Chapter XXXIII
The Last Scene in Court—Reasons Against the Death Sentence—Spies’ Speech—A Heinous Conspiracy to Commit Murder—Death for the Truth—The Anarchists’ Final Defense—Dying for Labor—The Conflict of the Classes—Not Guilty, but Scapegoats—Michael Schwab’s Appeal—The Curse of Labor-saving Machinery—Neebe Finds Out what Law Is—“I am Sorry I am not to be Hung”—Adolph Fischer’s Last Words—Louis Lingg in his own Behalf—“Convicted, not of Murder, but of Anarchy”—An Attack on the Police—“I Despise your Order, your Laws, your Force-propped Authority. Hang me for it!”—George Engel’s Unconcern—The Development of Anarchy—“I Hate and Combat, not the Individual Capitalist, but the System”—Samuel Fielden and the Haymarket—An Illegal Arrest—The Defense of Albert R. Parsons—The History of his Life—A Long and Thrilling Speech—The Sentence of Death—“Remove the Prisoners.”
AFTER motion in arrest of judgment had been overruled by Judge Gary, Spies was asked if he had anything to say why sentence of death should not be passed upon him. The prisoner rose, with pallid cheeks and distended eyes, and advanced toward the bench with a hesitating tread. The moment he faced the court he recovered his equanimity and proceeded with much deliberation to give his reasons why he should not be sent to death on the gallows. He spoke in a firm, almost a menacing tone of voice, and seemed bent on posing as a martyr to the cause of the laboring classes. In his very opening sentence he desired to have that understood. “In addressing this court,” he said, “I speak as the representative of one class to the representative of another. I will begin with the words uttered five hundred years ago, on a similar occasion, by the Venetian Doge Falieri, who, addressing the court, said, ‘My defense is your accusation. The cause of my alleged crime is your history.’” He then referred to his conviction, holding that there was no evidence to show that he had any knowledge of the man who threw the bomb, or that he had had anything to do with its throwing. There being no evidence to establish his legal responsibility, he maintained, his “conviction and the execution of the sentence would be nothing less than willful, malicious and deliberate murder, as foul a murder as may be found in the annals of religious, political or any sort of persecution.” He charged that the representative of the State had “fabricated most of the testimony which was used as a pretense to convict,” and that the defendants had been convicted “by a jury picked out to convict.”
“I charge,” he continued, “the State’s Attorney and Bonfield with the heinous conspiracy to commit murder.” Having thus proved the truth of the old adage that “no rogue e’er felt the halter draw with good opinion of the law,” Spies next paid his compliments to the Citizens’ Association, the Bankers’ Association and the Board of Trade, attributing to them the inspiration for the attack on the Haymarket meeting, and he proceeded to give an account of his movements on the night of that meeting in the company of Legner. He again repeated that, “notwithstanding the purchased and perjured testimony of some,” the prosecution had not established the defendants’ legal responsibility, and insisted that those who had brought about their conviction were the “real and only law-breakers.” When he approached this part of the subject Spies’ anger scarcely knew any bounds. He rose in a towering passion and characterized the proceedings of the trial as “rascalities perpetrated in the name of the people.” He continued:
“The contemplated murder of eight men, whose only crime is that they have dared to speak the truth, may open the eyes of these suffering millions; may wake them up. Indeed, I have noticed that our conviction has worked miracles in this direction already. The class that clamors for our lives, the good, devout Christians, have attempted in every way, through their newspapers and otherwise, to conceal the true and only issue in this case. By simply designating the defendants as ‘Anarchists,’ and picturing them as a newly-discovered species of cannibals, and by inventing shocking and horrifying stories of dark conspiracies said to be planned by them, these good Christians zealously sought to keep the naked fact from the working people and other righteous parties, namely: That on the evening of May 4 two hundred armed men, under the command of a notorious ruffian, attacked a meeting of peaceable citizens! With what intention? With the intention of murdering them, or as many of them as they could. I refer to the testimony given by two of our witnesses. The wage-workers of this city began to object to being fleeced too much—they began to say some very true things, but they were highly disagreeable to our patrician class; they put forth—well, some very modest demands. They thought eight hours’ hard toil a day, for scarcely two hours’ pay, was enough. This lawless rabble had to be silenced! The only way to silence them was to frighten them, and murder those whom they looked up to as their ‘leaders.’ Yes, these foreign dogs had to be taught a lesson, so that they might never again interfere with the high-handed exploitation of their benevolent and Christian masters. Bonfield, the man who would bring a blush of shame to the managers of the Bartholomew night—Bonfield, the illustrious gentleman with a visage that would have done excellent service to Doré in portraying Dante’s fiends of hell—Bonfield was the man best fitted to consummate the conspiracy of the Citizens’ Association of our patricians. If I had thrown that bomb, or had caused it to be thrown, or had known of it, I would not hesitate a moment to state so. It is true a number of lives were lost—many were wounded. But hundreds of lives were thereby saved! But for that bomb there would have been a hundred widows and hundreds of orphans where now there are few. These facts have been carefully suppressed, and we were accused and convicted of conspiracy by the real conspirators and their agents. This, your honor, is one reason why sentence should not be passed by a court of justice—if that name has any significance at all.”
Spies then adverted to the fact of his having published articles on the manufacture of dynamite and bombs, and wanted to know what other newspapers in the city had not done the same thing. He forgot to show, however, that other papers had never urged the people to use dynamite to the destruction of the lives and property of the people.
Spies claimed that his only offense was in espousing the cause of “the disinherited and disfranchised millions,” and asked what they had said in their speeches and publications.
“We have interpreted to the people their condition and relations in society. We have explained to them the different social phenomena and the social laws and circumstances under which they occur. We have, by way of scientific investigation, incontrovertibly proved and brought to their knowledge that the system of wages is the root of the present social iniquities—iniquities so monstrous that they cry to heaven. We have further said that the wage system, as a specific form of social development, would, by the necessity of logic, have to make room for higher forms of civilization; that the wage system must prepare the way and furnish the foundation for a social system of coöperation—that is, Socialism. That whether this or that theory, this or that scheme regarding future arrangements were accepted, was not a matter of choice, but one of historical necessity, and that to us the tendency of progress seemed to be Anarchism—that is, a free society without kings or classes—a society of sovereigns in which the liberty and economic equality of all would furnish an unshakable equilibrium as a foundation and condition of natural order.”
After some further explanation of Socialism, he said:
“I may have told that individual who appeared here as a witness that the workingmen should procure arms, as force would in all probability be the ultima ratio, and that in Chicago there were so and so many armed men, but I certainly did not say that we proposed to inaugurate the social revolution. And let me say here: Revolutions are no more made than earthquakes and cyclones. Revolutions are the effect of certain causes and conditions. I have made social philosophy a specific study for more than ten years, and I could not have given vent to such nonsense! I do believe, however, that the revolution is near at hand—in fact, that it is upon us. But is the physician responsible for the death of the patient because he foretold that death?”
If the opinions of the court were good, Spies held there was “no person in this country who could not be lawfully hanged,” and maintained that they ought to be exempted from responsibility because they had sought to bring about reforms. Then he turned to the labor movement and pronounced his anathema against the wealthy classes.
“If you think that by hanging us you can stamp out the labor movement—the movement from which the downtrodden millions, the millions who toil and live in want and misery—the wage slaves—expect salvation—if this is your opinion, then hang us! Here you will tread upon a spark, but there, and there, and behind you and in front of you, and everywhere, flames will blaze up. It is a subterranean fire. You cannot put it out. The ground is on fire upon which you stand. You can’t understand it. You don’t believe in magical arts, as your grandfathers did, who burned witches at the stake, but you do believe in conspiracies; you believe that all these occurrences of late are the work of conspirators! You resemble the child that is looking for his picture behind the mirror. What you see and what you try to grasp is nothing but the deceptive reflex of the stings of your bad conscience. You want to ‘stamp out the conspirators’—the agitators? Ah! stamp out every factory lord who has grown wealthy upon the unpaid labor of his employés. Stamp out every landlord who has amassed fortunes from the rent of overburdened workingmen and farmers. Stamp out every machine that is revolutionizing industry and agriculture, that intensifies the production, ruins the producer, that increases the national wealth, while the creator of all these things stands amidst them, tantalized with hunger! Stamp out the railroads, the telegraph, the telephone, steam and yourselves—for everything breathes the revolutionary spirit. You, gentlemen, are the revolutionists. You rebel against the effects of social conditions which have tossed you, by the fair hand of fortune, into a magnificent paradise. Without inquiring, you imagine that no one else has a right in that place. You insist that you are the chosen ones, the sole proprietors. The forces that tossed you into the paradise, the industrial forces, are still at work. They are growing more active and intense from day to day. Their tendency is to elevate all mankind to the same level, to have all humanity share in the paradise you now monopolize. You, in your blindness, think you can stop the tidal wave of civilization and human emancipation by placing a few policemen, a few Gatling guns and some regiments of militia on the shore—you think you can frighten the rising waves back into the unfathomable depths whence they have arisen, by erecting a few gallows in the perspective. You, who oppose the natural course of things, you are the real revolutionists. You and you alone are the conspirators and destructionists!
“Said the court yesterday, in referring to the Board of Trade demonstration: ‘These men started out with the express purpose of sacking the Board of Trade building.’ While I can’t see what sense there would have been in such an undertaking, and while I know that the said demonstration was arranged simply as a means of propaganda against the system that legalizes the respectable business carried on there, I will assume that the three thousand workingmen who marched in that procession really intended to sack the building. In this case they would have differed from the respectable Board of Trade men only in this—that they sought to recover property in an unlawful way, while the others sack the entire country lawfully and unlawfully—this being their highly respectable profession. This court of ‘justice and equity’ proclaims the principle that when two persons do the same thing, it is not the same thing. I thank the court for this confession. It contains all that we have taught, and for which we are to be hanged, in a nutshell. Theft is a respectable profession when practiced by the privileged class. It is a felony when resorted to in self-preservation by the other class.”
He then scored the capitalistic class, and referred to the strikes in the Hocking Valley, East St. Louis, Milwaukee and Chicago. Reverting again to the prosecution, he continued:
“‘These men,’ Grinnell said repeatedly, ‘have no principle; they are common murderers, assassins, robbers,’ etc. I admit that our aspirations and objects are incomprehensible to some, but surely for this we are not to be blamed. The assertion, if I mistake not, was based on the ground that we sought to destroy property. Whether this perversion of facts was intentional, I know not. But in justification of our doctrines I will say that the assertion is an infamous falsehood. Articles have been read here from the Arbeiter-Zeitung and Alarm to show the dangerous character of the defendants. The files of the Arbeiter-Zeitung and Alarm have been searched for the past years. Those articles which generally commented upon some atrocity committed by the authorities upon striking workingmen were picked out and read to you. Other articles were not read to the court. Other articles were not what was wanted. The State’s Attorney, upon those articles (who well knows that he tells a falsehood when he says it), asserts that ‘these men have no principle.’”
What a perversion of facts! Some of the articles did comment on some alleged atrocity, but those taken at various dates and published in a preceding chapter show that force by the use of dynamite was continually being agitated. However, in his criticism of the prosecution Spies seemed to overlook a great many points. He repeated what he had said to the Congregational ministers at the Grand Pacific Hotel, on the 9th of January, 1886, with reference to Socialism, and then stated that he had seen Lingg only twice before he was arrested, but had never spoken to him. With Engel he had not been on speaking terms for at least a year, and Fischer had gone about making speeches against him. The article in the Arbeiter-Zeitung with reference to the Board of Trade demonstration, he claimed, he had not seen until he had read it in the paper. In conclusion he said:
“Now, if we cannot be directly implicated with this affair, connected with the throwing of the bomb, where is the law that says that ‘these men shall be picked out to suffer’? Show me that law if you have it! If the position of the court is correct, then half of this city—half of the population of this city—ought to be hanged, because they are responsible the same as we are for that act on May 4th. And if not half of the population of Chicago is hanged, then show me the law that says, ‘Eight men shall be picked out and hanged, as scapegoats’? You have no good law. Your decision, your verdict, our conviction is nothing but an arbitrary will of this lawless court. It is true there is no precedent in jurisprudence in this case! It is true that we have called upon the people to arm themselves. It is true that we have told them time and again that the great day of change was coming. It was not our desire to have bloodshed. We are not beasts. We would not be Socialists if we were beasts. It is because of our sensitiveness that we have gone into this movement for the emancipation of the oppressed and suffering. It is true that we have called upon the people to arm and prepare for the stormy times before us. This seems to be the ground upon which the verdict is to be sustained. ‘But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce the people under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and provide new guards for their future safety.’ This is a quotation from the ‘Declaration of Independence.’ Have we broken any laws by showing to the people how the abuses that have occurred for the last twenty years are invariably pursuing one object, viz.: to establish an oligarchy in this country as strong and powerful and monstrous as never before has existed in any country? I can well understand why that man Grinnell did not urge upon the grand jury to charge us with treason. I can well understand it. You cannot try and convict a man for treason who has upheld the Constitution against those who try to trample it under their feet. It would not have been as easy a job to do that, Mr. Grinnell, as to charge ‘these men’ with murder.
“Now these are my ideas. They constitute a part of myself. I cannot divest myself of them, nor would I if I could. And if you think that you can crush out these ideas that are gaining ground more and more every day, if you think you can crush them out by sending us to the gallows—if you would once more have people suffer the penalty of death because they have dared to tell the truth—and I defy you to show us where we have told a lie—I say, if death is the penalty for proclaiming the truth, then I will proudly and defiantly pay the costly price! Call your hangman! Truth crucified in Socrates, in Christ, in Giordano Bruno, in Huss, Galileo, still lives—they and others whose number is legion have preceded us on this path. We are ready to follow.”
MICHAEL SCHWAB had very little to say, but what he did say was that it was “idle and hypocritical to think about justice” having been done to them. He criticised the acts of the prosecution in securing his conviction “for writing newspaper articles and making speeches,” and contended that they had engaged in no conspiracy, as “all they did was done in open daylight.” He seemed rather vindictive toward Mr. Furthmann for having had the articles in the Arbeiter-Zeitung translated, and excused his own inflammatory utterances by holding that after the mayoralty election, in the spring of 1885, Edwin Lee Brown, president of the Citizens’ Association, had urged the people, in a public speech, “to take possession of the Court-house by force, even if they had to wade in blood.” Schwab touched on the labor problem, drawing largely from his own experience while living among the poor in Europe, and then spoke of the condition of laborers in Chicago, holding that they lived in miserable, dilapidated hovels, owned by greedy landlords. He continued:
“What these common laborers are to-day, the skilled laborer will be to-morrow. Improved machinery, that ought to be a blessing for the workingman, under the existing conditions turns for him to a curse. Machinery multiplies the army of unskilled laborers, makes the laborer more dependent upon the men who own the land and the machines. And that is the reason that Socialism and Communism got a foothold in this country. The outcry that Socialism, Communism and Anarchism are the creed of foreigners, is a big mistake. There are more Socialists of American birth in this country than foreigners, and that is much, if we consider that nearly half of all industrial workingmen are not native Americans. There are Socialistic papers in a great many States, edited by Americans for Americans. The capitalistic newspapers conceal that fact very carefully.”
In conclusion Schwab said:
“If Anarchy were the thing the State’s Attorney makes it out to be, how could it be that such eminent scholars as Prince Krapotkin and the greatest living geographer, Elisée Reclus, were avowed Anarchists, even editors of Anarchistic newspapers? Anarchy is a dream, but only in the present. It will be realized. Reason will grow in spite of all obstacles. Who is the man that has the cheek to tell us that human development has already reached its culminating point? I know that our ideal will not be accomplished this or next year, but I know that it will be accomplished as near as possible, some day, in the future. It is entirely wrong to use the word Anarchy as synonymous with violence. Violence is one thing and Anarchy another. In the present state of society violence is used on all sides, and therefore we advocated the use of violence against violence, but against violence only, as a necessary means of defense. I never read Mr. Most’s book, simply because I did not find time to read it. And if I had read it, what of it? I am an agnostic, but I like to read the Bible nevertheless. I have not the slightest idea who threw the bomb on the Haymarket, and had no knowledge of any conspiracy to use violence on that or any other night.”
OSCAR NEEBE followed. In his opening sentence he very correctly diagnosed the situation when he said: “I have found out during the last few days what law is. Before I didn’t know.” He, more than all the other defendants, except Parsons, ought to have known the law. He was a citizen, and as such he should have known the law of the land long before he engaged in the inculcation of force. He spoke of his having presided at Socialistic meetings, having headed the Board of Trade procession, and how he happened to drive to the office of the Arbeiter-Zeitung after learning on May 5 that Spies and Schwab had been arrested.
The rest of his statement consists simply of abuse of the prosecution, laudation of his own acts in endeavoring to ameliorate the condition of the workingmen and in continuing the publication of the Arbeiter-Zeitung after May 4, and a disavowal of his having distributed the “Revenge” circular. In speaking of his having organized the Beer-brewers’ Union and attended a meeting at the North Side Turner Hall to announce the result of his conference with the bosses, he said:
“I entered the hall. I went on the platform and I presented the union with a document signed by every beer-brewer of Chicago, guaranteeing ten hours’ labor and $65 wages—$15 more wages per month—and no Sunday work, to give the men a chance to go to church, as many of them are good Christians. There are a good many Christians among them. So, in that way, I was aiding Christianity—helping the men to go to church. After the meeting I left the hall, and stepped into the front saloon, and there were circulars lying there called the ‘Revenge’ circular. I picked up a couple of them from a table and folded them together and put them in my pocket, not having a chance to read them, because everybody wanted to treat me. They all thought it was by my efforts that they got $15 a month more wages and ten hours a day. Why, I didn’t have a chance to read the circulars. From there I went to another saloon across the street, and the president of the Beer-brewers’ Union was there; he asked me to walk with him, and on the way home we went into Heine’s saloon. He was talking to Heine about the McCormick affair, and I picked up a circular and read it, and Heine asked me: ‘Can you give me one?’ I gave him one, and he laid it back on his counter. That is my statement.”
In conclusion Neebe said:
“They found a revolver in my house, and a red flag there. I organized trades-unions. I was for reduction of the hours of labor, and the education of laboring men, and the reëstablishment of the Arbeiter-Zeitung—the workingmen’s newspaper. There is no evidence to show that I was connected with the bomb-throwing, or that I was near it, or anything of that kind. So I am only sorry, your honor—that is, if you can stop it or help it, I will ask you to do it—that is to hang me, too; for I think it is more honorable to die suddenly than to be killed by inches. I have a family and children; and if they know their father is dead, they will bury him. They can go to the grave, and kneel down by the side of it; but they can’t go to the penitentiary and see their father, who was convicted for a crime that he hasn’t had anything to do with. That is all I have got to say. Your honor, I am sorry I am not to be hung with the rest of the men.”
ADOLPH FISCHER rose with some signs of nervousness and proceeded slowly and deliberately with his protest. “I was tried here in this room,” he said, “for murder, and I was convicted of Anarchy.” He objected most vigorously to the charge that he was a murderer, and insisted that he had had nothing to do with the throwing of the bomb. He confessed to having made arrangements for the Haymarket meeting, to having been present, but urged that it had not been called for the purpose of committing violence or crime. He said he had been present at the Monday evening meeting,] of which Waller was chairman, but aside from volunteering to have hand-bills printed for the Haymarket meeting he had not done anything. He had invited Spies to speak at the Haymarket, and in the original copy he had had the line put in, “Workingmen, appear armed!” His reason for this was, he said, that he “did not want the workingmen to be shot down in that meeting as on other occasions.” He then entered into some details as to his movements on the night of the Haymarket gathering and again launched into a protest against the jury’s verdict. He said that the verdict against him was because he was an Anarchist, and “an Anarchist,” he explained with a defiant toss of his head, “is always ready to die for his principles.” He concluded as follows:
“The more the believers in just causes are persecuted, the more quickly will their ideas be realized. For instance, in rendering such an unjust and barbarous verdict, the twelve ‘honorable men’ in the jury-box have done more for the furtherance of Anarchism than the convicted have accomplished in a generation. This verdict is a death-blow to free speech, free press and free thought in this country, and the people will be conscious of it, too. This is all I care to say.”
LOUIS LINGG was in no gentle frame of mind when he advanced to enter his objection at the bar of the court. After a thrust at the court, he said that he had been accused of murder and been convicted; and “what proof,” he defiantly asked, “have you brought that I am guilty?” He acknowledged that he had helped Seliger to make bombs; “but,” he stoutly maintained, “what you have not proven—even with the assistance of your bought ‘squealer,’ Seliger, who would appear to have acted such a prominent part in the affair—is that any of those bombs were taken to the Haymarket.” He referred to the testimony of the experts as simply showing that the Haymarket bomb bore “a certain resemblance to those bombs of his,” and that was the kind of evidence, he held, upon which he had been convicted. He had been convicted of murder, but it was Anarchy on which the verdict was based. “You have charged me with despising ‘law and order,’” he said. “What does your ‘law and order’ amount to? Its representatives are the police, and they have thieves in their ranks.” He then opened fire on me because the detectives I had sent out had broken into his room, as he claimed, to effect his arrest, and insisted that he had not been at the Monday night meeting, but at Zepf’s Hall, at that time, which I had stated to be false.
Lingg next turned his attention to Mr. Grinnell, and accused him of having “leagued himself with a parcel of base, hireling knaves, to bring me to the gallows.” Then the Judge came in for a scoring. “The Judge himself,” he held, “was forced to admit that the State’s Attorney had not been able to connect me with the bomb-throwing. The latter knows how to get around it, however. He charges me with being a ‘conspirator.’ How does he prove it? Simply by declaring the International Workingmen’s Association to be a ‘conspiracy.’ I was a member of that body, so he has the charge securely fastened on me. Excellent!” He concluded as follows:
“I tell you frankly and openly, I am for force. I have already told Captain Schaack, ‘If they use cannon against us, we shall use dynamite against them.’ I repeat that I am the enemy of the ‘order’ of to-day, and I repeat that, with all my powers, so long as breath remains in me, I shall combat it. I declare again, frankly and openly, that I am in favor of using force. I have told Captain Schaack, and I stand by it, ‘If you cannonade us, we shall dynamite you.’ You laugh! Perhaps you think, ‘You’ll throw no more bombs,’ but let me assure you that I die happy on the gallows, so confident am I that the hundreds and thousands to whom I have spoken will remember my words; and when you shall have hanged us, then, mark my words, they will do the bomb-throwing! In this hope do I say to you: ‘I despise you. I despise your order, your laws, your force-propped authority.’ Hang me for it!”
GEORGE ENGEL appeared the least concerned of all when it came his turn to respond to the court’s question as to any reasons he might have against the infliction of the death penalty. He opened by setting forth his arrival in America in 1872 and gave some reasons which had prompted him to espouse Anarchy. It was “the poverty, the misery of the working classes.” People here in a free land, he said, were “doomed to die of starvation.” He had read the works of Lassalle, Marx and George, and after studying the labor question carefully he had come, he said, to the conclusion that “a workingman could not decently exist in this rich country.” He had sought to remedy the inequalities through the ballot-box, but after a time, he said, it had become clear to him “that the working classes could never bring about a form of society guaranteeing work, bread and a happy life by means of the ballot.” He had labored for a time in the interest of the Social-Democratic party, but, finding political corruption in its ranks, he had left it.
“I left this party and joined the International Working People’s Association, that was just being organized. The members of that body have the firm conviction that the workingman can free himself from the tyranny of capitalism only through force—just as all advances of which history speaks have been brought about through force alone. We see from the history of this country that the first colonists won their liberty only through force; that through force slavery was abolished, and just as the man who agitated against slavery in this country had to ascend the gallows, so also must we. He who speaks for the workingmen to-day must hang. And why? Because this republic is not governed by people who have obtained their office honestly. Who are the leaders at Washington that are to guard the interests of this nation? Have they been elected by the people, or by the aid of their money? They have no right to make laws for us, because they were not elected by the people. These are the reasons why I have lost all respect for American laws.”
Engel then alluded to the displacement of labor by machinery and held that the amelioration of the workingmen’s condition could only be effected through Socialism. As to his conviction, he declared that he was not at all surprised. He had learned long ago that the workingman had no more rights here than anywhere else in the world. His crime, he insisted, consisted simply in having labored to “bring about a system of society by which it is impossible for one to hoard millions, through the improvements in machinery, while the great masses sink to degradation and misery.” He believed that inventions should be free to all and touched on the aims of Anarchy. In his opinion “Anarchy and Socialism were as much alike as one egg is to another.” Whatever difference existed was in tactics.
“It is true, I am acquainted with several of my fellow-defendants; with most of them, however, but slightly, through seeing them at meetings, and hearing them speak. Nor do I deny that I, too, have spoken at meetings, saying that, if every workingman had a bomb in his pocket, capitalistic rule would soon come to an end.
“That is my opinion, and my wish; it became my conviction when I mentioned the wickedness of the capitalistic conditions of the day.
“Can any one feel any respect for a government that accords rights only to the privileged classes, and none for the workers? We have seen but recently how the coal barons combined to form a conspiracy to raise the price of coal, while at the same time reducing the already low wages of their men. Are they accused of conspiracy on that account? But when workingmen dare ask an increase in their wages, the militia and the police are sent out to shoot them down.
“For such a government as this I can feel no respect, and will combat them, despite their power, despite their police, despite their spies.
“I hate and combat, not the individual capitalist, but the system that gives him those privileges. My greatest wish is that workingmen may recognize who are their friends and who are their enemies.
“As to my conviction, brought about, as it was, through capitalistic influence, I have not one word to say.”
SAMUEL FIELDEN entered into a long disquisition on the troubles of the working classes all over the world, and covered much of the ground traversed by him when on the witness-stand. He spoke of his having been in England a Sunday School superintendent, a local preacher of the Methodist Church, and an exhorter, and then chronicled his change of convictions after his arrival in the United States in 1868. He branched out into an exposition of Socialism and cited instances of the oppression practiced on working people by capitalists. He then reviewed some of the points in the testimony against him and sought to show wherein his speeches at various meetings had been incorrectly reported in the newspapers. He had neither said at the Haymarket meeting, “Here come the bloodhounds,” nor had he fired a revolver. He claimed that the meeting had been a peaceable one, and held that there had been no indication of trouble, and that his language had not been incendiary. He said:
“I am charged with having said, ‘Stab the law.’ No one claims but that it was in connection with my conception of the meaning of Foran’s speech, and the word ‘stab’ is not necessarily a threat of violence upon any person. Here at your primary elections you frequently hear the adherents of different candidates state before the primaries are called that they will ‘knife’ so and so. Do they mean that they are going to kill him, stab him, take his life away from him? They are forcible expressions—very emphatic expressions. They are adjectives which are used in different ways to carry conviction, and perhaps make the language more startling to the audience, in order that they may pay attention.”
In speaking of his arrest he said:
“I didn’t attempt to run away. I had been out walking around the street that morning, and there was plenty of opportunity for me to have been hundreds of miles away. When the officer came there I opened the door to him. He said he wanted me. I knew him by sight and I knew what was his occupation. I said: ‘All right; I will go with you.’ I have said here that I thought, when the representatives of the State had inquired by means of their policemen as to my connection with it, that I should have been released. And I say now, in view of all the authorities that have been read on the law and regarding accessories, that there is nothing in the evidence that has been introduced to connect me with that affair. One of the Chicago papers, at the conclusion of the State’s Attorney’s case, said that they might have proved more about these men, about where they were and what they were doing on the 2d and 3d of May. When I was told that Captain Schaack had got confessions out of certain persons connected with this affair, I said: ‘Let them confess all they like. As long as they will tell only the truth, I care nothing for their confessions.’”
Fielden next dwelt upon his treatment at the Central Station, and criticised the searching of houses without warrant. With reference to the trial he said:
“We claim that the foulest criminal that could have been picked up in the slums of any city of Christendom, or outside of it, would never have been convicted on such testimony as has been brought in here, if he had not been a dangerous man in the opinion of the privileged classes. We claim that we are convicted, not because we have committed murder. We are convicted because we were very energetic in advocacy of the rights of labor. I call your attention to a very significant fact—that on this day, at this time when the sentence of death is going to be passed on us, the Stock-yards employers have notified their employés that they will be required to work ten hours next Monday or they will shut down. I think it is a logical conclusion to draw that these men think they have got a dangerous element out of the way now, and they can return again to the ten-hour system. I know that I had considerable to do with the eight-hour question, although I only spoke once in that neighborhood, every man there being a stranger to me—but I went down there in March previous and made an eight hour speech and formed the nucleus of an eight-hour organization there, and the Stock-yards succeeded in starting the eight-hour system, though they have not been able to keep it up in its entirety. We claim that we have done much.”
He predicted that it would be a grand day when everybody adopted Socialism, and then touched on his own case, denying that he had entered into a conspiracy. Fischer, Lingg and Engel, he said, were men with whom he had not associated for a year, and therefore, he maintained, he could not have been conspiring with them. He had never, he said, seen a dynamite bomb till he saw one in the court-room, and had never known that dynamite was kept at the Arbeiter-Zeitung office. In concluding his speech Fielden said:
Your honor, I have worked at hard labor since I was eight years of age. I went into a cotton factory when I was eight years old, and I have worked continually since, and there has never been a time in my history that I could have been bought or paid into a single thing by any man or for any purpose which I did not believe to be true. To contradict the lie that was published in connection with the bill by the grand jury charging us with murder, I wish to say that I have never received one cent for agitating. When I have gone out of the city I have had my expenses paid. But often when I have gone into communities, when I would have to depend upon those communities for paying my way, I have often come back to this city with money out of pocket, which I had earned by hard labor, and I had to pay for the privilege of my agitation out of the little money I might have in my possession. To-day as the beautiful autumn sun kisses with balmy breeze the cheek of every free man, I stand here never to bathe my head in its rays again. I have loved my fellow-men as I have loved myself. I have hated trickery, dishonesty and injustice. The nineteenth century commits the crime of killing its best friend. It will live to repent of it. But, as I have said before, if it will do any good, I freely give myself up. I trust the time will come when there will be a better understanding, more intelligence, and above the mountains of iniquity, wrong and corruption, I hope the sun of righteousness and truth and justice will come to bathe in its balmy light an emancipated world.”
ALBERT R. PARSONS consumed a great deal of time in the delivery of his speech. He began by declaring that the trial had been conducted with “passion, heat and anger,” and pronounced the verdict as one of “passion, born in passion, nurtured in passion, and the sum totality of the organized passion of the city of Chicago.” For that reason he asked for a suspension of sentence and a new trial. He said:
“Now, I stand here as one of the people, a common man, a workingman, one of the masses, and I ask you to give ear to what I have to say. You stand as a bulwark; you are as a brake between them and us. You are here as the representative of justice, holding the poised scales in your hands. You are expected to look neither to the right nor to the left, but to that by which justice, and justice alone, shall be subserved. The conviction of a man, your honor, does not necessarily prove that he is guilty. Your law-books are filled with instances where men have been carried to the scaffold and after their death it has been proven that their execution was a judicial murder. Now, what end can be subserved in hurrying this matter through in the manner in which it has been done? Where are the ends of justice subserved, and where is truth found in hurrying seven human beings at the rate of express speed upon a fast train to the scaffold and an ignominious death? Why, if your honor please, the very method of our extermination, the deep damnation of its taking-off, appeals to your honor’s sense of justice, of rectitude, and of honor. A judge may also be an unjust man. Such things have been known.”
Parsons acknowledged being an Anarchist and proceeded to show the ends Anarchy sought. Then he asked:
“Now, what is this labor question which these gentlemen treat with such profound contempt, which these distinguished ‘honorable’ gentlemen would throttle and put to ignominious death, and hurry us like rats to our holes? What is it? You will pardon me if I exhibit some feeling? I have sat here for two months, and these men have poured their vituperations out upon my head, and I have not been permitted to utter a single word in my own defense. For two months they have poured their poison upon me and my colleagues. For two months they have sat here and spat like adders the vile poison of their tongues, and if men could have been placed in a mental inquisition and tortured to death, these men would have succeeded here now—vilified, misrepresented, held in loathsome contempt, without a chance to speak or contradict a word. Therefore, if I show emotion, it is because of this, and if my comrades and colleagues with me here have spoken in such strains as these, it is because of this. Pardon us. Look at it from the right standpoint. What is this labor question? It is not a question of emotion; the labor question is not a question of sentiment; it is not a religious matter; it is not a political problem; no, sir, it is a stern economic fact, a stubborn and immovable fact.”
He entered into a long explanation of the capitalistic system and pointed to the troubles experienced by the laboring classes under the present conditions. He spoke of capitalistic combinations and “corners,” touched on landlordism, discoursed on the eight-hour movement, and then reviewed some of the evidence against him. Referring to the Alarm, of which he had been editor, he said:
“Why, the very article that you quote in the Alarm, a copy of which I have not, but which I would like to see, calling the American group to assemble for the purpose of considering military matters and military organization, states specifically that the purpose and object is to take into consideration measures of defense against unlawful and unconstitutional attacks of the police. The identical article shows it. You forgot surely that fact when you made this observation; and I defy any one to show, in a speech that is susceptible of proof, by proof, that I have ever said aught by word of mouth or by written article except self-defense. Does not the Constitution of the country, under whose flag myself and my forefathers were born for the last two hundred and sixty years, provide that protection, and give me, their descendant, that right? Does not the Constitution say that I, as an American, have a right to keep and to bear arms? I stand upon that right. Let me see if this court will deprive me of it. Let me call your attention to another point here. These articles that appear in the Alarm, for some of them I am not responsible any more than is the editor of any other paper. And I did not write everything in the Alarm, and it might be possible that there were some things in that paper which I am not ready to indorse. I am frank to admit that such is the case. I suppose that you can scarcely find an editor of a paper in the world but that could conscientiously say the same thing. Now, am I to be dragged up here and executed for the utterances and writings of other men, even though they were published in the columns of a paper of which I was the editor? Your honor, you must remember that the Alarm was a labor paper, published by the International Working People’s Association, belonging to that body. I was elected its editor by the organization, and, as labor editors generally are, I was handsomely paid. I had saw-dust pudding as a general thing for dinner. My salary was eight dollars a week, and I have received that salary as editor of the Alarm for over two years and a half—eight dollars a week! I was paid by the association. It stands upon the books. Go down to the office and consult the business manager. Look over the record in the book, and it will show you that A. R. Parsons received eight dollars a week as editor of the Alarm for over two years and a half. This paper belonged to the organization. It was theirs. They sent in their articles—Tom, Dick and Harry; everybody wanted to have something to say, and I had no right to shut off anybody’s complaint.”
He then offered some reasons to justify his utterances on labor questions. He quoted from newspapers to show their hostility to the interests of labor, and he dwelt on various strikes in the United States and endeavored to show how the men had been treated by corporations. The tramp question was next handled, and Parsons maintained that the present social system was responsible for the fact that millions did not know where to get a bed or supper. He continued:
“Who are the mob? Why, dissatisfied people, dissatisfied workingmen and women; people who are working for starvation wages, people who are on a strike for better pay—these are the mob. They are always the mob. That is what the riot drill is for. Suppose a case that occurs. The First Regiment is out with a thousand men armed with the latest improved Winchester rifles. Here are the mobs; here are the Knights of Labor and the trades-unions, and all of the organizations without arms. They have no treasury, and a Winchester rifle costs eighteen dollars. They cannot purchase those things. We cannot organize an army. It takes capital to organize an army. It takes as much money to organize an army as to organize industry, or as to build railroads; therefore, it is impossible for the working classes to organize and buy Winchester rifles. What can they do? What must they do? Your honor, the dynamite bomb, I am told, costs six cents. It can be made by anybody. The Winchester rifle costs eighteen dollars. That is the difference. Am I to be blamed for that? Am I to be hanged for saying this? Am I to be destroyed for this? What have I done? Go dig up the ashes of the man who invented this thing. Find his ashes and scatter them to the winds, because he gave this power to the world. It was not I.”
Coming to the Haymarket meeting and referring to the presence of the police as an affront, he said:
“Was not that a most grievous outrage? Was not that a violation of all of those principles for which our forefathers struggled in this country? At this juncture some unknown and unproven person throws a bomb among the police, killing several men. You say that I did it, or you say that I knew of it. Where is your proof, gentlemen of the prosecution? You have none. You didn’t have any. Oh, but you have a theory, and that theory is that no one else could have had any motive to hurl that missile of death except myself, and, as is the common remark of the great papers of the city, the police are never short of a theory. There is always a theory on hand for everything. A theory they have got, and especially the detectives; they hatch up a theory at once and begin to follow that out. There was a theory carried out during this trial. Let us examine that theory. I say that a Pinkerton man, or a member of the Chicago police force itself, had as much inducement to throw that bomb as I had, and why? Because it would demonstrate the necessity for their existence and result in an increase of their pay and their wages. Are these people any too good to do such a thing? Are they any better than I am? Are their motives any better than my own? Let us look at this thing now from every standpoint. Perhaps, on the other hand, the dread missile was hurled in revenge by some poor man or woman, or child even, whose parent or protector or friend was killed by the police in some of their numerous massacres of the people before. Who knows? And if it was, are we seven to suffer death for that? Are we responsible for that act? Or, might it not be that some person with the fear of death in his eyes threw that bomb in self-defense? And if they did, am I responsible for it? Am I to be executed for that? Is it law to put me to death for that? And who knows? My own deliberate opinion concerning this Haymarket affair is that the death-dealing missile was the work, the deliberate work, of monopoly, the act of those who themselves charge us with the deed. I am not alone in this view of the matter.”
Monopoly, Parsons held, was responsible for the labor troubles;
“What are the real facts of that Haymarket tragedy? Mayor Harrison, of Chicago, has caused to be published his opinion—because, mark you, your honor, this is all a matter of conjecture. It is only presumed that I threw the bomb. They have only assumed that some one of these men threw that bomb. It is only an inference that any of us had anything to do with it. It is not a fact, and it is not proven. It is merely an opinion. Your honor admits that we did not perpetrate the deed, or know who did it, but that we, by our speeches, instigated some one else to do so. Now, let us see the other side of this case. Mayor Harrison, of Chicago, has caused to be published in the New York World—and the interview was copied in the Tribune of this city, in which he says: ‘I do not believe there was any intention on the part of Spies and those men to have bombs thrown at the Haymarket. If so, why was there but one thrown? It was just as easy for them to throw a dozen or fifty, and to throw them in all parts of the city, as it was to have thrown one. And again, if it was intended to throw bombs that night, the leaders would not have been there at all, in my opinion. Like commanders-in-chief, they would have been in a safe place. No, it cannot be shown that there was any intention on the part of these individuals to kill that particular man who was killed at that Haymarket meeting.’ Now, your honor, this is the Mayor of Chicago. He is a sensible man. He is in a position to know what he is talking about. He has first-rate opportunities to form an intelligent opinion, and his opinion is worthy of respect. He knows more about this thing than the jury that sat in this room, for he knows—I suspect that the Mayor knows—of some of the methods by which most of this so-called evidence and testimony was manufactured. I don’t charge it, but possibly he has had some intimation of it, and if he has, he knows more about this case and the merits of this case than did the jury who sat here. There is too much at stake to take anything for granted. Your honor can’t afford to do that.
“Is it nothing to destroy the lives of seven men? Are the rights of the poor of no consequence? Is it nothing that we should regard it so lightly, as a mere pastime? That is why I stand here at such length to present this case to you, that you may understand it; that you may have our side of this question as well as that of the prosecution.”
Parsons then referred to attacks of the police on workingmen’s meetings, and reviewed some of the evidence against himself, insisting that he had never seen Lingg until he saw him in the court-room.
“Waller testified in chief, and reiterated it in cross-examination, that Engel and Fischer, these noble and brave Germans, offered a resolution at Greif’s Hall, on the announcement that six men had been wantonly and brutally murdered by the police at McCormick’s, that if other men should come into encounter with the police we should aid them; and further swore that this plan was to be followed only when the police, by brutal force, should interfere with the workmen’s right of free assemblage and free speech. Now, then, where is the foul and dastardly criminal conspiracy here? Where is it? So preposterous was it on its face to call such a noble compact to do a lawful thing a conspiracy, that it became necessary, in face of a dozen witnesses, both for the prosecution and the defense, who swear that the bomb came from the pavement on Desplaines Street, south of the alley, between the alley and Randolph Street—a statement made by Bonfield himself to reporters about half an hour after the tragedy occurred, and published in the Times, on May 5, the following morning—Louis Haas, Bonfield’s special detective on the ground, at the Coroner’s inquest, swore the bomb was thrown from the east side of Desplaines Street, and about fifteen feet, he believed, south of the alley, a statement confirmed by the witness Burnett, for the defense, who located it fifteen feet further south than Haas or Bonfield did—still, on the impeached testimony of Gilmer, who swore the bomb was thrown from within the alley, we are convicted, because he was also willing to perjure himself by swearing that Spies lit the fuse of the fatal missile. The idea of a man striking a match in an alley to light a bomb in the midst of a crowd, the people and police standing all around him! It seems to me that such a statement as that ought, among sensible men, on the face of it, to carry its own refutation. Perfectly absurd! If this statement bore the semblance of truth with regard to Gilmer, or was the truth, not one of these defendants would shrink from the responsibility of the right of self-defense, your honor, and of free speech, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble. It is because this is not the work of the Anarchists or of the workingmen that we repel the charge, which proves there was no concerted action, and that it was none of the plans of these groups. It is not unlawful to repel an invasion of our meetings.
“About this time some one, as testified to by three reputable witnesses, stopped at Indianapolis. That was in May. The Haymarket tragedy was the 4th. This man testifies to that fact. A stranger stops there. He says: ‘I am going to Chicago. I have something that will work. You will hear from it.’ The man was in his cups, no doubt; probably he drank too much. The Pinkertons are not all temperance men; they sometimes take a little, and sometimes possibly take a little too much. Possibly he talked a little more than he ought to have talked. Possibly he didn’t care, but at any rate it is sworn to that he said it. He came to Chicago, and the bomb was heard from and heard around the world. Your honor, is this an unreasonable assumption? It is far more likely, much more reasonable than your honor’s surmise that I instigated some one to do it.
“The absolute proof that the missile thrown was not dynamite, but what was known in the late civil war as an infernal bomb, is in the evidence of every surgeon who testified—that all incisions were clean, and that the flesh was torn as from an explosive in the interior. It was testified by these scientific men, your honor, that dynamite is percussive, and had a shell the size of Lingg’s manufacture, on exhibition in evidence, been thrown in the closed ranks of the police, as was this infernal machine, instead of killing but one on the spot, and wounding a few others, it would have blown to unrecognizable fragments the platoons in the vicinity, and the wounds, where there were wounds, would have been as clean as with solid projectiles.
“This was an infernal bomb from New York, brought there by the Indianapolis traveler, and not a dynamite bomb, the description in its effects upon its victims exactly corresponding with the description of those explosives when once used in battle on the Potomac. The hollow bullets within the shell, after entering the victim, exploded, lacerating the flesh and inflicting ugly internal and really infernal wounds.
“Six of these condemned men were not even present at the Haymarket meeting when the tragedy occurred. One of them was five miles away, at the Deering Harvester Works, in Lake View, addressing a mass-meeting of two thousand workingmen. Another was at home, in bed, and knew not of the meeting being held at all until the next day. These facts, your honor, stand uncontradicted before this court. Only one witness—Gilmer—and his testimony is overwhelmingly impeached, as I remarked before—connected the other two—two only—of these men with the tragedy at the Haymarket at all.
“Now, with these facts, the attempt to make out a case of conspiracy against us is a contemptible farce. What are the facts testified to by the two so-called informers? They said that two of these defendants were present at the so-called conspiracy meeting of Monday night. What, then, have you done with the other six men who were not members—who were not present, and did not know of the meeting being held Monday night? These two so-called informers testified that at the so-called conspiracy meeting of May 3 it was resolved that in the future, when police and militia should attack and club and kill workingmen at their meetings, then, and then only, they were in duty bound to help defend these working people against such unlawful, unrighteous and outrageous assaults. That was all that was said or done. Was that a conspiracy? If it was, your honor, it was a conspiracy to do right and oppose what is wrong.
“But your sentence says that it is criminal for the workingmen to resolve to defend their lives and their liberties and their happiness against brutal, bloody and unlawful assaults of the police and militia.”
Parsons again returned to Anarchy and defined its doctrines at some length. In concluding his remarks, which consumed two hours on Friday and six hours on Saturday, he said:
“The next day I saw that they were dragging these men to prison, treating them in a shameful manner. I left the city. I went to Geneva, Ill., for a couple of days; staid there with friend Holmes. Then I went to Elgin, Ill.; staid there a couple of days. Then I left there and went to Waukesha, Wis., where I obtained employment as a carpenter and afterwards as a painter, and remained for over seven weeks in Waukesha. My health was debilitated, and I went to the springs when I was thirsty. The house I was working on was only half a block from the springs, and I needed the recreation and the rest, and the pure air, and the water besides. When I saw the day fixed for the opening of this trial, knowing I was an innocent man, and also feeling that it was my duty to come forward and share whatever fate had in store for my comrades, and also to stand, if need be, on the scaffold, and vindicate the rights of labor, the cause of liberty, and the relief of the oppressed, I returned. How did I return? It is interesting, but it will take time to relate it, and I will not state it. I ran the gauntlet. I went from Waukesha to Milwaukee. I took the St. Paul train at the Milwaukee depot and came to Chicago; arrived here at 8:30, I suppose, in the morning; went to the house of my friend Mrs. Ames, on Morgan Street, sent for my wife and had a talk with her. I sent word to Captain Black that I was here and prepared to surrender. He sent word back to me that he was ready to receive me. I met him at the threshold of this building, and we came up here together. I stood in the presence of this court. I have nothing, not even now, to regret.”
The speeches of the defendants occupied three days—the 7th to the 9th of October, inclusive—and when Parsons had finished the court proceeded to pronounce sentence. Judge Gary said:
“I am quite well aware that what you have said, although addressed to me, has been said to the world; yet nothing has been said which weakens the force of the proof, or the conclusions therefrom upon which the verdict is based. You are all men of intelligence, and know that, if the verdict stands, it must be executed. The reasons why it shall stand I have already sufficiently stated in deciding the motion for a new trial.
“I am sorry beyond any power of expression for your unhappy condition, and for the terrible events that have brought it about. I shall address to you neither reproaches nor exhortation. What I shall say shall be said in the faint hope that a few words from a place where the people of the State of Illinois have delegated the authority to declare the penalty of a violation of their laws, and spoken upon an occasion so solemn and awful as this, may come to the knowledge of and be heeded by the ignorant, deluded and misguided men who have listened to your counsels and followed your advice. I say in the faint hope; for if men are persuaded that because of business differences, whether about labor or anything else, they may destroy property and assault and beat other men and kill the police if they, in the discharge of their duty, interfere to preserve the peace, there is little ground to hope that they will listen to any warning.
“It is not the least among the hardships of peaceable, frugal and laborious people to endure the tyranny of mobs who, with lawless force, dictate to them, under penalty of peril to limb and life, where, when and upon what terms they may earn a livelihood for themselves and their families. Any government that is worthy of the name will strenuously endeavor to secure to all within its jurisdiction freedom to follow their lawful avocations in safety for their property and their persons, while obeying the law; and the law is common sense. It holds each man responsible for the natural and probable consequences of his own acts. It holds that whoever advises murder is himself guilty of the murder that is committed pursuant to his advice, and if men band together for forcible resistance to the execution of the law, and advise murder as a means of making such resistance effectual,—whether such advice be to one man to murder another or to a numerous class to murder men of another class,—all who are so banded together are guilty of any murder that is committed in pursuance of such advice.
“The people of this country love their institutions. They love their homes. They love their property. They will never consent that by violence and murder their institutions shall be broken down, their homes despoiled and their property destroyed. And the people are strong enough to protect and sustain their institutions and to punish all offenders against their laws. And those who threaten danger to civil society if the law is enforced are leading to destruction whoever may attempt to execute such threats.
“The existing order of society can be changed only by the will of the majority. Each man has the full right to entertain and advance, by speech and print, such opinions as suit himself; and the great body of the people will usually care little what he says. But if he proposes murder as a means of enforcing them he puts his own life at stake. And no clamor about free speech or the evils to be cured or the wrongs to be redressed will shield him from the consequences of his crime. His liberty is not a license to destroy. The toleration that he enjoys he must extend to others, and he must not arrogantly assume that the great majority are wrong and that they may rightfully be coerced by terror or removed by dynamite.
“It only remains that for the crime you have committed—and of which you have been convicted after a trial unexampled in the patience with which an outraged people have extended you every protection and privilege of the law which you derided and defied—the sentence of that law be now given.
“In form and detail that sentence will appear upon the records of the court. In substance and effect it is that the defendant Neebe be imprisoned in the State Penitentiary at Joliet at hard labor for the term of fifteen years.
“And that each of the other defendants, between the hours of ten o’clock in the forenoon and two o’clock in the afternoon of the third day of December next, in the manner provided by the statute of this State, be hung by the neck until he is dead. Remove the prisoners.”
Capt. Black—“Your honor knows that we intend to take an appeal to the Supreme Court in behalf of all the defendants. I ask that there be a stay of execution in the case of Mr. Neebe until the 3d day of December.”
Mr. Grinnell—“If the court please, that is a matter that usually stands between counsel for the defendants and the State. Every possible facility will be allowed and everything will be granted you in that particular that good sense and propriety dictate.”
Captain Black—“That is sufficient.”
Thus closed the most remarkable trial which ever engaged the attention of a judge and jury in America. It was begun, as stated, on the 21st day of June, 1886, and ended on the 20th day of August, thus occupying exactly two months. I cannot close this chapter without paying a deserved tribute to Mr. E. F. L. Gauss, who acted as interpreter throughout the trial. A very large proportion of the witnesses testified in foreign tongues, but in all the mass of testimony rendered into English by Mr. Gauss, not a syllable of the translation was ever challenged.
Chief Bailiff Henry Severin, with his staff of twenty-six men, had charge of the eight defendants. It was his duty to bring the prisoners from and to the court, to preserve order in the crowded court-room, and to guard the jury, escorting them to and from their hotel and in their walks, and watching out to prevent any attack by the malcontents upon the officers of the court.
Chapter XXXIV
In the Supreme Court—A Supersedeas Secured—Justice Magruder Delivers the Opinion—A Comprehensive Statement of the Case—How Degan was Murdered—Who Killed Him?—The Law of Accessory—The Meaning of the Statute—Were the Defendants Accessories?—The Questions at Issue—The Characteristics of the Bomb—Fastening the Guilt on Lingg—The Purposes of the Conspiracy—How they were Proved—A Damning Array of Evidence—Examining the Instructions—No Error Found in the Trial Court’s Work—The Objection to the Jury—The Juror Sandford—Judge Gary Sustained—Mr. Justice Mulkey’s Remarks—The Law Vindicated.
ALTHOUGH doomed to die, the prisoners did not despair. Their counsel led them to believe that the State Supreme Court would certainly grant them a rehearing, and the first step to get their case before that court was to secure a stay of the execution of the sentence. For this purpose Hon. Leonard Swett was called into the case to assist Capt. Black, and the two gentlemen accordingly went before Chief Justice Scott, and on the 25th of November, 1886, secured the desired supersedeas. In March, 1887, the appeal came before the Supreme Court of Illinois, and arguments were heard in the case until the 18th of the same month, when the matter was taken under advisement. Several months elapsed before a decision was handed down, but meanwhile all the prisoners expressed the utmost confidence in a reversal of the judgment of the Criminal Court. Their counsel were alike confident of a rehearing, and sympathizers joined in the hopes indulged in by the men behind the bars and their representatives before the bar.
On Wednesday, September 14, 1887, however, the Supreme Court rendered its decision, sustaining the findings of the lower court in every particular. It was given by the full bench, and there was not a dissenting opinion. Justice Benjamin D. Magruder delivered the opinion. After stating various rulings bearing on murder, conspiracy, accessory before the fact and other legal points involved in the case, and citing numerous extracts from the organs of the Anarchists and Herr Most’s book, he reviewed the authorities given by the counsel to sustain their respective sides, and then delivered the opinion of the court, as follows:
“This case comes before us by writ of error to the Criminal Court of Cook County. The writ has been made a supersedeas.
“Plaintiffs in error were tried in the summer of 1886 for the murder of Mathias J. Degan, on May 4, 1886, in the city of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. On August 20, 1886, the jury returned a verdict finding the defendants August Spies, Michael Schwab, Samuel Fielden, Albert R. Parsons, Adolph Fischer, George Engel and Louis Lingg guilty of murder, and fixing death as the penalty. By the same verdict they also found Oscar W. Neebe guilty of murder and fixed the penalty at imprisonment in the penitentiary for fifteen years.
“About the 1st day of May, 1886, the workingmen of Chicago and of other industrial centers in the United States were greatly excited upon the subject of inducing their employers to reduce the time during which they should be required to labor on each day to eight hours. In the midst of the excitement growing out of this eight-hour movement, as it was called, a meeting was held on the evening of May 4, 1886, at the Haymarket, on Randolph Street, in the West Division of the city of Chicago. This meeting was addressed by the defendants Spies, Parsons and Fielden. While the latter was making the closing speech, and at some point of time between ten and half-past ten o’clock in the evening, several companies of policemen, numbering one hundred and eighty men, marched into the crowd from their station on Desplaines Street, and ordered the meeting to disperse. As soon as the order was given, some one threw among the policemen a dynamite bomb, which struck Degan, one of the police officers, and killed him. As a result of the throwing of the bomb and of the firing of pistol shots, which immediately succeeded the throwing of the bomb, six policemen besides Degan were killed, and sixty more were seriously wounded.”
The court then went into the law of accessory, confirming the interpretation and ruling of the trial court, that all distinction between principals and accessories is by the Illinois statute abolished. The issue thus became: Were the defendants accessories to the murder of Degan?
To find the answers to these questions the court went into an exhaustive review of all the evidence in the case, covering the same ground which has been gone over in the previous chapters of this book.
First the bomb with which the murder had been done was considered. It had been proven to be round; to have a projecting fuse; to be of composite manufacture; to contain tin and lead, with traces of antimony, iron and zinc; to have upon it a small iron nut. All these characteristics were found in the bombs which Louis Lingg manufactured, and for these and other reasons the court held that the jury was warranted in believing that the bomb which killed Degan had been made by Lingg.
The purposes of the conspiracy were next inquired into, and the articles in the Alarm, the platform of the Internationale and similar incendiary and dangerous language from many sources are quoted in full in the opinion. The organization of the Anarchists was also inquired into, and the divisions into groups, the make-up of the Lehr and Wehr Verein and like matters stated. The court declared this to be an “illegal conspiracy.”
The damning array of evidence against the assassins was brought together relentlessly and completely. The speeches of the defendants were sifted, their teachings examined, and there could be left in no mind a doubt that these men had advised murder and arson, and that they were guilty technically as well as morally. The opinion of the court was a masterly presentation of the facts, and the conclusions drawn from them settled once for all both the law and the equity of this celebrated case. It was evident that there was law enough in America to protect society.
That the Haymarket murders were the legitimate and expected result of the teachings of the ring-leaders of the conspiracy was conclusively shown with a ruthless logic that left no hope for pardon, nor for interference with the law’s stern course.
Lingg’s case, and the case of Spies, of Engel, of Fischer, of Parsons, of Neebe, of Fielden were taken up separately, examined with a care that might be described as almost microscopic, and in each case there was no flaw in the record—no reason why these men should not pay the penalty for their crime.
The concluding part of the opinion is so important from a legal standpoint, and at the same time of such general interest, that I will quote it entire:
“If the defendants, as a means of bringing about the social revolution and as a part of the larger conspiracy to effect such revolution, also conspired to excite classes of workingmen in Chicago into sedition, tumult and riot and to the use of deadly weapons and the taking of human life, and, for the purpose of producing such tumult, riot, use of weapons and taking of life, advised and encouraged such classes by newspaper articles and speeches to murder the authorities of the city, and a murder of a policeman resulted from such advice and encouragement, then defendants are responsible therefor.
“It is a familiar doctrine of the law, in criminal cases, that, if a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the prisoner is entertained, the jury have no discretion, but must acquit. The twelfth and thirteenth instructions for the prosecution are objected to as not correctly stating to the jury the meaning of ‘reasonable doubt.’ The twelfth instruction is an exact copy, verbatim et literatim, of the sixth instruction in Miller et. al. vs. The People, 39 Ill. 457, which we approved in that case, and which since that case we have indorsed as correct in at least three cases, to-wit: May vs. The People, 60 Ill. 119, Connaghan vs. The People, 88 id. 460, and Dunn vs. The People, 109 id. 635.
“The portion of the thirteenth instruction which plaintiffs in error complain of is that which is contained in the following words: ‘You are not at liberty to disbelieve as jurors if from the evidence you believe as men.’ This expression has been sanctioned by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania as having been properly used in an instruction given to the jury by a trial judge, and we are inclined to follow the ruling there laid down. That court said in Nevling vs. Commonwealth, 98 Pa. St. 322: ‘The learned judge then proceeded to say that the doubt must be a reasonable one, and that jurymen could not doubt as jurymen what they believed as men. In all this there was no error. It is the familiar language found in the textbooks and decisions which treat of the subject.’
“By the twelfth and thirteenth instructions, considered in connection with the eleventh instruction for the State, and also in connection with the definitions of reasonable doubt as embodied in the instructions given for the defense, we think the law upon this subject was correctly presented to the jury.
“The statute of this State provides that ‘juries in all criminal cases shall be judges of the law and fact.’ Instruction number thirteen and a half, given for the prosecution, is objected to as improperly limiting and qualifying this provision of the statute. It tells the jury, that ‘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 that ‘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,’ etc.
“The language of instruction number thirteen and a half is an exact copy, verbatim et literatim, of the language used by this court in Schnier vs. The People, 23 Ill. 17. The views expressed in Schnier vs. The People have been approved of and indorsed in Fisher vs. The People, 23 Ill. 283, Mullinix vs. The People, 76 id. 211, and Davison vs. The People, 90 id. 221. The question is settled, and we see no reason to retreat from our position upon this subject.
“It is also claimed that the court erred in refusing to give certain instructions asked by the defendants. The refusal of refused instructions numbered 3, 8, 9, 11 and 18 is especially insisted upon as error.
“Instruction No. 3 was properly refused because it told the jury that those of the defendants who were not present at the Haymarket, counseling, aiding or abetting the throwing of the bomb, should be acquitted. Under our statute and the decision of this court in Brennan vs. The People, 15 Ill. 517, the defendants were guilty if they advised and encouraged the murder to be committed, although they may not have been present.
“Instruction No. 8 was wrong for a number of reasons, but it is sufficient to refer to one: it assumes that ‘a conspiracy to bring about a change of government ... by peaceful means if possible, but, if necessary, to resort to force for that purpose,’ is not unlawful. The fact that the conspirators may not have intended to resort to force, unless, in their judgment, they should deem it necessary to do so, would not make their conspiracy any the less unlawful.
“All that was material in instructions 9, 11 and 18 was embodied in the instructions which were given for the defendants.
“The defendants also complain that the court refused to give an instruction for them which contained the following statement: ‘It can not be material in this case that defendants, or some of them, are or may be Socialists, Communists or Anarchists,’ etc.
“If there was a conspiracy, it was material to show its purposes and objects, with a view to determining whether and in what respects it was unlawful. Anarchy is the absence of government; it is a state of society where there is no law or supreme power. If the conspiracy had for its object the destruction of the law and the government, and of the police and militia as representatives of law and government, it had for its object the bringing about of practical Anarchy. Whether or not the defendants were Anarchists, may have been a proper circumstance to be considered in connection with all the other circumstances in the case, with a view to showing what connection, if any, they had with the conspiracy and what were their purposes in joining it. Therefore, we can not say that it was error to refuse an instruction containing such a broad declaration as that announced in the above quotation.
“Defendants further complain because the instruction numbered 13, which was asked by them, was refused by the trial court. The refusal of this instruction was not error. It was proper enough, so far as it stated that if a person at the Haymarket ‘without the knowledge, aid, counsel, procurement, encouragement or abetting of the defendants or any of them, then or theretofore given, ... threw a bomb among the police, wherefrom resulted the murder or homicide charged in the indictment, then the defendants would not be liable for the results of such bomb,’ etc. But the instruction is so ingeniously worded as to lead the jury to believe that the person who threw the bomb at the Haymarket was justified in doing so if the meeting there was lawfully convened and peaceably conducted and if the order to disperse was unauthorized and illegal. Counsel inject into the instruction the hypothesis that the bomb may have been thrown by an outside party ‘in pursuance of his view of the right of self-defense.’ A mere order to disperse can not be an excuse for throwing a dynamite bomb into a body of policemen. If the bomb-thrower had been illegally and improperly attacked by the police, while quietly attending a peaceable meeting, and had thrown the bomb to defend himself against such attack, another question would be presented. The vice of the instruction lies in the insidious intimation embodied in it, that when a body of policemen, even if in excess of their authority, give a verbal order to an assemblage to disperse, a member of that assemblage will be excusable for throwing a bomb, on the ground of self-defense and because of the supposed invasion of his rights.
“The instruction given by the court of its own motion, and which has already been referred to, is also claimed to be erroneous. So far as it speaks of murder and advice to commit murder in general terms, it is sufficiently limited and qualified when read in connection with all the other instructions, to which it specifically calls attention. It does not supersede and stand as a substitute for the other instructions, given for both sides. It does not so purport upon its face. On the contrary, the jury are directed to ‘carefully scrutinize’ such other instructions, and are told that their apparent inconsistencies will disappear under such scrutiny. In the last sentence they are requested to disregard any unguarded expressions that may have crept into the instructions, ‘which seem to assume the existence of any facts,’ and look only to the evidence, etc. Why caution the jury to disregard certain expressions of a particular kind in the other instructions, if the latter were to be entirely superseded? We do not think that the instruction given by the trial judge sua motu is obnoxious to the objections urged against it.
“Defendants also object to the instruction as to the form of the verdict as being erroneous. It is claimed that the jury were obliged, under this instruction, to find the defendants either guilty or not guilty of murder, whereas the jury were entitled to find that the offense was a lower grade of homicide than murder, if the evidence so warranted. This position is fully answered by our decisions in the cases of Dunn vs. The People, 109 Ill. 646, and Dacey vs. The People, 116 id. 555. If counsel desired to have the jury differently instructed as to the form of the verdict, they should have prepared an instruction, indicating such form as they deemed to be correct, and should have asked the trial court to give it. They did not do so, and are in no position to complain here.
“The court, at the request of the defendants, did give the jury an instruction defining manslaughter in the words of the statute and specifying the punishment therefor as fixed by the statute. The court also gave the jury the following instruction: ‘The jury are instructed that under an indictment for murder a party accused may be found guilty of manslaughter; and in this case, if from a full and careful consideration of all the evidence before you, you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants or any of them are guilty of manslaughter, you may so find by your verdict.’
“The next error assigned has reference to the impaneling of the jury. The counsel for plaintiffs in error have made an able and elaborate argument for the purpose of showing that the jury which tried this case was not an impartial jury in the sense in which the word ‘impartial’ is used in our Constitution. We do not deem a consideration of all the points presented as necessary to a determination of the case, and shall only notice those that seem to us to be material.
“Nine hundred and eighty-one men were called into the jury-box and sworn to answer questions. Each one of the eight defendants was entitled to a peremptory challenge of twenty jurors, making the whole number of peremptory challenges allowed to the defense one hundred and sixty. The State was entitled to the same number. Seven hundred and fifty-seven were excused upon challenge for cause. One hundred and sixty were challenged peremptorily by the defense and fifty-two by the State.
“Of the twelve jurors who tried the case, eleven were accepted by the defendants. They challenged one of these, whose name was Denker, for cause, but, after the court overruled the challenge, they proceeded to further question him and finally accepted him, although one hundred and forty-two of their peremptory challenges were at that time unused. They accepted the ten others, including the juror Adams, without objection. When Adams, the eleventh juror, was taken, they had forty-three peremptory challenges which they had not yet used.
“Therefore, as to eleven of the jurymen, the defendants are estopped from complaining. They virtually agreed to be tried by them, because they accepted them, when, by the exercise of their unused peremptory challenges, they could have compelled every one of them to stand aside.
“Counsel for the defense complain that the trial court overruled their challenges for cause of twenty-six talesmen, to whose examinations they specifically call our attention. As they afterwards peremptorily challenged the talesmen so referred to, no one of them sat upon the jury. Every one of these twenty-six men had been peremptorily challenged before the eleventh juror was taken.
“After the eleventh juror was accepted, the forty-three peremptory challenges which then remained to the defendants were all used by them before the twelfth juror was taken.
“After the defendants had examined the twelfth juror, whose name was Sandford, they challenged him for cause. Their challenge was overruled and they excepted.
“The one hundred and sixty talesmen who were peremptorily challenged by defendants were first challenged for cause, and the challenges for cause were overruled by the trial court. It is claimed that, inasmuch as the defendants exhausted all their peremptory challenges before the panel was finally completed, the action of the court in regard to these particular jurors will be considered, and, if erroneous, such action is good ground of reversal. We think it must be made to appear that an objectionable juror was put upon the defendants after they had exhausted their peremptory challenges. ‘Unless objection is shown to one or more of the jury who tried the case, the antecedent rulings of the court upon the competency or incompetency of jurors who have been challenged and stood aside will not be inquired into in this court.’ Holt vs. State, 9 Texas Ct. App. 571.
“We cannot reverse this judgment for errors committed in the lower court in overruling challenges for cause to jurors, even though defendants exhausted their peremptory challenges, unless it is further shown that an objectionable juror was forced upon them and sat upon the case after they had exhausted their peremptory challenges. This doctrine is ably discussed in Loggins vs. State, 12 Texas Ct. App. 65. We think the reasoning in that case is sound and answers the objection here made.
“In addition to this reason, we have carefully considered the examinations of the several jurors challenged by the defendants peremptorily, and while we cannot approve all that was said by the trial judge in respect to some of them, we find no such error in the rulings of the court in overruling the challenges for cause as to any of them as would justify a reversal of the cause. The examinations, as they appear in the record, of the forty-three talesmen who were challenged peremptorily after the eleventh juror was accepted, show that many of the forty-three challenges were exercised arbitrarily and without any apparent cause. Such challenges were not compelled by any demonstrated unfitness of the jurors, but seem to have been used up for no other purpose than to force the selection of one juror after the forty-three challenges were exhausted.
“The only question, then, which we deem it material to consider, is: Did the trial court err in overruling the challenge for cause of Sandford, the twelfth juror? or, in other words, Was he a competent juror?
“The following is the material portion of his examination:
“Have you an opinion as to whether or not there was an offense committed at the Haymarket meeting by the throwing of a bomb? A. Yes. Q. Now, from all that you have read and all that you have heard, have you an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of any of the eight defendants of the throwing of that bomb? A. Yes. Q. You have an opinion upon that question also? A. I have.... Q. Now, if you should be selected as a juror in this case to try and determine it, do you believe that you could exercise legally the duties of a juror, that you could listen to the testimony and all of the testimony and the charge of the court, and after deliberation return a verdict which would be right and fair as between the defendants and the People of the State of Illinois? A. Yes, sir. Q. You believe that you could do that? A. Yes, sir. Q. You could fairly and impartially listen to the testimony that is introduced here? A. Yes. Q. And the charge of the court, and render an impartial verdict, you believe? A. Yes. Q. Have you any knowledge of the principles contended for by Socialists, Communists and Anarchists? A. Nothing except what I read in the papers. Q. Just general reading? A. Yes. Q. You are not a Socialist, I presume, or a Communist? A. No, sir. Q. Have you a prejudice against them from what you have read in the papers? A. Decided. Q. Do you believe that that would influence your verdict in this case or would you try the real issue which is here as to whether the defendants were guilty of the murder of Mr. Degan or not, or would you try the question of Socialism and Anarchism, which really has nothing to do with the case? A. Well, as I know so little about it in reality at present, it is a pretty hard question to answer. Q. You would undertake, you would attempt of course to try the case upon the evidence introduced here, upon the issue which is presented here? A. Yes, sir.... Q. Well, then, so far as that is concerned, I do not care very much what your opinion may be now, for your opinion now is made up of random conversations and from newspaper reading, as I understand? A. Yes. Q. That is nothing reliable. You do not regard that as being in the nature of sworn testimony at all, do you? A. No. Q. Now, when the testimony is introduced here and the witnesses are examined, you see them and look into their countenances, judge who are worthy of belief and who are not worthy of belief, don’t you think then you would be able to determine the question? A. Yes. Q. Regardless of any impression that you might have or any opinion? A. Yes. Q. Have you any opposition to the organization by laboring men of associations or societies or unions so far as they have reference to their own advancement and protection and are not in violation of law? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know any of the members of the police force of the city of Chicago? A. Not one by name. Q. You are not acquainted with any one that was either injured or killed, I suppose, at the Haymarket meeting? A. No.... Q. If you should be selected as a juror in this case, do you believe that, regardless of all prejudice or opinion which you now have, you could listen to the legitimate testimony introduced in court, and upon that, and that alone, render and return a fair and impartial, unprejudiced and unbiased verdict? A. Yes.
The foregoing examination was by the defense. The following was by the State:
“Q. Upon what is your opinion founded—upon newspaper reports? A. Well, it is founded on the general theory and what I read in the newspapers. Q. And what you read in the papers? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you ever talked with any one that was present at the Haymarket at the time the bomb was thrown? A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever talked with any one who professed of his own knowledge to know anything about the connection of the defendants with the throwing of that bomb? A. No. Q. Have you ever said to any one whether or not you believed the statement of facts in the newspapers to be true? A. I have never expressed it exactly in that way, but still I have no reason to think they were false. Q. Well, the question is not what your opinion of that was. The question simply is—it is a question made necessary by our statute, perhaps. A. Well, I don’t recall whether I have or not. Q. So far as you know then, you never have? A. No, sir. Q. Do you believe that, if taken as a juror, you can try this case fairly and impartially and render an impartial verdict upon the law and the evidence? A. Yes.
“It is objected that Sandford had formed such an opinion as disqualified him from sitting upon the jury.
“It is apparent from the foregoing examination that the opinion of the juror was based upon rumor or newspaper statements, and that he had expressed no opinion as to the truth of such rumors or statements. He stated upon oath that he believed he could fairly and impartially render a verdict in the case in accordance with the law and the evidence. That the trial court was satisfied of the truth of his statement would appear from the fact that the challenge for cause was overruled.
“Therefore, the examination of the juror shows a state of facts which brings his case exactly within the scope and meaning of the third proviso of the 14th section of chapter 78, entitled ‘Jurors,’ of our Revised Statutes. That proviso is as follows: ‘And provided further, that, in the trial of any criminal cause, the fact that a person called as a juror has formed an opinion or impression, based upon rumor or upon newspaper statements (about the truth of which he has expressed no opinion), shall not disqualify him to serve as a juror in such case, if he shall, upon oath, state that he believes he can fairly and impartially render a verdict therein in accordance with the law and the evidence, and the court shall be satisfied of the truth of such statement.’
“In Wilson vs. The People, 94 Ill. 299, one William Gray was examined touching his qualifications as a juror and said: ‘I have read newspaper accounts of the commission of the crime with which the defendant is charged and have also conversed with several persons in regard to it since coming to Carthage and during my attendance upon this term of court; do not know whether they are witnesses in the case or not; do not know who the witnesses in the case are. From accounts I have read and from conversations I have had, I have formed an opinion in the case; would have an opinion now if the facts should turn out as I heard them, and I think it would take some evidence to remove that opinion; would be governed by the evidence in the case and can give the defendant a fair and impartial trial according to the law and the evidence.’ Gray was challenged for cause and the challenge overruled by the trial court. We held that all objection to Gray’s competency was clearly removed by the proviso above quoted. We also there said: ‘The opinion formed seems not to have been decided, but one of a light and transient character which at no time would have disqualified the juror from serving.’
“The expressions of Sandford in the case at bar as to the opinion formed by him are not so strong as those used by Gray in the Wilson case in regard to his opinion. Sandford’s impressions were not such as would refuse to yield to the testimony that might be offered, nor were they such as to close his mind to a fair consideration of the testimony. They were not ‘strong and deep impressions,’ such as are referred to by Chief Justice Marshall when he said upon the trial of Aaron Burr for treason: ‘Those strong and deep impressions which will close the mind against the testimony which may be offered in opposition to them, which will combat that testimony and resist its force, do constitute a sufficient objection’ to a juror. (1 Burr’s Trial, 416.)
“Counsel for the defense seem to claim in their argument that the proviso above quoted is unconstitutional in that it violates section 9 of article 2 of the present Constitution of this State, which guarantees to the accused party in every criminal prosecution ‘a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed.’ We do not think that the proviso is unconstitutional for the reason stated. The rule which it lays down, when wisely applied, does not lead to the selection of partial jurors. On the contrary, it tends to secure intelligence in the jury-box and to exclude from it that dense ignorance which has often subjected the jury system to just criticism. A statute upon this subject, similar to ours and attacked as unconstitutional for the same reason here indicated, was held to be constitutional by the Court of Appeals in the State of New York in Stokes vs. The People, 53 N. Y. 171.
“The juror Sandford further stated that he had a prejudice against Socialists, Communists and Anarchists. This did not disqualify him from sitting as a juror. If the theories of the Anarchists should be carried into practical effect, they would involve the destruction of all law and government. Law and government cannot be abolished without revolution, bloodshed and murder. The Socialist or Communist, if he attempted to put into practical operation his doctrine of a community of property, would destroy individual rights in property. Practically considered, the idea of taking a man’s property from him without his consent, for the purpose of putting it into a common fund for the benefit of the community at large, involves the commission of theft and robbery. Therefore, the prejudice which the ordinary citizen, who looks at things from a practical standpoint, would have against Anarchism and Communism, would be nothing more than a prejudice against crime.
“In Winnesheik Insurance Co. vs. Schueller, 60 Ill. 465, we said: ‘A man may have a prejudice against crime, against a mean action, against dishonesty, and still be a competent juror. This is proper, and such prejudice will never force a jury to prejudge an innocent and honest man.’ In Robinson et al. vs. Randall, supra, we again said: ‘The mere fact, therefore that a juror may have a prejudice against crime does not disqualify him as a juror. A juror may be prejudiced against larceny, or burglary, or murder, and yet such fact would not in the least disqualify him from sitting upon a jury to try some person who might be charged with one of these crimes.’
“Sandford stated that he would ‘attempt to try the case upon the evidence introduced here upon the issue which is presented here.’ The issue presented was whether the defendants were guilty or not guilty of the murder of Mathias J. Degan. Any prejudice against Communism or Anarchism would not render a juror incapable of trying that issue fairly and impartially.
“We cannot see that the trial court erred in overruling the challenge for cause of the twelfth juror. This being so, it does not appear that the defendants were injured, or that their rights were in any way prejudiced by his selection as a juryman.
“On the motion for a new trial the defendants read three affidavits for the purpose of showing that, shortly after May 4, 1886, two of the jurors had given utterance to expressions showing prejudice against the defendants. The two jurors made counter-affidavits denying that they had used the expressions attributed to them.
“We do not think that the affidavits satisfactorily proved previously expressed opinions on the part of the two jurors referred to. It was a dangerous practice to allow verdicts to be set aside upon ex parte affidavits as to what jurors are claimed to have said before they were summoned to act as jurymen. The parties making such affidavits submit to no cross-examination, and the correctness of their statements is subjected to no test whatever. We adhere to the views which we have recently expressed upon this subject in the case of Hughes vs. The People, 116 Ill. 330.
“The defendants claim that, although they were entitled to one hundred and sixty peremptory challenges, yet the State was entitled to only twenty, and they charge it as error that the State was allowed to peremptorily challenge more than twenty talesmen. The statute says: ‘The attorney prosecuting on behalf of the people shall be admitted to a peremptory challenge of the same number of jurors that the accused is entitled to.’ (Rev. Stat. chap. 38, sec. 432.) We cannot conceive how language can be plainer than that here used. It explains itself and requires no further remark. The defendants also claim that the trial court erred in refusing a separate trial, from the other defendants, to the defendants Spies, Schwab, Fielden, Neebe and Parsons. Error cannot be assigned upon the refusal to grant separate trials where several are jointly indicted. It was a matter of discretion with the court below. We so decided in Maton et al. vs. The People, 15 Ill. 536. We are unable to see any abuse of the discretion in this case.
“Defendants also take exceptions to the conduct of the special bailiff.[ The regular panel having been exhausted and the defendants having objected ‘to the Sheriff summoning a sufficient number of persons to fill the panel’ of jurors, the court appointed a special bailiff named Ryce to summon such persons under section 13, chapter 78, of the Revised Statutes. On the motion for new trial, defendants read the affidavit of one Stevens, in which Stevens swore that he had heard one Favor say that he, Favor, had heard Ryce say that he, Ryce, was summoning as jurors such men as the defense would be compelled to challenge peremptorily, etc. The defendants then made a motion, based upon this affidavit, that Favor be compelled to come into court and testify to what Ryce had said to him. The refusal of the court to grant the application is complained of as error.
“The statements in the affidavit were mere hearsay and were too indefinite and remote to base any motion upon. Moreover, if Ryce did make the remark in question to Favor, it does not appear that defendants were harmed by it. There is nothing to show that Ryce made any remarks of any kind, proper or improper, to the jurors whom he summoned. In addition to this, it is not shown that the defendants served Favor with a subpœna so as to lay a foundation for compelling his attendance.
“We think that the course pursued on the trial in regard to the manner of impaneling the jury was correct and in accordance with the plain meaning of section 21, chapter 78, of the Revised Statutes. That section says ‘that the jury shall be passed upon and accepted in panels of four by the parties, commencing with the plaintiff.’ The State is not called upon to tender the defendants a second panel before the defendants tender it back four.
“We can not see that the remarks of the State’s Attorney in his argument to the jury were marked by any such improprieties as require a reversal of the judgment. Wilson vs. The People, supra, and Garrity vs. The People, 107 Ill. 162.
“In their lengthy argument counsel for the defense make some other points of minor importance, which are not here noticed. As to these, it is sufficient to say that we have considered them and do not regard them as well taken.
“The judgment of the Criminal Court of Cook County is affirmed.”
After the reading of the decision, Justice Mulkey stated that it had been his intention, if health had permitted, to file a separate opinion. He said:
“While I concur in the conclusion reached, and also in the general view presented in the opinion filed, I do not wish to be understood as holding that the record is free from error, for I do not think it is. I am nevertheless of opinion that none of the errors complained of are of so serious a character as to require a reversal of the judgment.
“In view of the number of defendants on trial, the great length of time it was in progress, the vast amount of testimony offered and passed upon by the court, and the almost numberless rulings the court was required to make, the wonder with me is, that the errors were not more numerous and more serious than they are.
“In short, after having carefully examined the record, and given all the questions arising upon it my very best thought, with an earnest and conscientious desire to faithfully discharge my whole duty, I am satisfied fully that the conclusion reached vindicates the law, does complete justice between the prisoners and the State, and that it is fully warranted by the law and the evidence.”
Chapter XXXV
The Last Legal Struggle—The Need of Money—Expensive Counsel Secured—Work of the “Defense Committee”—Pardon, the Only Hope—Pleas for Mercy to Gov. Oglesby—Curious Changes of Sentiment—Spies’ Remarkable Offer—Lingg’s Horrible Death—Bombs in the Starch-box—An Accidental Discovery—My own Theory—Description of the “Suicide Bombs”—Meaning of the Short Fuse—“Count Four and Throw”—Details of Lingg’s Self-murder—A Human Wreck—The Bloody Record in the Cell—The Governor’s Decision—Fielden and Schwab Taken to the Penitentiary.
IN spite of this overwhelming defeat at the hands of the Supreme Court of Illinois, counsel for the Anarchists did not lose hope. They at once set about formulating plans to carry their case before the highest tribunal under the law, the Supreme Court of the United States, and for some time they labored unremittingly in preparing the necessary grounds on which to bring the matter within the jurisdiction of that court. The point on which they mainly relied was a constitutional question involving the validity of the jury law of the State of Illinois, but time was necessary to put in proper shape other questions incidental to the main issue, growing out of rulings in the trial court. Meanwhile money was needed, just as it had been during the trial and the appeal to the State Supreme Court. It had been resolved to call into the service of the convicted men eminent constitutional lawyers, of national reputation as well as of high standing before the highest tribunal in the land, and contributions were accordingly sought throughout the country by the Anarchist “Defense Committee” of Chicago, a body which had been organized preceding the trial. In compliance with the call, a great deal of money was subscribed, and the local counsel began to cast about for legal assistance among the most noted constitutional expounders in the Union, to properly prepare the case for presentation at Washington. Capt. Black, to whom this duty seems to have been mainly intrusted, finally decided upon Gen. Pryor, of New York, and J. Randolph Tucker, and with these eminent jurists he held long consultations on the best points to make before the court of last resort. Gen. Benjamin F. Butler was also called into the case as special counsel for Spies and Fielden.
Finally, on Thursday, October 27, 1887, the case was brought before the United States Supreme Court, and arguments were heard before a full bench. Mr. Tucker was the first to speak, and held the court’s attention for some time, contending that the Illinois jury law was in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. That amendment, he said, had been adopted, and had been construed by the court as for the special protection of the negro, and he insisted that it should be opened up for the protection of the whites as well. Upon this point he elaborated at some length, consuming nearly the whole time allotted to him, and then he proceeded to show that an impartial jury had not been chosen in the trial court, some men upon it—reference being made to Denker and Sandford—having formed a newspaper opinion, but, in spite of that fact, having still been admitted under the rulings of the court. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, he held, limited the States in the adoption of laws abridging the rights of citizens. His whole argument received marked attention and was ably presented.
Benjamin F. Butler made a few points in addition to those presented in his brief, but the main burden of his plea was that his clients, Spies and Fielden, were aliens and had come to this country under treaties made with Germany and England, long before the jury law of Illinois was passed.
Attorney-General Hunt, of Illinois, replied to the various points made by the petitioners, showing that the Federal Constitution, in its first ten amendments, did not restrict the rights of a State in the regulation of jury selections, and that there was no refuge for any of the defendants under the treaties. It was an eloquent and masterly argument, and its effect on the court was subsequently shown in the decision, which closely followed in the line of Mr. Hunt’s position on the matters in question.
State’s Attorney Grinnell was present simply to assist the Attorney-General in pointing out the salient features in the record of the trial court, with which he was so thoroughly familiar, but, on solicitation, he also addressed the court at some length. He spoke with reference to some details in the trial, and made a clear and concise exposition of the case. He was followed by General Butler, who spoke at considerable length, but advanced no new points, except that he maintained that Spies had been compelled to testify against himself.
The arguments occupied two days, and the court reserved its decision until Wednesday, November 2. On that day the court decided, on the claim that the first ten amendments to the Constitution limited the rights of a State in the passage of laws affecting personal rights, that they “were not intended to limit the powers of the State Government in respect to their own citizens, but to operate on the National Government alone.” This had been decided more than fifty years before, and that decision had been steadily adhered to ever since. “It was contended in argument,” said the court, “that, although originally the first two amendments were adopted as limitations on Federal power, yet, in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights, common-law rights of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as a citizen of the United States and cannot now be abridged by a State under the Fourteenth Amendment.” The objections raised, in brief, were that a statute of the State, as construed by the court, deprived the petitioners of a trial by an impartial jury and that Spies was compelled to give evidence against himself. The statute to which special objection was made, continued the court, was approved March 12, 1874, and went into force on July 1 of that year. The claim set up by petitioners was that the trial court, acting under this law, compelled them against their will to submit to a trial by a jury that was not impartial, and thus deprived them of one of the fundamental rights they had as citizens of the United States under the Federal Constitution, and that if the sentence was carried out they would be deprived of their lives “without due process of law.” The court then referred to the peremptory challenges allowed petitioners and held that with these the constitutional right of the accused had been maintained.
“Although a juror called as a juryman,” said the court, “may have formed an opinion based upon rumor or newspaper statement, he is still qualified as a juror if he states that he can fairly and impartially render a verdict thereon in accordance with the law and the evidence. Indeed, the rule of the statute of Illinois as construed by the trial court is not materially different from that which has been adopted by the courts in many other States without any legislation. We agree entirely with the Illinois Supreme Court in the opinion that the statute on its face, as construed by the trial court, is not repugnant to section 9 of article 2 of the Constitution of that State, which guarantees to the accused party in every criminal prosecution a speedy trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed.”
Speaking of the alleged bias of one of the jurors—Denker—the court says that neither party at the close of the examination challenged the juror peremptorily. “When this occurred it was not denied,” says the court, “that the defendants were still entitled to 143 peremptory challenges, or about that number.” As to Juror Sandford, the court said that “at the close of his examination on the part of the defendants the juror was challenged on their behalf for cause, and the attorney for the State, after having ascertained that all the peremptory challenges of the defendants had been exhausted, took up the examination of the juror.” It then appearing that he could render an impartial verdict, he was sworn in under the proper rulings of the court.
As to Spies being compelled to be a witness against himself, the court ruled that, inasmuch as he had voluntarily offered himself as a witness in his own behalf, by so doing he had become bound to submit himself to a proper cross-examination. But it was said that the reading of Most’s letter was not proper evidence. “That is,” continued the court, “a question of State law in the courts of the States, and not of Federal law.” Something was said about the alleged unreasonable search and seizure of the papers and property of some of the defendants, and their use in evidence in the trial of the case. Special reference was made to letters from Most to Spies, about which he was cross-examined; but “we have,” said the court, “not been referred to any part of the record in which it appears that objection was made to the use of the evidence on that account,” and therefore, “as the Supreme Court of Illinois says so, we cannot consider the constitutional question involved.”
The writ of error prayed for in the petitions and briefs filed and the arguments made on their merits was therefore denied.
The late Chief Justice Waite read the decision, and there was not a dissenting opinion, thus overwhelmingly sustaining the most important rulings made by Judge Gary and attesting the impregnable position taken by the State.
The prisoners in the Cook County Jail were now confronted with the awful fate in store for them nine days hence from the rendering of the Supreme Court’s decision. But, like drowning men grasping at straws, they turned in the direction of executive clemency. Their counsel, Capt. Black especially, entertained strong hopes of securing from Gov. Oglesby a commutation of sentence to imprisonment in the penitentiary. Steps were accordingly taken looking to that end. Petitions to the chief executive of Illinois were at once put in circulation for signatures, and friends and sympathizers of the condemned busied themselves in writing personal letters pleading for mercy.
As the day of execution approached, it was surprising to note how many, who had hitherto clamored for blood in atonement for the Haymarket massacre, now exerted themselves in the effort to secure executive clemency. With my own eyes I saw people who had made the most fuss shouting, “Hang the Anarchists! Don’t give them a chance for their lives. Destroy them at once. They must be roasted out; the balance of them must leave the country,” the first to weaken. They began calling the doomed Anarchists “poor innocent men; it is too bad to hang them. If they would only promise to do better hereafter, the authorities ought to let them go.” There were others, again, who wished to see the laws enforced, but who failed to make their true feelings known during the interval immediately preceding the day set for the execution. These, when it became almost certain that the Anarchists must hang, showed themselves very firm and openly declared that the men fully deserved hanging, and should be hanged as determined by the verdict of the jury.
Some of those who had given their moral support to the prosecution even went to the extent of giving up rooms in their residences for meetings of parties interested in imploring executive clemency, and avowed Anarchists and Socialists spread their feet under mahogany tables and shuffled dirt-laden shoes over velvety rugs in houses that had hitherto sheltered owners who, on the streets and in the marts of trade, had denounced the Anarchists in unmeasured terms. But there were those who believed, from the conclusion of the trial up to the last moment, that the law should take its course, and these were largely in the majority. Governor Oglesby is made of stern material, but the most stern and rugged natures, with the clearest perceptions of duty and the most absolute belief in guilt, would have yielded to public sentiment as being the best guide in a case involving the lives of human, fallible beings. Really public sentiment upheld the verdict, and only yielded in the abatement of the sentence of Fielden and Schwab as justified by the mitigating circumstances in their cases.
The day drew near for decisive action, and, on the 9th of November, Capt. Black, accompanied by his wife, George Schilling, Mrs. Schwab, Mrs. and Miss Spies, Miss Engel, Miss Mueller, Lingg’s sweetheart, and Mrs. Fischer, repaired to the Capitol at Springfield, to personally intercede for mercy. The “Amnesty Committee,” organized shortly before to arouse interest in preventing the execution, was represented by Cora L. V. Richmond, a noted trance-spiritualistic exhorter, and a few others of less renown. Mr. W. M. Salter, of the Ethical Society of Chicago, Gen. M. M. Trumbull, Henry D. Lloyd and S. P. McConnell also proceeded to the State capital on special missions in behalf of one or the other of the Anarchists, and besides there was a large sprinkling of labor representatives. Governor Oglesby, who had meanwhile accumulated a voluminous mass of letters and had received lengthy petitions from Chicago and all other parts of the country, even from the Commune of Paris, met the various delegations in his office in the Executive Department.
The first speaker was Capt. Black, who presented a long petition, which he read, signed by Schwab, Fielden and Spies. It set forth the grounds upon which an exercise of the pardoning power was invoked, claiming that the signers were wholly innocent of any knowledge of the throwing of the bomb, and giving a brief epitome of the history of the case. It gave ten reasons for asking a pardon. These reasons may be summarized as follows: 1. They were innocent of the bomb-throwing, alike in act and intent. 2. They had no knowledge of any purpose or arrangement for the throwing of the bomb. 3. They (those present) counseled peace at the Haymarket meeting and there disclaimed any purpose of violence. 4. A great deal of evidence was permitted to be presented in court which had no specific reference to the crime charged, and an effort was made to prove that their utterances and advice had reference alone to “defensive action by the wage class as against any unlawful attacks upon them,” and in thus publicly expressing their sentiments by pen and speech they were not conscious that they were violating the law. 5. Under a rule of responsibility allowed, which was contrary to Anglo-Saxon legislation but expressed in the statute law of the State, they were held to be accessories “for the act of a supposed but absolutely unknown and unidentified principal, when the actor in the commission of the crime charged may have acted, not as the agent, but the enemy, of the accused;” and they had been tried as “the supposed leaders of a general movement or conspiracy embracing a much larger number of men.” 6. Their trial was at a time of great public excitement, when press and public demanded their conviction as enemies of public order. 7. That men were allowed to sit upon the jury with strong prejudices against them. 8. They were not tried by men according to constitutional rights, but had jurors “with a prejudgment of their guilt induced and inflamed by the daily reading of the papers,” whose columns had never ceased to denounce them. 9. Some of them were subjected to illegal cross-examinations, and “the provisions of the Constitution and the law were set aside, and property unlawfully seized in unauthorized searches was introduced to bring about a conviction.” 10. They believed and charged that the special bailiff who was intrusted with securing talesmen for the jury had deliberately selected men whose views he was assured were hostile to them.
Capt. Black commented upon each point made in the petition, and explained that up to the time of the Haymarket meeting his clients had had the absolute, uniform acquiescence of the municipal authorities in all their public and secret gatherings. He also read an affidavit of Otis S. Favor, to show that the bailiff had said to affiant that he was “managing this case” (meaning selection of the jury to try the Anarchists) and “he knew what he was about.”
The plea was an eloquent and forcible one, but the Governor never gave the slightest sign as to how far it had affected his judgment of the case.
Mrs. Richmond spoke with reference to the petitions which her committee had presented, containing many signatures, and explained that “the majority of those who had signed them had done so because they considered it a matter of public policy that these men should not be hanged.” Another reason she advanced was that “these men did not intend a murder, and the fact cannot be shown that they had any direct connection in the throwing of the bomb which caused the death of Officer Degan.” She held that public opinion was unanimous that these men could not afford to be sacrificed. “The shock upon the rising generation will be such that it will take fifty or one hundred years to wipe it out, and we believe it never could be wiped out from the records of this State.” She asked that the sentence be commuted “on the higher ground that it should be done for the welfare of the people,” and then, after deploring the existence of capital punishment in Illinois, she said that if mercy was shown by the Governor, his name would forever be written on the scroll of humanity along with that of the martyred Abraham Lincoln. “I again implore you, sir, to extend clemency to these condemned men, and enroll your name among those who have dared to do for humanity what all the courts of the land have denied.”
Gen. M. M. Trumbull had had a pamphlet prepared respecting the trial, and after presenting a copy of it to the Governor, and calling attention to the fact that he had therein reviewed the unfairness of the trial, he made a few remarks, closing as follows: “In behalf of the families of these men; in behalf of the men themselves; in behalf of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people who sympathize with them in their misfortunes, I implore your Excellency to show mercy in their case.”
Elijah M. Haines, ex-Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives, said: “I do not come here, your Excellency, like others, to appeal to the executive of this State to exercise an act of clemency; neither do I come here representing petitioners. But I come here representing a sentiment appealing to the executive branch of the government for an act of justice.” His plea was based simply on the ground of justice, not policy, and he held that what had been a crime years ago was not a crime now, and that “this sentence, at this time, would not have been the sentence of the barbarous race that preceded us.” He held that no conspiracy had been proven, and that the men had been condemned to die through prejudice. He did not believe in capital punishment, and concluded that “the peculiar complication of this case would make the execution of these men hazardous to the best interests of society.”
State Senator Streeter made a short address. He began by saying: “We are not here to favor any crime, but we do believe that this case marks an epoch in our history; that you and I, Governor, and the people who are living, probably never met or never will again meet an emergency in history like this. It is almost without parallel.” He then pleaded for clemency on the ground of “the common good of society,” and asked the Governor to give the petition a careful consideration.
Messrs. Bailey and Campbell, representing the Trades and Labor Assembly of Quincy, Ill., each spoke a few words for the doomed men, and they were followed by William Urban, who spoke “for the German workingmen of North Chicago,” and presented a set of resolutions passed by the Central Labor Union.
L. S. Oliver, on behalf of the “Amnesty Committee,” made a few statements and presented a petition containing 41,000 names.
Mr. Shullenberg, of Detroit, Mich., said he represented forty-five organizations, and he asked, on their behalf, that executive clemency be extended.
C. G. Dixon, of Chicago, also submitted a long petition, and addressed the Governor at some length. He was followed by Samuel Gompers, of New York, President of the American Federation of Labor, who went into an account of the eight-hour movement, and held that the police were responsible for the Haymarket riot. He said that thousands would consider that the men had been executed because they had stood up for free speech and free assemblage, and maintained that throughout the civilized world there had arisen a protest against the execution of the men. He concluded by saying that the throwing of that bomb had killed the eight-hour movement, and that, had it not been for that, it would have been successful to a great extent.
Other addresses were made by Edward King, of District Assembly 49, of New York; President Quinn, of the same organization, and George Schilling. The various delegations then withdrew to permit the relatives of the doomed men to confer personally with the Governor, and then each in turn gave a few reasons why the Governor should be lenient.
After this conference Mr. J. R. Buchanan and Mrs. George Schilling, accompanied by two friends, sought an audience with the Governor and presented a personal letter from August Spies. In that letter, dated November 6, among other things he wrote:
“I care not to protest my innocence of any crime, and of the one I am accused of in particular. I have done that, and leave the rest to the judgment of history.... If a sacrifice of life there must be, will not my life suffice? The State’s Attorney of Cook County asked for no more. Take this, then! Take my life! I offer it to you so that you may satisfy the fury of a semi-barbaric mob, and save that of my comrades.”
This extract fully indicates the whole tenor of the letter.
Messrs. Salter, Lloyd and McConnell next visited the Governor and spoke on behalf of the men.
Mr. Edward Johnson, a slate and stone dealer of Chicago, presented a petition on behalf of Fielden’s former employers, numbering thirty-one firms, and in that document they set forth that they had known Fielden for fifteen years as an honest, hard-working, sober, reliable employé, with no brutal or bloody instincts, and that the only trouble with him was that “he was cursed with a gift of rude eloquence, a fatal facility of speech, and had a consuming desire for the praise and applause of his fellow-men, and in this lay the cause of his downfall.”
This petition was accompanied by a personal letter from Fielden, dated November 5, 1887. After speaking of his earlier years, and his interest in the cause of workingmen, the letter concludes:
“I was intoxicated with the applause of my hearers, and, the more violent my language, the more applause I received. My audience and myself mutually excited each other. I think, however, it is true that, for sensational or other purposes, words were put in my mouth and charged to me which I never uttered; but, whether this be true or not, I say now that I no longer believe it proper that any class of society should attempt to right its own wrongs by violence. I can now see that much that I said under excitement was unwise, and all this I regret. It is not true, however, that I ever consciously attempted to incite any man to the commission of crime. Although I do admit that I belonged to an organization which was engaged at one time in preparing for a social revolution, I was not engaged in any conspiracy to manufacture or throw bombs. I never owned or carried a revolver in my life and did not fire one at the Haymarket. I had not the slightest idea that the meeting at the Haymarket would be other than a peaceable and orderly one, such as I had often addressed in this city, and was utterly astounded at its bloody outcome, and have always felt keenly the loss of life and suffering there occasioned.
“In view of these facts I respectfully submit that, while I confess with regret the use of extravagant and unjustifiable words, I am not a murderer. I never had any murderous intent, and I humbly pray relief from the murderer’s doom. That these statements are true I do again solemnly affirm by every tie that I hold sacred, and I hope that your Excellency will give a considerate hearing to the merits of my case, and also to those of my imprisoned companions who have been sentenced with me.”
Judge Gary and Mr. Grinnell also wrote a letter setting forth this natural desire of Fielden’s for applause and saying that there was no evidence showing that he knew of any preparations to throw the bomb. They believed him to have been an honest and industrious man and thought executive clemency in his case would be justifiable.
A letter from Schwab was also presented to the Governor. It was short and read as follows:
“As supplemental to the petition heretofore signed by me, I desire to say that I realize that many utterances of mine in connection with the labor agitation of the past, expressions made under intense excitement, and often without any deliberation, were injudicious. These I regret, believing that they must have had a tendency to incite to unnecessary violence oftentimes. I protest again that I had no thought or purpose of violence in connection with the Haymarket meeting, which I did not even attend, and that I have always deplored the results of that meeting.”
This was accompanied by a letter from Judge Gary, concurring with State’s Attorney Grinnell’s opinion that Schwab’s case deserved consideration, as the man was friendless and had evidently been the pliant tool of stronger-willed men. George C. Ingham also wrote, saying that if executive clemency was shown to Fielden and Schwab it would not be misplaced.
While the case was thus being discussed at Springfield, Parsons, Lingg, Engel and Fischer were strongly urged by their friends to send personal letters appealing for clemency, but each absolutely refused. They wrote letters to the Governor, but declared that they would not accept a pardon unless it restored them to full liberty. They held that they had committed no wrong, and hence could seek no clemency except that which would release them from imprisonment.
On the same day that the delegations appeared before the Governor, Mr. Vere V. Hunt went before Judge Richard J. Prendergast, of the County Court in Chicago, and filed a petition to try the sanity of Lingg. He gave as witnesses Dr. James G. Kiernan, George E. Detwiler, Ferdinand Spies, Ida Spies, Henry Spies, Chris Spies, Mr. Kuttleman, Gustav Poch, Louis Zetter, Mr. Linnemeyer and W. Bentthin. After arguments, Judge Prendergast held that, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, affirming the sentence of the Criminal Court, he had no jurisdiction. The next day Mr. Hunt presented the same petition to Judge Frank Baker, but, after hearing arguments, the court declined to examine into the question of the bomb-maker’s sanity.
Another curious move was also made on behalf of Parsons on the day preceding the execution. It was an application for a writ of habeas corpus by Attorney Salomon, and was presented before Judge M. F. Tuley. The grounds on which it was based were that the judgment affirmed by the Supreme Court was directed against seven men and not against one, and that the prisoner, not being in court when the sentence was passed, could not be executed under it. He also claimed that the death warrant was not legal because it did not run in the name of the people of the State of Illinois. Judge Tuley said the court had no power to correct any errors of the Supreme Court, and that the prisoner was legally in the custody of the Sheriff, and the application would accordingly be denied.
While favorable results were being anticipated by some as to the Governor’s decision, an incident occurred which dampened their expectations and somewhat affected public sentiment in the belief of the guilt of the conspirators. Although it probably had no effect on the Governor’s decision, Anarchists at large thought it would highly prejudice the case of their friends at his hands. This incident was the horrible suicide of Louis Lingg.
While the Anarchists were confined in the Cook County Jail they were quartered in that portion of the premises known as “murderers’ row.” This row faces south on the first gallery, in view of the entrance to the jail corridor, and had been so designated because in times past men accused of murder and awaiting trial, or men convicted of murder and awaiting execution of sentence, were kept in the cells on that tier. Lingg, the most defiant Anarchist of them all, occupied cell No. 22; Engel, No. 23; Spies, No. 24; Schwab, No. 26; Fielden, No. 27, and Fischer, No. 28. During Neebe’s detention, before being taken to the penitentiary, he occupied cell No. 21. All the prisoners were subjected to strict prison discipline. The rules of the jail knew no relaxation in the case of any one brought into that part of the establishment, and each regulation was carried out to the very letter.
Jailor Folz is a veteran in the service, having filled the jailorship off and on for twenty-two years, and he thoroughly understands all the requirements in the way of jail discipline, to prevent escapes and guard against suicides and assaults. I know him well, and he always has one ear and one eye open to the conduct of the prisoners and the other eye and ear for his own security, like a sailor who gives one-half of his body to the ship and reserves the other half for his own safety. Where so many desperate characters are confined it requires the utmost vigilance to keep them under control and restrain them from violent outbreaks. Men whose lives have been almost a continual record of misdeeds, crimes and murders are not, as a rule, easily handled, and the wonder is that there have been so few to create trouble in Folz’s bailiwick.
One of the rules is a regular inspection of all the cells for contraband articles and the exclusion of all implements calculated to aid a prisoner in effecting his escape. Sometimes a revolver may be found during these inspections; at other times a tiny saw for cutting the bars, and then again some tool for cutting through the flagstones with a view to reaching the air-shaft or getting into the sewer underneath; and, though rarely, even smuggled poison has been discovered.
All prisoners are carefully searched before being locked up, but it frequently happens that prisoners are permitted to talk with their friends through the lawyers’ cage. This cage is an inclosure ten by sixteen feet in dimensions, with iron bars and strong wires, and while it would seem impossible to pass anything through the narrow interstices, now and then an aperture is pried open wide enough to pass in contraband articles. In this way many things have been found smuggled into the jail. Food and delicacies handed into the jail office for prisoners are always carefully examined, and this precaution was particularly exercised in the case of the Anarchists as the time approached for their execution.
On Sunday morning, November 6, 1887, Mr. Folz gave orders about eight o’clock to have the cells of the Anarchists searched, and Deputies John Eagan and O. E. Hogan were detailed for that purpose. Lingg’s cell was first examined, and while the search proceeded he was locked up in the “lawyers’ cage.” A lot of revolutionary books, copies of the Arbeiter-Zeitung and other papers were taken out and thrown temporarily in the corridor. In one corner of the room stood a ten-pound starch-box, in one nook of which there was a kerosene lamp, about which again some onions were piled. Box and onions were placed on the gallery platform for the time being.
The officers were next about to proceed to a search of Engel’s cell, but just before doing so Hogan happened to kick box, onions and all over the platform, down onto the main floor. At the time some of the prisoners, who were exercising themselves in the corridor, got curious as to the contents of the rubbish, and, in the hope of finding something they might desire, began a search of the pile. Some of them seemed particularly interested in something they had discovered, and Hogan, noticing their intent gaze, stopped to look at them. He noticed that one of the prisoners had something strange in his hands. Eagan also noticed the same thing and started on a run down-stairs. Arriving at the place where the knot of prisoners had gathered, he found that the curious object which they were scrutinizing was nothing else than a dynamite bomb. The bomb, it appears, had been dashed out of the box as it fell on the floor from the gallery platform above, and interest at once centered in the innocent-looking box. Mr. Eagan found therein three other bombs, and they were immediately taken to Jailor Folz’s office. The box was next carefully examined, and it was found to have a false bottom, in which the bombs had been concealed. Some six days before this box had been brought into the jail, and, being apparently empty, it had been passed in to Lingg. It was evident that it had been made according to Lingg’s instructions by some handy carpenter who was a close friend, and, judging from its construction, it seems to have been patterned after Lingg’s trunk, which, it will be remembered, also had a false bottom, and in whose secret apartment I found a lot of dynamite, together with a coil of fuse and a supply of caps. Either the bombs were in the box at the time it was brought to the jail, or they must have been smuggled in through a temporarily-forced opening in the wire cage. The officials incline to the former theory.
Lingg was a most interested spectator. It was evident from his actions that the discovery greatly troubled him. His face became almost livid with rage, his eyes fairly snapped fire, and he fumed in his cage like an imprisoned beast of prey. He was speechless with anger, and every motion betrayed an energy of passion that was fearful to behold.
After a little while Lingg was taken out of the “lawyers’ cage,” and thereafter he was confined in a cell fixed up for him on the lower floor, where he could be directly under the eyes of the officials, who by this time had come to regard him as a very dangerous man. At ten o’clock on the same morning, I received a dispatch from the Sheriff asking me to call at the jail immediately. Arriving there, I met Sheriff Matson and Jailor Folz, and after they had explained the circumstances of the morning’s find, the four bombs were handed to me for examination. I found that they were all loaded with dynamite of the regular kind, and I gave it as my opinion that they were manifestly intended for suicidal purposes, to escape the gallows. I could not believe that they were made for any other purpose. Both the Sheriff and the Jailor concurred in this view, and they so expressed themselves to outsiders, although sensational reports were circulated in the newspapers that the bombs were smuggled in to be used especially on the day of the execution, to blow the jail, prisoners and visitors to the four winds.
I took charge of the bombs, and subsequently, at the station, gave them a more thorough examination. They were all of the same size, being six inches long, three-eighth gas-pipe, and one end of each had been plugged with a boiler rivet one inch long. On each rivet there had been cut about a dozen notches with a sharp chisel, and after the rivets had been inserted hot lead had been poured into the pipe from the top, thus fastening them in place. A wooden plug, through which a hole had been bored in the center for the cap and fuse, had been put at the other end of each pipe; and thus plugged, with a charge of dynamite inside, it was a most destructive implement. The dynamite used was of the regular factory make, the percussion cap of English manufacture, and the fuse of the tar-cloth, water-proof kind. The fuse was cut scarcely an inch long, and a fuse of that length would explode the cap as soon almost as it was ignited. I explained these features in a general way to Sheriff Matson and Jailor Folz, and told them that with such a short fuse no one using one of these deadly contrivances could light it and then throw the bomb away before it would explode. It might, as I explained to them, be kept about the body or inserted in a man’s mouth, and in an instant after being lighted an explosion would follow. Hence my theory was that they were designed exclusively for suicidal purposes. A photographic illustration of the suicide bombs appears on page 595.
The bomb used at the Haymarket was of the kind called the “five and six seconds fuse.” The fuse on a bomb of that kind was cut at a length of four inches, and the instruction to Anarchists in handling one of them was to count four just as soon as the fuse caught fire, and then throw it. If the bombs found in Lingg’s cell had had that length of fuse, then it might have been possible that they were intended for general destruction. These bombs had evidently been made under instructions from Lingg. He was the only one who made bombs by plugging up one end with lead, and, whoever the party was that turned them out for him, he must have had some prior experience with Lingg in bomb-making. That could be plainly seen, too, in the way the fuse had been fastened in the caps. It was also manifest that the man must have been a machinist. But no clue as to his identity could be secured, and, of course, Lingg never gave the slightest hint to any of the officers, or even to his associates.
Thereafter, as might have been expected, Lingg was more carefully watched than ever. No strange visitors were permitted to see him. The discovery of the explosives had created an intense and wide-spread excitement, and Sheriff Matson issued most stringent orders with reference, not only to Lingg, but to all the other confined Anarchists. By these orders the public was measurably reassured.
The bomb-maker had been committed to cell No. 11, and every article constituting its outfit had been subjected to the closest inspection. It seemed certain that there could be no dynamite in that cell. Besides this, Mr. Benjamin P. Price, the Jail Clerk, made it his special business to look after the desperate man, and there seemed no possibility of danger from that quarter.
But on the morning of the 10th of November, at 8:45 o’clock, the officials as well as occupants of the jail were startled by the sound of a terrific explosion. Consternation seized everybody for the moment. Each surmised that some sad havoc had been created in some portion of the jail, and that his special section had miraculously escaped. All within the jail precincts jumped to their feet, and the most eager inquiries were made as to the cause of the noise. Even the inmates of the cells in the immediate vicinity of the spot where the explosion had occurred thought that some other portion of the building had been blown up, and they were uncertain whether the attack had come from without or within.
The first idea credited the explosion to confederates of the Anarchists on the outside. This was a perfectly natural conclusion. All sorts of rumors about violent demonstrations and forcible attempts at rescue of the doomed Anarchists were in circulation about the city, and the instant this detonation was heard it was supposed that the threats had been finally carried into effect. So loud was the report that people passing on the streets surrounding the jail imagined that fearful destruction must have been created inside. But after the first flush of excitement had subsided, the source of the commotion was easily and speedily ascertained.
The explosion had occurred in Lingg’s cell. The night before Lingg had appeared in one of his complacent moods, and when the death-watch eyed him closely the next morning nothing unusual was discovered in his demeanor. Lingg seemed to be resting easily on his couch, and there was not the slightest indication that anything tragic was contemplated. While the death-watch, Deputy Sheriff Osborne, was giving his attention to something else for a moment, however, Lingg saw his opportunity, rose stealthily from his bed, seized a candle that flickered dimly in a corner of the cell, and, jumping back to his couch, put the bomb in his mouth and applied the flame. In an instant a loud explosion followed.
Officials were soon in the cell and found Lingg lying on his side on the couch, with one arm thrown over his head and the other resting on a little table. A stream of blood was coursing down the pillow, and pools of it had gathered upon the bedding. The deputies raised him up gently. A ghastly sight met their gaze. The lower jaw had been almost entirely blown away, the upper lip was completely torn to shreds, the greater part of his nose was in tatters, only a fragment of his tongue remained, and every vestige of front teeth had disappeared. What remained of his cheeks looked like flesh torn by vultures, and every jagged part bled profusely. The inside of his upper jaw was horribly lacerated. It looked as though no man could survive such a wound for a moment after its infliction. And yet the bomb-maker was alive and breathing regularly.
Lingg was at once removed from the cell to a large bath-room near the Jailor’s office, and made as comfortable as circumstances would permit. Drs. Fenger, Moyer and Bluthardt were at once sent for, and they responded immediately. They applied such restoratives as medical science suggested, but they found no little difficulty in stopping the bleeding and preventing the blood from running down the man’s throat and interfering with his breathing. Now and then he coughed, and with each spell emitted large quantities of blood. The pallet upon which he rested, and the floor underneath, were saturated with blood, and its strong flow attested a superb physical condition—a wonderful vitality.
During all the operations of the surgeons Lingg remained perfectly conscious and eyed them as complacently as though they had been at work on some other patient. He showed no concern and never quivered. While calmly stretched on the cot, he closely observed all who entered the room and seemed surprised at their consternation. It was only when some police officers entered to look at him that he showed signs of nervousness, and then, with pantomimic flourishes of his hand, he indicated that he desired them to leave. The signs were correctly interpreted; for the moment the officers left he quieted down easily, and a grateful look from his eyes expressed his satisfaction. John C. Klein, who afterwards became famous for the active part he took in the troubles in the island of Samoa—readers will remember that there was a great deal of diplomatic correspondence on account of them, that there was even talk of war between the United States and Germany—was at that time a reporter for one of the Chicago dailies, and in that capacity was present in the room. While still being operated upon, Lingg beckoned to Klein for pencil and paper, and, these being handed to him, he wrote, in German: “Please support my back. When I lie down I cannot breathe.” That piece of paper, stained with Lingg’s blood, is still in existence, and is shown in the engraving.
Everything was done to alleviate Lingg’s sufferings, but he died at 2:45 that afternoon.
The bomb-maker’s remains were placed in a neat coffin, and Bailiff Eagan was detailed to critically examine Lingg’s cell. It was discovered that when Lingg had lighted the bomb, which had been placed firmly between the teeth, he was reclining on his cot, with his head near the wall. This was indicated by the fact that Eagan found portions of the man’s mustache, pieces of the tongue and shreds of flesh clinging firmly to the wall nearest where the head had rested. A piece of the tallow candle which had stood before its tragic use in a corner of the cell was found in the bed, and the wall where the head had lain was not only marred by the almost direct force of the explosion, but thickly bespattered with blood. All this indicated unmistakably the means Lingg had used to light the bomb and the position he had assumed when applying the fatal spark.
The bomb used was undoubtedly similar to the lot discovered a few days previously. But how it became separated and in what manner it was concealed and smuggled into Lingg’s hands after he had been placed in a new cell and put under strict surveillance, are matters of conjecture. My own theory is that Lingg had a confidential friend among the smaller class of criminals. To such a friend this bomb was intrusted for safe-keeping in the event of the discovery of the bombs in his own cell, and when they were found he relied on that trusted friend to help him to escape the gallows. In no other way could this bomb have come into the possession of Lingg, since the prisoner had been searched several times and nothing found upon him. A confederate must have carefully kept the bomb and smuggled it to him at the last moment. Everything indicated that the bomb had been part of the discovered explosives, and its use fully corroborated the opinion I had given to Sheriff Matson and Jailor Folz at the time of the find, that the bombs were only intended for suicidal purposes and had been brought into the jail for no other object. At the time this opinion was given I was severely criticised by Chief Ebersold and others—the newspapers especially—for advancing such a theory. They maintained that the bombs had been brought in to be thrown at the time of the execution, so as not only to kill all who might become spectators, but to enable the Anarchists to escape hanging by death in the general destruction around them. A few of the papers even went so far as to attribute the opinion to “Schaack’s stupidity.”
The doomed Anarchists were closely watched when it became quite apparent that there was no chance of their escaping the gallows either through an intervention of the courts or through executive clemency. Before this, however, some latitude had been allowed them. They had been watched, of course, but the rigorous scrutiny subsequently adopted had not then prevailed. Visitors had been admitted, and, although separate conversations had not been permitted, prisoners and friends had been close together. No contraband articles had ever been noticed, however, the general opinion among the jail officials being that, considering the prisoners were so hopeful of good results from the labors of their counsel, such a thing as suicide was not contemplated by any one of them.
The first thing to arouse Jailor Folz’s suspicion was Engel’s action one day about the 1st of November. It appears that at that time Engel was very nervous and restless, and secured some morphine to quiet his nerves. He took an over-dose, and when charged with having deliberately done so with suicidal intent, he stoutly maintained that he had taken too much by mistake. Folz thought no man could take such a dose except with a view to suicide, and he resolved to keep a close watch on Engel thereafter and allow him no medicine save what was administered by a physician. The others were also more closely watched after that episode. All were searched at stated intervals, as I have already mentioned.
One day, while Parsons was being searched, he was handed a common white shirt by Otto Folz, a son of the Jailor. Parsons looked at it for a moment and then exclaimed:
“My God! you are not going to put a shroud on a live man?”
After the bomb discovery the doomed Anarchists were removed from their old cells and placed on the lower floor, along the tier containing Lingg’s cell. Parsons was put in cell No. 7, Fischer, No. 8, and Engel, No. 9. When Lingg had been removed to the bath-room, his comrades were again subjected to an examination, and their clothes were all changed in the Jailor’s office. While this change was being effected, Parsons became greatly agitated, and he remarked:
“If I only had one of the bombs Lingg had in his cell, I would make very short work of all this.”
Fischer also made a similar remark. He said that he was ready to die at any time, and he did not care how he died. He was very defiant, and showed that he was in earnest in his expressions.
Late in the afternoon of November 10, Gov. Oglesby gave his decision on the various applications for mercy. It reads:
STATE OF ILLINOIS, EXECUTIVE OFFICE, SPRINGFIELD, NOV. 10.
On the 20th day of August, 1886, in the Cook County Criminal Court, August Spies, Albert R. Parsons, Samuel Fielden, Michael Schwab, Adolph Fischer, George Engel and Louis Lingg were found guilty by the verdict of the jury and afterward sentenced to be hanged for the murder of Mathias J. Degan.
An appeal was taken from such finding and sentence, to the Supreme Court of the State. That court, upon a final hearing and after mature deliberation, unanimously affirmed the judgment of the court below.
The case now comes before me by petition of the defendants, for consideration as Governor of the State, if the letters of Albert R. Parsons, Adolph Fischer, George Engel and Louis Lingg demanding “unconditional release,” or, as they express it, “liberty or death,” and protesting in the strongest language against mercy or commutation of the sentence pronounced against them, can be considered petitions.
Pardon, could it be granted, which might imply any guilt whatever upon the part of either of them, would not be such a vindication as they demand. Executive intervention upon the grounds insisted upon by the four above-named persons could in no proper sense be deemed an exercise of the constitutional power to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, unless based upon the belief on my part of their entire innocence of the crime of which they stand convicted.
A careful consideration of the evidence in the record of the trial of the parties, as well as of all alleged and claimed for them outside of the record, has failed to produce upon my mind any impression tending to impeach the verdict of the jury or the judgment of the trial court or of the Supreme Court, affirming the guilt of all these parties.
Satisfied, therefore, as I am, of their guilt, I am precluded from considering the question of commutation of the sentences of Albert R. Parsons, Adolph Fischer, George Engel and Louis Lingg to imprisonment in the penitentiary, as they emphatically declare they will not accept such commutation. Samuel Fielden, Michael Schwab and August Spies unite in a petition for “executive clemency.” Fielden and Schwab, in addition, present separate and supplementary petitions for the commutation of their sentences. While, as said above, I am satisfied of the guilt of all the parties, as found by the verdict of the jury, which was sustained by the judgments of the courts, a most careful consideration of the whole subject leads me to the conclusion that the sentence of the law as to Samuel Fielden and Michael Schwab may be modified as to each of them, in the interest of humanity, and without doing violence to public justice.
As to the said Samuel Fielden and Michael Schwab, the sentence is commuted to imprisonment in the penitentiary for life.
As to all the other above-named defendants, I do not feel justified in interfering with the sentence of the court. While I would gladly have come to a different conclusion in regard to the sentence of defendants August Spies, Adolph Fischer, George Engel, Albert R. Parsons and Louis Lingg, I regret to say that under the solemn sense of the obligations of my office I have been unable to do so.
RICHARD J. OGLESBY, GOVERNOR.
This removed the last hope of the Anarchists. Spies said he had been prepared for the worst, and that he had only signed the petition of Fielden and Schwab for clemency at the solicitation of Miss Van Zandt.
On the next morning after the Governor’s decision Fielden and Schwab were removed to the penitentiary at Joliet.
Chapter XXXVI
The Last Hours of the Doomed Men—Planning a Rescue—The Feeling in Chicago—Police Precautions—Looking for a Leak—Vitriol for a Detective—Guarding the Jail—The Dread of Dynamite—How the Anarchists Passed their Last Night—The Final Partings—Parsons Sings “Annie Laurie”—Putting up the Gallows—Scenes Outside the Prison—A Cordon of Officers—Mrs. Parsons Makes a Scene—The Death Warrants—Courage of the Condemned—Shackled and Shrouded for the Grave—The March to the Scaffold—Under the Dangling Ropes—The Last Words—“Hoch die Anarchie!”—“My Silence will be More Terrible than Speech”—“Let the Voice of the People be Heard”—The Chute to Death—Preparations for the Funeral—Scenes at the Homes of the Dead Anarchists—The Passage to Waldheim—Howell Trogden Carries the American Flag—Captain Black’s Eulogy—The Burial—Speeches by Grottkau and Currlin—Was Engel Sincere?—His Advice to his Daughter—A Curious Episode—Adolph Fischer and his Death-watch.
THE Anarchists of Chicago now became desperate. Many of them had calculated on the worst for some time, and they had formed into small groups to be better able to plot for their imprisoned friends with the least possible danger of police detection. While assembling in large bodies, they had discovered that many of their secrets were in my possession, and after the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court they realized that it was essential to the success of any movement they might decide upon to keep all knowledge of it within the circle of true and trusted men. The leading lights in the order accordingly resorted to private residences, as I have already stated.
Sometimes they were joined in meetings of a general nature by some who had previously been anti-Anarchists, but who since the decision of the Illinois court had secretly expressed sympathy with the condemned men. Becoming emboldened by what they thought to be a growing sentiment in favor of the prisoners, these secret abettors finally threw off their masks, and, openly expressing their views, many of them speedily lost the esteem and friendship of neighbors by whom they had previously been highly regarded. With a view to aiding to effect a general change in public sentiment, some of these sympathizers even threw open their doors to Anarchists, as I have indicated in a prior chapter. But whenever some risky project was contemplated the small bands of conspirators saw to it that none but avowed and tried adherents of the red flag were present.
It was at this time that the police discovered the plot to release the doomed men, and one day Detective Schuettler learned of a place where numerous secret conferences were being held from time to time. He was under orders of Mr. Ebersold, who had taken him away from the Chicago Avenue Station with a view to crippling my force, but nevertheless the detective found a way, even while engaged in other directions, to keep a keen eye on secret revolutionary movements. He had been too long in the service to lose his interest in things Anarchistic, and he resolved to get at the bottom of the rumored clandestine gatherings.
Learning that star-chamber sessions were being held in the room of an old-time Communist named Theodore Appell, at No. 234 West Division Street, Schuettler at once rented an adjoining room. In this apartment there was a closet, and after reconnoitering about the premises at a favorable opportunity, he discovered that by cutting a hole in the closet wall he could obtain a good view of those who might be present at future meetings. A hole was accordingly cut. This gave him a fine chance both to see and hear. Everything worked nicely for a time, but finally the conspirators became suspicious, as they found their secrets getting beyond their own circle, and, satisfied that the leakage was not due to members in their own set, they instituted a search. The result was that the officer’s peep-hole was discovered. That closed their deliberations in that place, but they resolved to take revenge on the man who had thus obtruded his attentions upon them. For this purpose they decided to hold a mock meeting in the old quarters, and then and there, when they were satisfied that the concealed individual had his eye at the hole, to discharge a syringe filled with vitriol. This would destroy the eye-sight as well as disfigure for life the face of the man who had dared to intrude on their secrecy. I learned of this plan, however, and warned the officer. Schuettler never again went near that closet. But he had already gathered all the information that was needed.
The conspirators left the place like young birds leave the old nest, with a flop and a flourish, never to return; but we had learned that they had in view the liberation of their friends in jail.
This information put the authorities on their guard, and it is possible that this timely discovery averted a jail delivery.
But the Anarchists did not lose hope. When they learned that the United States Supreme Court had refused to interfere with the execution they became more desperate than ever. Where before they had been revengeful, they now were frantic, and their schemes now embraced more drastic and destructive measures. They considered propositions looking to a blowing-up of the jail building with dynamite, and in the turmoil and confusion incident to the wreckage of a part of the building and the destruction of life within they contemplated a rush to the untouched portion containing their comrades, whom they would thus rescue from the hands of the law. This diabolical plot was earnestly debated, and about the time the reds became satisfied that the Governor would not step in between their convicted leaders and the gallows they even went so far as to advocate an explosion that would not only rob the gallows of its victims, but kill those whom curiosity might assemble about the jail a short time before the expected event. If their comrades must die, they should not die alone. The disgrace of an execution must be averted, and a terrible lesson imparted to the enemies of Anarchy.
But the jail officials joined me in most rigid measures to prevent the execution of each and all of the plots, and officers and detectives were stationed in goodly numbers about the building, night and day, to watch the movements of suspicious characters. When the decision of the Governor was finally announced this vigilance was redoubled, and we made sure that no secret mines had been constructed under any of the sidewalks surrounding the building or across under the alley on the west side of the jail structure.
It was not only the liberation of the imprisoned Anarchists that was aimed at in the numerous conspiracies which came to our knowledge about this time. One plot which was reported to me embraced a wanton scheme of incendiarism and pillage, and in order to facilitate this, it was proposed to cut off the water supply of the city by demolishing the stand-pipe in the Water-works tower. In some manner the conspirators had learned the exact spot in the tower where a charge of dynamite would accomplish the most effective execution, and the reports brought to me showed that this project was debated most minutely. For the space of two months we were required therefore to keep extra guard over the source of Chicago’s water supply, and the contemplated attack of the reds was not attempted.
While the plots on the outside of the jail were thus met with vigilance, the doomed conspirators within appeared quiet and resigned. They received the Governor’s decision with extraordinary composure, and, having felt throughout that day that they must face the inevitable on the morrow, they busied themselves in arranging their earthly affairs, writing letters to friends and relatives and giving directions as to the disposition of personal matters and the publication of their autobiographies and other manuscripts. Early in the evening they received their immediate friends and relatives to bid them farewell, and through all that trying ordeal they remained unmoved. Tears coursed down the blanched faces of wives, sisters and daughters as the last loving words were spoken, but no emotion of despair or grief seemed to agitate the men. They were solemn and stoical in their demeanor, and their efforts were mainly directed to administering words of cheer and consolation. When the final parting had taken place, they returned to their cells, and their last night on earth was varied with letter-writing and chats with the death-watch. None of them retired early. Parsons did not seek his couch till after midnight, and then it was some time before the rapid thoughts coursing through his brain would permit him to sleep. Before morning he broke the stillness of his surroundings by singing a favorite song of his earlier days—“Annie Laurie.” The clear tones echoing down the corridor startled all then awake, and prisoners and death-watch eagerly inclined their heads to catch every word and note. When Parsons drew near the closing stanza, his voice tripped and hesitated, unmistakably showing that his feelings were giving way to the recollections of former times.
Spies lay down to rest at a late hour, but his thoughts, as he chatted with his death-watch, seemed busy with the events that had brought him to a murderer’s doom. He denounced the verdict as iniquitous, and declared that the people would shortly see the error of hanging men for seeking the welfare of the laboring classes.
Fischer was the quietest and most self-composed of all, and he had very little to say even to his death-watch. He soon apparently fell into a slumber and seemed to rest easily.
Engel was also remarkably self-possessed, and he was the last to retire to his couch—not because of thoughts of the morrow occupying his mind, but for another reason, as will appear further along.
During the latter part of the night, if any one of them had happened to be awake, the horrible preparations for the execution could have been distinctly heard. Around the corner, in the corridor north of the one in which their cells were located, the gallows were being placed in position, and, even though the sounds of the hammer were subdued, the echo plainly told the character of the work the carpenters were engaged upon. It was the same scaffold on which the three Italians had two years before atoned for the death of a murdered countryman, and on which the murderer Mulkowsky had also paid the penalty for his foul crime. It was a large structure—large enough to have dropped seven men had the original sentence of the trial court been carried into full execution. At the end of each rope one hundred and eighty pound weights were attached, so as to give a heavier fall, and, thus arranged, by daylight the trap of death was ready for its victims.
When morning dawned, the four Anarchists arose early, but each seemed to have had a restful night. Their demeanor had not changed perceptibly from that of other mornings. After their ablutions they perused the morning papers and subsequently partook of breakfast, brought in from a neighboring restaurant. They ate quite heartily, and then each turned his attention again to letter-writing. Their communications were mainly directed to their families and to friends in the city, and some to Anarchists in other parts of the country, and very nearly the last they penned were directed to the Sheriff and to the Coroner and had reference to the disposition of their bodies and personal effects after death.
During the fleeting morning hours, the Anarchists were visited by the Rev. Mr. Bolton, of the First Methodist Episcopal Church of Chicago, who came to assist in their spiritual preparation for death, but while each received him courteously, they all declined his kindly proffered ministrations. They had no faith in the gospel and frankly told the clergyman that they did not desire his services. They wanted to die as they had lived, with no faith in God or man as exalted above general humanity. Some of them even went into discussion with the clergyman, stoutly combatting every point he made to reach their hearts; but the talk always ended as it had begun—in a positive refusal to accept any spiritual guidance or advice. The Rev. Mr. Bolton was forced to retire without having made any impression, and the men treated the whole matter afterwards in a most indifferent and flippant manner.
While the unfortunates on the inside were apparently unmoved by their impending fate, commotion and excitement prevailed on the outside of the jail. At a very early hour in the morning a contingent of the police force, numbering three hundred men, was detailed to preserve order and keep away from the immediate vicinity of the building all persons not having proper credentials or not properly vouched for. Across Michigan and Illinois Streets, on the east side of Clark Street, and on Dearborn Avenue at its intersections with the two first-named streets, stout ropes were stretched, and within the inclosure thus formed and at the barriers squads of policemen were marching up and down with glistening bayonets and Winchester rifles. There were also policemen in and about the Criminal Court and jail building and on the roof, commanding the streets below in all directions. There was thus a most complete arrangement to meet any unexpected attack or any violent hostile demonstration.
As the hour approached for the execution the streets beyond the ropes became crowded with people of all grades and descriptions, impelled by curiosity; but they were all kept moving by policemen scattered along the thoroughfares amongst them, so that no groups might gather and under the excitement of the moment precipitate a row or a riot. Along toward ten o’clock Mrs. Parsons, dressed in mourning and accompanied by her two children, presented herself at the ropes and demanded admittance to see her husband “murdered by law.” She was, of course, delicately refused, and then she endeavored to create a scene, but the police promptly called a patrol wagon and sent her to the Chicago Avenue Station, where she was detained until after the execution. During the forenoon thousands of people passed in the vicinity of the building, but the only satisfaction they received for their pains was a sight of the somber walls of the jail at a distance. Taking the crowd as a whole, it was remarkably orderly, although there was more or less subdued muttering among the Anarchists who had sought the vicinity only to find themselves ordered to “move on.” These generally sought solace for their wounded feelings in neighboring saloons, where they cast dire imprecations upon the police, promising to be avenged in time.
Within the jail everything was quiet, and, except for the presence of those who had come to witness the execution, there seemed to be no special indication of the tragedy to be enacted. The officials moved about quietly while making the preliminary arrangements, and the unfortunate Anarchists smoked, wrote hasty notes and chatted at intervals with their attendants.
At 11:30 o’clock Sheriff Matson, accompanied by Deputies Hartke, Cleveland, Spears and Peters, County Physician Moyer and Jailor Folz, started from the jail office, and repaired to the cell occupied by Spies. The iron-barred door was opened, and Spies advanced to meet the Sheriff. Mr. Matson at once proceeded to read the death warrant. Spies listened with folded arms, and there was no indication of nervousness nor trace of emotion. His feelings could not be divined from his demeanor. The facial muscles remained unmoved, and no color rose to flush the usual paleness of the cheeks, nor was the pallor of his face heightened when the last fearful words of the warrant had been read. The Sheriff was visibly agitated, and his voice was at times tremulous. On the conclusion of the reading Spies merely bowed his head slightly, and then stepped out into the corridor in obedience to the deputies’ request. Around his chest was placed a leather belt about an inch and a half wide, with which to pinion his arms just above the elbows, and his hands were handcuffed behind his back. Then a white muslin shroud was thrown over him and fastened slightly at the neck and waist.
While these details were being carried out, the Sheriff was at Fischer’s cell, and the same programme of preparation was gone through with. The Anarchist was manacled, pinioned and shrouded, and he gazed upon each operation with curious interest, but with no sign of perturbation or weakness. Now and then he faintly smiled, and he seemed more concerned about the trepidation of the deputies than about his own situation.
Meantime the death warrant had been read to Engel, who was soon arrayed in the habiliments of death. He stood it all unflinchingly, and seemed even less concerned than his comrades. There was also an entire absence of affected indifference.
Parsons was the last to step out of his cell, and, as he stood receiving the ghastly paraphernalia, he endeavored to display no sign of fear. He bore up well, although he evidently wrestled with his inner feelings.
The solemn march to the scaffold began with the Sheriff in the lead. In the east corner of the north corridor stood the scaffold. Below and before it were benches for the two hundred spectators. The death procession moved slowly and with measured tread. As it neared the corner the footfalls became distinctly audible to those assembled. When the shuffling of feet on the iron stairway leading to the first gallery, which was on a level with the gallows, was heard, the buzz of conversation ceased, and every eye was centered on the spot whence the Anarchists would be first seen. It was only a moment, and then Spies, Fischer, Engel and Parsons, one after the other, came into view, each with a deputy by his side. Having reached their respective places on the trap, they faced the spectators. Spies, the moment he caught sight of the audience, gave it a contemptuous look, and thereafter his eyes seemed centered on some invisible object down the corridor above the heads of the spectators. Fischer merely looked down for a moment on the uncovered heads below, and then his eyes wandered in various directions. Engel seemed the most unconcerned of all, and swept the audience with a cool glance as though it might have been composed of friends. Parsons was superbly stiff, and his gaze, after a snap at those below, firmly set itself in the direction of the cell tiers.
As soon as those on the platform had taken the positions assigned, the lower limbs of the four Anarchists were pinioned. This was done very quickly. The nooses dangling overhead were then lifted from their hooks, and Spies was the first to have the rope placed around his neck. The noose had been slipped a little too tight, and, noticing the uneasiness it gave him, the deputy instantly loosened it a trifle. Spies gave a faint smile in acknowledgment of the kindness and again seemed at ease. Not a tremor was visible during the adjustment of the rope. Another deputy next placed the rope around the neck of Fischer, who, to facilitate its proper adjustment, bent his tall form slightly and received it with head inclined until the knot rested in its proper place under the left ear. Engel received the noose as if it had been a decoration about to be placed upon his shoulders by friendly hands, and several times he turned his head around to exchange a word or two with the deputy, accompanying his whispered utterances with a smile. Parsons stood unmoved when his turn came, and appeared entirely indifferent to the operation. Loose-fitting white caps were now produced, and, as these came in sight, Fischer and Engel turned their heads slightly to the left and spoke a second to their respective deputies. Spies first, Fischer next, then Engel, and Parsons last, was the order in which the caps were adjusted, and the heads had no sooner been enveloped, shutting out forever the light of day, than all knew that the fatal moment had arrived. During all the preliminary preparations not a relaxation of nerve or an expression of anguish or despair had been observed. Now the tension of silence was painful. But suddenly there broke from the lips of Spies an exclamation that startled the auditors as if by a shock.
“You may strangle this voice,” said he, in clear but subdued tones, “but my silence will be more terrible than speech.”
Spies had scarcely uttered his last words, when Fischer shouted:
“This is the happiest moment of my life. Hoch die Anarchie!”
Engel immediately caught up the sentiment, and in a strong voice, and with a pronounced German accent, cried:
“Hurrah for Anarchy!”
Parsons then lifted his voice, and in firm, deliberate tones, exclaimed: “O men of America!”
Then, lowering his voice to an appealing accent:
“Mr. Sheriff, may I be permitted to say a few words?”
Raising his voice again, without waiting for an answer, and continuing in the same breath, he said:
“O men of America, let the voice of the people be heard.”
The last word had barely escaped his lips, when the signal was given to the unknown and hidden man in the sentry-box back of the platform, the rope controlling the trap was cut, and four bodies shot downward into space. The intervals between the adjustment of the caps, the utterances and the drop were only a few moments, but they were moments that seemed like hours. The first instant after the drop, the bodies all seemed motionless, but immediately one after the other began violent contortions, the limbs contracted, the breasts swelled with spasms, and the arms shook convulsively. It was fully eight minutes before the last was limp and lifeless. The bodies, however, were left hanging for twenty-six minutes, and then they were deposited in plain coffins, ready to be turned over to their relatives. The jury selected by the Sheriff to pass upon the death, as required by law, next viewed the remains and then signed the usual legal certificates. Those composing the jury were Dr. Ferdinand Henrotin, Dr. Denslow Lewis, Dr. G. A. Hall, Dr. Harry Brown, Dr. J. B. Andrews, Dr. M. W. Thompson, John N. Hills, William B. Keep, ex-Sheriff John Hoffman, Edwin Wynn, George Lanz, George M. Moulton, John L. Woodward and H. L. Anderson.
It was subsequently ascertained that the necks of none of the Anarchists had been broken, and that death had come in each case through strangulation.
Within an hour and a half the coffins were removed, the bodies of Spies, Parsons and Fischer being receipted for by a committee of the Central Labor Union, and those of Engel and Lingg by a friend of Mrs. Engel. The body of Lingg had reposed in the women’s department of the jail. Shortly before his death, the bomb-maker had expressed the wish that his body be allowed to repose by the side of Engel’s, and that it be given in charge of Engel’s family, as he himself had no relatives in America.
The remains of Spies, Fischer and Parsons were taken to an undertaking establishment at No. 596 Milwaukee Avenue, and those of Engel and Lingg to a similar place at No. 186 Milwaukee Avenue, and there costly and ornamental coffins were provided after the bodies had been first embalmed. Subsequently they were removed to the houses of their respective relatives, and arrangements were at once set on foot for a tremendous demonstration at the funeral, the following Sunday.
No sooner had each coffin been taken to the relatives than hundreds of Anarchists flocked in to view the remains. Others, too—men, women and children, moved by morbid curiosity—crowded in to view the dead. The families were in almost constant tears, and deep were the lamentations over the fate of their loved ones. Mrs. Parsons was in paroxysms of grief and had to be almost forcibly removed from beside the bier of her husband. Her curses were loud against the police, and she strenuously refused all comfort. At the Spies residence there were copious tears, and no one was more deeply moved than Miss Van Zandt. The sorrow of Mrs. Engel and her daughter was more subdued, but nevertheless keen and poignant. It was the same at Fischer’s home.
Meantime the preparations for the funeral went on, and the committee having it in charge determined that it should be conducted with the utmost pomp, ceremony and display. They desired that on this occasion the red flag should again be unfurled and wave over the bodies of those whom they regarded as martyrs. The police learned of it, and when a committee waited upon Mayor Roche to secure the necessary permission for the procession, he set his face firmly against the red flag.
“The American flag,” said he, “is good enough for us, and it is good enough for you. If that flag don’t suit you, I am sorry. No red flag shall ever take its place while I am Mayor of Chicago.”
Sunday, November 13, came, and every Anarchistic organization in the city turned out to attend the funeral. The procession, which started at an early hour, first called at the Spies residence, No. 154 Bryson Street, for the coffin of the editor, and then moved on to Mrs. Parsons’ residence at No. 785 Milwaukee Avenue. After the coffin of Parsons had been placed in the hearse, Fischer’s house was reached, and next that of Engel, and when all the hearses were in line, the entire funeral procession proceeded down Milwaukee Avenue, thence to Lake Street, and thence along Fifth Avenue to the depot of the Wisconsin Central Railway. At each of the houses of the executed Anarchists the cortege had been joined by friends and by various societies of which the dead had been members, and with these accessions the procession, as it finally moved on to its destination, numbered not less than six thousand. The hearses were loaded down with flowers, wreaths and other floral tributes, and each was followed by carriages containing the mourners. Close behind the Spies hearse was a carriage containing Mrs. and Miss Van Zandt, mother and daughter, and Mrs. Spies, the mother, and Miss Gretchen, the sister of the deceased. All along the line of march, the sidewalks were thronged, and there must have been over fifty thousand persons who viewed the procession as it passed. Hundreds had gathered at the residences before the procession started, and when they joined the throngs already on Milwaukee Avenue the streets became almost impassable. Policemen were stationed at the various street corners, and these gave the processionists ample room to move unimpeded. The procession did not lack music, several bands having been engaged, and the “Marseillaise” and “Annie Laurie” were the airs most frequently heard.
The absence of the red banner on the street was commented on, but with a seeming defiance of the Mayor’s orders two red flags decked the coffins of Engel and Lingg. What was still more significant was the fact that not a single flag of the Union was borne by the procession. It was only when the Anarchists reached Lake Street that the red, white and blue was unfurled to the breeze, and then it was done, not by an Anarchist, but by Howell Trogden, a veteran of the civil war. It was a small emblem in size, and of cheap material, but he held it high above his head and proudly carried it before the cortege, clear down to the depot, greatly to the discomfiture and chagrin of the reds. When remonstrated with by some one who was in the crowd that had gathered about him and cheered him on the way, he defiantly exclaimed in plain, though perhaps not elegant, language:
“What, furl the ensign of the nation I fought for? Not much! You bet your life, I’ll carry this flag and I’ll kill the first man who tries to wrest it from me. I’ll shed my blood to keep it there.”
And the flag was kept there.
Arriving at the depot, the various organizations boarded the trains in waiting, and shortly after one o’clock all were under way to Waldheim Cemetery, situated some nine miles west of Chicago. It was a gloomy, cold day, but nevertheless an immense concourse of people followed the remains to the vault in which they were temporarily deposited. Those who had immediate charge of the funeral arrangements were Frank A. Stauber, H. Linnemeyer, George Schilling, R. M. Burke, Julius Leon, Edwin Goettge, Charles F. Seib, Ernst Litzman, H. Ulharn, F. G. Bielefeld, William Urban, Dr. Ernst Schmidt and T. J. Morgan, all members of the Defense Committee and the Amnesty Association.
After the coffins had been placed in the vault, Capt. W. P. Black took a position near the entrance and delivered the funeral oration. In concluding his address, he said, speaking of a day “when righteousness should reign”:
“We look forward to that day. We hope for it. We wait for it, and with such a hope in our hearts can we not bring the judgment of charity to bear upon any mistakes of policy or action that may have been made by any of those who, acknowledging the sublime and glorious hope in their hearts, rushed forward to meet it? We are not here this afternoon to weep. We are not here to mourn over our dead. We are here to pay by our presence and our words the tribute of our appreciation and the witness of our love. I loved these men. I knew them not until I came to know them in the time of their sore travail and anguish. As months went by and I found in the lives of those with whom I talked the witness of their love for the people, of their patience, gentleness and courage, my heart was taken captive in their cause. For this I have no apology. If any of you feel that the tears are coming listen to the last words spoken by one of these, our dead.
“‘Go not to my grave with your mourning, with your lamentations and tears, with your forebodings and fears. When my lips are dumb, do not thus come. Bring no long train of carriages; no hearse with waving plumes, with the gaunt glory of death illumed; but with hands on my heart let me rest. Ye who are left on this desolate shore, there still to suffer alone, deeply do I pity you. For me no more are the hardships, the bitterness, heartache and strife, the sadness and sorrow of life, but the glory of the divine, that is mine. Poor creatures, afraid of the darkness, who groan at the sight of the anguish in our silent night, go to my tomb. Peal no solemn bell—I am well.’
“It has been said that these men knew no religion. I repel the charge. I know but one religion—the religion which seeks to manifest itself by its service of God—or of the supreme good—by its service of humanity in its anguish and its hours of despair. And one of these, our dead, while within the very gloom of approaching death, gave in these words: ‘My religion is this: To live right. To do right is to live right, and the service of humanity is my worship of God.’
“I remember that back in the centuries it was written in words that shall never perish: ‘He that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous.’ There is no conception possible to humanity of that which we call God other than the conception which sets our life aflame in the service of our fellow-men. But I must not keep you. There is no necessity for multiplying words in such a presence as this. There are times when silence is more terrible than speech; when men moving to the supreme issue of life can say, standing with their feet on earth and their hands reaching out into the unknown, in a sublime burst of enthusiasm: ‘This is the happiest moment of my life’ (the last words of Fischer), and then in that hour can cheer for the cause to which they have given their lives (as Engel did), and men in that hour, forgetting themselves, can speak of the voice of the people (Parsons’ last words) until utterance is silenced forever, what need is there to stand by such men and multiply words?
“I say that a mistake may well be forgotten in the glory of the purpose which we condemn—it may be through undue haste. I say that whatever of fault may have been in them, these, the people whom they loved and in whose cause they died, may well close the volume and seal up the record and give our lips to the praise of their heroic deeds and their sublime self-sacrifice.”
Some weeks afterwards arrangements were made for the final interment of the bodies. A suitable lot had been purchased with money collected by the “Defense Committee,” and accordingly on Sunday, the 18th of December, 1887, the Anarchists were invited out to Waldheim to witness the last rites over the dead conspirators. It was a cold, chilling day, and only about a thousand people were in attendance. The remains of the five Anarchists were removed from the vault, the coffins opened and the bodies viewed by all who desired. They were then placed in one grave, and a heavy flagstone was lowered and firmly cemented to protect them. The orators on this occasion were Mr. Buchanan, of Chicago, Paul Grottkau, of Milwaukee, and Albert Currlin, of St. Louis. The tenor of Grottkau’s speech may be judged from the following extract:
“Those cold clods of clay were the first offerings required at our hands, but they will not be the last. Our lords believed that with them they could slaughter the idea and ideals they represent. They imagined that the fivefold gallows would forever choke liberty. How they have succeeded the future will show. Let them erect their gallows, put them up by the million, and they will never destroy the glorious principles. Not all their revolvers, their armories of bayonets and Gatling guns, not all their bristling rows of cannon, can conquer us. (‘Bravo!’ ‘Bravo!’) From this land the fame of our martyrs and our principles will go out to the whole world. Our strangled ones are put at the head of the column. Their names will ever be the brightest on history’s page. Party hate or sectional strife cannot dim their laurels. They were the champions of degraded and plundered humanity. They fought long and manfully for us; they died to serve us; and more than that man cannot do. It but remains for us to do our duty as they did theirs. We must be moved by their spirit. All mean personal desires must depart from us. We must continue our organization. We must be unswervingly loyal to the principles they taught us—the great principles that will free the wretched and enslaved proletarians and drive all injustice from the face of the earth. Brothers, they (pointing to the five coffins) have done their duty; let us do ours.”
Currlin closed his address as follows:
“We have been constantly bought, sold and delivered at the ballot-box (Applause.) These heroes and true men had well considered the folly of relying on the ballot, and with firm hearts and resounding voices had pointed out the road to the thinking and the brave.
“They are gone. Shall the sacrifice of these noble lives be fruitful or not? It will, it must be. Let the dreadful act cement us together. Let us be loftier, firmer than ever. You have your Golgotha. See to it that you have your Easter, and have it soon. You owe it to yourselves and your families that you ever revere these dead. If at any time you become soul-weary or discouraged, make a pilgrimage to this hallowed spot and be reinvigorated for the strife. Let the prison, even the gallows, be powerless to overturn your purpose. Let us struggle for the right, for justice, freedom, and true fraternity until the nations of the earth are of us and with us, until the peoples are regenerated, and clean hands and clean hearts have authority to rule.” (Applause.)
With the final burial of the dead, it may perhaps be well to inquire whether one of them continued to believe in Anarchy when he saw that there was no escaping from his fate. That one about whose faith there is most doubt is Engel.
It is frequently the case that men condemned to death, either on the gallows or otherwise, make a powerful effort to die bravely, and that, whatever may have been their true feelings, the truth dies with them. It is seldom that any one reveals from the bottom of his heart his true sentiments. In this case, Engel was a man known to have been sober and sincere, who believed that everything he said was true and right, and who expressed his opinions freely before all his people. He professed the same sentiments to the public up to the moment of his death, his last words being, “Hurrah for Anarchy!” Yet he felt differently. It is a well-known fact that people sentenced to death adhere until the last second to the position that they are right in their opinions or doctrines, or they simulate innocence. Now, as to Engel, it had been shown by the evidence that he had frequented many places at night, to attend Anarchist meetings, and at many of them he delivered addresses. On some of these occasions he was accompanied by his only daughter, a bright young girl about fifteen or sixteen years of age, and she often heard him utter sentiments which she ought not to have heard. But the girl could not help it. She was there, and she had to listen. After these meetings they would walk home together, and the daughter’s company was always a source of great pleasure to Engel. She was also greatly attached to her father, and, naturally, whatever she heard him say she regarded as true, having the most implicit faith in him. Engel knew all this, and many stormy nights she would brave the weather to be at his side at meetings he felt himself obliged to attend. She would cling to his arm, and through snow and storm they would face the elements. When Engel’s last night on earth came, he asked the Sheriff and Jailor to permit his beloved daughter to remain with him during the night, and, the officials having satisfied themselves that no sinister purpose was in view, the wish was granted. This was the night of November 10, and young Mary kept her father cheerful company during the long hours. Engel seemed to have had something on his mind, but he refrained from saying anything until shortly before the time for her departure. It was evident that Engel had a deep solicitude for her welfare, in spite of his pretended stolidity. In theory he had always expressed the greatest admiration for Louise Michel, and on every occasion he had lauded that Frenchwoman for her bravery in suffering imprisonment and readiness to sacrifice her life for Anarchy. But he regarded theory and practice as separate and distinct, and in the face of death his thoughts concerned themselves with the future of his dear child. Should she espouse Anarchy and follow in his footsteps, taking up his work where he had left off? This is what agitated Engel, and he soon decided the issue. With a serious and earnest manner, and in a very strong voice, he said in German:
“Mein liebes Kind, kümmere dich nicht um Anarchie. Du siehest wie es mir geht. Und vergesse diese Worte nicht so lange du lebst.” (Translated: “My dear child, do not trouble yourself about Anarchy. You see my situation. Do not forget these words as long as you live.”)
I am happy to record this to Engel’s credit. He was conscious that he had been in the wrong for some time, and he had the manhood to warn his daughter not to embrace Anarchy. He wished her to maintain a good character and grow up to be a good woman.
The words I have given are true to the letter, just as they were spoken by Engel to his daughter, at the time I have stated, and, no matter how strenuously Anarchists may deny this, it will still remain the truth. I will even add that I have no doubt that Engel’s comrades entertained similar sentiments.
The other doomed Anarchists, however, kept their own counsel, and no one seems to have been able to probe their real feelings. Spies and Parsons were decidedly reserved, and Fischer had a severe demeanor, which only relaxed to intimate and trusted friends. A slight exception to his rule was made in his conduct toward his death-watch, John B. Kierlan. In speaking of Fischer, Kierlan, who was a deputy in the jail building, says:
“At the beginning of February, 1887, I was detailed as death-watch to Fischer. When I first went on watch Fischer did not care much for my company, but after a week or so we got to be friends. He asked me to play cards with him, and I often joined him in a game. We played for imaginary and invisible beers. Sometimes I would lose, and then again he would be the loser. The one who lost generally wanted satisfaction, and the next night we would ‘saw off’ the games, and in this way we were accustomed to spend our evenings together until the last few nights preceding November 11th. Fischer was at this time in cell No. 28, second row. He became greatly attached to me, and was always pleased to see me. He had more confidence in me than in any other officer in the building, and I was with him nearly all the morning of November 11th. When it was nearly eleven o’clock that morning he said:
“‘Well, John, what about the beer you owe me?’
“I was so greatly astonished that I could not answer him. Then Fischer threw his arm around my neck and said:
“‘Dear John, we must part.’
“At the same time he kissed my cheek. This was a trying moment for me, as I had become greatly attached to him. While I knew him, he never used bad language or said anything unbecoming a gentleman. He asked me:
“‘John, will you remember me?’
“‘I said: ‘Yes, but I would like to have something to remember you by.’
“He then pulled out a card from his pocket and wrote these words:
“‘Liberty or death. Adolph Fischer, Cook County Jail, November 11, 1887.’
“This card was given to me forty-five minutes before he died, and I am positive that these were the last words he wrote in his life.”
A fac-simile of the card appears on another page.
The Freiheit of March 16th prints what it calls Lingg’s literary testament. It is stated in the introduction to the article that while in prison the bomb-maker carved a handsome little casket, which shortly before his death he presented to Johann Most as a souvenir. In a secret compartment of this casket was contained a small book, on the leaves of which Lingg had inscribed his sentiments, and from which the following is extracted:
“What is Anarchy?
“A man-worthy existence for the entire term of life, guaranteed to every one through complete individual liberty, all human needs being supplied by means of equal participation in the enjoyment of all the products of the community.
“Free society (Anarchy) finds its limits only in those of the earth.
“The object of Anarchy is to secure the greatest possible happiness to all.
“This object is attained through the total extermination of all domination.
“Domination is personified in exploiters (Ausbeuter) and tyrants.
“The extermination of these, in view of their sources of power, can best be accomplished by means of dynamite.
“After such extermination the workingmen will organize according to their inclinations, for protection and consumption.
“Centralization—i. e., subordination of the different groups of production and consumption under a clique composed of individuals, or even under a majority of society—is not advisable, because in that way another domination would be established, and such would make illusory the stated purpose of free society—Anarchy.”
In writing this book I have endeavored at all times to be fair and honest. While I have done everything in my power and made use of every faculty which God has given me to ferret out and to combat Anarchy, and while I believe now, as I always have believed, that the men who suffered death at the hand of justice in the Cook County Jail deserved their fate, I also believe that there are those unhanged, and who probably never will be hanged, who are morally as guilty, and who deserve even a harsher fate than befell the men whose lives the law demanded. For these cowards—selfish, sneaking conspirators as they are, who fight from ambush and take no risks—would not deserve even the sympathy of the poor fools whom they lead to ruin. I firmly believe that Engel, Lingg and Fischer were at least sincere in their convictions and honest in their belief and in their expressions. Spies, I think, was led to his fate by vanity and a consuming desire for notoriety.
In my investigations I of course looked carefully into the antecedents of all the Anarchists who were arrested by my command, and I will say right here that not a dishonest act, as regards the rights of property, was laid to the door of any one of them. Lingg, particularly, was scrupulously honest and conscientious in his dealings with his fellow-man. The day after the Haymarket massacre he found himself penniless, and for that reason refused at first to partake of the food offered him at Seliger’s table.
“I cannot partake of what belongs to you and your wife,” he said, “nor of what I cannot pay for. You are as poor as I am.”
“You must share with us as long as we have food,” replied Seliger; but it was only after considerable urging that Lingg consented to appease his hunger.
While apparent bravery in facing death on the gallows counts for nothing—I have seen craven cowards meet their doom like stage heroes—I believe that Lingg, Engel and Fischer would have died calmly and bravely even without the stimulants which are always administered to the condemned before the fatal moment, and which were, of course, administered to the four men before they were led to the fatal trap which hurled them into eternity. Lingg, particularly, during the entire term of his confinement, through the long months of the trial, and up to the very day when he so tragically took his own life, showed a consistency and a determination which would have been heroic had he not been the dupe of designing men who saw in the ardor of his temperament and in the resistless force of his enthusiastic energy the means to further and carry out iniquitous plots with which they had not the courage to openly identify themselves. I repeat again, there are those still unhanged, who are even now parading before a credible public as apostles of the cause of labor, and whose cowardice keeps them out of the reach of law, who deserve the greater share of public odium. Some of these, and others like them, are still at work in our midst, and in the midst of all communities in which the revolutionists see a chance of making propaganda out of differences between employers and employed. I hope that one result of my book may be to open the eyes of honest workingmen to the fact that those who preach violence and those who stir up trouble and intensify discontent are the enemies of honest labor.