 1850 and 1870 was fully equal to that of the first half
of the present century. r * -
Shall not labor enter into the benefits arising from this increased
wealth more directly?
John Stuart Mill says:
“It is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have
lightened the day's toil of any human being. They have enabled a
greater population to live the same life of drudgery and imprisonment,
and an increased number of manufacturers and others to make for-
tunes; they have increased the comforts of the middle class, but they
have not begun to effect those great changes in human destiny which
it is their nature to accomplish.”
Sir, your committee, I trust, will recognize the importance of this
question of the reduction of the hours of labor. The great industrial
revolution which we are undergoing, the change of human activity
from warlike to industrial pursuits, which constitutes the essential
characteristics of modern civilization, and the happiness of the pro-
ducing classes, which forms the foundation of a republican form of
government, alike demand your consideration. The enforcement of
the national eight-hour law would be accepted by workingmen every-
where as a signal proof that their prayer has been heard and the first
step taken toward the universal acceptance of eight hours as a normal
day's work. - -
*
THE EIGHT-Hour MoveMENT. 13
It was to the government that the credit is due for the reduction
from eleven and twelve hours to ten, in the order issued by President
Van Buren. May we not hope that the government may also follow
in his footsteps, and further modern civilization and human happiness
by establishing eight hours as a day's work in all national workshops,
thereby preparing for its adoption as a national custom?
I remain, sir, very respectfully, SAMUEL C. HUNT.
Boston, Mass., November 10, 1879. t
Such was the logic and polity of eight-hour advocates in 1879.
Their sole hope at that time lay in legislation. In the following year
a National Eight-Hour Committee was organized, of which Albert R.
Parsons was a member, to further this end. But Congress did nothing,
and slowly hope withered and faith in legislation died out. *
In October, 1884, the Federation of Trade and Labor Unions o
the United States and Canada, then in session in Chicago, resolved on
a different line of action. They resolved that on and after the first
day of May, 1886, eight hours should constitute a day's work, and de-
termined to use every endeavor to make the movement a success. In
November, 1885, a few individuals in Chicago, prominent among whom
Were George A. Schilling, William Gleeson and Joseph Gruenhut, met
and organized the “Eight-Hour Association of Chicago.” They issued
a manifesto embodying the following planks:
1. The reduction of the hours of labor will require a proportion-
ate increase in the number of men employed, and will thus lessen, if
it does not remove, the competition among workmen, which competi-, .
tion is now admitted by all to be the sole cause of low wages.
2. The reduction of the hours of daily labor will proportionately
decrease production; and the employment of a greater number of men
will relatively increase consumption, thus destroying the bugaboo of
overproduction which now afflicts the dabblers in political economy,
and frightens so many well-meaning but unthinking people. .
3. The reduction of the hours of daily labor, without a decrease
of pay, is a necessary consequence of invention and improved methods
of production.
4. The reduction of the hours of labor does not necessarily in-
Volve a diminution of the gross societary product.
The association concluded its manifesto by asking the following
question, which has become significant in the light of Subsequent
events: . n
Do you think that capitalists are justified in using all the powers
of the government and society to reduce the working people into wage
slavery, and to accumulate all the results of societary work into the
hands of a small number of millionaires and soulless corporations, and
*
l4 THE EIGHT-HOUR MIOVEMENT.
in case of a general movement for eight hours' daily work among the
people of the United States would you demand the interference of the
army, the militia, police and sheriff's posse, and employ Pinkerton's
hirelings and other mercenaries to coerce the people into submission,
and would not such course, if adopted, inevitably lead to bloodshed,
anarchy, destruction and social death?
Owing to the activity of this association the movement in Chicago
became general, and other cities aimed to emulate it by their co-opera-
tion. The Trade and Labor Assembly, believing eight hours the Mecca
of the labor movement, swung into line and issued the following cir-
cular letter:
To all Trade and Labor Associations of Chicago and Vicinity:
FELLow-WoRKERs—The first of May has been set apart for the
general inauguration, as far as possible, of the eight-hour system.
That time is near at hand, and as the Trades Assembly of Chicago is
the most influential representative body of organized labor west of New
York city, it is, therefore, quite natural that the working people and
the public generally will hold it responsible to a very great extent for
the success or failure of this movement. There never was a time in
the history of this country when there was such an activity among the
workers for the betterment of their condition. Chicago, true to her
pluck and energy in all things, stands first and foremost in this grand
and beneficent movement, and as we look over the field to-day there.
seems to be but one thing which threatens to defeat the successful in-
auguration of the eight-hour day—the exorbitant demands our fellow-
workers are likely to make on the question of wages. In this connec-
tion we wish to call your attention to a circular issued by this body on
January 14, 1886, to manufacturers and employers of labor generally
in Chicago and vicinity: - f
“The workingmen of Chicago are ready to make sacrifices in
wages in order that more people may find employment, and for the
general good of the whole community. Surely such a self-sacrificing
spirit should meet with a cordial response from the employing class.”
The above was given out in good faith by our eight-hour commit-
tee at the time, and we see no good reason why it should not be ad-
hered to now. The Bricklayers and Stonemasons' Union and the
Cigarmakers' International Union—two of the most perfect organiza-
tions in this city—have agreed to accept a corresponding reduction in
wages, and we hope that their example will be followed generally, un-
less there is an absolute certainty that the old standard of wages can
be retained without any trouble.
- - - - • - - i
" . M - \,
#
THE EIGHT-HOUR MUVEMENT. 15
When the eight-hour day has become an actuality, the idle work-
ers re-employed, the boss looking for more hands, the question of bet-
ter pay will be easily solved, but we implore you not to lumber the cart
down with issues that are likely to lead to strikes, lockouts, etc., and
possibly to the defeat of the eight-hour movement.
We further advise all trades that have not yet completed their ar-
rangements to immediately select suitable committees, with instruc-
tions to confer with the employers in their respective trades, so that
this question may be solved as near as possible by mutual consent.
Fellow-workers, the victory is assured if you will act determinedly and
judiciously. THE EIGHT-Hour. CoMMITTEE.
CHARLEs W. Rowan, President,
WM. HoLLISTER, Secretary, Trade and Labor Assembly.
These extracts are given for the purpose of recalling the fact that
the issue had become clearly defined and that the representatives of
labor and capital were distinctly arrayed against each other. All
unions were pledged to the effort, and there was every reason to believe
that it would be crowned with success. The industrial barons of the
day were powerless against such general combination on the part of
Workmen, and could only trust to time or craft to resume the old order
of affairs. -
Having thus briefly outlined the causes which led up to the event-
ful week in May, we must pause to consider the relation of the pris-
oners to that movement and their connection therewith. In October,
1888, a group of men—grown weary of the hope-deferred that all at-
tempts at remedial legislation had brought—met at Pittsburgh, Pa.,
and revived the International Working-People's Association. To this
Convention August Spies and Albert R. Parsons were delegates, and
took a prominent part in its proceedings. Departing from the methods
of the old Socialistic Labor Party, they abjured political action as a
method of the present order and powerless as an instrument against it.
In an address to the workingmen of America, presenting in vividcolors
the inequalities of the present social system, the necessity for revolu-
tionary action was distinctly advocated. The following extract will
more clearly define their position:
“As in former times a privileged class never surrendered its tyr.
anny, neither can it be expected that the capitalists of this age will give
up their rulership without being forced to do it. If there ever could
have been any question on this point, it should long, ago have been
dispelled by the brutalities which the bourgeois of all countries—in
America as well as in Europe—constantly commits as often as the
proletariat anywhere energetically move to better their condition. It
l6 THE EIGHT-Hour Movem.ENT.
*
becomes, therefore, self-evident that the struggle of the proletariat
With the bourgeois will be of a violent revolutionary character.
"We could show by scores of illustrations that all attempts in the
past to reform this monstrous system by peaceful means, such as the
ballot, have been futile, and all such efforts in the future must neces-
sarily be so, for the following reasons:
“The political institutions of our time are the agencies of the
propertied class; their mission is the upholding of the privileges of
their masters; any reform in your own behalf would curtail these priv-
ileges. To this they will not and can not consent, for it would be sui-
cidal to themselves.” -
The International, as an avowed revolutionary organization, soon
numbered several groups in Chicago. In the Arbeiter-Zeitung, the
Vorbote and the Fackel they had earnest advocates among the German-
speaking people. In October, 1884, an American organ-of the Inter-
national, the Alarm, was founded, and secured quite an extensive cir-
culation among the trade unions of Chicago. Public meetings were
called in public squares and on the lake front and a thorough system
of popular agitation inaugurated. At these meetings probably the
most untiring and indefatigable speakers were August Spies, Samuel
Fielden and Albert R. Parsons. In summer in the open air, and in
winter in halls, the Chicago “groups” kept up an incessant agitation.
Although pursuing a different line of action from that adopted by
the Eight-Hour Association, it was impossible that so formidable an
economic movement as had been organized to take place on May 1,
should not engage their attention. At first the leading spirits in the
International held themselves aloof. In their warfare upon the exist-
ing social organization ameliorative measures;could hardly command .
their active support. Not that they were opposed to a reduction of
the hours of labor, but because the movement did not strike at the
root of the evil.
As all of the prisoners were connected with the International
Working People's Association their position becomes a question of im-
portance. In the editorial columns of the Alarm, for December 12,
1885, appears an article headed “No Compromise.” -
The following is an extract:
We of the International are frequently asked why we do not give
our active support to the proposed eight-hour movement. Let us take
what we can get, say our eight-hour friends, else by asking too much
we may get nothing. * . g
We answer: Because we will not compromise. Either our posi-
tion that capitalists have no right to the exclusive ownership of the
means of life is a true one, or it is not. If we are correct, then to .
accede the point that capitalists liave the right to eight hours of our
THE EIGHT-HOUR MIOVEMENT. 17
labor, is more than a compromise, it is a virtual concession that the
Wage System is right. If capitalists have the right to own labor or to
control the results of labor, then clearly we have no businessdictating
the terms upon which we may be employed. We cannot say to our
emplºyers: Yes, we acknow.edge your right to employ us, we are
Batisfied that the wages system is all right, but we, your slaves, propose
to dictate the terms upon which we will work. How inconsistent;
and yet that is exactly the position of our eight-hour friends. They
presume to dictate to capital, while they maintain the justness of the
capitalistic system, they would regulate wages while defending the
claims of the capitalists to the absolute control of industry.
A. R. Parsons, the editor of the Alarm, who had been formerly
prominently identified with eight-hour organizations, was equally ex-
plicit. In his paper for October 31, 1885 he said:
“The private possession or ownership of the means of production
and exchange places the propertyless class in the power and control
of the propertied class, since they can refuse bread or the chance to
earn it to all the wage-classes who refuse to obey their dictation.
Eight hours, or less hours, is, therefore, under existing conditions a lost
battle. The private property system employs labor only to exploit
(rob) it, and while that system is in vogue the victims—those whom
it disinherits—have only the choice of submission or—starvation 1"
Mr. Spies was equally emphatic, and as the statement of his
Views is essential to the understanding of his position in the course of
events which preceeded the Haymarket meeting, it is herewith cited
from the Alarm of September 5, 1885: *
“A man whose name is Edmonston, and whom the irony of fate
has awarded the office of secretary in a national labor organization,
has written a reply to some remarks which appeared in the Alarm in
Connection with the eight-hour proclamation. He is evidently one of
those fellows who think because ‘God gave them an office he also
furnished them with sense.’ Instead of showing our position in re-
gard to the eight-hour question to be unattainable he throws a lot of
vile epithets at the Anarchists whom he looks upon in his stupidity as
men with ‘disordered brains.' The simpleton knows about as much
on the subject of economics as the average ass knows about Homerian
poetry. *
“We do not antagonize the eight-hour movement, — viewing it
from the standpoint that it is a social struggle we simply predict that
it is a lost battle, and we prove that though even the eight-hour system
should be established at this late day, the wage-workers would gain
nothing. They would still remain the slaves of their masters.
“Suppose the hours of labor should be shortened to eight, our
productive capacity would thereby not be diminished. The shorten-
18 THE EIGHT-HOUR MOVEMENT.
ing of the hours of labor in England was immediately followed by a
general increase of labor-saving machines, with a subsequent dis-
charge of a proportionable number of employees. The reverse of what
had been sought took place. The exploitation of those at work was
intensified. They now performed more labor, produced more than
before. #
“Now, for a man who desires to remain a wage slave, the introduc-
tion cf every new improvement and machine is a threatening competi-
tor. The amorganic machine works cheaper than the organic being !
Mr. Edmonston views wage slavery as the very corner-stone of civili-
zation. Hence to be consistent, he ought to be opposed to the reduc-
tion of the hours of labor. His position is, it seems, that eight hours
would give work to the unemployed and save us from over-production.
This, however, will not be the case. If the strike should turn out
Successful, the eight-hour system would result in the extermination of
every small manufacturer and small shopman. They and those whom
they now employ would be thrown in the labor market. Production
would increase through larger establishments, greater subdivision of
labor, etc., while the consuming power of the working class would, if
not decrease, remain as it is.
“What E. calls “over-production' would still remain. For this
anomaly will remain just so long as the propertied class have the
privilege to distribute the world's goods as they choose.
“‘But,’ interjects Mr. E., “Capital was, and rightfully is, but the
servant of labor, and when it assumes to be more, it oversteps its
bounds, and becomes a trespasser, liable to correction.’
“Eſow naive We should think that capital was “overstepping its
bounds' when it refuses to be the servant of more than 2,000,000 men
and probably as many women in this country. These people are starv-
ing, many have starved—why, Mr. E., don't you correct the trespasser?
We should like to see you do it !
“If you say ‘capital is the servant of, labor,’ you lie it is the
servant of its possessor. Does labor possess capital? No. The fellows
with the ‘disordered brain' would make labor the possessor of capital.
But this you don't want, yet you say “capital ought rightfully be the
servant of labor."
“Now in regard to the eight-hour strike mext spring, a few practi-
cal words to our friends. The number of organized wage-workers in
the country may be about 800,000, the number, of unemployed about
2,000,000. Will the manufacturing kings grant your modest request
under such circumstances? No sir! the small ones cannot, and the
big one will not. They will fill your place by drawing from the army
THE GREAT STRIKE. 19
of the unemployed....You will interfere. . . . Then comes the police
and militial”
Whatever their individual views and expectations were regarding
the “eight-hour reform,”—the Internationalists are not marrow-minded
theorists, and hence, instead of opposing the movement, they gave it
their full support. And possessing the confidence of the great body of
Wage-Workers, whose cause they had for years espoused, they maturally
became the champions of the movement, owing to their recognized
ability, intelligence and sincerity.
CHAPTER II.
THE GREAT STRIKE.
While both sides were preparing themselves for the great conflict
on the coming first of May, trouble had arisen in the McCormick
Harvester factory, which still further intensified public feeling. On
the 16th of February, 1886, at 9.30 A.M. the works were closed down
and 1,200 men were “locked out.” . The employes of that establish-
ment had been for some time perfecting their organization and at last
had presented a petition for the redress of certain grievances and a
general advance of wages. ''The dispute arose over an additional de-
mand that a guarantee should be given that no man in the factory, or
tºny One Serving on a committee, should be discharged for having acted
as a representative of his comrades. This was absolutely refused. A
strike in the factory in the preceeding April had been adjusted on the
basis that none of the men who served on committees, etc., and made
themselves conspicuous in behalf of their fellow workmen, would be
discharged for so doing. This agreement has been wantonly violated,
and every man who had incurred the displeasure of Mr. McCormick
Was not only discharged, but black listed, in many cases being unable
to obtain employment in other shops. On the 2d of March the locked-
out men assembled in mass meeting and were addressed at length by
A. R. Parsons and Michel Schwab. The meeting had been called not
* only for the purpose of stating their grievances, but to protest against
the armed force which had been enlisted against them—four hundred
uniformed police and three hundred Pinkerton detectives, all armed
to the teeth. To beseech an employee not to take the place of another
became an attack on the State, and these armed men employed by the
State came forth at the behest of capital, struck down the peaceable
citizens, clubbed and searched them, and cast them into the patrol
Wagons and hustled them off to prison. The banditti of “law and
order” maintained the legal right of capital to do what it pleased with
20. THE GREAT STRIKE.
labor, and the authorized “pickpockets” searched every workman for
weapons of defense !
These stormy scenes but intensified the general feeling of resis-
tence and determination to unite in making the strike of May 1 all em-
bracive. Meetings were held mightly in various portions of the city
and the prisoners became prominent as orators or organizers. Their
frequent speeches at meetings held on the lake front had made the
names and faces of most of them familiar to workmen. The Arbeiter-
Zeitung, on which Spies and Schwab were editors, entered ardently on
the work and was instrumental in bringing about a reduction in hours
from fourteen and sixteen to ten for the bakers, brewers and other
unions. The speakers of the International were engaged nearly every
evening, either in addressing or organizing unions. On the Sunday
preceding the first of May the Central Labor Union held an immense
eight-hour demonstration, at which there were estimated present 25,-
000 persons and who were addressed by Spies, Parsons, Fielden and
Schwab.
The eventful day at last arrived. Fully 25,000 men laid down
their tools and by the fourth of May this number was doubled. On
the first of May the Arbeiter-Zeitung contained the following article
from the pen of Mr. Spies:
“The dies are cast ! The first of May, whose historical signifi-
cance will be understood and appreciated only in later years, is here.
IFor twenty years the working people of the United States have whined
and have begged their extortionists and legislators to introduce an
eight-hour system. The latter knew how to put the modest beggar off
and thus year after year has passed by. At last, two years ago, a
number of trades organizations took the matter up and resolved that
the eight-hour work day should be established on May 1, 1886.
“That is a sensible demand, said the press, howled the profes-
sional imposters, yelled the extortionists. The impudent Socialists,
who wanted everything and would not content themselves with rational
demands of this kind, were treated to the customary shower of
epithets. -
“Thus things went on. The agitation progressed and everybody
was in favor of the shortening of the work day. With the approach
of the day, however, on which the plan was at last to be realized. a
suspicious change in the tone of the extortionists and their priestcraft
on the press became more and more noticeable....What had formerly
in theory been modest and rational, was now impudent and senseless.
What had formerly been lauded as a praiseworthy demand, when
THE GREAT STRIKE. 21
*
Compared with Socialism and Anarchism, changed now suddenly into
‘criminal Anarchism' itself. The cloven feet of the hellish crew,
panting for spoils, became visible. They had intonated the eight
hour hymn simply to lull their dupes, workingmen, to sleep, and thus
keep them away from Socialism,
"That the workingmen would proceed in all earnestness to intro-
duce the eight-hour system was never anticipated by these confidence
men; that the workingmen would develop such stupendous power,
this, they never dreamed of. In short, today, when an attempt is
made to realize a reform so long striven for; when the extortionists
are reminded of their promises and pledges of the past, one has this
and the other has that to give as an excuse. The workers should only
be contented and confide in their well-meaning exploiters and some
time between now and doomsday everything would be satisfactorily
arranged. *
"Workingmen, we caution you. You have been deluded time and
time again. You must not be led astray this time.
“Judging from present appearances, events may not take a very
Smooth course. Many of the extortionists, aye, most of them, are
resolved to starve those to ‘reason' who refuse to submit to their arbi-
trary dictates, i.e., to force them back into their yoke by hunger. The
question now arises—will the workmen allow themselves to be slowly
starved into submission, or will they inoculate some modern ideas into
their would-be murderers' heads?”
As illustrative of the hatred earned by thus championing the
cause of their fellow-workers, attention is called to the following
leader in the editorial columns of the Daily Mail of the same day,
May 1.
“BRAND THE CURs.
“There are two dangerous ruffians at large in this city; two
Sneaking cowards who are trying to create trouble. One of them is
named Parsons. The other is named Spies. Should trouble come
they would be the first to skulk away from the scene of danger, the
first to attempt to shield their worthless carcasses from harm, the first
to shirk responsibility.
“These two fellows have been at work fomenting disorder for the
last ten years. They should have been driven out of the city long
ago. They would not be tolerated in any other community on earth.
“Parsons and Spies have been engaged for the past six months
in perfecting arrangements for precipitating a riot today. They have
taken advantage of the excitement attending the eight-hour move-
22 THE GREAT STRIKE.
ment to bring about a series of strikes and to work injury to capital
and honest labor in every possible way. They have no love for the
eight-hour movement, and are doing all they can to hamper it and
to prevent its success. These fellows do not want any reasonable
concessions. They are looking for riot and plunder. They haven't
got one honest aim nor one honorable end in view.
“Mark them today. Keep them in view. Hold them personally
responsible for any trouble that occurs. Make an example of them if
trouble does occur ! ”
Certainly a more personally vindictive article than any that the
prosecution have been able to produce from the pen of either Spies or
Parsons. How these gentlemen have borne themselves when “trouble”
came is a matter upon which no question can be raised; how far the
implied threat has influenced their conviction is not, however, beyond
question. -
On the third of May the strike had become general. On that day
a riot occurred near the McCormick works, arising out of an attack
by the strikers on the “scabs” who had taken their places. Police
were quickly hurried to the spot and opening a murderous fire soon
cleared the field. It was to protest against the growing tendency to
shoot workmen on slight provocation that the now famous meeting at
the Haymarket was called. Mr. Spies, in his autobiography, has
given a succinct account of those two important meetings which pre-
ceded the throwing of the bomb, and as he was one of the principal
actors on both necasions his own account of the affair is here quoted:
“On Monday, May 8, the strike became general. The Arbeiter-
Zeitung of that day gives a complete review of the local movement,
which is most interesting; it also bears evidence of the intense excite-
ment that existed. Several large processions were held, among which
that of about 500 brave tailor girls who marched through the principal
part of the city was the most noteworthy. This novel procession was
perfectly orderly; nevertheless, several assaults were made upon it by
the police. A general strike of the freight handlers on the North-
Western Road broke out, which thickened the cloud that hung omni-
ously over the city.
“I was invited by the Central Labor Union to address a mass
meeting of striking lumber-shovers in the afternoon on Twenty-second
street and Blue Island avenue. I did not intend to go to the meeting.
I was completely exhausted from the exertions of the last few days;
but a committee called on me and insisted that I must come along.
It was an immense gathering, fully 10,000 persons must have been
THE GREAT STRIKE. 23
bresent. Several short speeches had already been made when I ar-
rived. When the chairman introduced me, some men in the audience
cried out: ‘He is a Socialist, we don't want any Socialistic speeches tº
But as soon as I began to speak all became quiet and silent. I spoke
With unusual calmness and moderation. The essence of my remarks
Was that they, the strikers, should stand firmly together and they then
Would carry the day. The effect of my speech may best be judged by
the fact that at its conclusion the audience elected me unanimously as
Spokesman of a committee, which had been appointed to confer with
the lumber-yard owners with regard to bringing the strike to a close.
“During my speech I heard some voices in the rear, which I did
not understand, and saw about 150 men leave the prairie, running up
the Black Road towards McCormick's Reaper works (one-quarter mile
South of where the meeting was). Five minutes later I heard pistol-
shooting in this direction, and upon inquiry was informed that the
striking molders of McCormick's works were trying to make the
‘Scabs' who had taken their places stop work.
“About this time — I was just closing my speech — a patrol-
Wagon rattled up the street, filled with policemen; a few minutes later
about seventy-five policemen followed the patrol-wagon on foot, who
Were again followed by three or four more patrol-wagons. The shoot-
ing continued, only, that instead of the single shots regular volleys
Were now fired. I left the meeting and hastened up to McCormick's.
A long line of freight cars were standing on the railroad track in front
of the high board inclosure of the factory building. Between these
cars and the fence was the battle-field, or better the target range of
the police. All I could see was that about 150 men, women and small
boys were chased by as many or more policemen who emptied their
revolvers in rapid succession upon the fleeing and screaming “mob.'
“To say that I was horrified at the sight of this is only express-
ing vaguely what I felt. I saw several persons carried and led away
by their friends — they had been shot. A young Irishman, who
Beemed to know me, came running up to me, and said: “What kind
of a h- of union is that down there ! (pointing to the lumber-shovers'
meeting.) They must be nice fellows to stand by and have their
brothers shot down like dogs by these — ”
“‘Have many been hurt?' I inquired.
“‘Many? I should think so I I helped carrying two away, who
seemed to be killed. Nobody knows how many have been shot and
killed !' was his reply, adding, ‘Have you no influence with those
men down there? If you have, for God's sake, bring them up here !’
24 THE GREAT STRIKE.
“I have seen this identical man a few weeks ago in the jail, and
upon inquiry learned that he was a detective!
“I ran back to the meeting, which in the meantime had been ad-
journed. The people were leaving it in small knots, going home, some
of them indifferent and unconcerned at the news from McCormick's,
others shaking their heads in indignation. I was frantic, but my
senses returned as I glanced over the stolid faces of these people; there
was no response there ! And, seeing that I could be of no possible
assistance here, I took a car, without uttering another word, and rode
down town to my office. Just in what frame of mind I was, I cannot
describe. I sat down to address a circular to the workingmen — a
short account of what had transpired and a word of advice: that they
should not be so foolish as to try to resist an armed organized “mob,'
in the employ of the capitalists, with empty hands,--but I was so
excited that I could not write. I dictated a short address, but tore it
up again, after I had read it, and then sat down — the compositors
were waiting for the copy, it being after the regular hours—and wrote
the now famous so called “Revenge Circular' in English and German.*
The word ‘Bevenge ’ was put on as a headline by one of the compos-
itors (without my knowledge) who ‘thought it made a good heading.’
I ordered the circular printed and told the office assistant to have
them taken to the different meetings that were held in the evening.
There were only a few hundred of them circulated. After I had given
this order I went home.”
We interrupt this sketch by Mr. Spies at this point to call attem-
tion to the fact that on the trial Ludwig Zeller, of the Central Labor
* The circular read as follows: *
Revenge! Workingmen, to arms. Your masters sent out their bloodhounds,
the police. They killed six of your brothers at McCormick's this afternoon; they .
killed the poor wretches because they had the courage to disobey the supreme
will of your bosses; they killed them because they dared to ask for the shorten-
ing of the hours of toll; they killed them to show you, free American citizens,
that you must be satisfled and contented with whatever your bosses condescend
to allow you or you will get killed. You have for years suffered unmeasurable
iniquities; you have worked yourselves to death; you have endured the pangs of
Want and hunger; your children you have sacrificed to the factory lords,-in
short, you have been miserable and obedient slaves all these years. Why? To
Satisfy the insatiable greed, to fill the coffers of your lazy thieving masters.
When you ask them now to lessen the burden they send their bloodhounds out to
shoot you — kill you. If you are men, if you are the sons of your grandsires
who have shed their blood to free you, then you will rise in your might, Hercules,
and destroy the hideous monster that seeks to destroy you! To arms! We call
you to arms! YoUR BROTHERS.
º
THE GREAT STRIKE, 25
Union, swore that Spies was selected to address the Lumber-Shovers'
Union meeting in response to an invitation for some one who would
keep it “quiet and orderly.” In this connection also, as preliminary
to the narration of the Haymarket meeting of May 4, the editorial of
the Arbeiter-Zeitung (by Schwab) of the above date, a translation of
Which was read during the trial by the prosecution, is here given:
“Blood has flowed. It had to be, and it was not in vain, that
Order drilled and trained its bloodhounds. It was not for fun that the
militia was practiced in street fighting. The robbers who know best
of all what wretches they are; who pile up their money through the
miseries of the masses; who make a trade of the slow murder of the
families of workingmen, are the last ones to stop short at the direct
Shooting down of the workingmen. “Down with the Canaille,' is their
motto. Is it not historically proven that private property grows out
of all sorts of violence. Are these capitalistic robbers to be allowed
by the canaille, by the working classes, to continue their bloody orgies
With horrid murders? Never! The war of classes is at hand. Yes-
terday workingmen were shot down in front of McCormick's factory,
Whose blood cries out for revenge! Who will deny that the tigers who
rule us are greedy for the blood of the workingman? Many sacrifices
have been offered upon the altars of the golden calf amid the applaud-
ing cries of the capitalistic band of robbers. One need only think of
Cleveland, New York, Brooklyn, East St. Louis, Fort Worth, Chicago,
and many other places, to realize the tactics of these despoilers. It
means, “Terrorize our working cattle.' But the workingmen are not
sheep, and will reply to the white terror with the red terror. Do you
know what that means? You soon will know. Modesty is a crime on
the part of workingmen, and can anything be more modest than this
eight-hour demand? It was asked for peacefully a year ago, so as to
give the spoilsmen a chance to reply to it. The answer is, drilling of
the police and militia regulations of the workingmen seeking to intro-
duce the eight-hour system, and, yesterday, blood flowed. This is the
Way in which these devils answer the modest prayer of their slaves.
“Sooner death than life in misery, if workingmen are to be shot
at. Let us answer in such a way that the robbers will not soon for-
get it.
“The murderous capitalistic beasts have been made drunk by the
Smoking blood of workingmen; the tiger is crouching for a spring; its
eyes glare murderously; it moves its tail impatiently, and all its
muscles are tense. Absolute necessity forces the cry, “To Arms'
To Arms!" If you do not defend yourselves you will be torn and
mutilated by the fangs of the beast. The new yoke which awaits you
26 THE GREAT STRIKE.
in case of a cowardly retreat is harder and heavier than the bitter
yoke of your present slavery. All the powers opposed to labor have
united; they see their common interest in such days as these ; all else
must be subordinate to the one thought — How can the wealthy rob-
bers and the hired bands of murderers be made harmless?
“The papers lie when they say that the workingmen who were
near McCormick's yesterday shot first. It is a bold and shameless lie
of the newspaper gang. The police shot among the workingmen
without a word of warning, and, of course, the latter replied to the
fire. Why be so ceremonious with the ‘canaille 2' Had they been
not men, but sheep or cattle, they must have reflected before shooting. .
JBut a workingman is quickly replaced. Yet these well-fed fellows
boast at their costly meals, in the company of their mistresses, of the
splendid working of Law and Order.
“Shabbily-dressed women and children in miserable huts weep
for husbands and fathers. In palaces they still fill goblets with costly
wine, and pledge the health of the bloody banditti of Order. Dry
your tears, ye poor and suffering ! Take heart, ye slaves | Rise in
your might and level the existing robber rule with the dust.”
In the same issue appeared also the following:
“The heroes of the club yesterday pounded brutally with their
cudgels a number of girls, many of whom were mere children. Whose
blood does not course more swiftly through his veins when he hears of
this outrage? Whoever is a man must show it to-day. Men to the
front l”
It was followed in the afternoon by the following dodger, which
was scattered broadcast through the streets of the city:
“ATTENTION, WoRKINGMEN / Great mass-meeting to-night, at 7:30
o'clock, at the Haymarket, Randolph Street, between Desplaines and
Eſalsted. Good speakers will be present to denounce the latest atro-
cious acts of the police — the shooting of our fellow-workmen yester-
day afternoon. “THE EXECUTIVE CoMMITTEE.”
We will now resume Mr. Spies' narrative of the events of May
4th: |
“On the following morning about 9 or 10 o'clock, A. Fischer, one
of our compositors, asked me if I would not come to a general mass-
meeting which would take place at the Haymarket in the evening and
‘make a speech ' on the brutality of the police and the situation of
the eight-hour strike. I replied that I was hardly able to speak, but
if there was no one to take my place I should come. Delegates of a
number of unions had called the meeting, he said. I made no further
THE GREAT STRIKE. 27
inquiries. About 11 o'clock a member of the Carpenters' Union called
on me and asked that the hand-bill he showed me be printed in the
Arbeiter-Zeitung as an announcement. It was the circular calling the
Haymarket meeting, and at the bottom it contained the words —
‘Workingmen, bring your arms along I'
“‘This is ridiculous!" said I to the man, and had Fischer called.
I told him that I would not speak at the meeting if this was the cir-
cular by which it had been called.
“None of the circulars are as yet distributed; we can have these
Words taken out,’ the man said. Fischer assented, and I told them
that if they did that it would be all right.
“I never for a moment anticipated that the police would wantonly
attack an orderly meeting of citizens. And I never saw a disorderly
meeting of workingmen. The only disorderly meetings I have ever wit-
nessed were the republican and democratic pow-wows. I went home
about four o'clock P. M. to take a little rest before going to the meet-
g ing. The reaction following the excitement of the previous day had
Set in. I was very tired and ill-humored. After supper my brother
Henry called at our house. I asked him to come along to the meeting,
which he did. We walked slowly down Milwaukee avenue. It was
Warm ; I had changed my clothes; the revolver I was in the habit of
carrying was too large for the pocket, and inconvenienced me. Passing
Frank Stauber's hardware store, I left it with him. It was about 8:15
o'clock when we arrived at Desplaines and Lake streets. I was under
the impression that I was to speak in German, which generally follows
the English. That is the reason why I was late. Small and large
groups of men were standing around, but there was no meeting. Not
Seeing anyone who might be supposed to be entrusted with the man-
agement of the meeting, I jumped upon a wagon, inquired for Mr. Par-
Sons (who I thought had been invited), and called the meeting to order.
Parsons was not there. “I saw Parsons at the corner of Halsted and
Randolph streets; I think he is speaking there,' said a reporter to me.
I told the crowd to wait a few minutes while I went out in search of
Parsons. Not finding him I returned to the wagon, where somebody
told me Parsons, Fielden and others were holding a meeting in the
office of the Arbeiter-Zeitung. I sent one of our employes over to the
office to call Parsons and Fielden, and began to address the meeting.
I spoke about twenty minutes.
“Then Parsons spoke. The audience was very quiet and atten-
tive. Parsons confined himself to the eight-hour question, but spoke
at great length. While he was speaking I asked Mr. Fielden if he
28 THE GREAT STRIKE. .
would not make a few remarks. He didn't care to speak, but would
say a few words and then adjourn the meeting. I said, ‘All right, do
so.’ It was about ten o'clock when Fielden began to speak. A few
minutes later a dark and threatening cloud moved up from the north.
The people—or, at least, two-thirds of them—fearing it would rain,
left the meeting. ‘Stay,” said Fielden, “just a minute longer; I will
conclude presently.' There were now not more than two hundred per-
sons remaining. One minute later two hundred policemen formed into
line at the intersection of Randolph street and marched upon the little
crowd in double quick step.
“Raising his cane in an authoritative way, Captain Ward—direct-
ing his words to Fielden (I was standing just behind Fielden in the
wagon)—said: “In the name of the people of the State of Illinois I
command this meeting to disperse !'
“‘Captain, this is a peaceable meeting,’ retorted Mr. Fielden,
while the captain turned around to his men and gave a command
which I understood to be, ‘Charge upon them ' ' At this juncture I
was drawn from the wagon by my brother and several others, and I
had just reached the ground when a terrible detonation occurred.
‘What is that ?’ asked my brother. “A cannon, I believe,” was my
reply. In an instant the fusilade of the police began. Everybody was
running. All this was as unexpected as if suddenly a cloud had burst.
I lost my brother in the throng and was carried away toward the north.
People fell, struck by the bullets, right and left. As I crossed the alley
north of Crane's factory, a lot of officers ran into the alley, some of
them exclaiming that they were hurt. They had evidently been shot
by their own comrades, and sought protection in the alley. I was in
a parallel line with them, and the bullets whistled around my head like
a swarm of bees. I fell once or twice over others who had “dropped,’
but otherwise escaped unhurt into Zepf's saloon, at the corner of Lake
street. Here I heard for the first time that the loud report had been
caused by an explosion, which was thought to have been the explosion
of a bomb. I could learn no particulars, and about a half hour after-
ward took a car and rode home to see if my brother had been hurt.
He had received a dangerous wound. Turning aside when I had an-
swered, ‘It’s a cannon, I believe,’ he beheld the muzzle of a revolver
deliberately aimed at my back. Grasping the weapon, the bullet
struck him in a vital part.” (EHe recovered.)
*Note.—There is no question at all but that detectives had been stationed
in the crowd to kill the obnoxious speakers at the instant the police would charge
upon the crowd.
THE GREAT STRIKE. 29
“The next morning the papers reported that the police had been
searching for me all might and that they had orders to arrest me. No-
body had been at my house during the night; the report was a lie. I
Went to the office at my regular hour and began to work. About nine
o'clock Detective Jim Bonfield made his appearance and told me the
chief of police wanted to have a talk with me. I went along with him
to the central station. Two other detectives arrested Schwab and my
brother Christ, who had come to the office to learm what had occurred
on the previous night. The fact that his name was Spies sufficed to
arrest him and charge him with having committed murder.”
The reign of terror which prevailed during the month of May
Would form the subject of a lengthy and interesting chapter, but space
forbids entering into details. A brief reference to a few leading points
must suffice:
On the night of the Haymarket meeting, Mr. Parsons, one of the
alleged “conspirators to destroy the city,” took with him his wife and
his two young children and a lady friend, who occupied seats in an ad-
joining wagon until the appearance of rain drove them away. At the
time of the explosion of the bomb the only ones of the eight prisoners
present were Spies and Fielden. And in this connection it will be well
to recall out of the regular order some of the testimony which remained
unimpeached, bearing directly on the attack by the police.
On the 2d of August Hon. Carter H. Harrison, the mayor of Chi-
cago, was placed on the witness stand as the first witness for the de-
fense. His testimony as to the character of the meeting was clear and
decisive. Following are extracts:
Q. Did you attend the Haymarket meeting on Desplaines street
on the 4th of May last?
A. A part of it, not the whole. During May 4th, probably about
noon, information came to me of the issuance of a circular.of a very
peculiar character, and a call for a meeting at the Haymarket that
might. I called the chief of police and directed him that if anything
should be said at that meeting as was likely to call out a recurrence of
such proceedings as at McCormick's factory the meeting should be im-
mediately dispersed. I believed that it was better for myself to be there
and to disperse it myself instead of leaving it to any policemen. I
thought my order would be better obeyed. I went there then for the
purpose, if I felt it necessary for the best interests of the city, to dis-
perse that meeting.
Q. How long did you remain at the meeting?
A. It was about five minutes before eight o'clock when I arrived.
I should judge from the time when the bomb sounded and the time it
30 THE GREAT STRIKE.
took me to walk home, that I left the meeting between 10 and 10:05
o'clock. I heard all except probably a minute or a minute and a half
of Mr. Spies' speech, and all of Mr. Parsons’ up to the time I left, with
the exception of a break when I left him talking and went over to the
station. I was absent five or ten minutes. It was near the close of
Parsons' speech. I should judge he was looking toward a close. I went
to the station to speak to Captain Bonfield, and had determined to go
home, but instead of going home I went back to hear a little more, and
them left.
Q. Up to the time that you went to the station and had this inter-
view with Mr. Bonfield, what was the tenor of the speeches 2
A. With the exception of a portion in the earlier part of Mr.
Spies' address, which, for probably a minute, was such that I feared
it was leading up to a point where I should disperse the meeting, it
was such that I remarked to Captain Bonfield that it was tame. The
portion of Mr. Parsons’ speech attracting most attention was the stat-
istics as to the amount of returns given to labor from capital, and
showing, if I remember rightly now, that capital got eighty-five per
cent and labor fifteen per cent. It was what I should call a violent
political harangue against capital.
Q. Was any action taken by you while you were at the meeting
looking to the dispersal of the meeting? &
A. No! -.
Q. Do you recollect any suggestion made by either of the speakers
looking toward the immediate use of force or violence toward any per-
Son? r
A. There was none. If there had been I should have dispersed
them at once.
Q. How long was the interview that you had with Inspector Bon-
field 2
A. Probably five minutes.
Q. Will you please state what it was ?
A. I went back to the station and said to Bonfield that I thought
that the speeches were about over; that nothing had occurred yet or was
likely to occur to require interference, and I thought he had better issue
orders to his reserves at the other stations to go home. He replied that he
thought about the same way, as he had men in the crowd who were
reporting to him.
Q. Did you see any weapons in the hands of the audience?
A. No, sir; none at all.
THE GREAT STRIIXE. 31
sº
Upon cross-examination by the State the specific reasons for the
mayor's attendance at the meeting, and their utterly groundless nature,
Were clearly brought out. The entire cross-examination is here given:
MR. GRINNELL.-Had you heard rumors of an attempt to burn
the Milwaukee and St. Paul freight house that evening which led you
to go to the meeting?
A. The rumor that I adverted to was this. Shortly after my
reaching the station Capt. Bonfield told me that he had just received
information that this meeting, or part of it, would go to the St. Paul
freight house, then filled with what they called scabs, and blow it up.
There was also an intimation that this meeting might be merely a
ruse to attract the attention of the police to the Haymarket, while
the real attack, if any should be made that night, should be at
McCormick's. It was with reference to these rumors that I listened
to the speeches.
Q. And listening in that way to the speeches you ascertained
that there was no invitation to go to the St. Paul depot?
A. None. - -
Q. And therefore you concluded that there was no organization
to destroy property that night?
A. That is the fact.
Q. Now, what was the order you gave to Bonfield?
A. That the reserves held at the other stations might be sent
home, because I had learned that all was quiet in the Second District
—the southwest. Bonfield said he had already given such an order.
Q. Did you hear Parsons' call to arms ?
A. I don’t remember it. I think I should have noticed such
language.
CAPTAIN BLACK.—Where did you hear that rumor about the
McCormick affair?
A. That was something that I apprehended myself.”
It is thus clearly established that the meeting at the Haymarket
Was perfectly peaceable. Nothing is shown to have occurred in the
short time which elapsed between the departure of the mayor for
home and the order given by Inspector Bonfield to six companies of
police, numbering 174 men, to march to and disperse the meeting.
Why, then, was the order given 2
The Chicago Times of the next morning, in its narration of the
affair, said:
“It was about ten minutes after ten and just at that moment a
large squad of police moved up from the Desplaines street station for
the purpose of arresting Spies, Schwab, Parsons and Fielden,”
32 - THE GREAT STRIKE.
Qº.
Barton Simonson, a traveling salesman of irreproachable char-
acter, and known to the officers of police stations by his prominence
in efforts made by Christian organizations to establish soup-houses for
the destitute, followed Mayor Harrison on the stand. The following
extract is pertinent in this connection:
“I spoke to Capt. Bonfield about the trouble at McCormick’s and
he said that the greatest trouble the police had in dealing with the
Socialists was that they had their women and children with them at
the meetings so that the police could not get at them. He said he
wished he could get a crowd of about three thousand of them together
without their women and children AND HE would MAKE SHORT work of
THEM.”
The witness said that he was not a Socialist nor an Anarchist, and
had never affiliated with either. He had merely attended the meeting
from curiosity and had, though not intentionally, preserved in his
pocket the hand-bill or dodger calling the meeting, which he offered
in evidence. It did not contain the words “Workingmen, arm your-
selves and appear in full force.”
He said he heard Spies say on opening, “This meeting was not
called to incite to riot.” He gave a synopsis of Spies' speech which
agreed in the main with accounts already given. The witness said
that he had never before attended a Socialistic meeting, and he
thought “all the remarks were a little wild.” When the clouds came
up some suggested an adjournment, but Fielden said he was nearly
through and twice said “in conclusion.” When the witness heard
the police order to the meeting to disperse he heard distinctly above
the commotion the two words “peaceable meeting.” These words
came from the direction of the wagon [where Fielden was speaking.]
He heard nothing from the wagon or from Fielden about “Here
comes the bloodhounds.” After the explosion the witness saw the
flashing of many pistol shots from the police, but none from the sur-
rounding crowd. Other witnesses corroborated him not only on these
points, but also that among the fleeing fugitives were a large number
of the police who sought shelter or safety in flight; and thus confirm-
ing what the writer has been repeatedly assured of by eye witnesses—
that the large number of policemen wounded by balls were shot by their
own frightened comrades. The number of citizens shot will probably
never be known. One was found dead, and twelve wounded were
reported as removed to the county hospital. Of the police, one, Officer
Degan, was killed, while sixty-six others were wounded by pieces of the
bomb and pistol shots, six of them fatally.
THE GREAT STRIKE. 33
The Chicago Tribune of May 5 said:
“There was no warning given. The crowd was rapidly dispersing.
The police, marching slowly, were in a line with the east and west
alley when something like a miniature rocket suddenly rose out of the
crowd on the east sidewalk, in a line with the police. It rose about
twenty feet in the air, describing a curve, and fell right in the middle
of the street and among the marching police. It gave a red glare
While in the air. The bomb lay on the ground for a few seconds, then
a loud explosion occurred, and the crowd took to their heels, scatter-
ing in all directions. Immediately after the explosion the police pulled
their revolvers and fired on the crowd. An incessant fire was kept up
for nearly two minutes, and at least 250 shots were fired. The air was
filled with bullets. The crowd ran up the streets and alleys and were
fired on by the now thoroughly enraged police. Then a lull followed.
Many of the crowd had taken refuge in the halls or entrances of halls
and Saloons. As the firing ceased they ventured forth, and a few
ºfficers opened fire on them.”
At half-past eleven, curiosity and a desire to find friends drew a
large number to the spot and another charge was made and two volleys
fired, which dispersed the crowd, though there was no indication that
they were Socialists.
The Tribune gives the following list of wounded citizens carried
off by the police:
“RoberT SCHULTz, No. 88 Harrison street, waiter at No. 165.
Ashland avenue, just coming from the Lyceum. Shot in the leg.
“John SACEMAN, No. 103 South Desplaines street; was lounging
along Randolph street when he was shot in the leg.
“FRANK WRoscH, residence in the cheap lodging houses. “I just
stopped and listened,’ he groaned, ‘and then the fire came to my
shoulders and sides.' He will probably die. Not a Socialist.
“CHARLEs SchumfARER, No. 19 Fry street, was with two friends.
They ran away and he was shot in the back. It is doubtful if he will
reCOWer.
“EMIL Lotz, keeper of a small shoe shop at No. 25 North Hal-
Sted street; when he got through work he went out to hear the
Speeches and was shot in the shoulder. +.
“JoHN EDBUND, a carriagemaker at 1138 Milwaukee avenue;
clubbed in the head.
“PETER LEY, 586 West Huron street, shot in the back.
“JoE KUCKER, a hanger-on around West Side ‘barrel houses,’ and
boarding at No. 116 Randolph street; shot in the side.
34 THE GREAT STRIKE.
“B. LEPLANT, Earl Park, Ind., “I bought some peanuts and was
eating them when the bomb went off,' he said, ‘then a shot broke my
leg and I fell. In a second a shot went through my shoulder and a
policeman kicked me.’
“FRANK KADEREIT, a member of the Central Labor Union and
residing at the corner of Mohawk street and North avenue, wounded
on the head and right shoulder by a policeman's club.
“THOMAS HAHA, of 157 Eagle street, was shot in the back and
leg. He was carried into a hallway at 182 West Madison street,
where he lay groaning. He was able to walk to the patrol wagon, in
which he was carried to the county hospital. He was probably a rioter,
but he claimed to be an unoffending citizen.
“FRITZ KADERIT, a German workingman; scalp wound from
some blunt instrument. He was locked up.
“In a search of the dead Bohemian only twelve cents was found
upon him. Not a trace of a name could be found. He was appar-
ently about 35 years of age.
“Every drug store in the vicinage was crowded with wounded get-
ting their injuries dressed and then carried home by their friends.
“It was a common spectacle to see men having their wounds
dlessed on the sidewalk. The street cars going in every direction
contained men who had been wounded but were still strong enough to
help themselves away.”
It was the old, old story; merciless brutality and inoffensive
victims. The capitalistic Tribune confesses this in plain words. It
says on May 5:
“Goaded to madness the police were in that state of mind which
permitted of no resistance, and in a measure they were as dangerous as
any mob of Communists, for they were blinded by passion and unable
to distinguish between the peaceable citizen and the Nihilist assassin.
For squares from the Desplaines street station companies and squads
of officers cleared the streets and mercilessly clubbed all who
demurred at the order to go.” -
“Who threw the bomb? is a query the police have still to solve,”
Said the Chicago Herald of the 6th; and the query has not yet been
Solved. *
Hundreds were arrested and locked up as “suspects.” The entire
force of the Arbeiter-Zeituny were taken in charge and orders given to
have the paper suppressed. º
A. R. Parsons was not to be found; but the police arrested his
wife and some other ladies known to be their friends. The papers re-
A
THE HAYMARKET SPEECHES. 35
port Mrs. Parsons as wearing a “flaming red handkerchief" about her
throat and the following colloquy ensued:
“You still wear the red ribbon,” remarked Detective Palmer to
her, alluding to the handkerchief.
“Yes,” she defiantly answered, “and I'll die under it, too.”
Nearly everyone known to be in sympathy with the International
Working People's Association were “run down” and submitted to the
“pumping process” by detectives, sworn at and even threatened with
revolvers and ropes. The whole force of the city was employed to
Secure evidence to convict by any and every means. The character
of Some of the “evidence” thus obtained will be apparent in a review
of the testimony. But before entering upon the history of the trial
We desire to give the speeches made at the Haymarket meeting by
Spies and Parsons. * . .
CHAPTER III.
THE HAYMARKET SPEECHES.
At the request of his attorney, Mr. Spies wrote out the substance
of his remarks on the evening of May 4th, which agrees in tenor with
the memories of those who heard it. Mr. Parsons also made notes of
his address at the meeting, and repeated it under oath before the jury"
The Speech Delivered by August Spies at the Haymarket,
May 4, on the Occasion of the Bomb-Throwing.
TRIENDs:—The speakers of the evening not having arrived I shall
entertain you a few minutes. I am told that a number of patrol
Wagons, carrying policemen, were sent to Desplaines street station,
and I understand that the militia have been called under arms. There
seems to prevail the opinion in certain quarters that this meeting has
been called for the purpose of inaugurating a riot, hence these warlike
preparations on the part of so-called “law and order." However, let
me tell you at the beginning that this meeting has not been called for
*The Chicago Times of August 10 contained the following state-
ment in regard to this speech:
“The climax in the Anarchist trial was reached yesterday. Schwab, Spies
and Parsons told their respective stories to the jury from the witness-chair, to a
spell-bound audience of spectators, an amazed jury, and a surprised judge. * *
Parsons was composed and eloquent. * * * His brother, General W. H. Par-
Sons, sat with eyes fixed upon him during the time he was upon the stand. As
Soon as Mr. August Spies retired Mr. Parsons took the stand, and in a quiet, def-
erential tone answered the questions put to him in a firm voice, not appearing to
36 SPEECH OF AUGUST SPIES.
any such purpose. The object of this meeting is to explain the gen-
eral situation of the eight-hour movement, and to throw light upon
various incidents in connection with it.
For more than twenty years have the wage workers of this country
begged and prayed their masters, the factory lords, to reduce their bur-
dens. It has been in vain. They have pointed out the fact that over
a million of willing and strong hands were in a state of enforced idle-
mess and starvation, that to help them to obtain employment it would
not only be advisable, may, it was necessary to reduce the hours of
daily toil of those who were fortunate enough in having found a buyer
for their muscles, their bones and their brain. The masters of this
earth have treated them with contempt, have condemned them to vaga-
bondage whenever they insisted. The legislatures have been called
upon, one petition has succeeded the other, but with no avail.
At last the condition of the disinherited producers has become un-
bearable. Seeing that neither “boss” nor law would concede anything
to them, they have organized for the purpose of helping themselves—
a wise and prudent resolution. *
All over the land we behold vast armies of producers, no longer
begging, but demanding that eight hours shall henceforth constitute a
normal working day. And what say the extortionists to this? They
demand their pound of flesh, like Shylock. They will not yield one
iota. They have grown rich and powerful on your labor. They amass .
stupendous fortunes, while you, who bring them into existence, are
suffering from want. In answer to your pleadings they ask for the
bodies of your little children, to utilize them in their gold mints, to
make dollars out of them . Look at the slaves of McCormick? When
they tried to remonstrate with their master he simply called upon the
“protectors of these free and glorious institutions”—the police—to
silence them. And they did silence them.
You have no doubt heard of the killing and wounding of a number
of your brothers at McCormick's, yesterday. Mr. McCormick told a
be in the least unnerved by his peculiar position. At length he was asked to give
the substance of his Haymarket speech, and he did so, and if the jury, the court,
and the audience have been entertained since the trial began, they were enter-
tained by the chief agitator of the Chicago Anarchists. He pulled out of his pocket
a bundle of notes, and began at the jury in tones which betokened that the speaker
was primed for the finest speech of his life. Luckily for him the witness-chair was
a swinging one. He held his notes in his left hand, and, together with the swaying
of his body, gesticulated with his right arm. From low, measured tones he went
on from eloquence to oratory, and from oratory to logic, and from logic to argu-
ment.”
SPEECH OF AUGUST SPIES. 37
Times reporter that Spies was responsible for that massacre committed
by the most noble Chicago police. I reply to this that McCormick is
an infamous liar. (Cries of “Hang him.") No, make no idle threats.
There will be a time, and we are rapidly approaching it, when such
men as McCormick will be hanged; there will be a time when monsters
who destroy the lives and happiness of the citizens (for their own ag-
grandizement) will be dealt with like wild beasts. But that time has
not yet come. When it has come you will no longer make threats, but
you will go and “do it.”
The capitalistic press, like the “respectable gentleman" McCor-
mick, howls that the Anarchists are responsible for the deeds of vio-
lence now committed all over this country. If that were true one would
have to conclude that the country was full of Anarchists, yet the same
press informs us that the Anarchists are very few in number. Were
the “unlawful” acts in the Southwestern strike committed by Anarch-
ists? No, they were committed by Knights of Labor—men who never
fail to declare, whenever there is an opportunity, that they are law-
and-order-abiding citizens. The attack upon McCormick's yesterday
—Was it made by Anarchists? Let us see. I had been invited by the
Central Labor Union to address a meeting of lumber-yard laborers on
the Black road. I went out there at the appointed time, about three
o'clock in the afternoon. There were at least ten thousand persons
assembled. When I was introduced to address them a few Poles or
Bohemians in the crowd cried out: “He’s a Socialist.” These cries
Were followed by a general commotion and derision. “We want no
Socialist; down with him.” These and other exclamations I was
treated to. Of course, I spoke anyway. The crowd became quiet and
calm, and fifteen minutes later elected me unanimously a delegate to
See their bosses. Nevertheless, you can see that these people are not
Socialists or Anarchists, but “good, honest, law-abiding, church-going
Christians and citizens.” Such were the persons who left the meeting,
as I afterward learned, “to make the scabs at McCormick's quit work.”
In my speech I never mentioned McCormick. Now you may judge for
yourselves whether the Anarchists were responsible for the bloodshed
yesterday or not.
Who is responsible for these many “lawless” acts, you ask me?
I have told you that they are generally committed by the most lawful
and Christian citizens. In other words, the people are by necessity
driven to violence; they can't carry the burden heaped upon them any
longer. They try to cast it off, and in so doing break the laws. The
law says they must not cast it off, for such an act would alter, yea,
revolutionize the existing order of society. These acts of violence are
38 SPEECH OF A. R. PARSONS.
the natural outgrowth of the present industrial system, and every one
is responsible for them who supports and upholds that system.
What does it mean when the police of this city, on this evening,
rattle along in their patrol wagons?
What does it mean when the militia stands warlike and ready for
bloody work at our armories?
What are the gatling guns and cannon for 2
Is this military display of barbarism arranged for your entertain-
ment 2 *
All these preparations, my friends, ARE made in your behalf.
Your masters have perceived your discontent.
They do not like discontented slaves.
They want to make you contented at all hazards, and if you are
stubborn they will force or kill you. *
Look at the killing of your brothérs at McCormick's yesterday.
What did they do? The police tell you they were a most dangerous
crowd, armed to their teeth. The fact is, they, like ignorant children,
indulged in the harmless sport of bombarding McCormick's slaughter
house with stones. They paid the penalty of this folly with their blood.
The lesson I draw from this occurrence is that workingmen must
arm themselves for defense, so that they may be able to cope with the
government hirelings of their masters. §
I see Mr. Parsons has arrived. He is a much abler speaker in
your tongue than I am, therefore I will conclude by introducing him.
A. R. Parsons on the Rights and Wrongs of Labor.
CAPTAIN BLACK.—“Now, Mr. Parsons, going back to the meeting,
retracing our steps for a moment—will you tell us, please, what was
the substance of your speech that night, as fully as you can remember?”
TEIE SPEECH.
“I have taken some notes of reference since then to refresh my
memory. I recollect distinctly of mentioning all of these points,
but I could not recall them seriatim unless I put them on paper, and
that is the reason I have done so.
“When I was introduced I looked at the crowd and observed that
it was quite a large crowd. I am familiar with public speaking and
with crowds, and I should estimate there were three thousand men
present, and I consider myself a judge in such matters. The street
was packed from sidewalk to sidewalk, north and south of the wagon,
SPEECH OF A. R. PARSONS. 39
but especially south of the wagon, for a considerable distance. I faced
the south.
I first called the attention of those present to the evidence of dis-
content among the working classes, not alone of Chicago, not alone of
the United States, but of the civilized world, and I asked the question,
if these evidences of discontent, as could be seen in strikes and lock-
outs and boycotts, were not indications that there was something radi-
cally wrong in the existing order of things in our social affairs. I then
alluded to the eight-hour movement, and spoke of it as a movement
designed to give steady employment to the employed, work to the idle,
and thereby bring comfort and cheer to the homes of the destitute and
relieving the unrelieved and wearisome toil of those who worked not
alone ten hours, but twelve, fourteen and sixteen hours a day. I said
that the eight-hour movement was in the interests of civilization, of
prosperity, of the public welfare, and that it was demanded by every
interest in the community, and that I was glad to see them assembled
on that occasion to give their voice in favor of the adoption of the
eight-hour workday.
I then referred again to the general condition of labor throughout
the country. I spoke of my recent travels through the States of Penn-
Sylvania and Ohio, where I had met and addressed thousands and
thousands of workingmen. I told of the Tuscarora Valley and of the
Flocking Valley and of the Monongahela Valley—among the miners of
this country, where their wages averaged 24+ cents a day. I showed,
of course, these were not wages they received while at work, but that
the difficulty was they did not get the day's work, and consequently
they had to sum up the totals and divide it. Throughout the year it
amounted to 24} cents a day. I asked if this was not a condition of
affairs calculated to arouse the discontent of the people, and to make
them clamor for redress and relief. I pointed to the fact that in the
city of Pittsburgh a report was made by, I think, the Superintendent
of Police of that city, stating that at the Bethel Home, a charitable
institution in that city, from January 1, 1884, to January 1, 1885,
there were 26,874 destitute men—tramps—American sovereigns—who
had applied for a night's lodging and a morsel of food at one establish-
ment alone in the city of Pittsburgh. I referred, of course, to many
other places and similiar things, showing the general condition of labor
in the country.
I then spoke of the eight-hour movement—that it was designed to
bring relief to these men and to the country. I thought surely that
there was nothing in it to excite such hostility on the part of employers
and on the part of monopoly and corporations against it, as was wit-
40 SPEECH OF A. R. PARSONS.
nessed in different parts of the country. I referred to the refusal of
the corporations and monopolists to grant and concede this modest
request of the working class, and their attempts to defeat it. I then
referred to the fact that in the face of all these causes producing these
effects, the monopolistic newspapers, in the interests of corporations,
blamed such men as I–blamed the so-called agitators, blamed the
Workingmen—for these evidences of discontent, this turmoil and con-
fusion, and so-called disorder. I called the attention of the crowd
Specifically to that fact—that we were being blamed for this thing,
when, on the contrary, it was evident to any fair-minded man that we
were simply calling the attention of the people to this condition of
things and seeking a redress for it. I impressed that upon the crowd
specifically, and I remember that in response to that several gentle-
men spoke up loudly and said: ‘Well, we need a good many just such
men as you to right these wrongs and to arouse the people.”
I spoke of the compulsory idleness and starvation wages, and how
these things drove the workingmen to desperation—drove them to
commit acts for which they ought not to be held responsible; that they
were the creatures of circumstances, and that this condition of things
was the fault, not of the workingmen, but of those who claimed the
right to control and regulate the rights of the workingmen. I pointed
out the fact that monopoly, in its course in grinding down labor in
this country and in refusing to concede anything to it—refusing to
make any concessions whatever—that in persisting in such course it
Was creating revolutionists, and if there was a single revolutionist in
America, monopoly and corporations were directly responsible for his
existence. I specifically called attention to this fact, in order to de-
fend myself from the charges constantly being made through the
mouthpiece of monopoly—the capitalistic press.
I called attention to the Chicago Times and other newspapers.
I called the attention of the working-people that might to the strike of
1877; when the Chicago Times declared that hand-grenades ought to
be thrown among the striking sailors who were then upon a strike on
the river wharves in this city, in order to teach them a lesson, and
that other strikers might be warned by their fate. I said that the
Chicago Times was the first dynamiter in America, and as the mouth-
piece of monopoly and corporations it was the first to advocate the
killing of people when they protested against wrong and oppression.
I spoke of the Chicago Tribune, which at that day advocated that when
bread was given to the poor strychnine should be placed on it. I also
called attention to Frank Leslie's Illustrated Paper, which declared in
an editorial that the American toiler must be driven to his task either
SPEECH OF A. R. PARSONS. 4l
by the slave-driver's lash or the immediate prospect of want. I spoke
of the New York Herald, and its saying that lead should be given to
ºny tramp who should come around. Whenever a Workingman,
*own out of employment and forced to wander from place to place
**h of work, away from family and home, asked for a crust of
bread, the New York Herald advised those to whom he applied to fill
him with lead instead of bread.
I called attention to what Tom Scott, the railway monopolist,
said during the strike of 1877, “Give them the rifle diet and see how
they like that kind of bread.” I referred to Jay Gould when he said
We Would shortly have a monarchy in this country, and to a similar
Statement in the Indianapolis Journal.
Then I referred to how monopoly was putting these threats into
practice. They not only used these threats but they put them into
practice, and I cited East St. Louis, where Jay Gould called for men
and paid them $5 a day for firing on harmless, innocent, unarmed
Workingmen, killing nine of them and one woman in cold-blooded
murder. I referred to the Saginaw valley, where the militia were used
to put down strikes. I referred to Lemont, Ill., where defenseless and
innocent citizens and their town were invaded by militia of the State
9: Jilinois, and without any pretext men, women and children were
fired upon and slaughtered in cold blood. I referred to the McCor-
mick strike on the previous day, and denounced the action of the
police on that day as an outrage.
I asked the workingmen if these were not facts, and if monopolies
and corporations were not responsible for them, and were they not
driving the people into this condition of things. And then I used
Some Words of some phrase in connection with the use of the military
and the police and the Pinkerton thugs to shoot down workingmen, to
drive them back into submission and starvation Wages. t
I then referred to the Chicago Mail of Monday, to which my
attention had been called on Tuesday afternoon. In an editorial it
asserted that Parsons and Spies incited the trouble at McCormick's
factory the day before and ought to be lynched or driven out of the
city. Now the truth is, I was at Cincinnati at that time. I called
uttention to the fact that the newspapers were wickedly exciting the
people against the workingmen. I denied the newspaper charge that
We Were Sneaks and cowards, and defied them to run us out of the
city. º {
I pointed to the fact that the capitalistic press were the subsidized
agents and organs of monopoly, and that they held stocks and bonds
in corporations and railroads, and that no man could be elected an
42 - SPEECH OF A. R. PARSONS.
alderman in this city unless he had the sanction of some one of the
corporations and monopolies of this city. Then I said, I am not here,
fellow workingmen, for the purpose of inciting anybody, but to tell
the truth, and to state the facts as they actually exist, though it should
cost me my life in doing so. I then referred to the Cincinnati demon-
stration, at which I was present the Sunday previous. I said that
the organizations of workingmenin that city—trades unions and other
organizations—had a grand street parade and picnic. They sent for
me to go down there and address them. It was an eight-hour demon-
stration. I attended on that occasion and spoke to them. I referred
to the fact that they turned out in thousands and that they marched
with Winchester rifles, two or three companies of them. I suppose
there were about two hundred men at the head of the column, the
Cincinnati Rifle Union. I said that at the head of the procession
they bore the red flag—the red flag of liberty, fraternity, equality of
labor, all over the world—the red flag of emancipated labor. I
pointed out that every other flag repudiated the workingman, outlawed
the workingman, and that he had no shield and no flag but the red
Oſle.
I then referred to our country, and to men saying this was a
movement of foreigners, and so on. I pointed out the fact that the
desire for right and the thirst for liberty and for justice was not a
foreign affair at all; it was one that concerned Americans as well as
foreigners, and that patriotism was a humbug in this connection;
that it was used to separate the people, to divide them, and to antagon-
ize them against each other; that the Irish were separated and their
national feeling was kept alive as against an Englishman in order
that the exploiters and depredators among them might more easily
make them victims and use them as their tools. I referred in that
connection to land monopoly and showed how the farms of this
country were being driven into land tenures like those of Europe.
I called attention to an article which appeared in the North American
Review last December, which I think was by an American statistician
of this country, in which it was stated that over three hundred and
fifty millions of dollars in mortgages were held on farms west of the
Alleghamies by capitalists living in the little State of Connecticut,
demonstrating that Americans need not go abroad to find the
evils of land monopoly. I stated that over fifty per cent, perhaps
two-thirds, of the farms in the states of Illinois, Wisconsin and Mich-
igan were under mortgage, and that landlordism was making it
impossible for the toilers to pay for these farms, and that they were
breaking them up, forcing them to become tenants, and instituting
SPEECH OF A. R. PARSONS. 43
the Puropean system in this country. I said I did not regard that as
* question of patriotism, nor a foreign question, but an American
question concerning Americans.
I referred to the banking monopoly of the country, by which a
few men are empowered to make money scarce in order that they may
°ontrol markets, run corners on the different mediums of exchange,
and produce a panic in the country by making money Scarce. They
made the price of articles dear, threw labor out of employment, and
brought on bankruptcy. I said that monopoly owned labor and em-
ployed its armed hirelings to subjugate the people.
In the light of these facts and of your inalienable right to life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I said, it behooves you, as you
love your wives and children, if you would not see them perish with
Want and hunger, yourselves killed or cut down like dogs in the streets
-Americans, as you love liberty and independence, arm! arm your-
Belves! A voice then said to me, “we are ready now.” I answered,
“No, you are not.” I did not understand exactly what the gentleman
said, but I, made that reply, as has been testified to by many here. I
called attention to the fact that the Constitution of the United States
gave the right to every man to keep and bear arms, but monopoly was
Seeking to deprive the citizen of that right. I called attention to the
fact that the Constitution guaranteed us the right of free speech, of free
press, and of unmolested assembly, but that corporations and monop-
oly, by paid-for decisions of courts, had trampled these rights under
foot, or were attempting to do so.
I called attention to the fact that the Government of the United
States was in the hands of the money power, and that from this fact
-the sway of this money power—it was almost impossible for a poor
man to get justice in a court of law; that law was for sale, just like
bread; if you had no money you could get no bread, and without
imoney you could get no justice; that justice was almost beyond the
reach of the poor, and that the producers were made and kept poor by
the grinding processes of the corporations and monopolies.
I then called attention to Socialism and explained what it was.
I gave them Webster's definition of it—that it meant a more equitable
arrangement of society, a more just and equitable arrangement of
Social affairs; that there was nothing in the word or in the purposes
of Socialism for anybody to become alarmed at. On the contrary, it
should be hailed with delight by all, as it was designed to make all
happy and prosperous.
I then spoke in this connection of the wage system of industry,
and showed that it was a despotism, inherently and necessarily so, be-,
44 SPEECH OF A. R. PARSONS.
cause under it the wage-worker was forced and compelled, under pen-
alty of hunger, to work on such conditions and at such terms as the
employers of labor may see fit to dictate to him. This I defined to be
slavery, hence I said they were wage-slaves, and that the wage system
was what Socialism proposed to displace. I then showed the power
that the wage system gave to the employing class by the lockout, the
blacklist, and the discharge; that I myself had been blacklisted because
I exercised my right of free speech as an American, because I saw fit
to be a member of a labor organization; that I had been deprived
repeatedly of my bread for that reason by my employer.
I then called attention to the United States census for the year
1880, and I showed that the returns made there—statistically gotten
up by a republican administration—these returns showed that eighty-
five cents from every dollar produced went to the profit-taking classes,
and that fifteen cents was the average sum received by the producing
class for having produced the whole dollar. This labor bureau showed
that in manufactures the daily average product of the workers amounted
to ten dollars per day, and their wages or share of the product aver-
aged $1.15 per day. I said that this was wrong, and that in the face
of such a condition of things we could expect nothing but poverty, des-
titution, want and misery. I showed how under this system the work-
ingmen of the United States were really doing ten hours' work for two
hours' pay; that the employers say to the men: “You want to work
only eight hours. Do you mean to say that we must give you ten hours'
pay for eight hours' work?” I said: Gentlemen, fellow workmen, let
us answer these men and say and prove to them by the official statis-
tics of the United States census that we are not receiving now but two
hours' pay for ten hours' work; that that is what the wages of the
country on the average represent. I spoke of corporations crowding
the workingmen to the wall, and summed it up in some such words as
these: Now, for years past the Associated Press, manipulated by Jay
Gould and other traitors to the republic and their infamous minions,
have been sowing the seeds of revolution. These seeds, I thought,
could be summarized about as follows:
To deprive labor of the ballot.
To substitute a monarchy for the republic. -
To rob labor and then make poverty a crime. w .
To deprive small farmers of their land, and then convert them into
serfs to serve a huge landlordism.
To teach labor that bread and water are all that it needs.
To throw bombs into crowds of workingmen who were opposed to
laboring for starvation wages.
SPEECH OF A. R. PARSONS. 4
To táke the ballot by force of arms from the majority when it is
used against the interests of corporations and capital.
To put strychnine upon the bread of the poor.
To hang workingmen to lamp-posts by mobs in the absence of tes-
timony to legally convict them.
To drive the poor working classes into open mutiny against the
laws, in order to secure their conviction and punishment afterward.
These threats and diabolical teachings, I said, had been openly
and boldly uttered by the great conspiracy—the solid Associated Press
and monopolies of this country—for years, against the liberties of the
poor, and the workingman of America was as sensitive to the wrongs
imposed upon him as would be the possessor of millions. I said that
this was the seed from which had sprung the labor movement, and it
Was as natural as cause and effect.
[The workingmen present appeared to be very much interested. I
never saw a more quiet, orderly, interested gathering of men—and I
have spoken to a great many in my life—than was present on that
Occasion.]
I called their attention to the fact that labor paid for everything
—paid all the expenses of the government, of the police, of the armies,
of legislators, of congressmen, of judges—paid everything. Labor paid
it all. That I, as a tenant—I used my own case as an illustration—
paid all the taxes. Said I: Now, the landlord claims that he pays
the taxes. What are the facts? When I pay him my rent, I in fact
pay the taxes. He claims that he makes all the repairs on the house,
and paints it up and does all such things. He does not do anything
of the kind. He is simply my agent to look after these things, and I,
as his tenant, pay for it all. So it is with all tenants. 4- r
I said that labor bears all the burdens but derives none of the
benefits of our present civilization. I referred to the fact that it was
through these methods that the working people, who produced all the
wealth, were kept poor, and being poor they were ignorant. That our
School teachers had yet to learn the fact that the great need of the
people was more material comforts before it would be possible for them
to become amenable to the influences of educational forces; that ignor-
ance was the result of poverty; that intemperance was the result of pov-
erty, and for every man who was poor because he drank I could show
twenty men who drank because they were poor. I said that this pov-
erty, this discord, this commotion in the civilized world was because of
the social disease, the cramming of people into hovels and dens unfit
for animals to live in ; it was the cause of the death of the young, of
old age coming upon middle age; that it was the cause of crime; that
416 SPEECH OF A. R. PARSONS.
poverty was at the root and bottom of war, of discord and of strife, and
that this poverty was an artificial, unnatural poverty which Socialism
proposed to remedy.
I was at this time, as you understand, gentlemen, making a speech
for Socialism. I had been talking especially for Socialism. I then
spoke as a trades-unionist. I am a member of my union and of the
Knights of Labor. I said that these organizations differed somewhat
with Socialism in that they hoped to receive and obtain redress within
the present system, but that was not possible, in my belief; that a
study of social affairs and of historical development had taught me
that the system itself was at fault, and that as long as the cause re-
mained the effects would be felt; that every trades union, every assem-
bly of the Knights of Labor, every organization of workingmen, had
for its ultimate end—let its course be what it might—the emancipation
of labor from economic dependence, and whether they sought it or not,
events and the developments of this existing wage system would of
necessity force or drive these men into Socialism as their only savior,
and the only means by which they could live—that they could exist in
the end in no other way. If I remember rightly I then said that strikes
were attempts to right these wrongs on the part of the unions and the
Rnights of Labor; that I did not believe in strikes; I did not believe
that redress could be had by that method; that the power was in the
hands of the employer to refuse; that if the men went on a strike the
employer could meet the strike with a lockout, and could keep them
out until they were so hungry that they would through their destitu-
tion be compelled to return and accept the terms of the employer;
therefore, strikes must of necessity fail—as a general thing.
I called attention to the scabs, and said that the unionist made
war on the scabs. Now, said I, here is the distinction between a So-
cialist and a trades-unionist. The unionist fights the scab. What is
a scab 2. As a general thing, a man who, being out of employment
and destitute, is driven by necessity to go to work in some other man's
place at less wages than has previously been paid. He is at once de-
nounced as a scab by the unionists, and war is made upon him. Now,
Socialists don't do this; they regard these men as the victims of a false
system and to be pitied. The scabs might be compared to fleas on a
dog. The unionists want to kill the fleas, but the Socialists would kill
the dog; that dog is the wage system of slavery. *
I then pointed to the ballot—how.we were swindled at the ballot
box and defrauded and cheated, how we were bulldozed and intimi-
dated and bribed and corrupted—yes, corrupted by the very money
that had been stolen from us. Men would come to us when we were
SPEECH OF A. R. PARSONs. 47
Ipoor and give us bread-money if we would vote their ticket, and we
often did it through necessity, and for these and other reasons,
through this intimidation, bribery and corruption, the workingmen had
but little to expect from the ballot—that a man who could not control
his bread stood a poor chance to control his ballot. I said we had
petitioned and passed resolutions, and had done everything in our
power for redress; in fact, there was a rebuff on every occasion.
I then said to them: Gentlemen, Socialism means the free associa-
tion of the people for the purpose of production and consumption —
in other words, universal co-operation. Socialism is the abolition of
the private ownership or monopoly of the resources of life, the means
of subsistence— capital; placing the means of life in the hands of the
whole people for their joint use and equal benefit. This is the sum
total of Socialism, and the only permanent solution of the difficulties
between capital and labor. I said that monopoly and corporation had
formed a gigantic conspiracy against the working classes. I them
called upon them to unite, to organize, to make every endeavor to ob-
tain eight hours; that the less-hours movement meant a peaceful
Solution of the labor trouble; that if the employers in this and all
other countries would concede this demand it meant peace. If they
refused — it meant war; not by the working classes, not by laborers,
but by monopolists and corporations upon the lives, liberty, and hap-
Piness of the working classes.
I said that capital in the hands of corporations and monopoly
deprived the laborers of their labor product, of their right to live, and
Was driving labor into open revolt and forcing people to defend them-
Selves and to protect and maintain their right to self-preservation, and
Self-preservation would compel the workers to abolish the government
Which enslaves them. I said the monopoly conspiracy originated in
the great railroad strike of 1877, that this conspiracy since that time
had proposed to use force, and that they used force. Wanderbilt said
‘the public be damned.’ The New York World and other papers had
said that the American laborer must be contented with the wages he
received, and not expect any more wages than his European brother,
and be contented with that station in life to which it had pleased God
to call him. I then appealed to them to defend themselves, their
rights and their liberties—to combine, to unite, for in union there
Was strength.
, That, gentlemen, was the subject of my hour's speech at the
Haymarket.
CAPTAIN BLACK — When you were referring in your speech to Jay
Gould or to the Southwestern system, do you remember any interrup-
48. THE EMPANELING OF THE JURY.
tion from the crowd, or any response connected with the name of
Gould 2
A. Yes. I omitted that. Some one said “Hang him." My re-
sponse to that was, that this was not a conflict between individuals,
but for a change of system, and that Socialism designed to remove
the causes which produced the pauper and the millionaire, but did not
aim at the life of individuals. *
Mr. Fielden's speech was not reported. Some of the papers of
the next day contained a condensed, report, but as it was brought out
on the evidence that the reporter had been charged only to report
“incendiary passages," perfect reliance cannot be placed on the re-
ports they submitted for acceptance. Mr. Fielden, in his speech be-
fore sentence was passed upon him went sufficiently into the details of
his speech, to which the reader is referred.
*—
CEIAPTER IV.
THE EMPAN ELING OF THE JURY.
On May 18th the Grand Jury began the examination of witnesses,
Judge Rogers having charged them “that Anarchism should be sup-
pressed.” On the 25th they indicted August Spies, Michel Schwab,
Albert R. Parsons, Adolph Fischer, Samuel Fielden, Louis Engel,
Louis Lingg, Oscar Neebe, Rudolph Schnaubelt and Wilhelm Seliger,
for the murder of Mathias J. Degan, and others for ‘conspiracy, riot
and unlawful assembly. Schnaubelt left the city and never returned.
‘Neebe had not been arrested at first, but immediately on the suppress-
ion of the Arbeiter-Zeitung he had stirred himself so emergetically in
its behalf that it soon bid fair to stand on a firmer basis than ever.
He was then arrested, but on June 14 he was admitted to bail in the
sum of $17,000, his share in the “conspiracy” and its results not con-
sidered to be so. well established as that of the other prisoners.
Seliger turned informer and was not included with the others.
The trial was commenced before Judge Gary in the Criminal
Court June 21, and the sensation of the day was the return and sur-
render of A. R. Parsons, who walked quietly into court with his
counsel, Captain Black, and took his seat beside his indicted comrades.
And in this connection the following story, related by a reporter
in one of the city dailies, is too good to be lost: *
THE EMPANELING OF THE JURY. 49
The question is often asked, “I)o detectives detect?” It is fair
to presume that in some cases they do not. Schnaubelt, whom it is
now believed is the man who threw the Haymarket bomb, was firmly
in the clutches of the detectives, but after being questioned by Lieu-
tenant John Shea, was allowed to go on his way unmolested.
During the trial of the Anarchists a party of newspaper men and
Several Central Station detectives were standing one afternoon in front
of the Criminal Court building. A little wiry fellow, with black hair
and mustache and piercing black eyes, walked by briskly with Captain
Black and entered the court house.
“I’ll bet a dollar to a nickel,” said a newspaper reporter, “that
that little man is A. R. Parsons.”
“Nonsense,” said one of the detectives, “not in a thousand
years. Why, mam, don't you suppose I know Parsons when I see .
him? He isn't within five hundred miles of Chicago. Say, we detect-
ives have been looking for him,” and, as if this settled the matter, the
detective entered the building. He had no sooner reached the stair-
Way that leads to Judge Gary's court-room than an officer met him
and exclaimed, “Parsons has just given himself up.” The detective
nearly fainted, and for several weeks he kept out of the way of the
newspaper man. -
Twenty-one days were consumed in the effort to secure twelve men
Who were esteemed competent to give the accused an unbiased trial on
the evidence. But as the question of what was and what was mot
“bias” entered largely into the effort, and forms an important part
of the history of the trial, let us examine the process of selecting
“twelve men, good and true.” !
The right of trial by “an impartial jury” is a Constitutional pro-
vision, and it is a well-known principle that all statutes must be con-
Strued in conformity with the Constitution. The statute (March 12,
1874,) provides “that in the trial of any criminal cause, the fact that
a person called as a juror has formed an opinion or an impression,
based upon rumor or newspaper statements (about the truth of which
he has expressed no opinion,) shall not disqualify him to serve as a
juror in such case, if he shall, upon oath, state that he believes that
he can fairly and impartially render a verdict therein, in accordance
With the law and the evidence, and the court shall be satisfied of
the truth of the statement.”
In cases which have since arisen this statute has received a con-
struction, and the essence of these cases is that this statute declares
to be competent a juryman who has a slight opinion, or an opinion
based upon rumor or newspaper statements, and where he will swear
and the court is satisfied that such opinions will not affect him in the
rendition of a fair and impartial verdict. This was always the con-
struction of the law. In the first case in which this statute came
º - - r
. * * # , , , .* . m - . - f - - * + k . . -
*- ºf . * * * * ~ * * * - º - - t : * <
o * ** * **. . . . . . . . " : " . . . . . . . . . * - ; , , , \ . . . . . . .
• * . . * * r . . . . r & *... - ſº * - . * * ~ * z. * * * • . - - , , . . ." | * , $
• * * - | " . --> r w * *. J
- - - | # .
*- i. # w - -
i *
;: - * , a s -
.ſ A { * - • * .
v 50. THE EMPANELING OF THE JURY.
under consideration, (September Term, 1874, 74 Ill., 361,) Mr. Justice
Schofield, delivering the opinion of the court, says: -
“The juror, Broubaker, we do not think was competent. He is
unable to state that he could sit as an impartial juror in the case. He
was, among others, asked this question: ‘You think that you have
‘. . heard reports which you believe to be true, in respect to the defendants,
º which Would have a tendency, in some degree, to bias your mind in
. . . this respect?’ and he answers: ‘It may have.’ -
º “When the juror has been exposed to influences, the probable
effect of which is to create a prejudice in his mind against the defend-
ant, which it would require evidence to overcome, to render him
competent it should appear that he can, when in the jury box, entirely
disregard those influences, and try the case without in any degree
being affected by them.” Judgment reversed.
Let us now proceed to the examination of jurors as illustrating
Judge Gary's rulings, bearing in mind that the number of peremptory
ſ
challenges permitted to each prisoner arraigned was twenty.
M. T. CAREY, on the first day, stated that he had read an account
of the case, had talked of it, believed what he had heard and read to be
true, and had formed and expressed an opinion as to the guilt or inno-
cence of the defendants. He also expressed the belief that he could
try the case fairly. He was asked the question whether that was
such an opinion as would require evidence"to remove. The court decided
that this was an incompetent question, because it called for the opin-
“. . ion of the juror as to the future effect of evidence on his mind. This
juror was subsequently challenged for cause, but upon another ground.
, CLARENCE H. HILL stated that he had read accounts of the
Haymarket meeting, had conversations in reference to it, and upon
, the information derived from all sources, had formed an opinion as to .
the guilt or innocenge of the defendants, which he still entertained,
and which was based upon his belief in what he had read : and that he
was prejudiced against Socialists, Anarchists, etc. He was finally
asked:
Q. You have no opinions, biases or prejudices, which it would
require evidence to overcome 3
A. Yes, sir; I have. k
The juror was challenged for cause, the challenge was overruled,
and he was thereupon challenged peremptorily by defendants. . Y
... W. N. UPHAM was another who was examined on the first day.
He stated that he had read the newspaper accounts of the Haymarket
affair, and had conversation with various persons upon the subject;
that from all sources of information he had formed, an opinion upon
f e- Q
$. r’ \ #
* { *
. . A * ,
-- 2. *
.* ... f
* . . . ; * . . . * * * * . . . . * # - , * - " . . . .
. ...’ . . . . : , - . * * ſ , ', . . . . . . . * * , * 8. . . a * \ | •, , , *.
g . . . . - * * * * * , t , l * : * ; : e . * * * \ , , ; * *
- " . . * , 4 i * # - - - , a " * : * ' * * * * f
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 * * , - . . . . *. , , , , ,
a r * + , ' - f * * - i i r * * * ... * * *
, - f . .
THE EMPANELING OF THE JURY. 51
the guilt or innocence of some of the defendants, which he believed
he had eaſpressed to others; that he believed to be true the statement which . º
he had heard and read, and that he expressed a belief that what he had
heard was true. Subsequently, upon a direct question by the court,
to-wit: - . . . . . ."
# Q. The question is whether you have ever formed or expressed º
an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of any one of these eight men . .
of the murder of Officer Degan 2 . . .
A. I can't say what I have expressed in words, but my opinion
was that some of them are guilty. . . .
He also said he believed that he could render a fair verdict on the
evidence. - . . .".
THE CouTT.—That is not any ground of challenge under the lawl º
- He stated further that he had the same opinion as to the guilt of ,
Some of the defendants, and then the question was asked as to whether' . .
testimony would be required to remove that opinion before he would ,
be unbiased and free to act upon the evidence. The question was ob-, . ".
jected to, quite freely argued, and the objection was then sustained by
the court. The juror was then challenged for cause, the challenge
was overruled, and then challenged peremptorily. . . . . .
E. F. SHEDD, examined on June 23d, stated that he had read of -
the Haymarket affair in the papers, and at the time formed an opin- . . . . .
ion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants, which opinion, he
still entertained, no circumstances having occurred to change it. That “
such opinion was formed from the belief by him of the truth of the . . . .
statements which he had heard and read, and that he had expressed , .
the opinion to others. He said also: “I would have my opinion, my . .”
own opinion, until it was set aside by the whole testimony,” and that . .
it would require evidence to remove the opinion which he had. He was r
thereupon challenged for cause and the court overruled the challenge.
The same person was thereupon interrogated, and stated that he
had a prejudice against Communists, Anarchists and Socialists as a
class, which was of such a character that it would prevent his listening . .
to the testimony and rendering an impartial verdict if it were conceded or
proved that the defendants belonged to such class. He stated further: . .
“I think the mere fact of their being Communists would influence ,
7my opinion as a juror.” -
Q. And therefore you would not find the same verdict upon the . . .
same evidence as you would if they were not so — you would require . . .
additional evidence. • * . . . .
A. Yes, sir; and that he would find the defendants guilty upon less
evidence than if they were law-abiding citizens. ... .º
- * *
* * .
Ö * iſ . . . . .
*
f - -
f 4 * º º * # * , + * * *
A - … . . . . . - d i
- *. r k * * *
* * * ". .* r
* r t
... 52 | THE EMPANELING OF THE JURY.
... But having stated that he thought he could try the cause fairly,
. the challenge for cause was overruled and another peremptory chal-
lenge used. -
. . . WILLIAM NEIL stated that he had heard and read about the Hay-
market difficulty, and believed enough of what he had so heard to form
an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of some of the defendants, but
thought strong evidence to the contrary would change that opinion;
that, he had expressed said opinion and that “it would take pretty
strong evidence to change my opinion.” And again he said: “It would
take pretty strong evidence to remove the impression that I now have.”
... That he believed his opinion, based upon what he had heard and read,
would accompany him through the trial, and would influence him in
determining and getting at a result. But he also stated that he be-
lieved he could give a fair verdict on whatever evidence he should hear.
Thereupon the juror was challenged for cause on all his answers, and
… particularly on the ground that he had expressed the opinion which he
‘. . . still entertained, which challenge was overruled, and thereupon was
challenged peremptorily.
JAMEs S. OAKLEY stated that he had heard and read of the Hay-
market difficulty, and believed enough of what he had so read and
heard to form an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of some of the
defendants, which opinion he had ea pressed and still entertained. He
was asked if that opinion was so strohgly and firmly fixed that it
would take strong evidence to the contrary to overrule it. This ques-
tion was refused by the court. He also stated that he believed that he
could determine the question of the guilt or innocence of the defend-
ants on the evidence alone. He still further stated as follows:
Q. Still you think that the opinion you now have and what you
have heard and read would influence you in arriving at a verdict?
A. I do."
Q. You do think it would influence you ?
A. I do.
He was further asked as to his prejudice against Socialists, An-
archists, etc., and admitted that he had such a prejudice, and was then
asked: “If it should be proven or conceded on the trial of this case
that some of them are Anarchists or Communists, would this opinion
of yours, in regard to these classes, influence you in arriving at a just
and impartial verdict?” The question was refused by the court. Mr.
Oakley again stating that he had expressed his opinion as to the guilt
or innocence of the defendants, or some of them, was challenged for
cause on all his answers, and particularly on the ground of the expres-
‘. .
H
f
t
w -- * , . " * , - . * .
* * * . * * - ? * *
f
\ * , ; ... * x * *
* f f
* f \
THE EMPANELING OF.THE JURY. 58 . . . .
sion of his opinion. The challenge was overruled and another per- * .
emptory challenge rendered necessary. i . . .
#
Pages might be filled with similar evidence; but for the purpose
of introducing some of the rulings of the court, and its peculiar." º
method in “coaching ” jurors, a few more should be cited. . .
H. F. CHANDLER stated that he had heard and read of the Hay. . . . . .
market affair, and from what he had so read and heard, had formed
an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of one or more of the defend-
ants, which he still entertained and which he had expressed. That he -
believed in the truth of the statements he had read and heard, and, ſº
had never questioned it. The following questions and answers theie-, ...
upon ensued:
Q. Is that a decided opinion as to the guilt or innocence?
A. It is a decided opinion; yes, sir.
Q. Your mind is pretty well made up now as to their guilt or in-
nocence? - * .
A. Yes, sir. Well, it will take evidence to satisfy me on that
point. I don't know. I have simply heard one side of the case. I
have just read the newspaper matter. I have formed an opinion as:
far as that goes.
Q. Would it be hard to change your opinion.
A. It might be hard; I can't say. I don't know whether it would
be hard or not. ſº º * , ,
He also stated that he had a strong prejudice against Socialists,
Anarchists and Communists, and was then asked if that prejudice . . . .
would influence his verdict; which question was refused by the court.”
He further stated that he thought he had expressed his opinion as to
the guilt or innocence of the defendants quite frequently; and was .
thereupon challenged for cause.
Certainly not a very marked case of impartiality, but the court.
thereupon took him in hand and he was led to state that he had anº
opinion as to whether the defendants did the act which caused the
death of Degan, but that that opinion was based wholly upon what he
had heard and read and not from conversation with any person who
was present at the time of the transaction. While it may not be ap-
parent that this in the least mitigates the fact that the juror was not
competent to decide impartially, the court thought otherwise and laid
down the following ruling: “It don't seem to me that it makes any
difference in the competency of a juror whether he has simply formed.
an opinion, or expressed an opinion which he has formed. I don't see
how it makes a particle of difference in his state of mind. Every man
is in favor of justice and fair dealings as between other people where
, , , § 3 + * - - * - * * -- …-
3. r * , * * * * • * * .. * * * * . . # - .. * +. -
t * . . - - . * . f w” ‘. . . a f }. • ? - * * -: *. -- l º * + , , t
p : p - • * * } -- r 1. f , , , , ... I
. . . . . . -- ' ' ' * .# 4, - t ! " ' ' , # - ; * % . . º
- * * - - .# * |
. . . , , ,
v' f ; ; "
'**'. 54 THE EMPANELING OF THE JURY:
"..., his own interests are not affected; and, as I have said before, I think
. . it must be — I think it is the nature of any man to find out the truth
of any transaction, that he will, when the original sources are pre-
" ... sented to him, follow them, and not any hearsay that he has ever
... heard.” The challenge for cause was thereupon overruled and resort
º, rendered necessary to another peremptory challenge.
º, . . . . D. F. Swan presents another typical instance. He had heard and
read about the Haymarket trouble; had formed an opinion as to the
guilt or innocence of the defendants, or some of them, which he still
º, entertained, and had frequently expressed. The opinion was firmly
fired in his mind at the time of his examination. He stated, however,
º' that he believed he could be governed by the evidence and the law;
... that he had discussed the case with his neighbors and friends, and was
prejudiced in a general way against labor organizers. The court re-
fused to allow him to be questioned as to whether his admitted preju-
º, dice against Socialists, Anarchists, etc., would influence his verdict.
"... Being challenged for cause, the court interrogated him as follows:
Q. Have you any feeling against either of them, other than such
‘. . as grows out of what you have heard about their connection with the
Haymarket?
... , A. No, sir. - f
... ." . , Q. That is the only feeling you have? -
A. Yes, sir. - -
. . . Q. And that feeling is based upon the assumption — you have
º, taken it for granted that what you have read and heard about them
Was true, substantially? s
... A. Yes, sir. f
". . . . . . Q. Now, do you believe that you can sit here as a juror and listen
to the evidence on both sides that may be presented here on their trial,
and from that evidence only make up your mind fairly and impartially
as to what the real truth is about their connection with the matter?
... A. I guess I could. -
... ... 'Q. Without any reference to what you have heard about it here-
, tofore, or what you have read about it? *
... A. Yes, sir. .. *. . . . . . . . . .
* That was sufficient; his “firmly-fixed opinion,”, his prejudice
“against labor organizers,” counted for nought. However narrow his
mind, his “guess” that he was broadminded enough to rise above his
own narrowness, inherent in his nature from the very nature of the .
case, was enough for an American judge, between whom and Jeffries
there had elapsed two centuries, to overrule the challenge for cause
and 'compel resort to the rapidly diminishing number of peremptory.
k . ." * *. r :* # f - - " * - * . . * * * ..
* h * º - ſº # , 2 + , k * . . *
k - • * - -- f , “ . - = ′ × . . . . . jº.
*/ ‘. . " * - f # . * , , * 3 * d * , , . . . . * * * * * * !
. # * * * * * * , " . . . . . . . n
, , " , ; - . . . . . . . * * * : . !, ... ? f
THE EMPANELING OF THE JURY. i 55 º
s , 3 *. -
+ # i * - # -- - º - *. - $ w * * *
‘. . . . . . . . . . . . - - * F a * . - • * * * . . . . . '? . ." .
t * * . . • f • * * ' , , , g i - . . . . . . . . . . . f t º:
º, - * s * * - k * * : ** +. r + 4
- #
- ** *
} . . .
challenges. An Orangeman trying a Roman Catholic for an alleged . . . .
assault; a politician investigating a “bloody outrage” at the South;
even a judge of the supreme court sitting on an electoral commission,
might affirm ability to rise above prejudice and firmly-fixed opinions, "...
but instances are rare.
GEORGE N. PopTER said that he had both formed and expressed
an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants, which opin-
ion he thought would bias his judgment. He would try to go by the evi- ". . .
dence, but what he had read would have a great deal to do with his verdict. '.'
His mind was certainly biased now, and it would take a great deal of
evidence to change it. Whereupon Mr. Porter was challenged for cause.
On examination by the State, in answer to the question whether. º:
he believed he could determine alone from the proof the guilt or inno-, " .
cence of the defendants, without consulting his opinion, or without .
being influenced by it, he said: “I hardly know how to answer that ſº
question, I should certainly try to.” Being asked the same question . .
over again he said: “Well, Irather think I could.” In answer to the " ...
court, Mr. Porter said: "ithink what I have read and hearibeforei º
came into court would have some influence with me.” He was afraid .
that what he had read and heard before would have some effect upon
the kind of verdict which he should render. He was finally led to say . .”.
he believed he could fairly and impartially try the case and render a º
verdict according to the law and the evidence; at least, he would cer.
tainly try to. Whereupon challenge for cause was overruled.
The defendant's counsel pushed the inquiry still further and Mr. . ".
Porter admitted that he had a prejudice against Communists, Social- . . . .
ists and Anarchists, and said that he should certainly try to go by the &
evidence, but he thought in this case it would be awful hard work for . . . .'
him to do it. He should try very hard to do it, and he believed he could: ... "
He was asked whether he had ever expressed his opinion that he be: ". . .
lieved the narration. He said: “Well, I don't know that I ever said
it in that many words, but I meant that, of course, certainly.”
Q. You don't know, then, that you ever did say that you believed . . ;
what you heard, or that you believed what you had read? . -
A. Why, we have talked about it there a great many times, and
I have always expressed my opinion. I believe what I have read in .
the papers—believe that the parties are guilty. * . . t
Q. . Now, then, you, say that you did, in the discussion of it, in
substance, say that you believed what you have read in the papers? . .
A. Yes, sir; I have. - -
: * -
' ' ' ** *
*
!
said:
,'
r
• ?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . - " . . . . . . . "
- * : - - , - -
* , / 1' 'z . . . . , 4 ' , , * * * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
w
• * * . . . . .
re .* * - * .
A ; ~x. - a * * , - -
• , ; * \
r * -
56 THE EMPANELING OF THE JURY.
.. Q. And it was from what you have read in the papers that you
... formed an opinion? - * f t
A. Yes, sir. - -
. . . Challenge for cause was hereupon renewed: It would seem to be
awful hard work to “coach " this juryman up to the proper point of
... impartiality to fairly try the case; the court, however, again took him
... in hand. Being asked whether he had expressed an opinion as to the
truthfulness of the account itself which he had read or heard, he
“Well, that is a pretty hard question to answer; I don't know. I
have expressed myself as believing it. I don't know.”
Q. Well, believing— -
A. Believing what I read in the paperS. -
Q. Believing the opinion that you had about the case and the de-
fendant, or believing the story as it was printed?
A. Why, believing, of course, the opinion of the defendants, and
the story, believing it all, believing it just as I read it in the news-
papers. * * * * - **
Q. Did you ever express any opinion as to whether the news.
papers had got bodily or the substance of the story right or not?
A. Oh, I don't know that I ever did that; no, sir.
This last was sufficient to overrule the challenge and to oblige the
issuance of another peremptory challenge. In other words, he had
Inever expressed an opinion on what he had never thought about ; or,
in view of his previous replies, he had never expressed an opinion
against his own expressed opinion 1 and therefore was fully qualified
to sit on the jury |
H. N. SMITH, in his examination, exhibits very clearly, on his
part, if not on that of the court, a decided bias. He said he had
formed quite a decided opinion as to the guilt or innocênce of the
defendants; had read the newspapers at the time; had had frequent
conversations in regard to the matter; had expressed his opinion and
still entertained it. He said he was afraid, he would listen a little
more intently to testimony, which concurred with his opinion than to
testimony on the other side. ' -
“Q. That is, you would be willing to have your opinion strengthened
and would hate very much to have it dissolved? -
A. I would. - - * *
Q. Under these circumstances, do you think you could render a
fair and impartial verdict? . . . . . . . . . .
A. I don't think I could.
conclusion? . . . . . .
A. Yes, sir. . . . .
s
. . . . . i. g
i.
§ r 3. w - * " .. , - $. - rººt * g + $ . - .
* * ". . . . * *. * - # * - - §
2- . . . . * * - • , - -- ". g .* - *. .”
THE EMPANELING of THE JURY. 57.
Q. You think you would be prejudiced ? .
A. I think I would be - prejudiced because my: feeling is ver, .. º
3%. * w . . . . . . . ,
bitter. . * # *
Q. The question is whether or not your prejudice would in any 3.
way influence you in coming to an opinion, arriving at a verdict? ...
A. I think it would. , . ..
Q. You think it would take less testimony as a juryman to come ...
to a conclusion which you now have than to come to the opposite .
Q. That is your best judgment now?
A. Yes, sir.
Whereupon the state took him in hand as a promising juror and . . .
induced him to retract his statement that he thought his “decided
opinion” and “bitter feeling” must influence his verdict, andled him to "
state that he thought he would nevertheless act fairly. The court º
then followed this up and the juror then stated that he didn't know
any of the defendants; he had a personal feeling; some of the officers
were personal friends of his, but he had no feeling toward any of the
defendants upon any ground other than what he had heard or read.
He had talked with persons who were at the Haymarket at the time.
of the excitement, but the name of no man was mentioned.
The challenge for cause was overruled and another peremptory,
challenge sacrificed. One more instance and we will pass on to the
accepted jury.
JAMES H. WALKER said he had formed an opinion on the question ...
of the guilt or innocence of the defendants of the murder of Mr.
Degān, which opinion he still entertained and had expressed to others. . . . .”
Asked as to whether this opinion would influence his verdict, he
replied: - ,
“Well, I am willing to admit that my opinion would handicap my
judgment, possibly. I feel that I could be governed by the testimony.”
Further on he was asked: ' • -
“Then your belief is that you could listen to the testimony and
other proof that might be introduced, and the charge of the court,
and decide upon that alone, uninfluenced and unbiased by the opinion.
that you now have?
A. No, I don't say that.
Q. That is what I asked you.
A.' I said I would be handicapped." ' .
He also stated that he was prejudiced against Socialists, Anarch-
ists and Communists. . . . " .
s
. . , 58 THE ÉMPANELING OF THE JURY.
#. * : * : - z * : . . . .
# * * * + , - r ; • * * - *
dº º 3. y *- i *
: º ! # ,
v. ' . .
º
* ,
x *, *
- * {
...! *
x * ,
** *
# .
* .
+ . f
W ' '.
, ºf “
. g
- *
2 * *
The following question was then asked him:
ºr Q. Now, considering all prejudice, and all opinions that you now
have, is there anything which, if the testimony was equally balanced,
'Would require you to decide one way or the other in accordance with
'your opinion or your prejudice? &
A. If the testimony was equally balanced I should hold my
present opinion, sir. -
... " Q. That is, you would throw your opinion upon the scale, which
would give it greater weight, your present opinion would turn the bal-
º, ance of the scale in favor of your present opinion? That is, assuming
* .
* *
.*
*-
that your present opinion is that you believe the defendants guilty—
º, or some of them—now suppose, if the testimony were equally balanced,
#
* , ºf
-: ; s
, f
, ,
3 ºr
. . . ;
your present opinion would warrant you in convicting them, you
believe, assuming that your present opinion is that they are guilty?
. . . . A. 'I presume it would.
Å
*
» * A
.." Q, Well, you believe it would—that is your present belief, is it?
A. Yes.
, f
f
* ?
. . . ;
Thereupon counsel for defense challenged Mr. Walker for cause.
Upon examination by the State's Attorney he, like the others,
answered the usual questions satisfactorily, and thereupon was inter-
rogated by the court, as follows: -
. '• THE CourT.—Mr. Walker, I suppose you know that the law is that
no man is to be convicted of any crime unless the evidence upon his
º trial, unless that evidence proves that he is guilty beyond a reasonable
*
# &
‘. . . Q. Now, this confusion about
doubt? .
A. Yes, sir. " - w
f
opinions and verdicts I want to
clear up if I can. I suppose you know that no man is to be tried
' ' upon prior impression or prior opinion of the jurors that are called
into the case?
A. Yes, sir. I *
Q. But only on the evidence. That you are familiar with, of
course. Now, do you believe that you can fairly and impartially ren-
der a verdict without any regard to rumor and what you may have in
your mind in the way of suspicion and impression, etc., but do you
believe that you can fairly and impartially render a verdict in accord-
ance with the law and evidence in the case? - . . .
A. I shall try to do it, sir. { ; .
* Q. But do you believe that you can sit here and fairly and impar-
'tially, make up you mind from the evidence, whether that evidence
prove that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not? .
THE EMPANELING of THE JURY. 59 ...,
A. I think I could, but I should feel that I was a little handi-
capped in my judgment, sir.
THE CourT.—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 against it. - -
The counsel for the defense, in their brief before the Supreme . . .
Court, make the following remarks upon this ruling: . . . . . . ;
“We beg leave to state that not only is the remark given above
contrary to experience, but to all the authorities. According to the . ."
remark of the court, the stronger the opinion of the juror against the zºº
defendant, and the more bias and prejudice he has, the better juryman. ',
he will make; because, having this hostile opinion and this bias and . . . .”
prejudice, he will be conscious of it, and will isolate it from himself, ºr
and that will leave his mind to act on the evidence alone. The common . . .
experience is that a previously-formed opinion or prejudice is like the . . .
sand-drift that permeates and mixes with everything, or like green
spectacles that color everything within the vision. The authorities •
all agree that the defendants are not bound to take such a juryman, ...
or, as the Chief Justice says in the Burr case, ‘the law will not trust.
him.’ Judge Gary seems to think that the Constitution is all wrong." . .
This provision should have been that a defendant should be entitled Ҽ
to a juryman ‘handicapped’ by previous opinions and prejudices, and ' ' .
the more he is handicapped the better the juryman will be.” . . . . . ."
The attitude (for it would be improper to say bias) of the court , ,
may be illustrated by giving here a carefully formulated question which º
was propounded to a large number of the proposed jurors, but which tº
in every instance was refused by Judge Gary, although Mr. Grinnell, sº .
the state's attorney, said: “I will not object to that question.” It, , , ,
was as follows: k - . . . . . .
“Suppose it should appear that the meeting held at the Haymar-,
ket square was a meeting called by Socialists or Anarchists and was tº
attended by them and others; suppose that it should further appear
that the bomb which is alleged to have caused the death of Mr. Degan. ... ."
was thrown by some one in sympathy with the Anarchists or Social- > *
ists: Now, I will ask you, provided it was not established beyond all
reasonable doubt that these defendants actually threw the bomb, or . .
aided, participated in or advised the commission of £hat wrong, would .
the fact that they are Socialists or Communists have any influence " ',
upon your mind in determining their innocence?” * * *
CELAPTER W.
THE JURY IN THE CASE.
Under such rulings as have been cited, the defendants being lim-
ited in their number of peremptory challenges by statutory regulation,
it is evident that counsel for the defense were constrained to secure a
jury as best they could, accepting only the least objectionable out of
those presented for examination.
Taking now the jurors who were accepted, we find fully illustrated
the great difficulties under which the defendants labored, and the, from
the start, almost hopeless result of the trial, which led the defendants
to anticipate the verdict which was attained.
I. MAJOR JAMES FI. CoIE, of Lawnsdale, was the first chosen. He
was born in Utica, N.Y.; 58 years of age. Was a captain and major
in the Forty-first Ohio Infantry, and during his life as a railroad con-
structor and contractor has been a citizen of Vermont, Ohio, Iowa,
Tennessee and Illinois. He is an Episcopalian.
He was asked the same questions as quoted in the preceding chap-
ter. The rulings of the court were the same, refusing to allow said
questions to be answered, as in other instances. In answer to ques-
tions which were permitted, he stated that he was prejudiced against
Socialists, Anarchists and Communists as a class., The rulings of the
court, however, prevented inquiries as to whether that prejudice would
influence his verdict, or the weight he would give to the testimony of
the defendants, if they should be sworn, and to their witnesses, in his
determination of the cause. -- * *
II. Scott G. RANDALL, born in Erie county, Pennsylvania; was
28 years of age and raised on a farm. Had lived in Chicago three years,
and at the time was salesman for J. C. Waughan & Co., seedsmen, 45
La Salle street. There was nothing marked in his examination.
III. THEODORE E. DENKER, Woodlawn; was born in Wisconsin;
27 years of age; shipping clerk for H. H. King & Co. He was exam-
ined on the fourth day of the trial. He admitted that he had heard of
the Haymarket affair and that he had expressed an opinion as to the
guilt or innocence of the defendants of the murder charged, which he
still entertained; that he believed what he had read and heard upon
the subject, and that he thought that the opinion was such as would
prevent him from rendering an impartial verdict. He was therefore
challenged for cause,
THE JURY IN THE CASE. Gl
Mr. Grinnell, the state's attorney, then asked him if he believed
he could determine the guilt or innocence of the defendants upon the
proof presented in court, without reference to his prejudice or opinion
and regardless of what he had heard, and he stated that he believed
he could. Thereupon the court asked this question:
“Do you believe that you can fairly and impartially try the case
and render an impartial verdict upon the evidence as it may be pre-
sented here and the instructions of the court?” To which he replied:
“Yes, I think I could.” The court then overruled the challenge for
cause, and he was re-examined by defendants and again admitted that
he had formed an opinion of the guilt or innocence of the defendants,
which he had expressed freely and without hesitation. He persisted,
however, in stating that he believed that he could lay aside his preju-
dice or opinion and try the case fairly, and was finally accepted.
After the trial, however, in support of the motion for a new trial,
the defendants introduced the affidavits of Thomas J. Morgan,—well-
known as an old-time antagonist to Anarchy and Anarchists, and of
Thomas S. Morgan, who both testified unequivocally that on the morn-
ing of the 6th of May Denker stated to them, and in their hearing,
referring to Spies, Fielden, Schwab and Fischer particularly, who had
been arrested on the 5th of May for alleged complicity with the Hay-
market affair, and referring to Spies: “He and the whole damned crowd.
ought to be hung.” This remark, the affiants declared, was made with
much feeling and emphasis. *
Mr. Denker, in his affidavit in rebuttal, denied having made the
remark sworn to by the Morgans, yet again admitted that he had an
opinion which he had freely expressed. The two affidavits remain
unimpeached, and the sole ground on which they were refused consid-
eration was that the party accused denied the chargeſ Further, in
Denker's affidavit he simply denies having made the quoted remark to
the Morgans, but does not deny that it expressed his conviction, nor
that he might or did not make the remark to others.
IV. CHARLEs B. ToDD, 1018 West Polk street; born in Elmira,
N. Y.; 47 years of age; served in the Sixth New York Heavy Artillery;
was a salesman in the Putnam clothing house; Baptist. He stated
that from all sources of information, from what he had read and heard
concerning the Haymarket affair, he had formed an opinion upon the
guilt or innocence of the defendants of the crime of murder, which
opinion he had freely expressed in conversation with others.
W. FRANK S. OSBoſtNE, 184 Dearborn avenue; born in Colum-
bus, Ohio; 89 years of age; Episcopalian. He is head salesman in
62 THE JURY IN THE CASE.
the retail carpet department of Marshall Field, the millionaire. He
was the foreman of the jury.
VI. ANDREW HAMILTON, 1521 Forty-first street; hardware mer-
chant at 8918 Cottage Grove Avenue. Belongs to no church, though
his wife is a Baptist. Upon examination he stated, in substance, that
he had said somebody ought to be made an example of in connection
with the Haymarket affair, and that if it should be proved that the
defendants were the men whose names he saw in the papers, con-
nected with the affair, then he thought they should be made examples
of. His other answers proving satisfactory, he was sworn.
VII. CHARLEs A. LUDWIG, 4101 State street; 27 years of age;
Born in Milwaukee; book-keeper in the wood-mantel shop of C. L.
Page & Co. Is an active member of the Immanuel Baptist Church.
He admitted a prejudice against Socialists, Communists and Anarch-
ists, but his other answers were comparatively unobjectionable.
VIII. JAMEs H. BRAYTON, Englewood; born in Lyons, N. Y.;
principal of the Webster school at Wentworth avenue; 40 years of age.
By education a Methodist. His selection is said to have prevented a
hunting and fishing excursion for the summer. He stated that he had
taken some interest in Socialistic theories, and as a result of his in-
vestigations he had a prejudice against Anarchists, Socialists and
Communists. He had formed an opinion of the nature and character
of the crime perpetrated at the Haymarket, and, based upon his read-
ing, as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants.
IX. ALANSON H. REED, 8442 Groveland Park; born in Boston;
49 years of age; of the firm of Reed & Sons, of Reed's Temple of
Music, 186 State street. Eſe is a Free-thinker, but alluded to by the
'Chicago Daily News at the time as “one of Chicago's best citizens.”
He also stated that he had formed an opinion concerning the commis-
sion of the offense at the Haymarket, and from newspaper reports had
an opinion concerning the guilt or innocence of the defendants, or
Some of them, and that he had a prejudice derived from his reading
against Socialists, Anarchists and Communists. He also stated that
the opinion which he formed, touching the guilt or innocence of the
defendants, was both from what he read in the papers and what he
heard, but principally from the newspaper reports. -
X. JoHN B. GREINER, No. 70 Nörth California avenue; born in
Columbus, Ohio; 25 years of age; stenographer in the freight depart-
ment of the Chicago & Northwestern railway. He said that from his
reading concerning the Haymarket affair he had formed an opinion as
to the guilt of the defendants, or some of them. In the course of his
•examination the following colloquy ensued:
THE JURY IN THE CASE. 63
Q. The distinction is this, whether or not your opinion is that an
offense was committed at the Haymarket merely, or whether it is that
the defendants are connected with the offense that was so committed?
A. Well, it is evident that the defendants are connected with it
from their being here, as far as that is concerned.
Q. You regard that as being evidence?
A. Well—well, I don't know exactly; I would expect, of course,
that it connected them, or they would not be here.
Q. Well, that would infer that somebody thought so, anyhow, or
else the whole thing would be a very foolish proceeding. So then the
opinion you have has reference to the guilt or innocence of some of
these men, or all of them? Now, is that opinion one, Mr. Greiner,
which would influence your verdict if you should be selected as a juror
to try the case, do you believe?
A. I certainly think it would affect it to some extent. I don't
see how it could be otherwise.
Juror Greiner, in his youthful innocence, thus held that accusa-
tion was presumptive evidence of guilt
XI. GEORGE W. ADAMs, Evanston; born in Indiana; 27 years of
age; travels in the State of Michigan as commercial agent for Geo.
W. Pitkin & Co., dealers in liquid paints, Clinton street. He admitted
upon examination that he had formed an opinion that some of the
defendants were guilty of the crime committed at the Haymarket,
which opinion he still entertained. But upon his further statement
that his opinion was not a strong one, he was sworn,
In the case of Mr. Adams, as in that of Mr. Denker, upon the
motion for a new trial before Judge Gary, an affidavit was filed im-
peaching Mr. Adams' alleged impartiality. It was made by Michael
Cull, who stated that shortly after the Haymarket affair he had a con-
versation with said Adams, at which a number of other persons were
present, in which said Cull stated: “That the police had no right to
interfere with the meeting; that if they, the police, had let the meet-
ing alone they would have gone home in a short while;” to which said
Adams replied that the police ought to have shot them all down; that
they, the defendants, had no rights in this country, and that “if I
was on the jury I would hang all the damned buggars.” Further,
that Adams evinced considerable bitter feeling against the defendants.
It is true that an affidavit was filed in behalf of the State which de-
nied the charge. But the fact stands with reference to Mr. Adams
that after first stating that he had formed no opinion as to the guilt
or innocence of the defendants as to the Haymarket affair, he subse-
quently, on cross-examination, admitted that he had formed such an
64 THE JURY IN THE CASE.
opinion; while Cull's affidavit, if believed, shows the expression of
a strong feeling adverse to the defendants. -
XII. HowARD T. SANFORD, Oak Park; born in New York City and
son of Lawyer Sanford, compiler of the Superior Court reports of New
York; 24 years of age; formerly he was a petroleum broker in New
York, but for a little over a year past had been voucher clerk in the
auditor's office of the Chicago & Northwestern railway. He was the
last juror examined, on the twenty-second day of the proceedings,
July 25. --
He stated that he had an opinion from what he had read and
heard as to the guilt or innocence of the eight defendants of the
throwing of the bomb. He also said that he had a decided prejudice
against Socialists, Communists and Anarchists. He was thereupon
challenged for cause by the defendants despite his statement that he
believed he could fairly and impartially render a verdict in the case.
He was then questioned by the State as follows:
Q. Have you ever said to any one whether or not you believed the
statement of facts in the newspapers to be true? -
A. I have never exactly expressed it in that way, but still I have
no reason to think they were false.
Q. The question is not what your opinion of that was. The
question simply is—it is a question made necessary by our statute,
perhaps. -
A. Well, I don't recall whether I have or not.
Consequently the challenge for cause was promptly overruled.
Previous to the examination of this juror the defendants had
exhausted all their peremptory challenges, and although they refused
to accept Mr. Sanford as a competent juror, he was accepted by the
State and sworn.
Another affidavit on the motion for a new trial merits attention
in this connection, relative to the conduct of the special bailiff who
had in charge the summoning of the jurors. Application was made
for leave to examine in open court one Otis Favor. The reason there-
for was given in an affidavit of E. A. Stevens, a well-known citizen of
irreproachable character and president of the Secular Union, who
stated that Favor was an intimate acquaintance of the special bailiff
Ryce, and that affiant had learned from Favor that while said Ryce
was serving the venires in the present case he stated to said Favor,
and to others in Favor's presence, in substance, this:
“I am managing this case, and I know what I am about. Those
fellows will hang as certain as death. I am summoning as jurors
such men as they will be compelled to challenge peremptorily, and
THE JURY IN THE CASE, 65
when they have exhausted their peremptory challenges they will have
to take such jurors as are satisfactory to the State.”
Judge Gary, however, refused to order the examination of Mr.
Favor upon this application, although it appeared that while Mr. Fa-
vor refused to present himself or to make an affidavit in the matter,
he would, however, if compelled, substantiate the charge as true.
Here was a vital point, affecting the fate, if not the lives, of eight
men; the case was still in court awaiting final disposition, and courts
have always exercised plenary power to compel the appearance and
testimony of witnesses; but on technical points all sense of justice
was waived and, if not intentionally at least in effect, the special
bailiff was screened from all investigation as to his alleged villainous
action.
In conclusion we present the complaints made by the counsel for
the defendants on Judge Gary's rulings on the qualification of jurors:
1. Judge Gary, in this trial, recognized the statute alone as the
basis of the right of trial by jury. He absolutely ignored the consti-
tutional right of trial by an impartial jury, and construed the statute
broadly against the defendants in réference to its meaning, as though
it were the only provision in existence in reference to the right named,
and the only source of the right of trial by jury.
2. The court held that jurors were competent who had formed
and eacpressed an opinion of the guilt or innocence of the accused,
based on newspaper reports and rumors, and held such opinions at
the time of their examination and which it would require evidence to
remove, provided they could swear that they could “fairly and impar-
tially render a verdict therein.”
3. The court held that a juryman who had formed and expressed
an opinion of the guilt” or innocence of the accused, based upon ru-
mors or newspaper articles, and had also, in the past, expressed an
opinion of the truth or falsity of such rumors or articles, is thereby
disqualified as a juror; but the present statement by the juror, at
the time of his examination on his voir dire, that he believed then
what he had heard and read to be true, and that he had formed and
expressed an opinion of the guilt or innocence of the defendants, based
on what he had so heard, read or believed, did not disqualify him.
In other words, Judge Gary held that, if a proposed juryman,
who had formed and expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence
of the accused, based upon newspaper accounts and rumors, had also
expressed an opinion about the truth of such newspaper accounts and
rumors, previous to his examination as a juror, that in itself disquali-
66 THE JURY IN THE CASE.
fied him. But if he, for the first time during his examination, stated
that he then believed such accounts and rumors to be true, and still
had such an opinion of the guilt or innocence of the accused, that, in
itself, did not disqualify him.
In his construction of the statute Judge Gary introduced the
words “and expressed” after the word “formed,” and makes it read,
“formed and expressed; " and introduces after the words in parenthe.
sis “about the truth of which he had expressed an opinion,” the
words “previous to his examination,” and not applying to a present
fixed belief.
4. The fact that the proposed juror swore that the opinion or
prejudice which he had at the time of the ea amination was fixed and
positive, and that the juror had expressed such opinion, and would
require evidence, and even a good deal of evidence, for its removal,
did not disqualify the juror, provided he could swear that he believed
he could render a fair and impartial verdict in the case.
Judge Gary finally refused to allow the proposed jurors to be asked
whether their opinion concerning the guilt or innocence of the defend-
ants or their prejudice against them was such as would require
evidence for its removal, even for the purpose of determining as to
exercising a peremptory challenge.
5. Where proposed jurors admitted a prejudice or bias against
Socialists, Anarchists or Communists, as a class, the judge refused
to allow the defendants to ask questions as to whether that prejudice
was such as to materially affect the credence they would accord to the
evidence of the defendants, or as probable to affect them in deter-
mining the question of the guilt or innocence of the said defendants,
if it should appear or be conceded that said defendants, Or Some of
them, were Socialists, Anarchists or Communists; and refused to
allow challenges for cause on account of any such prejudice or bias
against such classes, and refused to allow this question to be asked,
even as to determining upon a peremptory challenge.
The citizens summoned to serve on the jury (about one thousand)
were almost without an exception wholesale dealers, board of trade
gamblers, bankers, real estate agents and book-keepers and clerks of
large business houses.
CEIAPTER WI.
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSEC UTION.
The indictment called upon the defendants to answer to the spe-
cific charge of the murder of Officer M. J. Degan. It contained sixty-
nine counts. In the technical language of the law the eight defend-
ants, together with Rudolph Schnaubelt and William Seliger, were
accused jointly of the act first with a bomb, second with a revolver,
third with an unknown weapon; then seriatim each of the prisoners
was charged in the same manner, the other nine being present, aiding,
etc., and in another long series with not being present, but having
aided, advised, etc. +
Motion for separate trials having been refused and the jury empan-
eled, the trial began. State's Attorney Grinnell, in his opening address,
took the position that there had been a conspiracy. He said:
“On May 3 everything was done that could be done to arouse the
people to anarchy. The conspiracy was so large, the numbers so appal-
ling, that it seems impossible to describe it. I believe at least thirty
men should have been indicted for murder, and this would have been
done had I known all the facts now in my possession at the time the
grand jury was in session. The men who have incited this bloodshed
have been picked out and should be blotted out. * * * *
“In breaking up the meeting Inspector Bonfield did the wisest
thing he could have done. If he had waited until the next night the
Socialists would have gained strength, and hundreds would have been
killed instead of the seven that did fall. The action was the wisest
thing ever done in this city. The courage and strength of the police
saved the town. The inflammatory Speeches of these people decided
Inspector Bomfield that the meeting should be broken up. He formed
his men in a court near the station and marched them north on Ran-
dolph street, their ranks filling the street from curb to curb. Fielden
was speaking. Captain Ward alone of all those policemen had a
revolver in his hand. He stepped forward in the usual manner, and
ordered the people to disperse. At this command Fielden stepped
from the wagon and said in a loud voice: “We are peaceable.” At
this remark, as though it was some secret signal, a man who had
before been on the wagon, taking a bomb from his pocket, lit the fuse
and threw it into the ranks of the police. Fielden, standing behind the
wagon, opened fire and kept it up for several minutes, when he in turn
68 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.
disappeared. Fielden was the only one of all the men who had a spark
of heroism in him. He stood his ground until he saw that any further
opposition was useless, when he made his escape. The action of the
police cannot be too highly commended. In all my examination of
them. I failed to find a man who ran. They stood and quietly awaited
orders. Not a shot was fired by them until many of their comrades
had fallen.
“I will try and show to you who threw the bomb, and I will prove
to your satisfaction that Lingg made it. There never was a conspiraey
yet where some conspirator did not divulge the secret. In this case
the man was Seliger. I have yet to see the first man who will demy
that a conspiracy existed.
“There are a great many counts in this case, but murder is the
main one. It is not necessary to bring the bomb-thrower into court.
Though none of these men, perhaps, threw the bomb personally, they
aided and abetted the throwing of it, and are as responsible as the
actual thrower.”
On the 15th of July the testimony began. After the introduction
of Some maps and plans, INSPECTOR BONFIELD was sworn.
He testified that he was second in command on May 4. During
that day had seen the circular calling the meeting and conversed with
the mayor on the matter. At the Desplaines Street station there were
all told about 180 men. Between 10 and 10:30 o'clock the order to
march was given. Captain Ward and witness were at the head. Near-
ing the truck, where there was a person speaking, Captain Ward gave
the statutory order to disperse, and added: “I command you and you
to assist.” Immediately Mr. Fielden, who was speaking, turned and
said, “We are peaceable.” Almost immediately after the bomb was
thrown. At once firing from the front and both sides poured in. In
a few moments the crowd was scattered in every direction.
On cross-examination he testified that he had been on the police
force for ten years, part of which time he was a detective.
GoDFRIED WALLER was next sworn. As will appear from the tes-
timony, he stood in the role of an informer. dº
By trade a cabinetmaker; born in Switzerland and been in this
country three years. Was a member of the “Lehr und Wehr Werein.”
“In the evening of the 3d of May I was at Grief's hall, 54 West Lake
street; went there pursuant to a notice in the Arbeiter-Zeitung: “Y—
come Monday night.” This notice was a sign for a meeting of the
armed section; called the meeting to order and was made chairman.
There were about seventy or eighty men. Of the defendants there
were only present Engel and Fischer.
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 69
“There was talk about the men said to have been killed at McCor-
mick's. Mr. Engel stated a resolution of a prior meeting as to what
should be done, to the effect that if on account of the eight-hour strike
there should be an encounter with the police they were to aid the men
against them. He stated that the Northwest-Side group had resolved
that in such a case they were to gather at certain meeting places, and
the word “Ruhe" (translated as “quiet” or “rest”), published in the
letter-box of the Arbeiter-Zeitung, should be the signal. A committee
were to observe the city, and in case of conflict occurring bombs were
to be thrown into the police stations.” *
Witness proposed a meeting of workingmen for Tuesday morning
on Market square. Fischer said that was a mouse-trap and suggested
the Haymarket and eight P. M., as there then would be more working-
men out. It was stated as the purpose of the meeting to cheer up
the workingmen so that they might stand togetherin case of an attack.
It was agreed that those present need not attend the meeting, save a
committee to see and report if anything happened. Nothing was said
as to what should be done in case the police attacked the meeting,
though there had been discussion as to why police stations should be
attacked if the police proved the aggressors.
“There was nothing said about the Haymarket. There was noth-
ing expected that the police would get to the Haymarket, only if strikers
were attacked we should strike down the police however we best could,
with bombs or whatever would be at our disposition. The committee
which was to be sent to the Haymarket was to be composed of one or
two from each group. They should observe the movement, not only,
in Haymarket square, but in the different parts of the city. If a con-
flict happened in the daytime they should cause the publication of the
word ‘Ruhe.” If at night, they should report to the members person-
ally at their homes. On the 4th of May we did not understand ourselves
why the word “Ruhe' was published. It should be inserted in the
paper only if a downright revolution had occurred. Engel moved that
the plan be adopted. The motion was seconded and I put it to vote.”
Witness further testified that nothing was said on that evening
“where dynamite or bombs or arms could be obtained.” Admitted
that six months before he had an eight-inch gas-pipe bomb, which was
subsequently exploded in a hollow tree. Was present at a meeting the
Sunday before on Emma street; of the defendants only Engel and
Fischer were present. The same plan was discussed. “Somebody
opposed this plan, as there were too few of us, and it would be better
if we would place ourselves among the people and fight right in the
midst of them. There was some opposition to this suggestion to be in
70 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.
the midst of the crowd, as we could not know who would be our neigh-
bols; there might be a detective right near us, or some, one else;
Engel's plan was finally accepted.” -
I have given all the vital points in this testimony because upon
this informer's word is mainly based the charge of a preconcerted plan.
and conspiracy. It will be remarked that he distinctly states that
only two of the defendants were present, and that force was only to be
resorted to in case of an unprovoked attack, or what they considered
such, by the police upon the strikers. The cross-examination brought
out a few additional facts.
He stated that none of the defendants belonged to the “Lehr und
Wehr Werein " about the 4th of May. He had seen the call by the
letter “Y” in the Arbeiter-Zeitung over a month previous. Neither
Engel nor witnesses knew why the meeting was called. “We did not
know for what purpose it was called. When more people arrived, I
requested Engel to lay his plan again before the meeting. Engel stated
both at the meeting on Sunday and at the Monday-night meeting that .
the plan proposed by him was to be followed only if the police should
attack us; any time when we should be attacked by the police, we
should defend ourselves.
“Nothing was said with reference to any action to be taken by us
at the Haymarket. We were not to do anything at the Haymarket
Square. The plan was, we should not be present there at all; we did
not think that the police would come to the Haymarket; for this rea-
Son no preparations were made for meeting a police attack there.
“* * * On the Haymarket, on my way to the meeting of the
Furniture Workers' Union, I met Fischer; we were walking about
Some time. We once walked over to the Desplaines Street station; the
police were mounting five or six patrol-wagons. I made the remark:
“I suppose they are getting ready to drive out to McCormick's, so that
they might be out there early in the morning.’ Fischer assented to
my remark; that was all that was said about the police between us;
nothing was said about preparations to meet an attack by the police.
“* * * I know I am indicted for conspiracy; I was arrested
about two weeks after the 4th of May by two detectives, Stift and
Whalen, and taken to East Chicago Avenue station; I saw there Capt.
Schaack, and in the evening, Mr. Furthman (assistant state's attor-
mey); I was released about half-past eight of the same day. No war-
rant was shown to me; I was never arrested since my indictment; I
was ordered to come to the station four or five times; at every occa-
sion had conversation with Furthman about the statements made here
in court. I live now at 180 Sedgwick street, since one month; Capt.
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSEOUTION. 71
Shaack gave me $6.50 for the rent; whenever I used my time sitting in the
station, I was paid for it; once we had to sit all day, and we were paid
two dollars for that day. I was out on a strike, and Capt. Schaack
gave my wife three times three dollars; he gave me twice before, five
dollars each time. I have been at work for the last two weeks for
Peterson; when I went there to commence work I was told that I was
on the black list, and could not get work, and Capt. Schaack helped me
to get the job. By the black list, I mean that the bosses put all those
on a list who were in any way connected with the strike to obtain eight
hour's work, and they were not to be employed any further. I know
Spies by sight; I never had any conversation with him; I spoke to
Mr. Neebe once a few words, at a meeting of the basket makers; I
have no acquaintance whatever with Schwab, Parsons, Fielden or
Lingg. I saw Lingg once making a speech.”
Comment is unnecessary on the character of the witness as dis-
played under cross-examination, or on the generous disinterestedness
of the police captain who so kindly nursed the willing informer. Engel,
the former of the “plan,” was at home and first heard of the occur-
rence from Waller himself, who says he “came to Engel's at about
half-past ten,” and in the words of a later witness, “came in and
said he came from the Haymarket, and that 800 men were shot by the
police and we ought to go down there and do something. Engel said
whoever threw that bomb did a foolish thing; it was nonsense, and he
didn't sympathize with such a butchery, and he told Waller he had
better go home as quickly as possible; he said the policemen were Just
as good people; the revolution must grow out of the people, then the
police and militia would throw away their arms and go with the
people.”
BERNARD SCHRADE followed Waller; he was also present at the
Monday-night meeting; “We went down to the basement; nothing
kept us back; when I got down the meeting was in order. Waller was .
presiding; there were about thirty or thirty-five people. The chairman
stated the objects of the meeting; that so many men at the McCormick
factory had been shot by the police; that a mass-meeting was to be
held at the Haymarket square, and that we should be prepared, in case
the police go beyond their bounds—attack us. I heard nothing about as-
sembling in other parts of the city.”
Witness was present at the Sunday-morning meeting on Emma
street. “We talked there about the condition of the workingmen after
the first of May, and the remark was made that it might not go off so
easy after the first of May, if it should not, that they would help them-
selves and each other. It was said that if we were to get into a conflict
72 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.
with the police, we should mutually assist ourselves, and the members
of the Northwestern group should meet at Wicker Park, in case it
should get so far that the police would make an attack, and should
defend themselves as much as possible, as well as any one could; noth-
ing was said about dynamite; the word ‘stuff' was not used. Nothing
was said about telegraph wires.”
In relation to the “Lehr und Wehr Werein,” witness said: “We
had our military drills for pleasure; most of the members had been
Soldiers in the old country, and we were drilling here for fun—pleas-
ure; we drilled once a week, at times.” The signal “Y” was a signal
for the “armed section” to meet at 54 Lake street. Did not hear
anything said about the word “Ruhe" at the Monday night meeting.
“I know Spies, Parsons, Fielden, Neebe and Schwab only by
sight, never had any business or conversation with any of them. Lingg
and I belonged to the same Carpenters' Union, but we were not on
terms of friendship; none of the defendants are members of the “Lehr
und Wehr Verein,’ to my knowledge. I paid attention to all that was
done while I was at the 54 West Lake Street meeting. I was at the
Sunday meeting from half-past nine until half-past eleven. The dis-
cussion was, that if the police made an attack upon workingmen we
would help the workingmen to resist it, and if the firemen helped, we
would cut the hose. Nothing was said about dynamite or bombs at
any of the meetings. Nothing was said about a meeting at any partic-
ular night to throw bombs. It was not agreed to throw bombs at the
Haymarket meeting. While at the Eſaymarket I had no bomb; I
don't know dynamite; I knew of no one who was going to take a bomb
to that meeting. When I left the Haymarket everything was quiet; I
did not anticipate any trouble; I had seen the signal ‘Y” before; it was
understood that the meetings were to be called by that kind of notice.
I left the Haymarket meeting only on account of the approach of the
storm. There were about two hundred people there when I left.”
It will be seen by the above that the State's witness Schrade di-
rectly contradicts Waller as to the number present and subjects dis-
cussed at the Monday-evening meeting when the “conspiracy to
destroy the city” was said to have been planned. In connection with
the question asked Waller, whether he ever had any bombs, an inter-
esting discussion arose between counsel which will explain the ground
taken by the State and the court.
To the above question Mr. Foster of the defense objected. He
held that the witness was not on trial, and that the fact that he might
have had bombs was no evidence against the defendants on their trial
for murder. Any bomb that the witness might have had had nothing
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 73
to do with the case, unless it were traced to the man who threw it at
the Haymarket. Mr. Foster also alluded to the fact that the witness
in becoming an informer was evidently attempting to clear his own
skirts by implicating his associates, and claimed that the witness had
already shown that the two defendants who were present at that meet-
ing could not have conspired to commit the particular crime charged
in the indictment.
Mr. Ingham replied, saying that the theory of the State was that
the defendants for two or three years had been engaged, as the leaders,
in a gigantic conspiracy against law and order, of which the meeting on
Monday night was but one step.
M1. Foster asked: “If you show that some man threw one of
these bombs without the knowledge, or authority, or approval of any
of these defendants, is that murder?” * -
Mr. Ingham replied: “Under the law of the State of Illinois
it is murder. The law of this state is strong enough to hang every one
of these men.”
This the court virtually sustained. -
EDwARD J. STEELE, lieutenant of "police, was in charge of a
company at the Haymarket on the 4th of May. “When the command
to halt was given I heard somebody say: ‘Here comes the blood-
hounds. You do your duty and we will do ours.’” I)id not mean
that the remark was made by the speaker from the wagon. “The
word ‘fire' was not given by anybody, but we began firing when they
fired on us.” *
MARTIN QUINN, also a lieutenant in command on that night, testi-
fied to hearing about the same remark and that it did come from the
speaker on the wagon. He says, further: “At that moment there
was a bomb or shell fired into the rear, and when Ward had not quite
finished his sentence there was a shot fired from the wagon by the
man who was speaking at the time. It was Mr. Fielden. Just as he
was going down he said: “We are peaceable.” Some person had hold.
of his left leg. He reached back, and just when he was going down he
fired right where the Inspector was, Captain Ward and Lieutenant
Steele.”
In this connection. recurring to Bonfield's testimony he stated
that he and Captain Ward were not more than a few feet from the
truck; that Fielden was facing him when he said in a loud voice:
“We are peaceable.” On cross-examination Bonfield said:
“Between my calling the halt and the explosion of the bomb I
don't think it was a minute. As the captain finished, Fielden stepped
Jrom the truck and faced us, and stepping on the street, he turned to
74 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.
the sidewalk or curb, which is perhaps ten inches above the street and
said: “We are peaceable.” Within two or three seconds the explo-
sion followed. When he stepped on the street I could have reached out
and touched him.” tº
Yet Lieutenant Quinn, who admits that lie was “within about
fifty feet of where the speaker was,” identifies Fielden as the man.
who fired at Bonfield twice before leaving the truck, all of which time
Bonfield was close to him and facing him ' Yet, “he fired a revolver
right where” the Inspector was standing. We may dismiss him with
his concluding remark: “I have done detective duty as an officer;
am liable to be sent on that business at any moment.”
JAMES P. STANTON, another lieutenant on duty that evening,
was about four feet from where the bomb fell. “No shot was fired to
my knowledge before the explosion of the bomb. I cannot swear from
whom the firing began first, the police or the crowd.”
H. F. KREUGER, police officer, also heard someone cry out:
“Here they are now, the bloodhounds.” He “should judge it was the
speaker on the wagon; would, not be positive, though. To the com-
mand by Ward I heard the man on the wagon respond: “We are
peaceable.’ It was this man that spoke (pointing out Fielden.) He
stood at the south end of the wagon.” This is the third position in
which Fielden was seen while saying three words ! Kreuger further
contradicts Quinn. He said: “He stepped down from the wagon and
passed right to my right behind the wagon and in a moment the bomb
fell behind me. Then I saw a pistol in his hand and he fired two shots
at the column of police, taking cover behind the wagon.” He also
added upon cross-examination: “At the time Fielden was down on
the ground off the wagon, the bomb had not exploded. It was two or
three seconds after. I did not hear any pistol fired before the bomb
exploded. I don't know that Fielden fired from the wagon. I did not
see the blaze of a pistol from the wagon before he got off. There was
another man in front of me. Fielden was standing a little north of
the south end of the wagon.” --
JoBN WESLER, an officer, was standing right behind Kreuger.
After he had shot twice he “ saw Mr. Fielden stand at the middle of
the south end of the wagon, and I noticed before I got there a man
who would not stand up, and who would shoot into the police and get
down behind the wheel. I went up and saw Mr. Fielden was there,
and he got up a second time and shot into the police, and he got down
by the wheel of the wagon, and as he did I shot him and he fell under
the wagon. Then I ran and left him.” -
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 7 5.
At the date of trial this veracious witness was “on detective ser-
vice.” He admitted that he didn't “know at the time who this man
was, that I shot at the wagon, I am positive now it was Fielden; ” and
further that he might have seen pictures of Fielden in the paper be-
fore identifying him º -
PETER Foley followed. Another position was discovered for the
ubiquitous Fielden by this brother detective. He saw “Wessler fire a.
shot at a man lying under the Wagon; the man was under the wagon
at the time the shot was fired.” To be more precise he added: “The
man at whom Wessler fired was lying under the body of the wagon,
between the fore and hind wheels.”
Whether Mr. Fielden was on the wagon, getting down from the
wagon, on the sidewalk, back—not quite behind the wagon, in the center
of the rear, or under the wagon when he was severally recognized, we
need not concern ourselves, as no two agree. The wonder remains that
Inspector Bonfield, who saw him descend in obedience to the order
before the bomb was thrown, and to whom Mr. Fielden addressed the
remark “We are peaceable” while within touching distance of each
other, and who was admittedly the nearest witness, should have failed
to discover the murderous weapon aimed “directly at him,” simul-
taneously, from so many points of the compass!
Having settled Fielden's fate on the above evidence, Spies is impli-
cated in the murder of Officer Degan by the introduction of the next
witness, LUTHER MoULTON, of Grand Rapids, Mich. He announced
himself as a patent solicitor and mechanical expert, and, through some
occult cause, an officer in the Knights of Labor. He met August Spies
in Grand Rapids on February 22, 1885, where he came to lecture.
Though the seven other defendants objected, Mr. Moulton proceeded
to unfold the following fearful tale: #
“Spies was introduced to me as a prominont leader of the Social-
ists of Chicago by Mr. Tandler. Tandler requested me to introduce
Spies at the meeting that was to follow that day. Spies stated that
the organization which he represented was for the purpose of reorgan-
izing society upon a more equitable basis, that the laboring man might
have a better and a fairer division of the products of his labor. I re-
marked that the ballot-box and the legislation of the Čountry were the
proper means to resort to. He expressed no confidence in such meth-
ods, and that force and arms was the only way in which the result
could be accomplished; that they were prepared for such a demonstra-
tion in Chicago and all the commercial centers of the country; that'
they had about three thousand men organized in Chicago; they had
Superior means of warfare; they would rapidly gain accession to their
76 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.
º
ranks, if they were successful, from the laboring men, to whom they
would hold out inducements; demonstrations would be made, and
laboring men would be idle in large numbers; they thought the coun-
try would fall in line, because they would be able to propagate their
ideas rapidly among the country people and satisfy them that they
were improving the condition of society. He thought there might be
bloodshed, for that happened frequently in the case of revolution; that
might be a punishable crime if it failed, but if a success it would be a
revolution; George Washington would have been punished had he
failed. No details were given in regard to the means or mode of war-
fare. I am quite certain the term ‘explosives’ was used in connec-
tion with arms, but nothing very definite. The conversation lasted
about half an hour. * * * I presided at the meeting at which
Spies spoke, and introduced him.”
Upon this valuable piece of information connecting the eight de-,
fendants with the murder of Officer Degan, the cross-examination's
elicited the following:
“I first communicated this narrative to Mr. James H. Bonfield a
few days ago at Grand Rapids. I was furnished with the means to
come here by the Grand Rapids police.”
Another man was also brought on to corroborate Mr. Moulton's
terrible tale. -
LIEUT. JAMES BowTER did not recognize anybody firing. “I says
to my men: ‘Fire, and kill all you can.’” He fired nine shots.
“Saw no one, either in the wagon or getting out of the wagon, do any
firing. I saw Mr. Fielden coming off the wagon very plainly.”
. OFFICER L. G. BAUMANN thought he could swear he saw Fielden
fire the historic shot from the sidewalk, right behind the hind wheel.
“Saw him fire only once. There were a couple of hundred people
there. The men in my company had broken ranks after that bomb-
shell had exploded.”
Q. How did you know it was Fielden then?
A. Well, I simply asked who that man was that fired the shot,
and so they told me it was Fielden.
Q. Who told you it was Fielden that fired the shot?
A. Some of the officers. I have seen Fielden's picture in the
Taper.” - -
OFFICER HANLEY also saw Fielden by one of the wheels of the truck
in the street, with a revolver. He saw one shot go, and just as he found
time to think of his revolver saw him rush for the alley.
MR. J. K. MAGIE then testified to attending a meeting where Spies
and Fielden had spoken and advocated force. He had advocated the
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 77
ballot, and incidentally mentioned that Spies alluded to him as “a.
political vagabond.” Could not swear, notwithstanding, that either
had used the word. “dynamite.”
THOMAS GRIEF, proprietor of 54 West Lake street, where the alieged
“conspiracy” was planned, next took the stand. His saloon, on the
ground floor, had been closed by the city since May 5. He rented
the basement for a meeting on Monday, May 8, simply because his
upper halls were all engaged. He had occasion to go down stairs to
tap beer, and saw some twenty-five or thirty people there. The stair-
way leading from the saloon to the basement was open; no door to shut
it off; there were no curtains before the windows; no attempt at con-
cealment.
John E. Doyl E, an officer injured at the meeting by a piece of the
bomb, heard a man jump from the wagon and shout: “Now is your
time, now is your time!” He was looking at the man and knows he
did not shoot. He thought the man resembled Fielden.
OFFICER SPIERLING saw Fielden fire a shot from the sidewalk, behind
the wagon, where he never could have reached the alley Officer Hanley
saw him so distinctly rushing for. The only other noteworthy remark
he offered was: “After he shot I paid no attention to him.”
DETECTIVE JAMES BonFIELD followed, the same who unearthed the
historian Moulton, of Grand Rapids. Was formerly bailiff and assist-
ant jailer. Arrested Spies and Schwab on May 5. Returned to the
Arbeiter-Zeitung office several times—three times. On some of his later
visits was successful in finding “a small piece of fuse, a fulminating
cap and a large double-action revolver. * * * I never saw the cap
used for anything except dynamite and nitro-glycerine. " I have used it
in mines for that purpose.” There was also paraded a box of empty
Winchester rifle shells. On the evening of the 5th took some reporters
down to interview Spies and Fielden, while he listened. In Fischer's
house he had found an empty piece of gas-pipe about three or three and
a half feet, which dangerous article was at once confiscated. “On my
fourth visit I took away a lot of red flags and such stuff as that. * *
Twenty or twenty-one compositors were arrested during that day. We
had no search-warrant when any of these things were taken. We
searched Spies and took the personal effects away from him. I took
Mr. Spies, keys out of his pocket—everything I found, little slips of
paper and everything I found. I had no warrant for anything of that
kind. * * * I went down with the reporters about eight or nine
o'clock. Spies, Schwab and Fielden were in separate cells. Spies said
the action taken at the Haymarket was premature; it was,done by a.
hot-head that could not wait long enough. I cannot use the words;
78 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.
that is the sentiment and perhaps the words. Fielden said the police
came up there to disperse them, and they had no business to. He
claimed that they had a right to talk and say what they please under
the Constitution, and they should not be interfered with. I don't think
it was ever questioned that the meeting was a peaceable and quiet
meeting. I don't think that he ever claimed that it was quiet or dis-
orderly." The fulminating cap which I found did not look fresh and
bright; it looked as though it might have laid there for a long while.
When Chief of Police Ebersold came into the office at the central sta-
tion he was quite excited, and talked to Spies and Schwab in German
and made motions, and I got between them, and I told him this was
not the time or place to act that way. I took the liberty to quiet him
down a little. . He used a word which I understood to compare a man
to a dog, or something lower.” -
Considerable time was then consumed in hearing testimony rela-
tive to the character of the crowd of strikers at McCormick s who were
addressed by Mr. Spies on the 3d of May. Policemen and others gave
evidence that while Mr. Spies was speaking some called out to go and
Rill the “damn scabs,” but none stated that Spies was the man, but
that it was a different man. None testified that Spies indorsed the cry
or ceased speaking. The evident object of this testimony was to
lead the jury to infer that but for Spies' speech that cry might not
have been made. : -
Officer ENRIGHT stated that the police fired as soon as they heard
shots but “could not state exactly whether the police had fired before
I heard these shots.” Further: "I personally fired five shots. The
firing was pretty general from the men under my command. Some of
my men were hit with rocks, but not one of them shot.” -
CAPTAIN WARD, who gave the order to disperse at the Haymarket
meeting, and who stood beside Inspector Bonfield when Fielden said:
“We are peaceable,” followed. He was close enough to the wagon to
“almost touch it " and Fielden was facing him. “There was no pistol
firing of any kind by anybody before the explosion of the bomb.”
- Officers testified to arresting Fischer and finding on him a revol-
ver, a belt having “L. & W. W.” on the buckle and containing a dirk.
In excuse Mr. Fischer is said to have alleged that he carried arms
because he often carried sums of money in returning home late at
night. º
In Fielden's house “no munitions of war of any kind.” were to
be found.
THEoDoRE FRICRE, business manager of the Arbeiter-Zeitung, was
called by the State for the purpose of identifying the handwriting of
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 79
“copy" found in the office. He testified that the manuscript of the
word “Ruhe.” was in Spies' handwriting. The call “Y” was in the
handwriting of Mr. Rau. He readily identified the “Revenge circu-
lar” as from the pen of Mr. Spies. Editorial matter was identified as
from Spies or Schwab. He narrated glibly to what “groups” of the
International the several defendants belonged; some by knowledge,
some by “guess.” Established for the State the fact that Most's
book on “Revolutionary. Warfare" had been sold at their picnics and
was at the office. Further, that Parsons and Fielden were often
present at meetings where this book in German, of which neither
could even read the title, was sold; though none of the defendants,
it was elicited, had anything to do with the sale. After which grate-
ful task he retired.
WILLIAM SELIGER, co-respondent with the defendants, and who
secured his liberty by offering to turn State's evidence, now comes on
the scene. His testimony is that of a man swearing to save his life,
and who undoubtedly believed that immunity depended upon the
character of his evidence against his former associates. He is a car-
penter and Louis Lingg boarded with him. He was not at the
Monday night meeting. In explanation of the “Y” call for armed
men he said: “The armed men were divers ones, all the Socialistic
organizations,” of which there were several. On Tuesday he did not
work at his trade, but did “diligently at some bombs.” Lingg kept
urging him on to more diligence. Three others were helping, and there
were thirty,or forty or fifty bombs made.that afternoon, which Lingg
declared were going to be good fodder for the capitalists and the
police, when they came to protect the capitalists; “nothing was said
about when they wanted the bombs completed or ready.”
In the evening he and Lingg filled a small trunk with bombs and
carried it to Clybourn avenue, a long distance away from the Hay-
market. He stated that Lingg after leaving the hall and his comrades
there, expressed to him alone “that there should be made a disturbance
everywhere on the North Side to keep the police from going over to the
West Side. In front of the Larrabee Street station Lingg said it might
loe a beautiful thing if we would walk over and throw one or two bombs
into the station. There were two policemen sitting in front of the
station, and Lingg said that if the others came out these two couldn't
do much. We could shoot these two down.” After which brilliant
suggestion, made after depositing his bombs, they went on and instead
indulged in beer. He also testified that a little later Lingg saw a
patrol wagon and becoming “quite wild, excited" wanted a match as
he had none. Witness was smoking a cigar, and “jumped into a front
80 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.
opening before a store and lighted a match, as if I intended to light
a cigar, So I could not give him a light,” (!) After this demonstration
of his inability to furnish a light the fellow bomb makers passed on.
Lingg wanted to follow the wagon to see what had happened, thinking
Something might have happened on the West Side. (The Haymarket
was on the West Side fully two miles distant.) Finally he went
home with Seliger, arriving there at eleven o'clock, where Lingg first
saw the word “Ruhe" in the columns of the Arbeiter-Zeitung, which he
explained to his innocent fellow conspirator to mean “that everything
Was to go topsy turvy, that there was to be trouble.”
Later they returned to the hall on Clybourn avenue, where there
Were several persons present, and perhaps owing to this circumstance,
“did not speak with Lingg” there. After some further testimony re-
lative to the purchase of more dynamite, and the manner of making
bombs, witness was turned over to the defense for cross-examination,
their motion to exclude this witness on behalf of all defendants other
than Lingg having been overruled.
When first arrested he made a partial statement, “but not all
that I have testified to-day.” Made statements three times; “in the
first statement I had not said much; I had done no work, earned no
noney.” Admitted receiving from Capt. Schaack once a dollar and a
half, at another time five dollars. After he had mºde his third and
fuller statement Capt. Schaack “told me that it would be best if I
would tell the truth, and asked me whether I would tell the truth before
the court, and I said yes.” Upon further questioning he admitted
that “it was not understood or agreed between me and other men
who had the bombs that night at Clybourn avenue, that any one of us
was to go to the Haymarket meeting. I know that Capt. Shaack paid
my wife money at different times since my arrest; I don't know how
much; I think $20 or $25. * * * I did not hear anything about
an agreement that any of the bombs manufactured on the afternoon
of May 4th were to be taken by anybody to the Haymarket.” Did not
know of a single bomb made for use at the Haymarket, nor who were
expected to be there.
MRS. SELIGER affirmed her husband's testimony as to Lingg's
“diligence” in the work of casting, filling and riveting bombs, using
her cook stove to her great annoyance. She admitted telling all when
locked up; that Capt. Schaack paid her rent besides giving money.
Comment on this singular and self-contradictory story may well be de-
ferred till we come to sum up the whole testimony.
A reporter named WILLIAMSON was introduced who had seen a
public procession of Socialists in Chicago the year before, upon occa-
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 81
'sion of the grand banquet given at the opening of the new Board of
Trade. With his own eyes he saw several red flags and banners there
and actually beheld Parsons, Spies and Fielden in sympathy with and,
addressing the crowd. The point of the testimony was that the wit-
ness stated the speakers called the police bloodhounds and called upon
the “mob to follow in an assault on Marshall Field's dry goods house
and various clothing houses,” etc. He called at the Arbeiter-Zeitung
office to obtain a sensational interview and was fully gratified. Mr.
Parsons and Mr. Spies gratified his love for the marvelous by exhibit-
ing a veritable, yet solitary, “dynamite cartridge,” or rather, “what
they told me was " Sugh. After exhibiting dynamite in the raw state,
a coil of fuse and witnessing the explosion of a fulminating cap, all
exhibited for the purpose of convincing a stranger and a reporter that
“they were preparing for a fight for their rights” our credulous if
veracious pencil pusher went down stairs, “where I met ’’ two detec-
tives, who of course would substantiate his terrible tale. Frequently
during the winter months of 1884 and 1885 he attended their meetings
and learned “that five cents' worth of dynamite carried around in the
vest pocket would do more good than all the revolvers and pistols in the
world.” These meetings, he said, were always public. He heard
proposals to sack clothing houses “at every single meeting,” though
he admitted that the “mob” gathered in halls averaged not “over
twenty-five present,” and always “quietly disposed.” Yet even when
only “ten men” were present the same proposal was invariably made.
He admits that “both Parsons and Fielden knew me as a reporter at
the time" of the first interview, on which occasion “there was nobody
present l”
IFRED. L. Buck electrified the jury with an account of the explo-
sive power of some dynamite, “which I received from the detectives”
office.”.
Several police officers testified to hearing dire threats against the
police in public meetings where all were free to go in. Officer Jones.
directly contradicted other witnesses as to the finding of the dynamite.
in the Arbeiter-Zeitung office; the advocate of seeing it found on the
second and third floors being equally positive under oath.
Several detectives swore positively to finding dynamite, differing,
however, as to its location.
John J. RYAN, a retired army officer, attended several meetings
and heard advice given to purchase rifles and dynamite for other pur-
poses than “civilized warfare,” as their objective aim was the police
rather than foreign enemies. He admitted the “lake front meetings”
were always public and a “policeman was usually around there.”
82 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.
MR. WILKINSON, a city reporter, gave a thrilling description of Mr.
Spies showing him a “czar bomb,” and giving him a full description
of how the revolution was to be inaugurated in the absence of leaders,
and other tales, and he “wrote them up the first opportunity.” He
quoted Spies as saying that they had 9,000 bombs and a company of
“tall men who could throw a five-pound bomb fifty paces.” He
added: “I did not believe all Spies said; I believed about half of it.
The article written by me is wound up by the suggestion that when
dressed to cold facts it was like a scare-crow flapping in the corn field;
I did not write that; that was edited by some one who told me he did
not believe as much of the matter as I did.” Before Judge Gary, Spies'
jokes became very solemn facts.
FRANZ HEIN, a saloon-keeper, was sworn to connect Neebe with
the conspiracy, which was done by stating that Neebe actually showed
to him, on the evening of May 8, the “Revenge Circular.” In speak-
ing of the McCormick affair Neebe said: “It is a shame that police
act that way, but may be the time comes that it goes the other way—
that they get the chance, too.” “He didn't say anything about the
circular, he only showed it to me. He said: ‘That is just printed
now,' when he came in ; was in five or ten minutes and went out.”
At this stage the platform of the International Working Peoples’
Association and John Most’s “Science of Warfare " were submitted
in translation, and Edward OLSEN testified to their correctness. The
defense objected to their introduction as evidence (1) because the
platform had never been published editorially by the defendants; (2)
that it had no connection with the death of Mr. Degan; (3) that
Most's book had no relevancy to this case; (4) that the proper object
of the trial is not to prove that certain men are Socialists or Anarch-
ists, but who threw the bgmb.
The State's attorney maintained that the platform was advocated
by the defendants, and that Most's book was sold at their meetings,
therefore they were admissible as evidence against them for the mur-
der of Mr. Degan under the statutes. The court thereupon ruled as
follows:
“I have no doubt but what it is competent. The circumstances
may be significant or not, depending on the surroundings; whether it is
significant or not it is for the jury to determine from the surroundings
which come before them. Whether the defendants or any of them
were intending to have a mob kill people, and were teaching them how
to kill people, is a question which this jury is to find out from the evi-
dence. And these two translations are admissible upon the investiga-
tion of that question.”
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 83
Whereupon the conservative middle-class jury were edified with
the reading of the two translations in question by the prosecution,
the reader losing no opportunity to give due emphasis to any part
calculated to strike the jury and inflame them against the defendants.
GUSTAv LEHMANN was present at the meeting of Monday night on
May 8, and testified that he got at the meeting late, but on suggestion
stood at the door to see that those not interested should not remain
and listen. He did not see Lingg at the meeting, but did afterwards,
“we had a little quarrel.” “Lingg came up to us from behind, on the
sidewalk, and said to us, ‘You are all oxen, fools '" Lingg said, “if
I wanted to know something I should come to 58 Clybourn avenue the
next morning.” At 8 o'clock the next day—May 4—he quit work
and went to Lingg's, arriving there about 5 o'clock, remaining about
ten minutes. “They did some Work in the bed-room. I couldn't
understand what they were doing. I did not work at anything. Lingg
and Huebner had a cloth tied around their faces.” At about 7 o'clock
witness returned to Lingg's and found them “still busy in the bed-
room,” making fuse and caps. Although he “couldn't understand
what they were doing,” still, “that afternoon Lingg gave me a small
hand-satchel, with a tin box in it, and three round bombs, and two
coils of fuse and some caps.” These he took home “to the wood-
shed, got up at three o'clock that night and carried them away to the
prairie ’’ and hid them; but “afterwards went to the prairie with a
detective about May 19th or 20th to find the things that Lingg had
given me.”
He had attended in March a ball of the Carpenters' Union, where
about ten dollars was realized from the sale of beer, which by resolu-
tion was handed over to Lingg with the instruction to buy dynamite
with it and experiment with it to find out how it was used. He also
presided over a meeting at which Engel spoke and made the “treason-
able” suggestion that dynamite was cheaper than revolvers, and ex-
plained how it could be made a weapon. Said meeting “was a public, .
open-door meeting.” Had seen the call “Y” before; was a member of
the “armed section.”
CLARENCE E. DRESSER, a reporter, was present when the demon-
stration was made against the festival upon the opening of the Board
of Trade, which was intended, “in theif language, to carry terror to
the capitalistic heart. I asked Spies what was the object of the dem-
onstration. He said, “We ought to blow the institution up,” and made
some reference to the character of the people that did business there.”
He also testified to hearing Parsons and Fielden denounce the capital-
ists, express a desire to see them “blown to hell,” and a wish “that
84 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.
the workingmen rouse up and arm themselves and meet their oppres-
sors, with weapons—meet them face to face, and consider that they
were to be treated in the same manner.”
Much of such testimony was introduced that space will not permit
to give in full. In the opinion of the court it was legitimate to prove
that the prisoners were opposed to the present order of Society to estab-
lish that whoever threw the bomb must have acted upon their teach-
ing, and consequently-under the law they could be found guilty as con-
spirators, though they were ignorant of who did that act. At the Board
of Trade demonstration some of the defendants gathered all the poor,
unemployed “tramps,” etc., they could collect and marched them
through the city to show the degree of prosperity existing, which was
being toasted in champagne within. *
T. L. TREHORN, police officer, was on duty where said demonstra-
tion halted for speeches. He said: “Parsons characterized the Board
of Trade as a robbers' roost and dem; that they were reveling in the pro-
ceeds of the workingmen. He said: “How many of my hearers could
give twenty dollars for a supper to-night?' The invitations there were
twenty dollars, I believe. He says, “We will never gain anything by
argument or words. The only way to convince these capitalists and
robbers is to use the gun and dynamite.’ Fielden said the Board of
Trade was the largest gambling house in the world; that they were
dabbling in money, the proceeds of the workingmen; that they raised
the price of food to such an exorbitant price that they cannot live,”
etc., etc. Another detective told virtually the same story, and to wit-
messing the conversation between Spies and Williamson in which the
latter was told a “ghost story” by Spies, and saw the dynamite, which
“looked like red sand,” and for all he knew might have been such.
MoRIZ NEFF kept a saloon at 58 Clybourn avenue, where Seliger
testified Lingg and he left a trunk of bombs. He said that back of the
saloon was a hall. The North-Side group used to meet there. “On
the night when the bomb was thrown I was at my saloon. Louis Lingg
came in company with Seliger and another man whom I had not seen
before. This stranger carried the satchel. It was a common bag,
about a foot and a half long and six inches wide. He put it on the
counter, after that on the floor. Lingg and Seliger were standing by,
and Lingg asked me if some one had asked for him. That stranger,
whose name I afterward found out to be Muensenberger, carried the
satchel on his shoulder. That was ten or fifteen minutes after eight.
I told Lingg that nobody had inquired after him. * * * I saw
Lingg and Seliger again that night about eleven o'clock. Nobody had
in the meantime inquired for Lingg. I saw Huebner there before
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 85
, ſº
Lingg came. * * * Before Lingg and Seliger came back about
eleven o'clock several individuals had come into the saloon. Lingg
and Seliger dropped in a little later. They were all talking together.
I didn't pay much attention to it. I heard one of them holloa out very
loud, ‘That's all your fault.' I heard them also say that the bomb had
been thrown among the police and some of them had been killed; they
came from the meeting.” He also testified that Engel addressed a
group in his hall in the preceding February. Engel wanted money for
a new paper, The Anarchist, of which he was the editor, and gave a
sketch of revolutionary history in the old country, and “stated that
the nobility of France were only forced to give up their privileges by
brute force; that the slaveholders in the South were compelled by
force to liberate their slaves, and the present wage slavery would be
done away with only by force, also ; and he advised them to arm them-
selves, and if guns were too dear for them they should use cheaper
weapons—dynamite, or anything they could get hold of to fight the
enemy. To make bombs, anything that was hollow—in the shape of
gas-pipes, would do.”
Witness identified a copy of The Anarchist.
CHAPTER WII.
Evidence For THE PROSECUTION.—(con'd.)
On the 24th day of July the first witness called was GEoRGE B.
MILLER, a lieutenant in the Chicago fire department. He testified to
finding three bombs under a plank sidewalk some indefinite time after
May 4.
Next followed a lawyer who undertook to report the substance of
a public speech by Fielden on the lake front, in which he understood
the speaker to advocate the “equality of possession.”
W. M. KNOX, one of the reporters who interviewed Spies on the
night of May 5 in the presence of Detective Bonfield, said: “Spies
asked us what the coroner's jury had done. We told him that they
had held him to the grand jury, without bail, on the charge of murder.
He said he didn't understand how they could do that; he had nothing
to do with throwing the bomb; he did not want to go to the Haymarket
meeting, and when he got there he didn't want to make a speech. He
said he told Schwab so. He made a quieting speech; told the people
that the time had not come for action; they should keep thoroughly
organized and be prepared for the time when action should be neces-
86 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.
f
sary. He said he didn't know where the “Revenge' circular was
printed, neither where the circular calling the Haymarket meeting was
printed; that some one had come to the office and showed him one of
the latter circulars in the afternoon. He saw the sentence in the hand-
bill calling upon workingmen to come armed to the meeting. He in-
sisted that it should be taken out, and he had the man go and take it
out. When the bomb exploded he went to Zepf's hall. The explosion
of the bomb was a surprise to him; he thought the police had opened
on the crowd with artillery. Some one there told him that a bomb had
exploded. He stayed there a short time and then went home. He said
he had a couple of giant-powder cartridges and some dynamite in the
office for the purpose of showing them to reporters; that was all the
dynamite in the office that he knew about. Schwab said he had writ-
ten of late the greater part of the editorials, and that he had urged
workingmen to arm, but never urged them to use dynamite. Fielden
said he belonged to the American group, and that it met at the Arbeiter-
Zeitung office on the night of May 4 for the purpose of organizing the
sewing girls into a union. There he heard of the Haymarket meeting
and went over there.” . . .
He said Spies said he could prove by a number of persons that he
didn't want to go to the meeting, and disapproved of it. “I think
, Spies said: ‘If I had known how the meeting would have resulted,
I would have prevented it at all hazards.’ Fielden said he didn't
know anything about who threw the bomb; they all said that.”
JoHN ASCHENBRENNER, the assistant foreman of the Arbeiter-Zei-
tung, under Fischer, testified to the setting up of the “Revenge” circular.
On the morning of May 5, between eight and nine, Fischer said he
had to go out. “Fischer said, I believe, that his wife was sick, and
he went home. After coming back I found, while I looked for a shoot-
ing stick and mallet in the drawer underneath the stone that I was
working at, a revolver and a belt of the L. & W. W. I asked him to
take that away, so as not to get anybody into trouble who does not
use any arms, as I was working at the place; and Mr. Fischer took
the revolver and the belt and went off, and while going down he was
arrested and taken back.”
HERMANN PodEVA, a compositor on the Arbeiter-Zeitung, worked
on the “Revenge” circular. The word “revenge” was not on the copy.
He put in that word. -- *
LAWRENCE HARDY, a reporter, attended a public meeting of
McCormicks' employes on March 12th, at which Spies, Fielden and
Parsons made speeches. Fielden is reported to have said: “We are
told that we must attain our ends or aims by obeying law and order.
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 87
Damn law and order. We have obeyed law and order long enough.
The time has come for you men to strangle the law or the law will
strangle you. What you should do is to organize, and march up the
Black road and take possession of McCormick's factory; it belongs to
you and not to him. You made it.” Parsons called on workingmen
“to assert their rights,” and made the horrifying declaration that
capitalists had “ground the workingmen under their heel and had
robbed them for years past; ” he also “abused the Pinkerton men
and he advised them to get their rights, by force, in some way.”
The most sensational feature of the day was the appearance on
the stand of ANDREW C. JoHNSON, a detective on the Pinkerton force,
who became a member of the “American Group” at “the instance
of the detective agency, and made a report of what I heard and saw
in writing.” On February 22, 1885, at a meeting of the group, “Par-
Sons stated that the reason the meeting had been called in that locality
was to give the merchant princes that resided there an opportunity to
attend and hear what the Communists had to say about the distribu-
tion of wealth. “I want you all to unite together and throw off the
yoke; we need no President, no congressmen, no police and no militia,
and no judges. They are all leeches, sucking the blood of the poor,
who have to support them all by their labor. I say to you rise one
and all, and let us exterminate them all; woe to the police or militia
whom they will send against us.’”
At a meeting on March 4, “a stranger present gave a lecture; he
introduced Christianity. Spies said: “We don't want Christianity
in our meetings at all. We have told you so before.’” Nothing more
sanguinary was reported on that occasion.
On March 22d, Spies spoke. “Previously a man named Bishop
introduced a resolution of sympathy for a girl named Sorrel; the girl
had been assaulted by a master; she had applied for a warrant which
had been refused her on account of the high social standing of her
master. Spies said what was the use of passing resolutions. ‘We
must act and revenge the girl. Here was a fine opportunity for some
of our young men to go and shoot Wight.' That was the man whom
this young girl was said to have been assaulted by.” This was all the
detective had to report of that meeting.
On March 29th, Fielden said: “A few explosives in the city of
Chicago would help the work considerably; there is the new board of
trade, a roost of thieves and robbers, we ought to commence by blow-
ing that up.” At the meeting of April 1, Spies “referred to a case of
Martha Siedel, a girl who had preferred a charge of assault against
the police sergeant, Patten. Spies said he had advised the girl to get
' 88 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.
!
a pistol and go and shoot the policeman. Fielden said that is what
' she ought to do.” , *
On April 8th Parsons spoke, and referring to a strike at LaSalle,
Ill., Said that the next day “the authorities will probably send a train
loaded with police and militia to shoot down the workingmen there.”
He proposed the following blood-curdling advice: “All you have got
to do is to get some soap and place it on the rails and the train will be
unable to move,” and urged organization.
On April 19th Parsons offered a resolution of sympathy for Louis
Reil and the half-breeds in the northwest. *.
In all the above cases I have given, somewhat condensed, every-
thing that the detective could report of a “revolutionary character.”
It would be useless to encumber pages with a mere repetition of such
reports. In the remainder only the most violent expressions of the
defendants will be given. s
On April 26th Parsons said: “I wish you all to consider the con-
dition of the working classes, the cause of which are these institutions
and government. I lived on snow-balls all last winter, but, by God,
I will not do it this winter.” Various remarks are reported in which
the necássity of arming was urged.
On the 24th of August he was present where “a man armed with
a long cavalry sword, dressed in a blue blouse, wearing a slouch
hat, came into the room. He ordered all those present to fall in. He
then called off certain names, and all those present answered to their
names. He then inquired whether there were any new members who
wished to join the military company. Myself and two others did so.”
Whereupon a drill took place. The remainder of this testimony is of
the same character, identifying Parsons, Spies, Fielden and Schwab
as frequently advocating the use of force and dynamite.
On the occasion of the drill “a man whose name I do not know,
came into the room with two tin boxes, which he placed on the table.
The drill instructor asked us to examine them, as they were the latest
improved dynamite bomb. They were about in size and had the ap-
pearance of ordinary preserve fruit cams, the top part unscrewed; the
inside of the cans were filled with a light brown mixture. There was
also a small glass tube inserted in the center of the can. The tube
was in connection with a screw, and it was explained that when the
can was thrown against any hard substance it would explode. The
inside of the glass tube was a liquid.” th -
Upon cross-examination he stated: “I was a police officer at
Lancastershire, England, for eight years, three years out of that a
detective. I have been a detective ever since, pretty nearly. * * .
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 89
§
When I became a member of the American Group my antecedents
were not inquired into. The group is open to anybody who has got
ten cents and expresses a desires to come. I have sometimes seen
reporters excluded from the meetings, but nobody else. * * *
There was no ushers at the meetings, but I have seen some of the
older members, when they saw strangers come, give up their own seats
and ask them to sit down. * * * I have never heard in
any of the meetings of an arrangement made or time fixed for the
blowing up of the board of trade building, or any other building in the
city of Chicago, or for the taking of the life of any one, or of the tak-
ing of any store in the city of Chicago. At the meeting on the night
of the opening of the new board of trade no violence was proposed in
any of the speeches that night; I heard of no proposal of violence of
any kind. I heard Parsons when he first got up and stated the object
of the meeting; I heard Fielden speak and Parsons when he replied,
and I was there when the procession moved. Parsons said that there
, were the board of trade men sitting down to their twenty-dollar sup-
per while the poor workingmen had to starve. I never heard either
Parsons or Fielden or anybody else say they would go down there by
force and eat of that twenty-dollar supper. I was listening there all
the time.”
WILLIAM ET. TREEMAN, a reporter, testified to reporting speeches
made at the lake-front meetings. On one occasion Parsons said,
“that if the workingmen were driven to starvation they would unfurl
the banner of liberty and equality and sweep everything before them,
sweep away all their oppressors. He said it very emphatically and
turned and shook his finger at the red banner that was hanging on the
platform. He urged the workingmen there to take up arms and by
that means right their wrongs. Spies spoke in German, which I do
not understand. Fielden claimed that all aggregation and accumula-
tion of property by individuals was wrong; that the workingmen had
a direct interest in everything that was produced and that they could
only be enabled to enjoy the fruits of their labor by the use of force.”
Was present at the Haymarket meeting, “I remember Parsons
alluding to Jay Gould, that he was a robber, and about his vast accum-
ulations. Somebody in the crowd shouted out they would hang him
or throw him in the lake. Parsons said: ‘No, not yet,' if they did
another Jay Gould would pop up in his place like a jack in the box.
They must overturn the whole system by which Jay Gould was able to
secure the vast amount of money and power that he had secured, and
he way to do that was to use force, and he said, ‘To arms? To arms l'
90 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSEoUTION.
*
a number of times during his remarks. The crowd applauded from
time to time the utterances of the speakers.
“Fielden discussed legislation and congress. Martin Foran had
stated that no legislation could be enacted that could benefit the work-
ingman; from that it was clear that it was impossible for the working-
man to obtain any sort of redress through legislation. They ought
not to be fools enough to send such men as Martin Foran to congress
to legislate for them, when they admitted that there was no possibility
of doing anything that would redound any benefit to the workingman.
He compared the revolution proposed by the workingmen to the revo-
lution which established the government of this country, and that it
was equally as proper. He spoke of the law and of the oppressive
acts of capital which injured the workingmen, as being the result of
the law, and urged his hearers to overthrow the law, to kill it, stab it,
to throttle it. Those are about the last words I remember before the
arrival of the police. The police came up very quietly, and, standing
between the two wagons, I had no knowledge that they were on the
ground until the command to disperse was given. After hearing that
I stepped at once onto the sidewalk and started to go south towards
the police, and before I reached the south end of the wagon the bomb
was exploded. The explosion made a great noise, but I saw no light
or fire. Immediately after the explosion the firing began, and I simply
crouched behind the wagon for a moment or two, and then went towards
the alley. (I saw that there was no firing from there.) * * * I
crouched behind the speakers' wagon. I was almost alone in the space
behind that wagon. I don't know where the firing began first. * * *
“I was within eight or ten feet of Fielden. "I did not hear Fielden
say: ‘There come the bloodhounds now,” or anything of that kind.
I did not hear him say: “Now you do your duty and I'will mine.' I
know of nothing to prevent my hearing that remark if Mr. Fielden
had said it in a loud tone of voice before I was aware of the presence
of the police. * * * I saw no shots fired from the wagon. I did
not see Mr. Fielden shoot as he jumped off the wagon. After the
bomb exploded the firing began. Who was firing 2 I don't know,
except I presume the officers were. I saw the flashes near the police,
where the police were at that time.”
Joseph GRUENHUT, inspector of the health department, was
present at the interview between Wilkinson and Spies. Mr. Wilkinson
asked how many members belonged to the military societies of organ-
ized trade and labor unions. Spies said there were many thousand;
that these organizations were open to everybody, and at meetings
people were asked to become members, but their names would not be .
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 91
\
known because they would be numbered, and they didn't keep any
‘record of names. Mr. Spies laid some toothpicks on the table so as
to show the position of armed men on tops of houses, on street cor-
ners, and how they could keep a company of militia or police in check
by the use of dynamite bombs. The conversation was carried on in a
conversational tone, half joking. -
“At the time of the conversation, and the discussion over the
toothpicks there, no date was fixed when there was going to begin
trouble in Chicago. I didn't hearin that conversation anything about
an attack to be made on the 1st of May.” “Parsons and Spies, dur-
ing conversations within twelve months before the bomb was thrown,
said that arming meant the use of dynamite bombs by individuals;
all men should individually self-help, as against a squad of policemen
or company of militia, so that they need not be an army.”
DR. F. H. NEWMAN identified a nut and some fragments of metal
taken from wounded officers. *
M. E. DICKSON, a reporter, testified to conversations with some of
the defendants at a meeting on Twelfth street. “Mr. Parsons made a
speech, during which he said that the degradation of labor was
brought about by what was known as the rights of private property,”
etc. Schwab “Said that the gap between the rich and poor was grow-
ing wider; that, although despotism in Russia had endeavored to sup-
press Nihilism by executing some and sending others to Siberia, but
Nihilism was still growing. * * * That freedom in the United
States was a farce, and in Illinois was literally unknown; that both of
the political parties were corrupt, and what was needed here was a
bloody revolution which would right their wrongs. Spies said in Ger-
man that the workingmen should revolt at once; he had been accused
of giving this advice before, it was true, and he was proud of it; that
wage-slavery could only be abolished through powder and ball.”
"Parsons said to me that when the social revolution came, it
would be better for all men, it would place every man on an equality.
He pictured me personally as a wage-slave, referring to my position
as a newspaper reporter, and that all reforms had to be brought about
through revolution, and bloodshed could not be avoided. Parsons
never expressed any distinct proposal to inaugurate the revolution at
any particular time, or by the use of any particular force. He simply
spoke of the social revolution as the inevitable future.”
PAUL C. HULL, a reporter, was confident that on the evening of
Haymarket meeting, “the firing began from the crowd before the
police fired.” “I saw arching through the air the sparks of the burn-
ing fuse; according to my recollection, it seemed to come from about
92 THE EVIDENCE FoR THE PROSECUTION.
fifteen or twenty feet south of Crane's alley, flying over the third
division of police and falling between the second and third. It seemed
to throw to the ground the second and third division of police. At
almost the same instant there was a rattling of shots that came from
both sides of the street and not from the police.”
WHITING ALLEN, a reporter, was also present at the Haymarket
meeting. Parsons “mentioned the name of Jay Gould; there were
cries from the crowd: ‘Hang Jay Gould, throw him into the lake,” and
so on. He said, ‘No, no, that would not do any good. If you would
hang Jay Gould now, there would be another and perhaps a hundred
up tomorrow. It don't do any good to hang one man; you have to
kill them all, or get rid of them all.' Then he went on to say that it
was not the individual, but the system; that the government should
be destroyed.”
CHARLEs R. TUTTLE, a reporter, was at the Haymarket meeting,
in company with the preceding witness. “One man, I believe the
same one who had spoken when he referred to Gould, stuck up his
hand with a revolver in it and said: “We will shoot the devil,' or
some such expression, and I saw two others sticking up their hands,
near to him, who made similar expressions, and had what I took to be
at the time, revolvers.” -
EDWARD Cosgrove, a detective, was present at the Haymarket
meeting. “I reported at the station from time to time what was going
on at the meeting.” -
TIMOTHY McKEoUGH, also “on the detective force.” Both testified
to seeing Schwab at the meeting in the early portion of the evening.
“Later I heard Mr. Parsons say, taking off his hat in one hand: “To
arms 1 to arms 1 to arms ' ' Then I went over to Desplaines street
station and reported to Inspector Bonfield. When I came back Fiel-
den was speaking. He criticised Martin Foram, the congressman
that was elected by the working people. Speaking about the law, he
says the law was for the capitalists. Yesterday when their brothers
demanded their rights at McCormick's the law came out and shot
them down. When Mr. McCormick closed his door against them for
demanding their rights the law did not protect them. If they loved
their wives, their children, they should take the law, kill it, stab it,
throttle it, or it would throttle them. That appeared to make the
crowd near the wagon more excited, and I made another report to In-
spector Bonfield.” º
EDGAR E. Owens, a reporter, was on duty at the meeting. He
met Mr. Parsons early in the evening and “asked him where the meet-
ing was to be held; he said he didn't know anything about the
THE EvidencE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 93
meeting. I asked him whether he was going to speak. He said no,
he was going over to the South Side. Mrs. Parsons and some children
came up just then and Parsons stopped a car and slapped me famil-
iarly upon the back, and asked me if I was armed, and I said: “No.
have you any dynamite about you?' He laughed, and Mrs Parsons
said: ‘He is a very dangerous looking man, isn't he?' * * *
I believe the bomb exploded about ten minutes after ten o'clock. I
heard the explosion of the bomb and pistol shots almost simultane-
ously with the outcry.” Did not see Schwab there after 8:30.
MR. HEINEMANN was recalled. Heard no shots before the explo-
sion of the bomb. “Almost instantly after it shots were heard: I
could not say whether the first shots came from the police or the
crowd. Spies started out by saying that the meeting was intended to
be a peaceable one. It was not called to raise a disturbance, and
then gave his version of the affair at McCormick's the day before.”
Louis HAAs, detective, recalled to testify that Fielden, on the ap-
proach of the police, made this remark: “Here comes the blood-
hounds; now, men, do your duty and I'll do mine.” Upon cross-
examination he stated that he was a witness at the coroner's inquest
on May 5, and “did not say in my testimony there anything about
this alleged remark of Fielden’s.”
G. P. ENGLISH, reporter; was at the Haymarket meeting. Took
short-hand notes; “had a note book and a short pencil in my over-
coat pocket, and made notes in the pocket. My notes are correct;
some of them. I can read, some I can't.”
His synopsis of Spies' and Parsons' remarks present no
marked differences from what they admit to have said. Concerning
Fielden's speech, the first he had written out was: “There are pre-
monitions of danger, all know it. The press say the Anarchists will
Sneak away; we are not going to. If we continue to be robbed it will
not be long before we will be murdered. There is no security for the
working classes under the present social system. A few individuals
control the means of living and hold the workingmen in a vice.
I'verybody does not know that. Those who know it are tired of it,
and know the others will get tired of it, too. They are determined to
end it and will end it, and there is no power in the land that will pre-
vent them. Congressman Foran says the laborer can get nothing
from legislation. He also said that the laborers can get some relief
from the present conditions when the rich man knew it was unsafe
for him to live in a community where there are dissatisfied working-
men, for they would solve the labor problem. I don't know whether
you are democrats or republicans, but whichever you are, you worship
94 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.
at the shrine of heaven. John Brown, Jefferson, Washington, Pat-
rick Benry and Hopkins said to the people, the law is your enemy.
We are rebels against it. The law is only framed for those who are
your enslavers. (A voice: ‘That is true.") Men in their blind rage
attacked McCormick's factory and were shot down by the law in cold
blood, in the city of Chicago, in the protection of property. Those
men were going to do some damage to a certain person's interest who
was a large property owner, therefore the law came to his defense and
not the workingman's defense, when he, McCormick, attacked him and
his living. There is the difference. The law makes no distinctions.
A million men hold all the property in this country. The law has no
use for the other fifty-four millions. (A voice: “Right enough.”)
You have nothing more to do with the law except to lay hands on it
and throttle it until it makes its last kick. It turns your brothers out
on the wayside and has degraded them until they have lost the last
vestige of humanity, and they are mere things and animals. Keep
your eye upon it, throttle it, kill it, stab it, do everything you can to
wound it—to impede its progress. Remember, before trusting them
to do anything for yourself, prepare to do it yourself. Don't turn
over your business to anybody else. No man deserves anything unless
he is man enough to make an effort to lift himself from oppression.”
Then there was an interruption on account of some storm-clouds;
everybody started to go away. . Mr. Parsons suggested that they ad-
journ over to Zepf's hall. Fielden said no, the people were trying to
get information, and he would go on. And he went on :
“Is it not a fact that we have no choice as to our existence, for we
can’t dictate what our labor is worth ? He that has to obey the will
of another is a slave. Can we do anything except by the strong arm
of resistance? The Socialists are not going to declare war; but I tell
you war has been declared on us; and I ask you to get hold of any-
thing that will help you to resist the onslaught of the enemy and the
usurper. The skirmish lines have met. People have been shot. Men,
women and children have not been spared by the capitalists and min-
ions of private capital. It has no mercy—so ought you. You are
called upon to defend yourselves, your lives, your future. What mat-
ters it whether you kill yourselves with work to get a little relief, or
die on the battlefield resisting the enemy? What is the difference?
Any animal, however loathesome, will resist when stepped upon. Are
men less than snails or worms? I have some resistance in me; I
know that you have, too; you have been robbed and you will be
starved into a worse condition.”
“That is all I have. At that time,some one alongside of me asked
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 95
\
if police were coming. I was facing the northeast, looked down the
street and saw a file of police about the middle of Randolph street.”
Upon cross-examination witness made the following important
statements:
“I thought the speeches they made that night were a little milder
than I heard the u make for years. I didn't hear any of them say or
advise that they were going to use force that night. Before I went to
the meeting my instructions from the Tribune office was to take only the
most incendiary parts of the speeches. I did not hear Mr. Fielden say:
“There come the bloodhounds now; you do your duty and I’ll do mine.’
I heard nothing of that import at all.”
M. M. THOMPSON, “employed in the dry-goods business of Marshall
Field & Co.,” the merchant princes, was at the meeting. He testified
to seeing Mr. Schwab about eight o'clock. He “saw Spies get up on
the wagon and he asked for Parsons. Parsons didn't respond. He
then got down and Schwab and Spies walked into the alley at Crane
Brothers', near which the wagon was situated. The first word I heard
between Schwab and Spies was ‘pistols,’ the next word was ‘police.”
I think I heard “police' twice, or ‘pistols' twice. I then walked just a
little nearer the edge of the alley, and just then Spies said: “Do you
think one is enough, or hadn't we better go and get more?' I could
hear no answer to that. They then walked out of the alley and south
on Desplaines street, and west on the north side of Randolph to Hal-
sted, and cut across the street and went over to the southwest corner
and was there about three minutes; came out of the crowd again and
came back. On the way back, as they neared Union street, I heard.
the word “police' again. Just then I went past them and Schwab said:
‘Now, if they come we will give it to them.' Spies replied he thought
they were afraid to bother with them. They came on and before they
got up near the wagon they met a third party, and they bunched right
together there, South of the alley, and appeared to get right in a huddle,
and there was something passed between Spies and the third man;
what it was I could not say. This here (indicating picture of Schnau-
belt) is, I think, the third man.”
Certainly most positive and damaging evidence, if true. Bearing
in mind that both Schwab and Spies are Germans, and that Schwab
at that time talked but broken English, let us follow the cross-exam-
ination. He had never seen any of the defendants before that night.
“When I saw Spies and Schwab go into the alley there was a crowd
thére. I couldn't see down the alley unless I turned my face to it. I
was right around the corner of the alley, within three feet, probably,
at the farthest, and I moved down to within half a foot. I did not look
96 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.
down the alley, only when they came out of the alley I did look. The
conversation between Spies and Schwab was in English. I do not
understand German.. I didn't hear any words between “police' and
‘pistols.” They were in there probably two or three minutes. * * *
I cannot say that I knew Mr. Schwab's voice at that time. I only
knew Mr. Spies' voice from what l heard him ask on the wagon. Spies
was the one who used the words ‘pistols' and “police.’ I did not see
him when he said it. I could not see him without putting my head
around the corner. They went out of my sight when they went into
the alley.” When they came out and walked two blocks west to Hal-
sted “I trailed after them all the time, part of the time beside of them,
part of the time ahead and past them, but all the time close to them.
There was nobody else following them besides me.” He testified to
this conversation before the coroner's jury. Had seen picture of Schnau-
belt before. “I think Mr. Furthman showed it to me about a week
ago.”
Comment on this remarkable account of persistently following two
Germans who were totally unknown to witness, who were discussing
conspiracy in a language they were not in the habit of using in ordi-
nary conversation, will be deferred till after the testimony for the defense
is placed before the reader.
AUGUST HUEN, printer, set up the German part of the circular call-
ing the meeting. He “saw the boss take out the line, ‘Workingmen,
come armed and appear in full force.’”
A detective testified to finding dynamite, or “a kind of yellowish,
greasy sawdust,” at the Arbeiter-Zeitung office. It was in a bag, wrapped
in brown paper, lying on a closet shelf. tº-
HUGH FIUME, a reporter, saw “Mr. Fielden and other defendants
in the sweat-box” at the central station on the might of May 5. Had
a conversation with Spies, in which Spies “ said to me that the people
had reached a condition where they were ready to do any violence, and
he had advocated violence of that kind; it was necessary to bring about
the revolution the Socialists wanted. He said he had advocated the
use of dynamite. I asked him if he was in favor of killing police
officers with dynamite. He hesitated a little, and then said the police
represented the capitalists and were enemies of theirs, and when you
have an enemy he has got to be removed. This is the gist of what he
said. Spies said he didn't know anything about the bomb having ex-
ploded until afterwards; he had heard a noise that resembled ho
sound of a cannon, and thought the police were firing over the heads
of the people to frighten them.
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 97
“I had a little talk with Mr. Fielden. He was suffering somewhat
from his wound. When I asked him how the Haymarket affair ac-
corded with his ideas of Socialism, he said: ‘You are on dangerous
ground now. There is an argument, though, that we have, that is to
the effect that if you cannot do a thing peaceably it has got to be done
by force.’ Something to that effect.”
The conversation was not confidential; several detectives were
present. “Spies saw me write down his answers. He knew I wanted
the interview for publication.” Remembered that Spies said: “I
thought I would not be at the meeting, but finally went when the
people who got up the circular promised to take out the words “with
arms.’ He also said the throwing of the bomb was wrong. In answer
to the question: “Do you consider the work of Tuesday night as a vic-
tory?” witness said that Spies answered, “No, it was disgusting.”
Witness further stated, “Schwab Speaks English somewhat labor-
iously.”
HARRY L. GILMER was called, and as his testimony contains the
most direct evidence against Spies, and was the one most relied on by
the prosecution, considerable space must be given to it. He was a
painter by trade. EIe arrived at the meeting that night about a quar-
ter to ten o'clock. Took his position at the corner of the alley and
near the wagon.
“I was standing in the alley, looking around for a few minutes;
noticed parties in conversation right across the alley. Somebody in
front of me, on the edge of the sidewalk, said: ‘Here comes the police.”
There was a sort of rush to see the police come up. There was a man
came from the wagon down to the parties that were standing on the
south side of the alley; he lit a match and touched it off, something
or another. The fuse commenced to fizzle, and he give it a couple of
steps forward and tossed it over into the street. I knew the man by
sight who threw the fizzing thing into the street. I have seen him sev-
eral times at meetings at one place and another in the city. I do not
know his name. He was a man about five feet ten inches high; some-
what full-chested, and had a light Sandy beard, not very long; he was
full-faced; his eyes somewhat back in his head; judging from his ap-
pearance he would probably weigh 180 pounds. . My impression is his
hat was dark brown or black. This here (indicating photograph of
Schnaubelt) is the man who threw the bomb out of the alley. There
were four or five standing together in the group. This here (pointing
to Spies) is the man who came from the wagon towards the group.
That man over there (pointing at defendant Fischer) was one of the
parties.”
98 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.
Upon cross-examination witness said he had been at the trial sev-
eral times during the previous two weeks. He told a reporter of hav-
ing seen the match lighted and the bomb thrown; that was on May 6.
He “was in the neighborhood of where Fielden talked for about fifteen
minutes,” but could not remember anything Fielden said. Communi-
cated his information to Mr. Bonfield on the 6th or 7th. The wagon
had low side-boards. Was positive that Spies lighted the bomb and
Schnaubelt threw it from the alley. Thinks he saw Schwab. Was as
positive Fischer was there as that it was Schnaubelt who threw the
bomb.
“I did not run at the time of the shooting. I did not move at all.
I stood right at the mouth of the alley. There were no bullets coming
in around my locality in the alley.” Up to the evening of May 6th
he talked with several about the riot; stated he was there, but told no
one that he had seen the bomb lighted and thrown. “The man who
threw the bomb was about five feet and eight, ten or nine inches high.”
Admitted having “received some money two or three times from De-
tective Bonfield. I did not tell to any person at any time, except the
officers that I mentioned, that I saw the act of lighting the bomb ac-
complished. Neither Mr. Grinnell or Bonfield, or any officer, told me
to keep silent in regard to the matter. I am six feet three in height.
I could pretty near see right over the head of the fellow who threw the
bomb.”
On presenting the testimony for the defense it will be seen:
First. Gilmer was impeached by ten persons, from among the
most respectable classes of the community, some of them large prop-
erty holders, coming forward and swearing that they were acquainted
with his general reputation for truth and veracity among his neigh-
bors, these being persons who had lived in the same house with him,
or in the same immediate locality, and swearing, without hesitation,
that his reputation for truth and veracity was bad, and that they
would not believe him under oath. It is true that counterproof was
introduced, including a number of citizens of Iowa and of Chicago;
but not one of all these had ever lived in the same neighborhood with
Gilmer, or had ever conversed about his reputation with those who
did so live in his immediate vicinity, nor did they know where Gilmer
lived at any time.
Second. It appears upon the testimony of three or four witnesses
that Fischer, at the time of the explosion of the bomb, was in Zepf's
hall, sitting at one of the tables in company with Mr. Wandry, who
was one of the witnesses.
Third. It is shown upon the testimony of several that Spies did
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION 99
not leave the wagon and go to the alley in question at all, but was on
the wagon at the time the order to disperse was given, and had just
dismounted from the wagon to the pavement when the bomb exploded.
I'ourth. It is proved by officers, reporters and several other wit-
messes that the bomb was, in fact, thrown not from the alley at all, but
from a point on the sidewalk from fifteen to twenty feet south of the
alley. One witness, Burnett, states that he was alongside of the man
who threw the bomb, and this was the story Burnett told the day after
the meeting as well as under oath. The testimony is overwhelming to
this fact. n --
Fifth. It is shown by the testimony of Mr. Graham, a reporter
for The Times, that on the day after the Haymarket affair he had a
conversation with Gilmer, in which Gilmer stated to him that he saw
the man light the fuse and throw the bomb, and that he believed he
could recognize the man if he were to see him again. That nothing
whatever was said by Gilmer about any other man participating in
the act. Gilmer swore positively that he knew Spies' face well, hav-
ing frequently heard him at meetings, and from that knowledge recog-
nized him. Yet in the conversation with Graham on the afternoon of
the 5th of May, he never alluded directly or indirectly to Spies as par-
ticipating in throwing or lighting the bomb.
Siarth. Schnaubelt is shown to have been six feet two or three
inches in height and not present at the time of the explosion. i
Seventh. In his opening address Mr. Grinnell himself used the
following language: “At that moment a man, who had a moment
before been on the wagon, lighted the bomb and threw it into the police.”
It is perhaps sufficient to say in conclusion, that so completely
and overwhelmingly was Gilmer impeached, contradicted and discred-
ited that the State did not ask a single instruction to the jury, based
upon the belief by them that Schnaubelt threw the bomb.
Officers testified to finding an apparatus or “blasting machine’’
at Engel's house, which Engel stated had been left there by another
man. The machine, or furnace, was new ; never had fire in it or been
used. {}
HERMAN SCHUTTLER, police officer, narrated the story of the arrest
of Lingg. That Lingg on being accosted jumped back and drew a
revolver and half cocked it, and both struggled together for the pos-
session of it. Another officer came to his companion's rescue and
Lingg was ironed, demanding of them to shoot and kill him. In his
trunk there was found “a small lead bomb in a stocking ” and in an-
other stocking a revolver. The accompanying officer testified to find-
ing four bombs instead of one, \
100 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.
, * * * * n . An * : . . . . . ;
DR. JoHN B. MURPHY, surgeon at the County Hospital, testified as
to the nature of the wounds inflicted on the officers at considerable
length. Objection was entered as not material to the issue; overruled.
Clothing worn by the wounded officers on the night of the 4th was
offered in evidence, evidently for the purpose of working on the feel-
ing of the jurors.
CAPT. MICHAEL’SCHAACK, of the fifth police precinct, was sworn.
Talked with Lingg after his arrest; he admitted being at the Monday-
night meeting. “He said he had made some bombs to use them him-
Self. He said he had reason for being down on the police, they had
clubbed him out at McCormick's. He said he was down on capitalists,
and found fault with the police for taking the part of the capitalists.
If the capitalists turned out the militia and the police force with their
gattling guns, they couldn't do anything with revolvers, and therefore
they had adopted these bombs and dynamite. He said he had learned
to make bombs in scientific books of warfare published by Most of
New York. He had got his dynamite on Lake street. He said the
bombs they found in his place were all he made.”
He said Mrs. Engel called at the station; she said to Engel: “Do
you see what trouble you got yourself into ?” That Engel answered:
“Mama, I can't help it.” “I told him why he didn't stop that non-
sense, and he said: ‘I promised my wife so many times that I would
stop this Anarchism or Socialism business. But I can't stop it.
What is in me has got to come out. I can't help it, that I am so
gifted with eloquence. It is a curse. It has been a curse to a good
many other men, a good many men have suffered already for the same
cause, and I am willing to suffer and will stand it like a man.’” He
testified to experiments made with the dynamite found in Lingg's
room, which Lingg had bought in open market, showing its terrible
effectiveness as a destructive agency, for the edification of the jury.
Witnesses testified to finding cans filled with dynamite underneath
a sidewalk, three miles from the Haymarket, and surgeons gave testi-
mony to the ghastly nature of bomb wounds.
CHARLES B. PROUTY, manager in a gun store told of the heinous
offense committed by Engel, calling at the store, buying a pistol and
inquiring the price for “perhaps one or two hundred.” Later Engel
said “they had found something else for a little less money that would
answer the purpose.” - -
Another dealer in guns said Mr. Parsons had visited his store and
inquired the price of “a quantity of revolvers — I think forty or fifty.
* * * He did not purchase any.” -
W. S. HAINES, professor of chemistry in Rush Medical College,
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 101
made a chemical examination of pieces of metal said to have been
taken from Officer Degan, and also pieces of metal said to have been
connected with Lingg and with Spies, and found in all about the same
proportion of tin, antimony, zinc and iron. He said finally: “In a
mixture of the ordinary commercial tin and the ordinary commercial
lead you would find traces of antimony, zinc and iron. I do not think
they they would have been added to the substances I examined. They
probably came in as impurities in both the two constituents.” The ,
amount of tin varied from 1% to 2% per cent. The remainder was lead.
Divested of learned technicality the bombs said to have been made by
Lingg, that given by Spies to the reporter, Wilkinson, and that found
on the Haymarket were all made of lead, but differed from commercial
lead in containing slight traces of tin. t
Officers' testified to knowing Officer Degan and to his death.
DETECTIVE BonRIELD testified to finding about forty banners at
the office of the Arbeiter-Zeitung, containing such inscriptions as these:
“Every government is a conspiracy against the people;” “Down with
all law.” Théy were duly paraded before the jury.
The prosecution here rested its case.
Counsel for defendants moved the court to send the jury from the
court-room while they would present and urge on behalf of the defend-
ant Neebe the motion that the jury be instructed to find a verdict of
not guilty as to said Neebe. The court refused; thereupon a motion
was made that the court instruct the jury to find a verdict of not
guilty for Neebe. Counsel for the defense argued the motion at some
length; the attorneys for the State remained quiet. During the dis-
cussion the fºllowing expressions were made by the court:
THE CourT.—There are other things. I won't respect them, how-
ever, unless you want me to call your attention to the things that are
in my mind so you can argue the question to me.
MR. SALOMON.—It is proper your Eſonor should state that.
THE CourT.—There is testimony from which the State will be
permitted to urge upon this jury that he (Neebe) presided at meetings
at which some of the speeches were made, urging the killing of people,
Is there not evidence in the case from which the State will be per-
mitted to urge upon the jury that he, without being an active man in
the Arbeiter-Zeitung, yet was interested in it, and it was published with
his co-operation and assent? What inference can they urge upon
this jury from the testimony, that when the officers went there, he
replied that he supposed that in the absence of Spies and Schwab he,
was in charge? " * * Whether he had anything to do with the
dissemination of advice to commit murder, is, I think, a debatable
102 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.
question which the jury ought to pass upon; whether the Arbeiter-
Zeitung was published with his aid or not.
MR. BLACK.—There is not a particle of testimony—I desire your
Honor to call attention if you can, or the gentlemen on the other side,
to call attention to any evidence in this case—that shows it was pub-
lished with his aid. -
THE CouTT.—There have been witnesses. who said he was fre-
quently seen there * * * and that when Spies and Schwab
Were arrested and in custody, then he took charge of it.
MR. BLACK.—Certainly; what does that prove 2
THE Count. —It proves that he had some control. Sk % ºk
Why he took control of it is a matter you must debate—whether he
did it at the request of Spies or Schwab or took possession because
he was next in command, or why he took it, I shall not undertake to
Say. -
* THE CourT.—If it depended upon prior knowledge and participa-
tion at the Haymarket meeting, the question would be quite different,
but if there is general advice to commit murder, the time and occasion
not being foreseen, the adviser is guilty when it is committed.”
After full argument the court overruled the above motion on be-
half of the defendant Neebe, to which counsel for defendants excepted.
But, in the language of the court, “when Spies and Schwab
Were arrested and in custody, then he took charge" of the Arbeiter-
2eitung, was sufficient to secure a sentence of fifteen years at hard
labor from a jury, the majority of whom admitted that they enter-
tained “a prejudice against Socialists, Anarchists and Communists.”
CHAPTER VIII.
ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENSE.
On Saturday, July 31, forty days after the trial began, the evidence
for the State closed and Mr. Salomon opened the case for the defend-
ants as follows:
It is a usual thing in all important cases, especially in criminal
cases, after the selection of a jury, for the counsel to express their
opinion, individually or collectively, to the jury, and it seems to me in
this instance it is most proper for me to say to you, gentlemen, that
sitting here for a number of weeks as you have, patiently listening to
the evidence that has been introduced so far by the State, and in the
ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENSE. 168
manner of your selection and while waiting for the evidence to be in-
troduced, you have each and all of you shown admirable patience and
judgment. You have proven yourselves in my eyes and in my judg-
ment, willing, patient and able to listen to the evidence in this case
and decide it upon its merits. It is therefore almost unnecessary for
me to beg of you a further continuance of that faithful canvass and
consideration that you have already shown. We expect it and feel
that you will bestow it. ' This, gentlemen of the jury, as you have
heard said often in your presence, is no common case. It is no ordi-
nary case, both from the nature of the crime that is charged and
from the number of defendants whom it is sought to hold responsible
for the commission of the crime. It has been stated to you by Mr.
Grinnell, the state's attorney, in his opening—and he said it for the
first time—that this was a trial of Anarchy and of Socialism and for
the life of Anarchy and of Socialism. We have steadily refused, and
we still refuse to believe that any man on this jury will be willing to
convict any of these defendants either because he may be an Anarch-
ist or a Socialist. Every question put to you both by the defense and
by the prosecution in this case tended and its purpose was, and it was
said under your obligation of oaths as jurors, to ascertain whether or
not these defendants are guilty of the crime that is charged against
them. The state's attorney detailed to you the proof which he
expected to introduce in this case, and he stated that he told you all
fully and frankly. I ask you, gentlemen of the jury, whether the
state's attorney did make a full, free and frank statement of what he
was going to prove? If he had followed out his proof and statement
of proof, I feel satisfied, and I hope to convince you that the law is,
that this prosecution could not be maintained.
. Mr. Grinnell failed to state to you that he had a person by whom
he could prove who threw the bomb, and he never expected to make
this proof until he found that without this proof he was unable to
maintain this prosecution against these defendants; and it was as
this case neared the prosecution end of it that the prosecution sud-
denly changed their front and produced a professional tramp and a
professional liar, as we will show you, to prove that one of these
defendants was connected with the throwing of it. They then recog-
mized, as we claimed and now claim, that that is the only way they
can maintain their case here. It needs, I hope, gentlemen, no apology
from me for the manner in which I shall present this case of the
defendants to you. This burden, this duty towards our clients has
devolved upon me, and, gentlemen, I shall endeavor to fully and fairly
state to you what these defendants rely upon, and when the proof is
l()4 ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENSE.
made as I shall state it to you upon which they will rely for an acquit-
tal, you will acquit them. Now, gentlemen, I desire to call your
attention to what these defendants on trial are charged with. As I
told you a moment ago, they are not charged with Anarchy; they are
not charged with Socialism; they are not charged with the fact that
Anarchy and Socialism is dangerous or beneficial to the community;
but, according to the law under which we are now acting, a charge
specific in its nature must be made against them, and that alone,
must be sustained, and it is the duty of the jury to weigh the evidence
as it bears upon that charge; and upon no other.point can they pay
attention to it. Now, gentlemen, the charge here is shown by this in-
dictment. This is the accusation. This is what the case involves,
and upon this the defendants and the prosecution must either stand
or fall. This indictment is for the murder of Mathias J. Degan. It
is charged that each one of these defendants committed the crime,
each defendant individually; and it is charged in a number of differ-
ent ways. Now, I desire to call your attention to the law governing
this indictment and to read it to you; and I am presenting the law to
you now, gentlemen, so that you can understand how we view this
case and how the evidence is affected by what the law is. The section
of the law under which this indictment is framed is as follows:
“Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being in the peace
“of the people with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied.
“The unlawful killing may be perpetrated by poisoning, striking,
“stabbing, shooting, etc., or by any other of the various forms or
“means by which human nature may be overcome and death thereby
“ occasioned. Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully
“to take away the life of a fellow-creature which is manifested by
“external circumstances capable of proof. Malice shall be implied
“when no considerable provocation appears, or when all the circum-
“stances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.”
Now, it is not claimed that any of these defendants did what the
statute, which I have just read, said they must do or what the proof
must show they have dome before they can be held; but it is sought
by the following provision to hold them accessory. Section 274 of the
Revised Statutes, Chapter 38:
“An accessory is he who stands by and aids, abets or assists, or
“who not being present aiding, abetting or assisting, hath advised,
“encouraged, aided or abetted the perpetration of the crime. He who
“thus aids, abets, assists, advises, or encourages shall be considered
“as principal, and punished accordingly.”
ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENSE. 105
Section 275 says:
“Every such accessory, when a crime is committed within or
“without this State by his aid or procurement in this State, may be,
“indicted and convicted at the same time as the principal, or before,
“ or after his conviction, and whether the principal is convicted or
“amenable to justice or not, and punished as principal.” . -
The specific crime which was committed, and which, I expect to
show you the law says, no matter whether these defendants advised
generally the use of dynamite in the purpose which they claimed to
carry out, and sought to carry out, yet if none of these defendants,
advised the throwing of that bomb at the Haymarket, they can not be
held responsible for the action of others at other times and other.
places. What does the evidence introduced here tend to show? It
may occur to some of you, gentlemen, to ask: “What, then, can these
defendants preach the use of dynamite? May they be allowed to go
on and urge people to overturn the present government and the present
condition of society without being held responsible for it and without
punishment? Is there no law to which these people can be subjected
and punished if they do this thing?” There is, gentlemen, but it is not
and never has been murder, and if they are amenable, as the evidence
introduced by the prosecution tends to show, it is under another and a
different law, and no attempt on the part of the prosecution to jump
the wide chasm which separates these two offenses can be successful
unless it is done out of pure hatred, malice, ill-will, or because of
prejudice. The law protects every citizen. It punishes every guilty
man, and according to the measure of his crime; no more and no less.
If a man be guilty of conspiracy, or if he be guilty of treason, he is
liable to punishment for that offense, and not for a higher one. This
is what the people of the State of Illinois have said, and that is their
law. That is what they want enforced, and that is what I stand here
for as the advocate of these defendants. I claim for them, and for
the entire people of this State, that the law shall be applied as it is .
found, and as they have directed it to be enforced. Now, what is the
statute on conspiracy, of which these defendants may be guilty, if
they are guilty of anything? It reads:
“If two or more persons conspire and agree together with a fraud-
“ulent and malicious intent to injure the person, character, business,
“or property of another, or to obtain money on other property by
“false pretenses, or to do any illegal act injuriqus to the public trade,
“health, morals, police, or administration of public justice, or to
“prevent competition in the letting of any contract by the State or
“the authorities of any county, city, town, or village, or to induce any
106 -- ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENSE.
“person not to enter into said competition, or to commit any felony,
“they shall be deemed guilty of a conspiracy; and every such of-
“fender, and every person convicted of conspiracy at common law,
“shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not exceeding three years, or
“fined not exceeding $1,000.”
The next section is as follows: .
“That if two or more persons conspire either to commit any
“offense against the State of Illinois or any county, incorporated city,
“etc., in any manner, or for any purpose, and one or more of such
“parties do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, all parties
“to such conspiracy shall be liable to a penalty of not less than $100.
“and not more than $5,000, and to be imprisoned either in the peni-
“tentiary or the county jail for any period not exceeding two years.
“The time and place of the confinement and the amount of the fine
“to be determined by the jury trying the cause.”
Gentlemen, the state's attorney's opening statement to you, the
proof in this case, with the exception of Gilmer's testimony, shows
and shows only that the State has a case within those sections which
I have last read to you, and no other, if they have a case against them
at all. Now, gentlemen, I have read to you the section of the statute
relating to accessories. As I have told you before, it is only the perpe-
trator and the abettor in the perpetration of a crime who, under the
decision of almost every supreme court in the United States and in
England, can be held.
[Mr. Salomon here quoted from Wharton's Criminal Law and also
read from reports of various cases corroborative of his argument.]
- Now, gentlemen, that is one theory of this case, and this law must
be applied to each and every one of these defendants who was absent .
from that meeting, unless it is shown by the prosecution that they
were connected with the bomb throwing, and we shall endeavor to
show you that they knew nothing of the throwing of the bomb. Those
defendants who are present, however, might be held under this indict-
ment if you believe from the evidence that the object of the meeting
and those present was to use force and violence against the police.
Then all who took part knowingly in that meeting can be held liable
as being present there if the proof shows that the meeting itself was
an unlawful one and that its purpose was unlawful; that its purpose
was to kill the police—to aggressively kill the police; and when I say
aggressively I mean that the defendants willfully attacked them, be-
cause, if the defendants, or any of them, were unlawfully attacked,
then, of course, they had a right to defend themselves.
Now, gentlemen, I don't care to read to you any more authorities
ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENSE. 107
than those I have referred you to. That view of the law that they must
be proven to be accessories to the crime is the one point only upon
which the prosecution can sustain their case, and is the only one upon
which this case must proceed according to our view. Now, these de-
fendants are not criminals; they are not robbers; they are not bur-
glars; they are not common thieves; they descend to no small crim-
inal act. On the contrary, this evidence shows conclusively that they
are men of broad feelings of humanity, that their only desire has been
and their lives have been consecrated to the betterment of their fellow-
men. They have not sought to take the life of any man, of any indi-
vidual, to maliciously kill or destroy any person, nor have they sought
to deprive any man of his pioperty for their own benefit. They have
not sought to get McCormick's property for themselves; they have not
sought to get Marshall Field's property for themselves; and to deprive
Marshall Field of it feloniously, but they have endeavored and labored
to establish a different social system. It is true they have adopted
means, or wanted to adopt means that were not approved of by all
mankind. It is true that their methods were dangerous, perhaps, but
then they should have been stopped at their inception. We shall
expect to prove to you, gentlemen, that these men have stood by the
man who has the least friends; that they have endeavored to better
the condition of the laboring men. The laboring men have few friends
enough. They have no means without the combination and assistance
of their fellow-men to better their condition, and it was to further
that purpose and to raise them above constant labor and constant toil
and constant worry and constant fret, and to have their fellow-men
act and be as human beings and not as animals, that these defendants
have consecrated their lives and energies. If it was in pursuance of
that, wrought up perhaps through frequent failures and through the
constant force exercised against them, that they came to the conclu-
sion that it was necessary for them to use force against force, we know
not, and we do not expect to prove nor to deny that these defendants
advocated the use of force, nor do we now intend to apologize for any-
thing they have said, nor to excuse their acts. It is neither the place
nor the time for counsel in this case nor of the gentlemen of the jury
to either excuse the acts of these defendants nor to encourage them.
With that we have here nothing to do. Our object is simply to show
that these defendants are not guilty of the murder with which they
are charged in this indictment. But the issue is forced upon us to say
whether it was right or wrong, and whether they had the right to ad-
vocate the bettering of their fellow-men. As Mr. Grinnell said, he
wanted to hang Socialism and Anarchy; but twelve men nor twelve
#
*
108 ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENSE.
hundred nor twelve thousand can stamp out. Anarchy nor root out So-
cialism, no more than they can democracy or republicanism, that lie
within the heart and within the head. Under our forms of govern-
ment every man has the right to believe and the right to express his
thoughts, whether they be inimical to the present institutions or
whether they favor them; but if that man, no matter what he advo-
cates or who he be, whether democrat, republican, Socialist or Anarch-
ist, kill and destroy human life deliberately and feloniously, that man,
whether high or low, is amenable to criminal justice, and must be
punished for his crime, and for no other.
Now, what was the object of these defendants, as they are charged,
in being so bloodthirsty? Their purpose was to change society, to
bring into force and effect their Socialistic and Anarchistic ideas.
Were they right or were they wrong, or have we nothing to do with it?
As I told you, they had the right to express their ideas. They had the
right. They had the right to gain converts, to make Anarchists and
Socialists, but whether Socialism or Anarchy shall be established never
rested with those defendants; never rested in a can of dynamite or in
a dynamite bomb. It rests with the great mass of people, with the
people of Chicago, of Illinois, of the United States, of the world. If
they, the people, want Anarchy, want Socialism, if they want democ-
racy or republicanism, they can and they will inaugurate it. But the
people also will allow a little toleration of views. Now, these defend-
ants claim that Socialism is a progressive social science, and it will be
a part of the proof which you will have to determine. Must the world
stand as we found it when we were born, or have we a right to show
our fellow-men a better way, a nobler life, a better condition. That
is what these defendants claim, if they are forced beyond the issue in
this case. We find that the government is constantly progressing,
endeavoring to institute reforms and new movements. We find that
it is for the betterment of commerce that there should be a time for
every district in the United States, and they inaugurate an eastern
time, a central time, and a western time. The country thinks it is for
the best. They endeavor to establish a uniform dollar in every com-
munity in the United States. The country thinks it is for the best.
Many of you, gentlemen, fought for this Union and liberated the slave
because you thought you had a right to fight. You had to take life in
freeing those slaves, and many lives were lost, and it was because you
thought it was right, as men living among men, to do that act. You
recognized the fact that slavery should go under, and that no man
should own another. You fought in the Rebellion because there were
men who held and controlled other men, and these defendants talked
ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENSE. 109 s
because they thought that there were white slaves and white men who
were under the control of their bosses. In furtherance of that plan
what have these defendants done? Have they murdered many people?
What was their plan when they counseled dynamite? They intended
to use dynamite in furtherance of the general revolution; never, never
against any individual. We will show you that it was their purpose,
as the proof, I think, partly shows already, that when a general revo-
lution or a general strike was inaugurated, when they were attacked,
that then, in fact, while carrying out the purposes of that strike or
that revolution, that then they should use dynamite, and not until
then. If it is unlawful to conspire to carry out that thing, these men
must be held for that thing. We shall show you that these men, in
carrying out their plan for the bettering of the condition of the work-
ingmen, inaugurated the eight-hour movement; they inaugurated the
early-closing movement; they inaugurated every movement that tended
to alleviate the condition of the workingman and allow him a greater
time to his family for mutual benefit. That is what these defendants
set up for a defense. That is what they claim was their right to do,
and that is what they claim they did do, and they did nothing more.
Now, gentlemen, we don't say that we desire to go into this proof,
because we think it has nothing to do with this case, if our theory is
correct, but if we are forced to show why they did these things it is
simply to convince you that their objects were not for robbery, not for
stealing, not to gain property for themselves, and not to maliciously
or willfully destroy any man's good name or his property interests.
We expect to show you, further, that these defendants never con-
spired, nor any one of them, to take the life of any single individual at
any time or any place; that they never conspired or plotted to take at
this time.or at any other time the life of Mathias Degan or any num-
ber of policemen, except in self-defense while carrying out their origi-
nal purpose. We expect, further, to show you that on the night of the
4th of May these defendants had assembled peaceably, that its purpose
was peaceable, that its objects were peaceable, that they delivered the
same harangue as before, that the crowd listened, and that not a single
act transpired there previous to the coming of the policemen by which
any man in the audience could be held amenable to law. They as-
sembled, there, gentlemen, under the provision of our Constitution, to
exercise the right of free speech, to discuss the situation of the work-
ingmen, to discuss the eight-hour question. They assembled there to
incidentally discuss what they deemed outrages at McCormick’s. No
man expected that a bomb would be thrown; no man expected that
any one would be injured at that meeting, but while some of these de-
110 ARGUMENT For THE DEFENSE.
fendants were there and while this meeting was peaceably in progress,
the police, with a devilish design, as we expect to prove, came down
upon that body with their revolvers in their hands and pockets, ready
for immediate use, intending to destroy the life of everyman that stood
upon that market square. That seems terrible, gentlemen, but that is
, the information which we have and which we expect to show you. We
expect to show you, further, gentlemen, that the crowd did not fire,
that not a single person fired a single shot at the police officers. We
expect to show you that Mr. Fielden did not have on that night and
never had in his life a revolver; that he did not fire, and that that por-
tion of the testimony here is wrong. We expect to show you, further,
gentlemen, that the witness Gilmer, who testified to having seen Spies
light the match which caused the destruction coming from the bomb,
is a professional and constitutional liar; that no man in the city of
Chicago who knows him will believe him under oath, and, indeed, I
might almost say that it would scarcely need even a witness to show
the falsity of his testimony, because it seems to me that it must fall
of its own weight. We expect to show you, gentlemen, that Thompson
was greatly mistaken; that on that might Schwab never saw or talked
with Mr. Spies; that he was at the Haymarket early in the evening,
but that he left before the meeting began and before he saw Mr. Spies
on that evening at all. We expect to show that Mr. Parsons, so far
from thinking anything wrong, and Fischer, were quietly seated at
Zepf's hall, drinking, perhaps, a glass of beer at the time the bomb
exploded, and that it was as great a surprise to them as it was to any
of you. We expect to show you that Engel was at home at the time
the bomb exploded, and that he knew nothing about it. With the
whereabouts of Lingg you are already familiar. It may seem strange
why he was manufacturing bombs. The answer to that is, he had a
right to have his house full of dynamite. He had a right to have
weapons of all descriptions upon his premises, and until he used them,
or advised their use, and they were used in pursuance of his advice,
he is not liable any more than the man who commits numerous bur-
glaries, the man who commits numerous thefts, who walks the streets
is liable to arrest and punishment only when he commits an act which
makes him amenable to law. #
I did not expect to address you concerning Mr. Neebe, and it is
unnecessary for me to make much comment on that, but will show you
that Mr. Neebe did not know of this meeting, that he was not present,
that he was in no manner connected with it, and there is no proof to
show that he was. We will also prove to you, gentlemen, that Mr.
Fielden did not go down the alley, as some of the witnesses for the
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 111
State have testified, but that he went down Desplaines street to Ram-
dolph, and up Randolph, as, indeed, if my memory serves me right,
the statements made by Mr. Fielden immediately after the occurrence
already sufficiently show. --
Now, gentlemen, in conclusion, as I stated to you a moment ago,
we do not intend to defend against Socialism, we do not intend to de-
fend against Anarchism, we expect to be held responsible for that only
which we have done, and to be held in the manner pointed out by law.
Under the charge upon which these defendants are held under this in-
dictment, we shall prove to you, and I hope to your entire satisfaction,
that a case has not been made out against them. Whether they be
Socialists or whether they be Anarchists we hope will not influence any
one of you, gentlemen. Whatever they may have preached, or what-
ever they may have said, or whatever may have been their object, if
it was not connected with the throwing of the bomb it is your sworn
duty to acquit them. We expect to make all this proof, and we expect
such a result. Gentlemen, I thank you.
CEIAPTER IX.
TESTIMONY For THE DEFENSE.
On the morning of Monday, August 2, the defense placed its first
witness on the stand in the person of CARTER H. HARRIson, Mayor of
Chicago. We have already alluded to his testimony in part. He said
that on the morning of the 4th he “received information of the issu-
ance of a circular of a peculiar character," calling the Haymarket
meeting. He directed the chief of police that if anything should be
said at that meeting “that might call out a recurrence of such pro-
ceedings as at McCormick's factory, the meeting should be dispersed.
I believed that it was better for myself to be there and disperse the
meeting myself instead of leaving it to any policeman.” He heard
Spies' speech “and all of Mr. Parsons up to the time I left, with the .
exception of about five or ten minutes, during which I went over to
the station. When I judged that Mr. Parsons was looking towards
the close of his speech I went over to the station, spoke to Captain
Bonfield and determined to go home, but instead of going immediately
I went back to hear a little more; staid there about five minutes
longer and then left. Within about twenty minutes from the time
that I left the meeting I heard the sound of the explosion of the bomb
at my house.
ll2 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE.
“I did in fact take no action at the meeting about dispersing it.
There were occasional replies from the audience as ‘shoot him,' ‘hang
him,' or the like, but I do not think from the directions in which they
came, here and there and around, that there were more than two or
three hundred actual sympathizers with the speakers. Several times
cries of ‘hang him,’ would come from a boy in the outskirts, and the
crowd would laugh. I felt that a majority of the crowd were idle
spectators, and the replies nearly as much what might be called
‘guying' as absolute applause. Some of the replies were evidently
bitter; they came from immediately around the stand. The audience
numbered from 800 to 1,000. The people in attendance, so far as I
could see before the speaking commenced, were apparently laborers
and mechanics, and the majority of them not English-speaking peo-
ple, mostly Germans. There was no suggestion made by either of the
speakers for the immediate use of force or violence toward any person
that night; if there had been I should have dispersed them at once.
* * * When I went to the station during Parson's speech, I
stated to Captain Bonfield that I thought the speeches were about
over; that nothing had occurred yet or looked likely to occur to require in-
terference, and that he had better issue orders to his reserves at the
other stations to go home, * * * I don’t remember hear-
ing Parsons call ‘To arms . To arms . To arms l’”
BARTON SIMONSON, born in Chicago, and traveling salesman for
seven years. On May 4, “after supper, I went to the Haymarket
meeting. In the afternoon I had received a copy of the circular call-
ing the Haymarket meeting. This (producing circular) is the copy of
the circular I received.” It did not contain the line “Workingmen, arm
yourself and appear in full force.” { %
“I reached the Haymarket about 7:30. I found no meeting
there. I walked around among the crowd, which was scattered over
the Haymarket, then I went to the Desplaines Street station and shook
hands with Captain Ward, whom I knew. He introduced me to In-
spector Bonfield and I had a conversation with him. Later on I went
back and remained throughout the whole meeting until the bomb had
exploded. The speakers were northeast of me in front of Crane
Brothers' building, a few feet north of the alley. I remember the
alley particularly. As far as I remember Spies’ speech, he said:
* Please come to order. This meeting is not called to incite any riot.’”
Witness then gave a synopsis of the speech, which in no wise differs
from that previously given as written out by Spies.
He thought Mr. Parsons did say “To arms, to arms,” but in what
connection could not remember. “Somebody in the crowd said
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 113
‘shoot' or ‘hang Gould,’ and he says, ‘No, a great many will jump
up and take his place. What Socialism aims at is not the death of
individuals, but of the system.’ - *
“Fielden spoke very loud, and as I had never attended a Socialist
meeting before in my life, I thought they were a little wild. Fielden
spoke about a Congressman from Ohio who had been elected by the
workingmen and confessed that no legislation could be enacted in
favor of the workingmen; consequently he said there was no use try-
ing to do anything by legislation. After he had talked a while a dark
cloud with cold wind came from the north. Many people had left
before, but when that cloud came a great many people left. Some-
body said, ‘Let's adjourn'—to someplace—I can'tremember the name
of the place. Fielden said he was about through, there was no need
of adjourning. He said two or three times, ‘Now, in conclusion,’ or
something like that, and I became impatient. Then I heard a com-
motion and a good deal of noise in the audience, and somebody said,
‘police.’ I looked south and saw a line of police. The police moved
along until the front of the column got about up to the speaker's
wagon. I heard somebody near the wagon Say Something about dis-
persing. I saw some persons upon the Wagon. I could not tell who
they were. About the time somebody was giving that command to
disperse, I distinctly heard two words coming from the vicinity of the
wagon or from the wagon. I don't know who uttered them. The
words were, ‘peaceable meeting.' That was a few seconds before the
explosion of the bomb. I did not hear any such exclamation as,
‘Here come the bloodhounds of the police; you do your duty and I'll
do mine,’ from the locality of the wagon or from Mr. Fielden. Iheard
nothing of the sort that night. At the time the bomb exploded I was
still in my position upon the stairs. There was no pistol firing by
any person upon the wagon before the bomb exploded. No pistol
shots anywhere before the explosion of the bomb.
“Just after the command to disperse had been given, I saw a
lighted fuse, or something—I didn't know what it was at the time—
come up from a point twenty feet south of the south line of Crane's
alley, from about the center of the sidewalk on the east side of the
street, from behind some boxes. I am positive it was not thrown from
the alley. I first noticed it about six or seven feet in the air, a little
above a man's head. It went in a northwest course and up about
fifteen feet from the ground, and fell about the middle of the street.
The explosion followed almost immediately. Something of a cloud of
smoke followed the explosion. After the bomb exploded there was
pistol shooting. From my position I could distinctly see the flashes
f - s * } A' h f*
\
ll4 TESTIMONY For THE DEFENSE.
of the pistols. My head was about fifteen feet above the ground.
There might have been fifty to one hundred and fifty pistol shots.
They proceeded from about the center of where the police were. I
, did not observe either the flashes of the pistol shot or hear the report
of any shots from the crowd upon the police prior to the firing by the
police. The police were not only shooting at the crowd, but I noticed
several of them shoot just as they happened to throw their arms. I
concluded that my position was possibly more dangerous than down
in the crowd, and then Iran down to the foot of the stairs, ran west
‘on the sidewalk on Randolph street a short distance, and then in the
road. A crowd was running in the same direction. I had to jump
over a man lying down, and I saw another man fall in front of me
about 150 to 200 feet west of Desplaines street. I took hold of his
arm and wanted to help him, but the firing was so lively behind me
that I just left go and ran. I was in the rear of the crowd running
west, the police still behind us. There were no shots from the direc-
tion to which I was running. * -
“I am not and never have been a member of any Socialistic party
or association. Walking through the crowd before the meeting, I no-
ticed that the meeting was composed principally of ordinary working-
men, mechanics, etc. The audience listened and once in while there
would be yells of ‘Shoot him,' ‘Hang him.' The violent ones seemed
to be in the vicinity of the wagon. My impression is that some were
making fun of the meeting. I noticed no demonstration of violence,
no fighting or anything of that kind on the part of the crowd.
“I heard about half a dozen or perhaps a few more of such ex-
pressions as ‘Hang him ' or ‘Shoot him,' from the audience. I did
not find any difference in the bearing of the crowd during Fielden's
speech from what it was during Parsons' or Spies'. In the course of
the conversation with Capt. Bonfield at the station before the meeting
that night, I asked him about the trouble in the Southwestern part
of the city. He says: ‘The trouble there is that these '—whether he
used the word Socialist or strikers, I don't know—“get their women
and children mixed up with them and around them and in front
of them, and we can't get at them. I would like to get 3,000 of
them in a crowd without their women and children’—and to the
best of my recollection he added—‘ and I will make short work of
them.’ I noticed a few women and children at the bottom of the steps
where I was.”
Upon cross-examination this graphic and evidently truthful nar-
ration was not weakened in the least. Among other things he added
in confirmation the following: “The firing began from the police, right
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 115
in the center of the street. I did not see a single shot fired from the
crowd on either side of the street. I don't know what became of the
men on the wagon. I was not looking at the wagon all the time, but
was looking over the scene in general. If you get up on a place as
high as I was, and it was dark, you could see every flash; the flashes
show themselves when they are out of the revolvers, on a dark night:
The scene impressed itself so upon me, that now, looking back, I see
it as I did them. Looking at where the bomb exploded, I could not
help looking towards the wagon, too.”
The witness went to the meeting out of mere curiosity to see what
Socialist meetings were, and no subsequent witness could in any man-
ner affect his character as an exemplary citizen and Christian gentle-
Iſlan,
JoBN FERGUson, a resident of Chicago for seventeen years and
engaged in the business of cloak-making. His testimony was straight-
forward and pertinent as to the character of the meeting. On May
4th he happened to be passing through an adjoining street with an
acquaintance, “and noticing something of a crowd further south on
Desplaines street we walked down to it. Some gentleman was speak-
ing in broken English. My acquaintance told me he believed it was
Spies. I stopped about ten minutes and listened to his speech. Then
we walked down Desplaines street about half way to the station, and
passed Carter Harrison and two gentlemen with him. I turned around
and went back, expecting to hear one of Carter's speeches. Spies was
still speaking, but finished in a few minutes, and Mr. Parsons made a
speech of about thirty or thirty-five minutes. Then Mr. Harrison
Went away, and I turned to go away, and, meeting an acquaintance,
stopped and conversed with him for a few minutes. I then listened to
about fifteen minutes more of Mr. Parsons' speech from the crossing
of Randolph street. During his speech, when he mentioned Jay
Gould's name, somebody said, ‘Throw him in the lake,” and a man
almost in, front of me took his pipe from: his mouth and hollered out,
‘Hang him.’ Parsons replied that would do no good, a dozen more
Jay Goulds would spring up in his place. ‘Socialism aims not at the
life of individuals, but at the system.’ I didn't hear any other re-
sponses from the crowd than those I mentioned.
“After Parsons concluded another gentleman got up and began
speaking about Congressman Foran. After a few minutes I saw quite
a storm cloud come up. Some one interrupted the speaker with the
remark: “There is a prospect of immediate storm, and those of you
who wish to continue the meeting can adjourn to '—some hall, I don’t
remember the name of it; but the speaker, resuming, said: ‘I havn't
116 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE.
but two or three words more to say, and then you can go home.' I
walked away from the meeting, across Randolph street to the south-
west corner. There I saw the police rush out from the station in a
body; they whirled into the street and came down very rapidly to-
wards us; the gentleman in command of the police was swinging his
arm and told them to hurry up. After they had passed us We turned
to walk south towards the station and we heard a slight report, some-
thing like breaking boards, or like slapping a brick down on the pave-
ment. We turned, and we had just about faced around, looking at
the crowd, when we saw a fire flying out about six or eight feet above
the heads of the heads of the crowd and falling down pretty near the
center of the street. It was all dark for almost a second, perhaps,
and then there was a deafening roar, then almost instantly we saw
flashes from towards the middle of the street, south of Randolph on
Desplaines, and heard reports. That side of the street where the
crowd was was dark; at that time there did not appear to be any light
there. Then we hurried away. I did not see any flashes from either
side of the street. The crowd was very orderly, as orderly as I ever
saw anywhere in the street. *
“It could not have been longer than five minutes from the time
Fielden said that we will be through in a short time that the police
marched down the street. I am not a Socialist, nor an Anarchist, nor
a Communist; I don't know anything about what those terms mean.”
LUDwig ZELLER was the next witness. Went to the meeting after
ten o'clock, stopping because attracted by the crowd. Shortly after
he saw the police marching towards them. He was standing by the
lamp post near Crane's alley. “When they passed me I heard the
command of the captain; heard no reply from anybody on the wagon
or near the wagon. I turned and went south to Randolph street, and
in turning I saw a light go through the air about six, or eight, or ten
feet south of the lamp. It went in a northwesternly direction, right
into the middle of the police; then I heard an explosion and shooting.
* * * The shots came from the center of the street.”
Witness was present at a meeting of the Central Labor Union on
Sunday, May 2d, as a delegate from the Cigar Makers' Union, No. 15.
“The delegates of the Lumber-Shovers' Union at that meeting re-
quested me to send a speaker to a meeting of the Lumber-Shovers’
Union to be held on Monday, May 8d, at the Black road; they wanted
a good speaker, who could keep the meeting quiet and orderly. In the
afternoon of the same day we had another meeting of the Central
Labor Union, at which Mr. Spies was present as a reporter of the
Arbeiter-Zeitung, and I told him personally to go out to the meeting
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 117
and speak in the name of the Central Labor Union. * * * I did
not notice any firing back from the crowd at the police.”
Upon cross-examination he said:
“I am not an Anarchist; I am a Socialist. I was standing about
five or six feet south of that alley. I saw the fuse about eight or ten
feet south of me. * * * There was an express wagon about ten or
twelve feet south of the alley. I can’t remember any boxes there,
there were so many men standing around me, and I was only a few
minutes there.”
CARL RIGHTER, in the leather business, was at the meeting, and
particular attention is called to his testimony in connection with the
evidence of Thompson that Spies and Schwab conversed in the alley.
He said:
“I was standing at the mouth of Crane's alley when the meeting
was opened. Mr. Spies was on the wagon, a little north of the alley,
and asked, ‘Is Parsons here?' or something like that. After that
Spies left the wagon. I did not notice in what direction he went.
About five or ten minutes later Spies was on the wagon again, and
commenced his speech. During all the time Spies was away I was
standing right there at the alley. There was nothing to prevent my
seeing whoever went in the alley.” He was slightly acquainted with
Mr. Spies, but no tie of relationship or friendship connected them.
“I never saw this gentleman (indicating Schwab) before in my life, to
my knowledge. I did not see Mr. Spies or Mr. Schwab go into the
mouth of the alley at the mouth of which I was standing. There
were not many people around me at the time, may be ten people in
my immediate neighborhood.”.
The meeting was quite orderly. Witness was not a Socialist, a
Communist, nor an Anarchist, nor connected with any of their organ-
izations. Saw no firing from the crowd. Heard all the speaking, but
did not hear the police called bloodhounds or any remark referring to
them. Saw no change in the demeanor of the crowd during Fielden's
speech from what it had been.
FRIEDRICH LIEBEL also gave testimony directly opposite to that
of Gilmer and Thompson. He was standing on the southeast corner
of the alley, the previous witness being about in the center of the
mouth of the alley. Is a carpenter. Heard Spies ask for Parsons and
saw him leave the wagon. Did not leave his position while Spies was
about. Had frequently heard him speak and therefore knew his face.
Did not see Schwab that night. Did not see Spies go towards the alley
and the gas lamp was lighted. w
As to the direction from which the bomb proceeded, he directly
118 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE.
contradicts Gilmers' tale. When the police came he was a few feet
South of the alley, the wagon being a few feet north of it. “After I
heard the captain's command I went south (that is, still further from
the alley), tried to get out of the crowd, partly I was shoved, partly I
shoved myself. The next thing I observed was a light which l took at
the time for the stump of a cigar, about midway between the alley and
the corner of Randolph street (still further south), over the east side-
walk, about four feet over my head. It went in a northwesternly di-
rection. After that I heard shots coming from west of me, from the
direction of the police. I didn't see any of the people on the sidewalk
return the fire. I heard the explosion of the bomb and the revolver
shots so near together that I can’t say which was first. A great many
shots came from behind me while I was running on Randolph street.
I did not notice anybody in front of me shoot back."
Witness never belonged to any Socialistic group, armed or other-
WISé.
The reader will bear in mind that the burden of Gilmer's evidence
was that Spies lit the fuse and Schnaubelt threw the bomb from the
mouth of the alley, Fischer being present. Thompson was called to
prove that Spies and Schwab talked about “pistol" and “police" in
the alley, and inferentially about bombs. We have seen them both
flatly contradicted by fair and unbiased witnesses. But the counter-
proof is by no means, exhausted. *
DR. JAMES D. TAYLOR, physician by profession, came to this coun-
try from England forty-four years ago and is seventy-six years old.
On the night of May 4th he was at the Haymarket meeting and stood
close to the north side of Crane's alley. It will be remembered that
Richter stood at about the center and Liebel on the south side of the
alley, all three of them on the sidewalk of Desplaines street, thus giv-
ing them all a full view of the entrance to the alley. He was there
twenty minutes before the speaking began and remained there till the
storm of bullets suggested other thoughts. The tail end of the wagon
was about four feet from where he stood on the curbstone. “What
particularly struck me in Spies' speech was his reply to some persons
who said “Hang Jay Gould.” Spies said: “You had better shut up
and go home and learn more about what you ought to know before you
begin talking about hanging anybody. We are not here for that pur-
pose.' * * * -
“I saw the police come up. The front rank was on line with me.
I could have touched the first man with my arm. They went up to
within about six feet from the wagon. I heard one of them say; ‘I
command you in the name of the State of Ilkinois to disperse.’ Mr.
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 119
º
Fielden was on the wagon or just about coming down from the wagon
at that time. When the police came up I noticed those south of the
alley began to disperse. Just before that I heard Mr. Fielden say,
‘We have talked long enough and it is time to disperse.’ Fielden
spoke in his ordinary tone.
“I heard the explosion of the bomb. I heard no pistol shot prior
to it. I saw Fielden get down from the wagon. I saw him after the
bomb exploded. I heard Fielden reply to the command to disperse:
‘We are peaceable,” while he was still on the wagon. I did not see
Fielden draw a revolver and shoot in the direction of the police; I
never saw anything of the kind. He came down from the wagon near-
est to the police; he was only a few feet distant from me at the time.
Iwatched him as long as I could, but finally looking in the direction in
which he had been standing, he wasn't there. I did not see him use a
pistol on or off the wagon.
“I saw the bomb in the air, as near as I could judge twenty to
forty feet south of the alley, and the man who threw it stood beyond
a number of boxes. These boxes were about five or six feet elevated
one on the other, on the sidewalk, South of the lamp-post. I revisited
the ground the next morning and saw the boxes there. * * * *
“The pistol firing and the explosion of the bomb seemed to me
almost simultaneous. The pistol firing came from the direction where
the police were. I did not see any pistol-firing from the crowd upon
the police; I went up to Crane's alley behind other people going into
the same alley. When I revisited the ground the next morning I no-
ticed bullet marks on the wall of Crane's building, which form the
north side of Crane's alley. I could not find one bullet mark on the
wall of the south side of the alley. I examined a telegraph pole on
the west side of Desplaines street north of Crane's alley. I noticed .
that all the perforations were on the South side of that telegraph pole.
I did not find one pistol shot or fresh mark upon the north side of that
telegraph pole.” *
Yet Gilmer said he remained quietly during the shooting “right
at the mouth of the alley; and after it was all over I backed opt the
alley, took a car and went home !” Dr. Taylor further said: “After
I got into the alley I took a zigzag course to get out of the way of
pistol shots” which were being fired into and down the alley. On
cross-examination he said Fielden could not have pulled out a revolver
before he left the scene without witness seeing it. “A good many
bullets came into the alley.” He went south afterwards on Desplaines
street and for two blocks distant had to dodge in several places as
“the police were shooting all the way down. They shot down Ran-
120 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE.;
dolph street, they shot on Madison street, two blocks South of Randolph
street. I took refuge in the court of St. Dennis Hotel. There was
one policeman who passed me saying, ‘God damn you, you shall go
to hell,’ and away he blazed at the people going on Madison street.
I heard him shoot about three times. * * * I believe in organized
government: I believe in the oath in courts of justice, but I believe a
man ought to speak the truth even if there was no oath. I know
nothing about the armed section of the American group. I never ad-
vocated the use of force; I never handled any dynamite bombs.”
Next follows some testimonials as to the character of Mr. Gilmer.
L. C. Moses, a grocer, sixty-four years of age. “I know Harry
Gilmer, who I understand was a witness in this case, since he came
into the neighborhood, between six and seven months ago. I know
his general reputation for truth and veracity in the neighbor-
hood in which he resides. It is very bad, I should judge. I
should not believe him under oath.” He said that he wouldn't trust
Gilmer a dollar; but why he would not believe him was not on that
account, but from information received from people who boarded
where he did. *
MRS. B. P. LEE knew Gilmer. Had always heard that his rep-
utation for veracity was bad and that he was not to be believed under
oath. Had heard this before Gilmer's name appeared in the case as
a witness. -
FRANK STENNER was called to testify in Fielden's behalf. He is a
machinist and attended the meeting because he had read the circular
calling it. Hs was four or six feet from the speaker's wagon. He
heard Fielden say: “We are peaceable,” or something like that, but
that afterwards Fielden said “all right " and got down from the
wagon on the west side. “As soon as the bomb was thrown the
policemen shot. I didn't see anybody except the police shoot.” He
laid down for safety on the steps of Crane Brothers' factory. “I re.
mained there a few minutes, a policeman came and arrested me.
From reading the paper I guess the policeman's name was Foley.
When I was in the cell Officer Wessler came to me, showed me a revol-
ver and said, ‘It is your revolver.' When I was examined before the
justice of the peace, Wessler said to the judge, he had seen me on the
steps of Crane Brothers; there was a shot from that place and he
guessed I was the man that shot. That revolver was found by Officer
Foley, about fifty feet from the wagon while I was in his custody. He
said three shots were out and two were in.” Foley swore that he
picked up this pistol while “going by the wagon.” Witness further said
the crowd was peaceably inclined; while some cried “Hang him,” others
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 121
called “rats.” “When Parsons was talking one man who stood by
my side said, ‘You are a liar.’” t
“There was no shot fired from the wagon before the bomb ex-
ploded. I was looking at Fielden when he got off the wagon.” He
was held as a “suspect” under arrest for three weeks, but discharged
upon examination.
JoSEPH GUTSCHER, a shoemaker, was also at the meeting, and
standing on the west side of Desplaines street, across from the speak-
ers' wagon. He also testified to the fact that the police did all the
shooting. “I was shot myself in the back and in the leg. There
were three other men near me who were shot. One of them received
three shots. The police took me to the station and locked me up for
two weeks.” Nothing appears to show the witness was in sympathy
with the social heretics to whom he was listening, he stating, in fact, .
that living half a block distant he went “because I saw many people
go there.” . After being confined in the station for two-weeks, with two .
bullets in him, for the crime of being there, he was removed to the
hospital, where he remained one week. tº
FRANK RAAB, a baker, was casually passing, and seeing the crowd,
stopped. Had no acquaintance with any of the defendants; although
a Socialist, belongs to no organization. Was present when the bomb
was thrown, but “saw no fire go through the air from the mouth of the
alley.” - ;
“I did not see any shooting from the audience at the police either
before I started to run or when I was running. Lots of men were fall-
ing down while I was running. I jumped over three or four. After I
turned the corner a man fell before me and another behind me, and I
jumped and sort of caught my foot and fell down into the basement. I
stayed there two or three minutes; then went out and the police were
still shooting, not very much, however. I went across the street, where
there is a saloon on the corner, and there I saw a citizen shot right
through his hand.” Cross-examination only brought out the fact that
he was not a reader of any Socialistic paper, and had never even seen
the Arbeiter-Zeitung. - *
John O. BRIXEY had known Gilmer since 1880; had lived in the
same meighborhood with him in 1880 and 1881, and again “some time
last year. I was then living where I am living now, and Gilmer lived
next door to me. I think I know his general reputation for truth and
veracity among his neighbors. It is bad. I don't think I could believe
him under oath.” Had heard his reputation discussed as far back as
1880. “It was a kind of a general thing to discuss Gilmer's truthful-
ness and veracity.” Testified reluctantly. *
122 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE.
JoHN GARRICK, ex-chief deputy-sheriff, was slightly acquainted
with Harry L. Gilmer. Had first met him in 1881, “when he was a
tenant of mine. I am acquainted with his general reputation for truth
and veracity among his neighbors and acquaintances where he resides.
His reputation is very bad, as far as I heard. I should hate to believe
him under oath; I could not.” Had “seen him associate with very
questionable characters, both men and women.” Got rid of him as a
tenant as quickly as possible.
WILLIAM URBAN, compositor at the Arbeiter-Zeitung since 1879;
a member of the Central Labor Union; knows Mr. Spies. Witness cor-
roborated Mr. Zeller that Spies was selëcted to speak at the Lumber-
Shovers' Union, near McCormick's factory, on May 3. “Mr. Spies
said he was very busy, and if he could go out to the Black road the
next day he would do so.” It was not of his own inclination that Spies
Went.
Was at the Haymarket. Mr. Parsons was . speaking from the
wagon when he arrived, a few feet north of the alley. Heard Parsons
propose an adjournment and Fielden reply that he would “only talk
a few minutes longer.” When the police came he was on the corner of
the alley, near the lamp-post. “Captain Ward stepped forward and
Said, ‘In the name,' etc., and I saw two or three policemen four or five
feet behind the captain have something shining in their hands. I guess
it was revolvers. Then I looked around and saw something like a fire-
cracker in the air, then I heard a deep noise and shooting. It seemed
to me all these noises came at once. This fire that looked to me like
a fire-cracker must have started about fifteen to eighteen feet South of
the lamp-post, at Crane's alley. It went awfully fast, made a kind of
circle,” etc. He ran toward Randolph street, but “fell over a pile of
people lying there and couldn't get any further,” so jumped over a
railing into an area-way. Saw none of the citizens return the fire of
the police. Neither heard Mr. Fielden nor any one else refer to the
police as “bloodhounds.”
WILLIAM GLEEson; not a Socialist, Communist nor Anarchist, Was
at the VIHaymarket meeting with witness Ferguson. “Parsons was
speaking when I arrived at the meeting. I remember his making some
comments as to Gould. Some person in the audience cried out, ‘Hang
him 1' Parsons replied something to the effect that Socialism or Social-
ists did not want any one killed; they wanted the system killed that
created and encouraged such men as Gould. In this connection he
deprecated the abusing of scabs by trade unionists, stating that they
were only parasites on the body politic. He told the story about the
fleas and the dog, and said that while the trade unions were going to
TESTIMONY FoR THE DEFENSE. 123 .
f
kill off the fleas, which he compared with the scabs, Socialists wanted
to kill the dog—which was the system that created these scabs.” While
standing on the southwest corner of Randolph street with Ferguson,
“we suddenly saw a number of policemen rush out of the alley that
led down to the police station, coming on and forming along the street,
and they were so impetuous that one of the young lieutenants, I pre-
Sume he was in command, ran five or six feet in advance of his column
and was shouting and hurrying them up to be quick, and rallying them,
as it were, to advance quicker than they were doing. They advanced
very quickly, I should say between a run and a walk.” Instantaneously
with the bomb the shooting began, and came from the center of the
street.
WILLIAM SAHL, blacksmith; in sympathy with the Socialists, but
not an Anarchist. Heard Spies ask for Parsons from the wagon, and
saw him get down and walk with two or three other persons in a south-
westerly direction. Knows Mr. Schwab and that he was not one of
those accompanying Spies; did not see him on the wagon. Did not,
See Mr. Schwab around that place at any time that night. Never be-
longed to any group. -
EBERHARDT HIERSEMENZEL, painter, testified that all the shots came
from the police. “I only saw that everyone wanted to get away to
Save himself. I did not see any of the citizens have in their posses-
sion any revolvers or weapons of any kind.” When he ran he saw sev-
eral lying prostrate and others near him fell, and he fell over them and
injured his knee. *
CoNRAD MESSER, cabinet-maker, stood by the wagon when the
police came and heard Fielden respond, “We are peaceable.” Saw
Fielden get down. “I saw Fielden all that time. He had no pistol in
his hand. I didn't see him fire one shot. I saw no citizen shoot there.
The firing came from the police. I am not a Socialist. I do not belong
to any group of Anarchists or armed Section.”
AUGUST KRUMM, woodworker and machinist, gave important testi-
mony. He was neither Socialist, Communist nor Anarchist. Don't
think he ever saw any of the defendants before that night. Arrived at
the meeting about a quarter of mine. Knew nothing about the meeting,
and being down town stopped merely out of curiosity. A Mr. Albright
was with him. “I stood close to the north wall of Crane Brothers'
building, right at the corner of Crane's alley. Remained there all the
evening. Later in the evening Albright and myself went back a little
ways into the alley. He gave me a pipe of tobacco. I lit a match and
lighted his pipe and mine. When we went back to the corner I saw
the police coming up, and one man walked up to the wagon. Shortly
l?4 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE.
after that I heard a shot fired from the direction where the police
stood, from the south. Right after the bomb exploded. I didn't see
any shot fired from the wagon. While we were lighting our pipes' in
the alley, and while we were at the corner, I did not see any one enter
the alley. We went back into the alley to light our pipes because there
was a kind of draft on the sidewalk.” Saw the bomb in the air, “some-
thing like a burnt-out match,” coming from a point about twenty feet
south of the alley. “It could not have started from the mouth of the
alley.” He knew none of the speakers; thought it was Spies who spoke
last, but, asked to point him out, promptly indicated Fielden. A long
and searching cross-examination failed to shake his testimony.
RoDERT LINDINGER was at the meeting with Carl Richter, and
standing with him at the mouth of Crane's alley when Spies asked for
Parsons and got down from the wagon. Did not see Spies approach
him and never saw Schwab before in his life. Stayed there till the
close and heard Fielden reply something containing the word “peace-
able.” Heard no one refer to the police as “bloodhounds.” Saw no
pistol in Fielden's hand when he got down. “I did not see anybody in
the crowd fire a shot. I saw shots when I last looked at the wagon
from where the police were standing. I did not see anybody on the
sidewalk shoot back at the police. I am no Socialist.” Witness was
a member of the Knights of Labor and belonged to no other organiza-
tion.”
WILLIAM ALBRIGHT, who was with Krumm in the alley, corrobor-
ated his companion's testimony as to the lighting of the pipe and “as
I came out I saw the police coming.” Was not a Socialist, but was a
I(night of Labor. His testimony was essentially the same as that of
Krumm's. - º
GEORGE ICoEHLER testified to the police doing the shooting and to
the bomb starting from south of the alley.
THEoDoRE WEIMELDT, canvasser, was at the meeting. Saw the
circular on the street and it did not contain the words, “Workingmen,
arm yourselves and appear in full force.” On his way to the meeting
had a conversation with Mr. Kelly, the bailiff of the police station,
whom he had known for four or five years. The State objected to the
next question, which was:
Q. I will ask you what Mr. Kelly said, if anything, in regard to
trouble that might be expected that night?
The court sustained the objection, but witness stated that after the
conversation he concluded not to stay and went directly home.
FREDERICK G. GROH, carpenter, was at the meeting in April where
Engel spoke. Mr. Engel never spoke at those meetings but once. They
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE 125
were Carpenters'-union meetings. “I didn't hear Mr. Engel say in his
speech anything in regard to saving money to buy revolvers. He said
he wanted all workingmen to join the union. I did not hear him say
anything about getting revolvers to shoot policemen down. Am sec-
retary of the union.” +.
AUGUST KRAUSE, carpenter, was chairman of the meeting where
Engel spoke, and corroborated the previous witness.
WILLIAM RADTKE keeps a saloon at 888 Clybourn avenue, in the
suburbs. “On the night of May 4 last, I saw Mr. Schwab in my
saloon about fifteen or twenty minutes after nine. He stayed there
about ten minutes. Then I saw him go over to the prairie and make
a speech.” -
DIEDRICH BEHRENs lived in the same vicinity. “I remember to
have seen the defendant Schwab, on the night of May 4 last, in
Schilling's saloon, on the corner of Clybourn and Ashland avenues,
between a quarter-past ten and half-past ten.”
CHARLES HEIDERKREUGER, eighteen years of age, while passing the
meeting stopped. Stood by the corner of the wagon; was suddenly
pushed, and looking up saw the police sixteen or twenty feet away from
him and the crowd already running. He threw himself on his face for
safety; saw no arms in the crowd. “When I laid myself down officers
got around me; I wanted to get away. I got up and went towards the
officers, wanted to go home; one of the officers stopped me, told me
to hold up my hands, which I did, and he hit me with his club, arrested
me, and I was taken to the station and locked up.”
Joseph SCHWINDT, shoemaker, was at the meeting; “stood ten or
twelve feet South of the wagon, between the lamp-post and the boxes on
the sidewalk, at the time the police came up, facing the police.” Saw
no one shoot except the police.
M. D. MALKoFF, reporter, attended a meeting of the Furniture
Workers’ Union at Zepf's Hall on the evening of May 4. At the
time of the explosion was standing down stairs in the saloon with Mr.
Allen. “I saw Parsons at Zepf's Hall from five to ten minutes before,
the explosion of the bomb. He was sitting at the window, north of
the entrance door, in company with Mrs. Parsons and Mrs. Holmes.
The saloon was pretty crowded at that time.” Although nearly a
block distant witness heard “the bullets rattling on the walls.”
WM. A. PATTERSON, printer, was a member of the American
Group, and in response to an “ad" in the News attended a meeting
of the group at 107 Fifth avenue on the evening of May 4. There
were present Parsons, Fielden, Schwab and others. “The business of
the meeting was to organize the working-women of Chicago. There
126 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE.
was a call at the telephone. I believe they wanted a speaker at Deer-
ing (Clybourn avenue), and a young man, a clerk in the office, an-
Swered.” Mr. Schwab's name was mentioned and he was sent. Shortly
before they adjourned “a gentleman came in and said that speakers
Were wanted at the Haymarket.” Never heard of the word “Ruhe '’
nor knew its meaning; cannot read German. “The children of Mrs.
Parsons were present at the meeting.”
JoHN HollowAY, expressman, on May 4 was walking on Des-
plaines street with a friend; looked at the patrol wagons near the sta-
tion and was roughly accosted by some one.
Q. State what you saw and heard there.
Objected to.
MR. SALOMON.—I wish to show by this witness that he was told at
the station by persons connected with the same that before twelve
o'clock at night blood would flow pretty freely, or words to that effect.
Judge Gary sustained the objection. The witness, however, went
and stood near the alley until “the police came up and charged the
meeting to disperse.” Heard Fielden say, “We are peaceable.” “I
was looking at the speaker up to the time he was spoken to by one of
the policemen, and listened to him. My hearing and eyesight are
pretty good. I did not hear anybody at any time that night say,
* Here come the bloodhounds,’ nothing of the sort took place.” There
were no shots from the direction of the wagon; they came from the
center of the street. Saw no one have weapons. “I am sure that
nothing came out of the alley while I stood there.” The bomb came
from the south. “Have never had anything to do with any Socialistic
group,” and knew mone of the speakers. --
HENRY LINDMEYER, mason, calcimined the Arbeiter-Zeitung rooms
from May 2 to the 5th. It will be remembered that Officers Duffy
and Marks testified to finding a greasy bag containing dynamite on a
closet shelf there on May 5th. Witness the same morning, missing a
brush, searched the closet and the shelf. “I found no bundle, no
large package, no dynamite on the shelf. Saw no indication of greasi-
ness there.” He had previously calcimined the closet. His clothes
were on that shelf. “There was no grease on there, else I wouldn't
have put my clothes there.” The closet was on the third floor.
A very suspicious circumstance regarding the finding of this dy-
mamite is the fact that while the detectives Haas and Marks swear
positively that this alleged find was captured on the third floor of that
building, Officer Duffy, who was the first of these witnesses, swears
just as positively that it was found on the second floor of the building.
Duffy located the room where the stuff was found, first, as being on
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 127 .
the first floor of the Arbeiter-Zeitung office; second, as on the second
floor of the building; third, as two floors below the type-setting room,
and, fourth, as being one floor below the third floor. All these locations
refer to the second floor of the building. The only evidence produced
came from men for years in the detective service, trained to produce
evidence.
EDWARD LEHNERT, engineer, saw Schnaubelt at the Haymarket
meeting about ten o'clock, and conversed with him. iº
Q. What was the conversation?
Objected to by the State. - * -
MR. ZEISLER.—We offer to show by this witness that Schnaubelt
stated to Lehnert that he did not understand English, that he had ex-
pected a German speaker would be present, that no one was present
who spoke German except Spies, that Spies had already made an En.
glish speech, and that he did not want to stay any longer, and asked
Lehnert if he would go along; that Lehnert thereupon said he did not
go in the same direction, and that then Schnaubelt went away with
another party. We have been able to trace Schnaubelt only a short
distance on his way home. We offer this conversation with Lehnert
for the purpose of explaining Mr. Schnaubelt's movements after meet-
ing Lehnert.” -
Ruled out by the court. i *
Witness, however, stated that he saw Schnaubelt leave with a Mr.
Rrueger. Saw the bomb rise south of the alley.
WILLIAM SNYDER, born in New York, was on the wagon with the
speakers. Was first at the meeting of the American Group to organize
the sewing girls and acted as chairman. Knew nothing of the meet-
ing till he saw notice in the paper. Was on the wagon when the police
came; “they were marching up very fast.” He helped Fielden down
and just them they heard the explosion of the bomb. “Fielden did not
shoot; he would have killed me if he had shot; I was south of him.”
They separated at the alley into which witness ran. “Fielden did not,
after getting out of the wagon, stand on the sidewalk between the
wheels of the wagon and fire at the police or in the direction of the
police. I had my hand right on him a while, until we reached the
mouth of the alley.” Heard no shooting except on the part of the
police. Never heard of the word “Ruhe;” cannot read German; was
of Yankee descent. Never saw any dynamite. Left a note under
Mrs. Parsons' door on May 6 which was found by detectives. Was
thereupon arrested without a warrant and was still in confinement.
THOMAS BROWN, of the American Group, also arrested with Snyder
as a “suspect,” was at the meeting, and went with Parsons to Zepf's
128 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE.
Hall, where they were when the bomb exploded. “I saw Fischer
there.” Never knew the meaning of the word “Ruhe;” does not read
German. Was not armed that night and never carried arms in his
life.
HENRY W. SPIES, cigar manufacturer, brother of defendant August
Spies. Accompanied his brother to the Haymarket meeting. When
they got off the wagon before the meeting opened “we went in a south-
Westerly direction,” or nearly the opposite direction of the alley.
Schwab was not there. They walked one block only, it was not two, as
Thompson alleged: “August was not out of my sight or out of my
hearing at any time of that walk. I was right behind him all the time.
I never heard my brother and Schnaubelt talk in English. I don't
believe Schnaubelt can speak English.” His account of the meeting
and speeches is similar to that heretofore given. He saw Fielden get
off the wagon.
“I told my brother to get off and reached my hand over to help
him jump. He took my hand, and in fact got down on the side of the
wagon, pretty near the middle of it. Just at that time the explosion
took place. I asked him what it was, he said “They got a gatling-
gun down there,' and at the same time as he jumped, somebody jumped
behind him with a weapon, right by his back, and I grabbed it, and in
warding of the pistol from my brother I was shot.” A man named
Legner was present. All the firing came from the center of the
street. There was no firing back. Never carried arms. Was arrested
on May 6. -
AUGUST KRUEGER, to whom Lehnert referred, testified that he left
the Haymarket with Schnaubelt about ten o'clock. After going some
blocks they separated. On his way home witness stopped at Engel's
house, reaching it about 10:15. Engel was at home. Later Waller
came and informed them “that three hundred men were shot by the
police and we ought to go down there and do something. Engel said
whoever threw the bomb did a foolish thing; it was nonsense, and he
didn't sympathize with such butchery, and he told Waller he had bet-
tergo home as quick as possible; he said the policemen were just as
good people; the revolution must grow out of the people.” -
JoHN F. WALDo, printer, attended the meeting of the American
Group at 107 Fifth avenue, on the evening of May 4. Corroborated
testimony as to telephone message for Schwab to go out to Deering.
Did not know anything about the word “Ruhe; ” does not understand
German. The “armed group” mever had arms. Was at the Hay-
market and shot in the leg; “the ball went in from behind while I was
running. I was not armed that night; I never carried a revolver in
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 129
my life; I did not see any revolvers in the audience. Schwab left af-
ter receiving the message.”
JoHN M. FLEMING, M.D., Surgeon, performed service on the
wounded at the Desplaines street station. Took a bullet from the
knee of an officer named Kreuger. Asked what conversation ensued,
and the State objected.
MR. FosTER—We propose to prove by this witness that at the
time the officer asked to see the bullet it was handed to him, and that
he at once recognized it and Said, “that came from the police revol-
ver.” *
Judge Gary sustained the objection.
On being shown a regulation bullet the witness thought it was the
same. Other bullets extracted were of the same appearance.
OTTo WANDRAY was at the Haymarket and met Fischer there.
When Fielden was speaking they left and went to Zepf's hall, where
they were together sitting at a table when the bomb exploded. Saw
Parsons there. *
EDWARD PREUSSER lives near Deering's factory. “Not a Socialist,
Anarchist or Communist.” In response to a request from a commit-
tee he telephoned for a speaker, suggesting Spies. Spies, he was an-
swered, could not attend, “and I said, ‘I don't suppose it makes any
difference which one.” Later he was informed that Mr. Schwab was
on his way. Went to meet Mr. Schwab on the car. Met him about
half-past nine. They then went to Radtke's Saloon, 888 Clybourn av-
enue and then to the prairie meeting. After the meeting they went to
Schilling's and had lunch and beer. From there to the Haymarket
is nearly an hour's ride.
Other witnesses testified to hearing Schwab's speech. Another
saw him leave the Haymarket on a car before the speaking began.
The next, from five years' acquaintance with Gilmer, “would not be-
lieve him under oath.”
HENRY WITT, a member of the Lumber-Shovers’ Union, heard
Mr. Spies speak on May 8. Witness had made the request for a
speaker and Mr. Spies had been sent. They had nothing to do with
McCormick's factory; were not employed there. When some, three
hundred to four hundred, left on hearing McCormick’s bell ring, Spies
advised them to remain, as they had no connection with McCormick's;
he continued to speak fifteen minutes longer. Witness was not a So-
cialist. “When McCormick’s bell rang Spies said the people should
not go to McCormicks, as they had no interest in the McCormick
factory; they should remain there quietly; he did not go to McCor-
º
130 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE.
mick's himself.” There were between six and seven thousand pres-
ent.
Three other witnesses corroborated the above testimony.
WILLIAM MURPHY, cooper, was at the Haymarket on the wagon
with the speakers when the police came up. Before the order to dis-
perse was given no one else had got off. Saw no revolvers around
him in the crowd and heard no threat. Got up on the wagon to look
for a friend, and while looking the police came and the bomb was
thrown. Had been there five or ten minutes. Was not a Socialist.
Johann GruENEBERG, a friend of Fischer. On May 4 he went from
the Arbeiter-Zeitung office to get the Haymarket circulars. At Fisch-
er's order he went back “and gave the printer the order to leave out
the line ‘Workingmen, arm yourselves,' etc., from the English as well
as the German part.” He ordered those already printed to be sup-
pressed. Fischer gave him the order in the presence of Spies and
Schwab.
Under cross-examination several questions were asked having no
bearing upon his direct examination, for instance, as to where a cer-
tain group drilled, to which the defense objected. Whereupon the
court gave the following remarkable ruling:
THE Count—You have put this witness upon the stand for the
purpose of showing a thing was taken out a particular circular;
whether he has told that thing as it occurred depends in some degree
upon what his associations, feelings, inclinations, biases are in refer-
ence to the whole business.
MR. BLACK–Whether he has told the truthlin regard to that de-
pends upon his bias and inclinations?
THE Count—Whether it is to be believed. I don't mean whether he
has told the truth.
In other words, it may be the truth, but by permitting an irregular
cross-examination, the State may lead the jury to disbelieve it !
Two other witnesses, business men, knew Gilmer and “would not
believe him under oath.”
ADOLPH TENNES was at the Haymarket. Had no knowledge of
Socialism and never saw Spies or Parsons before. Was four or five
feet from the Wagon when the police came. When he started to run
Spies and Fielden were not yet off the wagon. The explosion and
firing followed immediately.
MARTIN BEGHTEL, brewer, knew Oscar Neebe since March. Was
chairman of a meeting of brewers at which Neebe spoke on May 8.
Afterwards he went with Neebe to Hein's saloon, nobody being with
*
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 131
them. He saw mone of the “Revenge circulars” in Neebe's hands or
on the tables, thus directly contradicting Hein.
Reporter HEINEMAN, recalled, testified to meeting Mr. and Mrs.
Parsons and two little children about half-past seven on the evening
of May 4. g -- -
LIZZIE MAY Holmes, assistant editor of the Alarm, was present
at the American Group on Tuesday evening, May 4, “called to con-
sider the organization of the Sewing girls, the working girls in the
city.” She arrived late with Mr. and Mrs. Parsons, and Schwab was
no longer there. Some one came in and requested speakers at the
Haymarket. They walked over; subsequently went to Zepf's Hall
with Mr. and Mrs. Parsons and Mr. Brown. Mr. Parsons remained
there till after the explosion of the bomb. Also saw Mr. Fischer there.
Never heard of the word “Ruhe " till after this trial began; knew
nothing about anticipated trouble at the Haymarket. Was arrested
on the 5th of May as a “suspect" and confined until the Saturday
following. Was an Anarchist. “The word Anarchy, from its defini-
tion, means “no coercion;' it really means self-government. I
should consider it perfect liberty to live according to natural laws as
distinguished from compulsory laws; that is the kind of Anarchist I
am. I don't understand Anarchy, and I didn't teach it in my articles,
as having reference to force or dynamite. The theory of Anarchy is
opposed to all idea of force or coercion.” *
SAMUEL FIELDEN followed. On the 4th of May he was engaged,
as a teamster, in hauling stone. When he got home in the evening
and read the evening paper he saw an announcement of a meeting of
the American Group. As he was the treasurer he attended. Remem-
bered the telephone request for a speaker at the Deering meeting to
which Schwab responded. Paid out five dollars for hand bills for the
purpose of calling sewing girls together. During the meeting a re-
quest for speakers came from the Haymarket meeting to which
witness and Parsons responded. “I did not wish to speak, but Mr.
Spies urged me and I spoke about twenty minutes. Then I went on to
state that under such circumstances (referring to Congressman Foran's
declaration) the only way in which the working people could get any
satisfaction from the gradually decreasing opportunities for their liv-
ing—the only thing they could do with the law was to ‘throttle it.’
I used that word in a figurative sense. I said they should throttle it
because it was an expensive article to them and could do them no
good.”
Witness gave a summary of his speech and a detailed account of
its close. When Captain Ward commanded them to disperse, he re-
º,
132 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE.
sponded that the meeting was a peaceable one “in a very conciliatory
tone of voice, and he very angrily and defiantly retorted that he com-
manded it to disperse, and called, as I understood, upon the police to
disperse it. Just as he turned around in that angry mood, I said, ‘All
right, we will go,' and jumped from the wagon and jumped to the
sidewalk.” Then the explosion followed. He ran to Randolph street
and turned east, but on his way received a shot in the leg. “I had no
revolver with me on the night of May 4. I never had a revolver in
my life. I never fired at any person in my life.” Never heard of the
Word “Ruhe.” or its significance until some days after his arrest.
I(new nothing of the Haymarket meeting until he was informed that
evening that speakers were wanted there. Never heard of the Mon-
day night meeting at 54 West Lake street till he read of the alleged
conspiracy in the papers. Remembers the detective, Johnson, but
never had any conversation with him as alleged; knew long before
that he was a detective. “The American Group was open to every-
body.”
Under cross-examination witness was required to answer questions
having no reference to his direct examination, thus making him a direct
witness for the State against himself, which the court sustained, such
as the organization of groups, his connection with the Alarm, etc.
Knowing his innocence, he had expected to be discharged by the cor-
oner's jury. He was engaged to speak elsewhere on the night of May
4, but only yielded to urgent solicitation when he went to the Haymar-
ket. His remarks were all in a general sense; had no idea of violence
from any one that night. I
ERNST NIENDoRF presided over a meeting of the Carpenter's Union
at Zepf's Hall, on Monday evening, May 3, at which defendant Lingg.
was present; he was there early; made a repôrt at nine o'clock and
had the floor two or three times later. The meeting lasted till eleven
o'clock, and Lingg was there till the close.
This was the evening of the alleged conspiracy at 54 West Lake
street. Another member of the union testified to Lingg's presence at
Zepf's Hall the entire evening.
HENRY SCHULTz, of Wisconsin, strayed into the Haymarket meet-
ing while visiting Chicago. Is not a Socialist, and knew none of the
defendants at that time. When the bomb exploded he ran north to
Lake street, where he saw the police clubbing two men they had down
in the gutter. When the cloud came up most of the audience and all
“the women and children left.” Heard the speaker say he would get
through in a few minutes.
JoSEPH BACH attended the meeting of the American group and cor-
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 133
roborated previous testimony as to Schwab going to Deering, and the
rest going, by request, to the Haymarket. When the police came he
was standing on an elevated platform where he could look over the
Jheads of the crowd. Heard the command to disperse and saw Fielden
getting off the wagon and Spies making his way to the sidewalk. Pistol
shots all seemed to come from the center of the street, where the police
were. The bomb did not come from the alley. When the police came
the crowd had thinned out fully one-half. Fielden was about con-
cluding. - -
MAx MITLACHER, brother-in-law to the previous witness, was pres-
ent throughout the meeting with Bach and corroborated his testimony.
S. T. INGRAM, nineteen years old; working for Crane Brothers,
near where the meeting of May 4 was held. Received on that day a
circular, which he still had. It was produced and did not contain the
line; “Workingmen, arm yourselves,” etc. Saw Spies when he inquired
for Parsons, and saw him get down from the wagon on its south side,
but not go to the alley. When the cloud came up the witness left;
stopped at Zepf's Hall and identified Mr. Parsons as being there. Re-
turned to the meeting; was there when the police came and saw
Eielden jump from the wagon. “After the explosion of the bomb I
stepped back against the wall to keep from getting killed. There was
a great deal of shooting going on then; most of it seemed to come from
the policemen, from the center of the street. I did not see anybody
where I stood have a revolver or speak about a revolver. My hearing
and eyesight are good, and were so on that night. I saw no citizen or
person dressed in citizens' clothes use a revolver. It was a very peace-
able meeting. I heard nobody say that night, at any time, ‘Here
come the bloodhounds; do your duty and I'll do mine.' If Mr. Fielden
had said those words I would have heard them. I am sure he did not
utter those words.” No shots were fired from or near the wagon.
After another witness, a business man, had sworn that Gilmer's
reputation for truth and veracity was nil, an important witness was
called.
John BERNETT, a candymaker; “not a Socialist, Communist nor
Anarchist.” Was at the Haymarket meeting, between thirty-five and
forty feet south of Crane's alley.
“I saw the bomb in the air. I saw the man who threw it; he was
right in front of me. It went west and a little bit north. The man who
threw it was about my size, maybe a little bit bigger, and I think he
had a moustache. I think he had no chin beard.” Witness was five
feet nine inches in height. On being shown Schnaubelt's photograph
witness promptly said that it was not the man, and that he had pre-
134 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE.
viously so informed the state's attorney. The same story he had told
right after the occurrence. -
MICHEL SCHWAB. When called by telephone to go to Deering to
speak on the evening of May 4, he walked over to the Eſaymarket to
see if he could get Mr. Spies to go, but did not see him and imme-
diately took a car and left. He spoke at Deering, as testified to by
Preusser and others. He returned home about eleven o'clock. He at
no time that evening saw Mr. Spies, or entered Crane's alley for any
purpose. * -
AUGUST WINCENT THEoDoRE SPIEs testified at some length. Had
been an editor on the Arbeiter-Zeitung since 1880. On the evening of
Sunday, May 2, he attended a meeting of the Central Labor Union at
54 West Lake street, in the capacity of a reporter. While there he was
invited to address the Lumber-Shovers' Union the following day. He
did not know until his arrival at the meeting that it was in the imme-
diate neighborhood of McCormick's factory.
“Having spoken two or three times almost every day for the pre-
ceding two or three weeks I was almost prostrated, and spoke very
calmly, and told the people, who in my judgment were not of a very
high intellectual grade, to stand together and to enforce their demands
at all hazards, otherwise the single bosses would one by one defeat
them. While I was speaking I heard somebody in the rear, probably
a hundred feet away from me, cry out something in a language which
I didn't understand—perhaps Bohemian or Polish. After the meeting
I was told that this man had called upon them to follow him up to
McCormick's. I should judge about two hundred persons standing a
little ways apart from the main body detached themselves and went
away. I didn't know where they were going, until, probably five min-
utes later, I heard firing.” Shortly afterward, having finished his
business, he went up to McCormick's to see what was going on. “When
I came up there on this prairie, right in front of McCormick's I saw a
policeman run after and fire at people who were fleeing, running away.”
Not being able to do anything he returned to the place of the meet-
ing, and thence back to the city. “The same evening I wrote the re-
port of the meeting which appeared in the Arbeiter-Zeitung of the next
day. Immediately after I came to the office I wrote the so-called ‘Re-
venge’ circular, except the heading “Revenge.’ At the time I wrote it
I believed the statement that six workingmen had been killed that after-
noon at McCormick's. I wrote at first that two had been killed, and
after seeing the report in the five-o'clock News I changed the two to
six, based upon the information contained in the News. I believe 2,500
copies of that circular were printed, but not more than half of them
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 135
distributed, for I saw quite a lot of them in the office of the Arbeiter-
Zeitung on the morning I was arrested. At the time I wrote it I was
still laboring under the excitement of the scene and the hour. I was
very indignant.
On May 4 I was performing my regular duties at the Arbeiter-
Zeitung. A little before nine in the forenoon I was invited to address
a meeting at the Haymarket that evening. That was the first I heard
of it. I had no part in calling the meeting. I put the announcement
of the meeting into the Arbeiter-Zeitung at the request of a man who
invited me to speak. The Arbeiter-Zeitung is an afternoon daily paper,
and appears at two o'clock. About eleven o'clock a circular calling the
Haymarket meeting was handed to me to be inserted in the Arbeiter-
Zeitung, containing the line, ‘Workingmen, arm yourselves and appear
in full force.' I said to the man who brought the circular that if that
was the meeting which I had been invited to address, Icertainly should
not speak there on account of that line. He stated that the circular
had not been distributed, and I told him if that was the case and if he
would take out that line it would be all right. Mr. Fischer was called
down at that time, and he sent the man back to the printing-office to
have the line taken out. I struck out the line myself before I handed
it to the compositor to put it in the Arbeiter-Zeitung. The man who
brought the circular to me and took it back with the line stricken.out
was on the stand here—Grueneberg, I believe is his name.”
When he walked down to the Haymarket that evening with his
brother Henry he expected to address the meeting in German. Finding
no other speakers there he opened the meeting. When he asked for
Parsons some one told him that Parsons had been seen shortly before
at the corner of Halsted and Randolph, two blocks west. He told him
to go and call him. “He left and stayed quite a while, and I left the
wagon myself, and in the company of my brother Henry, one Legner
and Schnaubelt, whom I had just met, went up the street to find Par-
sons. Schwab was not with me at that time or at any time during that
evening. Schnaubelt told me that I had been wanted at Deering, but
as I had not been at hand Schwab had gone out there. After I left
the wagon I did not go to the mouth of Crane's alley. I did not even
know at the time that there was an alley there at all. I did not enter
the alley with Schwab; had no conversation with him there in which
I referred to pistols and police, and Schwab asked whether one would
be enough, etc., nor anything of that kind; neither did I have that con-
versation with anybody else. I left the wagon and moved in a south-
westerly direction obliquely across the street to the corner of the street.
From there I went in company with those I mentioned up on Randolph
136 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE.
street (west), beyond Union and pretty near Halsted street, but seeing
only a few people, probably twenty or twenty-five, standing there scat-
tered, and not seeing Parsons, we returned, walking on the north side
of Randolph street, as we had in going down. I went on the wagon .
and addressed the meeting. I had no conversation with Schwab at or
about the crossing of Union street in which we spoke about being ready
for them and that they are afraid to come. I had no such conversa-
tion with any one. I don't remember exactly of what we were speak-
ing, but Schnaubelt and I, as we'walked along, were conversing in
German. I have known Schnaubelt for about two years. I think he
has not been in the country more than two years. He cannot speak any
English at all. I never had an English conversation with him, and I
don't know of anybody who ever attempted to carry on a conversation
with Schnaubelt in English.” *
He then gave a sketch of his remarks that evening, substantially
as already given, which is uncontradicted by the evidence of others.
On seeing Mr. Parsons present, and being fatigued, he stopped and in-
troduced Mr. Parsons. When Parsons had concluded, the hour being
late, he asked Mr. Fielden to say a few words in conclusion and then
adjourn. When the police came the meeting was almost as well as
adjourned, there being only about 200 left. The appearance of the
weather was so threatening that most of the people left. His brother
and Legner helped him to alight from the truck upon hearing Capt.
Ward's summons to disperse. Distinctly heard Fielden respond that
the meeting was a peaceable one. On reaching the ground he heard
the explosion and thought it was a cannon. “Fielden did not draw a
revolver and fire from the wagon upon the police or in their direction.
I did not, before the explosion of the bomb, leave my position upon
the wagon, go into the alley, strike a match and light a bomb in the
hands of Rudolph Schnaubelt. Schnaubelt is about six feet three
inches tall, I should judge, of large frame and large body.
Q. What is the usual language in which you carried on conversa-
tions with Schwab 2
To this question Mr. Grinnell objected and was sustained by Judge
Gary.
He remembered the witness Wilkinson, a reporter, who came to
interview him. Among other things “ he asked whether I had ever
seen or possessed any bombs 2 I said yes, I had had at the office for
probably three years four bomb-shells; two of them had been left at
, the office in my absence, by a man who wanted to know if it was a
good construction; the other two were left with me one day by some
man who came, I think, from Cleveland or New York, and was going
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 137
to New Zealand from here. I used to show those shells to newspaper
reporters, and I showed one to Mr. Wilkinson and allowed him to
take it along and show it to Mr. Stone; I never asked him for it
Since. * * *
“Talking about the riot drill that had been shortly before held on
the lake front, and about the Sensational reports published by the
papers in regard to the armed organizations of Socialists, I told him
that it was an open secret that Some 8,000 Socialists in Chicago were
armed; I told him that the arming of these people, meaning not only
Socialists but workingmen in general, began right after the strike of
1877, when the police attacked workingmen at their meetings, killed
some and wounded others; that they were of the opinion that if they
would enjoy the rights of the constitution, they should defend them
too, if necessary; that it was a known fact that these men had par-
aded the streets, as many as 1,500 strong at a time, with their rifles;
so that there was nothing new in that, and I could not see why they
talked so much about it. And I said that I thought they were still
arming and I wished that every workingman was well armed.
“Then we were speaking generally on modern warfare. Wilkin-
son was of the opinion that the militia and the police could easily de-
feat any effort on the part of the populace, by force, could easily quell
a riot. I differed from him. I told him that the views the bourgeoise
took of their military and police was exactly the same as the nobility
took, some centuries ago as to their own armament, and that gun-
powder had come to the relief of the oppressed masses and had done
away with aristocracy very quickly; that the iron armor of the nobil-
ity was penetrated by a leaden bullet just as easily as the blouse of
the peasant; that dynamite, like gunpowder, had an equalizing, level-
ing tendency, that the two were children of the same parent, that
dynamite would eventually break down the aristocracy of this age and
make the principles of democracy a reality. I stated that it had been
attempted by such men as General Sheridan and others, to play havoc
with an organized body of military or police by the use of dynamite,
and it would be an easy thing to do it. It was a kind of disputing
dialogue which we carried on. He asked me if I anticipated any
trouble, and I said I did. He asked me if the Anarchists and Social-
ists were going to make a revolution. Of course I made fun of that;
told him that revolutions were not made by individuals or conspir-
ators, but were simply the logic of events resting in the condition of
things.”
Witness then proceeded to illustrate how the militia could be
effectively resisted by the use of fire-arms and dynamite in case the
138 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE.
contingency should arise: “I knew he wanted a sensational article for
publication in the News, but there was no particular reference to Chi-
cago, or any fighting on our part. The topic of the conversation was
that a fight was inevitable, and that it might take place in the near
future, and what might and could be done in such an event; it was a
general discussion of the possibilities of street warfare under modern
science.” Ur
Admitted having written the word “Buhe " for insertion in the
Arbeiter-Zeitung on May 4. He was in the habit df receiving an-
nouncements from labor organizations and unions, and on that day
received a letter in German which read: “Mr. Editor, please insert in
the letter box the word “Ruhe ' in prominent letters.” Accordingly
he had done so. “The manuscript which is evidence is in my hand-
writing. At the time I wrote the word and sent it up to be put in the
paper, I did not know of any import whatever attached to it. My
attention was next called to it a little after three o'clock in the afternoon.
Balthazar Rau, an advertising agent of the Arbeiter-Zeitung, came and
asked me if the word “Ruhe ' was in the Arbeiter-Zeitung. I had my-
self forgotten about it, and took a copy of the paper and found it
there. He asked me if I knew what it meant; I said I did not. He
said there was a rumor that the armed sections had held a meeting
the night before, and had resolved to put in that word as a signal for
the armed sections to keep themselves in readiness in case the police
should precipitate a riot, to come to the assistance of the attacked.
I sent for Fischer, who had invited me to speak at the meeting that
evening, and asked him if that word had any reference to that meet-
ing. He said none whatever, that it was merely a signal for the boys,
for those who were armed, to keep their powder dry, in case they
might be called upon to fight within the next few days. I told Rau
that it was a very silly thing, or at least there was not much rational
sense in that, and asked him if he knew how it could be managed that
this nonsense would be stopped, how it could be undone; and Rau
said he knew some persons who had something to say in the armed
organizations, and I told him to go and tell them that the word was put
in by mistake. I was not a member of any armed section; I have not
been for six years.
“I know absolutely nothing about the package of dynamite which
was exhibited here in court and was claimed to have been found in a
closet in the Arbeiter-Zeitung building; I never saw it before it was
produced here in court.”
When arrested he was attending to his usual work in the office.
When taken to the police headquarters they were received by the Super-
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 139
intendent, who accosted them as follows: “You dirty, Dutch sons of
bitches, you dirty hounds, you rascals, we will choke you, we will kill
you,” forgetting in his rage that he was himself a German. “Then
they jumped upon us, tore us from one end to the other, went through
our pockets, took my money and everything I had. I never said any-
thing.” *
Under cross-examination he was interrogated at length upon mat-
ters which did not appear in his direct examination, which, notwith-
standing every objection, were uniformly admitted by the court, and
thus converted into a witness for the prosecution against himself.
For instance, he was made to identify a postal card from Johann Most,
and admit having received it, though he had never carried on any corr
respondence with Most. As to the phrase, “the social revolution,”
sometimes used in his articles, he always meant by it the evolutionary
process, or changes from one system to another, which takes place in
Society. “I wrote the “Revenge circular,' everything except the word
*Revenge.’ I wrote the line, ‘Workingmen, to arms l’ When I wrote
it I thought it was proper; I don't think so now. I wrote it to arouse
the working people who are stupid and ignorant to a consciousness of
the condition they were in, not to submit to such brutal treatment as
that by which they had been shot down at McCormick's the previous
day. I wanted them not to attend meetings under such circumstances
unless they could resist. I did not want them to do anything in par-
ticular. That I called them to arms is a phrase, probably an extrav- .
agance. I did intend that they should arm themselves, and it would
be well for them if they were all armed. I called upon them to arm
themselves, not for the purpose of resisting lawfully constituted author-
ities of the city and county, ifi case they should meet with opposition
from them, but for the purpose of resisting the unlawful attacks of the
police or the unconstitutional and unlawful demands of any organiza-
tion, whether police, militia or any other.”
The letter from Most, not referred to in the direct examination,
which was taken from the Arbeiter-Zeitung office without warrant, and
had no reference to the case, and certainly none to the other defend-
ants, was then offered in evidence by the State. Objection thereto was
made, but, as usual, unavailingly. The letter was translated, and ap-
pears on the record as follows: -
“N. Y., 1884,
“DEAR SPIEs:—Are you sure that the letter from the Hocking Wal-
ley was not written by a detective? In a week I will go to Pittsburgh,
and I have an inclination to go also to Hocking Walley. For the pres-
ent I send you Some printed matter. There Sch. ‘H’ also existed but
\
140 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE.
on paper. I told you this some months ago. On the other hand I am
in a condition to furnish ‘medicine,’ and the ‘genuine' article at
that. Directions for use are probably not needed with these people.
Moreover, they were recently published in the “Fr.” The appliances
I can also send. Now, if you consider the address of Buchtell thor-
oughly reliable I will ship twenty or twenty-five pounds. But how?
Is there an express line to the place, or is there another way possible?
Don't forget to put yourself into communication with Drury in refer-
ence to the English organ. He will surely work with you much and
well. Such a paper is more necessary than The Truth. This, indeed,
is getting more miserable and confused from issue to issue, and in gen-
eral is whistling from the last hole. Enclosed is a fly-leaf which re-
cently appeared at Emden and is, perhaps, adapted for reprint. Greet-
ing to Schwab, Rau and you. Yours, Johann MoST.
“P. S.—To Buchtell I will, of course, write only in general terms.”
The postal card which was offered by the State in evidence where
eight lives were in jeopardy, read as follows:
‘L. S. (presumably, Dear Spies):—I had scarcely mailed my let-
ter yesterday when the telegraph brought news from H. M. One does
not know whether to rejoice over that or not. The advance is in itself
elevating. Sad is the circumstance that it will remain local, and there-
fore might not have a result. At any rate, these people make a better
impression than the foolish voters on this and the other side of the
- ocean. Greetings and a shake. Yours, “ J. M.”
ALBERT IR. PARSoNs was called. Caused a notice calling for a meet-
ing of the American group on the evening of May 4 to be inserted in
the Daily News of that evening. “In the evening I left my house in
company with Mrs. Holmes, my wife and two children about eight
o'clock; we walked from home until we got to Randolph and Halsted
streets. There I met two reporters that I had seen frequently at work-
ingmen's meetings. One of them was a Times reporter whose name I
don't know; the other was Mr. Heinemann of the Tribune.”
Taking the car, they proceeded to 107 Fifth avenue, where, as all
witnesses agree, the only topic of discussion was how best to organize
the sewing women of Chicago. While there some one came and said
there was a large body of people at the Haymarket and no one to address
them but Mr. Spies, and witness and Mr. Fielden were urged to go
there. He had returned from Cincinnati, Ohio, that morning, and knew
nothing of that meeting.
After his speech he mounted another wagon where his wife and
Mrs. Holmes were seated and remained about ten minutes, when a sud-.
den coolness in the atmosphere attracted his attention. “I looked up
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. l4I
and observed white clouds rolling over from the north, and as I didn't
want the ladies to get wet I went onto the speakers' wagon and said:
‘Mr. Fielden, permit me to interrupt you a moment.’ “Certainly,” he
Said. And I said, ‘Gentlemen, it appears as though it would tain; it
is getting late, we might as well adjourn anyway, but if you desire to
continue the meeting longer we can adjourn to Zepf's Hall, on the cor-
ner near by.” Some one in the audience said, ‘No, we can’t, it is occu-
pied by a meeting of the Furniture Workers.” With that I looked and
saw the lights through the windows of the hall and said nothing further.
Mr. Fielden remarked that it did not matter, he had only a few more
words to say.” -
Witness then went back to where the ladies were, and, as did the
larger portion of the crowd, at once left the meeting. The speaking
having made him somewhat hoarse, they, with a friend, Mr. Brown,
went to Zepf's Hall to get a glass of beer. While there he also saw Mr.
Fischer seated at one of the tables. Anxious to go home and get rest,
he looked out to see if the meeting had not closed, and “all at once I
saw an illumination. It lit up the whole street, followed instantly by
a deafening roar, and almost simultaneously volleys of shots followed,
every flash of which it seemed I could see. The best comparison I
can make, in my mind, is that it was as though a hundred men held
in their hands repeating revolvers and fired them as rapidly as possible
until they were all gone. That was the first volley. Then there were
occasional shots, and one or two bullets whistled near the door and
struck the sign. I was transfixed. Mrs. Parsons did not move. In a
moment two or three men rushed breathlessly in at the door. That
broke the apparent charm that was on us by the occurrence in the
street, and with that I called upon my wife and Mrs. Holmes to come
with me to the rear of the saloon.”
Witness then proceeded to recapitulate for the benefit of the jury
the points of his speech of that evening, as given in preceding pages.
In the course of his speech he said: “In the light of these facts and
of your inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,
it behooves you, as you love your wives and children, and if you would
not see them perish of want and hunger, yourselves killed or cut down
in the streets, Americans—in the interest of your liberty and independ-
ence, to arm, to arm, to arm yourselves.” A voice said, “We are
ready now.” Parsons responded, “You are not.” º
Several witnesses having said that he used the expression “To
arms 1 to arms 1 to arms l’’ corroboration of this statement is essen-
tial, and it is not wanting. It was a very natural mistake for persons
in the audience, not listening closely and not taking notes of the
142 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE.
speech, to have received that erroneous impression. The reader will
remember the testimony of Mr. English, a reporter for the Tribune,
from whose notes we have given Mr. Fielden's speech. We have re-
served Mr. English's testimony to bring in in connection with this
point. His notes are identically the same, containing also the same
interruption and reply. And Mr. English says positively that when
Parsons said “to arms” he said it “in his ordinary way of talking.
I did not notice any difference in him when he said that.” He says
further that this expression followed shortly an utterance of Parsons
in the following language: “I am not here for the purpose of inciting
anybody, but to speak out, to tell the facts as they exist, even though
it shall cost me my life before morning.”
The short-hand notes of Mr. English are surely more reliable
than the testimony of other witnesses testifying merely from recollec-
tion. And further, bearin mind the fact that Mr. English was underin-
structions to report only “the most inflammatory utterances,” and that
his entire notes of Parsons' speech would not make here even one page
of print; showing that he found scarcely anything to report under his
instructions. There is not a single point in the speech as delivered
before the jury that conflicts with the few notes that Mr. English
took, a plain indication that it was a moderate utterance for the time
and place. Certainly there was nothing in that speech which in the
remotest degree incited immediate violence, or indicated in any man-
ner that the speaker contemplated any immediate outbreak on, the
part of his audience or any portion of it, a fact still further Sustained
by Mayor Harrison's testimony as to its nature.
Under cross-examination he said that for the past two years he
had been editor for the Alarm, for which he received eight dollars per
week. He made no mention of dynamite that evening; admitted be-
ing a Socialist and an Anarchist, as he understood those terms.
W. A. S. GRAHAM, the reporter of the Times who talked with
Gilmer on the 5th of May about the bomb, testified to that fact. The
conversation was in the corridor of the City Hall, just outside the
police headquarters. “He said to me in that conversation, at the
time and place referred to, that he saw the man light the fuse and
throw the bomb, and added ‘I think I could identify him if I saw him.’
I asked him what kind of looking man he was, and Gilmer said: “He
was a man of medium height, and I think he had whiskers, and wore
a slouch hat, but his back was turned to me.’ And to the best of my
recollection Gilmer said the man had dark clothes. He said nothing
about anybody else in that connection.
f
TESTIMONY FoR THE DEFENSE. 143
“I had this conversation about four o'clock in the afternoon of
May 5. I talked with him about three or four minutes.” ſº
At this point the defense rested and by agreement the following
articles were read to the jury:
For the State an extract from the Alarm, which, as epitomized,
read as fellows: -
“THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
.“After the conspiracy of the workingmen, [which expression did
not appear in the Alarm, the Working classes in 1877, the breaking up
of the meeting on Market square, the brutal attack upon a gathering
of furniture-workers in Worwart Turner Hall, the murder of Tessmann
and the general clubbing or shooting down of peaceably inclined
wageworkers, the proletarians organized the Lehr und Wehr Werein,
which in about a year and a half had grown to a membership of about
one thousand. This was regarded by the capitalists as a menace, and
they procured the passage of the militia law, under which it became
an offense for any body of men, other than those authorized by the
governor, to assemble with arms, drill or parade the streets. The
members of the Lehr und Wehr Werein, mostly Socialists, who be-
lieved in the ballot, made up a test case to determine the constitution-
ality of this act, rejecting the counsel of the extremists. Judge
Barnum held the law to be unconstitutional—an appeal was taken—
and the Supreme court upset this decision and held the law constitu-
tional. Thereupon the Lehr und Wehr Werein applied to the Supreme
Court of the United States, which, within a few days, affirmed the
decision of the Supreme Court of the State. Do we need to comment
on this?
“That militia law has its uses. Where there was before a mili-
tary body, publicly organized, whose strength could be easily ascer-
tained now there exists an organization whose numbers cannot be
estimated, and a network of destructive agencies of modern military
character that will defy suppression.”
The defendants submitted and read to the jury Victor Hugo's
well-known “address to the Rich and Poor,” containing language far
more startling; an article from the Alarm by Parsons defining An-
archy, as follows:
“ANARCHY vs. GOVERNMENT.
‘Anarchy, from the Greek, meaning no government, is the denial
of the right of coercion—the abrogation of statute law, a constitution
by means of which man governs his fellow man. In behalf of govern-
ment it is argued that man is wicked and must be restrained, and
l44 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE.
therefore government is necessary. The free society which Anarchy
would establish proceeds upon the theory that under natural law men
could not but act right, since none would be protected in wrong doing.
“Under government we see the standard of right and wrong reg-
ulated by énactments. One portion of society dictating to the other
and exacting service. Anarchy teaches that law is to be discovered,
not manufactured, and that conformity to matural law means happi-
ness; disregard thereof, misery. The form of government is imma-
terial. Anarchy denies the right of one man to rule another, and to
the shibboleth, ‘The greatest good to the greatest number' answers,
‘The greatest good to all.’ Under Anarchy arbitration would take the
place of courts; asylums of prisons; yoluntary co-operation of
Wage-slavery. Exchange of equivalents would take the place of the
System of competition and modern commerce. The workshops would
belong to the workers, the tools to the toilers, the product to the pro-
ducers, while the means of existence would become the heritage of
the race. Occupation and use would be the sole title. But under
government natural law is set aside by statutory enactment. Natural
law is self-enforcing—statutory law requires the paraphernalia of
courts, jail, police and armies to its enforcement.” “,
The following incendiary language of John Stuart Mill was quoted
to the jury from the Alarm:
“If, therefore, the choice were to be made between Communism,
with all its chances, and the present state of society, with all its suf-
ferings and injustice; if the institution of private property necessarily
carries with it as a consequence that the produce of labor should be
apportioned, as we now see it, almost in an inverse ratio to the labor
—the largest portion to those whose work is almost nominal, and so
on, in a descending scale, the remuneration dwindling as the work
grows harder and more disagreeable, and until the most exhausting
and fatiguing bodily labor cannot count with certainty on being able
to earn the necessaries of life; if this or Communism were the alter-
native, all the difficulties, great or small, of Communism would be as
dust in the balance.”
There was also submitted another extract from the Alarm, being
a passage from a discourse delivered in New York by the Rev. Dr. Ry-
lance, in which he indulged in the following expressions:
“FORCIBLE GOSPEL.
“Patronizing talk was of no use as a remedy for existing evils.
Workingmen were not to be won over by mere potent eloquence. It
was no use telling a man that if he were industrious and saved his
money he might become a capitalist himself, when, in many cases, the
REBUTTING EVIDENCE. 145
amount he received as wages was barely sufficient for a mere existence.
The tyranny of capital was fast becoming as bad as European despot-
ism. He contrasted the squalid tenements and crowded neighborhoods
in which the working people were huddled together with the stately
residences of those who lived in luxury from the results of labor, and
maintained that poverty was not the result of ignorance, and that
wealth was the result of co-operation of labor and capital. The pres-
ent condition of capital was founded on force and not on knowledge.”
The State then proceeded to introduce rebutting evidence.
CAPTAIN BONFIELD, recalled, admitted having a conversation with
Mr. Simonson on the night of May 4, but denied having made the
assertion that he “would like to get a crowd of three thousand with-
out the women and children, and in that case make short work of
them.”
RICHARD S. TUTHILL, a lawyer, would believe Harry L. Gilmer
under oath from what he knew of him. Admitted that Gilmer had
never been to his house or any place of entertainment with him;
never knew where he lived nor his neighbors, nor even investigated his
character.
CHARLEs A. DIBBLE, a lawyer, knew Gilmer and would believe
him under oath. Admitted that he didn't know where Gilmer lived
for three years past; Gilmer was never at witness' house; had met
him at picnics, but had never introduced his family or anybody to him;
having never heard anything against him supposed his reputation
good; their meetings were casual. #
JoHN STEELE, painter, knew Gilmer for six or seven years; would
believe him under oath. Admitted that they had never worked to-
gether, never knew where Gilmer lived or of his neighbors’ opinion as
to his character. Witness had marched with Gilmer in a military com-
pany and seen him at balls, but “I never introduced Gilmer to my
wife or to my daughter, or to anybody, or to any of my acquaintance.”
Other witnesses were called who testified to the same effect. Some
had met Gilmer in the militia at their regular drill, but didn't know
anything of his habits, whether married or single, or where he lived.
Witness from Des Moines swore to the reputation of Gilmer as
good while residing there.
Ex-JUDGE Cole, while willing to believe him under oath, had
known nothing, about him since 1879. Though knowing him in Des
Moines, had never invited him to his house. He had occasionally em-
146 REBUTTING EVIDENCE.
\ployed Gilmer by the day, “paid him, and with that our associations
substantially terminated.”
Others for whom he had worked as a painter doing odd jobs were
equally ignorant of Gilmer's habits. He had worked in their houses
and nothing was missing; never heard his character disputed and con-
sequently never investigated it; knew him as a mechanic and not as
an associate or friend. It appeared, however, that he had served as a
special policeman while living there. In Chicago he was a member of
the Veteran Police Patrol, and employed as police patrolman in strikes.
John L. MANNING, lawyer and manager of the Veterans' Police Pa-
trol, said in reference to Gilmer: “I employed him on the occasion of
a strike on the Wabash road. I did not have him on the 4th of May;
I had him on the night of the 7th, 8th and 9th of May; he was a spe-
cial deputy sheriff under the management of our officers on the Wa-
bash road; his duties were simply to guard the property. I only know
Gilmer from that occasion and from meeting him at the Veteran Club;
I recommended him a great many times for employment as a member
of the club. I don't know anything about his reputation for truth and
veracity in the neighborhood in which he lived.”
As a sample of the testimony brought to sustain the character of
Gilmer we will quote from the last witness brought forward:
C. F. ScHAEFER, of Des Moines, Iowa. Had been a policeman
there for nearly nine years; knew Gilmer and would believe him under
oath. Under cross-examination witness said:
“I got acquainted with Gilmer in 1876, about the time he went on
the police force as special officer on the occasion of the Centennial. He
was on the force off and on, when we needed any officer. He seemed
to be busy at work in the city, and when we called him for assistance
he generally went to work. I don't know where Gilmer lived in 1876,
but I knew where his wife died; that was about mine blocks from where
I lived. I never visited at his house nor he at mine, except that he
did a job of painting for me. I did not inquire around his associates
in the neighborhood where he resided, or within several blocks around,
his house, about his reputation. I...don't know anything about what
he did since he went away from Des Moines.”
IDWARD FURTHMAN testified that John Bernett told him on the 6th
or 7th of May that the bomb was thrown from ten to fifteen feet south
of the alley. Another witness said that he was engaged in the fish
business on the corner of Desplaines and Randolph Streets, and that
he had some fish boxes on the sidewalk on the evening of May 4.
Fourteen police officers then followed and swore that on the even-
ing in question they had nothing “bright and shining” in their hands
before the bomb was thrown, whereupon the case rested.
CHAPTER x. \
REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE.
The position taken by the State may be summed up briefly as
follows: - *
They contended that the death of Degan was murder, resulting
from a conspiracy, a conspiracy in which all of the defendants were
held to be accessory; that its general object and design was the over-
throw of the existing social order and of the constituted authorities of
the law, by force. This premise being assumed they proceeded to la
down the law of conspiracy, to wit: *
1. Where there is a conspiracy to do an unlawful act, which
naturally or probably involves the use of force or violence, the act of
each conspirator done in furtherance of the common design is the act
of all. If murder results, all are guilty of murder; and that, too,
although the conspirator who does the act cannot be identified; and
2. Even though the particular act may not have been arranged
for, or the means of its perpetration, provided the act was the natural
result of the conspiracy and was perpetrated in furtherance of this
common design; whether the act was the act of a member of the
conspiracy, whether it was done in furtherance of the common design,
is a question for the evidence to determine.
As to the competency of the evidence the prosecution held that:
1. Any act or declaration of any of the defendants tending to
prove the conspiracy, or the connection of that defendant with, it,
whether made i. the existence of the conspiracy or after its com-
pletion, is admissible against him.
2. That the conspiracy having been established in the opinion of
the trial judge, any act or declaration of any member of the conspiracy,
though he may not be a party defendant, in furtherance of the con-
spiracy, is evidence against all the conspirators on trial.
3. That the conspiracy per se may be established in the first in-
stance by evidence having no relation to the defendants. It may be
shown by acts of different persons at different times and places and
by any circumstances which tend to prove it. *
It is admitted that neither of the defendants on trial actually
threw the bomb, that the language used in their writings and speeches
l48 REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE.
*
was general in its character and not specifically directed to any par-
ticular person to do any particular act, but that the law of accessories
was sufficient to convict them of murder, even though that party was
unknown. To sum. up the whole spirit of the prosecution without
doing them any injustice we might say that the defendants were tried
for being social heretics, for long and persistent invective against social
conditions, for prominence as “leaders.”
Judge Gary gave the following illustration of the law:
“Suppose that the leaders of the radical temperance men should
for a long period of time, by speeches and publications, declare that
there was no hope of stopping the evils of the liquor traffic except by
blowing up saloons and killing saloonkeepers; that it was useless to
expect any reform by legislation; that no prohibition laws or high
license laws, or any other laws, would have any effect in their estima-
tion, and that therefore they must, blow up the saloons and kill the
Saloonkeepers, and justify that course of conduct. Suppose, further,
that in addition to all this teaching they had further taught the means
by which saloons could be blown up and saloonkeepers killed, advising
how to manufacture dynamite, the easiest mode of making bombs, how
to throw them and declaring that their use against the Saloonkeepers
and the saloons was the only remedy and the only way to reach the
end desired by the radical temperance men. Then supposing these
same leaders called a meeting in front of the saloon at 54 West Lake
street, Chicago, and spoke denouncing the liquor traffic and denounc-
ing the saloons and the Saloonkeepers, indulging in figures and facts
about the liquor traffic, and one would say, “If you are ready to do
anything, do it without making any idle threats,' and another Speaker
says, “throttle,’ ‘kill,’ ‘stab' the saloon busines, “ or it will kill,
throttle and stab you;’ and then while that speaking is going on Some
uñknown man out of the crowd, with a bomb of the manufacture and
design of the temperance men, explodes No. 54 West Lake street and
kills the occupant of the house. Can there be any doubt that such
leaders, so talking, so encouraging, so advising, would be guilty of
murder ?”
Without entering into any discussion of the exactness of the par-
allel, would it not have been still more so if the learned jurist had
further “supposed” that the suppositious meeting had been invaded
by 180 armed and drilled saloonkeepers with the avowed intent to dis-
perse the assemblage by force?
We have given at some length the position taken by the prosecu-
tion. Does the evidence sustain it? Let us first take into considera-
REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 149
tion the character of the Haymarket meeting itself, as shown by the
record.
The Haymarket, so called, is a widening of Randolph street be-
tween Desplaines and Halsted streets, extending a distance of two
blocks. The territory was sufficiently large for the holding of an im-
mense meeting, and the evidence shows that when it was called a very
large attendance was expected. This expectation was not realized.
Only here and there small groups of men gathered on the Haymarket
Square, and the speakers were late in arriving. At the hour named,
7:80 in the evening, no one was upon the ground to call the people
together or to open the meeting. There is no contradiction of the tes-
timony as to these points. It is proved.alike by the witnesses for the
State and for the defense, that no move was made toward calling to
order the meeting itself until August Spies, looking around for a suit-
able rostrum from which to address the crowd, selected the truck
wagon which he found standing close to the edge of the sidewalk on
Desplaines street, and directly in front of the steps leading up to the
door entering into the Crane Bros'. manufacturing establishment. The
end of the wagon was some six or eight feet, or more, north of the
north line of the Crane Bros’. alley. This is a short alley, as shown
by the diagram, which enters the block from Desplaines street towards
the east upon the south line of Crane Bros'. building, and extends
about halfway through the block, then makes a junction with another
short alley extending out from the point of junction southward to
Randolph street. This alley is a perfect trap rather than a means of
escape, as all egress from it could be stopped by a handful of men at
the Randolph street exit.
Having selected the wagon Mr. Spies mounted it about half-past
eight o'clock and imiquired for Parsons. Parsons not responding, Spies
dismounted from the wagon and went in search of him, being absent,
as estimated by the different witnesses, from five to ten minutes, and
returning again, mounted the wagon and commenced to speak. He
spoke about twenty minutes. As soon as Parsons and Fielden arrived
Spies brought his remarks to a close and introduced Parsons. Par-
sons did not commence to speak until about nine o'clock; he spoke
from three-quarters of an hour to an hour. At the end of Parsons'
speech Fielden was introduced. He spoke about fifteen minutes; and
at about ten minutes past ten o'clock, when he was about concluding,
his speech was interrupted by the arrival of the police, the order to
disperse, and the subsequent explosion of the bomb.
From its beginning to its close, the meeting was as orderly as any
ordinary out-door meeting. Mr. English, the Tribune reporter and
150 REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. tº
present private secretary to Mayor Roche, says: “It was a peaceable
and quiet meeting for an out-door meeting. I didn't see any turbu-.
lence. I was there all the time.”
Mayor Harrison's testimony was equally explicit. He estimated
the audience at one time to be from 800 to 1,000; but when the cloud,
threatening rain, came up "there was not one-fourth of the crowd
that had been there during the evening, listening to the Speakers at
that time. When I went to the station, during Parsons' speech, I
stated to Capt. Bonfield that I thought the speeches were about over;
that nothing had occurred yet, or looked likely to occur, to require inter-
ference, and that he had better issue orders to his reserves at the other
stations to go home.”
While alarmed lest the meeting might be a covert plan to attack
McCormick's, yet in listening to the speeches he concluded it was not
an organization to destroy property that night, and went home. -
This was the testimony of the chief executive officer of the city,
who was there upon the ground, charged with the duty of preserving
the peace and preventing violence. Did the meeting change its char-
acter in the twenty minutes intervening between the mayor's departure
and the ordering out of the police? All witnesses agree that the audi-
ence was rapidly thinning out, that Fielden had twice said “in con-
clusion,” that no resistance was given to the approach of the police or
crowd sufficient to impede their progress. As to the character of this
movement of the police, the testimony of the officers themselves shows
that the order to fall in was given urgently; there was no halting of the
head of the column until the complete column was formed; the head
of the column moved without halting at a rapid march, so that those
who came later out of the station and formed the second and third
companies of the column were compelled to proceed almost if not
quite at a double quick in order to get their position in the line, and
that they did not, in fact, gain that position until the head of the column
had reached the position of the halt. This appears from the testimony
of Lieutenant Stanton, Ferguson and Gleeson.
No explanation is given by any of the officers in charge of the force
that night of this singular haste. The reader will bear in mind, how-
ever, that both Holloway and Weimeldt when on the stand were pre-
pared to testify that they had been informed at the station that blood
would flow before midnight, and that Judge Gary refused to permit
them to do so. Here was in process of dissolution a meeting from which
no violence or danger was apprehended before. Captain Bonfield says
that he was in receipt of constant information from this meeting. We
are therefore warranted in saying that when he ordered his men to fall
REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. lö 1
in he must have known that the meeting was about to break up and
the people to go home; that he knew up to the time of the latest advices
received by him that no proposal to-do any unlawful act had been ad-
vanced, and no turbulent or lawless character had been developed in
the meeting itself. Substantially all the witnesses concur in saying
that the meeting was more enthusiastic and responsive while Parsons
spoke than when Fielden spoke, a position vouched for by the fact that
those present were wearied of their long standing in the cold street.
When Captain Ward ordered the meeting to disperse he turned at
once to the bystanders and said: “And I call upon you and you to
assist.” To assist in what? In dispersing a meeting that was refusing
to peacefully disperse upon command? Was it a riotous or unlawful
assemblage of citizens?, Did it in any way menace the peace and dig-
nity of “the people of the State of Illinois?” Nothing of the kind.
No resistance was attempted by the Speakers, unless it was Fielden's
exclamation of surprise, “We are peaceable.” When the order to dis-
perse was given no reasonable and proper opportunity for compliance
was given, or a moment allowed to see whether it would not be
complied with, but there was an immediate call upon the bystanders
to assist in the forcible dispersion of a meeting that was confessedly
quiet, orderly, peaceable, small in numbers, and upon the very eve of
voluntary dispersion.
Where were the alleged conspirators? Upon the arrival of the
police Spies and Fielden alone were present. Parsons and Fischer had
left and were in Zepf's Hall. Schwab was at Deering. Engel, Lingg
and Neebe were quietly sitting in their own homes. The order for dis-
persion was given but a minute before the bomb exploded.
Gilmer swore that he saw Spies get down from the wagon, come
into Crane's alley with Fischer and Schnaubelt, and saw him light the
bomb that was thrown from the alley. The improbabilities of this story
{Liſe 2
1. He made no outcry.
2. He did not tell of this to any one, although the same evening
and a few moments afterward he had different conversations about the
meeting, and talked with people in the street car going home
3. He would not be positive he ever even told Bonfield he saw the
fuse lighted.
4. He was not called before the coroner's jury the next day, nor
before the grand jury, where there were full investigations, notwith-
standing before the grand jury met he had talked with the prosecuting
officer in reference to what he knew.
5. He told Grinnell these facts (?) Sunday morning after the Hay-
152 REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE.
market meeting on Tuesday evening, but didn't tell him he knew the
parties. |
6. The prosecuting attorney, Mr. Grinnell, in his opening speech,
said he had a witness who saw a man light and throw the bomb, instead
of two men, as Gilmer subsequently swore.
Gilmer stated that he only told Mr. Grinnell that he believed he
could identify the person who threw the bomb if he saw him. He ad-
mitted to having received unknown sums of money from time to time
from the prosecution. Witness was six feet three inches in height and
could nearly see right over the head of the man who threw the bomb.
The testimony absolutely demolishes this “evidence,” and in asking
instructions the prosecution virtually abandoned it. The record shows
that Gilmer's testimony did not fit Schnaubelt, whose photograph he
identified as that of the bomb-thrower, probably because he was absent,
for Schnaubelt was of equal heighth, and witnesses swore that he left
the meeting before the police arrived. That Spies did not leave the
wagon—and therefore could not have been in the alley before the bomb
was thrown—is abundantly proven.
AUGUST SPIES.
1. August Spies himself, so testifies. He says that his brother
Henry and Ernst Legner helped him down; that just as they reached
the sidewalk the bomb exploded. They were pushed by the fleeing
crowd to the north, away from the alley, which was ten feet south and
east, and went to Zepf's Hall, three-quarters of a block north.
2. Spies gave the same account when first arrested.
8. Henry Spies testifies that when the police commanded the
meeting to disperse his brother August was still on the wagon and he
assisted him to alight; that almost immediately afterward he was him-
self shot in warding off a pistol-shot from his brother, and there was
no shooting by anybody, as the whole case shows, until after the bomb
exploded. - r
4. Ernst Legner, who knew all these facts and assisted Spies from
the wagon, was a witness before the grand jury and his name was in-
dorsed as one of the witnesses for the State on the indictment, but for
some unknown reason was not produced, nor have his whereabouts
been since ascertained. We claim, therefore, that it follows as an irre-
sistible conclusion that Ernst Legner, when under oath, gave substan-
tially the same account as to Spies being on the wagon when the police
came up and his helping Spies from the wagon, that was given by Spies
to Bonfield after his arrest. Therefore, when the case was put together
afterward Legner's testimony was adverse to the new theory advanced
REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 153
by Thompson and Gilmer, and he was not only left out as a witness on
the trial, but mysteriously disappeared from the city!
5. That Spies was seem to get down from the wagon after the order
of dispersal was given by Joseph Bach, Max Mitlacher, Sleeper T.
Ingram, Conrad Messer, August Krumm, William Albright, William
Murphy, Adolph Tennes and Samuel Fielden.
It is thus demonstrated by a conclusive preponderance of testi-
mony that Mr. Spies did not leave the wagon until the order to disperse
had been given. It is therefore impossible that he should have stood
on the sidewalk at the side of the wagon in conversation with some- .
body before Gilmer went into the alley. The fact is, Gilmer said on
his direct examination that Spies came down from the wagon into the
alley and lighted the bomb. But upon cross-examination he stated
that at the time Spies came into the alley he, Gilmer, was standing
about twelve or fourteen feet from the mouth of the alley, and was forced
to admit that it was physically impossible for him to have looked
around the corner and seen the wagon from that point. Finding him-
self thus cornered, he said Spies did not get down off the wagon, but
came from toward the wagon, where he had seen him standing on the
sidewalk, before he (Gilmer) went into the alley. We have already
shown by abundant testimony that Gilmer could not have seen Spies
in the alley at all, as he remained on the wagon.
As to the McCormick meeting the State signally failed to identify
Spies with the riot, and the defense showed clearly that his mission
there was a peaceable one. This is uncontradicted and appears from
the testimony of Zeller, Urban, Witt, Breest, Schlavin, and Pfeiffer.
Spies swears that he had no idea, when he was invited, of any
relationship of McCormick's employes to that meeting, or that the lo-
cality of the proposed meeting was in the neighborhood of McCormick's
factory. Besides, it is shown, without contradiction, that the lumber-
shovers whom Spies was addressing had absolutely no connection
with the factory or employes of McCormick. While having no weight
as regards the other defendants even if proven, its complete failure in
reference to Spies himself shows that its only effect was to inflame the
jury against Spies and his associates as dangerous labor agitators.
. In regard to the “Revenge circular ” but little need be said. But
twenty-five hundred were printed, of which not more than half were
distributed. Mr. Spies admits that he wrote it under a high degree of
excitement. His testimony is manly and straightforward, but no evi-
dence was brought to show that Spies had any connection with armed
groups of workingmen. Not one word can be found in the circular
itself which in any way relates to the Haymarket meeting, or to the
154 IREVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE.
throwing of the bomb thereat. There is no evidence whatever that
the party who threw the bomb ever read the circular, even heard of it
or even was influenced or induced by it to commit the act charged in
the indictment. Its being permitted to be introduced in evidence and
read to the jury as evidence against all defendants was characteristic
of the rulings of the court. *
The Haymarket circular, it will be remembered, was said to con-
tain these words: “Workingmen, arm yourselves, and appear in full
force : " It is a matter of record that Mr. Spies ordered that line
stricken out. His reasons for doing so he stated as follows: ,
“I objected to that principally because I thought it was ridiculous to
put a phrase in which would prevent people from attending the meet-
ing; another reason was that there was some excitement at the time,
and a call for arms like that might have caused trouble between the
police and the attendants of that meeting.” It is not shown that any
containing that line were distributed, while it appears that those
which witnesses received on the street, some of which were presented
in court did not contain the line in question. This is established
by the testimony of Grueneberg, who carried the message to the prin-
ters, and of Heun who set up the type. Further, in the Arbeiter-Zei-
tung of that date the circular appeared without the line in question.
The signal “Ruhe.” It appears from the testimony that on this,
and previous occasions, it had been determined by the armed groups,
in certain contingencies the word “Ruhe " should appear in the
Arbeiter-Zeitung as a signal for certain meetings by those present.
Theodore Fricke identified the manuscript of the word “Ruhe.”
as in Spies' handwriting, as well as a lot of other manuscript, but .
there is no evidence, tending to show that Spies knew the significance
of the word. This will be considered further when we come to the ex-
amination of the alleged Monday-night conspiracy.
MICHEL SCHWAB.
The incriminating evidence added by the State against Mr.
Schwab is alone that of M. M. Thompson. It is a matter of record
that Mr. Schwab came to the Haymarket from the east. He was
hunting Spies who came to the meeting from the north. Schwab went
there before Spies came, and left before he came. When Schwab left,
for the court house to take the car to Deering, Spies was coming to
the meeting from the north west, and they did not meet that night.
Thompson's testimony is substantially as follows: He swears
that before the meeting convened he was standing with his back
against Crane Brothers' building, some three or four feet from the
alley, and facing west. He says that while in that neighborhood
REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 155
Schwab came down the street, witness not knowing him before, and
that he inquired of Mr. Brazleton, a reporter, as to who that was,
and Brazleton said it was Schwab. He says that very soon after that
Spies, whom also he had never seen before or heard speak, rose up on
a wagon and called out, “Is Parsons here?” in a loud tone of voice;
that directly after making that inquiry Spies got down from the
wagon, and he and Schwab entered the alley, going into it about the
middle and that there was a crowd there. They remained in the alley
about three minutes, and witness swears that standing three feet north
of the alley, admitting that he could not see down the alley, and did
not try to look into it, yet he distinctly heard a conversation between
Spies and Schwab in which the words “pistols” and “police” were
used, in a voice that he recognized as that of Spies, spoken in such a
tone that nothing of the rest of the conversation could be caught;
consequently, spoken in a low tone. Remember, he could not see the
speakers and admitted a crowd to be there. He had never heard Spies
speak in the world, except that loud inquiry from the wagon, “Is
Parsons here?” addressed to the crowd, yet he swears to Spies' con-
versational tones in a low conversation, out of his range of vision.
And while he had never heard Schwab speak at all, he swears he
asked the question, “Is one enough or had we better go and get more?”
He relates a story of then following them north on Randolp? street
and back to the place of meeting where the two defendants and a
third party, who stood with his back toward him, yet whom he was
willing to identify from a photograph as Schnaubelt, fell into conver-
sation; that there Spies gave “something ” to the third party and
then they all went and got on the wagon.
The evidence of a score of witnesses demonstrates its falsity in
every particular. Cosgrove, one of the officers of the police force and
a witness for the prosecution, swore that he was present in the crowd
around that wagon when Spies got up and asked: “Is Parsons here?”
That there was a suggestion that Parsons was away somewhere and
that some one would go and look for him. He then swears positively
that Spies got down from the wagon, and that with a party of two or
three men he proceeded south-westerly to Randolph street and then he
lost him. McKeough, the very next witness, a city detective officer,
following that up, swears that he also was in that crowd when Spies
got on the wagon and inquired for Parsons. He also swears that Spies
got down from the wagon and with a party of men moved off; and he
swears that Officer Myers and himself followed Spies to the corner.
Now, that is the interval when, according to Thompson, instead of
going south westerly, as Cosgrove swears, to the corner, and whither
156 REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE.
McKeough swears he followed him, Spies was asserted to have gone
almost due east into this alley, and remained there a period of three
minutes, in order to have this conversation about “pistols” and
“police,” and “is one of them enough?”
That is not all of the testimony. It is a matter of record that
Schwab was at No. 107 Fifth avenue that evening and there received
a telephone call to Deering, Spies being first called for, and that he
left that place after receiving the message is evidenced by the positive
testimony of Patterson, Waldo, Bach and Fielden. That the tele-
phone message was sent from Deering is shown by the testimony of
Preusser. That he was seen on the corner of Randolph and Des-
plaines streets, while looking for Spies to go to Deering, is evidenced
by the testimony of two reporters, witnesses for the prosecution,
Heinemann and Owen. No other witness except this man Thompson
claims to have seen Schwab upon this alleged journey from the alley
on Desplaines and Randolph streets and back again. That something
after eight o'clock, before the meeting was called to order, Schwab went
South to the corner of Randolph and took an east bound car is shown
by the testimony of Hermann Becker.
That he, in fact, went to Deering and spoke there, is beyond ques-
tion; that the time requisite to go there prevented him from being at
the Haºmarket when the speaking began is also clearly shown. Con-
cerning his arrival at Deering the testimony of Preusser, Stittler,
Radtke and Behrens confirm that of Schwab in every particular, and
that he did not leave Deering, an hour's journey from the Haymarket,
till after half-past ten.
Further, other evidence remains as to Schwab's non-connection
with the Haymarket meeting. Carl Richter, Robert Lindinger and
Frederick Liebel all swore that they saw Spies when he asked for Par-
Sons from the wagon; that they stood at the entrance to the alley and
are sure that he did not enter it. Liebel knew Schwab by sight, and
although standing under the lamp-post at the corner of the alley, a
few feet from the wagon when Spies asked, “Is Parsons here?” he
did not see either of them go near the alley, nor saw Schwab that
night. n
Three different witnesses, August Spies, his brother, Henry Spies,
and Henry Zohl confirm the above. Zoll swears he stood in the street
Southwest from the wagon; that he knew these parties; that Spies
passed him going from the wagon directly southwest, precisely as Officer
Cosgrove swore, down to that corner, to which Detective McKeough
swears he followed him; and he says that the party consisted of August
Spies, Henry Spies, Ernst Legner and Rudolph Schnaubelt.
REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 157
The fact is worthy of attention that Brazelton, the reporter of the
Inter Ocean, was named by Mr. Thompson as the man who pointed
out Schwab to him upon the Haymarket some time before eight
o'clock. Brazelton's name was indorsed on the back of the indictment
as one of the witnesses for the State, yet Brazelton was not produced
by the State as a witness, even when the State was notified by the de-
fendants to produce him, thus leaving Thompson's story entirely
unsupported. Another suspicious omission deserves attention. Ernst
Legner, who assisted Mr. Spies from the wagon and who accompanied
him when he went in search of Parsons, had his name indorsed on
the indictment as a witness for the State, but he was not produced as
a witness though formal notice was demanded by the defendants.
This omission to produce Legner and his subsequent mysterious dis-
appearance is extremely significant. Spies and Schwab were ex-
tremely desirous that Legner should be put on the stand, and every
effort was made by their counsel to find him after it became known
that the prosecution would not call him, but unavailingly. Legner
had left the State and his whereabouts could not be ascertained, nor
his attendance procured. The State chose to offer Thompson's testi-
mony without attempting to corroborate it by Brazelton; and did not
produce Legner although they had him as a witness before the grand
Jury. -
Mr. Thompson's testimony being thus utterly discredited, not
only from lack of support but by direct conflicting evidence, there
remains not a shadow of proof connecting Mr. Schwab with the Hay-
market meeting, or any alleged conspiracy, or any throwing of a
bomb. The whole testimony is a fabrication from beginning to end,
judged by every rule of evidence; shown such by not only the wit-
messes for the defense, but equally so by the witnesses for the State.
The attempt, by such evidence, to implicate the defendants, or any of
them, in any personal participation in that act, entirely fails. There
was was no evidence against Schwab whatever, unless it be that given
by Fricke that he wrote editorials for the Arbeiter-Zeitung, and for
this he was sentenced to death ! \
Gilmer's testimony has been shown to be equally unreliable and
he was successfully impeached. It is true that a number of witnesses
were called by the State who were willing to believe Gilmer under
oath, but every one of them admitted that they were not acquainted
with his neighbors, did not know the opinion entertained of him by
those with whom he was in daily contact, and were only casual asso-
ciates. And yet on the unsupported evidence of Thompson and the
testimony of the detective Gilmer, men's lives were sworn away.
158 REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE.
Before leaving this part of the evidence let us consider the evi-
dence regarding the locality from which the bomb was thrown. Gilmer
alone, it will be remembered, swore that it came from the alley, and
further that he remained standing quietly at the mouth of the alley
where the firing was the heaviest till it was over.
Three witnesses for the State, Officer Haas, Hull and Heineman
state positively that the bomb was thrown from a point south of
Crane's alley, between that and Randolph street. Of the witnesses
for the defense, Simonson, Zeller, Liebel, Dr. Taylor, Urban, Krumm,
Albright, Bach, Bolloway, Roehler, Lehnert and Bennett are equally
positive; some of these stood at the opening of the alley and could
not be mistaken. Bernett saw the man who threw the bomb and told
the same story in the evening papers of May 5.
In conclusion, the rules of criminative evidence are: 1. All facts
accepted in the conclusion of guilt must be satisfactorily proven.
2. When such conclusion rests uppn a variety of facts then each fact
which forms the basis of the conclusion must be proved beyond a rea-
sonable doubt, the same as though the whole conclusion rested upon
that fact.
Under these rules Thompson's evidence is worthless because it
is contradicted by facts absolutely inconsistent with it. Further, the
story that two men raised in Germany, speaking the German language
and associates on a German paper would publicly plot revolution in
lºnglish, when the subject-matter of such plotting were words to be
understood between themselves, such as “pistols, police, do you think
one is enough, etc.,” remarks simply addressed from one to the other,
is self-evidently absurd.
Yet upon the testimony of Thompson and Gilmer, the first of
whom was contradicted by thirteen witnesses, and the latter contradicted
by forty-six different witnesses, some of whom were called by the pro-
secution, and impeached by nine other witnesses, Spies and Schwab
were sentenced to death ! tº g
SAMUEL FIELDEN.
That Fielden was present at the meeting is admitted by all; that.
he knew anything of the meeting having been called before he was
asked, after eight o'clock on that evening fails to appear. He at-
tended a meeting at 107 Fifth avenue, as treasurer, called to consider
the organization of the sewing women of Chicago, with reference to
the eight-hour movement, and some money was paid out by Fielden,
upon the order of the meeting for that purpose. The meeting lasted
till nearly nine o'clock. During the progress of the meeting, Balthazar
Rau called and said Speakers were wanted at the Haymarket meeting,
()
REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 159
whereupon nearly all shortly went to the Haymarket meeting. Wit-
nesses to this effect were Patterson, Snyder, Brown, Waldo, Mrs.
Holmes, Parsons and Fielden. *
We have seen that the only report of Mr. Fielden's speech was
that taken by Mr. English, and be it remembered English himself says
his instructions from the Tribune office were to take only the most incen-
diary parts of the speeches. His testimony, in fact, presents only an
abstract,0f what was said, and Fielden claims that English's report
was garbled, not giving the connections, and therefore does not make
sense. In Fielden’s speech, however, even as reported by English, not
one word can be found which has the least reference to bomb-throwing,
or contains any proposition or suggestion to excite his hearers to the
use of violence. In lact, in alluding to the McCormick riot of the pre-
ceding day, he spoke of the men who stoned the factory as men who
acted “in their blind rage.” As to his figurative expression about
“throttling the law,” his own speech before Judge Gary is its complete
explanation.
That Fielden fired a pistol-shot that night, as testified by some
policemen only, we have already shown to be discredited by the wide
diversity of statements made as to his position when the alleged act
was committed. Captain Bonfield, Captain Ward and Lieutenant
Steele, at whom, according to Detective Quinn, the shot was fired, were
close to Mr. Fielden and did not see it, while Quinn admits that he
“was twenty or twenty-five feet further away from the wagon than
Steele or Ward.” His evidence is also contradictory; he said he saw
Fielden shoot and immediately returned the fire, and turning saw the
bomb explode. Upon cross-examination he says that immediately upon
hearing the order “Eſalt l” he turned around and repeated the com-
mand, facing his men, with his back to the wagon. He had no time to
dress up his line before the bomb exploded! The whole story is abso-
lutely inconsistent with itself as well as with the facts. Captain Ward,
who was looking at him and could have touched him, knew nothing of
it. Among the witnesses who were either on or close by the wagon was .
Freeman, a reporter, who stood three or four feet from the wagon, and
when the pistol-firing commenced crouched down behind the wagon,
where Officer Kreuger swears Fielden took cover and fired two shots.
IFreeman says there was no shooting between him and the wagon, and
after a few minutes ran to the alley; that there were no shots coming
from near the wagon directed toward the wagon. He failed to see
Fielden shoot. Snyder, Tennes, Dr. Taylor, Messer, Holloway and
Ingram were all present, and could not have been deceived had Fielden
had a pistol.
160 REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE.
The vindictive attack made upon Mr. Fielden, attempting to im-
plicate him in shooting on that evening, besides being so grossly con-
tradictory, utterly fails of corroborative support. On this point we
call attention to the fact that when an effort was made to show by the
testimony of Mr. Fielden that he was present at the examination of the
various officers, upon the coroner's inquest, and that not a word was
there testified as to his having fired at any time that night, the prose-
cution interposed objection, and the proposed testimony was excluded
by the court. Further, Mr. Knox, a reporter, put upon the stand by
the prosecution, testifying to an interview with Mr. Fielden on the night
of the 5th of May, in the presence of one or more of the police officers,
after the coroner's inquest had recommended that Fielden be held for
the murder of Degan, says he does not think anything was asked of
Fielden as to his having fired any shots at the Haymarket; that he did
not know of such a charge at the time, and had never heard of such a
claim advanced up to that time by anybody. Hume, another reporter
with him, gave substantially the same evidence. The charge, there-
fore, is one of subsequent invention, and so clumsily presented as to
make him firing from a number of irreconcilible positions at one and
the same time.
As to the charge that Fielden made threats by exclaiming, “Here
come the bloodhounds of the police Men, do your duty and I’ll do
mine,” or similar words, the evidence is equally unsatisfactory. This
statement is made by detectives Quinn and Haas, the first of whom
heard it when fully fifty feet of where the speaker was; the latter was
from ten to fifteen feet from the wagon. Yet Haas admits on cross-ex-
amination that he was a witness at the coroner's inquest, on which oc-
casion he said nothing of having heard Fielden utter these words.
These two are the only witnesses who positively swear that it was
Fielden who made the alleged remark.
Quinn further swore that he is not positive whether it was Ward
or Bonfield who commanded the meeting to disperse, although he had
known Ward for fourteen years and Bonfield for eight or ten years.
The witness therefore confesses that he could not distinguish the voice
of the officer, who admittedly gave the command to disperse in a very
loud tone of voice, and whom he had known for fourteen years. But
still he claims to have positively identified the voice of Fielden, who
was a stranger to him, at the distance of fifty feet !
Five other officers heard a somewhat similar remark, though they
differ in giving the words, but were unable to state who made it. This
is the whole of the State's case as to this asserted threat, and it will be
observed that of all the witnesses called by the State, only a few police-
REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 161
men, mainly professional detectives, pretend to have heard these sig-
nificant words. These also claim to have heard it from all possible
directions and in a conflicting variety of forms. None of the report-
ers heard it who were on the alert for every incident, though they were
mainly called by the prosecution.
On the other hand, the following witnesses for the defendants,
many of whom were in immediate proximity to the wagon, and there-
fore nearer than the officers, testified positively that no such remark was
made, and they were all in a position where, if such a remark had been
made in a tone of voice loud enough to be heard by Quinn at a distance
of fifty feet, they could not but have heard it, and from the very nature
of the remark it could not but have attracted their attention, namely:
Simonson, Richter, Liebel, Taylor, Gutscher, Urban, Lindinger, Heid-
ekmeger, Holloway, Snyder, Murphy, Bach, Ingram, Spies, and Fielden
himself. ,
Mr. English, although he was upon the scene with instructions to
report the most incendiary utterances, and believing that he heard all
that was said, says positively that he did not hear this remark, in
fact, no reporter on any paper of the city embodied that remark in his
account of the meeting. The counsel for the defendants call attention
to the fact that this alleged utterance, so lightly fixed upon Mr. Fielden,
is one of the detectives and the police, having served on duty on pre-
vious occasions, as, for instance, in the trial of Thomas Reynolds, re-
ported in Morgan’s “Trials in Ireland,” page 58, where in the attempt
to procure a conviction upon a charge of riot and assault, precisely the
same remark was attributed by the police swearers to the accused, and
counsel claim that they are justified in saying that this charge against
Mr. Fielden is also absolutely exploded, and that the respective state-
ments of the witnesses in that behalf are shown by the whole evidence,
when taken together, to be mere idle creations of professional detect-
ives’ fancy. - *
As to Mr. Fielden, therefore, we may affirm truly from the record:
1. That he had nothing to do with calling the Haymarket meet-
ling.
2. That he had no knowledge that such a meeting was to be held
or was in progress until hurriedly summoned as a speaker.
8. That his presence when the bomb was thrown was entirely
accidental and without thought that any violence would occur.
4. That he made no threats or advised violence.
5. That he did not make use of any fire-arms, either in attack
or defense. *
l62 REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE.
6. That his own statement that he never had a revolver, and
never saw a bomb in his life, remain unimpeached.
ALBERT R. PARSONS.
The testimony shows, without any contradiction, that on Sunday,
May 2, 1886, Mr. Parsons was in the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, and
came back from there on the morning of Tuesday May 4; that he
called a meeting at 107 Fifth avenue for that evening; that in com-
pany with his wife, Mrs. Holmes and his two little children he at-
tended that meeting; that on his way there he met two reporters,
Qwen and Heineman, and in answer to their inquiries said he knew
mothing of the Haymarket meeting, having an engagement at another.
Like Fielden he yielded to a pressing request for speakers and spoke
there. His speech is admitted to have been largely statistical in its
nature and containing so little of an “incendiary” character that
Tºnglish reported but a few paragraphs, and that he denounced a
proposition to hang Gould and urged attacks to be made only on the
economic system that rendered a Gould possible. This is borne out
by the following witnesses: Simonson, Ferguson, Gleeson, Snyder,
Bach and Freeman. His alleged call “To arms "we have already
examined and found exploded by the positive testimony of Mr. En-
glish, the reporter.
After Parsons had concluded, and be it remembered that the
mayor heard nearly the entire speech, he suggested an adjournment,
and upon Fielden remarking that he would be through in a few
minutes, Parsons and his ladies left the meeting, and a large portion
of the audience did likewise. This is established by a large number
of witnesses on both sides and was not contested.
A review of the evidence touching Parsons' presence and utter-
ances at the Haymarket meeting, accompanied by ladies, proposing
an adjournment, and himself leaving the place, must satisfy any
rational mind, or one not blinded by prejudice against Parsons' econ-
omic beliefs, that he had no idea of any alleged conspiracy against
the police, or that violence was at all likely to happen. It is not,
therefore, to be wondered at that when the trial came on, involving
Mr. Parsons in a charge of participating in the murder of Mr. Degan,
he should voluntarily come to the bar of the court, as he did, and pre-
sent himself for trial. His consciousness of innocence and his strong
sense of duty to his associates and the cause they represented, im-
pelled him to this course. That, in his rectitude, he may have
believed it to be to an acquittal is a reflection on the court and jury
rather than on him. Honor demanded it and he has not yet given
one expression of regret. *
REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 163
OSCAR NEEBE.
A review of the evidence against Neebe is hard to present from
the lack of the requisite testimony to implicate him. He was not at
the Haymarket; does not appear to have known of it, or of the Mon-
day night “conspiracy.” All in the evidence bearing upon his case
is the following not very incriminating points:
1. That he was an acquaintance with certain of the defendants
and had been seen a few times at the Arbeiter-Zeitung office by witness
Gruenhut, in regard to the organization of certain branches of indus-
try into unions.
2. The testimony of Franz Hein that on the night of May 8,
Neebe came into witness’ saloon, showed him a copy of the “Revenge
circular” and said in reference to the McCormick riot: “It is a shame
that the police act that way, but may be the time comes that it goes
the other way—that they get the chance, too.”
3. The evidence of two detectives, who helped themselves to
what they wished without warrant in the Arbeiter-Zeitung building on
May 5, that Neebe said, “I am in charge in the absence of Spies and
Schwab.” -
4. Officer Stift says that he was at the house of Neebe, on the
7th of May, and there found a Colt's pistol, an old sword, a breech-
loading gun and a red flag; witness admitted that the gun might have
been a sporting gun.
5. A number of witnesses admitted that they knew Neebe and had
seen him at Socialistic picnics. -
6. From the testimony of Fricke, Seliger and Heinemann it ap-
peared that Neebe had at one time been a member of the International
Working People's Association.
7. Fricke testified that Neebe was a member of the corporation
publishing the Arbeiter-Zeitung and that he had seen him at picnics
where some one else had sold Most's book!
This is all; and for this Neebe received a sentence of fifteen years
for participation in the murder of Degan | One ruling of the court
has already been given showing that taking charge of the Arbeiter-
Zeitung, in the opinion of Judge Gary, was a questionable action
leaving “a debatable question which the jury ought to pass upon.”
There is absolutely no evidence in the record that Neebe presided over
meetings where “advice to commit murder ’’ was submitted by the
speakers. Yet the court held: .
“If it depended on prior knowledge or participation at the Hay-
market meeting, the question would be quite different; but if there is
164: THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY.
\
general advice to commit murder, the time and occasion not being
foreseen, the adviser is guilty when it is committed 1"
Such rulings could not but have a direct influence upon the minds
of the jurors in prejudicing Neebe's case, not even a causal relation-
ship as accessory before the fact, as between him and the other
defendants, being established. t
CHAPTER XI.
THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY.
We have reserved the review of the evidence against Fischer,
Ingel and Lingg to consider it in connection with the evidence of
the meeting of Monday night, where the conspiracy was said to have
been planned or more definitely arranged. It is claimed that all three
were present on that occasion, when conspiracy was entered into and
the calling of the Haymarket meeting resolved on. The witnesses
were Waller, who presided, Schrade, Lehman and Greif. Waller,
who distinguished himself by the alacrity with which he turned in-
former, was the main witness. He says he called the meeting to order
at about half-past eight o'clock, and that there were some seventy or
eighty persons present. The testimony of Schrade, Lehman and
Greif shows that there were not over thirty or forty in attendance
When the Haymarket meeting was agreed upon it was stated that the
purpose of the meeting was to cheer up the workingmen so that they
should be prepared in case of an attack by the police to defend them-
Selves. Turther than this no conspiracy is shown to have existed.
That the Haymarket meeting was there agreed upon and Fischer au-
thorized to issue a hand-bill, is not denied. Waller himself proposed
the Tuesday meeting, and in his direct examination by the State he
distinctly repudiated any conspiracy in connection with the Hay-
market, as follows:
Q. What was said, if anything, as to what should be done in
case the police should attempt to disperse the Haymarket meeting?
A. There was nothing said about the Haymarket. There was
nothing expected that the police would get to the Haymarket.
A committee, however, was appointed of one or two from each
gróup to observe the movement not only on the Haymarket, but in
Various portions of the city. If an onslaught was made by the police
in the day-time, the word “Ruhe" was to be published; if at night,
the different members were to be notified at their homes. The McCor-
THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY. 165
mick attack had convinced them that the police would on the slightest
provocation attack them and they “conspired" to protect themselves
in such case. lº
By reference to the testimony of Waller it will be seen that the
witness testified that Mr. Engel said the plan proposed by him was to
be followed only in the event of a police attack, and that the working-
men should only defend themselves if thus attacked by the police.
The testimony of Waller that no allusion was made to the Haymarket,
that none of the persons present at the Monday-evening meeting were
proven to be present when the bomb was thrown, that he himself left
to attend a meeting of the Furniture-Workers' Union, that he and
Fischer were together early in the evening and on seeing the police-
patrol wagons supposed that they were “getting ready to drive out to
McCormick's, so that they might be out there early in the morning"—
is entirely in accordance with other testimony and conclusively proves
that there was no conspiracy to throw a bomb, even to resist police
brutality, at the Haymarket on May 4. As to Waller's further testi-
mony two facts are worthy of attention: 1. He, as chairman of the
meeting, was in imminent peril under the reign of terror that pre-
vailed and was willing to testify to what would save his own neck.
2. He admitted that he had received various sums of money from
Captain Schaack, and that his wife also had received indefinite sums.
Bernard Schrade, testifying to the same meeting for the State,
says, that arriving late at the Monday-night meeting, Waller ex-
plained what had been done, stated that six men had been shot at
McCormick's by the police, and that they should be prepared in case
the police went beyond their bounds to resist invasion upon their
natural and civil rights. He also said that nothing was said about
dynamite and that the phrase “having stuff” was not used. He said
further that nothing was said at any of their meetings about dyna-
mite or bombs, and that no discussion arose, or understanding arrived
at, to use bombs on any particular occasion. This witness for the
prosecution also said that he did not anticipate any trouble at the
Haymarket, and that he only left on account of the approach of the
storm. s
Thomas Greif, the proprietor of the hall, swore that there were
only twenty-five or thirty persons present, and he saw no effort made
to keep the meeting secret. - º
If there was a conspiracy, depending upon the witnesses for the
prosecution alone, we are justified in stating that it had no reference
to the Haymarket meeting, and that the alleged conspiracy, even if
proven, was simply one to resist what was considered unjustifiable in-
166 THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY.
vasion. Only two, Fischer and Engel, were shown to have been
present, yet eight were put on trial for their lives on this assumption.
Again, from the testimony of the prosecution it appears that the
throwing of the bomb on May 4 was entirely opposed to the alleged
“conspiracy.” According to the original design the “conspirators ”
ought to have been notified at once when the police attacked the peace-
able meeting on the Haymarket Square. This was not done; no part
of the design alleged to have been agreed upon Monday evening was
carried out. But somebody threw a bomb into the ranks of the police.
If he was a member of that conspiracy—of which there is no proof–
he must have acted in direct contradiction to the plan said to have
been agreed upon, he disregarded the directions of his associates, he
defeated their objects and ruined the eight-hour movement for the
time being. Who employed him is still a conundrum. His connec-
tion with the “conspiracy” has not been established. The evidence
is conclusive that Schnaubelt did not throw the bomb. It is perhaps
enough to state in regard to the testimony of Special Officer Gilmer
that so completely and overwhelmingly was he impeached, contra-
dicted and discredited, that the State did not ask a single instruction
to the jury based upon the belief by them that Rudolph Schnaubelt
threw the bomb as detailed by Gilmer. The testimony of Gilmer was
abandoned by the representatives of the State as unworthy of credence
or consideration, in the instructions asked by them. Schnaubelt had
attended the Monday night meeting and we have seen that two wit-
nesses, Lehnert and Krueger, testified to his leaving the Haymarket
Some time before the bomb was thrown.
Yet Fischer's presence at the Sunday and Monday-night meetings
is the sole reason for his conviction. We have seen that he was at
Zepf's Hall at the time the police raided the meeting at the Eſaymarket.
No utterance of Tischer's suggesting violence upon that evening, either
in speech or in print, is in record of the case. The whole testimony as
to the Monday-night meeting is entirely irrelevent as to all the prison-
ers other than Fischer and Engel. As far as Fischer is concerned it
has been conclusively shown that he was not at the Haymarket when
the bomb exploded, did not contemplate either the throwing of one or
that occasion would arise to exert self-defense. Further, the whole
testimony presented by the State absolutely refutes the theory that
the Emma-street meeting or the West Lake-street meeting had any re-
ference whatever to the throwing of a bomb at the Haymarket meeting.
, - GEORGE ENGEL.
The case presented by the prosecution against Engel is nearly
identical with that urged against Fischer. There are, however, some
THE ALLEGED CONSEPIRACY. * 167
points which require brief consideration. Engel, it will be remem-
bered, was credited with being the proposer of the “plot.” There was
no pretense that Engel was present at the Haymarket meeting at the
time that the bomb was thrown, nor for some considerable time prior
thereto. Waller testified that after the bomb was exploded he left
Zepf's Hall and proceeded immediately home, stopping on the way at
Engel's house. That he found Engel there with a few friends having
a quiet drink of beer, and that he first informed him of what had oc-
curred at the Haymarket. He said that upon this announcement
being made, he told the party there gathered that he thought they had
better go home, to which Engel fully assented, saying yes, they should
all go home; and that nothing else occurred.
August IKrueger says that he left the Haymarket about ten o'clock
and arrived at Engel's house at about quarter past. That later Wal-
ler came in and said that three hundred men had been shot by the
police at the Haymarket, and added, “we ought to go down there and
do something.” To this Engel responded that whoever threw that bomb
did a foolish thing, it was nonsense and that he did not sympathize with
such a butchery, and he told Waller that he had better go home as
quick as possible; he said the policemen were just as good people as
other citizens, and that the revolution must grow out of the people.
IFrom the concurring testimony of these two witnesses, one of
whom the State had secured as an informer, it appears beyond ques-
tion that when the bomb was thrown Engel was quietly at home with
a few friends, not anticipating any violence or conflict with the police;
that he deprecated what had occurred as unwise, and advised all to
go home. If the Haymarket meeting had been planned with reference
to carrying out the programme of action discussed and alleged to have
been agreed upon Monday night, then the natural thing for Engel and
his associates, when the news was brought to them of the outbreak at
the Haymarket, would have been to have gathered themselves together
and inaugurated a movement against the police. The fact that no
such suggestion came from Engel, and that upon Waller hinting that
something ought to be done, Engel refused to entertain any such prop-
osition, along with all the other testimony in the case, is conclusive
that the Haymarket bomb was a matter of absolute surprise to Mr.
Engel.
LOUIS LINGG. 3. -
The evidence introduced by the State shows that Louis Lingg did
not attend the Haymarket meeting, nor was within a distance of two
miles thereof during the entire evening. Captain Schaak said that
Lingg admitted to him after arrest that he was present at the meeting
168 THE ALLEGED consPIRACY.
at No. 54 West Lake street on Monday night, May 8. But the doughty
captain was the only witness who made this charge. On the defense
it was shown by two witnesses that Lingg passed the entire evening
at a meeting of his union—the carpenters—until after eleven o'clock.
These witnesses were Ernest Niendorf and Jacob Sherman.
Further, in proof that Lingg could not have been at the meeting
where the alleged conspiracy was planned, it will be seen on reference
to the testimony of the informer Seliger that when he (Seliger) showed
to Lingg the word “Ruhe " in the paper, it was late on the night of
May 4, after the bomb had been thrown, and that consequently Lingg
had not thought of looking for it ! He added that Lingg said it was a
notice “that everything was to go topsy-turvey” and that all the
armed men should appear at 54 West Lake street. According to in-
former Waller's testimony, however, a far different meaning was in-
tended to be conveyed by the word. If any preference is to be given.
between these contradictory statements of the two informers, Waller,
who was present and chairman, should know best. *
The whole evidence against Lingg is that he did manufacture
bombs. Yet even Seliger, who seemed willing to swear to any incrim-
inating story, admitted that nothing was said as to when or where these
bombs were to be used. He had been making them for weeks, long
before any Haymarket meeting was contemplated. He was not shown
to have been on terms of intimacy with the other defendants, in fact,
Some had never seen or heard of him. In behalf of Lingg the counsel
submitted an instruction which they asked to be given to the jury,
which was refused by the court. It was as follows:
“It is not enough to warrant the conviction of the defendant Lingg
that he may have manufactured the bomb, the explosion of which killed
Mathias J. Degan. He must have aided, abetted or advised the ex-
ploding of the bomb, or of the doing of some illegal act, or the doing of
a legal act in an unlawful manner, in the furtherance of which, and as
incident thereto, the same was exploded and said Degan killed. If, as
to the defendant Lingg the jury should find beyond all reasonable
doubt that he did in fact manufacture said bomb, but are not satisfied
beyond all reasonable doubt that he aided, advised, counseled or abetted
the throwing of Haid missile, or the doing of any unlawful act which
resulted in the explosion of said bomb, your verdict should acquit him
as far as the establishment of his guilt is attempted by the manufact-
ure of said missile or bomb.”
After examination, Judge Gary marked this “Given,” and pro-
ceeded to read it to the jury. The record shows that he read it but half
Way through, then stopped, and marked the instruction “Refused.”
THE ALLEGED consPIRACY. 1 (58)
This action was tantamount to an indirect instruction to the jury that
a man who manufactured a weapon was accessory to the act of any
man who might use it with murderous intent How would this logic
apply to Smith & Wesson, Remington, or Colt? Upon this point his
counsel say:
“Whatever may be our criticism upon the matter of manufactur-
ing dynamite bombs for any purpose, there is no law within this State
which makes the mere manufacture of such missiles a crime punish-
able with death or otherwise. S Louis Lingg could not have been con-
victed of murder because of all this matter detailed by Seliger and his
wife and Lehmann, even if it were clear that the bomb thrown at the
Eſaymarket had come from his hands, if it had been thrown by a third
party acting upon his own responsibility and without Lingg's knowl-
edge, consent, aid, assistance, advice or encouragement. For example,.
the manufacturers of revolvers, bowie knives, dirks, poisoned daggers,
gatling guns, air guns, have never been held responsible for the conse-
quences of the use of these weapons by a third party acting sua sponte.
These weapons are harmless in themselves, and cannot be involved in
the commission of crime until some free moral agent intelligently ap-
plies them to some purpose of destruction. Noris this rule affected by
the fact, if conceded, that the manufacturer must have known that
the natural use to which the implement manufactured would be put
would be the taking of human life. We may deprecate such industry,
but we cannot say that the mere pursuit of the industry makes the
man engagedin it responsible for every use of the implement produced.
By way of illustration, we may suppose that some third party, an
enemy of Lingg's, had obtained one of the bombs of his manufacture
and use for the purpose of deliberate murder, with the design of involv-
ing Lingg himself in ruin, and with it committed a crime to which
Lingg himself was a stranger, such result would not obtain.
“In order to justify a legal conviction of murder there must be sat-
isfactory and conclusive proof of the commission by the party accused,
in his own person or through another acting under his aid and advice,
of the crime alleged. It will not do to allow our horror over the use of
this terrible explosive to carry us away from the moorings of the law.
It will not do for us to allow the realm of jurisprudence to be invaded
by the mere dictates of supposed policy. We must stand by fixed prin-
ciples of general application. Only thus can the law be administered
as a science, and be made the protection of the innocent and the terror
only of the guilty. f
“We submit find insist that this record is barren of evidence just-
ifying the conclusion by the jury that Louis Lingg was a party to a
170 CONCLUSION.
conspiracy to throw a bomb on the night of May 4, 1886, or to a common
object, in the attempt to execute which that bomb was thrown. The
evidence is conclusive that Lingg did not throw the bomb, did not stand
by and assist the perpetration of the deed. It follows as an irresistible
conclusion from Seliger's testimony that whatever Lingg did, whatever
he may have attempted or proposed on the North Side, he had no
knowledge that a bomb would be thrown at the Haymarket meeting.
The evidence fails to show, that without being present, he had advised,
encouraged, aided or abetted the perpetration of the crime charged in
the indictment.”
CEIAPTER XII.
CONCLUSION.
But little remains to be said. We have carefully gone through the
evidence, conscienciously bringing out the strongest points made
against the accused, and endeavored to carefully weigh the evidence as
bearing on each one of the defendants. But there still remains a mat-
ter upon which counsel for defendants lay considerable stress in their
brief and argument before the Supreme Court of Illinois for a new trial.
This is what they denominate the illegitimate evidence, which I will
endeavor as briefly as possible to epitomize. The reader will remember
considerable so-called evidence was introduced by the State over the
protest of the defendants, but which was allowed by the court upon the
assumption—before evidence—that the defendants were guilty of an
illegal conspiracy.
This was shown on the very first day on which testimony was
taken, when Waller was asked: “Did you ever have any bombs 2"
At that time Judge Gary rendered the following ruling, which gov-
erned all subsequent proceedings.:
“If the fact be that a large number of men concurred with each
other in preparing to use force for the destruction of human life, upon
occasions which were not yet foreseen, but upon some principles which
they substantially agreed upon, as, for example, taking the words of
this witness, if a large number of men agreed together to kill the police,
if they were found in conflict with strikers—I believe is the phrase—
leaving it to the agents of violence to determine whether the time and occa-
sion had come for the use of violence, then if the time and occasion do
come when the violence is used, are not all parties who agreed before-
hand in preparing the means of death, and agreed in the use of them
upon the time and occasion, equally liable?”
º CONCLUSION. 171
There had been no evidence then, nor was there afterwards, that
there had been an agreement between a large number of men “to kill
the police,” yet that assumption was taken for granted by the court.
It was argued at some length, and among the various rulings of the
judge the following will suffice as an exposition of Illinois law:
“If the time and occasion were left to the different conspirators,
or to the different parties to the agreement, and then, when the time
did come, in the judgment of some one of those, and he did use the
force and kill, then they are all liable.” -
Under this construction of the law anything that might tend,
however remotely, to proving that the defendants were social heretics,
and which might have a tendency to inflame the admitted bias of the
jurors, was admitted and days consumed in matters wholly foreign to
the issue in this case. #
The counsel for the defendants sum up the illegitimate evidence
under the following heads: .”
I. Newspaper Literature.—Whole files of the Arbeiter-Zeitung and
the Alarm were paraded before the jury and days passed in reading
editorials, notices, communications and reprints. Both of these
papers were published by a corporation duly organized under the laws
of Illinois, of which only four of the defendants were stockholders.
Both were openly published and circulated, had never been interfered
with and entitled to protection under the charter of the company.
Every word read was general in its character, such as Victor Hugo's
addresses, eight-hour editorials, scientific reprints, denunciation of
capitalistic exploitation, etc. By the introduction of all this irrele-
vant matter it was shown, on mere newspaper authority, remember,
that Oscar Neebe had presided, or was reported to have presided, at
two Socialistic meetings. Therefore, fifteen years hard labor Re-
prints from Truth, Die Freiheit, and an article by Bakounine, the Rus-
sian nihilist, which had passed into the current literature of the day,
were gravely read at length to the astonishment of the middle-class
July.
II. Johann Most's Book on the Science of Revolutionary Warfare
was introduced as evidence to convict men of murder, some of whom
were unable to read the language in which it was written. The book
was openly published by the International News Company of New
York, and I presume is still supplied by them when ordered. Fricke
had testified that it was on sale at the office of the Arbeiter-Zeitung,
where he was a book-keeper, and had seen it sold at picnics where the
defendants were present, though none of them had anything to do
with its sale. Here again was the introduction of matter foreign to
172 CoNCLUSION.
the issue, containing only general not specific directions and fully as
permissible a production as Hardee's Tactics. The only possible use
of the translation read to the jury was to still further inflame the
prejudice of the jurors. ik-
III. Various Objects were introduced evidently for the same reason,
such as soiled and blood-stained garments said to have been worn by
officers wounded on the Haymarket. It was not Degan's clothing thus
.paraded, showing holes made by fragments of the shell, and it was
not shown in evidence that the clothing belonged to officers who died.
At best it was a disgusting and vulgar appeal to passions and fears to
convict men alleged to have some indefinite connection with the un-
known individual who did throw the bomb, and who, it was assumed,
acted upon their general advice to defend themselves.
The State also introduced a lot or cans, gas-pipes, boxes and frag-
ments which had been fractured in experiments, to show to the now
awe-struck jury the terrible destructive effect of dynamite. Said col-
lection, upon evidence of detectives, having been found at the Arbeiter-
Zeitung office, Lingg's room, and under sidewalks three miles from the
Haymarket. These last were four tin cans, found four weeks after
the Haymarket meeting and, from their very construction, altogether
different from the bomb used on the night of May 4. Broken barrel
staves, indented iron, torn links, tin cans containing combustible ma-
terial, and even a piece of gas-pipe gravely termed an empty bomb, were
used to prejudice the jury against men accused of the murder of
Mathias J. Degan.
The Furnace, or “blasting machine,” found at the house of Mr.
Engel, where it had been for a year, and which was shown to have
never been used, was introduced in order to get Bonfield's testimony
that it could be used for the melting of metals. Irrelevant even as
against Engel, it was atrocious as bearing on his comrades. Its intro-
duction but served to insinuate into the minds of the jurors that they
actually saw before them an Anarchist's blast furnace
Various Flags and Banners found at the office of the Arbeiter-Zeitung
were waved before the jury that all might see what a red flag or ban-
ner looked like. Waiving the point that these were admittedly seized
without warrant, they had been carried in the streets of Chicago for
years, for the most part belonging to trade-unions and figuring in
their processions. Yet they were again flaunted as evidence against
all the defendants |
Pischer's Armory, as it was called, was also duly paraded. We
have seen from the testimony of Mr. Aschenbrenner that the articles
were in a drawer in the composing room of the Arbeiter-Zeitung build-
CONCLUSION. 173
ing where he was employed; that Fischer was asked by witness to
remove them to avoid getting others in trouble, and while doing so was
arrested. There was no pretense that he had been in the habit of
carrying these, or that he had them on his person May 4. Having
been arrested while removing them, at the request of a fellow-work-,
man, their introduction as evidence made him in the eyes. of the jury,
now already sufficiently excited a veritable walking arsenal or a modern
Captain Kidd.
IV. The counsel complain that upon cross-examination the ac-
cused were compelled to answer questions not brought out on the
direct examination. Thus Fielden was asked a variety of questions
as to his past connection with the Alarm, the International, speeches
delivered long before and his Socialistic views. Spies was made to
identify Eſerr Most's letter, though he stated he had no recollection as
to having received or read it, and did not think he had replied to it,
and stated positively that he never carried on any correspondence
with Most. U.
W. Speeches and Private Utterances.—Under this head we find in
the record speeches delivered at the board of trade demonstration in
April 1885; the West Twelfth street meeting and others early in 1885;
remarks made at the meetings of the American Group, which were
always public and open to everybody, and where the attendance was
never larger than twenty-five people; private conversations of Mr.
Spies in Grand Rapids, Mich., and with reporters greedy for a sensa-
tional article. Testimony of statements made in a private conversa-
tion by Spies outside of the State, a year and a quarter before the
Haymarket meeting, was admitted as not only evidence against Spies,
but against all the other defendants. As to Mr. Spies’ “ghost story”
to the reporter Wilkinson the evidence shows its weakness and Mr.
Gruenhut said it was carried on in a half-joking manner; utterances
at eight-hour meetings and inferences as to the tendency of these utter-
ances had nothing to do with the charge of murder, save as foisted on
the record by Judge Gary's rulings.
WI. Injuries of Officers as brought out by the testimony of surgeons,
describing the ghastly nature of bomb wounds, etc., that the “im-
partial jury” might be the better enabled to discuss the question
whether the defendants were connected in spirit or deed with the death
of Degan. sº
When the jury retired each one had ringing in his ears the epithets
bestowed upon the defendants by State's-Attorney Grinnell, such as
“loathsome murderers;” also “these wretches here” and “assassins.”
Consider also the following sample extracts from his closing address
174 CONCLUSION.
in the light of the desperate effort that had been made to inflame the
passions and fears of the jurors. For instance:
“Prejudice? Men, organized assassins, can preach murder in our
city for years, you, deliberately under your oath hear the proof, and
then say you have no prejudice?”
“We stand here, gentlemen, with the verdict in our favor—I mean
in favor of the prosecution as to the conduct of this case.”
“Don’t try, gentlemen, to shirk the issues. Law is on trial?
Anarchy is on trial.”
“If I had the power I would like to take you all over to the Hay-
market that night, and with you with tears in your eyes see the dead
and mingle with the wounded and dying, see law violated, and then I
could, if I had the power, paint you a picture that would steel your
hearts against the defendants.”
From these words it will be seen, as is sufficiently shown in the
testimony, that the defendants were condemned less for the murder of
Degan than because they were Anarchists, because they held theoreti-
cal views at variance with those in general acceptance—in short, be-
cause they were social heretics.
Captain Black closed his eloquent plea before the Supreme Court
in words with which we conclude. He said:
“For aught which appears in this record, your honors upon your
consciences will be compelled to say that bomb may have been thrown
by somebody in no way connected with these defendants, directly or
indirectly. It may have been done by an enemy of theirs. It may have
been done by some man acting upon his own mere malice and ill-will.
It was thrown outside of the purpose of the Haymarket meeting. It
was thrown in disregard of the arrangement and understanding for
that meeting. It was thrown to the overthrow of the labor and the
effort that these men were then giving their lives to, namely, the estab-
lishment of the eight-hour day. It brought an end to their efforts. It
was not of their devising. The record shows it.
“The record fails to show who threw that bomb. And the question
is, whether upon the barbaric lea: talionis, that whenever a man was
slain a man of the opposing faction must be slain, these seven men
shall die because seven policemen, whom they did not like as a class,
and who certainly did not love them, have died? You know the bar-
barians never stopped to fix individual responsibility for the crime.
They simply said, “One of ours is dead, and we cannot rest till one of
theirs die for him ' ' It has been so here.”
My rights! 'Tis easy to run o'er the score,
For they are marked by anguish, tears and pain;
A right to add a mite to garnished store
When I have toiled to increase others' gain;
A right to call my wife and babe my own,
But not the muscle on which they depend;
A right to love when other joys have flown,
But not from hunger always to defend;
A right to beg to toil from sordid greed,
But only as a favor must I crave;
A right to starve 'mid plenteousness—from need,
But not to claim more than a pauper's grave.
Yet aye! And may they heed who rights would spurn,
The right of e'en the trodden worm to turn.
A PFFRNIDIX.
I.
CAPTAIN BLACK'S ADDRESS.
“On the morning of the 5th of May, 1886, the good people of the
city of Chicago were startled and shocked at the event of the previous
night, frightened, many of them, not knowing whereunto this thing
might lead. Fear is the father of cruelty. It was no ordinary case.
Immediately after that first emotion came a feeling which has found
expression from many lips in the hearing of many, if not all of you:
“A great Wrong has been done; somebody must be punished, somebody
ought to suffer for the suffering which has been wrought.' Perhaps it
was that feeling—I know not—which led to the unusual and extraordi-
mary proceedings which were taken in connection with this matter im-
mediately following the 4th of May. Perhaps it was that feeling, in a
large measure, which led to the arrest and presentment of these eight
defendants. Perhaps it was something of that feeling which will ex-
plain the conduct of the prosecution in this case. I am not disposed
to say that there has been any willful or deliberate intent on the part
of the representatives of the State to act unfairly. I am not disposed
to charge that there has been upon their part any disposition to do an
injustice to any man. But in their case, as in the case of all, passion
perverts the heart, prejudice corrupts the judgment.
“The serious question which confronts us, in our view of the case,
as we stand here to argue with you the effect of this testimony which
has been presented in these past days, is, to what extent you may be
influenced in your deliberations by passion or prejudice. I will not
dwell at length upon that ; it has been admirably presented by one of
my associates. I need only to say that our hope, as against your pas-
sion, lies in our confidence that your purpose is true; that our hope, as
against your prejudice, lies in the conviction that your hearts are full
of human tenderness. We can only offset the one against the other.
We can only hope that that human tenderness which we believe is in
your hearts, and looks upon us from your faces—that that purpose of
righteousness which we believe forms an element of your character, as
APPENDIX. i.7 7
it is inscribed upon your countenances—will stand usin stead as against
the passion which has been stirred in your hearts, and the prejudice
which has been sought to be instilled into your bosoms. If we can have
—and that is all that we desire—a fair and impartial consideration of
the testimony in this case, as the testimony in every case ought to be
considered, and as the testimony in any other case would be considered,
we shall be content, assured of the result.
“On the night of the 4th of May a dynamite bomb was thrown in
the city of Chicago and exploded. It was the first time that in our im-
mediate civilization, and immediately about us, this great destructive
agency was used in modern contests. I beg you to remember, in the
consideration of this case, that dynamite is not the invention of Social-
ists; it is not their discovery. Science has turned it loose upon the
World—an agency of destruction, whether for defense or offense, whether
for attack or to build the bulwarks round the beleagured city. It has
entered into modern warfare. We know from what has already trans-
pired in this case that dynamite is being experimented with as a weapon
of warfare by the great nations of the world. What has been read in
your hearing has given you the results of experiments made under the
direction of the government of Austria, and while you have sat in this
jury box considering the things which have been deposed before you,
with reference to reaching a final and correct result, the government of
the United States has voted $350,000 for the building of a dynamite
cruiser. It is in the world by no procurement of Socialism, with no
necessary relationship thereto. It is in the world to stay. It is manu-
factured freely; it is sold without let, hindrance or restriction. You
may go from this jury box to the leading powder companies of the
country, or their depots, and buy all the dynamite that you wish with-
out question as to your purposé, without interrogation as to your
motive. It is here. Is it necessarily a thing of evil? . It has entered
into the great industries, and we know its results, It has cleared the
path of commerce where the great North River rolls on its way to the
Sea. It is here and there blasting out rocks, digging out mines, and
used for helpfulness in the great industries of life. But there never
came an explosive into the world, cheap, simple of construction, easy
of manufacture, that it did not enter also into the world's combats. I-
beg you to remember also that hand bombs are not things of Social-
istic devising. It may be that one or another, here and there, profess-
ing Socialistic tenets, has devised some improvements in their construc-
tion, or has made some advances with reference to their composition;
they have not invented them. The hand-grenade has been known in
warfare long ere you and I saw the light. The two things have come
wº.
*.
178 APPENDIX.
together—the hand grenade, charged no longer with the powder of old
days, but charged with the dynamite of modern science. It is a union
which Socialists are not responsible for. It is a union led up to by the
logic of events and the necessities of situations, and it is a union that
will never be divorced. We stand amazed at the dread results that are
possible to this union; but as we look back over history we know this
fact, contradictory as it may seem, strange as it may first strike us,
that in the exact proportion in which the implements of warfare have
been made effective or destructive, in that precise proportion have wars
lost the utmost measure of their horror, and in that precise proportion
has death by war diminished. When gunpowder came into European
warfare there was an outcry against it. All the chivalry which had
arrogated to itself the power and glory of battle in martial times sprang
up against the introduction of gunpowder, an agency that made the
iron casque and shield and cuirass of the plumed knight no better a
defense than the hemp doublet of the peasant. But now, instead of
wars that last through thirty years, that are determined by the personal
collision of individuals, that desolate nations, the great civilized nations
of the world hesitate at war because of its possibilities of evil, and diplo-
macy sits where once force alone was entrenched. The moral respon-
sibility for dynamite is not upon Socialism.” -
Captain Black went on to urge that the sole question bofore the jury
was who threw the bomb, for the doctrine of accessory before the fact,
under which it was sought to hold the defendants, was nothing but the
application to the criminal law of the civil or common law doctrine that
what a man does by another he does himself. When the prosecution
charged that the defendants threw it, their charge involved that the
bomb was thrown by the procurement of these men, by their advice,
direction, aid, counsel or encouragement, and that the man who threw
it acted not alone for himself, or upon his own responsibility, but as a
result of the encouragement or procurement of these men. He held
that the State must show that the agent of the defendants did the deed,
and that it is not sufficient to show that.the defendants favored such
deeds. Upon this point counsel spoke at some length. Next he took
up the case of one of the talesmen examined with reference to his tak-
ing a place on the jury, who swore that, having been for three years
connected with the office of the prosecuting attorney in the State of New
York, he found in himself that the habit of thought and life to which
he had there devoted himself had created in him a predisposition to
believe every accused man guilty, which, in his own deliberate judg-
ment before God, disqualified him from sitting as an impartial juror in
a criminal case. The application of this case to the attaches of the
APPENDIX. - 179
state's attorney's officé who have appeared before the jury was made
the most of. The Captain then spoke as follows:
“And now, gentlemen, let us take up the real issues. I believe I
dam read in your faces that you are ready to give an answer to your con-
sciences, to your fellow-men and yourselves for your conduct in the
investigations you are now making. I pray you, lend me at once your
judgment and your hearts. *
“Has the State proven to your satisfaction, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that August Spies, Michel Schwab and Adolph Fischer were per-
sonally and individually advising and providing for the throwing of the
bomb on the night of May 4? Direct testimony has been introduced
to prove that. It is not pretended that the other defendants are con-
mected by direct testimony with the offense of that night. Two wit-
messes were placed upon the stand to prove the lighting and throwing
of the bomb, Harry L. Gilmer and M. M. Thompson. I must say, gen-
tlemen, that I think their testimonyis altogether untruthful.” Captain
Black analyzed the testimony of these witnesses, and contended that
they had laid perjury to their souls. Gilmer's story was utterly incred-
ible and absurd. Could the jury believe beyond any reasonable doubt,
beyond any substantial question, that August Spies, the brainiest man
of the crowd, would commit the stupendous and supreme folly of first
illuminating his face so that every man might see it and know it and
then lighting the fuse of the bomb? “You saw Spies on this stand;
you heard his testimony. I think I can safely leave his case in your
hands. If it is a fact that Spies was on the wagon when the bomb was
thrown the story of Gilmer is shattered and has not a shadow or shade
of truth in it. Then this perjured witness tried to connect Fischer with
this awful event, when it had been conclusively shown that this defend-
ant was drinking beer at Zepf's Hall at the time. If there had been
any effort on the part of the State to deliberately corrupt justice in one
particular, and make the jurors parties to murder, they should bear that
in mind in considering the whole case. Besides, there was evidence that
the bomb did not come from the alley, but was thrown about twenty or
forty feet South of the alley. It was not the duty of the defense to prove
the falsity of Gilmer's and Thompson's testimony; their business was
only to raise a reasonable doubt as to its truth, and it was the duty of
the jurors, as citizens and men, acting under the law which is above
all law, to give the defendants the benefit of that doubt.”
Passing from the consideration of the direct testimony, Captain
Dlack then turned to the circumstantial evidence out of which the
State sought to forge the chain of conviction and bring the defendants
to the extreme penalty of the law. The theory of the State was this:
180 APPENDIX.
That the meeting on the night of May 4 was a result and incident in
the carrying out of a general conspiracy to murder; that all the defend-
ants were parties to that conspiracy; that certain of them were active
participants in the meeting, and the evidence sufficiently and incon-
trovertibly connected them all with and made them guilty of the mur-
der. Now, the fact was that the Haymarket meeting was not called by
any of the defendants. The “Revenge circular,” which Spies wrote
after the Black road tragedy, had no reference to that meeting. The
attention of this defendant was called to the wording of the circular
calling the meeting, and he pointed out an objectionable line. Spies
had slept over the matter. Perhaps the very excess and violence of his
feelings the day before had brought about a reaction; he was just and
calm, and at his direction the objectionable line was stricken out. Did
that look like the action of a man who was preparing for the culmina-
tion of a scheme of revolution? That day a request came through the
mail to Spies to insert the word “Buhe” in the letter-box. That was
an ordinary request and Spies complied with it, not knowing the sig-
nificance of the word. Upon the State's own showing the word had no
reference to the Haymarket meeting. It was claimed that it was part
of the general plan that the armed groups should be present at that
gathering. But they were not there, and so far as known there was
just one bomb with which to inaugurate the great revolution. Who is
the man that had the bomb and why was he there. They knew not,
nor did they know what his motive in his final action was. But they
did know that August Spies had nothing whatever to do with the throw-
ing of the bomb. In his opening remarks at that meeting Spies said
they had not assembled for the purpose of rioting or making a disturb-
ance, but for the discussion of the grievances of the laboring men. Par-
Sons next took the stand and talked for an hour. His speech was full
of statistics, and by no means inflammatory. He told them Socialism
aimed at the life of no man; it aimed at the system of society and not
at individuals. This remark was made in response to a cry “Hang
Jay Gould,” in whose place, Parsons declared, hundreds would rise
were he slain.
Captain Black read the Øvidence of a shorthand reporter who had
attended the meeting to prove the declaration that it was peaceable
and orderly and nounusual remarks were made by the speakers. “There
Was nothing dreadful in the expression, Arm yourselves in the inter-
ests of liberty and of your rights. But still Spies, the arch-conspir-
ator, was bent, determined, resolved irrevocably, that then and there
should the inauguration of the social revolution take place . It was
nonsense to advance or believe in any such proposition. Whatever
APPENDIX. 1S 1
might have been the ultimate desires of these men, whatever might
have been the social change to which they looked forward and of
which they spoke, it was more than idle to take the position and argue
to intelligent men that the meeting was taken hold of by Spies and
manipulated for the purpose of precipitating a conflict with the police.
That idea was utterly refuted by the absence of preparations for such
an event and the conduct of the speakers. It was a gratuitous assump-
tion on the part of the State that Fischer went to the meeting of the
armed groups as Spies' lieutenant for the purpose of arranging the
Eſaymarket meeting and that Spies attended to carry out the pro-
gramme which he devised for him. In a case where life and death is
at stake, the imagination of the prosecuting attorneys should be
brought to a llalt; it is time that you as jurors should say in your
conscience, and before the tribunal of your own manhood, “We cannot
guess away the life of any man.' Spies might be a Socialist, an An-
archist perhaps, but he was not devoid of the common feelings of
humanity. There had been frequent contests with the police and the
people, and as the editor of the workingmen's paper of Chicago, a
paper devoted to the consideration of the interests of the great wage
classes, he naturally took their side against the organized police.
When he saw the police firing into the flying crowd on the Black road,
they could imagine such a man under such circumstances going to
his office and writing the ‘revenge circular.” In which there was no
suggestion of a meeting, in which there was nothing but the breaking
out of an intense indignation, and an attempt to arouse that feeling
which sometime in the future would reach such a point that such
would no longer be possible or tolerated. That could be imagined
without the proposition that Spies' design and intention was to pre-
cipitate a confiict.
“Who was next charged with active participation in this pretended
conspiracy? Fielden. This defendant addressed the meeting. He
had reached the conclusion of his speech and the whole meeting was
about to separate peacefully and quietly when the police came. It was
stated that Fielden fired three shots at the police. He did not believe
the story told as to the first shot while he was getting out of the
wagon; it was a deliberate lie. Officer Krueger testified as to the
other shots, and wanted the jury to infer that he was wounded in the
leg by Fielden. Officer Wessler also claimed to have had a duel with
Fielden. This testimony was contradictory, and if false the State
had introduced it to hang a poor teamster; it was more wicked and
cowardly than the alleged conspiracy of the Socialists. “Oh I' cried
the prosecution; "he is only a Socialist; it is only the life of one of
*
i83 APPENDIX.
the common herd, who has grown dangerous to the peace of those who
would wrap the mantle of their selfishness about them, and he is to be
put away.' The measure of the civilization of the State is the care
that it has for the life and safety of its common people. If there were
members of the police capable of such action it was time that the
strong arm of the law laid hold of them and prevented further mis-
chief. There was not a word of truth in the story that Fielden fired
at the officers. That story is a wicked, wicked effort to bring a fellow-
being to the scaffold by false swearing.
“What were the circumstances upon which the State relied to place
the noose about Parsons' neck? First, that he was an American. It
was a horrible thing that an American should sympathize with
the common people; that he should feel his heart respond to the de-
sires of the oppressed workingmen l Second, he was the editor of the
Alarm; and third, he spoke at the Haymarket meeting. It was not
suggested that he knew anything about the Monday night meeting. If
Parsons had ever dreamed of violence that night would his wife and
her lady friend have attended the meeting? Was there anything in
those circumstances to show that Parsons knew of any plan to throw
the bomb? *
“Against Schwab it was proven that he wrote an occasional edito-
rial, attended meetings of Socialists, and upon that particular might
he was at a safe distance from the Haymarket. If anybody was there
it was a suspicious circumstance; if anybody was not there it was
still a suspicious circumstance. It was the old parson's dilemma:
‘You will be damned if you do, and you will be damned if you don't.'
The case of Fischer and Engel could be considered together. They
attended the Monday night meeting. Fischer was at the Haymarket
a short time on Tuesday night, and he then went to Zepf's Hall, where
he and Parsons were when the bomb was thrown. º
“It is perhaps proper, that in view of the circumstance that
Fischer and Engel were the only two defendants at the West Lake
street meeting on Monday night, I should present briefly my opinions
touching that meeting as relating to this case. Two witnesses, Waller
and Schrade, testified as to what occurred at that meeting. Waller
said there were seventy or eighty people present; the other placed the
attendance at thirty-five to forty. Let us suppose thirty-five or forty
met together in that basement. In the progress of the meeting it
transpired that there had been a meeting of the north side group, of
which Mr. Engel was a member, on the previous morning (Sunday).
At that meeting a resolution was adopted, which was brought before
the Monday night meeting for consideration, and it was adopted in
APPENDIX. 183
the manner indicated by Waller. What was the purport of that reso-
lution? I think I state it fairly to the State and fairly to the de-
fendants themselves, when I say that the action then and there re-
solved upon was this, no more, no less: That if in the event of a
struggle the police should attempt by brute force to overpower the
strikers unlawfully and unjustly, those men would lend their help to
their fellow-wageworkers as against the police. A plan of action was
suggested by one of the group which contemplated the blowing up of
police stations, cutting telegraph wires and disabling the fire depart-
ment. Every particle of that resolution, gentlemen, was expressly
dependent upon the unlawful invasion of the rights of the working
people by the police. Nothing was to be inaugurated by the so-called
conspirators, there was to be no resort to force by them in the first
instance. It was solely defensive, and had reference alone to meeting
force by force; it had reference alone to a possible attack in the
future, dependent upon the action that the police themselves might
take. I am not here to defend the action of that meeting. The ques-
tion here is: Had that action anything whatever to do with the result
of the Haymarket meeting? The action of the north side group had
nothing to do with that, since the Haymarket meeting had never been
dreamed of or suggested at that time. By whom was the Tuesday.
meeting suggested? What was its scope, purpose and object 2 As
then and there declared, it was simply to be a mass meeting of work-
ingmen with reference to police outrages that had already taken place.
Were the armed men, those conspirators who met at West Lake street,
present? No; they were not to be there. That is the testimony of
Waller and Schrade. I am not here even to say that the proposition
to call that meeting was a wise one. The event has proven how sadly
unwise it was. But I am here to say that the men who in that Mon-
day night meeting proposed the calling of the Tuesday night meeting,
if we take the testimony of the State itself, had no dream or expecta-
tion of violence, difficulty or contest on that eventful night. But be-
fore the Tuesday night meeting was proposed, a suggestion was made
that they ought to have some sort of signal for action, and the word
“Ruhe' was suggested by somebody. Waller could not tell who
suggested it; Schrade did not know it had been agreed upon. Evi-
dèntly there was no very clear idea that night what ‘ Ruhe" did mean,
because Lingg saw it in the paper at 11 o'clock, and said: ‘That is a
signal that we ought to be over at 54 West Lake street.'. Waller fin-
ally, under close examination by the State, said the word ‘Bulle' was
to be inserted in the “letter-box' of the Arbeiter-Zeitung in the event
of the time arriving for a downright revolution. Had that revolution
184 APPENDIX.
come; had it commenced when the word was put in the “letter-box?'
No. When the members saw this in the “letter-box' what were they
to do? Go to the Haymarket and attack anybody? No. They were
to go to there respective places of meeting, and then, according to ad-
vices brought to them, were to determine upon a course of action. It
had no reference to the throwing of the bomb at the Haymarket. Did
that Monday might meeting pick out the man who was to throw the
bomb? Did it provide that a collision between the police and the
people was to be brought about at the Haymarket? Did it contem-
plate murder? Not at all. When Fischer told Spies that the word
“IRuhe' had no connection with the Haymarket meeting he spoke the
truth. It was a signal that the armed men should meet at the places
designated by themselves to determine what action should be taken
with reference to whatever might have transpired.
“But it is to be borne in mind that the meeting of the armed sec-
tion never took place. There was no meeting of the Northwest side
groups; there was no meeting of any group pursuant to the word
“IRuhe.” Were any bombs to be thrown, any violence to be resorted
to ? No. If the police made an attack, a committee was to take word
to the groups, and the groups were then, and not till then, to deter-
mine what action they should take in the line of offense. Does that
make every man who was present at the Monday night meeting re-
sponsible for the throwing of the bomb? Not at all. Unless they are
all responsible, it does not make Fischer and Engel responsible. En-
gel was not at the Tuesday night meeting. Fischer was there and
went quietly away before the bomb was thrown. There was abso-
lutely nothing in connection with the Monday night meeting which
contemplated violence at the Haymarket or provided for the throwing
of the bomb.
“Let me call your attention in passing to another thing. When
Waller, having from some source heard of the lamentable occurence
at the Haymarket, went to Engel's house he found him drinking beer
with two or three friends. After listening to the details of the affair
IEngel said, while Waller was saying, “Ilet's do something,’ ‘You had
better go home. I have no sympathy with a movement of this kind.
The police are of the common people, and when the general revolu-
tion does occur, they should be with us. I am utterly opposed to this
slaughtering of them.' That is the full extent of the case against
these two defendants, except the further fact that Fischer had a pistol
and a dagger. It is not right to hang any man for the Haymarket
murder simply because he had a dagger or a pistol in his posession.
“As to Lingg, he came from that republic sitting in the center
APPENDIX. 185
of Europe preaching the everlasting lesson of liberty. He came here
in the fall of 1885, and became a member of the Seliger household.
Whatever he knows of social and labor conditions in this country he
learned from those about him. He joined a carpenters' union, being
himself a carpenter by trade. He attended the meetings of that union.
Young, active, bright, capable, he enters the band of which they
speak, and manufactures bombs. There is no law against that,
gentlemen; but they claim that is a circumstance from which you
must draw the conclusion of his guilt, when taken with other circum-
stances, for the Haymarket tragedy. The State put on the stand one
man, Lehmann, to whom he gave bombs. Did he tell Lehmann to go
to the Haymarket and use the bombs there. No. Lehmann swears
that he said: ‘You take these and put them in a safe place.’ And
Lehmann hid them where the officer, piloted by him, found them.
Does that prove that Lingg sent a bomb to the Haymarket for the pur-
pose of having somebody killed? How did he come to make bombs;
was it a matter to engage in on his own volition or responsibility?
No. The Carpenters' Union at one of its meeting resolved to devote
a certain amount of money for the purpose of experimenting with
dynamite. You may say that was not right, but he was not respon-
sible for it. There is no more reason in holding him responsible for
the Haymarket affair on account of his experiments than there is to
hold every other member of the Carpenters’ Union for the same thing.
That is how Lingg came to make bombs. Without dynamite a bomb
shell is a toy. The man who manufactures the dynamite is the one
who sets the engine of destruction in motion; but no one ever thinks
when a murder has been committed through any instrumentality, of
fastening the responsibility of the crime upon the man who made the
instrument of death. If it were so, you could trace to the Colt Manu-
facturing Company, the Remington Manufacturing Company, and
the manufacturers of bowie knives, all the murders resulting from the
use of their weapons. But, it is said, a dynamite bomb has no use in
civilization but for violence. Has a bowie knife or a revolver any
known use in civilization but for violence? Lingg manufactured one
of the bombs which the police officers exploded. Suppose that in ex-
ploding it some one had been killed, would it occur to anybody to put
Lingg on trial for murder in that case? The State must show not
that a bomb of a certain manufacture did a certain work, but that the
man charged with murder exploded it. A bomb is perfectly harmless
until some other instrumentality intervenes. The Lingg bombs would
kill nobody unless some human independent agency took hold of them.
Did Lingg know on Monday night that one of his bombs was to be
186 APPENDIX.
used? He could not have known it, because the testimony is incon-
trovertible that it was understood by the men who met at 54 West
Lake street there should be no violence at the Haymarket meeting.
And yet the State asks you to say that Lingg shall be hanged because
he manufactured bombs. The man who threw the bomb did the in-
dependent act necessary for its explosion. Who was that man? Was
he connected with the defendants? The evidence does not show it.
“And a word more about that. This boy (Lingg) was dependent
upon others as to his impressions of our institutions. He went to
Seliger's house. Seliger is a Socialist; he has been in this country
for years. He is thirty-one years of age; Lingg is twenty-one. And
yet the great State of Illinois, through its legal representatives, bar-
gains with William Seliger, the man of mature years, and with his
wife, older even than himself, that if they will do what they can to put
the noose around the neck of this boy they shall go scathless. Ah!
gentlemen, what a mockery of justice is this.”
Several cases were referred to, and he then proceeded to discuss
the Haymarket meeting. There was no law that could take away the
right of the people to meet and consider grievances. When it was
proposed to adopt the Constitution in 1787 the States were so careful
to preserve the rights of the people that several amendments were put
in. Captain Black spoke of our forefathers, who had made the name
of the revolutionist immortal, and referred to the meetings that had
to be held as a preliminary to that great struggle. It was charged
against these men that they were guilty of misdemeanors for holding
meetings, and they were prosecuted for crimes. Before the Constitu-
tion could receive the approbation of the States it was necessary that
the amendment providing that no laws should be passed by Congress
abridging free speech should be inserted. Such a provision was in-
corporated in the first constitution of Illinois in 1818, and renewed in
the subsequent constitutions of 1848 and 1870. The Haymarket meet-
ing was called for the common good. Those men believed that a great
wrong had been done, a great outrage committed, and the rights of
the citizens in that assemblage had been invaded by an unlawful,
unwarrantable and outrageous act. Continuing the speaker said:
“Bonfield, in his police office, surrounded by his minions, one
hundred and eighty strong, armed to the teeth, knew that the meeting
was quietly and peacefully coming to its close. Nay, he had said so
to Carter Harrison. When Parsons had concluded Mayor Harrison
went to the station and told Bonfield that it was a quiet meeting, and
Bonfield replied, “My detectives make me the same report.” Yet Carter
Harrison did not get out of hearing before Inspector Bonfield ordered
APPENDIX. ºr 187
his men to fall in for that death march. Who is responsible for it?"
Who precipitated that conflict 2 Who made that battle in that street
that night? The law looks at the approximate cause, not the remote.
The law looks at the man immediately in fault; not at some man who
may have manufactured the pistol that does the shooting, the dyna-
mite that kills, the bomb that explodes. I ask you, upon your oath
before God, in a full and honest consideration of this entire testimony,
who made the Haymarket massacre ? Who is responsible for that
collision? If Bonfield had not marched there would there have been
any death? Would not that meeting have dissolved precisely as it
proposed to do? Did the bomb-thrower go down to the station where
the police were and attack them? A bomb could have been thrown
into that station with even more deadly effect than at the Haymarket
itself. There they were, massed together in close quarters, in hiding,
like a wild beast in its lair ready to spring. Did the bomb-thrower
move upon them? Was there here a design to destroy? God sent
that warning cloud into the heavens; these men were still there,
speaking their last words; but a deadlier cloud was coming up behind
this armed force. In disregard of our constitutional rights as citizens,
it was proposed to order the dispersal of a peaceable meeting. Has it
come to pass that under the constitution of the United States and of
this State, our meetings for the discussion of grievances are subject to
be scattered to the winds at the breath of a petty police officer ? Can
they take into their hands the law? If so, that is anarchy; nay, the
chaos of constitutional right and legally guaranteed liberty. I ask
you again, charging no legal responsibility here, but looking at the
man who is morally at fault for the death harvest of that night, who
brought it on ? Would it have been but for the act of Bonfield.”
Captain Black went on to say that as long as the Mayor was there
Bonfield could not act, but as soon as Harrison had gone the officer
could not get to the Haymarket quick enough. The police, the speaker
urged, had been searching the files of the Arbeiter-Zeitung and the
Alarm for years to put before the jury the most inflammatory articles.
After alluding to Jesus as the great Socialist of Judea, who first
preached the socialism taught by Spies and his other modern apostles,
he compared John Brown and his attack on Harper's Ferry to the
Socialists' attack on modern evils, concluding:—“Gentlemen, the last
words for these eight lives. They are in your hands, with no power
to whom you are answerable but God and history, and I say to you in
closing only the words of that Divine Socialist: “As ye would that
others should do to you, do you even so to them.’”
*
Af
II.
A FUND FOR THE JURY.
In discharging the jury Judge Gary addressed them as follows:
“Gentlemen of the jury, you have finished this long and very
arduous trial, which has required a very considerable sacrifice of time
and some hardship. I hope that everything has been done that could
possibly be done to make this sacrifice and hardship as mild as might
be permitted. It does not become me to say anything in regard to the
case that you have tried or the verdict you have rendered, but men
compulsory Serving as jurors, as you have done, deserve some recogni-
tion of the service you have performed beside the meager compensation you
are to receive. You are discharged from further attendance upon this
court. I understand that some carriages are in attendance to convey
you from this place. Certificates for your attendance fees as jurors
you can get at any time in the future.” -
CHICAGo, Aug. 20.—[Editor of The Tribune.]—In view of the long
and close confinement endured by the jury in the Anarchist trial, and
the display of manly courage evidenced by their prompt and fearless
verdict, I beg to suggest the propriety of starting a subscription for
the purpose of raising at least $1,000 for the benefit of each juryman.
I am far from being rich, but would gladly give $25 for this purpose,
and will deliver same at your office the day you may start the sub-
scription.
W. C. E.
CHICAGo, Aug. 20.—[Editor of The Tribune.]—The long agony is
over. Law has triumphed. Anarchy is defeated. The conspirators
have been promptly convicted. Let them be as promptly punished.
The “twelve good men and true” whose honesty and fearlessness made
a conviction possible should not be forgotten. They have performed
their unpleasant duty without flinching. Let them be generously
remembered. Raise a fund — say $100,000—to be presented with
the thanks of a grateful people.
IE. A. MULFORD.
APPENDIX. 189
Mr. N. B. Ream, in speaking to a Tribune reporter, thought it
would be eminently proper to start a fund for the purpose of indemni-
fying the jurors who so patiently sat for eight weeks at the trial,
thereby losing in business and time and endangering their health, for
which they were so meagerly paid by the county, and then in vouch-
ers which will be cashed, nobody knows when. Mr. Ream thought it
was not proper to mention this while the trial was in progress, but
now that it is over he is willing to head the list with the sum of $500,
Thus will the schoolmaster, who so nobly sacrificed his vacation, be
in a measure repaid, and so will the others who, being mostly, if not
all, business men, were greatly inconvenienced by their selection as
JurorS.
III.
A. R. Parsons on the Eight - Hour Movement in
March, 1886.
(From an Interview in the Daily News, March 13, 1886.)
A. R. Parsons, the Anarchist, said:
“The labor question is up for settlement. It demands and com-
mands a hearing. The existing disorders threaten not only the peace,
ibut the destruction of society itself. The movement to reduce the
work hours is intended by its projectors to give a peaceful solution to
the difficulties between capitalists and laborers. I have always held
that there were two ways to settle this trouble—either by peaceable or
violent methods. Reduced hours—or eight hours—is a peace-offering.
It is for capitalists to give or laborers to take. I hold that capitalists
will not give eight hours. Why? Because the rate of wages in every
wage-paying country is regulated by what it takes to live on; in other
words, it is subsistence wages. This subsistence wage is what political
‘economists call the “iron law of wages,' because it is unvarying and
inviolable. How does this law operate 2 In this way: A laborer is
hired to do a day's work. In the first two hours labor of the ten he
reproduces the equivalent of his wage; the other eight hours is what
the employer gets and gets for nothing. Hence the laborer, as the
statistics of the census of 1880 show, does ten hoursework for two
hours pay.—Now, reduced hours, or eight hours, means that the profit
monger is to get only six hours instead of, as now, eight hours for
nothing. For this reason employers of labor will not voluntarily con-
cede the reduction.
On the other hand, fewer hours means more pay. Capitalists
and laborers know this. Reduced hours is the only measure of
economic reform which consults the interests of laborers as consum-
ers. Now, this means a higher standard of living for the producers,
which can only be acquired by their possessing and consuming a larger
share of their own product. This would diminish the surplus or
profits of the labor exploiters. Labor can therefore, for this reason,
get only what it can take. Can labor force capital to reduce the
work-hours? How can it? - t
/ APPENDIX. tº: 191
The legalized possession and control of capital puts the wage-
worker or propertyless class at their mercy. Capitalists can deprive
labor of its bread by lock-outs and discharges. The laborer is forced
to yield or perish. If he becomes disorderly he is suppressed by the
militia and police. The last resort is force. The servitude of labor to
capital is now and always has been maintained by force. If the labor
organizations arm and force the concession of eight hours from em-
ployers, then the employing class will have to pay as much for eight
hours work as they now do for ten. Employers will put labor-saving
machinery to work instead of these high-priced laborers. The laborers
will then, for the same reason that they reduced the hours to eight,
have to reduce them to six hours per day. A voluntary reduction of
the work hours is a peaceful solution of the labor problem, by which
no disarrangement or confusion would occur. Wages in this way will
increase until they represent the earnings, instead of, as now, the
necessities, of the wage laborer. This would result in making every
laborer a capitalist and every capitalist a laborer; a system of uni-
versal co-operative production and distribution. Reduced hours would
melt the wages or profit system out of existence and usher in the co-
operative or free-labor system. -
I do not believe that capital will quietly or peaceably permit the
economic emancipation of their wage-slaves. It is against all the
teachings of history and human nature for men to voluntarily yield
up usurped or arbibtrary power. The capitalists of the world will for
this reason force the workers into armed revolution. Socialists point
out this fact and warn the workingmen to prepare for the inevitable.”
IV.
º
{}
why THis Book was written.
Cook County JAIL, Chicago, Illinois.
Comrade Lum:—It has been resolved by our friends outside, that
the proceedings, etc., of our late trial should be published in book
form. We request you herewith to assume the editorship of this pub-
lication,-in fact, we know of no other man who could undertake this
work with the same degree of competency and discriminative capacity
as yourself, and trust that you will comply with our request.
The work should be begun at once. Will you to this end confer
with our friends? -
Fraternally,
A. SPIES, A. R. PARSONS,
f MICHAEL SCHWAB, SAMUEL FIELDEN,
ADoIPH FISCHER, O. NEEBE,
G. ENGEL, Louis LINGG.