Chapter XXVIII
Opening of the Argument—Mr. Walker’s Speech—The Law of the Case—Was there a Conspiracy?—The Caliber of the Bullets—Tightening the Chain—A Propaganda on the Witness-stand—The Eight-hour Movement—“One Single Bomb”—The Cry of the Revolutionist—Avoiding the Mouse-trap—Parsons and the Murder—Studying “Revolutionary War”—Lingg and his Bomb Factory—The Alibi Idea.
THE evidence being now all in, Francis W. Walker, Assistant State’s Attorney, on the morning of August 11th, began his address to the jury. Although his argument was an exceedingly lengthy one, he held his audience and the jury to the closest attention from the first word to the last. Mr. Walker began by an examination of the law, defining what is meant by the term “reasonable doubt,” which he believed would be one of the arguments used by the defense. Following this he read the statutes showing what murder is, and what an accessory, under the laws of Illinois. Under the statute, as he proved, an accessory is to be held as a principal. Following this he reviewed at some length Mr. Salomon’s statement, in that gentleman’s opening speech, that the prisoners had been guilty, if they were guilty at all, of no crime more serious than conspiracy. Mr. Walker held that the fact that murder had followed the conspiracy proved the conspirators murderers. His logic was clear, cogent and unanswerable. Its effect could be seen in the gloomy attention which the doomed Anarchists paid to his fatal chain of reasoning.
Leaving the authorities to one side, Mr. Walker addressed himself to the facts made manifest by the evidence. He said:
“We start out first upon the analysis of the facts of this case in this way: Was there an unlawful combination, a conspiracy, to overthrow the systems of this Government upon the 1st day of May, 1886? Was the bomb thrown on the 4th of May in pursuance of the common design? Are these defendants members of that conspiracy? When those questions are answered in the affirmative the guilt of each and every one of these defendants of murder is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But, if we go further than that, the argument would embrace the topic: Was there a murder committed at the Haymarket? Did the defendants aid, abet and assist the commission of that act? Or, if they were not present aiding, abetting and assisting, had they advised, encouraged, aided and abetted the perpetration of the crime? Under either aspect of this case, the defendants are guilty of murder with malice aforethought.
“Was there a conspiracy? Was there a conspiracy to culminate on or about the 1st day of May? Were the defendants members of that conspiracy? Was the conspiracy unlawful? Was the bomb thrown in pursuance of the common design? Let us investigate the facts and answer each proposition.”
Mr. Walker went into the peculiar fact that the bullets found in the bodies of the officers were 22 and 44-caliber; the officers carried 38-caliber. The witnesses who had appeared for the defense in this case were armed with pistols of the first-named sizes.
He read to the jury many remarkable extracts from Most’s writings, pointing out the peculiar and criminal teachings of that Anarchist leader, and showing how Spies and the others had in every detail of their connection with the police, after the Haymarket murders, followed the printed advice given.
Following is one of the extracts from Most’s book:
“Shield your person as long as there is a possibility to preserve it for future deeds, but when you see that you are irredeemably lost, then use the short respite to make the most of it for the propaganda of your principles. We have regarded it our duty to give you these instructions, the more so as we see from day to day even people who are expert in revolutionary matters violating even the plainest rules. May their lives be the last which are necessary in this regard.
“I read you, gentlemen, this, so that we may start out from the proper standpoint and position, before we argue as to the merits of the testimony of the defendants’ witnesses in this case. Who are they? Who is their advisor? Why, they have started out in social life agreeing to swear to perjury. They belong to the Social Revolution. There is not one of them, gentlemen, that bears upon his face the stamp of sensibility or of heart, and there can be no argument made when they talk about the motive to justify murder and the advice of murder, only from the malignant heart. Here they picture murder and gloat over it. They feast over the description of how to poison easiest, as the hyena does over the corpse of the dead.
“Most laughs in his own book. He tells to the ‘mere compositor’: ‘Use a dagger with grooves in it; the poison will stay on it the more readily.’ And a file is adopted for the purpose.
“Gentlemen, we have found without any further analysis the reason why the defendant Parsons converted the witness-stand into a propaganda. It took him an hour by the clock here to repeat the substance of the speech that he delivered in less than three-quarters of an hour upon the Market Square. He endeavored to deny the conspiracy by an alibi; and I mean by that the conspiracy upon the night of May 4th. He only said he was in Cincinnati on Sunday, and did not get back until Tuesday morning. They never asked him if he knew what ‘Ruhe’ meant. They did not ask Schwab if he knew what ‘Ruhe’ meant. The only defendant that they have asked as to his personal knowledge of ‘Ruhe’ is the defendant Fielden—the only one, the only one from the beginning to the close of this case.
“Was there a conspiracy? There has been a conspiracy existing in this community to overthrow the law of the State of Illinois by force, for years and years. In 1885, upon the anniversary of the birth of George Washington, in the city of Grand Rapids, the arch-conspirator in this case—because he is the one that is the most contemptible—said in the city of Grand Rapids—I refer you now to the testimony of Mr. Moulton and George Schook: ‘There are three thousand men, armed, in the city of Chicago, secretly drilled. They are known by numbers and not by names. Whoever wishes to join may join, but before you have joined you cannot know their secrets, Mr. Moulton. There will be a revolution when the eight-hour movement takes place. We will favor the eight-hour not because we believe in it, but because it will assist us in the social revolution, and the eight-hour movement will occur on or about the 1st of May, 1886. If I fail, I shall be hanged.’ And then the man that puts the word ‘Ruhe’ for the purpose of this case on the shoulder of Fischer, compares himself to George Washington, and in his grotesque and horrible vanity says: ‘I am a rebel, and if I don’t succeed I shall be hanged.’
“On October, 17, 1885, in the city of Chicago, at the West Twelfth Street Turner Hall, August Spies again, in a public meeting, admitted the great conspiracy and again foreshadowed the coming revolution on the first of May; and this was published by his coördinate editor in the Alarm, at the same office, 107 Fifth Avenue, Mr. Parsons.
“The defendant Spies has been upon the stand. He only denied as to a conspiracy, and never whispered a word of denial except when he got to the word ‘Ruhe.’ Without explanation he could never escape the effect of that word, and his explanation is the evidence of his guilt; he tried to put that on Fischer.
“August Spies was introduced at this point and offered the following resolutions: Whereas, a general move has been started among the organized wage-workers of this country for the establishment of an eight-hour work-day, to begin on May 1, 1886; whereas, it is to be expected that the class of professional idlers, the governing class who prey upon the bone and marrow of the useful members of society, will resist this attempt by calling to their assistance the Pinkertons, the police and State militia: Therefore, be it
“Resolved, That we urge upon all wage-workers the necessity of procuring arms before the inauguration of the proposed eight-hour strike, in order to be in a position of meeting our foe with their own argument, force.
“Here is shown the sincerity of these men in their endeavor to ameliorate the laborer—as they call it, the wage-worker.
“Resolved, That while we are skeptical in regard to the benefits that will accrue to the wage-worker from the introduction of the eight-hour work-day, we nevertheless pledge ourselves to aid and assist our brethren of this class with all that lies in our power as long as they show an open and defiant front to our common enemy, the labor-devouring class of aristocratic vagabonds, the brutal murderers of our comrades in St. Louis, Chicago and Philadelphia and other places. Our war-cry is, ‘Death to the enemy of the human race, our despoilers.’
“What does that mean? It was published in the Alarm. Was there a conspiracy, gentlemen, against the police on the first day of May, 1886? After the reading, these resolutions were received with round after round of applause, and the chair was about to put a vote, when Mr. J. K. Magie arose and said that he understood a discussion of them to be in order. He denounced the revolutionary character of the resolutions. He believed that six hours of labor was enough! This man was a labor agitator and believes in the amelioration of labor. ‘This is the best form of government that ever existed,’ he said of this Republic. He is an American citizen and believes in the institutions of his country. ‘If there are abuses, there is a proper way to correct them. Eighty per cent. of the voting population are working people; they should strike with the ballot and not with the bullet.’ Then this ameliorator of labor, August Spies, supposed that Mr. Magie did not like the terms in which the members of the Government were referred to. The reason of this was that Mr. Magie was one of those political vagabonds himself. There were nine millions of the best people engaged in the industrial trades of this country. There were but one million of them as yet organized—one million, and by the way, that is significant in the fact that these men fought to achieve this result all over the country. Schnaubelt had said at 54 West Lake Street the night before, the 3d of May, ‘We must telegraph our success to all the other cities throughout the country.’
“To make the movement in which they were engaged—the eight-hour movement for the 1st of May—a successful one, it must be a revolutionary one. ‘Don’t let us,’ he exclaimed, ‘forget the most forcible argument, the gun and dynamite.’
“Was there a conspiracy? Turn to the cross-examination of Wilkinson by Capt. Black, and find that part where Wilkinson said he had heard Joe Gruenhut say that the revolution that Spies spoke of was to occur, the conflict was actually to occur on the 1st or after the 1st of May, 1886. This was brought out by Capt. Black himself on cross-examination of this witness. In the first place you must remember that Lingg was in this country before the Christmas of 1885, between the 1st day of January and the 14th day of January. The Czar bomb, but six or eight weeks after Lingg came here, was handed to Wilkinson by Spies—the twin, the same bomb in general construction and general make-up as that used at the Haymarket on that night, made by Lingg on the afternoon of that day, or filled with dynamite on the afternoon of that day.”
Following this Mr. Walker reviewed Parsons’ utterances in the Alarm, quoting many of them. He argued that it was this sort of language and the dynamite bomb at the Haymarket which accounted for the failure of the eight-hour movement in the United States.
Coming to August Spies, he read from the Arbeiter-Zeitung the following characteristic morceau:
“‘Six months ago, May 4th, when the eight-hour movement began’—this is in Spies’ own handwriting—‘there were speakers and journals of the I. A. A.’—that is the International Arbeiter Association—‘who proclaimed and wrote: “Workingmen, if you want to see the eight-hour system introduced, arm yourselves. If you don’t do this you will be sent home with bloody heads, and the birds will sing May songs upon your graves.” “That is nonsense,” was the reply. “If the workingmen are organized they will gain the eight-hour in their Sunday clothes.” Well, what do you say now? Were we right or wrong? Would the occurrence of yesterday have been possible if our advice had been followed? Wage-workers, yesterday the police of this city murdered at McCormick’s factory four of your brothers, and wounded more or less,’ etc. ‘If the brothers who defended themselves with stones (a few of them had little snappers in the shape of revolvers) had been provided with good weapons and one single dynamite bomb, not one of the murderers would have escaped their well-merited fate.’
“The police went up there; they were nearly being murdered with stones; the mob were throwing at them before they ever fired a shot; and this man the next day writes: ‘Had they’—the mob—‘been provided with good weapons and one single dynamite bomb, not one of the murderers would have escaped his well-deserved fate.’ Then see: ‘As it was, only four of them were disfigured. That is too bad.”
“Here, here is a man that has no design upon the police, don’t believe in force. ‘That is too bad. The massacre of yesterday took place in order to fill the forty thousand workingmen of this city with fear and terror; took place in order to force back,’ etc. ‘ Will they succeed in this? Will they not find at last that they have miscalculated? The near future will answer this question. We will not anticipate the course of events with surmises.’
“That is what he himself said. If one single bomb had been used it would have been different. He sees these eight thousand men at his back, returns immediately to the office of the Arbeiter-Zeitung and writes out this, (indicating the Revenge circular). What did he mean? What did he mean? ‘Revenge.’ He says he did not write the word ‘Revenge’ in English. Rache, Rache, Revenge, Revenge—he never denied that he wrote it in the German language, nor any witness for him; but it makes no difference whether he wrote it, or whether he did not write it. He wrote ‘To arms;’ he says, ‘To arms, workingmen, to arms.’ What does that mean? Did anybody say at the Haymarket, ‘Here come the bloodhounds; you do your duty and I will do mine’? Let us see. ‘The bloodhounds’ was the common expression from the lips of these defendants as the designation for the police. Spies says in English—did he mean this or didn’t he?”
Mr. Walker here read the text of the “Revenge” circular, both the English and German versions, as given in a previous chapter, and continued:
“Is that meaningless? ‘To arms, we call you to arms.’ Why, it is the cry of the revolutionist; it is the cry of the Communist; it is the cry of the Anarchist; it is the cry of Spies and Parsons—‘To arms, to arms!’ And yet the English was tame in comparison to the German version.
“Did they have no design upon individuals in this conspiracy? Why, they had the most awful, damning malice against the police. It was the motive-hunting of a motiveless malignity. Without reason and without cause they had individualized the police; but Bonfield for the second time stood in the way of the Social Revolution. Just see how it forces up the blood of this social revolutionist: ‘The bloodhounds, the police are at you, in order to cure you, with bullets, of your dissatisfaction. Slaves, we ask, we conjure you by all that is sacred and dear to you, avenge’—what does that mean? What difference does it make whether he wrote revenge at the head of this circular or not? He wrote it in it. What did it mean? What did those conspirators mean?
“Avenge the atrocious murder which has been committed upon your brothers to-day, and which will be likely to be committed upon you to-morrow. Avenge, laboring men. Hercules, you have arrived at the cross-way. Which way will you decide, for slavery and hunger, or for freedom and bread? If you decide for the latter, then don’t delay a moment. Then, people, to arms! Annihilation, annihilation to the beasts in human form who call themselves your rulers. Uncompromising annihilation to them. This must be your motto. Think of the heroes whose blood has fertilized the road to progress, liberty and humanity, and strive to become worthy of them. Your brothers.
“Thousands of these were circulated throughout the city. Does that mean that there was a conspiracy and no malice against individuals?
“And then on Monday night a meeting at 54 West Lake Street took place, which has not been denied, and there were Lingg and Engel and Fischer. Engel’s plan was again reiterated; Lingg was to make the bombs, and Lingg was there to say he could make the bombs. He may have been to the Carpenters’ meeting before that. When he left the 54 West Lake Street meeting, he met Lehman upon the way home—Gustav Lehman, who testified he got the bombs from Lingg—and he said to Lehman, ‘If you want to know anything, you come to 58 Clybourn Avenue to-morrow night.’ In response to the question, ‘What has been going on in the meeting at 54 West Lake Street, in the basement?’
“At that meeting at 54 West Lake Street were represented all the different Socialistic and Anarchistic organizations. ‘Y, Come Monday night,’ had brought delegates, according to Waller’s testimony, from every group in the city. The West Side, the South Side, Southwest Side, the North Side, every group was represented, and the Lehr und Wehr Verein also had its delegates. The plan was arranged that on to-morrow, if the revolution took place in the daytime, and the conflict had occurred, the word ‘Ruhe’ should be published, all the men should be at their outlying groups ready to annihilate the police, the fire department, to cut the telegraph wires, and to prevent communication with the central meeting at the Haymarket. Waller had suggested that this meeting be at Market Square; Fischer says: ‘No; that is a mouse trap; we will make it the Haymarket.’ And then Spies takes it up north of the alley, north of the intersection of the street—and, by the way, that block has more alleys than perhaps any other block in the city of Chicago, and more means of escape—and locates that meeting just where he had located the street battle in his description to Mr. Wilkinson, and as Parsons had explained street warfare in the Alarm.
“Who called the meeting at the Haymarket to order on Desplaines Street beyond the alley? Spies. He had written with his own hand the word ‘Ruhe.’ He was after the social revolution. Why did he move the meeting to that place if he knew what ‘Ruhe’ meant? Why was he there at all if he knew what ‘Ruhe’ meant? He has told. Why was he on the wagon if he knew what ‘Ruhe’ meant? Why didn’t he notify the police, if he knew what ‘Ruhe’ meant, not to come to that meeting? Why had he said upon the wagon, ‘If you want to do anything, why don’t you do it and say nothing?’ if he knew what ‘Ruhe’ meant? Why did he leave his revolver before he ever got to that meeting unless he knew what ‘Ruhe’ meant? He follows out his own instructions in the Arbeiter-Zeitung, on that subject, when some one wrote:
“In the action itself one must be personally at the place to select personally that point on the place of the action and that part of the action which are the most important and are coupled with the greatest danger, upon which depend chiefly the success or failure of the whole affair.
“And he selected the place himself. Fischer says: ‘No, the Market Square is a mouse trap,’ and they named they Haymarket, and Spies designates the place of meeting and publishes the word ‘Ruhe;’ and then it is expected from twenty-five to forty thousand people will be at the meeting on Haymarket Square. Eight thousand had rebelled at McCormick’s; the skirmish lines had met, and it was expected that there would be twenty-five thousand at the Haymarket on that night; but there were not, and for that reason this mob was not dispersed. The police could not see at any time a meeting so large as to be beyond their control, but when this meeting became boisterous it was after ten o’clock, two hours later than the meeting was called for. If the police had been but two hours earlier in dispelling the meeting the flames would have been lighted out at Wicker Park; the instrument of fire described in Herr Most’s book, and found at Wicker Park, was for that purpose. The Northwestern group was to meet at Wicker Park, and come down past North Avenue Station. The North Side group was to annihilate the North Side Station, and Lingg was at his post of duty for that purpose.
“Was there a conspiracy? They take the word and Spies publishes it. He says in explanation: ‘Among the announcements it came to me by no person of whom I am aware, no one about whom I know anything.’ No questions were asked. In this way the mere editor, Spies, publishes in the Briefkasten the word ‘Ruhe’ prominently. The Briefkasten is used to answer private correspondence, personal letters and editorials, or it is used to place the advertisements of secret meetings in, and for no other purpose. ‘Y—Come Monday night,’ is found in the Letter-box of the Arbeiter-Zeitung. That is a secret thing, and means that the armed groups shall meet at 54 West Lake Street. ‘Ruhe’ was an answer to no correspondent; the word ‘Ruhe’ could enlighten no ignorant man on the subject alone; and the editor-in-chief of the Arbeiter-Zeitung picked up a piece of paper and wrote ‘Ruhe’ on it without ever knowing what it meant or where it came from, and says it was handed him among the labor announcements: ‘Mr. Editor, please publish the word “Ruhe” in the Letter box prominently.’ What tells you that it was a labor announcement? Who ever said it was a labor announcement? ‘Ruhe,’ peace, rest, quiet—‘Ruhe’ a labor announcement! Why, who said so? It would be lost if put in the announcements of labor organizations. ‘Mr. Editor, publish the word “Ruhe” in the column where you put “Y—Come Monday night,” the secret sign of the armed sections, and publish it prominently.’ Without a word he did so, and he asks you to believe it. Did he know what ‘Ruhe’ meant? Why, he sent for Fischer, and Fischer told him it was harmless. ‘Why,’ he said, ‘that is foolish, Fischer; don’t do that, don’t do that.’ Rau had only told him that it meant: ‘Workmen, be at your groups, keep yourselves armed and in preparation, so that if you are attacked you can defend yourselves; workingmen, arm yourselves and be at your groups.’ That is what Rau said ‘Ruhe’ meant, and, when asked, Fischer says: ‘Why, that means, “Keep your powder dry,” that is all.’ ‘Well,’ he says, ‘Fischer, that is foolish; that is crazy; why, I cannot have that.’ What did he think was foolish and crazy? To keep their powder dry, when this man had said the day before, ‘Workingmen, arm yourselves, arm yourselves!’ This is the explanation of the word ‘Ruhe.’
“Did Parsons know of the conspiracy ‘Ruhe’? He was a party to the great conspiracy, for he had cried about April 24th for the revolution upon the 1st of May. That he has not denied; and to my mind he cuts one of the worst figures in this case. He was born at least upon American soil, and he stands here alone, alone amongst these vast hordes of witnesses who are not citizens of our republic, and whose purpose is her destruction. Albert R. Parsons is the only American, and he has no right, no right to belong to that nationality. He never said he did not know of the conspiracy, and he spoke of the 4th of May; it was said that night he staid away—by the way, he left this out—‘I should be accused of cowardice;’ but he did say, ‘I would come if I were to die before morning.’ Did he know of the conspiracy? Why, he had been in it for years. He published the order of street fighting in his Alarm, foreshadowing the battle in his description; and not only did he do that, but he made the alibi by calling at the American group on that night, a group organized and holding a meeting for the sewing girls when not a sewing girl was present, with no one there but a Nihilist, a Communist, a Socialist and an Anarchist. Mrs. Parsons was there and Mrs. Holmes. Where was any sewing girl?
“And here I want to ask you if, after hearing all the proof in this case; if, after reading Most’s ‘Revolutionary War,’ the instructions to the Nihilists and Anarchists; if after reading the Alarm here; if, after hearing the testimony of the witnesses, you will here and to-day say that the men lied who on that night stood when Captain Bonfield said ‘Fall in’—stood there when the concussion had riven to the earth sixty of Chicago’s noblest men because they had courage. When, out of the hundred and eighty, sixty lay wounded on the ground, the other one hundred and twenty killed the revolution with one blow. The men whose lives were spared fell in, and not a man has lived to say there was a coward in the whole one hundred and eighty.”
In the same manner he went through the evidence proving the guilt of Schwab, Fielden and Neebe.
“Was Engel in the conspiracy? He proposed the plan at both meetings. He said to Captain Schaack, at the Chicago Avenue Station, that ‘what was in him had to come out,’ and he called it the dangerous power of internal eloquence. He planned the conspiracy of the Emma Street meeting, and has been an Anarchist for years, and instructor in the use of weapons, and adviser in the making of bombs. He not only was that, but he absolutely and unqualifiedly advised the Socialists to buy weapons for the express purpose of killing the police, maiming them, and then with all the cunning of a conspirator who has placed his neck within the noose, on the morning of the 4th of May he finds this infernal machine and takes it to the Chief of Police, and then comes the exhibition between Captain Bonfield and the leading counsel for the defense on that proposition. The counsel says: ‘He brought it to you freely,’ and he emphasized it, and then the tinner came, and the counsel says: ‘What is there about this piece of iron that makes you identify it? You only made that sheet; is that all? You just cut a piece of iron off for Mr. Engel.’ The witness says: ‘Please look at the mark on the inside; that is my mark.’ Was Engel in the conspiracy?
“Was Fischer, the lieutenant of Spies, in the conspiracy? Was Fischer, the messenger of Spies to the meeting at 54 West Lake Street, in the conspiracy? He was at the office on Monday afternoon between five and six o’clock, when the ‘Revenge’ circular was printed, and from there he went to 54 West Lake Street. Was he in the conspiracy—the man with the revolver nearly two feet long, and with the file dagger with grooves? What does that mean? Why, prussic acid evaporates; it dries off the instrument. ‘Use something with grooves.’ And the revolutionists must use files that are ground down, in order to have an instrument that is capable of holding poison. If you remember, there was another file dagger found in the office of the Arbeiter-Zeitung besides this one. Verdigris, which anyone can easily produce by dipping copper or brass into vinegar, and exposing it to the atmosphere, may also be mixed with gum arabic and applied to weapons, but the weapons ought to be grooved, so that the poison will remain on easier and in larger quantities. That is the explanation of the file dagger and the revolver. Was Fischer in the conspiracy, with the Lehr und Wehr Verein belt strapped upon his person, and traveling in the streets of the city of Chicago with an armament worse than any Western outlaw—because no outlaw ever carried on his person a dagger grooved, the slightest scratch of which meant death. It was conceived by nobody except the mind of the revolutionist and lieutenant of Spies.
“Was Lingg in the conspiracy? He made the very bomb that was used on that night, and it was used on that night in furtherance of the common design. Do you remember the analysis of that bomb? Do you remember the nuts used to fasten the half-globes together, identical with the one found in the wounded man upon the night of May 4? Do you remember Neff’s testimony and Seliger’s testimony—that after the bomb had been thrown, and Lingg was at 58 Clybourn Avenue, some one accused him and said: ‘You are responsible for all this—see what you have done’? Hubner said: ‘You are responsible for all this.’ This does not come from the lips of any indicted man, but from the lips of Mr. Neff, the proprietor at the place 58 Clybourn Avenue. Then Louis Lingg goes home and complains because he has been upbraided for his good work in this case, and then he flees, changes his appearance—and he is the only living man that changes his appearance in this case except the bomb-thrower. They are the two who shaved and cut their hair—Louis Lingg and Rudolph Schnaubelt. Was Lingg in the conspiracy? He was not only in the conspiracy, but he did everything in the world to carry out his part of it that night. ‘Lehman, you come to 58 Clybourn Avenue to-night, and you will find out what the meeting in the basement at 54 meant.’ And Lehman came, and on the next day he was at Lingg’s house, and bomb after bomb was distributed from that place before night. Where was Lingg in the morning, between eight and one? Looking after the revolution in the central part of the city. Men coming and going all day after bombs and with bombs—as Mrs. Seliger says—all day long, taking them away from that place.
“‘Seliger, make haste!’ ‘Hubner, make haste!’ ‘Muntzenberg, make haste!’ ‘Put the cloth over your heads so that you can’t get headache. Make haste. These bombs must be done so as to be used to-night!’ What a nice thing it would be, as he and Seliger stood at the corner of North Avenue and Larrabee Street, to throw a bomb in that station, Lingg says. Then it is 10:30, and the telephone has called for assistance from the North Avenue Station, and the patrol wagon goes out, and there stand Lingg and Seliger with bombs, and Lingg says, ‘Seliger, give me a light; they are going to the assistance of the others. It has happened; the revolution has come. Give me a light’—and here I am reminded that when a man throws a bomb in furtherance of the social revolution they do it by twos; one furnishes the light and the other throws the bomb. And this shows that it was not a solitary and single instance that occurred in the alley south of Crane’s when a match was lighted and Schnaubelt threw the bomb. The same thing was duplicated by Lingg and Seliger when Seliger was to furnish the light and Lingg throw the bomb. It was only because Seliger hesitated that those men were not killed by Lingg at North Avenue. Was Lingg in this conspiracy then? Why, he fled the next day, and he is the man who had the courage to give up all hope. You see, Lingg is a practical annihilator. He don’t believe in preaching; he believes in acting, and not only believes in it, but he will do it at any time. He saw Schuettler come into the room and jumped upon him the moment he passed the door, with one of those large revolvers. And then you will remember the fight and struggle there. Most’s book says when there is a possibility to annihilate an opposing party, or where it becomes a question of life and death, that death or resistance, or both, are advisable.
“That is the advice that Lingg acted on and that Spies acted on, but: ‘If you are sure that the arrest is made only on vague suspicion, then submit to the inevitable. It is easier in such case to extract yourself again. Prove an alibi.’ Was Lingg in this conspiracy? Was it a Lingg bomb? Hubner, Neff and Seliger swear that Hubner said to Lingg, ‘You are responsible for this, Louis Lingg,’ and they had a dispute and a violent discussion when it was discovered there. After he tries to throw the bomb at the station he goes home and he sees ‘Ruhe,’ and he is almost crazy, and he wants to go to the Haymarket, and he goes back to 58 Clybourn Avenue and finds that it is over and that the revolution is not accomplished; and then he gets angry because he is upraided as the one to blame for the whole thing. ‘You have done this,’ Hubner tells him. Hubner was there all day and helped to make bombs, and Muntzenberg and the Lehmans were in and out all day. Was it Louis Lingg’s bomb?”
Mr. Walker then made a close examination of the evidence in rebuttal, and closed his magnificent address with a high tribute to the valor of the police and their services to law and order.
Chapter XXIX
The Argument for the Defendants—“Newspaper Evidence”—Bringing about the Social Revolution—Arson and Murder—The Right to Property—Evolution or Revolution—Dynamite as an Argument—The Arsenal at 107 Fifth Avenue—Was it all Braggadocio?—An Open Conspiracy—Secrets that were not Secrets—The Case Against the State’s Attorney—A Good Word for Lingg—More About “Ruhe”—The “Alleged” Conspiracy—Ingham’s Answer—The Freiheit Articles—Lord Coleridge on Anarchy—Did Fielden Shoot at the Police?—The Bombs in the Seliger Family—Circumstantial Evidence in Metal—Chemical Analysis of the Czar Bomb—The Crane’s Alley Enigma.
ON the morning of August 12, Mr. Sigismund Zeisler opened his argument on behalf of the defendants. In view of the desperate condition of his case Mr. Zeisler made an able and ingenious plea. His argument occupied a whole day.
During the morning hour, he elaborated at some length upon his theory of the law, and claimed that it was not only necessary to establish that the defendants were parties to a conspiracy, but it was also necessary to show that somebody who was a party to that conspiracy had committed an act in pursuance of that conspiracy. Besides that it was essential that the State should identify the principal. This, he held, was the law of the State and of the land and of the Constitution of the United States. If the principal is not identified, then no one could be held as accessory. Upon this theory the case should stand or fall, and it was for this reason that the defense endeavored to impeach the testimony of Harry L. Gilmer, as that testimony, he maintained, was vital for the case. Mr. Walker, he said, had stated that there was a conspiracy to inaugurate the social revolution on the 1st of May, citing in support of the claim the conversation between Spies and Moulton at Grand Rapids, a resolution adopted at the West Twelfth Street Turner Hall in October, 1885, and a conversation between Spies and Reporter Wilkinson; but after showing the general drift of those conversations and the tenor of the resolutions, Mr. Zeisler contended that the reports of these matters in the newspapers at the time could not be accepted as evidence, as newspapers are frequently given to misstatements. Then, referring to the testimony given by the parties named, he said:
“Now, what does that testimony amount to?—the testimony of Mr. Moulton, the testimony of Mr. Wilkinson and the testimony in regard to the resolutions adopted at the West Twelfth Street Turner Hall? Nothing but the fact which is known to all Chicago, that the laboring classes had combined to fight for an eight-hours’ work-day on and after the 1st of May. That is one thing. And another thing, as far as these resolutions are concerned, that it was resolved that, inasmuch as the workingmen had to anticipate that the employers would call out the police and militia against them, that they should arm themselves to meet the employers by the same means that they, the employers, used.
“Now, further than that, Mr. Spies has spoken with Mr. Moulton and with Mr. Wilkinson about the coming social revolution; and when asked by Mr. Moulton, ‘How can you ever accomplish such a result? How can you ever bring about the social revolution? Under what circumstances can it be done?’ he says it can be done at a time when the workingmen will be unemployed. Substantially the same thing was said to Mr. Wilkinson at the time of that interview last January. Now, the State’s Attorney and his associates argue to you that Spies said himself the social revolution is coming. When is it coming? On the 1st of May. Can that be taken literally?”
Mr. Zeisler held that in the progress of the civilized world a social revolution was inevitable, not by the use of dynamite or force, but by the peaceable forces at work among the people.
“Now, the attorneys for the State talk to you about the social revolution, and try to make you believe that the social revolution means bombs and dynamite, and killing and arson and murder and all crimes that we know of. Mr. Fielden on the stand gave the proper expression. Asked whether he believed in the revolution, he said: ‘Yes, in the evolutionary revolution.’ And I tell you, gentlemen of the jury, this social revolution is coming—this social revolution in the sense in which Webster defines the word Socialism.”
Mr. Zeisler next said that they had not denied that the defendants had declared that they would head a procession to go and sack Marshall Field’s or Kellogg’s store, because it was a fact, but asked if after such advice any one of them had taken the lead in any such procession. “No, sir,” he said. “They went and armed themselves with beer. That is what they did.” On the night of the Board of Trade opening, Parsons and Fielden proposed to lead the crowd to attack the groceries and clothing houses, but what did they do? They gracefully retired into the room of the Arbeiter-Zeitung office and were interviewed by a reporter about the terrible effects of a fulminating cap. Did any one come up and inquire why they had not led the procession to those places? They did not, as everybody understood what was meant. Mr. Zeisler continued:
“The listeners of these people are not very highly educated men. They are laboring men who, raised in poor families, did not have the benefits of a collegiate education; men who since that time worked at manual labor from the early morning until the late evening. They could not in the nature of things be very intelligent and highly cultivated and educated. Now, Fielden and Parsons and Spies could not talk to those men by stating to them abstract principles of social science; but they told them: ‘Here, look at this state of things. There is a man who owns three hundred million dollars; there is another man who owns one hundred million. You starve, you get starvation wages. Is that a just condition of things? Now, I tell you, Mr. Marshall Field, who owns twenty-five millions of dollars, has no right to own them. I tell you, you have a right to take from the property which he has accumulated; part of it belongs to you. By natural, by equitable laws this man is not entitled to live in a palace while you starve. I am going to lead you down, if you want me, at once, and we will supply our wants from there.’ What is that? Is that an offer to go there? Is that an advice to go there? It is an illustration, as you give it in school to a child which cannot understand abstract principles of science. When they say to them: ‘You have a right to take from Marshall Field and Kellogg,’ that means simply in the present state of society that is allowed, but this is not a just and equitable condition of affairs, and if it were as it ought to be you would have a right to share with Marshall Field what he owns. Take it in this common-sense view and don’t allow yourselves to be deceived by declamations on the part of the attorneys for the State.
“Can a revolution be made? A revolution is a thing which develops itself, but no single man nor a dozen of men can control the inauguration of a revolution. The social revolution was fixed for the 1st of May! Just think of it! The social revolution, the revolution by which the present state of proprietary conditions should be changed all over the world, was to be inaugurated by Mr. Spies and by Mr. Parsons and Mr. Fielden on the first day of May! Has ever a ridiculous statement like that been made to an intelligent jury? But all that is told you not because they believe it, but because they want to make you blind to the real issues in this case, by telling you that the social revolution was coming on the 1st of May, and that Inspector Bonfield by his cry, ‘Fall in, fall in,’ on the night of May 4th, saved the country from the social revolution; by that they want to deceive you, they want to scare you, they want to show you the monstrosity of these defendants. The social revolution to be brought about or inaugurated by the throwing of a bomb on the night of May 4th! What do you take these men for? Are they fools? Are they children? Don’t you see what their ideal is, and the last aim and end of theirs? It is the social revolution, yes, but not the social revolution brought about by the throwing of dynamite. It is the social revolution which will give the poor man more rights and which will do away with pauperism. And the means are left to the future; but for the present, in order that you may be strong and respected and be a power in the land, arm yourselves, organize. That is the meaning of it.”
Mr. Zeisler then touched on the preparation of bombs and dynamite for that social revolution, referring to the evidence showing the finding of dynamite and bombs in the Arbeiter-Zeitung office. He held that Linnemeyer, who calcimined the closet in which the bag of dynamite was found, had proven that there was nothing of the kind there when he went in to search for a brush just immediately preceding the arrival of the police. He also pointed to a contradiction in the testimony of one of the officers that the dynamite was found on a floor below that of the closet, in a room not used by Spies and not occupied by him at the time of the police search, but in the counting-room, and then the subsequent correction by the officer, on being recalled by the State, that the package was found in Spies’ editorial room. In reference to the bombs there was no secrecy, and Spies admitted that he had one more bomb than the police had discovered. That information was volunteered on the witness-stand, and the possession of those bombs explained.
“That is the testimony in regard to the arsenal of dynamite and bombs and weapons of destruction at 107 Fifth Avenue, and Mr. Spies bragged about three thousand revolutionists ready to throw bombs and to annihilate the police. What was it? Braggadocio; the same object which all these people had in advocating the use of force, in calling upon workingmen to arm themselves, to organize, to buy weapons and all that sort of thing; and the purpose for which they did it openly and publicly was the same purpose Mr. Spies had in bragging that there were three thousand revolutionists—to scare the capitalists, to scare them into yielding to the demands of the workingmen, to try to induce them to make concessions to the laboring classes, as Mr. Fielden said in his speech on the night of May the 4th. And remember, gentlemen of the jury, that it has been testified to by all the witnesses who spoke in regard to the speeches and articles of these men, that they always made the same argument. Now, Mr. Fielden made the same argument a hundred times before. ‘The employers will not like to see dissatisfied workingmen in the community, and the laborer can get some relief if the employers find that there are dissatisfied workingmen in the city.’ That was the reason why they told them, ‘Arm yourselves and organize.’ That was the reason why Mr. Spies bragged about the three thousand revolutionists and about the bombs ready to be thrown; that was the reason why he told Mr. Wilkinson all about their plans.”
Mr. Zeisler ridiculed the idea that a social revolution was to have been inaugurated with the dozens of bombs made by Lingg, and held there had been no preparation for it. Coming to the question of conspiracy, he said:
“What is a conspiracy? What were you used to understand by the word conspiracy all your lifetime? Isn’t in the first place secrecy the test of a conspiracy? Was there anything secret about the doings of these men, or about their teachings and writings? When they vented their feelings at 54 West Lake Street at the meeting of the American group and told the people to go to Marshall Field’s and Kellogg’s, and offered to head the procession, told them about their rights, told them to use force, told them to arm themselves and to organize, the next morning the daily press of the city of Chicago, which reaches five hundred thousand people, and the State’s Attorney’s office, and the Mayor’s office, and the office of every authority in the city of Chicago, were informed of it.”
The speaker then proceeded to define conspiracy, and said that to constitute a conspiracy “they must agree with one another to do an unlawful act; one must have communicated the purpose to another, and the others must have consented to it.” Nothing of this kind had been done. They had simply propounded principles and expressed truths from their standpoint.
“You remember the testimony of Officer Trehorn, who saw the dynamite and the caps and the fuse on the night of the inauguration of the Board of Trade building, and who the next morning says he went to Lieutenant Bedell of the Cottage Grove Avenue Station and told him all about it. If that was a conspiracy, and that conspiracy has existed for three years, why has the State’s Attorney, or his predecessor in office, yet not prosecuted those who are parties to that conspiracy? The law of the State of Illinois makes it his duty to prosecute every crime which comes to his knowledge. He may plead that he has not known of it. If he did not, then it was culpable negligence that he did not know it. If he will answer to you that as long as those people did not do any overt act there was no reason for him to interfere, then I say as long as these people have not done any overt act there was no conspiracy. There is no way of escaping this consequence, gentlemen of the jury; to every logical mind it is clear. Either the State’s Attorney himself must plead guilty to the charge of the murder of Mathias J. Degan, or every one of these defendants who cannot be shown to have actually thrown or lighted the bomb must be acquitted. If it was not conspiracy then, if they had committed a crime up to the 4th of May for which it was the duty of the State’s Attorney to prosecute them, then what have they added to make their doings murder—to make them amenable to the law on a charge for the highest and gravest offense, the most heinous crime known to law?”
Mr. Zeisler next turned his attention to the special conspiracy entered into by a number of persons at No. 54 West Lake Street and held that of all the defendants it had only been shown that Engel and Fischer were present. He denied that Lingg was there or that any evidence had been introduced to prove it. He scored Waller and reviewed some of his testimony, taking occasion to call the attention of the jury to the fact that the man testified that the signal word “Ruhe” was not mentioned in connection with the Haymarket meeting. Next he alluded to the places where some of the witnesses for the State and some of those present at 54 West Lake Street had been on the night of May 4, and spoke of Engel being at home enjoying a social glass of beer, and the others widely scattered. “The only evidence of a conspiracy was that of Seliger, who testified that Lingg had asked him if he should throw a bomb. Fischer and others who saw the word ‘Ruhe’ in the Arbeiter-Zeitung did not go to Wicker Park, but went elsewhere. What does Waller’s testimony say? It says that on the appearance of the word ‘Ruhe’ all should go to their meeting-places in the outskirts of the city, and that none of them were to be at the Haymarket except the observation committee.”
“Has ‘Ruhe’ any reference to the Haymarket meeting? Does it not rather show that the parties who conspired there were not to take part in the Haymarket meeting at all? What, then, has the evidence in regard to that meeting got to do with the case? That much (illustrating by snapping the fingers).
“Now, to return for a moment to Lingg’s alleged attempt to throw a bomb. Has there ever been heard such a ridiculous story as that? It is an absolute falsehood upon its face. A revolutionist, a true disciple of Herr Most, goes out with bombs in his pocket, next to his friends, and takes a walk, and when he goes to the station and wants to throw a bomb into the station he isn’t even provided with a light to ignite the fuse; he has to ask his friend, ‘Have you got a light?’ And the other one says he hasn’t got it or makes some kind of excuse. Don’t you see that all that testimony is given in order to show you, or in order that Mr. Seliger may show himself to you as a highly moral person who has been the dupe of Lingg? He, the man who has been an Anarchist for years and years—and his wife herself says so—he has been persuaded by Lingg to make bombs, he has been misled by Lingg, has been the dupe of Lingg. Seliger, the man with a full beard (Seliger had a full beard at the time of the trial), a man of over thirty years, has been the dupe of this innocent-looking fellow, Lingg! If one was the dupe of the other, then Lingg surely was the dupe of Seliger. Seliger is the one who was arrested first. In order to save his own worthless neck, he betrays his friend and companion and swears against him, and upon the testimony of these treacherous lips you are asked to convict Lingg.”
Mr. Zeisler maintained that he had shown that there was no conspiracy, no general conspiracy, and insisted that the alleged conspiracy of May 3 had no reference whatever to the Haymarket meeting; that the throwing of the bomb at the Haymarket meeting was in direct contradiction of the agreement by the conspirators of May 3, and if one of them had done it, he would have done contrary to the conspiracy. He then spoke of the object of the Haymarket gathering and said:
“It was called for the purpose of denouncing the atrocious act of the police in shooting down their brethren at the McCormick factory. That was the only purpose of the meeting, as Mr. Waller testified. Of course his testimony is the one that the State relies upon mostly. Now, what was the occasion of calling such a meeting to denounce the act of the police? It was the meeting at McCormick’s factory.”
The counsel then reviewed the testimony with reference to the meeting near McCormick’s factory, pointing to the fact that no one had testified to what Spies had actually said on that occasion, and maintained that not a single witness had been produced to prove that Spies had then and there incited men to riot. Witnesses for the State, he said, had shown that Spies continued talking after many of the men had started toward McCormick’s factory. Did any one suppose he would thus quietly continue speaking there if he had precipitated that riot? Mr. Zeisler did not excuse the men for stoning the factory—it was wrong—but he did not believe that gave the right to the police to shoot at those excited people. Coming back to the Haymarket, he read some of the testimony on the side of the State to show that it was an ordinary, peaceable meeting, and then said that on the day Spies wrote the “Revenge” circular Parsons was on his way back from Cincinnati and Fielden in a suburban town in a quarry. He next proceeded to show that there was no connection with the printing of the “Revenge” circular and the Monday night meeting, and said Spies knew nothing about the call for that meeting. He closed by saying that the circular meant simply the same thing that Fielden and Parsons meant in their speeches on the evening of May 4, and that meaning, he said, he had made plain in the earlier part of his address.
MR. GEORGE C. INGHAM, special counsel for the State, followed next. His argument was clear, concise and to the point. He opened by citing the law in the case, reading numerous authorities with reference to conspiracies and commenting thereon at some length. One authority he read was “Russell on Crimes,” to show that it was simply putting in the shape of a statute that which the common law already declares to be an offense, and then cited a case which arose not many years ago upon that very statute:
“Johann Most, in the city of London, was indicted, because while there he published a paper advocating the assassination of the crowned heads of other countries. He was indicted under that statute, and he was convicted by a jury. The case went to their highest court, and I wish now to read you what the Justice of that court says as to what is meant by a solicitation to murder.”
The opinion of Lord Coleridge was read, and Mr. Ingham continued:
“You, gentlemen, will remember that that paper (Die Freiheit) is now published in the city of New York. The sentence is not given in the report I read. The custom is in England that before a sentence is pronounced, in case an appeal is taken, that is first passed upon, and after that the sentence is pronounced. That case was decided in 1881. Shortly after that John Most came to America. They probably thought the best thing they could do with him was to pass upon him a light sentence and ship him. At any rate they landed him here, and he started his Freiheit paper in New York.”
Mr. Ingham next read the case of Cox vs. The People, from the Illinois Reports, and continued:
“Now, apply the law which I have read to the facts of this case. It appears in evidence in this case from the documents which I have read to you that these men—Schwab, Fischer and Parsons—were from time to time in this city publishing articles printed in papers which they owned, for the publishing of which Spies paid, and which they declared to be their own, in which they advised the destruction of the police of this city by force, in which they advised workingmen from time to time to arm themselves with dynamite and be ready whenever a conflict came to destroy the police of this city by force. For the publication of any one of those articles, if the law had been correctly understood, those men could have been convicted and punished for a misdemeanor; and when on that night Fielden, in the presence of the crowd, told the people before him assembled that the war had come, that war had been declared, that they must arm themselves to resist what he knew never had taken place, he was making a seditious address, and for that reason, if for no other, the police force of this city had a right to appear and disperse the meeting.
“Fielden took the stand at the Haymarket, and until he concluded every sentence he uttered was a sentence seditious in its character, and which, under the decisions of the Supreme Court, would alone subject him to punishment for misdemeanor. A trap had been laid—Spies laid it; Schwab laid it; Fischer laid it; Engel laid it. A trap had been laid to bring out the police force of this city, and that trap was baited by the speeches of Parsons and Fielden. When the bait grew strong enough, the police did come. The moment they got there—the moment they stood opposite that alley, the moment their marching motion was stopped and they stood in that position where the bomb could be thrown with unerring certainty, the bomb came.
“Now, who made that bomb? You, gentlemen, have heard the evidence in this case, which is not disputed. I ask you, gentlemen, to remember that so far I have not alluded to a single fact about which there is or can be any dispute. It is uncontradicted in this case that Louis Lingg for months had been making bombs of a certain construction. It is uncontradicted that on the morning of Tuesday Louis Lingg said to Seliger that he must work hard all day; that the bombs would be needed and could be disposed of before night. It is in evidence in this case that on that morning Louis Lingg left that house and was gone all the morning, and nothing has been shown as to where he was. It is in evidence that he came back at noon, and because Seliger had filled only one bomb and had then laid down on the bed and gone to sleep, that Lingg upbraided him and told him that this matter must be hurried; and it is in evidence in this case that all that afternoon after that time men were coming and going to and from that house and working at that house on those bombs. Men came there whom Seliger knew; men came there whom Seliger did not know; men came there whom Mrs. Seliger knew; men came there whom Mrs. Seliger did not know. She tells you that during the whole of that day—Tuesday—men were coming and going to and from that house. What for? We put one man on the stand who went to that house in the afternoon—the witness Lehman. Lehman tells you that on Tuesday he was working at his trade; that he quit his work at three o’clock in the afternoon, instead of working until the afternoon was over; that he took a fellow-countryman of his, whose name I have forgotten, and with him went to Lingg’s house to buy a revolver; that they went to the house and dickered first about the revolver, and then went back again, and when he went back the second time Louis Lingg gave him dynamite—loaded bombs, fuse and detonating caps; that during the day Louis Lingg was distributing these bombs to different persons in the city.
“I want to call your attention to those bombs of Lingg’s—admitted to be his—bombs which he admitted to the officers that he himself made, and which were found where he had sent them. Every one of those bombs is about three inches in diameter, as nearly as they could be made with the rough material which he had. I want to call your attention to this bomb, called the ‘Czar’ bomb, obtained from Spies. That bomb in its appearance is composed of the same sort of material that Lingg’s bombs were. You can see that the only difference is in the bolts; that the bolt in the ‘Czar’ bomb was smaller than the bolt in the Lingg bomb. This bolt (exhibiting same) would not be large enough to fasten together the three-inch bombs; it would not quite reach through. Now, suppose that Louis Lingg had this bolt in his possession and wanted to make a bomb for it, what would he do? He would file off the edges here so as to make its diameter smaller. If you will look at this bomb called the ‘Czar’ bomb, you will see that that is just what has been done—the edges of it filed off, and it is just in the condition it was, with the exception of this scraping here, when the reporter Wilkinson got it. The result of that is that its diameter through here would be shorter (indicating) than the diameter across there (indicating). What else does that show? Of course, as this was filed off, it would lessen the diameter of the bomb, and when you measure this you will find that that only lacks the eighth of an inch of being the same size as the bombs found in Lingg’s possession. In other words, if that had not been filed off as it has been in order that this shorter bolt could be used, these bombs would be identical in size.
“What else is there in evidence in this case in regard to bolts? Seliger tells you that he was sent after bolts that day, that he bought a lot of bolts. They have been introduced in evidence. You, gentlemen, noticed it as soon as they were introduced in evidence, that the nut found in the body of the Socialist, and which came out of the bomb exploded at the Haymarket Square, is identically the same sort of a nut as those found on the bombs in Lingg’s possession on that day.
“We have placed on the stand the two most eminent chemists in the city of Chicago. Those gentlemen told you that they made examinations of pieces of this ‘Czar’ bomb which they took from it themselves; that they made examinations of pieces of the four bombs which came from Lingg, and that they examined certain articles found in Lingg’s possession. And what is the result? They told you that these bombs were not made of lead alone; that they were not lead and solder alone; that there is not in the city of Chicago or known to commerce any one article of which those bombs could be made, but that they are made of a mixture—not only the Lingg bombs, but the ‘Czar’ bomb. They tell you that three of the Lingg bombs and the ‘Czar’ bomb contained identically the same constituents, without any difference whatever so far as the constituents themselves are concerned, and the only difference is that between those bombs there was a slight difference in the amount of the tin and the amount of the lead. They told you that in the ‘Czar’ bomb one per cent. or one and one-tenth per cent. is tin; that in one of the Lingg bombs one and five-tenths per cent. was tin; that in another of them two per cent. was tin. The point of it is this: that every bomb was composed of a mixture and not of any one metal; that the mixture in the bombs was as nearly identical as it could be made by any man using the materials which Louis Lingg used, in the way in which he used them. You will remember that he told Capt. Schaack that he made these bombs with a mold made of clay; that he could only mold one or two bombs, when he had to make a new mold. If you will look on the inside of these bombs you will find that they were all made by a rough mold, just as you would expect from one made with a mold of clay; the only difference being that in the case of the ‘Czar’ bomb it had been filed off, as you can see, with a file, in order to smooth it.”
Mr. Ingham then read the testimony of Walter S. Haines, one of the chemists, and proceeded:
“One of these bombs which Louis Lingg admitted that he made differed from the others in that it contained a trace of copper. In the trunk of Louis Lingg was found this piece of metal, which he had undoubtedly used in making that particular bomb, and which accounts for the trace of copper in it, the point being that everything found in any one of those bombs was found in some shape in Louis Lingg’s trunk and possession.
“The answer to all this is that the bomb, instead of being thrown from the alley, was thrown thirty-five feet south of the alley. What of it? What if they have proven that? What if they have satisfied your minds clearly that the bomb came from thirty-five feet south of the alley? Can there be any question in the minds of any reasonable man that he who threw that bomb, whether he stood in the alley or thirty-five feet south of the alley, was one of the Anarchists associated with these men?
“When that question is settled in your minds, that ends this case. We have proven the conspiracy. It has not been denied. We have proven that Degan died from the effects of that bomb; it has not been denied. We have proven it by circumstances making it as clear as the daylight that that bomb was thrown by one of the Anarchists, and when we have done that we have proven this case—when we have done that we have sealed the fate of these men, if jurors do their duty under the law as it is written and declared.
“There was a conspiracy. These men know it and have not denied it. That bomb came from that conspiracy, and the moment it resulted in the death of Degan the crime of conspiracy was merged in the crime of murder, and every one of these men made amenable under the law.
“The meeting came; the crowd did not. The Haymarket was covered with little groups of people scattered around. Spies goes around and picks out the place for the meeting, and, although he knew that the word ‘Ruhe’ had been published, although he knew that these armed groups were scattered all over this city, although he knew that Balthasar Rau in an hour could not notify every man who knew of that plan, he himself called it to order in the very place where the police force could be massed together and the most enormous destruction done. He told Wilkinson that it was discovered that bombs of composite metals were best, and when on that fatal night the bomb was thrown seven men were killed and sixty wounded, and to-day in a public hospital of this county, while these men sit here decked with flowers, there is one man with eighteen drainage tubes in his body. Was Spies right when he said that bombs of composite metal were best?”
Chapter XXX
Foster and Black before the Jury—Making Anarchist History—The Eight Leaders—A Skillful Defense—Alibis All Around—The Whereabouts of the Conspirators—The “Peaceable Dispersion”—A Miscarriage of Revolutionary War—Average Anarchist Credibility—“A Man will Lie to Save his Life”—The Attack on Seliger—The Candy-man and the Bomb-thrower—Conflicting Testimony—A Philippic against Gilmer—The Liars of History—The Search for a Witness—The Man with the Missing Link—The Last Word for the Prisoners—Captain Black’s Theory—High Explosives and Civilization—The West Lake Street Meeting—Defensive Armament—Engel and his Beer—Hiding the Bombs—The Right of Revolution—Bonfield and Harrison—The Socialist of Judea.
MR. W. A. FOSTER was the next speaker, and he made a very strong case for his clients—the strongest that could be made in face of the many disadvantages under which he labored in view of the evidence against the Anarchists. He is a fluent, easy and graceful talker and held his facts well in hand. He began in a deliberate manner, and grew at times, as he proceeded, quite eloquent in his exposition of the virtues of the defendants. He was pointed and caustic sometimes, but he never seemed to lose the purpose of making a strong impression on the jury. The opening of his argument was largely devoted to showing that the Haymarket meeting was not riotous or boisterous, but that it had been called for a peaceable purpose. Then he said:
“Take the theory just suggested by the prosecution in this case, that the time had come now that was conceived of years and years ago; the time had come now which was suggested by August Spies at Grand Rapids, Michigan, the time had come now which was foreseen in conversation had with the various defendants to various newspaper reporters at various times and various places; the time had come now when the attack could be made that was to be incited by the McCormick meeting and the McCormick riot; the time had come now when by reason of the gathering of the laboring people at the Haymarket Square the attempt was to be made and the response was to be made effectual; now history was to be written, now the point had come when bowie knives, when sharpened files poisoned with acids, when all of these implements of modern warfare, as we are told, were to be turned loose upon the world; when property rights were to be destroyed, when the police were to be killed, when any one aiding, assisting, abetting, standing up for or protecting the law was to be ruthlessly slain. The time had come. The men were there, the arrangements had been perfected, the police were in line, halt was made, and they were commanded to disperse. The time, the grand culmination of all the arrangements and conspiracies and confederations for years back had arrived—the time when the blow was to be struck which was to overturn civilization, which was to overturn the country.
“These eight men are the leaders, they tell us. They tell us that there are hundreds more that ought to have been indicted, and should be indicted—should be prosecuted, and should be convicted, and should be destroyed. But the time had come, and the leaders and their friends, having been preparing for years, were ready. They courted the attack—they hailed the day. They had pleaded for the opportunity, and the opportunity had now arrived. Where are these men? Where are the men that were to take charge and carry on the warfare that had been agreed upon for the last five or six years, or longer, in the city of Chicago? Where were they? In the first place, Mr. Parsons and Mr. Fischer are at Zepf’s Hall. Think of it! For six long years they had been making their preparations for the attack; for days and weeks and months they had sown and preached revolution; the skirmish lines had met, and they were prepared; and still Parsons and Fischer were quietly discussing matters between themselves over a glass of beer at Zepf’s Hall. They were principals in this matter, leaders in the overthrowing of the Government and the establishment of this idea. They were at Zepf’s Hall, away from any scene of action. Where is Engel? Engel, the great conspirator—Engel, who made the inflammatory speeches at Clybourn Avenue? Quietly at home, engaged in a game of cards with his friend—not there at all. There is no man that pretends or claims that Mr. Engel, at the time the bomb was thrown, was at the Haymarket meeting or near it.
“Where was Schwab, one of the brainy men of this conspiracy, a man whose pen had added to its formation, whose genius and whose brain had been instrumental in bringing it about? An hour’s ride away, at Deering, addressing a quiet meeting of laboring men.
“Where was Neebe? Neebe, one of the leading conspirators, they tell us. He is one of the eight heads, one of the chiefs in the overthrow of the Government and of property rights, and he was quietly at home. Lingg, the man who has prepared the implements of warfare, the man who has taken the dynamite, who has prepared the shells and loaded them, has inserted the caps and the fuse and made all the preparations for the destruction of the police, for the destruction of the militia and for the destruction of property everywhere—where is Lingg? Wandering about upon Larrabee Street, in the neighborhood of Clybourn Avenue.
“Where is Spies and where is Fielden? Spies and Fielden, the only remaining ones of the eight, are upon the wagon, in the presence of line after line of the police, armed to the teeth, having not only the regulation revolvers in their coat-pockets, but those of larger caliber, in some instances, so far as some of the companies were concerned, in their belts. Those men were quietly standing upon the wagon, right in sight and within the aim of all of these murderous weapons, with the idea that an attack was to be made, with the idea and knowledge that an assault was to take place, with the idea and the knowledge that now the final blow was to strike which should carry terror to the hearts of the capitalists and overturn society and government. They were there, quietly arguing, arguing with the police in command there, that the meeting was peaceable.
“But they say, gentlemen, ‘Ruhe’ is a German word and means peace, quiet, rest; that because it means quiet, therefore—this is what they intend to have you believe—that because Fielden said, ‘This is a quiet meeting,’ or that it was peaceable, or, ‘We are peaceable,’ that that was the watchword which was to be an order in cipher to commence immediately an attack. Now, gentlemen, I say that this is, in my opinion, an unfair deduction; it is an unfair conclusion. The testimony all agrees that Captain Ward appeared there and said: ‘In the name of the people of the State of Illinois, I command you to quietly and peaceably disperse.’ That was the expression—‘I command you to peaceably disperse’—to which Mr. Fielden replied: ‘We are peaceable,’ or ‘This is a peaceable meeting, Captain.’ Could anything be more natural than that that reply should be made? Suppose, gentlemen, now, that the theory of the prosecution is right; suppose that it was the grand beginning of an uncertain end; suppose that it was the culmination of the idea that had existed for years. Do you believe that bombs would not have hailed from the top of every building? Do you believe they would not have been thrown from every sidewalk? Do you suppose they would not have been thrown from the rear and from the front? In the nature of things, can you, in the light of this testimony, say that because some man somewhere, on account of some reason, which is not explained here, which never can be explained, acting upon his own individual responsibility, lighted a bomb and threw it, that therefore you must say that the grand conspiracy, the arrangement for years and years had this result, or rather that the throwing of that bomb was the result of that conspiracy?
“But there is one thing the gentlemen have lost sight of in this case, it seems to me. Of course they haven’t, but in their argument they have carefully avoided it. A Socialist is not to be believed, a Communist is a liar, and an Anarchist is capable of committing any crime. That is what they tell us in plain language—that we have produced some witnesses here who are Socialists, Communists and Anarchists, and because we have done so, their testimony, for that reason alone, is to be discarded. Mr. Walker and Mr. Ingham both made reference to the character of some of our witnesses upon the theory and upon the ground that the evidence showed that they were Anarchists or Communists. Well, they were Anarchists, Socialists and Communists, some of them.
“Although the gentlemen claim that a conviction might exist, leaving out the testimony of Gilmer and of Thompson, they would never concede that under any circumstances a conviction could be had were it not for the testimony of Seliger and the testimony of Waller; they never would concede that, and did the gentlemen ever think, while they were presenting to you the case upon which they demanded a conviction, that the very witnesses that they proved the facts by upon which they ask you to hang these men are Socialists and Communists and Anarchists?
“Not only, then, are Waller and Seliger Communists, Socialists and Anarchists, but they are State’s witnesses, co-confederates and conspirators, men whose testimony is regarded with disfavor and with suspicion by the law.
“They tell us that a man will lie to save his life. Said Mr. Walker, ‘Do you believe Mr. Spies? Will he not lie to save his life?’ Then I retort the argument of the gentleman upon his own head and say, ‘Would not Seliger lie to save his own neck?’
“They take Mr. Seliger down and they examine him and they get his statement and they reduce it to writing. The detective force is turned loose upon him. His statement is not strong enough; that won’t do; it is not enough; still there are missing links. ‘Mr. Seliger, this statement won’t do; we want something stronger than that.’ I can imagine—I am not giving the testimony now, but I can imagine how those detectives would go to Seliger, carried away from his family as he was, shut up in a dark dungeon, kept there day after day—‘Now, Seliger, here are two propositions: here is a rope and here is a statement; choose between them.’ He chose the lesser of the two evils—the statement, as any man would, Mr. Walker says, to save his own life. He makes the statement. He goes away. I can imagine, I say, the conduct and the actions of the detective force as they ply him with questions from day to day. ‘It won’t do, Mr. Seliger, it won’t do. There are too many missing links. We want something more. Isn’t this so, isn’t that so? Didn’t this happen, didn’t that happen?’ And poor Seliger, frightened, weak-minded and timid, ignorant of the laws of this country, ignorant of the rights which American citizens have under the laws, sits down and makes the second statement. And still the thing goes on, still he is kept in confinement, still he is plied with questions, still he is examined and cross-examined: ‘Mr. Seliger, the first statement won’t do, and the second statement won’t do. Mr. Seliger, we want more from you than this.’ And, says Mr. Walker, ‘Won’t a man lie to save his life?’ And Mr. Seliger makes the third statement, and again he goes back to his dungeon, and after a while again they go to Seliger and they say to Seliger, ‘This won’t do. You have made a statement, you have made a second statement, you have made a third statement, but still there are missing links. Isn’t this so, isn’t that so?’ And, as Mr. Walker says, ‘Won’t any man lie to save his life?’ And the fourth statement is made by Seliger. And these statements are unrolled as he sits here quivering and trembling, knowing perhaps that he is destroying the lives of these eight men, his former friends and associates, and questions are pronounced after questions, and the testimony is introduced before you, gentlemen, from a Socialist, from a Communist, from an Anarchist, from a conspirator, and from a man that will lie to save his own life; and upon that testimony you are to act, and you are not to act upon any testimony introduced by the defendants in this case.
“You remember the candy-maker that was brought upon the stand by the merest accident. You remember the circumstance that when his name was called he responded from that corner of the room (indicating)—none of us had ever seen him; we didn’t know it, and I don’t to-day hardly know how we got any information in regard to the man at all. And when he came forward here you will remember that this case was delayed until Mr. Zeisler and myself took him into the other room to ascertain if possible why he was here and to what facts he was going to testify. He came upon the stand, and what does he tell you? He tells you that on the night of the 4th of May he was at the Haymarket. He tells you that he was south of the alley, and when it was rumored there that the police were coming he started with others down. He tells you that at the time he did not know how far it was south of the alley, but he knows from the location and from the surroundings, and that since then he has gone there with his tape-line and he has measured it, and that it is thirty-eight feet south of the south line of Crane’s alley. He tells you that as they were going down, when the police had come up he saw a man with this motion, indicating a backward and upward motion with the right hand—not with this motion that Frank Walker tells about—cast a burning fuse, as it went hissing through the air; that he followed it until it struck, that he looked at it until the whole country around about was illuminated by the explosion and policemen bit the dust.
“Is he a reliable man, gentlemen? Is there anything wrong in his character? If there was, why, as late as two weeks before the time that he testified, was Mr. Furthmann placing before him the picture of Rudolph Schnaubelt? If he was an unreliable man and they knew it, if they did not believe his statement because of his unreliability, why, I say, was Mr. Furthmann two weeks before—according to the testimony of the witness which Mr. Furthmann has not undertaken to gainsay or deny—presenting the photograph of Rudolph Schnaubelt to see whether he could identify that man as being the man who threw the bomb? If he was an unreliable man, he tells us where he has worked; he tells us where he has lived; he tells us who his associates are; he tells us all about it. If there is anything wrong, then Captain Schaack would turn loose his detectives and his police and in less than an hour’s time the character, the true character, the villainous character of the man would have been exhibited before you. But nothing of that kind is done. They ascertain the fact that he saw the bomb-thrower—they know that he saw the bomb-thrower—at least, they believe that he saw the bomb-thrower, and the question is, Who shall be used? Shall the candy-maker be used, or shall Gilmer be used? Which shall it be—the candy-man or Gilmer?
“Now, you will remember that the State was two weeks putting in their testimony, and you will remember that the defense was one week—a week and one day more. You will remember the testimony of this witness was that two weeks before that time, which was one week after the State began to introduce their testimony, Mr. Furthmann presented before his face the picture of Rudolph Schnaubelt and demanded to know whether he could recognize the picture as being the man who threw the bomb. I say then it seems, Mr. Gilmer to the contrary notwithstanding, that a week after they had commenced the introduction of their testimony it was still a doubtful, uncertain and mooted question as to where took place the throwing of that bomb, and into whose hands to place it.
“What does the candy-maker say? He says honestly to Mr. Furthmann: ‘I cannot recognize that man as being the man; I don’t believe that that man had whiskers; all I know is that I think he had a light mustache and I think he was an ordinary-sized man; that is all I know about him.’
“And, gentlemen, that is a reasonable story. Hurrying away as he was in that crowd, supposing that the police had come there for a purpose, seeing this thing take place and the disaster that resulted from it and the excitement incident to it, would we expect that he would know or would be able to see any more than that? He did not recognize Schnaubelt as being the man; he did not recognize Fischer as being present at the time the bomb was thrown; he did not recognize Spies as being the man who lighted the fuse, and the prosecution did not want him, and so they sent him back to the candy-shop in obscurity, and there intended that he should remain. They did not want him. Why didn’t they? They had found a conspiracy, they say, to use violence for certain illegal purposes. They had established the fact of murder; there was a missing link; that was what was troubling them, and that is what has troubled them from the beginning of this trial down to the present time—the missing link. Where is the man in all the face of God’s green earth, where is the man that can identify one of these men that we will show was in any conspiracy to do anything which we might criticise or object to, that is in any way responsible for what was done at the Haymarket that night? They must have the missing link, or else they must fail in this prosecution. The candy-man won’t furnish it. He tells his story, a consistent and reasonable story. They believe his story because they take him up and they exhibit to him the picture—‘Is that the man?’ Oh, if he had only said, ‘Yes, that is the man, that is the man that was in company with him,’ how quickly the candy-maker would have come before us as a witness. But no; the man said honestly, ‘I cannot do that; I was in a crowd in the darkness; I was in the bustle and the excitement; I cannot do that.’ They didn’t want him; they sent him home. And still there is a missing link. Who is going to furnish it?
“Gilmer comes proudly to the front. He says, ‘Rather than have the play stopped I will furnish the missing link.’ Gilmer—Harry L. Gilmer—the old soldier that they tell us about. I don’t believe it. I don’t believe he was ever in the army a day of his life, because I believe if he had been that my brother Grinnell, of all witnesses that had been called, would have asked him that very first question. Some of you gentlemen bear upon your breasts the emblem of the Grand Army of the Republic; some of you were in the war and marched at the peril of your lives under the stars and stripes, and you would delight in meeting a man, and delight in believing in his honor and integrity, if you believed that he was engaged in the common cause with you in those trying days; and still the shrewd counsel never asked the question. A veteran! Yes, a veteran of Battery D, a veteran of Chicago, of the Home Rangers, a man that never smelt burnt powder in his life perhaps—he is the veteran soldier that is lauded before you gentlemen in the argument of counsel who have addressed you on the part of the prosecution in this case.
“I undertake to say, gentlemen, that all history, ancient and modern, has given to the world three of the grandest, the most consummate and infernal liars that ever existed since Adam first was set in the Garden of Eden—three names prominently that we find in the history that we are making now, in modern history and in ancient, and in importance they stand in the order in which I name them. First of all, greater than all, above them all in infamy and falsehood, is Harry L. Gilmer; next to him comes M. M. Thompson, and third is Ananias of old, whose Christian name I never heard, if, in fact, he ever had one. All history, ransacked, will furnish no three such men as the three names that I have suggested.”
Mr. Foster then adverted to some points in the management of the case, and touched at some length on the fact that Gilmer had not testified before the grand jury. He proceeded as follows:
“Of all the testimony that has been introduced here, the testimony of Harry Gilmer is paramount. Bind the rest of it together in a sheaf, set it alongside of the testimony of Harry Gilmer, and it is as a molehill compared to a mountain, if the testimony of Harry Gilmer is true. If the testimony of Harry Gilmer is true, August Spies and Mr. Fischer must die. If you believe him, they must be swept from the face of the earth; and yet Mr. Grinnell, saying, ‘We have nothing to conceal and nothing to hide,’ forgets to tell you that he has the man who saw Mr. Spies, in the presence of Mr. Fischer, light the fuse which was thrown by Mr. Schnaubelt, and which destroyed Officer Degan. He never expected to prove it. If he did—if it is true that he expected to, and if it is true that he had nothing to conceal and nothing to hide, why, then, didn’t he say it? Why had it not been published broadcast to the land by these newspaper gentlemen? Why was it that Harry Gilmer’s face was not published and sent forth in every paper that is published in the land? Why was it that it was not said: ‘This is the man—this is the man who has the testimony within his knowledge which will show the connection and establish the link which fastens some of the defendants, at least, to the murder of Mathias J. Degan?’ Not a word—not a word upon the subject of Harry L. Gilmer, the veteran of the war, the old soldier, so eloquently discoursed upon by my brother Walker. Where was Gilmer then?
“I can imagine brother Grinnell, in his anxiety and his quandary in determining what course to pursue here, discussing with himself and his associates as to whether or not this case should be determined upon the testimony of Thompson alone, or Thompson and Gilmer mixed. It has been a serious consideration on the part of the gentlemen. There can’t be any doubt about that. But the honest man who says, ‘No, I can’t identify them,’ is sent home, and Harry Gilmer is brought to the front. He will identify Schnaubelt—oh, yes; no question about that. He will do more than that; he will identify Fischer—oh, yes; he will do more than that. Fischer may prove an alibi; they do not know whether Fischer was there, but there is one man that they do know was there, and that he was there all that time upon that wagon, and that was August Spies, and, if necessary, Harry Gilmer will identify Spies. Now, do you believe that, gentlemen? Do you believe that? And I do not charge my brother Grinnell with putting Harry Gilmer upon the stand knowing that he was swearing to a pack of lies. Not at all; I do not charge him with that. I charge him with placing no reliance upon the man at all. I say that, if Mr. Grinnell knew at the time he made his opening statement that Harry Gilmer was to come upon the stand and swear to that fact, he did not do his duty as a lawyer and he did not keep his pledge to the jury, and if he did not know it, it shows the absolute unreliability of the testimony of Mr. Gilmer.
“Now, I say to you, gentlemen, from all the surrounding circumstances in this case—I say that Harry L. Gilmer—and I stated to you the other day that I was not in the habit of calling witnesses liars; I preferred to present their testimony under the suspicion of mistake rather than the suspicion of falsehood—but I say as to Harry L. Gilmer that he is a stupendous, colossal, a monumental liar, and there is no escape from it. Now, just think of it for a moment. The world was excited; every daily paper in the universe published accounts—in Paris and in London, in Petersburg and Vienna, on the morning following the 4th of May, citizens read of the disaster of the Haymarket; the civilized world was shocked with the outrage that was perpetrated there. Where was Harry Gilmer, the man who could identify the man who threw the bomb, the man who could identify his companion, and the man who could identify the person who lit the fuse? Where was Harry Gilmer on the 5th day of May? He tells us he was in Crane’s alley the night of the 4th; he was there in the alley; he saw Spies; he says, ‘That is the man right over there; that is the man that threw it;’ he saw that man right over there—Spies—strike a match and light the fuse, and saw Fischer in his company. Schnaubelt threw it in the ranks of the policemen.
“There is the missing link, and if you believe that testimony as to two of these defendants, the chain is complete. Darwin is dead, but the missing link has been found. The man who furnished the missing link went home. The man that has seen this meandered through Crane’s alley and went quietly home to his roost, and he went to bed undisturbed. It is true he had seen the man who threw the bomb; he would know him anywhere. He would know him by his picture; he knows how many buttons of his coat were buttoned. He saw the man that stood by. He would know him anywhere. He knows what kind of clothing he had on and how many buttons he had buttoned of his clothes. He knew the kind of hat, the kind of clothes. He knew the man who lit the match, who touched the fuse that exploded the bomb that Schnaubelt threw. He knew him. He knew whether his coat was buttoned and how many buttons. He knew all about it—everything that every man in the universe demanded should be known by the officers of the law. And he went home and went to bed and never said a word to any living soul about it. And he got up in the morning, fresh upon his mind the fact of this great outrage that was perpetrated and that everybody was talking about everywhere—in restaurants, on the street and in street-cars—knowing that he was the man that could recognize them all—he goes and buys a paper on the street and sits down to read how terrible it was, goes into a restaurant and there sits, where men were conversing of the horror and of the outrage, and never opens his head in regard to knowing anything about it—not a word. Then he goes, after he has had his ‘meal,’ and gets upon the car—goes to the corner of Twenty-second Street and Wabash Avenue, and there he meets a friend, a brother painter, and they work all day, and from a third to half the time, as he states, they were painting together and lapping each other’s brushes as they painted upon the side of the building, and when noon came they sat down to discuss matters and talk, over their lunch. They speak, at times, about the Haymarket meeting and the great disaster, and he never tells his friend that he had seen the bomb thrown, or knew anything about it—not a word. The world was in flames, but Harry Gilmer was cool.”
Mr. Foster continued his attention to Gilmer at considerable length, making, however, no new points against him, and then proceeded:
“Now, Mr. Graham is not a Socialist. He is not a Communist nor an Anarchist. He is a reporter, and I say that he is an honorable man. His bearing showed it; his countenance indicated it; and the fact that he is not attacked nor impeached, nor one word said against him, either in argument or in testimony, in my mind establishes it.
“Well, that didn’t amount to very much. There are always knowing ones around, and Gilmer was one of them. He liked to loaf about police stations. He remembered the time when he was collecting the dog tax in Des Moines. He associated with men that wore uniforms, and he liked it. He wanted to ingratiate himself into their good opinions, and he says: ‘I believe I would know the fellow. I was there. I was right in plain sight, and I saw him light the fuse and I saw him toss the bomb. His back was to me, it is true, but I do believe I would know him.’ Ah! where was Fischer then? Where was ‘that man sitting over there,’ as Gilmer expresses it? Where was Spies and where was Fischer then? Well, they hadn’t developed at that stage of the proceeding, that is all. They were the afterbirth in his testimony.”
Mr. Foster went into a long and searching examination of the evidence, arguing out the more important facts developed, and closing with an eloquent appeal to the sympathies of the jury. His speech was effective and impressive.
On the next morning—Tuesday—Capt. Black began his argument for the defense, and was listened to by the jury with marked attention. He is a forcible speaker and dwelt upon the testimony favorable to his side with earnestness and emphasis. He traversed necessarily a good deal of the ground covered by his colleagues, but he clothed his argument in captivating language, and made a striking and effective appeal for his clients. The following will show the points he made:
“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 extraordinary proceedings which were taken in connection with this matter immediately 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 explain 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.
“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 immediate 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 Socialists; 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 beleaguered city. It has entered into modern warfare. We know from what has already transpired 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 manufactured 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 without question as to your purpose, 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 Socialistic devising. It may be that one or another, here and there, professing Socialistic tenets, has devised some improvements in their construction, 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 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 diplomacy sits where once force alone was intrenched. The moral responsibility for dynamite is not upon Socialism.”
Captain Black insisted that the sole question before 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 taking 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 judgment before God, disqualified him from sitting as an impartial juror in a criminal case. The application of this case to the attachés of the State’s Attorney’s office who had appeared before the jury was made the most of.
After going over the evidence as to the other conspirators Capt. Black came to the case against Fischer and Engel. He said:
“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 the manner indicated by Waller. I think I state it fairly to the State and fairly to the defendants themselves, when I say that the action then and there resolved 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 Department. 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 question 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? As then and there declared, it was simply to be a mass-meeting of workingmen 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 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 Monday night meeting proposed the calling of the Tuesday night meeting, if we take the testimony of the State itself, had no dream or expectation of violence, difficulty or contest on that eventful night. But before 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. Evidently there was no very clear idea that night what ‘Ruhe’ did mean, because Lingg saw it in the paper at eleven o’clock, and said: ‘That is a signal that we ought to be over at 54 West Lake Street.’ Waller finally, under close examination by the State, said the word ‘Ruhe’ 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 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 their respective places of meeting, and then, according to advices 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 night 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 contemplate murder? Not at all. When Fischer told Spies that the word ‘Ruhe’ 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 section never took place. There was no meeting of the Northwest Side groups; there was no meeting of any group pursuant to the word ‘Ruhe.’ 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 determine what action they should take in the line of offense. Does that make every man who was present at the Monday night meeting responsible for the throwing of the bomb? Not at all. Unless they are all responsible, it does not make Fischer and Engel responsible. Engel was not at the Tuesday night meeting. Fischer was there and went quietly away before the bomb was thrown. There was absolutely 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 occurrence 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 Engel said, while Waller was saying, ‘Let’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 revolution 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 possession.
“As to Lingg, he came from that republic sitting in the center 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 circumstances, for the Haymarket tragedy. The State put on the stand one man, Lehman, to whom he gave bombs. Did he tell Lehman to go to the Haymarket and use the bombs there? No. Lehman swears that he said: ‘You take these and put them in a safe place.’ And Lehman hid them where the officer, piloted by him, found them. Does that prove that Lingg sent a bomb to the Haymarket for the purpose 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 meetings 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 responsible 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 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 used? He could not have known it, because the testimony is incontrovertible 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 independent 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, bargains 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 scatheless! Ah! gentlemen, what a mockery of justice is this.”
Proceeding to discuss the Haymarket meeting, he held that 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. Capt. 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 the great struggle. It had been charged against these men that they were guilty of misdemeanors for holding meetings, and they had been prosecuted for crimes. Before the Constitution could receive the approbation of the States, it had been necessary that the amendment providing that no laws should be passed by Congress abridging free speech should be inserted. Such a provision had been incorporated in the first Constitution of Illinois in 1818, and renewed in the subsequent Constitutions of 1848 and 1870. The Haymarket meeting had been 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.
“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 his men to fall in for that death march. Who is responsible for it? Who precipitated that conflict? 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 dynamite 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 Christ 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 ace 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.’”
Chapter XXXI
Grinnell’s Closing Argument—One Step from Republicanism to Anarchy—A Fair Trial—The Law in the Case—The Detective Work—Gilmer and his Evidence—“We Knew all the Facts”—Treason and Murder—Arming the Anarchists—The Toy-shop Purchases—The Pinkerton Reports—“A Lot of Snakes”—The Meaning of the Black Flag—Symbols of the Social Revolution—The Daily News Interviews—Spies the “Second Washington”—The Rights of “Scabs”—The Chase into the River—Inflaming the Workingmen—The “Revenge” Lie—The Meeting at the Arbeiter-Zeitung Office—A Curious Fact about the Speakers at the Haymarket—The Invitation to Spies—Balthasar Rau and the Prisoners—Harrison at the Haymarket—The Significance of Fielden’s Wound—Witnesses’ Inconsistencies—The Omnipresent Parsons—The Meaning of the Manuscript Find—Standing between the Living and the Dead.
STATE’S ATTORNEY GRINNELL took Wednesday and a part of Thursday in which to deliver his argument. He indulged in no flights of oratory, but presented a review of the case at once able, convincing and unassailable. He began as follows:
“I said to you in the opening, gentlemen, that in this country, above all countries in the world, is Anarchy possible. In my investigations of this case, in my conduct with it, with my knowledge of my own country and the freedom we enjoy and possess, I have been led to conclude that that is true. In those strong European governments, where there is monarchical or strongly centralized government, they strangle Anarchy or ship it here. Everybody comes to our climate; everybody reaches our shores; our freedom is great—and it should never be abridged—and here with that freedom, with that great enjoyment of liberty to all men, they seek to obtain their end by Anarchy, which in other countries is impossible. As I said, there is one step from republicanism to Anarchy. Let us never take that step, and, gentlemen, the responsibility which has devolved upon you in this case is greater than any jury in the history of the world ever undertook. This is no slight or mean duty that you are called upon to perform. You are to say whether that step shall be taken.
“When the Haymarket tragedy occurred, the spontaneous declaration by every honest, every law-abiding man and woman in this city was: ‘An outrage has been perpetrated; a great crime has been committed; but let there be a cool, unimpassioned trial and let the guilty suffer. Then and not till then.’ That has been the sentiment of every newspaper in this city from which counsel sought to make you believe by quotations there had been something said to the contrary. The little extracts and abstracts that have been clipped from the newspapers that they have talked to you about are such extracts as met the disapproval of the newspapers. And even as to what Capt. Black referred to the other day in your hearing and which Foster elaborated to you, something that some crank has written to the Inter-Ocean as to what should be done with these defendants, horrifying you by the recital as he did—what does the newspaper say? That the man who wrote it was as bad as an Anarchist; that we are here to maintain the law, not break it. And that can be said of every newspaper in this city. There never has been in the history of America, in the world, such unanimity of sentiment as has prevailed through the length and breadth of this country, not only as to the crime itself and the perpetrators, but as to the perpetrators having a fair trial. And why, especially, has there been so much talk about a fair trial in this case? Because every honest, country-loving American citizen knew that his country’s life was at stake, and the only thing to do was to demonstrate the strength of the law by a fair trial, which the defendants have had.”
Mr. Grinnell at this point went into a very lengthy discussion of the law in the case. He showed conclusively that in a conspiracy the men who had advised and abetted the commission of the crime were fully as guilty as the man who had actually made himself the instrument of their deed. Inasmuch as the instructions given by the court to the jury are really a concise and complete statement of the points of law which Mr. Grinnell and the other attorneys for the State urged, I have taken the liberty to omit that part of the address.
Coming to the facts in the case, Mr. Grinnell, in his examination of the attempt made by the defense to impeach Gilmer’s testimony, said:
“A few days, gentlemen, after the Haymarket riot, for a whole week, as is plain from the testimony in this case, and from Captain Schaack, there was not the least particle of knowledge or a suspicion, great as had been the crime that was committed there—there was not a suspicion that it was any farther-reaching than the result of these repeated inflammatory speeches which our city had listened to for years. But the magnificent efforts of Schaack, without my knowledge at that time, got the leading-string which led to the conspiracy. Then it was, for the first time, that we knew of Schnaubelt, or that we knew or suspected that a conspiracy existed at all. I confess here, gentlemen, a weakness; because, whatever may be the instincts of the prosecutor, as they say, I have not been so long in this office as to be callous to human sentiments and to humanity, and I have not yet become so hardened that I believe everybody accused of a crime is guilty. I hope in the prosecution of my duty, and in this office, that that time will never come. When we had Spies under arrest, I confess to you that then, and after it was developed that a conspiracy existed—I confess the weakness—that I did not suppose that a man living in our community would enter into a conspiracy so hellish and damnable as the proof showed, and our investigations subsequently showed, he had entered into; and therefore, notwithstanding Gilmer’s statement to us so frequently, Spies was not shown to him and not identified.
“Honesty of purpose is the only thing that will determine, in every way, the right from the wrong.
“It may sound to you a little out of place for me to say here that the only mistake I have made—the only mistake that has been pointed out to you that I have made—and I frankly confess it was a mistake—was the suggestion in my opening about the bomb-thrower. We knew the facts. There was no law compelling me to make any statement. I might have proceeded with the proof, if I desired, without any opening statement. I did make an opening. I undertook to make it fairly and frankly and broad. I was afraid of wearying you, as I was weary myself, from the days and days that we had been working here in getting a jury, and the anxiety under which I labored. I said in that opening that we would show to you who threw that bomb. I said in that opening that we would show that the man left the wagon, lighted the match and threw the bomb. That was not absolutely correct. I should have said that the man who came from the wagon, assisted the bomb-thrower, as the proof shows, and who we knew came from the wagon, was in that group, and that the bomb was thrown by a man whom we would show to you.
“Gentlemen, let me proceed, as fast as I can, in the discussion of another branch of this case. The gentlemen upon the other side have said to you deliberately, for the purpose of gaining some favor in your eyes for their clients, that this is a plain, simple case of murder, and that we have no right to discuss anything or talk about anything except that which occurred at the Haymarket meeting. They read some law to you, yesterday, upon that proposition. It was inapplicable, and was manifestly so. There never was a murder committed in the world, be it treasonable murder or the murder for mere gain, but what the trial of the perpetrator meant an investigation of the life of the man who committed the murder. What had been his utterances? What has he said? Has he threatened life? Has he talked against a system represented by police? Has he advised the use of dynamite? Has he advised the use of poison? Has he advised the use of the pistol, the rifle, the musket, to accomplish his end? Those are legitimate sources of investigation. And further than that, as the gentlemen well know, you can go back in those declarations for years and years, and there is no statute of limitation against threats, when a repeated threat results in the deed threatened.
“On the lake front, at the different halls in the city of Chicago, at these Communistic or Socialistic halls, as the gentlemen called them—they are Anarchistic halls; don’t let us have any mistake about names and titles—in all these months and years there has been openly preached to the citizens of this city treason and murder by these defendants. Why? To bring about a social revolution. And these humanitarians, these God-like men, these defendants who have the similitude of Christ—peace—have openly talked murder in our streets. I think it ought to have been stopped before. I think when they made the utterance from the lake front, or any other spot in the city of Chicago, that they should have been snatched by policemen and taken to the station and fined for disorderly conduct, as that would be as far as they could go, except under the common-law rule which provides that if they had advised murder then they could have been punished for such advice. We know more law to-day than we did—I do, I am very glad to say.”
Following this, Mr. Grinnell took up the case against each of the conspirators as follows:
“Why was Engel preparing for the purchase of a large amount of arms? That has not been disputed. There is testimony in this case that Engel not later than last winter, and perhaps in the spring, negotiated for a large amount of arms, with his daughter present. His daughter has not been placed upon the stand to deny that fact. Why? He was not a dealer in arms. It could have been denied if not true. He is a keeper of a toy-store, it appears, over on Milwaukee Avenue. These belligerent humanitarians, these men whom Black would have you surround and cover with garlands—these are the men that we have demonstrated before you have been buying arms and preparing for years for something. Why was it that Parsons at another place, no later than last winter, or late in the fall, also negotiated for a large amount of arms? Has he denied it? He has been on the witness-stand. Why did he negotiate for arms? For humanitarian purposes? Why, gentlemen, to dispose of the bloodhounds, the police, the capitalists. That has been their cry. Their cry on the lake front and everywhere has been that same treasonable, infamous cry. Is that the only place they have spoken? Their halls are all over the city. Look at the testimony of Johnson, the detective, on that subject. The only testimony against Johnson, the only syllable in this proof against Pinkerton’s detective who is called Johnson, or Jansen, is Foster’s—that is all, except that Fielden said, as I remember, that the man O’Brien, in whose presence Johnson said Fielden made the remark about a little dynamite in his pocket, was not here, and that therefore he did not say it. Why, Fielden had been saying it for years—he had been talking it day after day and Sunday after Sunday on the lake shore.
“He had been talking it year in and year out. He had been speaking for dynamite and demanding its use by the workingmen, and advising them to arm themselves with it for months and years. Foster said that Johnson is not to be believed because he is a detective, and he delivered a very pleasant lecture on that subject. I presume he has delivered it in every important trial that he has ever been in. It is the ordinary language, the usual philippic against detectives, I suppose. I never saw a detective on the witness-stand that commended himself so favorably to the honest consideration of any listener as did Johnson. And after he had withstood that severe, critical and exasperating cross-examination of Foster, he still stood there a monument of strength to the truth which he had uttered. He had said nothing, gentlemen, but what had been in the public press for years about these utterances; and they have not denied a single syllable of his testimony. I suppose then, gentlemen, from that follows another proposition—that we, in the city of Chicago and elsewhere, must suffer murder, must be robbed, our friends killed, our houses invaded, law set at defiance, because it would be unfortunate to have anybody convicted who was guilty on the testimony of the detective. Foster said there never was any great murder trial in the world but what there is a detective in it. That may be so. The peculiarity of this murder trial and the detective is this—that this report was made from day to day by the detective to his principals, and by them to citizens, long before this murder. The detective that Foster pictures is the one who after the act goes back to make up a case. This was making the case without thinking that it would ever take place, and the actual written statements made by him from night to night and from day to day were here in court; and if they were not, the fact has not been denied, and these men have been on the stand. Why didn’t they deny it? Did any of them deny the existence of the armed group and the marching backward and forward and the explanation of the dynamite cans at Greif’s Hall? No; none of them denied it. They would have denied it if it had not been so absolutely strong in its proof. The written evidence, the handwriting on the wall, was against these men.
“But, not content, these revolutionists, these traitors, these men who have committed treason—I thank again the gentleman for the word—these men who have committed treason are not content with confining their power and influence to the small limits of Cook County, but Spies goes to Grand Rapids and there gives utterance to these same treasonable sentences; and there is no doubt that other proselytes of the humanitarian crowd were at other places in the country doing the same thing. It seems that Parsons was at Cincinnati Sunday or Saturday before the Haymarket difficulty. Was he down there for the same purpose that Spies was at Grand Rapids? And at Grand Rapids, what did Spies say? He said that the social revolution must come, would come when there were great numbers of laboring men out of employment, and foreshadowed the difficulties in the ensuing year, in 1886. The great things that he was to accomplish then were foreshadowed. ‘But,’ said Moulton to him,—the other witness heard the conversation,—‘they will strangle you like a lot of snakes. It will be murder.’ ‘Oh no; oh no. No murder about this. We are humanitarians. No murder. We will succeed. It will be revolution, and I, great Spies, will be the second Washington of America.’ The second Washington of America! ‘But if you fail?’ says Moulton. ‘Of course, if we fail, that is another thing; but we ain’t going to fail.’ ‘Why?’ ‘Because hundreds of thousands of laboring men will be out of employment all over the United States, and they have the power.’ That is the friend of the laboring man, the Anarchist and friend of the laboring man, advocating the destruction of property to advance the interests of the laboring man. It would be a great benefit to me, with the very little property that I have, to have it destroyed; it would enrich me so at once!
“But that is not all—and there has been no dispute about that interview with Moulton, not a syllable of dispute about that interview from any source. Counsel did not even undertake to cross-examine Moulton. His intelligence was such, he was so clear-headed and concise in what he uttered, that they dropped him. What was all this for? That meant preparation and threats toward what? Toward murder, the social revolution—and it was murder. That is why this is competent evidence. That is why the utterances of these men are material and necessary. That is why the proof is overpowering.
“There is no use in my giving you the details of these speeches from day to day. They have made indignant every man who has listened to them or read them. They have caused other things—they have caused bloodshed and riot.
“Foster says to you that there is no difficulty about the black flag; that that is a flag they use over in Europe to march around with, showing their humanitarian desires, or that they are hungry—that that is what it means. It does not mean that here. They were going to march down Michigan Avenue under the black flag and strike terror to the hearts of the capitalists. Didn’t Fielden and Spies and Parsons and all that gang understand that when the valiant crowd would march up Michigan Avenue under the black flag, it meant death, no quarter, piracy?
“But that is not all. The Board of Trade meeting occurs, and there the black flag and the red flag were carried. The article has been read to you, and it is unnecessary to go into that again. And there they say that that meeting was copiously supplied with nitro-glycerine pills, or something of that kind. They did not get at the Board of Trade, but had to march clear around it, within a block of it, and then vented their spite—aroused by their difficulties, vented their spite in speeches from the_ Arbeiter-Zeitung_ office that night, commending their valorous deeds and acts, only saying that they were preparing for them, declaring: ‘We will wait for some other time, when we are ready for the police.’ They did not expect any police that night. They thought they would march right down. The police began to wake up.
“Gentlemen, the red flag has passed in our streets enough. At that meeting which they comment so much upon in the Alarm and the Arbeiter-Zeitung, representing its peculiarities, its honor, and its humanitarian influences, they suggest that the red flag that was carried there, and carried by women, that it is the flag of universal liberty, and it is so described here on the witness-stand. Ah, gentlemen, there is but one flag of liberty in this land, and that is the stars and stripes. That flag is planted on our soil, and planted to stay, if you have the courage to carry out the law. It is a plant of liberty.
The blades of heroes fence it round; Where’er it springs is holy ground. From tower and dome its glories spread; It waves where lonely sentries tread.
It makes the land as ocean free, And plants an empire on the sea— Always the banner of the free, The starry flower of liberty.
“That is the flag that these men want to wipe out and supplant with the black and the red. No wonder those flags over there (indicating flags offered in evidence) disturbed Foster. He is an American citizen, not tinctured or tainted with any of the Anarchy of his clients.
“There is one other suggestion I want to make to you in this connection. I wish to hurry along and be as brief as possible. As has been said to you by counsel, the case in its magnitude and scope is so great that no one man can cover it. Some branches of this case, and nearly all, have been well covered by Mr. Walker and Mr. Ingham, who preceded me. But there is one forcible suggestion brought to my attention by Mr. Ingham, and I wish to again ask: Why all these threats? Why all this talk? Why so many threats of murder, outside of the question of the desire to accomplish that end? Ah! gentlemen, it is so that the revolution could more easily take place by causing terror in your hearts and my heart. That is what it meant: causing terror in the heart of every American citizen, and thereby making more easy the accomplishment of that which they desire and preach. Why all these armed groups, scattered throughout and operating in the city of Chicago, as they all say, as Most explains in his book, as Spies explains and as Parsons and all in their speeches explain? Why this network of groups? It was the nucleus, the foundation from which that social revolution was to spring, and these armed men were to do their part of the duty. There was a desire to strike terror—that is the watchword—to strike terror to the hearts of the capitalists and their minions, the bloodhounds of the police. That is what it meant. Threaten life—specific in one direction—and threaten the peaceful citizens and the law-abiding citizens on the other hand, so that they would throw up both hands at once, and let it go on. That was their scheme. Why? Because these men, in their craven spirit, supposed that one hundred thousand honest laboring men in this town would at once wheel in behind the ranks of the three thousand and mow down everybody else. Lingg, who told Capt. Schaack of all the bombs, not admitting that he had made the bomb that killed Degan, admitted and told Schaack that they were pills and medicine for the police and capitalists.
“They were not the friends of the laboring man, although they were always talking about that in public—such wonderful friends of the laboring man! Gentlemen, they wanted to kill the system. They said they wanted to kill the system, and on the witness-stand here they said that on that night of the Haymarket massacre they meant the system. What system? The system of law. They have no malice in their hearts against the seven officers—Oh! no. They did not know them. It was not the seven officers, as persons, they desired to kill; but they desired to kill the officers, and all of them, in order to kill the system—the system of law.
“Besides the frequent declarations that have been proven here as to the designs of these men foolishly and dishonestly to represent themselves as the friends of the laboring man, they have said in their writings, and they have preached on the stump, that the eight-hour movement, as a movement, would not help the laboring man. And why? Because the laboring man must have Anarchy—must have what other people have got in the way of property, as they have defined in their ideas of property. Black calls that a theory.
“Declarations threatening dynamite were made in our midst for the purpose of terrorizing the people, and causing them to believe that these men were more powerful than they were, and thereby causing the laboring man to come to their ranks. It was a bid for the laboring man—that is what it was, and that is why Wilkinson’s interview was so easily obtained. Wilkinson interviewed these men, and published in the Daily News] of the 14th day of January, 1886, his interview with Spies as to the purposes and objects of the revolutionists and Anarchists in the city of Chicago. What did he say? He told about the bombs, the dynamite, their preparation, their network of groups, their thousands of armed men in the city of Chicago, their drilling from day to day or week to week. He gave him a sample of a bomb, and told him further that the Arbeiter-Zeitung office was a place for the distribution of bombs in the city of Chicago, and upon his own testimony it appears that he received bombs, as Mr. Ingham has explained to you, from one part of the country; and then samples were brought in—two more, of which the one here presented and called the Czar bomb was one.
“And now, why did he do all that? Why did this foolish man do that? They want you to acquit him because he is foolish. Why did this foolish man do all that? Gentlemen, the answer is plain and simple. First, vanity—the second Washington of this country! God save the memory of the father of our country.
“Another thing, he wanted to demonstrate through the public press to the one hundred thousand honest laborers in Chicago that Anarchy had come. That is what he wanted. That is why it was advertised. That is why he so flippantly discussed open secrets in that way. He wanted the laboring man to follow in the wake of the despoilers of our country, the Anarchists. Yes, and fearing that such talk in the newspapers would scare some of his conspirators and co-workers in evil, he goes to Fielden when they were having a meeting at Greif’s Hall a day or two after, and says to him, ‘Go light on that interview among our companions; they may be scared off.’ He was obliged to hedge among his companions to keep them in control, and by his vaporings, as they call it, seek to pull to them the one hundred thousand laborers in this town. If there had been a possibility of the accomplishment of his designs, what would we have done in this city with one hundred thousand men let loose? Parsons says he was a Knight of Labor. His very paper abuses Powderly, the genius and inspiration of the Knights of Labor in this country. Their honest leaders in this country are men who are opposed to Anarchy, and in the organization of the Knights of Labor, gentlemen, the one element in it to-day which is dangerous to it and the rights of the laboring man is the very element of Anarchy—dangerous wherever it is.
“Parsons was buying arms, negotiating for them; Engel was negotiating for them; Lingg was making bombs; Fischer was doing the work of Spies in the promulgation of their ideas; Fielden was making speeches preparing the public; Parsons, in his humanitarian designs against his own country, where his fathers were born and lived—he was writing and speaking for the social revolution and against all law, as was Schwab and Spies, and it was to take place the 1st of May, 1886. Gentlemen, as I said in the opening, I say again, Spies appeared at the McCormick meeting for the purpose of inflaming that crowd to the highest intensity, as expressed in their editorials—to the highest pitch of excitement—appeared at that crowd and spoke. It appears from his own lips, and appears in proof here, that before he spoke there had been no riot; that while he was speaking the rioting occurred and the difficulty was precipitated. I take, gentlemen, his explanation, given by himself, written that night, as the full explanation. He in that article says: ‘If there had been one dynamite bomb.’ Think of the horror! It makes one’s blood run cold—these men deliberating with such infamy the destruction of life and property in a country which has freedom for its basis and freedom for its glory, and talking riot and bloodshed.
“I am not going to discuss further that McCormick meeting, except to make this suggestion that seems to have been omitted. It is in regard to the ‘Revenge’ circular. I say, gentlemen, that the basis of the ‘Revenge’ circular is a lie, premeditated, deliberate, infamous, and is the key-note to the situation.
“McCormick had some laboring men—it is the high privilege, the great and high privilege of the defendants in this case to call them ‘scabs.’ We will call them ‘scabs.’ They were working at McCormick’s for their honest daily bread. They had no fight with the world. They were seeking their subsistence by daily toil. They had rights which every man should respect; they had the right to peaceful employment, of coming and going to their labor as they saw fit. They came out of that great factory, only a moment before teeming with the busy throb of life, to be set upon, attacked and murdered by the strikers whom defendant Spies was speaking to. Who there was entitled to protection, gentlemen? Was it the duty of the police to protect the ‘scabs,’ or the six thousand, part of whom began the riot? The time that the attack occurred, gentlemen, there were only two policemen on the ground. Those two policemen that came out of McCormick’s factory nearly lost their lives; one of them was stoned nearly to death; secured himself in a patrol box, which was afterwards pulled down, and all for what? Because a few ‘scabs’ coming out of McCormick’s on their way to their homes and their families had been attacked by the mob which Spies was addressing and instigating. The two policemen called a patrol wagon in order, as was their right and duty, to protect the property of McCormick, the lives of the ‘scabs’ who swam the river, and the lives of the two officers who were there then. He calls such protection of a few ‘scabs’ against this army of strikers which he sought to inflame—and did not entirely succeed—calls that transaction the bloodhounds of the police wickedly shooting down your friends. It was a lie. The police were there in honored duty, protecting life and property, and the mob began the fight, and not the police. Not only has Spies declared in that circular that men were killed who were not, but that men were injured who were not hurt; not only that, but, pervading it, the whole of it, is a lie, and the purpose of that lie was to inflame the laboring men. He rushed down to his office and wrote that circular, as he says, ‘with his blood boiling against the outrages of the police.’ Poor bloodhounds of the police, who had undertaken to protect the lives of a few people, and McCormick, who is unfortunate enough to own more property than perhaps any of us—to protect his property from being stoned, and his premises pillaged, and his men murdered. He writes the ‘Revenge’ circular and prepares for war.
“They had prepared, before the McCormick meeting, for this difficulty. At Emma Street, on Sunday, was a conspiracy meeting of these infamous scoundrels, and among them was Fischer, seeking our lives—seeking the destruction of the law. They agreed upon the plan—they agreed upon ‘Ruhe’—they agreed that the meeting of the armed men should be called for Tuesday night. It is in the history of this conspiracy that the first meeting on that Sunday contemplated the difficulties at McCormick’s. Where is this Thielen? Where is this German friend—this comrade? He was down there with Comrade Spies, on the top of that car, and their intention was to do that which was done—to excite that mob. That was the preliminary step in this conspiracy to the open infraction of law. The general conspiracy had been going along for weeks, perhaps for months; it may be for years. But the details of the conspiracy were arranged at the Emma Street meeting. Then comes the McCormick meeting, the inflaming of the workingmen, and then what? The production of the ‘Revenge’ circular, to still more incite them. The armed men meet at that Emma Street place, where the Northwest Side group meet—the group that the worst Anarchists in the city belong to—at that Emma Street meeting it was discussed, talked about and suggested, and at that meeting it was arranged and talked about as to where and how the fighting should be done when the contest came. How was it to be done? One man suggested that they should go into the crowd themselves, and begin killing then and there. Another says: ‘That won’t do; we may come in contact with the policemen or a detective and our lives’—yes, their precious lives—‘might be at stake.’ That plan was rejected—that part of it. And another thing you will remember: that it was settled that the meeting should not be on the Market Square, down here on the South Side, because ‘it was a mouse trap,’ because the power of the police, the militia and everything of that character was such that it was impossible to get out of the way, at Market Square, if the contest came. Courageous men!
“After Spies had written that circular, after he had had it printed, where does it appear? He has it sent over to the printer by a boy; and that circular, printed by him, ordered by him, is distributed broadcast through the city, by whose order? By Spies’. It is another significant fact, gentlemen, that it appears at every meeting almost simultaneously with the conspiracy meeting; as I remember, brought there either by Fischer or Balthasar Rau—that I would not be sure of; but it appears almost like the wind in all parts of the city, distributed from horseback, and it never could have been distributed if it had not been done at the order of the arch-conspirator of all, August Spies. That circular was intended to inflame; it did inflame. It inflamed people throughout the city who read it; it was a lie. They could not know that. The police had not committed the outrages, but the mob had. There had not been that number killed nor wounded. They could not know that. Their apostle, the individual who has been their leader, had said, ‘To arms!’ Some answer, ‘We will.’ That is Anarchy. Gentlemen, it is unnecessary for me to go over step by step that conspiracy. It is established here so that it never can be moved. Mr. Ingham and Mr. Walker went over the ground thoroughly and completely. The defense has seen fit to let it alone. The conspiracy was established, and all the defendants show themselves as coming into it. Isn’t it significant that on Tuesday, on Tuesday morning, between nine and ten, as I understand, Parsons appeared from Cincinnati? What does he do? He rushes straight to the Daily News office before eleven o’clock, and inserts a notice for the American group to meet at the Arbeiter-Zeitung office, where it never had met before. For what purpose? For the purpose of ‘important business.’ If that had been an honest desire to have the important business for the purpose of arranging the sewing girls and their employment, or making a union among the sewing girls, as they now claim, why didn’t he say so? Before eleven o’clock Parsons appears and has this article inserted. Why? So that the main head centers of the conspiracy could be readily reached when the contest came ‘to its highest intensity’ at the Haymarket. Not another day in the whole history of this organization has the American group ever met at Fifth Avenue. Why didn’t it meet over at the other place, at Greif’s Hall, where it always met? That would not do, because there were meetings there, conspiracy meetings and everything else. Whom else do we find here at this Arbeiter-Zeitung office? Schwab. What for? He was not a member of the American group? What was he there for? He was there, too, for that purpose. He had been talking and writing, as has been read to you, about Anarchy and bloodshed and dynamite and rifles, and he appears at the Arbeiter-Zeitung office for the first time, when the American group meets; never was there with them before, so far as this proof shows.
“Fischer seeks to obtain this circular printed; that is his part of the programme; he goes out—there is no dispute about these facts—he goes out of the meeting and finds the printing-office closed. He waits until the next morning. Now, this man is a printer; he is the friend of Spies; he went from Spies when the circular was printed; he was in the meeting at which the circular was distributed; he knows, as a matter of fact, that Spies wrote that circular, ‘Workingmen, to arms.’ Spies is his general, his boss and chief, and the arch-conspirator. He says, ‘Workingmen, to arms!’ What does Fischer say? Why, he says: ‘Workingmen, to arms,’ in his circular, and adds: ‘Come in full force,’ and it appears the next morning.
“Now the circular was circulated. Who was invited to speak, gentlemen? No one. Why? Because they knew that if twenty-five thousand laboring men appeared at that meeting that night in the inflamed condition of this town with the results following the McCormick meeting—they knew that it was the bounden duty of the police to tell those men to go home. It is in proof in this case that they expected twenty-five thousand laboring men there. They would not need a speaker. If there was no speaker, then there would be tumult and crowding and jostling. Fights might occur, difficulties be precipitated, and the police inevitably would have to come. How do I know that no speakers were invited? Spies said that Fischer invited him. From brother Foster’s remarks I conclude that he has been on the stump a good many years out in Iowa. I venture to say he never went to a public meeting in his life, where he addressed it, where great crowds were assembled, where talking was to be indulged in, without asking his invitor who else was going to speak. It don’t appear in proof here that Fischer was ever asked that question. Spies was to speak in German, and that is the reason he didn’t hurry to the meeting. Fischer, Spies says, invited him to speak. Well, he was invited to speak, and nobody else—and he has never said anything about anybody else having been invited—not a syllable, not a name given. In fact, every other individual that could be invited had gone elsewhere, had prepared his alibi, had arranged for the meeting at the Arbeiter-Zeitung office, at the American group; every other speaker was there, but Spies alone was invited to speak, he says, and yet he waits, he waits after getting to that meeting. He does that which the design showed clearly was the intention to do, to precipitate a difficulty at the Haymarket meeting, and to gain results by armed men and dynamite early in the evening, and then would destruction and chaos come.
“The first words of Spies’ opening speech demonstrate a significant thing. Why should Spies open the meeting? Why didn’t Fischer open it? Why didn’t the executive committee open it? Spies opened it. After idling around there some time in regard to the matter, Spies opened the meeting. Had anybody asked him to open the meeting? Why, no. He was only an ordinary invited speaker at a meeting at which no other speaker had been invited, and he appears there, and the first words he says, as I will show you by English’s testimony, are: ‘Mr. Parsons and Mr. Fielden will be here in a very short time to address you.’ How did he know where they were? He had not seen them. There is no indication that he had seen Parsons that day. How did he know that Parsons was not in Cincinnati? ‘Parsons and Fielden will be here in a few moments.’ How do you know, Mr. Spies? Why, they are over at the Alarm office, or at the Arbeiter-Zeitung office, and Balthasar Rau is sent over there to get them.
“And now, Belthasar Rau went from this meeting over to the Alarm office, the Arbeiter-Zeitung office, and invited those two people to come over there, that Spies wanted some help. Why did he want help? Well, the meeting was not big enough. It was going to dissolve; it looked as though it was going to pieces; the thing was a fiasco; he had got to keep it—try and see if he could not do something. And he continued, holding the audience till help came, and said: ‘I will say, however, first, that this meeting was called for the purpose of discussing the general situation of the eight-hour strike, and the events which have taken place during the last forty-eight hours. It seems to have been the opinion of the authorities that this meeting had been called for the purpose of raising a little row and disturbance.’
“Now, how did Spies know that the authorities knew anything about it? Had Spies told them that there was going to be a row? Oh, no; he said nothing of that kind; but he said deliberately in that meeting that the authorities are supposed to believe or know that a riot is going to take place right there. Had the ‘Revenge’ circular been circulated? Yes. Had the other circular been circulated? Yes. What was their purpose? To make a row. Spies knew it, and he hedges in his inflammatory utterances which you read between the lines. It is a Mark Antony style of oratory—inflames most when there is least said. He was lying about the Gatling guns and the police, all for inflaming purposes, discussing that McCormick matter, about which he had in the inception begun to lie, for the same purpose. That was a very significant opening. It shows that he knew the purposes and object of that meeting. Gentlemen, it was the duty of the police to have disturbed and broken up that meeting in its inception. Why? The whole town was aflame. You remember it. Riot had occurred the day before, and the calling of a meeting upon so public a place as that was ill-advised and ought not to have been done. And the police, if they had walked down there thus early in the evening and dispersed it, would have done what was right. But the police did not walk down there and disturb the meeting; they walked down there and asked the meeting to disperse. There is no use of talking about proof, gentlemen. Their belts were on, their clubs in their sockets, their pistols in their pockets. That is the fact. They marched down that street, not with the precipitation which they would have you believe. They marched down that street perhaps fast, but not with precipitation, not with haste. They marched down that street to disperse a meeting that had talked ‘To arms;’ that had said: ‘Throttle the law,’ and that had said enough to have caused bloodshed then and there, and the only reason that more lives were not lost is because they failed to come earlier. The arrangement of that meeting was that it should be called, and that they should come early, and that it should be precipitated, and blood would flow. Engel was there in the evening; he knew about it. Fischer walked up with Waller, and Waller was armed. ‘Workingmen, come armed.’ A word, gentlemen, only a word, about the breaking-up of that meeting. They have played Harrison in and out of this case, for the purpose of saving the defendants. Harrison, you remember, went there for the purpose of ascertaining if that meeting was organized to attack the freight-house of the Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad, about which you remember there was some difficulty, or McCormick’s, or if it was called to attack any particular place. He found, from the speeches, that, although inflammatory—and he said so—from the speeches themselves he found that no particular place was pointed out for an attack.
“It was the same old speeches—riot, bloodshed, the black flag, the red flag, dynamite, war, to arms. And counsel upon the other side say that that ‘To arms! To arms!’ didn’t mean anything. It was Pickwickian, and used to round a sentence. They went down to that meeting, and Harrison was there and saw that meeting and heard those speeches, and reported back to Bonfield what had been the result, namely, that they had ceased to become inflammatory since they had seen his face.
“Thinking that the meeting was organized for plunder at the freight-house, hearing the speeches, seeing them become more moderate, Harrison left, and after he is gone, then come the reports, the incendiary character still increased, and when they come, they come in such shape that if Bonfield had not gone down there, then and there, he would have failed to perform his duty.
“We have had enough of this. It is time it stopped. They were asked peaceably to disperse—peaceably to disperse—peaceably to disperse. The police had their clubs in their belts, their pistols in their belts, and the bomb was thrown. So say Bonfield, Wessler, Foley, Bowler, Hanley, Ward, Hubbard, Haas, Hull, Heinemann—and I want to suggest a word about Heinemann’s testimony. Heinemann said that when that bomb exploded he was getting away on the east side of the street, going south. What did he get? He got the whistling of bullets past his ear. Where did they come from? Where could they come from? Hull was on that platform up there, and Owen was there, and that is where Simonson was. Hull says firing began by the crowd. Well, Owen got hit up there. It had to come from over there. Dr. Newman says that all sizes of bullets were found, from twenty-two to forty-four, and the police did not have anything but thirty-eight caliber. That was a cruel thrust for counsel to make at men standing up as these men did that night—death in their midst—standing there so nobly—a thrust to save the lives or the liberty of the defendants—by saying that they shot each other in their fright and terror. As Wirt Dexter said in a speech about that matter—I wish I could deliver his words to you—in praising the act of the police in that transaction: How noble was their conduct! Instead of fleeing and running, they said: ‘Fall in, boys,’ and the city was saved. Supposing the police had fired first, after the bomb. The man who threw that bomb obtained it from Lingg or Spies, and threw it in accordance with the general plan of conspiracy, and death was the result. I cannot talk to you about families, about wives and children, but if I had the power I would like to take you all over there to the Haymarket that night, and with you, with tears in your eyes, see the dead and mingle with the wounded, the 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. Captain Black said, in argument to you, that the State had no right to do that. The State has all the rights that it could possibly possess through so weak an instrument as myself. He has no more right. Did Fielden shoot? I think so. If he did not, he is made of poorer clay than I take him to be. He has been saying for years: ‘The bloodhounds of the police should be massacred and killed.’ He it was who said that he would march with the black flag down Michigan Avenue and strike terror to the heart of the capitalist. He it is who has said, day in and day out, since living in this inhospitable country: ‘Death to the police and the capitalists—the despoilers—our despoilers—death to them!’
“Why, do you mean to say that he would not do what he says he would do? Dr. Epler swears that he told him when he dressed the wound that he was shot when he was down on the pavement, and he has not denied it. That was a significant fact, gentlemen; a very significant fact. The officer who was shot thinks it was by Fielden. It may have been by somebody else; nobody can tell.
“Another thing. One of the officers swears that he was wounded in the knee. I was not looking at Capt. Black when he motioned to you the place where the wound occurred. For the purpose of correcting myself and making no mistake about it, because the testimony of an officer or any witness who put his finger on the spot cannot get into the record; and I found by looking at the record that he pointed his finger ‘here and here.’ Of course there was no significance to that. So I saw the wound again. I had seen it once before. The bullet went in there (indicating), and came out above, going around up opposite the knee-cap, and was not from behind.
“That bomb was thrown in furtherance of a common design. No matter who threw it. But the gentlemen say there can be no conviction in this case because we have failed to prove, or cannot prove, who threw that identical bomb. That is not the law, as I explained to you yesterday. The other question is, Is there anything in this case showing who did? Gilmer says that he was in the alley, and a match was lighted, and that bomb was thrown by one man; Fischer stood by, and that Spies lighted it. Is that remarkable? Spies had been advising the doing of that thing for years; and in one of the articles that has been read to you, over his own signature, he says: ‘Take as few people into your confidence as possible; do it alone; in your revolutionary deeds, do it alone; but if you have to consult anybody, take your nearest friend, a man you can rely upon.’ Who is Schnaubelt? Schwab’s brother-in-law. Who is Fischer? A man who got the meeting up at Spies’ instance, and works for Spies. Now, gentlemen, I presume, and I have no doubt but what if they had raked a little more carefully, we would have found the man that said that that bomb was thrown from the top of Crane’s building; you could have found the man that said it came from away in the alley; any number of men probably would have put it north of the alley, and some south. The question here is, about where did it come from? The explanation of street warfare is, that it is to be done near alleys. Is Spies so craven now, after the deed is done, that he shall say, ‘I had no hand in it,’ when he had advised it for years? Gentlemen, men’s lives speak for themselves. He has advised it, said it, talked it, acted it. Why, the witnesses say, counsel upon the other side say to you, ‘Gentlemen, it is impossible that this man would do it, because no man saw the light which would have flashed up in their faces.’ Why, gentlemen, they put two witnesses on the stand to swear distinctly and clearly and positively that they had lighted a match and lighted a pipe, which would take a good deal longer than lighting a fuse. Spies says in one article: ‘It never goes out in a dry night; the Anarchist fuse never fails.’ It could have happened; it has been advised to happen] precisely as Gilmer states it. Ignore Gilmer, and the case is made. But they want you to ignore Thompson too. Why? What for? Because they heard Schwab and Spies talk together. Was there anything marvelous in that? Had they said anything there together that they had not been saying in public for years? But supposing you ignore Thompson’s testimony and say that Thompson is mistaken; then it was Schnaubelt, wasn’t it? Why was Spies so confidential with Schnaubelt that night? Where is Schnaubelt? He was the man that was arrested before the conspiracy was known, and let go; shaved his whiskers off, changed his appearance, and he has not been seen since. Why was Spies so confidential with Schnaubelt? He says he did walk with him; says that Henry Spies walked behind him.
“Gentlemen, let me show you the testimony of these people in pairs. It is the most marvelous thing I ever saw in a lawsuit. Ferguson and Gleason were together. They went in pairs. You remember it. Ferguson says that he was on the corner of Randolph Street when the bomb was thrown. Gleason says that was not so; they were away down next to the station, more than half a block away. Ferguson says that they heard a crash like the breaking of a plank or a pistol, and then the bomb exploded. That is when he was on the corner of the street. Gleason says that was not so; he didn’t remember of hearing anything of that kind, but they both distinctly remembered of seeing, after the bomb was exploded, the police fire from that way. The Anarchists fired south, the police north. Ferguson and Gleason were south of and behind the police, yet they say the police fired south, while facing north. Ridiculous. And one or the other of them, I don’t know—or it was Taylor—says that they, the police, fired clear down to Madison Street, and along Madison Street. Queer that nobody else heard of that. What were they shooting down there for? Richter and Liniger—you remember them—these are the two loving friends that went to that meeting pursuant to the notice that they saw in the Arbeiter-Zeitung—not only the notice of the meeting, but the Arbeiter-Zeitung contained the ‘Revenge’ circular. They went to that meeting and lovingly stood in the alley, midway between the edge of the walk and the building, arm in arm, for over an hour. Foster knew that that was ridiculous, and he tried to get them apart; he asked them questions to get them apart, but they clung together for over an hour, and finally moved up to the lamp-post, where Taylor had been standing before the meeting began, and they didn’t know where the meeting was to be.
“Again Krumm stood in the alley with his back to the wall all the time except when he lighted his pipe and walked backward and forward in it, Albright standing with him. Krumm had his back up against that wall, glued like a post for almost an hour, saving only at intervals did he leave it; and Krumm and Albright lighted their pipes, and they moved to the lamp-post. The lamp-post was peopled thick. Gentlemen, it is an insult to your intelligence to suggest a word about the truth of that Krumm and Albright’s testimony. Why, Krumm is the man that left his boarding-house, boarding with Albright at that time—left his house in search of a friend whose name he could not give; if he could it was indefinite—and that he was to meet him on the corner of Canal and Randolph Streets that night somewhere. He went down to Canal and Randolph Streets, wandered around there looking for his friend, or for somebody who said he would meet him there, and then walked back to the meeting and began to look for Albright, or at least he found Albright. Now, isn’t that a queer circumstance—that they neither of them knew that that meeting was going to happen, or knew that the other was to be there; left the house about the same time, and yet did not leave together, and happened to meet right in that alley, with their backs up against the wall? The next pair is Fischer and Wandry. That is for the alibi. Now, why doesn’t Spies, who was on the stand, who says he was in Zepf’s, say something about Fischer being there. Why wasn’t Waller, who was on the stand, asked by these men whether Fischer was there? The witnesses all congregate at this place, at Zepf’s Hall, after the meeting, and Fischer has not been seen by anybody, except Wandry. Even this respectable Nihilist from Russia don’t remember of seeing Fischer, and got Fischer in a great many different places, as they do Parsons. Finding Parsons had got to be in several places, and further, finding that they have got him down in the window, they get another man there that looks like Parsons—as they did Krumm, who lighted his pipe in the alley and looked so much like Spies. To digress a moment, Mr. Walker never said to you, gentlemen, that the defendants’ lawyers put up Mr. Krumm because of his resemblance to Spies and to account for a light in the alley. That was not fair. He made the declaration that the other side, or somebody, had put up the job.
“We have endeavored to try this lawsuit like gentlemen. I think we have succeeded on both sides. There was not that implication to be drawn from what Walker said, but it was rather ingenious and sagacious to allow you, gentlemen, to believe that we had been saying something that was unfair.
“The two men that saw Schnaubelt—Lehnert and Krueger. That was the queerest circumstance that I have yet come across. By the way, Krueger was in the conspiracy, was in both the meetings, with Schnaubelt, with Waller, with Engel, with Lingg; he was there, knew them all, and, although he was on the stand, the gentlemen upon the other side never asked him nor Grueneberg a question about the conspiracy. Neither did they ask Spies, or Parsons, or Schwab. They did ask Fielden.
“August Krueger and Lehnert got this man some twenty or thirty feet away from the alley and the wagon, talking in a quiet tone of voice about going home. They walk a little ways together. Krueger goes one direction and Schnaubelt another. Black tells you that the reason of that was because they could not go together any further, as their places diverged. It would not have done for them to have gone together any further, because Krueger went to Engel’s. There were too many at Engel’s—it would not have done.
“I believe that Schnaubelt threw the bomb. You may believe that it is an unknown person threw it; it is immaterial.
“Back and Mitlacher. Back, if I remember, is the man that appeared at the Arbeiter-Zeitung office that Tuesday night, at the time of the meeting of the American group. Now, what was he there for? He was a member of some other group. At all events he was there, and a German; he was not an American; he had not been here long enough, to start with, and he didn’t look as if he ever wanted to be one of our kind.
“Now, where did these two men stand? They stood on the platform, next to the plumber’s shop, on the south side of the alley, and at least thirty-five or forty feet from where that wagon was; yet those men, one of them, the tall man, says that he distinctly remembers seeing Henry Spies. Why, it was a dark night, and the man couldn’t see from there. And the other fellow saw Henry Spies’ hat. They stood there all the evening, nearly; walked up and down once in a while; stood there all the evening. That is another ridiculous suggestion.
“This alibi business and this suggestion of these pairs, couples, constitute what Black calls proof. That is right. It is negative, and a very poor negative at that. He says that that is all you could prove. Didn’t see anything, of course.
“My attention is brought to another fact. Captain Black made a mistake. I put it that way. He read Thompson’s testimony to you. Your (i. e., Captain Black’s) shorthand writer has either made a mistake, or your typewriter has. Thompson did not change, in his answers, from Spies to Schwab.
“In regard to the testimony of Thompson, gentlemen, it was a remarkable feature of the case that he stood that searching cross-examination with such splendid equanimity, and no disturbance of what he said. And, gentlemen, that same can be said of Gilmer. Let any of you go onto that witness-stand, and let the sagacious, clear-headed Foster hammer away at you two hours and a half, over some little fact, and you would see where you would be. I could not stand it. There is not one man in a thousand that could. And it is nothing against a man’s character in the city of Chicago that those that know well of him do not know where he lives. I do not believe that one of you gentlemen knows where I live, or where Foster lives, or where Black lives. It is nothing against a man that his employer sometimes speaks well of him.
“I have my attention brought—I had almost forgotten it—to a peculiar circumstance about this case, and the most significant of anything that I have seen in it. When Spies was arrested he left the traces of his crime in his office. Free speech had become so common to him—free speech, as they call it in this case, had become so remarkably liberal that he feared nothing. Bonfield came in and arrested him. He goes over to Ebersold. Ebersold, in his indignation, characterizes the crowd as you heard it here, and Spies says, upon the witness-stand, that he unsuspectingly went over there. If he had had his senses about him, he would have destroyed ‘Ruhe,’ the manuscript, and everything of that character, and no traces—autonomous traces—would be left.
“In speaking of ‘Ruhe,’ I want to speak of another thing. Spies said that he received a communication that he was to put in prominent letters in the Letter-box. Now, the bare fact of putting it in the Letter-box is as prominent as it could be. It is separate and distinct. Let us see how he puts it. He puts it in the Letter-box, marks a double line under it, which means big letters, puts in an exclamation point at the other end, and inserts it. That makes it prominent, sure. Now, what does he say about it? He unsuspectingly leaves the traces of his crime; and there never was a criminal, great or small, in the world, but that somewhere, at some time, committed a mistake. It is the little mistakes, the plain, noticeable mistakes that they make, which serve for detection. ‘Ruhe’ appears, and he says he supposed that it was some labor organization. The idea! Why, his labor organizations are all distinct and plain. It says: ‘This organization meets so-and-so. That organization meets so and so.’ The paper speaks for itself. Talk about a labor organization putting in such a word as that ‘Ruhe,’ whose significance is peace, quiet and rest, but which meant war and bloodshed!
“The police did not wait any too long. It has been done enough in this town. It is time that we American citizens awoke to a full realization of the importance of liberty and freedom of speech, and that freedom of speech does not mean license to preach murder, to preach assassination, to preach crime and the perpetration of it. That is not free speech. A man who does that is answerable for it, and for the result of his preaching, the result of his words. If it results in crime, he is responsible himself. Gentlemen, that is the law. I have gone over this case perhaps more in extenso than I intended; more perhaps than you desire to listen to; I am through. Your duty is about to begin. I felt relieved when you were selected. Some of the great responsibility that has rested upon my shoulders I felt I could place upon yours. It has been placed there. Gentlemen, the responsibility is great. You have to answer yourselves, under your oaths, to the people of the State, not to me. My duty is performed, and yours begins, and in this connection, gentlemen, let me suggest to you another reason why it is important that you should be careful. You can acquit them all, one, or none; you can distribute the penalties as you please. To some you can administer the extreme penalty of the law; to others less than that, if you desire. To some you can give life, administer punishment if you desire; to some, years of punishment.
“I have a word to say in this connection about Neebe. The testimony has been analyzed, the testimony in regard to his connection with the Arbeiter-Zeitung office; his connection with these people from time to time, the evidence that when he saw the dynamite in the Arbeiter-Zeitung office on that morning when it was discovered there, which these men so infamously suggest was put there by the police—but I have not argued that question; it looks so insulting to a man’s intelligence. If that had been so, if it was not there and did not belong there, they could have brought Lizius here. His name is on the back of the indictment. They could have brought all the employés of the office here. What did Neebe say about the dynamite? Why, he said it was stuff to clean type with, he guessed; and he circulated, not two circulars, but a lot of them. Gentlemen, I am not here to ask you to take the life of Oscar Neebe on this proof. I shall ask you to do nothing in this case that I feel I would not do myself were I seated in your chairs.
“This case is greater than us all, more important to the country than you conceive; the case itself and what it involves is more important than all their lives, than all the lives of the unfortunate officers who bit the dust that night in defense of our laws.
“Some of these people, we sincerely and honestly believe, should receive at your hands the extreme penalty of the law. Spies, Fischer, Lingg, Engel, Fielden, Parsons, Schwab, Neebe, in my opinion, based upon the proof, is the order of the punishment. It is for you to say what it shall be. You have been importuned, gentlemen, to disagree. Don’t do that; don’t do that. If, in your judgments, in the judgment of some of you, some of these men should suffer death, and others think a less punishment would subserve the law, don’t stand on that, but agree on something. It is no pleasant task for me to ask the life of any man. Personally I have not a word to say against these men. As a representative of the law I say to you, the law demands now, here, its power. Regardless of me, of Foster, of Black, or of us all, that law which the exponents of Anarchy violated to kill Lincoln and Garfield, that law that has made us strong to-day, and which you have sworn to obey, demands of you a punishment of these men. Don’t do it because I ask you. Do it, if it should be done, because the law demands it. You stand between the living and the dead. You stand between law and violated law. Do your duty courageously, even if that duty is an unpleasant and a severe one.”
Chapter XXXII
The Instructions to the Jury—What Murder Is—Free Speech and its Abuse—The Theory of Conspiracy—Value of Circumstantial Evidence—Meaning of a “Reasonable Doubt”—What a Jury May Decide—Waiting for the Verdict—“Guilty of Murder”—The Death Penalty Adjudged—Neebe’s Good Luck—Motion for a New Trial—Affidavits about the Jury—The Motion Overruled.
ON the conclusion of State’s Attorney Grinnell’s review of the arguments made by the defense, Judge Gary proceeded to charge the jury. The hour was after the noon recess of Thursday, August 19, and the presentation and reading of the instructions consumed a goodly portion of the afternoon. When the court had finished the jury retired, and the fate of eight men was in their hands.
The instructions given were as follows on behalf of the people:
“The court instructs the jury, in the language of the statute, that murder is the unlawful killing of a human being in the peace of the people, with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied. An unlawful killing may be perpetrated by poisoning, striking, starving, drowning, stabbing, shooting, 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 circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.
“The court instructs the jury that whoever is guilty of murder shall suffer the penalty of death or imprisonment in the penitentiary for his natural life, or for a term not less than fourteen years. If the accused or any of them are found guilty by the jury, the jury shall fix the punishment by their verdict.
“The court instructs the jury that, while it is provided by the Constitution of the State of Illinois that every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, he is, by the Constitution, held responsible under the laws for the abuse of liberty so given. Freedom of speech is limited by the laws of the land, to the extent, among other limitations, that no man is allowed to advise the committing of any crime against the person or property of another; and the statute provides: An accessory is he who stands by and aids, abets and 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.
“Every such accessory, when the 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, whether the principal is convicted or amenable to justice or not, and punished as principal.
“The court further instructs the jury, as a matter of law, that if they believe from the evidence in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants, or any of them, conspired and agreed together, or with others, to overthrow the law by force, or to unlawfully resist the officers of the law, and if they further believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that, in pursuance of such conspiracy and in furtherance of the common object, a bomb was thrown by a member of such conspiracy at the time, and that Mathias J. Degan was killed, then such of the defendants that the jury believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have been parties to such conspiracy, are guilty of murder, whether present at the killing or not, and whether the identity of the person throwing the bomb be established or not.
“If the jury believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was in existence in this county and State a conspiracy to overthrow the existing order of society, and to bring about social revolution by force, or to destroy the legal authorities of this city, county or State by force, and that the defendants, or any of them, were parties to such conspiracy, and that Degan was killed in the manner described in the indictment, that he was killed by a bomb, and that the bomb was thrown by a party to the conspiracy, and in furtherance of the objects of the conspiracy, then any of the defendants who were members of such conspiracy at that time are in this case guilty of murder, and that, too, although the jury may further believe from the evidence that the time and place for the bringing about of such revolution, or the destruction of such authorities, had not been definitely, agreed upon by the conspirators, but was left to them and the exigencies of time, or to the judgment of any of the co-conspirators.”
“If these defendants, or any two or more of them, conspired together with or not with any other person or persons to excite the people or classes of the people of this city to sedition, tumult and riot, to use deadly weapons against and take the lives of other persons, as a means to carry their designs and purposes into effect, and in pursuance of such conspiracy, and in furtherance of its objects, any of the persons so conspiring publicly, by print or speech, advised or encouraged the commission of murder without designating time, place or occasion at which it should be done, and in pursuance of, and induced by such advice or encouragement, murder was committed, then all of such conspirators are guilty of such murder, whether the person who perpetrated such murder can be identified or not. If such murder was committed in pursuance of such advice or encouragement, and was induced thereby, it does not matter what change, if any, in the order or condition of society, or what, if any, advantage to themselves or others the conspirators proposed as the result of their conspiracy, nor does it matter whether such advice and encouragement had been frequent and long continued or not, except in determining whether the perpetrator was or was not acting in pursuance of such advice or encouragement, and was or was not induced thereby to commit the murder. If there was such conspiracy as in this instruction is recited, such advice or encouragement was given, and murder committed in pursuance of and induced thereby, then all such conspirators are guilty of murder. Nor does it matter, if there was such a conspiracy, how impracticable or impossible of success its end and aims were, nor how foolish or ill-arranged were the plans for its execution, except as bearing upon the question whether there was or was not such conspiracy.
“The court instructs the jury that a conspiracy may be established by circumstantial evidence the same as any other fact, and that such evidence is legal and competent for that purpose. So also whether an act which was committed was done by a member of the conspiracy, may be established by circumstantial evidence, whether the identity of the individual who committed the act be established or not; and also whether an act done was in pursuance of the common design may be ascertained by the same class of evidence, and if the jury believe from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants or any of them conspired and agreed together or with others to overthrow the law by force, or destroy the legal authorities of this city, county or State by force, and that in furtherance of the common design, and by a member of such conspiracy, Mathias J. Degan was killed, then these defendants, if any, whom the jury believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, were parties to such conspiracy, are guilty of the murder of Mathias J. Degan, whether the identity of the individual doing the killing be established or not, or whether such defendants were present at the time of the killing or not.
“The jury are instructed, as a matter of law, that all who take part in the conspiracy after it is formed, and while it is in execution, and all who with knowledge of the facts concur in the plan originally formed, and aid in executing them, are fellow-conspirators. Their concurrence without proof of an agreement to concur is conclusive against them. They commit the offense when they become parties to the transaction or further the original plan with knowledge of the conspiracy.
“The court instructs the jury, as a matter of law, that circumstantial evidence is just as legal and just as effective as any other evidence, provided the circumstances are of such a character and force as to satisfy the minds of the jury of the defendants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
“The court instructs the jury that what is meant by circumstantial evidence in criminal cases is the proof of such facts and circumstances connected with or surrounding the commission of the crime charged as tend to show the guilt or innocence of the party charged. And if those facts and circumstances are sufficient to satisfy the jury of the guilt of the defendants beyond a reasonable doubt, then such evidence is sufficient to authorize the jury in finding the defendants guilty.
“The law exacts the conviction wherever there is sufficient legal evidence to show the defendants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and circumstantial evidence is legal evidence.
“The court instructs the jury, as a matter of law, that when the defendants August Spies, Michael Schwab, Albert R. Parsons and Samuel Fielden testified as witnesses in this case, each became the same as any other witness, and the credibility of each is to be attested by and subjected to the same tests as are legally applied to any other witness; and in determining the degree of credibility that shall be accorded to the testimony of any one of said above-named defendants, the jury have a right to take into consideration the fact that he is interested in the result of this prosecution, as well as his demeanor and conduct upon the witness-stand during the trial, and the jury are also to take into consideration the fact, if such is the fact, that he has been contradicted by other witnesses. And the court further instructs the jury that if, after considering all the evidence in this case, they find that any one of said defendants August Spies, Michael Schwab, Albert R. Parsons and Samuel Fielden has willfully and corruptly testified falsely to any fact material to the issue in this case, they have the right to entirely disregard his testimony, except in so far as his testimony is corroborated by other credible evidence.
“The rule of law which clothes every person accused of crime with the presumption of innocence, and imposes upon the State the burden of establishing his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, is not intended to aid any one who is in fact guilty of crime to escape, but is a humane provision of law, intended, so far as human agencies can, to guard against the danger of any innocent person being unjustly punished.
“The court instructs the jury, as a matter of law, that in considering the case the jury are not to go beyond the evidence to hunt up doubts, nor must they entertain such doubts as are merely chimerical or conjectural. A doubt, to justify an acquittal, must be reasonable, and it must arise from a candid and impartial investigation of all the evidence in the case, and unless it is such that, were the same kind of doubt interposed in the graver transactions of life, it would cause a reasonable and prudent man to hesitate and pause, it is insufficient to authorize a verdict of not guilty. If, after considering all the evidence, you can say you have an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.
“The court further instructs the jury, as a matter of law, that the doubt which the juror is allowed to retain on his own mind, and under the influence of which he should frame a verdict of not guilty, must always be a reasonable one. A doubt produced by undue sensibility in the mind of any juror, in view of the consequences of his verdict, is not a reasonable doubt, and a juror is not allowed to create sources or materials of doubt by resorting to trivial and fanciful suppositions and remote conjectures as to possible states of fact differing from that established by the evidence. You are not at liberty to disbelieve as jurors if from the evidence you believe as men; your oath imposes on you no obligation to doubt where no doubt would exist if no oath had been administered.
“The court instructs the jury that they are the judges of the law as well as the facts in this case, and if they can say, upon their oaths, that they know the law better than the court itself, they have the right to do so; but before assuming so solemn a responsibility, they should be assured that they are not acting from caprice or prejudice, that they are not controlled by their will or their wishes, but from a deep and confident conviction that the court is wrong and that they are right. Before saying this, upon their oaths, it is their duty to reflect whether, from their study and experience, they are better qualified to judge of the law than the court. If, under all the circumstances, they are prepared to say that the court is wrong in its exposition of the law, the statute has given them that right.
“In this case the jury may, as in their judgment the evidence warrants, find any or all of the defendants guilty or not, or all of them not guilty; and if, in their judgment, the evidence warrants, they may, in case they find the defendants, or any of them, guilty, fix the same penalty for all the defendants found guilty, or different penalties for the different defendants found guilty.
“In case they find the defendants, or any of them, guilty of murder, they should fix the penalty either at death or at imprisonment in the penitentiary for life, or at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of any number of years, not less than fourteen.”
The instructions given on behalf of defendants were as follows:
“The jury in a criminal case are the judges of the law and the evidence, and have to act according to their best judgment of such law and the facts.
“The jury have a right to disregard the instructions of the court, provided they can say upon their oaths that they believe they know the law better than the court.
“The law presumes the defendants innocent of the charge in the indictment until the jury are satisfied by the evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, of the guilt of the defendants.
“If a reasonable doubt of any facts, necessary to convict the accused, is raised in the minds of the jury by the evidence itself, or by the ingenuity of counsel upon any hypothesis reasonably consistent with the evidence, that doubt is decisive in favor of the prisoners’ acquittal. A verdict of not guilty simply means that the guilt of the accused has not been demonstrated in the precise, specific and narrow forms prescribed by the law.
“No jury should convict anybody of crime upon mere suspicion, however strong, or because there is a preponderance of all the evidence against him, but the jury must be convinced of the defendant’s guilt, beyond all reasonable doubt, before they can lawfully convict.
“The law does not require the defendants to prove themselves innocent, but the burden of proof that they are guilty beyond all reasonable doubt is upon the prosecution.
“The indictment is of itself a mere accusation and no proof of the guilt of the defendants.
“The presumption of the innocence of the defendants is not a mere form, but an essential, substantial part of the law of the land, and it is the duty of the jury to give the defendants the full benefit of this presumption in this case.
“It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt every material allegation in the indictment, and unless that has been done, the jury should find the defendants not guilty.
“The burden is upon the prosecution to prove by credible evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the defendants are guilty as charged in the indictment of the murder of Mathias J. Degan; it is the duty of the jury to acquit any of the defendants as to whom there is a failure of such proof. The jury are not at liberty to adopt any unreasonable theories or suppositions in considering the evidence in order to justify a verdict of conviction.
“A reasonable doubt is that state of mind in which the jury, after considering all the evidence, cannot say they feel an abiding faith, amounting to a moral certainty, from the evidence in the case, that the defendants are guilty as charged in the indictment.
“The rules of evidence as to the amount of evidence in this case are different from those in a civil case; a mere preponderance of evidence would not warrant a verdict of guilty.
“Mere probability of the defendants’ guilt is not sufficient to warrant a conviction.
“Your personal opinions as to facts not proved cannot be the basis of your verdict, but you must form your verdict from the evidence, and that alone, unaided and uninfluenced by any opinions or presumptions not founded upon the evidence.
“The jury are the sole judges of the credibility of witnesses, and in passing thereon may consider their prejudices, motives or feelings of revenge, if any such have appeared, and if the jury believe from the evidence that any witness has knowingly or willfully testified falsely as to any material fact, they may disregard his entire testimony, unless it is corroborated by other credible evidence.
“If one single fact is proved by a preponderance of the evidence which is inconsistent with the guilt of a defendant, this is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt and entitles him to an acquittal. In order to justify the inference of legal guilt from circumstantial evidence, the existence of the inculpatory facts must be absolutely incompatible with the innocence of the accused upon any rational theory.
“The witnesses Gottfried Waller and Wilhelm Seliger are accomplices, and while a person accused of crime may be convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, still the jury should weigh it with great care and caution, and convict upon it only if they are satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt of its truth.
“If you believe from the evidence that the witnesses Gottfried Waller and Wilhelm Seliger were induced to become witnesses by any promise of immunity from punishment, or by any hope held out to them, that it would go easier with them in case they disclosed who their confederates were, or in case they implicated some one else in the crime, then you should take such facts into consideration in determining the weight to be given to their testimony.
“Same instruction in regard to the testimony of any other witnesses for the prosecution.
“The testimony of an accomplice should be subjected to critical examination in the light of all the other evidence.
“A person charged with crime may testify in his own behalf, but his neglect to do so shall not create any presumption against him.
“The jury should endeavor to reconcile the testimony of the defendants’ witnesses with the belief that all of them endeavored to tell the truth, and you should attribute any contradictions or differences in their testimony to mistake or misrecollection rather than to a willful intention to swear falsely, if you can reasonably do so under the evidence.
“The jury should fairly and impartially consider the testimony of the defendants, together with all the other evidence.
“If the verbal admission of a defendant is offered in evidence, the whole of the admission must be taken together, and those parts which are in favor of the defendant are entitled to as much consideration as any other parts, unless disproved, or apparently improbable or untrue, when considered with all the other evidence.
“It would be improper for the jury to regard any statements of the prosecuting attorneys, not based upon the evidence, as entitled to any weight.
“If all the facts and circumstances relied on by the People to secure a conviction can be reasonably accounted for upon any theory consistent with the innocence of the defendants, or any of them, then you should acquit such of them as to whom the facts proven can thus be accounted for.
“It is not enough to warrant the conviction of a person charged with crime that he contemplated the commission of such crime. If any reasonable hypothesis exists that such crime may have been committed by another in no way connected with the defendants, the accused should be acquitted.
“If the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendants, as charged in the indictment, the jury should acquit, although the evidence may show conduct of no less turpitude than the crime charged.
“The allusions and references of the prosecuting attorneys to the supposed dangerous character of any views entertained or principles contended for by the accused should in no way influence you in determining this case.
“Individuals and communities have the legal right to arm themselves for the defense and protection of their persons and property, and a proposition by any person, publicly proclaimed, to arm for such protection and defense, is not an offense against the laws of this State.
“If the defendants, or some of them, agreed together, or with others, in the event of the workingmen or strikers being attacked, that they (defendants) would assist the strikers to resist such an attack, this would not constitute conspiracy if the anticipated attack was unjustified and illegal, and such contemplated resistance simply the opposing of force wrongfully and illegally exercised, by force sufficient to repel said assault.
“The burden is not cast upon the defendants of proving that the person who threw the bomb was not acting under their advice, teaching or procurement. Unless the evidence proves beyond all reasonable doubt that either some of the defendants threw said bomb, or that the person who threw it acted under the advice and procurement of defendants or some of them, the defendants should be acquitted. Such advice may not necessarily be special as to the bomb, but general, so as to include it.
“It is not proper for the jury to guess that the person who threw the bomb was instigated to do the act by the procurement of defendants or any of them. There must be a direct connection established, by credible evidence, between the advice and consummation of the crime, beyond all reasonable doubt.
“The bomb might have been thrown by some one unfamiliar with, and unprompted by, the teachings of the defendants or any of them. Before defendants can be held liable therefor, the evidence must satisfy you beyond all reasonable doubt that the person throwing said bomb was acting as the result of the teaching or encouragement of defendants or some of them.
“Before a person charged as accessory to a crime can be convicted, the evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed by some person acting under the advice, aid, encouragement, abetting or procurement of the defendant whose conviction as accessory is sought. Though you may believe from the evidence that a party in fact advised the commission in certain contingencies of acts amounting to crime, yet, if the act complained of was in fact committed by some third party of his own mere volition, hatred, malice or ill-will, and not materially influenced, either directly or indirectly, by such advice of the party charged, or any party for whose advice the defendants are responsible, the party charged would not in such case be responsible.
“If you find that at a meeting held on the evening of May 3d at 54 West Lake Street, at which some of the defendants were present, it was agreed that in the event of a collision between the police, militia or firemen, and the striking laborers, certain armed organizations, of which some of the defendants were members, should meet at certain places in Chicago, that a committee should attend public places and meetings where an attack by the police and others might be expected, and in the event of such attack report the same to said organizations to the end that such attack might be resisted and the police stations of the city destroyed, still, if the evidence does not prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the throwing of the bomb which killed Mathias J. Degan was the result of any act in furtherance of the common design herein stated, and if it may have been the unauthorized and individual act of some person acting upon his own responsibility and volition, then none of the defendants can be held responsible therefor on account of said West Lake Street meeting.”
Upon the conclusion of the reading of the instructions in behalf of the defendants, which were read after the instructions on behalf of the people, the court of its own motion gave to the jury the following instruction:
“The statute requires that instructions by the court to the jury shall be in writing, and only relate to the law of the case.
“The practice under the statute is that the counsel prepare on each side a set of instructions and present them to the court, and, if approved, to be read by the court as the law of the case. It may happen, by reason of the great number presented and the hurry and confusion of passing on them in the midst of the trial, with a large audience to keep in order, that there may be some apparent inconsistency in them, but if they are carefully scrutinized such inconsistencies will probably disappear. In any event, however, the gist and pith of all is that if advice and encouragement to murder was given, if murder was done in pursuance of and materially induced by such advice and encouragement, then those who gave such advice and encouragement are guilty of the murder. Unless the evidence, either direct or circumstantial, or both, proves the guilt of one or more of the defendants upon this principle so fully that there is no reasonable doubt of it, your duty to them requires you to acquit them. If it does so prove, then your duty to the State requires you to convict whoever is so proved guilty. The case of each defendant should be considered with the same care and scrutiny as if he alone were on trial. If a conspiracy, having violence and murder as its object, is fully proved, then the acts and declarations of each conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy are the acts and declarations of each one of the conspirators. But the declarations of any conspirator before or after the 4th of May which are merely narrative as to what had been or would be done, and not made to aid in carrying into effect the object of the conspiracy, are only evidence against the one who made them.
“What are the facts and what is the truth the jury must determine from the evidence, and from that alone. If there are any unguarded expressions in any of the instructions which seem to assume the existence of any facts, or to be any intimation as to what is proved, all such expressions must be disregarded, and the evidence only looked to to determine the facts.”
The jury the next day reported to the court that they had agreed upon a verdict. The members were accordingly brought in, and the clerk of the court read the verdict as follows:
“We, the jury, find the defendants August Spies, Michael Schwab, Samuel Fielden, Albert R. Parsons, Adolph Fischer, George Engel and Louis Lingg guilty of murder in manner and form as charged in the indictment and fix the penalty at death. We find the defendant Oscar W. Neebe guilty of murder in manner and form as charged in the indictment, and fix the penalty at imprisonment in the penitentiary for fifteen years.”
This was a great surprise to the defendants, and their counsel at once entered a motion for a new trial. The hearing of the motion was postponed until the next term, and on the 1st of October arguments were submitted. The grounds upon which the motion was based were numerous. They first related to a refusal of some, and a modification of several other instructions at the hands of the court asked for by the defendants; a claim that jurors had been summoned by the officers with the avowed view to conviction; improper language by the State’s Attorney in his closing argument; erroneous rulings of the court in regard to the competency of jurors, and the refusal of separate trials for the defendants. Other grounds touched on a statement made by one of the members of the jury, Mr. Adams, prior to the trial, with reference to the Haymarket massacre, showing prejudice against the defendants, backed by an affidavit as to what he said; an affidavit of one Mr. Love, that he met Gilmer on the night of May 4, shortly after eight o’clock, and went to a saloon with him, where they and another person drank beer and talked until 9:20 o’clock, and also a further reason that the defendants had discovered some new evidence, to back which an affidavit was submitted from John Philip Deluse, dated August 24, 1886, concerning a mysterious individual who had called at his saloon, in Indianapolis, Ind., in May, 1886.
The argument of counsel on each side, on the points raised, consumed several days, and finally, on the 7th of October, 1886, Judge Gary, in an elaborate and exhaustive opinion, overruled the motion.
The defendants then entered a motion in arrest of judgment, and this was also overruled.