-wV f, 
 '■^: 
 
 -> -i: 
 
 'I 
 
f] ^opeise j^istory 
 
 — OF THE — 
 
 GREAT TRIAL 
 
 — OP THE — 
 
 IN isse. 
 
 • CONDENSED FROM THE OFFICIAL RECORD. 
 
 By DYER D. LUM. 
 
 CHICAOC), ILL. 
 
 Socialistic Publishing Company, 
 
 274 West Twelfth Steeet. 
 
'Vf 1*,v- 
 
 [^'iv'' Hr 
 
 
 
 
 
 rMH 
 
 iW;\' v- f 
 
 
 
 'vT?'';.,'' 
 
 
 
 
 rP' 
 
 
 ■'Si 
 
LAKK STREET. 
 
 
 I SPEAKERS I 
 
 DESPLAINES 
 
 A. Where the bomb was thrown. 
 
 B. Where the bomb exploded. 
 
 C. Zepfs Hall. 
 
 RANDOLPH STREET 
 
PRRFAGR. 
 
 A bomb! A dynamite bomb! Such was the startling intelligence which went 
 over the wires from the city of Chicago on the night of May 4th, 1886. Who threw 
 it? After a long and protracted trial the question remains unanswered. Whether 
 thrown by some one indignant at the raid by the police upon a peaceable meet¬ 
 ing, an individualistic attempt to resist invasion, or thrown by some hireling to 
 break the great eight-hour movement which, at the time, seemed likely to compel 
 the acquiesence of manufacturers in the growing demand for shorter hours of toil, 
 the trial did not reveal. 
 
 Yet, eight men were placed on trial for their lives, their houses searched 
 without process of law; they were subjected to personal abuse by city officials, de¬ 
 nounced and virtually tried and condemned by a press whose existence, as cater¬ 
 ers to capitalists, laid in creating a scarecrow and imparting to it some semblance 
 of reality. 
 
 Property alone found voice; Labor, aghast, awaited developments. Some 
 regarded it as the opening of a new struggle between these two classes, which were 
 now clearly seen to have a defined and divergent existence. Capital and Labor 
 were asserted to be pitted against each other in a new “irrepressible conflict.” 
 Others, alarmed at the danger to vested rights and existing social conditions, 
 with equal impetuosity and want of logic, fell back on the law and demanded ex¬ 
 treme measures of repression; a reign of terror set in. Property trembled for its 
 existence before a phantom; every way-side bush seemed a secret danger; fear 
 paralyzed reason, and force—arbitrary and illegal—held full sway. 
 
 Anarchy, that dread spectre that Siberian snows had not frozen; to which 
 under the synonym of Nihilism our dilettanti had given a quasi interest, struck 
 the same alarm in Chicago as it brought to the palace of the Czars. Nor was a 
 reign of terror lacking to the great body of wage workers. Labor Unions found 
 their doors closed by the police. “Suspects” were arrested, imprisoned,and their 
 homes seai’ched by detectives without warrants. 
 
 ' Now that the sentence of death has been passed upon the men accused of 
 “murder,” law “vindicated” and order restored; when society ias resumed the 
 even tenor of its way and respectable and legal jobbery can again be safely carried 
 on, it were well to ask: Upon what evidence were they convicted? 
 
 In the following pages an attempt is made to condense the testimony, omit¬ 
 ting nothing essential to the case. The testimony is taken from the official record 
 prepared by counsel for the Supreme Court, not from the newspaper reports. 
 After carefully reading hundreds of pages of testimony, scrupulously scanning the 
 addresses of counsel for the State and carefully weighing all the facts in the case, 
 the writer is still at a loss to account for the verdict upon other grounds than that 
 of class prejudice. Prejudice as strong and envenomed as moved the narrow minds 
 of loyal Prenchmen in their persecution of the Huguenots, or which inspired the 
 breasts of loyal Englishmen in hounding Eoundheads to death. True, religion did 
 not enter into the controversy as in France and England. The nineteenth century 
 
has passed beyond that stage of controversy. Having passed through and won 
 freedom in disputes regarding religious and political faiths, the great controversies 
 of this age are necessarily economic, questions of a social nature. The Holy In¬ 
 quisition no longer exists to compel acceptance of a religious creed, but the State 
 remains to crush out social heretics who will not accept its doctrine that wrong is 
 right and glaring injustice to be Christian civilization. The popular god has but 
 changed his vestments. The dark-robed priests no longer gather around the stake 
 to gloat over the dying agony of the daring unbeliever in their rightuousness and 
 authority; the cross no longer cramps intellect and fosters injustice by the strong 
 hand of power. But the same dominating genius prevails and finds expression in 
 other directions. Heresy in social beliefs is stih as vigorously denounced as ever 
 in former times under other dominating beliefs. Society to-day, as in the past 
 centuries, can rely on a horde of hirelings to relentlessly pursue, villify and punish 
 the heretic who dares to question and resist the existing order of things. The old 
 question, the only fundamental question of modem civilization. Authority versus 
 Liberty, is still with us. Again, as of old, the cry has gone forth from pulpit, press 
 and tribune—That which is must remain, while at the same time the evil genius 
 of authority, enforcing control over others, from its very nature is constantly 
 usurping new privileges and establishing more restrictions. 
 
 The eight social heretics of Chicago who dared to defend their beliefs when 
 tried for an act, of which it was openly admitted they were not personally guilty, 
 have challenged the attention of the world and the admiration of the oppressed of 
 all lands. Though John Brown’s body has long been at rest—still, more than ever 
 can it be said, his soul is marching on! 
 

 ^ consrozsE zzistozbtz' 
 
 - OF THE - 
 
 Qr(iat yrial of tf^e ^9ar(;f7i5t8 ip 1886. 
 
 CHAPTEE 1. 
 
 THE EIGHT-HOUR MOVEMENT. 
 
 The Haymarket tragedy and the trial of the Anarchists are 
 indissolubly connected with the great eight-hour strike of May 1, 
 1886. To understand the trial and the position of the prisoners on 
 trial we must obtain a view of that movement and of the prisoners’ 
 relation thereto. Many and diverse have been the reports circulated 
 in this regard, some claiming that the prisoners were opposed to the 
 eight-hour struggle; others, that they were its champions; while 
 others again — and this has been the theory of the press — that they 
 but seized upon this occasion to bring about a conflict with the consti¬ 
 tuted authorities and thereby precipitate a revolution. Happily, their 
 own expressions are a matter of record, and they can, as they should, 
 be placed before the public. 
 
 The one great characteristic of all pubhc questions which have 
 engaged the attention of statesmen in the nineteenth century is that 
 they have been essentially of an economic nature. Forms of religion 
 aiid of government are questions of the past; they no longer distract 
 the discussions of cabinets nor excite the popular heart. The huge 
 black-lettered folios of polemic lore which constituted the “ living 
 issues ” of the seventeenth century gave place in the next to disqui¬ 
 sitions on the political rights of man. Parliaments ceased to worry 
 over theology and devoted their energies to combat and suppress the 
 writings of Junius, Eousseau and Paine. 
 
 With the triumph of the American and French revolutions, new 
 issues began slowly to force themselves upon public attention. It is 
 self-evident that they have not been religious in their nature. Have 
 they been political ? Such we have thought them to be, but each year 
 proves that they are more and far broader. AU the great questions of 
 the day, since England began factory legislation in 1802, have been 
 Economic ! Freedom of commerce ! Corn laws! Tariffs! Strikes ! 
 
8 
 
 THE EIGHT-HOUR MOVEMENT. 
 
 All have the same inspiration in various degrees of intelligible articu¬ 
 lation. It stirred the heart of the English chartist; it moved the 
 pulses of the European workmen in 1848 ; it found audible voice in 
 the Commune of Paris in 1871; to-day the red flag of labor groups 
 the sons of all nationalities into one common brotherhood. 
 
 State patriotism is as obsolete as church creed. Nations still go¬ 
 to war, but it is now for a market. England and Russia contend for 
 midland Asia. France, Italy, Spain and Germany seek new colonial 
 dependencies for purely commercial reasons. It has become a ques¬ 
 tion of exports and imports. The productions of labor must find an 
 outlet to new markets to sustain commercial supremacy. Home pro¬ 
 ducers cannot buy that into which they have too often hammered and 
 woven their lives. A foreign market must be sought and won by other 
 lives. The 110,585 boys and girls under thirteen years of age employed 
 in English textile factories may be ragged, but English fabrics must 
 be exported to find them in bread. 
 
 As early as September, 1832, a convention of farmers and mechan¬ 
 ics of New England was convened at Boston. In January, 1834, a 
 meeting to form a general trades’ union was called in the same city. 
 On the Fourth of July following a grand banquet was held at Faneuil 
 Hall; and it is a noteworthy fact that so indifferent were all not im¬ 
 mediately interested, that the committee of arrangements apologized 
 for the absence of a clergyman, and stated that application was made 
 to twenty-two religious associations for the use of a church in which 
 to deliver the oration, but their request was in every case refused. 
 Consequently they sat down to their banquet without a clerical bless¬ 
 ing. 
 
 At that day, and for long since, the tariff was a vital question to 
 America. To-day the desperate struggle of all European powers for 
 a foreign market has overshadowed it with a far deeper one. True, 
 so-called statesmen still harp in the old strain, but workmen are annu- 
 ally growing indifferent to their statistics and eloquence. At that 
 period, so far as there was a labor movement, it was almost entirely 
 confined to Massachusetts. In fact, in 1833, ’34 and ’35 a labor party 
 presented to the voters of that state a gubernatorial ticket, but few, 
 however, felt an interest in the matter. It was not till 1850 that Mas¬ 
 sachusetts adopted, in most of the trades, the ten-hour plan. In 
 the large mills a longer working day, however, still prevailed, being 
 twelve hours, or fourteen hours more per week, than in English mills. 
 In other states but little attention, if any, was bestowed upon legisla¬ 
 tion on hours of labor. 
 
9 
 
 
 THE EIGHT-HOUR MOVEMENT. 
 
 Immediately upon the close of the civil war an agitation for the 
 lessening of the hours of labor began in earnest. The great changes 
 made in our system of production during the interval, the colossal 
 fortunes made by men in army contracts, with the rapid progress to¬ 
 wards centralization of capital under the American system of protec¬ 
 tive tariff, gave the movement a more wide-spread character. The 
 New England Eight-Hour League, endorsed with the eloquent support 
 of Wendell Phillips, aroused more attention one year than had been 
 evoked in the preceding thirty. Growing out of this was the Labor 
 Congress, which was held in the city of Baltimore in 1866. 
 
 On June* 24, 1878, the national eight-hour law passed and in the 
 same year a National Labor Union was formed at a convention held 
 at Cincinnati with Richard F. Trevellick as president and an executive 
 for each of the several states of the Union. The Eight-Hour law of 
 1868, applying to government employes, was never rigidly enforced. 
 Government set the example of ignoring it and petitions to Congress 
 were treated with disdain. 
 
 The remarkable increase in the production of wealth by the rapid 
 development of “ labor-saving ” machinery gave stability to the move¬ 
 ment. Muscles of steel were taking the place of those of flesh, and 
 strong stalwart men, anxious and eager to toil for others, found them¬ 
 selves “ superfluous.” Without entering further into the history of 
 the movement, I quote here a letter submitted to the Committee on 
 Depression in Labor and Business of the XLVI Congress. It will be 
 interesting as showing in brief the argument for the shortening of the 
 hours of labor, and instructive in considering the paucity of results 
 which have followed such appeals. It is as follows: 
 
 Hon. Hendeick B. Weight, Chairman Congressional Committee on the 
 Depression of Labor: 
 
 SiE:— At your request, I gladly avail myself of the opportunity 
 so kindly presented to lay before your honorable committee a few 
 thoughts which I think have a practical bearing on the subject-matter 
 of your investigation. As the general question as to the causes of the 
 recent depression of labor opens up a broad and almost endless dis¬ 
 cussion, I shall beg leave to confine myself strictly to what I consider 
 one of the causes, and wherein remedial legislation will prove bene¬ 
 ficial. 
 
 I allude to the necessity for a reduction of the hours of labor. 
 The subject came before Congress in 1868, in which year what is 
 known as the national eight-hour law went into effect. Though still 
 on the statute book, its observance is not generally nor uniformly en¬ 
 forced. As a recommendation from your committee could not but 
 have weight in the struggle being waged by workingmen to secure its 
 enforcement, I shall briefly sketch some of the arguments with which 
 we press the matter upon our legislators. Dismissing the question at 
 
the EIGHT-HOUR MOVEMENT. 
 
 S,‘.S*K'« .SS'i.” ‘2 
 
 asiTr-t’.. 
 
 words of Adam Smith, “ not only the commodities that are m^spens 
 rblv Lcessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the 
 country renders it indecent for creditable people even of the lowest 
 order to be without.” ^ • xu 
 
 The cost of subsistence for an average family <ietermines the rate, 
 and it is for this reason that single men can save more if they will. 
 They reap the advantage from being exceptions to the general custom. 
 Women’s wages are always lower because custom has not ^ade cdhers 
 dependent upon them. Wages have been and will be ^^^^ated by 
 existing conditions of living. In 1444 the rate of wages m England 
 for agricultural labor, averaged about four pence a day, but the price 
 of board was only two pence. 
 
 In Eome under Diocletian and Constantine Chlorus an a^cultu- 
 ral laborer received, on an average, equal to twelve and a half cents 
 a day but the cost of subsistence was in proportion. 
 
 Second, we ask it in the interest of civilization. The battle for 
 the reduction of the hours of labor is a struggle for a wider civiliza¬ 
 tion. Civilization demands a prosperous and contented people, witn 
 increased wants and means to supply them. To refuse aid to 
 ing hands to cultivate our idle lands, to import a servile race, that 
 thereby the cost of subsistence may be reduced to a far lower standard 
 and a lower level for all be reached, and to insist on long hour s of 
 toil when thousands are standing idle, all are heavy blows aimed at 
 the very foundation of our modem civilization. 
 
 A decrease in the hours of labor means rest, and rest, is invariably 
 accompanied by increased wants. Release the poor drudge in the 
 mine or the factory from his long hours of toil, and give him daily 
 hours of recreation and leisure and you at once raise him in the 
 social scale. Rest cultivates. 
 
 We insist that every reduction in the hours of labor heretofore 
 made has elevated the working people ; that increased leisure has in¬ 
 variably produced new wants, has added to the necessaries of life, 
 and consequently has raised the social condition of the people. The 
 setting apart of one day in seven for rest wherein no man shall labor, 
 is a prime factor in the growth of civilization. We never hear the 
 charge that wage workers receive seven days’ pay for six days’ work, 
 simply because conscientious conviction has become hardened into 
 national custom. The cost of subsistence—what will support a 
 family, not what equity requires—is the test by which the standard of 
 wages is determined. For once the reformer and the political econ¬ 
 omist agree, and the question arises, shall eight hours a day, like six 
 

 THE EIGHT-HOUK MOVEMENT. 11 
 
 days a week, become firmly fixed as a national custom, so far as the 
 government can establish it ? 
 
 The whole history of the short-hour movement in England proves 
 conclusively that every reduction of time in the United Kingdom has 
 invariably been followed by an increase of wages. When the agricul¬ 
 tural laborers in certain counties of England secured additional 
 rest, but a short period was needed to see a marked difference in their 
 social condition. Flowers began to blossom around their cottage 
 walls, the broken gate was mended and the garden more carefully 
 cultivated. Inside of these humble dwellings where the laborer had 
 formerly entered at the conclusion of a long days’ labor only to throw 
 his wearied body down to rest, articles of comfort began to come in, 
 and a general feeling of manliness and pride was awakened. With 
 increased comfort came increased wants; increased wants brought a 
 higher standard of wages than in those counties where the hours had 
 not been reduced. 
 
 Third, the changed relations between production and consump¬ 
 tion demand it. Should the changed condition of our industrial 
 system, arising from the rapid development of mechanical appliances, 
 whereby hand labor has been so largely superceded, caU for remedial 
 legislation ? Political economists recognize the evil and propose to 
 meet it by such measures as will preserve to the people what custom 
 has heretofore rendeied it indecent to be without. To do this less 
 hours of daily toil are essential. A reduction of hours means less 
 idle hands, more persons profitably employed. By increasing the 
 number of employed, consumption will be stimulated, over-production 
 cheeked, and a more balanced relationship between the two estab¬ 
 lished. 
 
 In the manufacture of cotton fabrics one girl today can do what 
 two generations ago would have required the united labor of 100 
 women, and in woolens the use of machinery has laid aside 70 per 
 cent of the laborers. In cutting and harvesting grain one man now 
 does the work that formerly would have required 384 men to perform. 
 In Massachusetts the effect of machinery is strikingly shown in the 
 boot and shoe trade. In 1845 the number of hands employed, 45,877, 
 produced 20,896,312 pairs of boots and shoes; in 1875 the number of 
 hands employed, 48,090, produced 59,762,866 pairs. In thirty years 
 the total praduction has nearly trebled, while the number of persons 
 employed is but slightly in excess of what it was in 1845, and far be¬ 
 low the number employed in 1855, when the census showed 77,827. 
 
 From 1865 to 1875 the number of establishments in this trade in 
 Massachusetts increased from 206 to 1,461. The examination of the 
 tables given in the state census shows that in the ten years cited, es¬ 
 tablishments have increased sevenfold; capital invested has nearly 
 doubled; the value of stock used has increased nearly three-fifths; 
 the number of pairs made has increased nine-tenths. Yet in the 
 same period the number of persons employed in this one industry has 
 fallen off from 52,821 to 48,090! 
 
 If we look at the other industries, wherever we find an increased 
 number of persons employed we will notice that the increase in pro¬ 
 duction is far greater in proportion. The conquest of man over 
 
12 
 
 THE EIGHT-HOUR MOVEMENT. 
 
 nature is rapidly augmenting in results, but the question whether the 
 people are in like manner benefitted has but to be asked to be an¬ 
 swered. Are peace and contentment more promptly realized ? Are 
 the pangs of hunger more readily alleviated ? Are the necessities of 
 life more easily attained? or, do privation and poverty remain as 
 marked as in the preceding century? Has not what improvement 
 exists in the material condition of the workingman directly followed 
 from the additional leisure acquired through reduction in the hours of 
 labor, rather than from any other source whatever ? 
 
 Machinery in the boot and shoe trade in Massachusetts has in¬ 
 creased production, swelled the capital invested and augmented 
 profits, but has it lessened the toil of the poor drudge employed, 
 brought increased comfort to his hearth, or placed him in any higher 
 social condition ? Labor has been saved to the employer only; the 
 tireless muscles of the inanimate machine have not only displaced 
 the living muscles in many cases, but in others have increased the 
 strain upon them by requiring an increased speed to keep up with the 
 machine. 
 
 Professor Huxley says that the seven* and a half millions of 
 workers in England can produce as much in six months as would have 
 required one hundred years ago the entire working force of the whole 
 world to equal. 
 
 Mr Gladstone, in a careful estimate of the production of wealth 
 in Great Britian during the present century and up lo the year 1870, 
 finds that the aggregate that has been acquired in this period is 
 equal to that of the whole previous period from the landing of Julius 
 Caesar, 55 years before the birth of Christ, and that the wealth pro¬ 
 duced between 1850 and 1870 was fully equal to that of the first half 
 of the present century. 
 
 Shall not labor enter into the benefits arising from this increased 
 wealth more directly ? 
 
 John Stuart Mill says: 
 
 “ It is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have 
 lightened the day’s toil of any human being. They have enabled a 
 greater population to live the same life of drudgery and imprisonment, 
 and an increased number of manufacturers and others to make for¬ 
 tunes ; they have increased the comforts of the middle class, but they 
 have not begun to effect those great changes in human destiny which 
 it is their nature to accomplish.” 
 
 Sir, your committee, I trust, will recognize the importance of this 
 question of the reduction of the hours of labor. The great industrial 
 revolution which we are undergoing, the change of human activity 
 from warlike to industrial pursuits, which constitutes the essential 
 characteristics of modern civilization, and the happiness of the pro¬ 
 ducing classes, which forms the foundation of a republican form of 
 government, alike demand your consi.leration. The enforcement of 
 tlm national eight-hour law would be accepted by workingmen every- 
 w’here as a signal proof that their prayer has been heard and the first 
 step taken toward the universal aL cept..iice of eight hours as a normal 
 day s work. 
 
THE EIGHT-HOUE MOVEMENT. 
 
 13 
 
 It was to the government that the credit is due for the reduction 
 from eleven and twelve hours to ten, in the order issued by President 
 Van Buren. May we not hope that the government may also follow 
 in his footsteps, and further modern civilization and human happiness 
 by establishing eight hours as a day’s work in all national workshops, 
 thereby preparing for its adoption as a national custom ? 
 
 I remain, sir, very respectfully, Samuel C. Hunt. 
 Boston, Mass., November 10, 1879. 
 
 Such was the logic and polity of eight-hour advocates in 1879. 
 Their sole hope at that time lay in legislation. In the following year 
 a National Eight-Hour Committee was organized, of which Albert E. 
 Parsons was a member, to further this end. But Congress did nothing, 
 and slowly hope withered and faith in legislation died out. 
 
 In October, 1884, the Federation of Trade and Labor Unions of 
 the United States and Canada, then in Session in Chicago, resolved on 
 a difFerent line of action. They resolved that on and after the first 
 day of May, 1886, eight hours should constitute a day’s work, and de¬ 
 termined to use every endeavor to make the movement a success. In 
 November, 1885, a few individuals in Chicago, prominent among whom 
 were George A. Schilling, William Gleeson and Joseph Gruenhut, met 
 and organized the “ Eight-Hour Association of Chicago.” They issued 
 a manifesto embodying the following planks : 
 
 1. The reduction of the hours of labor will require a proportion¬ 
 ate increase in the number of men employed, and will thus lessen, if 
 it does not remove, the competition among workmen, which competi¬ 
 tion is now admitted by all to be the sole cause of low wages. 
 
 2. The reduction of the hours of daily labor will proportionately 
 decrease production, and the employment of a greater number of men 
 will relatively increase consumption, thus destroying the bugaboo of 
 overproduction which now afflicts the dabblers in political economy, 
 and frightens so many well-meaning but unthinking people. 
 
 3. The reduction of the hours of daily labor, without a decrease 
 of pay, is a necessary consequence of invention and improved methods 
 of production. 
 
 4. The reduction of the hours of labor does not necessarily in¬ 
 volve a diminution of the gross societary product. 
 
 The association concluded its manifesto by asking the following 
 question, which has become significant in the light of subsequent 
 events: 
 
 Bo you think that capitalists are jus ified in using all the powers 
 of the government and society to reduce the working people into wage 
 slavery, and to accumulate all the results of societary work into the 
 hands of a small number of millionaires and soulless corporations, and 
 
14 
 
 THE EIGHT-HOUE MOVEMENT. 
 
 in case of a general movement for eight hours’ daily work among the 
 people of the United States would you demand the interference of the 
 army, the militia, police and sheriff’s posse, and employ Pinkerton’s 
 hirelings and other mercenaries to coerce the people into submission, 
 and would not such course, if adopted, inevitably lead to bloodshed, 
 anarchy, destruction and social death ? 
 
 Owing to the activity of this association the movement in Chicago 
 became general, and other cities aimed to emulate it by their co-opera¬ 
 tion. The Trade and Labor Assembly, believing eight hours the Mecca 
 of the labor movement, swung into line and issued the following cir¬ 
 cular letter: 
 
 To all Trade and Labor Associations of Chicago and Vicinity: 
 
 Fellow-Workers —The first of May has been set apart for the 
 general inauguration, as far as possible, of the eight-hour system. 
 That time is near at hand, and as the Trades Assembly of Chicago is 
 the most influential representative body of organized labor west of New 
 York city, it is, therefore, quite natural that the working people and 
 the public generally will hold it responsible to a very great extent for 
 the success or failure of this movement. There never was a time in 
 the history of this country when there was such an activity among the 
 workers for the betterment of their condition. Chicago, true to her 
 pluck and energy in all things, stands first and foremost in this grand 
 and beneficent movement, and as we look over the field to-day there 
 seems to be but one thing which threatens to defeat the succesiiful in¬ 
 auguration of the eight-hour day—the exorbitant demands our fellow- 
 workers are likely to make on the question of wages. In this connec¬ 
 tion we wish to call your attention to a circular issued by this body on 
 January 14, 1886, to manufacturers and employers of labor generally 
 in Chicago and vicinity: 
 
 “ The workingmen of Chicago are ready to make sacrifices in 
 wages in order that more people may find employment, and for the 
 general good of the whole community. Surely such a self-sacrificing 
 spirit should meet with a cordial response from the employing class.” 
 
 The above was given out in good faith by our eight-hour commit¬ 
 tee at the time, and we see no good reason why it should not be ad¬ 
 hered to now. The Bricklayers and Stonemasons’ Union and the 
 Cigarmakers’ International Union—two of the most perfect organiza¬ 
 tions in this city have agreed to accept a corresponding reduction in 
 wages, and we hope that their example will be followed generally, un¬ 
 less there is an absolute certainty that the old standard of wages can 
 be retained without any trouble. 
 
THE EIGHT-HOUE MOVEMENT. 
 
 15 
 
 When the eight-hour day has become an actuality, the idle work¬ 
 ers re-employed, the boss looking for more hands, the question of bet¬ 
 ter pay will be easily solved, but we implore you not to lumber the cart 
 down with issues that are likely to lead to strikes, lockouts, etc., and 
 possibly to the defeat of the eight-hour movement. 
 
 We further advise all trades that have not yet completed their ar¬ 
 rangements to immediately select suitable committees, with instruc¬ 
 tions to confer with the employers in their respective trades, so that 
 this question may be solved as near as possible by mutual consent. 
 Fellow-workers, the victory is assured if you will act determinedly and 
 judiciously. The Eight-Houe Committee. 
 
 Charles W. Eowan, President, 
 
 Wm. Hollister, Secretary, Trade and Labor Assembly. 
 
 These extracts are given for the purpose of recalling the fact that 
 the issue had become clearly defined and that the representatives of 
 labor and capital were distinctly arrayed against each other. All 
 unions were pledged to the effort, and there was every reason to believe 
 that it would be crowned with success. The industrial barons of the 
 day were powerless against such general combination on the part of 
 workmen, and could only trust to time or craft to resume the old order 
 of affairs. 
 
 Having thus briefly outlined the causes which led up to the event¬ 
 ful week in May, we must pause to consider the relation of the pris¬ 
 oners to that movement and their connection therewith. In October, 
 1883, a group of men—grown weary of the hope-deferred that all at¬ 
 tempts at remedial legislation had brought—met at Pittsburgh, Pa., 
 and revived the International Working-People’s Association. To this 
 convention August Spies and Albert E. Parsons were delegates, and 
 took a prominent part in its proceedings. Departing from the methods 
 of the old Socialistic Labor Party, they abjured political action as a 
 method of the present order and powerless as an instrument against it. 
 In an address to the workingmen of America, presenting in vivid colors 
 the inequalities of the present social system, the necessity for revolu¬ 
 tionary action was distinctly advocated. The following extract will 
 more clearly define their position: 
 
 “ As in former times a privileged class never surrendered its tyr¬ 
 anny, neither can it be expected that the capitalists of this age will give 
 up their rulership without being forced to do it. If there ever could 
 have been any question on this point, it should long ago have been 
 dispelled by the brutalities which the bourgeois of all countries—in 
 America as well as in Europe—constantly commits as often as the 
 proletariat anywhere energetically move to better their condition. It 
 
16 
 
 THE EIGHT-HOUK MOVEMENT. 
 
 becomes, therefore, self-evident that the struggle of the proletariat 
 with the bourgeois will be of a violent revolutionary character. 
 
 “ We could show by scores of illustrations that all attempts in the 
 past to reform this monstrous system by peaceful means, such as the 
 ballot, have been futile, and all such efforts in the future must neces¬ 
 sarily be so, for the following reasons : 
 
 “ The political institutions of our time are the agencies of the 
 propertied class; their mission is the upholding of the privileges of 
 their masters ; any reform in your own behalf would curtail these priv¬ 
 ileges. To this they will not and can not consent, for it would be sui¬ 
 cidal to themselves.” 
 
 The International, as an avowed revolutionary organization, soon 
 numbered several groups in Chicago. In the Arbeiter-Zeitung, the 
 Vorhote and the Fackel they had earnest advocates among the German- 
 spealdng people. In October, 1884, an American organ of the Inter¬ 
 national, the Alarm, was founded, and secured quite an extensive cir¬ 
 culation among the trade unions of Chicago. Public meetings were 
 called in public squares and on the lake front and a thorough system 
 of popular agitation inaugurated. At these meetings probably the 
 most untiring and indefatigable speakers were August Spies, Samuel 
 Fielden and Albert E. Parsons. In summer in the open air, and in 
 winter in halls, the Chicago “ groups” kept up an incessant agitation. 
 
 Although pursuing a different line of action from that adopted by 
 the Eight-Hour Association, it was impossible that so formidable an 
 economic movement as had been organized to take place on May 1, 
 should not engage their attention. At first the leading spirits in the 
 International held themselves aloof. In their warfare upon the exist¬ 
 ing social organization ameliorative measures could hardly command 
 their active support. Not that they were opposed to a reduction of 
 the hours of labor, but because the movement did not strike at the 
 root of the evil. 
 
 As all of the prisoners were connected with the International 
 Working People’s Association theirposition becomes a question of im¬ 
 portance. In the editorial columns of the Alarm, for December, 12, 
 1885, appears an article headed “No Compromise.” 
 
 Tlie following is an extract: 
 
 We of the International are frequently asked why we do not give 
 our active support to the proposed eight-hour movement. Let us take 
 what we can get, say our eight-hour friends, else by asking too much 
 we may get nothing. 
 
 We answer: Because we will not compromise. Either our posi¬ 
 tion that capitalists have no right to the exclusive ownership of the 
 means of life is a true one, or it is not. If we are correct, then to 
 accede the point that capitalists have the right to eight hours of our 
 
THE EIGHT-HOUE MOVEMENT. 
 
 17 
 
 labor, is more than a compromise, it is a virtual concession tiiat the 
 wage system is nght. If capitalists have the right to own labor or to 
 control the results of labor, then clearly we have no business dictating 
 the terms upon which we may be employed We cannot say to our 
 employers: Yes, we acknowledge your right to employ us, we are 
 satisned that the wages system is all right, but we, your slaves, propose 
 to dictate the terms upon which we will work. How inconsistent: 
 and yet that is exactly the position of our eight-hour friends. They 
 ■presuroe to dictate to capital, while they maintain the justness of the 
 capitalistic system, they would regulate wages while defending the 
 claims of the capitalists to the absolute control of industry. 
 
 A. E. Parsons, the editor of the Alarm, who had been formerly 
 prominently identified with eight-hour organizations, was equally ex¬ 
 plicit. In his paper for October 31, 1885 he said: 
 
 “The private possession or ownership of the means of production 
 and exchange places the propertyless class in the power and control 
 of the propertied class, since they can refuse bread or the chance to 
 earn it to all the wage-classes who refuse to obey their dictation. 
 Eight hours, or less hours, is, therefore, under existing conditions a lost 
 battle. The private property system employs labor only to exploit 
 (rob) it, and while that system is in vogue the victims—those whom 
 it disinherits—have only the choice of submission or—starvation !” 
 
 Mr. Spies was equally emphatic, and as the statement of his 
 views is essential to the understanding of his position in the course of 
 events which preceeded the Haymarket meeting, it is herewith cited 
 from the Alarm of September 5, 1885 : 
 
 “A man whose name is Edmonston, and whom the irony of fate 
 has awarded the office of secretary in a national labor organization, 
 has written a reply to some remarks which appeared in the Alarm in 
 connection with the eight-hour proclamation. He is evidently one of 
 those fellows who think because ‘God gave them an office he also 
 furnished them with sense.’ Instead of showing our position in re¬ 
 gard to the eight-hour question to be unattainable he throws a lot of 
 vile epithets at the Anarchists whom he looks upon in his stupidity as 
 men with ‘disordered brains.’ The simpleton knows about as much 
 on the subject of economics as the average ass knows about Homerian 
 poetry. 
 
 “We do not antagonize the eight-hour movement, — viewing it 
 from the standpoint that it is a social struggle we simply predict that 
 it is a lost battle, and we prove that though even the eight-hour system 
 should be established at this late day, the wage-workers would gain 
 nothing. They would still remain the slaves of their masters. 
 
 “Suppose the hours of labor should be shortened to eight, our 
 productive capacity would thereby not be diminished. The shorten- 
 
18 
 
 THE EIGHT-HOUR MOVEMENT. 
 
 ing of the hours of labor in England was immediately followed by a 
 general increase of labor-saving machines, with a subsequent dis¬ 
 charge of a proportionable number of employees. The reverse of what 
 had been sought took place. The exploitation of those at work was 
 intensified. They now performed more labor, produced more than 
 before. 
 
 “Now, for a man who desires to remain a wage slave, the introduc¬ 
 tion cf evei7 new improvement and machine is a threatening competi¬ 
 tor. The anorganic machine works cheaper than the organic being! 
 Mr. Edmonston views wage slavery as the very corner-stone of civili¬ 
 zation. Hence to be consistent, he ought to be opposed to the reduc¬ 
 tion of the hours of labor. His position is, it seems, that eight hours 
 would give work to the unemployed and save us from over-production. 
 This, however, will not be the case. If the strike should turn out 
 successful, the eight-hour system would result in the extermination of 
 every small manufacturer and small shopman. They and those whom 
 they now employ would be thrown in the labor market. Production 
 would increase through larger establishments, greater subdivision of 
 labor etc., while the consuming power of the working class would, if 
 not decrease, remain as it is. 
 
 “What E. calls ‘over-production’ would still remain. For this 
 anomaly will remain just so long as the propertied class have the 
 privilege to distribute the world’s goods as they choose. 
 
 “ ‘But,’ interjects Mr. E., ‘Capital was, and rightfully is, but the 
 servant of labor, and when it assumes to be more, it oversteps its 
 bounds, and becomes a trespasser, liable to correction.’ 
 
 “How naive ! We should think that capital was ‘overstepping its 
 bounds’ when it refuses to be the servant of more than 2,000,'Ju0 men 
 and probably as many women in this country. These people are starv¬ 
 ing, many have starved—why, Mr. E., don’t you correct the trespasser ? 
 We should like to see you do it! 
 
 ‘Tf you say ‘capital is the servant of labor,’ you lie! it is the 
 servant of its possessor. Does labor possess capital? No. The fellows 
 with the ‘disordered brain’ would make labor the possessor of capital. 
 But this you don’t want, yet you say ‘capital ought rightfully be the 
 servant of labor.* 
 
 “Now in regard to the eight-hour strike next spring, a few practi¬ 
 cal words to our friends. The number of organized wage-workers in 
 the country may be about 800,000, the number of unemployed about 
 2,000,000. Will the manufacturing kings grant your modest request 
 under such circumstances ? No sir! the small ones cannot, and the 
 big one will not. They will fill your place by drawing from the army 
 
THE GKEAT STKIKE. 
 
 19 
 
 of the unemployed.... You will interfere.... Then comes the police 
 and militia!” 
 
 Whatever their individual views and expectations were regarding 
 the “eight-hour reform,”—the Internationalists are not narrow-minded 
 theorists, and hence, instead of opposing the movement, they gave it 
 their full support. And possessing the confidence of the great body of 
 wage-workers, whose cause they had for years espoused, they naturally 
 became the champions of the movement, owing to their recognized 
 ability, intelligence and sincerity. 
 
 CHAPTEE II. 
 
 THE GREAT STRIKE. 
 
 While both sides were preparing themselves for the great conflict 
 on the coming first of May, trouble had arisen in the McCormick 
 Harvester fa.ctory, which still further intensified public feeling. On 
 the 16th of February, 1886, at 9.30 A. M. the works were closed down 
 and 1,200 men were “locked out.” The employes of that establish¬ 
 ment had been for some time perfecting their organization and at last 
 had presented a petition for the redress of certain grievances and a 
 general advance of wages. The dispute arose over an additional de¬ 
 mand that a guarantee should be given that no man in the factory, or 
 any one serving on a committee, should be discharged for having acted 
 as a representative of his comrades. This was absolutely refused. A 
 strike in the factory in the preceeding April had been adjusted on the 
 basis that none of the men who served on committees, etc., and made 
 themselves conspicuous in behalf of their fellow workmen, would be 
 discharged for so doing. This agreement has been wantonly violated, 
 and every man who had incurred the displeasure of Mr. McCormick 
 W'as not only discharged, but black listed, in many cases being unable 
 to obtain employment in other shops. On the 2d of March thelocked- 
 out men assembled in mass meeting and were addressed at length by 
 A. E. Parsons and Michel Schwab. The meeting had been called not 
 only for the purpose of stating their grievances, but to protest against 
 the armed force which had been enlisted against them—four hundred 
 uniformed police and three hundred Pinkerton detectives, all armed 
 to the teeth. To beseech an employee not to take the place of another 
 became an attack on the State, and these armed men employed by the 
 State came forth at the behest of capital, struck down the peaceable 
 citizens, clubbed and searched them, and cast them into the patrol 
 wagons and hustled them off to prison. The banditti of “law and 
 order” maintained the legal right of capital to do what it pleased with 
 
20 
 
 THE GEEAT STKIKE. 
 
 labor, and the authorized ‘‘pickpockets” searched every workman for 
 weapons of defense! 
 
 These stormy scenes but intensified the general feeling of resis- 
 tence and determination to unite in making the strike of May 1 all em- 
 bracive. Meetings were held nightly in various portions of the city 
 and the prisoners became prominent as orators or organizers. Their 
 frequent speeches at meetings held on the lake front had made the 
 names and faces of most of them familiar to workmen. The Arbeiter- 
 Zeitung, on which Spies and Schwab were editors, entered ardently on 
 the work and was instrumental in bringing about a reduction in hours 
 from fourteen and sixteen to ten for the bakers, brewers and other 
 unions. The speakers of the International were engaged nearly every 
 evening, either in addressing or organizing unions. On the Sunday 
 preceding the first of May the Central Labor Union held an immense 
 eight-hour demonstration, at which there were estimated present 25,- 
 000 persons and who were addressed by Spies, Parsons, Fielden and 
 Schwab. 
 
 The eventful day at last arrived. Fully 25,000 men laid down 
 their tools and by the fourth of May this number was doubled. On 
 the first of May the Arheiter-Zeitung contained the following article 
 from the pen of Mr. Spies : 
 
 “ The dies are cast! The first of May, whose historical signifi¬ 
 cance will be understood and appreciated only in later years, is here. 
 For twenty years the working people of the United States have whined 
 and have begged their extortionists and legislators to introduce an 
 eight-hour system. The latter knew how to put the modest beggar off 
 and thus year after year has passed by. At last, two years ago, a 
 number of trades organizations took the matter up and resolved that 
 the eight-hour work day should be established on May 1, 1886. 
 
 “ That is a sensible demand, said the press, howled the profes¬ 
 sional imposters, yelled the extortionists. The impudent Socialists, 
 who wanted everything and would not content themselves with rational 
 demands of this kind, were treated to the customary shower of 
 epithets. 
 
 Thus things went on. The agitation progressed and everybody 
 was in favor of the shortening of the work day. With the approach 
 of the day, however, on which the plan was at last to be realized, a 
 suspicious change in the tone of the extortionists and their priestcraft 
 on the press became more and more noticeable... .What had formerly 
 in theory been modest and rational, was now impudent and senseless. 
 What had formerly been lauded as a praiseworthy demand, when 
 
THE GREAT STRIKE. 
 
 21 
 
 compared with Socialism and Anarchism, changed now suddenly into 
 ‘criminal Anarchism’ itself. The cloven feet of the hellish crew, 
 panting for spoils, became visible. They had intonated the eight 
 hour hymn simply to lull their dupes, workingmen, to sleep, and thus 
 keep them away from Socialism, 
 
 “ That the workingmen would proceed in all earnestness to intro¬ 
 duce the eight-hour system was never anticipated by these confidence 
 men; that the workingmen would develop such stupendous power, 
 this, they never dreamed of. In short, today, when an attempt is 
 made to realize a reform so long striven for; when the extortionists 
 are reminded of their promises and pledges of the past, one has this 
 and the other has that to give as an excuse. The workers should only 
 be contented and confide in their well-meaning exploiters and some 
 time between now and doomsday everything would be satisfactorily 
 arranged. 
 
 “ Workingmen, we caution you. You have been deluded time and 
 time again. You must not be led astray this time. 
 
 “ Judging from present appearances, events may not take a very 
 smooth course. Many of the extortionists, aye, most -of them, are 
 resolved to starve those to ‘reason’ who refuse to submit to their arbi¬ 
 trary dictates, i. e., to force them back into their yoke by hunger. The 
 question now arises—will the workmen allow themselves to be slowly 
 starved into submission, or will they inoculate some modern ideas into 
 their would-be murderers’ heads ?” 
 
 As illustrative of the hatred earned by thus championing the 
 cause of their fellow-workers, attention is called to the following 
 leader in the editorial columns of the Daily Mail of the same day. 
 May 1. 
 
 “Brand the Curs. 
 
 “There are two dangerous ruffians at large in this city; two 
 sneaking cowards who are trying to create trouble. One of them is 
 named Parsons. The other is named Spies. Should trouble come 
 they would be the first to skulk away from the scene of danger, the 
 first to attempt to shield their worthless carcasses from harm, the first 
 to shirk responsibility. 
 
 “ These two fellows have been at work fomenting disorder for the 
 last ten years. They should have been driven out of the city long 
 ago. They would not be tolerated in any other community on earth. 
 
 “Parsons and Spies have been engaged for the past six months 
 in perfecting arrangements for precipitating a riot today. They have 
 taken advantage of the excitement attending the eight-hour move- 
 
22 
 
 THE GEEAT STEIKE. 
 
 ment to bring about a series of strikes and to work injury to capital 
 and honest labor in every possible way. They have no love for the 
 eight-hour movement, and are doing all they can to hamper it and 
 to prevent its success. These fellows do not want any reasonable 
 concessions. They are looking for riot and plunder. They haven’t 
 got one honest aim nor one honorable end in view. 
 
 “ Mark them today. Keep them in view. Hold them personally 
 responsible for any trouble that occurs. Make an example of them if 
 trouble does occur! ” 
 
 Certainly a more personally vindictive article than any that the 
 prosecution have been able to produce from the pen of either Spies or 
 Parsons. How these gentlemen have borne themselves when “trouble” 
 came is a matter upon which no question can be raised ; how far the 
 implied threat has influenced their conviction is not, however, beyond 
 question. 
 
 On the third of May the strike had become general. On that day 
 a riot occurred near the McCormick works, arising out of an attack 
 by the strikers on the “scabs” who had taken their places. Pohce 
 were quickly hurried to the spot and opening a murderous fire soon 
 cleared the field. It was to protest against the growing tendency to 
 shoot workmen on slight provocation that the now famous meeting at 
 the Haymarket was called. Mr. Spies, in his autobiography, has 
 given a succinct account of those two important meetings which pre¬ 
 ceded the throwing of the bomb, and as he was one of the principal 
 actors on both occasions his own account of the affair is here quoted: 
 
 “ On Monday, May 3, the strike became general. The Arheiter- 
 Zeitung of that day gives a complete review of the local movement, 
 which is most interesting; it also bears evidence of the intense excite¬ 
 ment that existed. Several large processions were held, among which 
 that of about 500 brave tailor girls who marched through the principal 
 part of the city was the most noteworthy. This novel procession was 
 perfectly orderly; nevertheless, several assaults were made upon it by 
 the police. A general strike of the freight handlers on the North¬ 
 western Koad broke out, which thickened the cloud that hung omni- 
 ously over the city. 
 
 “I was invited by the Central Labor Union to address a mass 
 meeting of striking lumber-shovers in the afternoon on Twenty-second 
 street and Blue Island avenue. I did not intend to go to the meeting. 
 I was completely exhausted from the exertions of the last few days; 
 but a committee called on me and insisted that I must come along. 
 It was an immense gathering, fully 10,000 persons must have been 
 
THE GKEAT STKIKE. 
 
 23 
 
 present. Several short speeches had already been made when I ar¬ 
 rived. When the chairman introduced me, some men in the audience 
 cried out: 'He is a Socialist, we don’t want any Socialistic speeches !’ 
 But as soon as I began to speak all became quiet and silent. I spoke 
 with unusual calmness and moderation. The essence of my remarks 
 was that they, the strikers, should stand firmly together and they then 
 would carry the day. The effect of my speech may best be judged by 
 the fact that at its conclusion the audience elected me unanimously as 
 spokesman of a committee, which had been appointed to confer with 
 the lumber-yard owners with regard to bringing the strike to a close. 
 
 “ During my speech I heard some voices in the rear, which I did 
 not understand, and saw about 150 men leave the prairie, running up 
 the Black Eoad towards McCormick’s Eeaper works (one-quarter mile 
 south of where the meeting was). Five minutes later I heard pistol¬ 
 shooting in this direction, and upon inquiry was informed that the 
 striking molders of McCormick’s works were trying to make the 
 ' scabs ’ who had taken their places stop work. 
 
 “ About this time — I was just closing my speech — a patrol- 
 wagon rattled up the street, filled with policemen; a few minutes later 
 about seventy-five policemen followed the patrol-wagon on foot, who 
 were again followed by three or four more patrol-wagons. The shoot¬ 
 ing continued, only, that instead of the single shots regular volleys 
 were now fired. I left the meeting and hastened up to McCormick’s. 
 A long line of freight cars were standing on the railroad track in front 
 of the high board inclosure of the factory building. Between these 
 cars and the fence was the battle-field, or better the target range of 
 the police. All I could see was that about 150 men, women and small 
 boys were chased by as many or more policemen who emptied their 
 revolvers in rapid succession upon the fleeing and screaming ‘ mob.’ 
 
 “ To say that I was horrified at the sight of this is only express¬ 
 ing vaguely what I felt. I saw several persons carried and led away 
 by their friends — they had been shot. A young Irishman, who 
 seemed to know me, came running up to me, and said: “ What kind 
 of a h— of union is that down there ! (pointing to the lumber-shovers’ 
 meeting.) They must be nice fellows to stand by and have their 
 brothers shot down like dogs by these- !” 
 
 “ ' Have many been hurt ? ’ I inquired. 
 
 “ ‘ Many ? I should think so! I helped carrying two away, who 
 seemed to be killed. Nobody knows how many have been shot and 
 killed! ’ was his reply, adding, ■ Have you no influence with those 
 men down there? If you have, for God’s sake, bring them up here !’ 
 
24 
 
 THE GEEAT STEIKE. 
 
 “ I have seen this identical man a few weeks ago in the jail, and 
 upon inquiry learned that he was a detective! 
 
 “ I ran back to the meeting, which in the meantime had been ad¬ 
 journed. The people were leaving it in small knots, going home, some 
 of them indifferent and unconcerned at the news from McCormick’s, 
 others shaking their heads in indignation. I was frantic, but my 
 senses returned as I glanced over the stolid faces of these people; there 
 was no response there! And, seeing that I could be of no possible 
 assistance here, I took a car, without uttering another word, and rode 
 down town to my office. Just in what frame of mind I was, I cannot 
 describe. I sat down to address a circular to the workingmen — a 
 short account of what had transpired and a word of advice; that they 
 should not be so foolish as to try to resist an armed organized ‘mob,’ 
 in the employ of the capitalists, with empty hands,— but I was so 
 excited that I could not write. I dictated a short address, but tore it 
 up again, after I had read it, and then sat down — the compositors 
 were waiting for the copy, it being after the regular hours — and wrote 
 the now famous so called ‘ Revenge Circular ’ in English and German.* 
 The word ‘ Kevenge ’ was put on as a headline by one of the compos¬ 
 itors (without my knowledge) who ‘thought it made a good heading.’ 
 I ordered the circular printed and told the office assistant to have 
 them taken to the different meetings that were held in the evening. 
 There were only a few hundred of them circulated. After I had given 
 this order I went home.” 
 
 We interrupt this sketch by Mr. Spies at this point to call atten¬ 
 tion to the fact that on the trial Ludwig Zeller, of the Central Labor 
 
 * The circular read as follows: 
 
 Eevenge! Workingmen, to arms. Your masters sent out their bloodhounds, 
 the police. They killed six of your brothers at McCormick’s this afternoon; they 
 killed the poor wretches because they had the courage to disobey the supreme 
 will of your bosses; they killed them because they dared to ask for the shorten¬ 
 ing of the hours of toil; they killed them to show you, free American citizens, 
 that you must be satisfied and contented with whatever your bosses condescend 
 to allow you or you will get killed. You have for years suffered unmeasurable 
 iniquities; you have worked yourselves to death; you have endured the pangs of 
 want and hunger; your children you have sacrificed to the factory lords,— in 
 short, you have been miserable and obedient slaves all these years Why? To 
 satisfy the insatiable greed, to fill the coffers of your lazy thieving masters. 
 When you ask them now to lessen the burden they send their bloodhounds out to 
 shoot you —kill you. If you are men, if you are the sons of your grandsires 
 who have shed their blood to free you, then 5 ou will rise in your might, Hercules 
 and destroy the hideous monster that seeks to destroy you’ To arms' We call 
 
 Yoj:r Bkotheks. 
 
THE GKEAT STRIKE. 
 
 25 
 
 Union, swore that Spies was selected to address the Lumber-Shovers’ 
 Union meeting in response to an invitation for some one who would 
 keep it “ quiet and orderly.” In this connection also, as preliminary 
 to the narration of the Haymarket meeting of May 4, the editorial of 
 the Arheiter-Zeitung (by Schwab) of the above date, a translation of 
 which was read during the trial by the prosecution, is here given : 
 
 “ Blood has flowed. It had to be, and it was not in vain, that 
 Order drilled and trained its bloodhounds. It w'as not for fun that the 
 militia was practiced in street fighting-. The robbers who know best 
 of all what wretches they are; who pile up their money through the 
 miseries of the masses; who make a trade of the slow murder of the 
 families of workingmen, are the last ones to stop short at the direct 
 shooting down of the workingmen. ‘ Down with the Canaille,’ is their 
 motto. Is it not historically proven that private property grows out 
 of all sorts of violence. Are these capitalistic robbers to be allowed 
 by the canaille, by the working classes, to continue their bloody orgies 
 with horrid murders? Never! The war of classes is at hand. Yes¬ 
 terday workingmen were shot down in front of McCormick’s factory, 
 whose blood cries out for revenge! Who will deny that the tigers who 
 rule us are greedy for the blood of the workingman ? Many sacrifices 
 have been offered upon the altars of the golden calf amid the applaud¬ 
 ing cries of the capitalistic band of robbers. One need only think of 
 Cleveland, New York, Brooklyn, East St. Louis, Fort Worth, Chicago, 
 and many other places, to realize the tactics of these despoilers. It 
 means, ‘ Terrorize our working cattle.’ But the workingmen are not 
 shee^, and will reply to the white terror with the red terror. Do you 
 know what that means ? You soon will know. Modesty is a crime on 
 the part of workingmen, and can anything be more modest than this 
 eight-hour demand ? It was asked for peacefully a year ago, so as to 
 give the spoilsmen a chance to reply to it. The answer is, drilling of 
 the police and militia regulations of the workingmen seeking to intro¬ 
 duce the eight-hour system, and, yesterday, blood flowed. This is the 
 way in which these devils answer the modest prayer of their slaves. 
 
 “ Sooner death than life in misery, if workingmen are to be shot 
 at. Let us answer in such a way that the robbers will not soon for¬ 
 get it. 
 
 “ The murderous capitalistic beasts have been made drunk by the 
 smoking blood of workingmen; the tiger is crouching for a spring; its 
 eyes glare murderously; it moves its tail impatiently, and all its 
 muscles are tense. Absolute necessity forces the cry, ‘ To Arms! 
 To Arms!’ If you do not defend yourselves you will be torn and 
 mutilated by the fangs of the beast. The new yoke which awaits you 
 
2G 
 
 THE GREAT STRIKE. 
 
 in case of a cowardly retreat is harder and heavier than the bitter 
 yoke of your present slavery. All the powers opposed to labor have 
 united; they see their common interest in such days as these ; all else 
 must be subordinate to the one thought — How can the wealthy rob¬ 
 bers and the hired bands of murderers be made harmless? 
 
 “ The papers lie when they say that the workingmen who were 
 near McCormick’s yesterday shot first. It is a bold and shameless lie 
 of the newspaper gang. The police shot among the workingmen 
 without a word of warning, and, of course, the latter replied to the 
 fire. Why be so ceremonious with the ‘ canaille ?’ Had they been 
 not men, but sheep or cattle, they must have reflected before shooting. 
 But a workingman is quickly replaced. Yet these well-fed fellows 
 boast at their costly meals, in the company of their mistresses, of the 
 splendid working of Law' and Order. 
 
 “ Shabbily-dressed women and children in miserable huts weep 
 for husbands and fathers. In palaces they still fill goblets with costly 
 wine, and pledge the health of the bloody banditti of Order. Dry 
 your tears, ye poor and suffering! Take heart, ye slaves ! Else in 
 your might and level the existing robber rule with the dust.” 
 
 In the same issue appeared also the following: 
 
 “ The heroes of the club yesterday pounded brutally with their 
 cudgels a number of girls, many of whom were mere children. Whose 
 blood does not course more swiftly through his veins when he hears of 
 this outrage? Whoever is a man must show it to-day. Men to the 
 front!” 
 
 It was followed in the afternoon by the following dodger, which 
 was scattered broadcast through the streets of the city: 
 
 “ Attention, Workingmen ! Great mass-meeting to-night, at 7:30 
 o’clock, at the Haymarket, Randolph street, between Desplaines and 
 Halsted. Good speakers will be present to denounce the latest atro¬ 
 cious acts of the police — the shooting of our fellow-workmen yester¬ 
 day afternoon. “ The Executive Committee.” 
 
 We will now resume Mr. Spies’ narrative of the events of May 
 
 4th: 
 
 “ On the following morning about 9 or 10 o’clock, A. Fischer, one 
 of our compositors, asked me if I would not come to a general mass¬ 
 meeting which would take place at the Haymarket in the evening and 
 ‘ make a speech ’ on the brutality of the police and the situation of 
 the eight-hour strike. I replied that I was hardly able to speak, but 
 if there was no one to take my place I should come. Delegates of a 
 number of unions had called the meeting, he said. I made no further 
 
THE GREAT STRIKE. 
 
 27 
 
 inquiries. About 11 o’clock a member of the Carpenters’ Union called 
 on me and asked that the hand-bill he showed me be printed in the 
 Arbeiter-Zeitung as an announcement. It was the circular calling the 
 Haymarket meeting, and at the bottom it contained the words — 
 
 ‘ Workingmen, bring your arms along !’ 
 
 “ ‘ This is ridiculous!’ said I to the man, and had Fischer called. 
 
 I told him that I would not speak at the meeting if this was the cir¬ 
 cular by which it had been called. 
 
 “ ‘ None of the circulars are as yet distributed; we can have these 
 words taken out,’ the man said. Fischer assented, and I told them 
 that if they did that it would be all right. 
 
 “ I never for a moment anticipated that the police would wantonly 
 attack an orderly meeting of citizens. And I never saw a disorderly 
 meeting of workingmen. The only disorderly meetings I have ever wit¬ 
 nessed were the republican and democratic pow-wows. I went home 
 about four o’clock P. M. to take a little rest before going to the meet¬ 
 ing. The reaction following the excitement of the previous day had 
 set in. I was very tired and ill-humored. After supper my brother 
 Henry called at our house. I asked him to come along to the meeting, 
 which he did. We walked slowly down Milwaukee avenue. It was 
 warm; I had changed my clothes ; the revolver I was in the habit of 
 carrying was too large for the pocket, and inconvenienced me. Passing 
 Frank Stauber’s hardware store, I left it with him. It was about 8 :15 
 o’clock when we arrived at Desplaines and Lake streets. I was under 
 the impression that I was to speak in German, which generally follows 
 the English. That is the reason why I was late. Small and large 
 groups of men were standing around, but there was no meeting. Not 
 seeing anyone who might be supposed to be entrusted with the man¬ 
 agement of the meeting, I jumped upon a wagon, inquired for Mr. Par¬ 
 sons (who I thought had been invited), and called the meeting to order. 
 Parsons was not there. ‘ I saw Parsons at the corner of Halsted and 
 Eandolph streets; I think he is speaking there,’ said a reporter to me. 
 I told the crowd to wait a few minutes while I went out in search of 
 Parsons. Not finding him I returned to the wagon, where somebody 
 told me Parsons, Fielden and others were holding a meeting in the 
 office of the Arbeiter-Zeitung. I sent one of our employes over to the 
 office to call Parsons and Fielden, and began to address the meeting. 
 I spoke about twenty minutes. 
 
 “ Then Parsons spoke. The audience was very quiet and atten¬ 
 tive. Parsons confined himself to the eight-hour question, but spoke 
 at great length. While he was speaking I asked Mr. Fielden if he 
 
28 
 
 THE GREAT STRIKE. 
 
 would not make a few remarks. He didn’t care to speak, but would 
 say a few words and then adjourn the meeting. I said, ‘ All right, do 
 so.’ It was about ten o’clock when Fielden began to speak. A few 
 minutes later a dark and threatening cloud moved up from the north. 
 The people—or, at least, two-thirds of them—fearing it would rain, 
 left the meeting. ‘Stay,’ said Fielden, ‘just a minute longer; I will 
 conclude presently.’ There were now not more than two hundred per¬ 
 sons remaining. One minute later two hundred policemen formed into 
 line at the intersection of Eandolph street and marched upon the little 
 crowd in double quick step. 
 
 “ Eaising his cane in an authoritative way. Captain Ward—direct¬ 
 ing his words to Fielden (I was standing just behind Fielden in the 
 wagon)—said : ‘ In the name of the people of the State of Illinois I 
 command this meeting to disperse ! ’ 
 
 “‘Captain, this is a peaceable meeting,’ retorted Mr. Fielden, 
 while the captain turned around to his men and gave a command 
 which I understood to be, ‘ Charge upon them ! ’ At this juncture I 
 was drawn from the wagon by my brother and several others, and I 
 had just reached the ground when a terrible detonation occurred. 
 ‘ What is that ? ’ asked my brother. ‘A cannon, I believe,’was my 
 reply. In an instant the fusilade of the police began. Everybody was 
 running. All this was as unexpected as if suddenly a cloud had burst. 
 I lost my brother in the throng and was carried away toward the north. 
 People fell, struck by the bullets, right and left. As I crossed the alley 
 north of Crane’s factory, a lot of officers ran into the alle3% some of 
 them exclaiming that they were hurt. They had evidently been shot 
 by their own comrades, and sought protection in the alley. I was in 
 a parallel line with them, and the bullets whistled around my head like 
 a swarm of bees. I fell once or twice over others who had ‘ dropped,’ 
 but otherwise escaped unhurt into Zepf’s saloon, at the corner of Lake 
 street. Here I heard for the first time that the loud report had been 
 caused by an explosion, which was thought to have been the explosion 
 of a bomb. I could learn no particulars, and about a half hour after¬ 
 ward took a car and rode home to see if my brother had been hurt. 
 He had received a dangerous wound. Turning aside when I had an¬ 
 swered, ‘ It’s a cannon, I believe,’ he beheld the muzzle of a revolver 
 deliberately aimed at my back. Grasping the weapon, the bullet 
 struck him in a vital part."^ (He recovered.) 
 
 *Note.—T here is no question at all but that detectives had been stationed 
 in the crowd to kill the obnoxious speakers at the instant the police would charge 
 upon the crowd. 
 
THE GREAT STRIKE. 
 
 29 
 
 “ The next morning the papers reported that the police had been 
 searching for me all night and that they had orders to arrest me. No¬ 
 body had been at my house during the night; the report was a lie. I 
 went to the office at my regular hour and began to work. About nine 
 o’clock Detective Jim Bonfield made his appearance and told me the 
 chief of police wanted to have a talk with me. I went along with him 
 to the central station. Two other detectives arrested Schwab and my 
 brother Christ, who had come to the office to learn what had occurred 
 on the previous night. The fact that his name was Spies sufficed to 
 arrest him and charge him with having committed murder.” 
 
 The reign of terror which prevailed during the month of May 
 would form the subject of a lengthy and interesting chapter, but space 
 forbids entering into details. A brief reference to a few leading points 
 must suffice: 
 
 On the night of the Haymarket meeting, Mr. Parsons, one of the 
 alleged “ conspirators to destroy the city,” took with him his wife and 
 his two young children and a lady friend, who occupied seats in an ad¬ 
 joining wagon until the appearance of rain drove them away. At the 
 time of the explosion of the bomb the only ones of the eight prisoners 
 present were Spies and Fielden. And in this connection it will be well 
 to recall out of the regular order some of the testimony which remained 
 unimpeached, bearing directly on the attack by the police. 
 
 On the 2d of August Hon. Carter H. Harrison, the mayor of Chi¬ 
 cago, was placed on the witness stand as the first witness for the de¬ 
 fense. His testimony as to the character of the meeting was clear and 
 decisive. Following are extracts: 
 
 Q. Did you attend the Haymarket meeting on Desplaines street 
 on the 4th of May last ? 
 
 A. A part of it, not the whole. During May 4th, probably about 
 noon, information came to me of the issuance of a circular of a very 
 peculiar character, and a call for a meeting at the Haymarket that 
 night. I called the chief of police and directed him that if anything 
 should be said at that meeting as was likely to call out a recurrence of 
 such proceedings as at McCormick’s factory the meeting should be im¬ 
 mediately dispersed. I believed that it was better for myself to be there 
 and to disperse it myself instead of leaving it to any policemen. I 
 thought my order would be better obeyed. I went there then for the 
 purpose, if I felt it necessary for the best interests of the city, to dis¬ 
 perse that meeting. 
 
 Q. How long did you remain at the meeting ? 
 
 A. It was about five minutes before eight o’clock when I arrived. 
 I should judge from the time when the bomb sounded and the timo it 
 
30 
 
 THE GKEAT STRIKE. 
 
 took me to walk home, that I left the meeting between 10 and 10:05 
 o’clock. I heard all except probably a minute or a minute and a half 
 of Mr. Spies’ speech, and all of Mr. Parsons’ up to the time I left, with 
 the exception of a break when I left him talking and went over to the 
 station. I was absent five or ten minutes. It was near the close of 
 Parsons’ speech. I should jud^e he was looking toward a close. I went 
 to the station to speak to Captain Bonfield, and had determined to go 
 home, but instead of going home I went back to hear a little more, and 
 then left. 
 
 Q. Up to the time that you went to the station and had this inter¬ 
 view with Mr. Bonfield, what was the tenor of the speeches ? 
 
 A. With the exception of a portion in the earlier part of Mr. 
 Spies’ address, which, for probably a minute, was such that I feared 
 it was leading up to a point where I should disperse the meeting, it 
 was such that I remarked to Captain Bonfield that it was tame. The 
 portion of Mr. Parsons’ speech attracting most attention was the stat¬ 
 istics as to the amount of returns given to labor from capital, and 
 showing, if I remember rightly now, that capital got eighty-five per 
 cent and labor fifteen per cent. It was what I should call a violent 
 political harangue against capital. 
 
 Q. Was any action taken by you while you were at the meeting 
 looking to the dispersal of the meeting ? 
 
 A. No! 
 
 Q. Do you recollect any suggestion made by either of the speakers 
 looking toward the immediate use of force or violence toward any per¬ 
 son? 
 
 A. There was none. If there had been I should have disnersed 
 them at once. 
 
 Q. How long was the interview that you had with Inspector Bon¬ 
 field? 
 
 A. Probably five minutes. 
 
 Q. Will you please state what it was ? 
 
 A. I went back to the station and said to Bonfield that I thought 
 that the speeches were about over; that nothing had occurred yet or was 
 likely to occur to require interference, and I thought he had better issue 
 orders to his reserves at the other stations to go home. He replied that he 
 thought about the same way, as he had men in the crowd who were- 
 reporting to him. 
 
 Q. Did you see any weapons in the hands of the audience ? 
 
 A. No, sir; none at all. 
 
THE GKEAT STEIKE. 
 
 31 
 
 Upon cross-examination by the State the specific reasons for the 
 mayor’s attendance at the meeting, and their utterly groundless nature, 
 were clearly brought out. The entire cross-examination is here given: 
 
 Me. Grinnell.— Had you heard rumors of an attempt to burn 
 the Milwaukee and St. Paul freight house that evening which led you 
 to go to the meeting ? 
 
 A. The rumor that I adverted to was this. Shortly after my 
 reaching the station Capt. Bonfieldtold me that he had just received 
 information that this meeting, or part of it, would go to the St. Paul 
 freight house, then filled with what they called scabs, and blow it up. 
 There was also an intimation that this meeting might be merely a 
 ruse to attract the attention of the police to the Haymarket, while 
 the real attack, if any should be made that night, should be at 
 McCormick’s. It was with reference to these rumors that 1 listened 
 to the speeches. 
 
 Q. And listening in that way to the speeches you ascertained 
 that there was no invitation to go to the St. Paul depot ? 
 
 A. None. 
 
 Q. And therefore you concluded that there was no organization 
 to destroy property that night ? 
 
 A. That is the fact. 
 
 Q. Now, what was the order you gave to Bonfield ? 
 
 A. That the reserves held at the other stations might be sent 
 home, because I had learned that all was quiet in the Second District 
 —the southwest. Bonfield said he had already given such an order. 
 
 Q. Did you hear Parsons’ call to arms ? 
 
 A. I don’t remember it. I think I should have noticed such 
 language. 
 
 Captain Black.— Where did you hear that rumor about the 
 McCormick affair ? 
 
 A. That was something that I apprehended myself.’' 
 
 It is thus clearly established that the meeting at the Haymarket 
 was perfectly peaceable. Nothing is shown to have occurred in the 
 short time which elapsed between the departure of the mayor for 
 home and the order given by Inspector Bonfield to six companies of 
 police, numbering 174 men, to march to and disperse the meeting. 
 Why, then, was the order given ? 
 
 The Chicago Times of the next morning, in its narration of the 
 affair, said: 
 
 “ It was about ten minutes after ten and just at that moment a 
 large squad of police mov^d up from the Desplaines street station for 
 the purpose of arresting Spies, Schwab, Parsons and Fielden.” 
 
32 
 
 THE GREAT STRIKE. 
 
 Barton Simonson, a traveling salesman of irreproachable char¬ 
 acter, and known to the officers of police stations by his prominence 
 in efforts made by Christian organizations to establish soup-houses for 
 the destitute, followed Mayor Harrison on the stand. The following 
 extract is pertinent in this connection: 
 
 “ I spoke to Capt. Bonfield about the trouble at McCormick’s and 
 he said that the greatest trouble the police had in dealing with the 
 Socialists was that they had their women and children with them at 
 the meetings so that the police could not get at them. He said he 
 wished he could get a crowd of about three thousand of them together 
 without their women and children and he would make short work of 
 
 THEM.” 
 
 The witness said that he was not a Socialist nor an Anarchist, and 
 had never affiliated with either. He had merely attended the meeting 
 from curiosity and had, though not intentionally, preserved in his 
 pocket the hand-bill or dodger calling the meeting, which he offered 
 in evidence. It did r^o^ contain the words “Workingmen, arm your¬ 
 selves and appear in full force.” 
 
 He said he heard Spies say on opening, “ This meeting was not 
 called to incite to riot.” He gave a synopsis of Spies’ speech which 
 agreed in the main with accounts already given. The witness said 
 that he had never before attended a Socialistic meeting, and he 
 thought “all the remarks were a little wild.” When the clouds came 
 up some suggested an adjournment, but Fielden said he was nearly 
 through and twice said “ in conclusion.” When the witness heard 
 the police order to the meeting to disperse he heard distinctly above 
 the commotion the two words “ peaceable meeting.” These words 
 came from the direction of the wagon [where Fielden was speaking.] 
 He heard nothing from the wagon or from Fielden about “ Here 
 comes the bloodhounds.” After the explosion the witness saw the 
 flashing of many pistol shots from the police, hut none from the sur¬ 
 rounding crowd. Other witnesses corroborated him not only on these 
 points, but also that among the fleeing fugitives w'ere a large number 
 of the police who sought shelter or safety in flight; and thus confirm¬ 
 ing what the writer has been repeatedly assured of by eye witnesses— 
 that the large number of policemen wounded by balls were shot by their 
 own frightened comrades. The number of citizens shot will probably 
 never be known. One was found dead, and twelve wounded were 
 reported as removed to the county hospital. Of the police, one, Officer 
 Began, was killed, while sixty-six others were wounded by pieces of the 
 bomb and pistol shots, six of them fatally. 
 
THE GREAT STRIKE. 
 
 33 
 
 The Chicago Tribune of May 5 said: 
 
 “ There was no warning given. The crowd was rapidly dispersing. 
 The police, marching slowly, were in a line with the east and west 
 alley when something like a miniature rocket suddenly rose out of the 
 crowd on the east sidewalk, ill a line with the police. It rose about 
 twenty feet in the air, describing a curve, and fell right in the middle 
 of the street and among the marching police. It gave a red glare 
 while in the air. Tne bomb lay on the ground for a few seconds, then 
 a loud explosion occurred, and the crowd took to their heels, scatter¬ 
 ing in all directions. Immediately after the explosion the police pulled 
 their revolvers and lired on the crowd. An incessant fire was kept up 
 for nearly two minutes, and at least 250 shots were fired. The air was 
 filled with bullets. The crowd ran up the streets and alleys and were 
 fired on by the now thoroughly enraged police. Then a lull followed. 
 Many of the crowd had taken refuge in the halls or entrances of halls 
 and saloons. As the firing ceased they ventured forth, and a few 
 officers opened fire on them." 
 
 At half-past eleven, curiosity and a desire to find friends drew a 
 Urge number to the spot and another charge was made and two volleys 
 fired, which dispersed the crowd, though there was no indication that 
 they were Socialists. 
 
 The Tribune gives the following list of wounded citizens carried 
 off by the police: 
 
 “ Eobekt Schultz, No. 88 Harrison street, waiter at No. 165 
 Ashland avenue, just coming from the Lyceum. Shot in the leg. 
 
 “John Sachman, No. 103 South Desplaines street; was lounging 
 along Eandolph street when he was shot in the leg. 
 
 “ Frank Wrosch, residence in the cheap lodging houses. T just 
 stopped and listened,’ he groaned, ‘and then the fire came to my 
 shoulders and sides.’ He will probably die. Not a Socialist. 
 
 “Charles Schumaker, No. 19 Fry street, was with two friends. 
 They ran away and he was shot in the back. It is doubtful if he will 
 recover. 
 
 “Emil Lotz, keeper of a small shoe shop at No. 25 North Hal- 
 sted street; when he got through work he went out to hear the 
 speeches and was shot in the shoulder. 
 
 “ John Edbund, a carriagemaker at 1138 Milwaukee avenue; 
 clubbed in the head. 
 
 “ Peter Ley, 536 West Huron street, shot in the back. 
 
 “Joe Kucker, a hanger-on around West Side ‘barrel houses,’ and 
 boarding at No. 116 Eandolph street; shot in the side. , 
 
34 
 
 THE GKEAT STRIKE. 
 
 “ B. LePlant, Earl Park, Ind.; ‘I bought some peanuts and was 
 eating them when the bomb went off,’ he said, ‘then a shot broke my 
 leg and I fell. In a second a shot went through my shoulder and a 
 policeman kicked me' 
 
 “ Eeank Kadereit, a member of the Central Labor Union and 
 residing at the corner of Mohawk street and North avenue, wounded 
 on the head and right shoulder by a policeman’s club. 
 
 “ Thomas Haha, of 157 Eagle street, was shot in the back and 
 leg. He was carried into a hallway at 182 West Madison street, 
 where he lay groaning. He was able to walk to the patrol wagon, in 
 which he was carried to the county hospital. He was probably a rioter, 
 but he claimed to be an unoffending citizen. 
 
 “Fritz Kaderit, a German workingman; scalp wound from 
 some blunt instrument. He loas locked up. 
 
 “ In a search of the dead Bohemian only twelve cents was found 
 upon him. Not a trace of a name could be found. He was appar¬ 
 ently about 35 years of age. 
 
 “Every drug store in the vicinage was crowded with wounded get¬ 
 ting their injuries dressed and then carried home by their friends. 
 
 “ It was a common spectacle to see men having their wounds 
 diessed on the sidewalk. The street cars going in every direction 
 contained men who had been wounded but were still strong enough to 
 help themselves away.” 
 
 It was the old, old story; merciless brutality and inoffensive 
 victims. The capitalistic Tribune confesses this in plain words. It 
 says on May 5 : 
 
 “ Goaded to madness the police were in that state of mind which 
 permitted of no resistance, and in a measure they were as dangerous as 
 any mob of Communists, for they were blinded by passion and unable 
 to distinguish between the peaceable citizen and the Nihilist assassin. 
 For squares from the Desplaines street station companies and squads 
 of officers cleared the streets and mercilessly clubbed all who 
 demurred at the order to go.” 
 
 “ Who threw the bomb? is a query the police have still to solve,” 
 said the Chicago Herald of the 6th; and the query has not yet been 
 solved. 
 
 Hundreds were arrested and locked up as “suspects.” The entire 
 force of the Arbeiter-Zeituny were taken in charge and orders given to 
 have the paper suppressed. 
 
 A. E. Parsons was not to be found; but the police arrested his 
 wife and some other ladies known to be their friends. The papers re- 
 
THE HAYMAKKET SPEECHES. 
 
 35 
 
 port Mrs. Parsons as wearing a “flaming red handkerchief ” about her 
 throat and the following colloquy ensued: 
 
 “ You still wear the red ribbon,” remarked Detective Palmer to 
 her, alluding to the handkerchief. 
 
 “ Yes,” she defiantly answered, “and I’ll die under it, too.” 
 
 Nearly everyone known to be in sympathy with the International 
 Working People’s Association were “run down” and submitted to the 
 “pumping process” by detectives, sworn at and even threatened with 
 revolvers and ropes. The whole force of the city was employed to 
 secure evidence to convict by any and every means. The character 
 of some of the “evidence” thus obtained will be apparent in a review 
 of the testimony. But before entering upon the history of the trial 
 we desire to give the speeches made at the Haymarket meeting by 
 Spies and Parsons. 
 
 CHAPTEB III. 
 
 THE HAYMARKET SPEECHES. 
 
 At the request of his attorney, Mr. Spies wrote out the substance 
 of his remarks on the evening of May 4th, which agrees in tenor with 
 the memories of those who heard it. Mr. Parsons also made notes of 
 his address at the meeting, and repeated it under oath before the jury* 
 
 The Speech Delivered by August Spies at the Haymarket, 
 May 4, on the Occasion of the Bomb-Throwing. 
 
 Friends :—The speakers of the evening not having arrived I shall 
 , entertain you a few minutes. I am told that a number of patrol 
 wagons, carrying policemen, were sent to D^splaines street station, 
 and I understand that the militia have been called under arms. There 
 seems to prevail the opinion in certain quarters that this meeting has 
 been called for the purpose of inaugurating a riot, hence these warlike 
 preparations on the part of so -called “ law and order.** However, let 
 me tell you at the beginning that this meeting has not been called for 
 
 *The Chicago Times of August 10 contained the following state¬ 
 ment in regard to this speech : 
 
 “ The climax ia the Anarchist trial was reached yesterday. Schwab, Spies 
 and Parsons told their respective stories to the jury from the witness-chair, to a 
 spell-bound audience of spectators, an amazed jury, and a surprised judge. * 
 Parsons was composed and eloquent. * * * His brother. General W. H. Par¬ 
 sons, sat with eyes fixed upon him during the time he was upon the stand. As 
 soon as Mr. August Spies retired Mr. Parsons took the stand, and in a quiet, def¬ 
 erential tone answered the questions put to him in a firm voice, not appearing to 
 
36 
 
 SPEECH OF AUGUST SPIES. 
 
 any such purpose. The object of this meeting is to explain the gen¬ 
 eral situation of the eight-hour movement, and to throw light upon 
 various incidents in connection with it. 
 
 For more than twenty years have the wage workers of this country 
 begged and prayed their masters, the factory lords, to reduce their bur¬ 
 dens. It has been in vain. They have pointed out the fact that over 
 a million of willing and strong hands were in a state of enforced idle¬ 
 ness and starvation, that to help them to obtain employment it would 
 not only be advisable, nay, it was necessary to reduce the hours of 
 daily toil of those who were fortunate enough in having found a buyer 
 for their muscles, their bones and their brain. The masters of this 
 earth have treated them with contempt, have condemned them to vaga¬ 
 bondage whenever they insisted. The legislatures have been called 
 upon, one petition has succeeded the other, but with no avail. 
 
 At last the condition of the disinherited producers has become un¬ 
 bearable. Seeing that neither “ boss” nor law would concede anything 
 to them, they have organized for the purpose of helping themselves— 
 a wise and prudent resolution. 
 
 All over the land we behold vast armies of producers, no longer 
 begging, but demanding that eight hours shall henceforth constitute a 
 normal working day. And what say the extortionists to this ? They 
 demand their pound of flesh, like Shylock. They will not yield one 
 iota. They have grown rich and powerful on your labor. They amass 
 stupendous fortunes, while you, who bring them into existence, are 
 suffering from want. In answer to your pleadings they ask for the 
 bodies of your little children, to utilize them in then’ gold mints, to 
 make dollars out of them ; Look at the slaves of McCormick ! When 
 they tried to remonstrate with their master he simply called upon the 
 “ protectors of these free and glorious institutions”—the police—to 
 silence them. And they did silence them. 
 
 You have no doubt heard of the killing and wounding of a number 
 of your brothers at McCormick’s, yesterday. Mr. McCormick told a 
 
 be in the least unnerved by his peculiar position. At length he was asked to give 
 the substance of his Haymarket speech, and he did so, and if the jury, the court, 
 and the audience have been entertained since the trial began, they were enter¬ 
 tained by the chief agitator of the Chicago Anarchists. He pulled out of his pocket 
 a bundle of notes, and began at the jury in tones which betokened that the speaker 
 was primed for the finest speech of his life. Luckily for him the witness-chair was 
 a swinging one. He held his notes in his left hand, and, together with the swaying 
 of his body, gesticulated with his right arm. From low, measured tones he went 
 on from eloquence to oratory,-and from oratory to logic, and: from logic to argu¬ 
 ment.” 
 
SPEECH OF AUGUST SPIES. 
 
 37 
 
 Times reporter that Spies was responsible for that massacre committed 
 by the most noble Chicago police. I reply to this that McCormick is 
 an infamous liar. (Cries of “ Hang him.”) No, make no idle threats. 
 There will be a time, and we are rapidly approaching it, when such 
 men as McCormick will be hanged; there will be a time when monsters 
 who destroy the lives and happiness of the citizens (for their own ag¬ 
 grandizement) will be dealt with like wild beasts. But that time has 
 not yet come. When it has come you will no longer make threats, but 
 you will go and “ do it.” 
 
 The capitalistic press, like the “ respectable gentleman” McCor¬ 
 mick, howls that the Anarchists are responsible for the deeds of vio¬ 
 lence now committed all over this country. If that were true one would 
 have to conclude that the country was full of Anarchists, yet the same 
 press informs us that the Anarchists are very few in number. Were 
 the “ unlawful” acts in the Southwestern strike committed by Anarch¬ 
 ists ? No, they were committed by Knights of Labor—men who never 
 fail to declare, whenever there is an opportunity, that they are law- 
 and-order-abiding citizens. The attack upon McCormick’s yesterday 
 —was it made by Anarchists ? Let us see. I had been invited by the 
 Central Labor Union to address a meeting of lumber-yard laborers on 
 the Black road. I went out there at the appointed time, about three 
 o’clock in the afternoon. There were at least ten thousand persons 
 assembled.^ When I was introduced to address them a few Poles or 
 Bohemians in the crowd cried out: “ He’s a Socialist.” These cries 
 were followed by a general commotion and derision. “ We want no 
 Socialist; down with him.” These and other exclamations I was 
 treated to. Of course, I spoke anyway. The crowd became quiet and 
 calm, and fifteen minutes later elected me unanimously a delegate to 
 see their bosses. Nevertheless, you can see that these people are not 
 Socialists or Anarchists, but “ good, honest, law-abiding, church-going 
 Christians and citizens.” Such were the persons who left the meeting, 
 as I afterward learned, “ to make the scabs at McCormick’s quit work.” 
 In my speech I never mentioned McCormick. Now you may judge for 
 yourselves whether the Anarchists were responsible for the bloodshed 
 yesterday or not. 
 
 Who is responsible for these many “lawless” acts, you ask me? 
 1 have told you that they are generally committed by the most lawful 
 and Christian citizens. In other words, the people are by necessity 
 driven to violence; they can’t carry the burden heaped upon them any 
 longer. They try to cast it off, and in so doing break the laws. The 
 law says they must not cast it off, for such an act would alter, yea, 
 revolutionize the existing order of society. These acts of violence are 
 
38 
 
 SPEECH OF A. R. PARSONS. 
 
 the natural outgrowth of the present industrial system, and every one 
 is responsible for them who supports and upholds that system. 
 
 What does it mean when the police of this city, on this evening, 
 rattle along in their patrol wagons ? 
 
 What does it mean when the militia stands warlike and ready for 
 bloody work at our armories ? 
 
 What are the galling guns and cannon for ? 
 
 Is this military display of barbarism arranged for your entertain¬ 
 ment? 
 
 All these preparations, my friends, are made in your behalf. 
 
 Your masters have perceived your discontent. 
 
 They do not like discontented slaves. 
 
 They want to make you contented at all hazards, and if you are 
 stubborn they will force or kill you. 
 
 Look at the killing of your brothers at McCormick’s yesterday. 
 What did they do ? The police tell you they were a most dangerous 
 crowd, armed to their teeth. The fact is, they, like ignorant children, 
 indulged in the harmless sport of bombarding McCormick’s slaughter 
 house with stones. They paid the penalty of this folly with their blood. 
 
 The lesson I draw from this occurrence is that workingmen must 
 arm themselves for defense, so that they may be able to cope with the 
 government hirelings of their masters. 
 
 I see Mr. Parsons has arrived. He is a much abler speaker in 
 your tongue than I am, therefore I will conclude by introducing him. 
 
 A. R. Parsons on the Rights and Wrongs of Labor. 
 
 Captain Black.— “Now, Mr. Parsons, going back to the meeting, 
 retracing our steps for a moment—will you tell us, please, what was 
 the substance of your speech that night, as fully as you can remember ?” 
 THE SPEECH. 
 
 “ I have taken some notes of reference since then to refresh my 
 memory. I recollect distinctly of mentioning all of these points, 
 but I could not recall them seriatim unless I put them on paper, and 
 that is the reason I have done so. 
 
 “ When I was introduced I looked at the crowd and observed that 
 it was quite a large crowd. I am familiar with public speaking and 
 with crowds, and I should estimate there were three thousand men 
 present, and I consider myself a judge in such matters. The street 
 was packed from sidewalk to sidewalk, north and south of the wagon, 
 
SPEECH OF A. E. PAKSONS. 
 
 39 
 
 but especially south of the wagon, for a considerable distance. I faced 
 the south. 
 
 I first called the attention of those present to the evidence of dis¬ 
 content among the working classes, not alone of Chicago, not alone of 
 the United States, but of the civilized world, and I asked the question, 
 if these evidences of discontent, as could be seen in strikes and lock¬ 
 outs and boycotts, were not indications that there was something radi¬ 
 cally wrong in the existing order of things in our social affairs. I then 
 alluded to the eight-hour movement, and spoke of it as a movement 
 designed to give steady employment to the employed, work to the idle, 
 and thereby bring comfort and cheer to the homes of the destitute and 
 relieving the unrelieved and wearisome toil of those who worked not 
 alone ten hours, but twelve, fourteen and sixteen hours a day. I said 
 that the eight-hour movement was in the interests of civilization, of 
 prosperity, of the public welfare, and that it was demanded by every 
 interest in the community, and that I was glad to see them assembled 
 on that occasion to give their voice in favor of the adoption of the 
 eight-hour workday. 
 
 I then referred again to the general condition of labor throughout 
 the country. I spoke of my recent travels through the States of Penn¬ 
 sylvania and Ohio, where I had met and addressed thousands and 
 thousands of workingmen. I told of the Tuscarora Valley and of the 
 Hocking Valley and of the Monongahela Valley—among the miners of 
 this country, where their wages averaged 24| cents a day. I showed, 
 of course, these were not wages they received while at work, but that 
 the difficulty was they did not get the day’s work, and consequently 
 they had to sum up the totals and divide it. Throughout tho year it 
 amounted to 24^ cents a day. I asked if this was not a condition of 
 affairs calculated to arouse the discontent of the people, and to make 
 them clamor for redress and relief. I pointed to the fact that in the 
 city of Pittsburgh a report was made by, I think, the Superintendent 
 of Police of that city, stating that at the Bethel Home, a charitable 
 institution in that city, from January 1, 1884, to January 1, 1885, 
 there were 26,374 destitute men—tramps—American sovereigns—who 
 had applied for a night’s lodging and a morsel of food at one establish¬ 
 ment alone in the city of Pittsburgh. I referred, of course, to many 
 other places and similiar things, showing the general condition of labor 
 in the country. 
 
 I then spoke of the eight-hour movement—that it was designed to 
 bring relief to these men and to the country. I thought surely that 
 there was nothing in it to excite such hostility on the part of employers 
 and on the part of monopoly and corporations against it, as was wit- 
 
40 
 
 SPEECH OF A. E. PAESONS. 
 
 uessed in different parts of the country. I referred to the refusal of 
 the corporations and monopolists to grant and concede this modest 
 request of the working class, and their attempts to defeat it. I then 
 referred to the fact that in the face of all these causes producing these 
 effects, the monopolistic newspapers, in the interests of corporations, 
 blamed such men as I—blamed the so-called agitators, blamed the 
 workingmen—for these evidences of discontent, this turmoil and con¬ 
 fusion, and so-called disorder. I called the attention of the crowd 
 specifically to that fact—that we were being blamed for this thing, 
 when, on the contrary, it was evident to any fair-minded man that we 
 were simply calling the attention of the people to this condition of 
 things and seeking a redress for it. I impressed that upon the crowd 
 specifically, and I remember that in response to that several gentle¬ 
 men spoke up loudly and said; ‘Well, we need a good many just such 
 men as you to right these wrongs and to arouse the people.’ 
 
 I spoke of the compulsory idleness and starvation wages, and how 
 these things drove the workingmen to desperation—drove them to 
 commit acts for which they ought not to be held responsible ; that they 
 were the creatures of circumstances, and that this condition of things 
 was the fault, not of the workingmen, but of those who claimed the 
 right to control and regulate the rights of the workingmen. I pointed 
 out the fact that monopoly, in its course in grinding down labor in 
 this country and in refusing to concede anything to it—refusing to 
 make any concessions whatever—that in persisting in such course it 
 was creating revolutionists, and if there was a single revolutionist in 
 America, monopoly and corporations were directly responsible for his 
 existence. I specifically called attention to this fact, in order to de¬ 
 fend myself from the charges constantly being made through the 
 mouthpiece of monopoly—the capitalistic press. 
 
 I called attention to the Chicago Times and other newspapers. 
 I called the attention of the working-people that night to the strike of 
 1877, when the Chicago Times declared that hand-grenades ought to 
 be thrown among the striking sailors who were then upon a strike on 
 the river wharves in this city, in order to teach them a lesson, and 
 that other strikers might be warned by their fate. I said that the 
 Chicago Times was the first dynamiter in America, and as the mouth¬ 
 piece of monopoly and corporations it was the first to advocate the 
 killing of people when they protested against wrong and oppression. 
 I spoke of the Chicago Tribune, which at that day advocated that when 
 bread was given to the poor strychnine should be placed on it. I also 
 called attention to Frank Leslie's Illustrated Paper, which declared in 
 an editorial that the American toiler must be driven to his task either 
 
SPEECH OF A. K. PARSONS. 
 
 41 
 
 by the slave-driver’s lash or the immediate prospect of want. I spoke 
 of the New York Herald, and its saying that lead should be given to 
 any tramp who should come around. Whenever a workingman, 
 thrown out of employment and forced to wander from place to place 
 in search of work, away from family and home, asked for a crust of 
 bread, the New York Herald advised those to whom he applied to fill 
 him with lead instead of bread. 
 
 I called attention to what Tom Scott, the railway monopolist, 
 said during the strike of 1877, “Give them the rifle diet and see how 
 they like that kind of bread.” I referred to Jay Gould when he said 
 we would shortly have a monarchy in this country, and to a similar 
 statement in the Indianapolis Journal. 
 
 Then I referred to how monopoly was putting these threats into 
 practice. They not only used these threats but they put them into 
 practice, and I cited East St. Louis, where Jay Goifld called for men 
 and paid them ^5 a day for firing on harmless, innocent, unarmed 
 workingmen, killing nine of them and one woman in cold-blooded 
 murder. I referred to the Saginaw valley, where the militia were used 
 to put down strikes. I referred to Lemont, Ill., where defenseless and 
 innocent citizens and their town were invaded by militia of the State 
 of Illinois, and without any pretext men, women and children were 
 fired upon and slaughtered in cold blood. I referred to the McCor¬ 
 mick strike on the previous day, and denounced the action of the 
 pohce on that day as an outrage. 
 
 I asked the workingmen if these were not facts, and if monopolies 
 and corporations were not responsible for them, and were they not 
 driving the people into this condition of things. And then I used 
 some words of some phrase in connection with the use of the military 
 and the police and the Pinkerton thugs to shoot down workingmen, to 
 drive them back into submission and starvation wages. 
 
 I then referred to the Chicago Mail of Monday, to which my 
 attention had been called on Tuesday afternoon. In an editorial it 
 asserted that Parsons and Spies incited the trouble at McCormick’s 
 factory the day before and ought to be lynched or driven out of the 
 city. Now the truth is, I was at Cincinnati at that time. I called 
 attention to the fact that the newspapers were wickedly exciting the 
 people against the workingmen. I denied the newspaper charge that 
 we were sneaks and cowards, and defied them to run us out of the 
 city. 
 
 I pointed to the fact that the capitalistic press were the subsidized 
 agents and organs of monopoly, and that they held stocks and bonds 
 in corporations and railroads, and that no man could be elected an 
 
42 
 
 SPEECH OF A. R. PARSONS. 
 
 alderman in this city unless he had the sanction of some one of the 
 corporations and monopolies of this city. Then I said, I am not here, 
 fellow workingmen, for the purpose of inciting anybody, but to tell 
 the truth, and to state the facts as they actually exist, though it should 
 cost me my life in doing so. I then referred to the Cincinnati demon¬ 
 stration, at which I was present the Sunday previous. I said that 
 the organizations of workingmen in that city—trades unions and other 
 organizations—had a grand street parade and picnic. They sent for 
 me to go down there and address them. It was an eight-hour demon¬ 
 stration. I attended on that occasion and spoke to them. I referred 
 to the fact that they turned out in thousands and that they marched 
 with Winchester rifles, two or three companies of them. I suppose 
 there were about two hundred men at the head of the column, the 
 Cincinnati Eifle Union. I said that at the head of the procession 
 they bore the red flag—the red flag of liberty, fraternity, equality of 
 labor, all over the world—the red flag of emancipated labor. I 
 pointed out that every other flag repudiated the workingman, outlawed 
 the workingman, and that he had no shield and no flag but the red 
 one, 
 
 I then referred to our country, and to men saying this was a 
 movement of foreigners, and so on. I pointed out the fact that the 
 desire for right and the thirst for liberty and for justice was not a 
 foreign affair at all; it was one that concerned Americans as well as 
 foreigners, and that patriotism was a humbug in this connection; 
 that it was used to separate the people, to divide them, and to antagon¬ 
 ize them against each other; that the Irish were separated and their 
 national feeling was kept alive as against an Englishman in order 
 that the exploiters and depredators among them might more easily 
 make them victims and use them as their tools. I referred in that 
 connection to land monopoly and showed how the farms of this 
 country were being driven into land tenures like those of Europe. 
 
 I called attention to an article which appeared in the North American 
 Review last December, which I think was by an American statistician 
 of this country, in which it was stated that over three hundred and 
 fifty millions of dollars in mortgages were held on farms west of the 
 Alleghanies by capitalists living in the little State of Connecticut, 
 demonstrating that Americans need not go abroad to find the 
 evils of land monopoly. I stated that over fifty per cent, perhaps 
 two-thirds, of the farms in the states of Illinois, Wisconsin and Mich¬ 
 igan were under mortgage, and that landlordism was making it 
 impossible for the toilers to pay for these farms, and that they were 
 breaking them up, forcing them to become tenants, and instituting 
 
SPEECH OF A. K. PARSONS. 
 
 43 
 
 the European system in this country. I said I did not regard that as 
 a question of patriotism, nor a foreign question, but an American 
 question concerning Americans. 
 
 I referred to the banking monopoly of the country, by which a 
 few men are empowered to make money scarce in order that they may 
 control markets, run corners on the different mediums of exchange, 
 and produce a panic in the country by making money scarce. They 
 made the price of articles dear, threw labor out of employment, and 
 brought on bankruptcy. I said that monopoly owned labor and em¬ 
 ployed its armed hirelings to subjugate the people. 
 
 In the light of these facts and of your inalienable right to life, 
 liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I said, it behooves you, as you 
 love your wives and children, if you would not see them perish with 
 want and hunger, yourselves killed or cut down like dogs in the streets 
 —Americans, as you love liberty and independence, arm ! arm your¬ 
 selves ! A voice then said to me, “ we are ready now.” I answered, 
 “No, you are not.” I did not understand exactly what the gentleman 
 said, but I made that reply, as has been testified to by many here. I 
 called attention to the fact that the Constitution of the United States 
 gave the right to every man to keep and bear arms, but monopoly was 
 seeking to deprive the citizen of that right. I called attention to the 
 fact that the Constitution guaranteed us the right of free speech, of free 
 press, and of unmolested assembly, but that corporations and monop¬ 
 oly, by paid-for decisions of courts, had trampled these rights under 
 foot, or were attempting to do so. 
 
 I called attention to the fact that the Government of the United 
 States was in the hands of the money power, and that from this fact 
 —the sway of this money power—it was almost impossible for a poor 
 man to get justice in a court of law; that law was for sale, just like 
 bread; if you had no money you could get no bread, and without 
 money you could get no justice; that justice was almost beyond the 
 reach of the poor, and that the producers were made and kept poor by 
 the grinding processes of the corporations and monopolies. 
 
 I then called attention to Socialism and explained what it was. 
 I gave them Webster’s definition of it—that it meant a more equitable 
 arrangement of society, a more just and equitable arrangement of 
 social affairs; that there was nothing in the word or in the purposes 
 of Socialism for anybody to become alarmed at. On the contrary, it 
 should be hailed with delight by all, as it was designed to make all 
 happy and prosperous. 
 
 I then spoke in this connection of the wage system of industry, 
 and showed that it was a despotism, inherently and necessarily so, be- 
 
44 
 
 SPEECH 'OF A. E. PAESONS. 
 
 cause under it the wage-worker was forced and compelled, under pen¬ 
 alty of hunger, to work on such conditions and at such terms as the 
 employers of labor may see fit to dictate to him. This I defined to be 
 slavery, hence I said they were wage-slaves, and that the wage system 
 was what Socialism proposed to displace. I then showed the power 
 that the wage system gave to the employing class by the lockout, the 
 blacklist, and the discharge; that I myself had been blacklisted because 
 I exercised my right of free speech as an American, because I saw fit 
 to be a member of a labor organization; that I had been deprived 
 repeatedly of my bread for that reason by my employer. 
 
 I then called attention to the United States census for the year 
 1880, and I showed that the returns made there—statistically gotten 
 up by a republican administration—these returns showed that eighty- 
 five cents from every dollar produced went to the profit-taking classes, 
 and that fifteen cents was the average sum received by the producing 
 class for having produced the whole dollar. This labor bureau showed 
 that in manufactures the daily average product of the workers amounted 
 to ten dollars per day, and their wages or share of the product aver¬ 
 aged $1.15 per day. I said that this was wrong, and that in the face 
 of such a condition of things we could expect nothing but poverty, des¬ 
 titution, want and misery. I showed how under this system the work¬ 
 ingmen of the United States were really doing ten hours’ work for two 
 hours’ pay; that the employers say to the men: “ You want to work 
 
 only eight hours. Do you mean to say that we must give you ten hours’ 
 pay for eight hours’ work ? ” I said: Gentlemen, fellow workmen, let 
 us answer these men and say and prove to them by the official statis¬ 
 tics of the United States census that we are not receiving now but two 
 hours’ pay for ten hours’ work; that that is what the wages of the 
 country on the average represent. I spoke of corporations crowding 
 the workingmen to the wall, and summed it up in some such words as 
 these: Now, for years past the Associated Press, manipulated by Jay 
 Gould and other traitors to the republic and their infamous minions, 
 have been sowing the seeds of revolution. These seeds, I thought, 
 could be summarized about as follows : 
 
 To deprive labor of the ballot. 
 
 To substitute a monarchy for the republic. 
 
 To rob labor and then make poverty a crime. 
 
 To deprive small farmers of their land, and then convert them into 
 serfs to serve a huge landlordism. 
 
 To teach labor that bread and water are all that it needs. 
 
 To throw bombs into crowds of workingmen who were opposed to 
 laboring for starvation wages. 
 
SPEECH OF A. E. PAESONS. 
 
 45 
 
 To take the ballot by force of arms from the majority when it is: 
 used against the interests of corporations and capital. 
 
 To put strychnine upon the bread of the poor. 
 
 To hang workingmen to lamp-posts by mobs in the absence of tes¬ 
 timony to legally convict them. 
 
 To drive the poor working classes into open mutiny against the 
 laws, in order to secure their conviction and punishment afterward. 
 
 These threats and diabolical teachings, I said, had been openly 
 and boldly uttered by the great conspiracy—the solid Associated Press 
 and monopolies of this country—for years, against the liberties of the 
 poor, and the workingman of America was as sensitive to the wrongs 
 imposed upon him as would be the possessor of millions. I said that 
 this was the seed from which had sprung the labor movement, and it. 
 was as natural as cause and effect. 
 
 [The workingmen present appeared to be very much interested. I 
 never saw a more quiet, orderly, interested gathering of men—and 1 
 have spoken to a great many in my life—than was present on that 
 occasion.] 
 
 I called their attention to the fact that labor paid for everything 
 —paid all the expenses of the government, of the police, of the armies, 
 of legislators, of congressmen, of judges—paid everything. Labor paid 
 it all. That I, as a tenant—I used my own case as an illustration— 
 paid all the taxes. Said I: Now, the landlord claims that he pays 
 the taxes. What are the facts? When I pay him my rent, I in fact 
 pay the taxes. He claims that he makes all the repairs on the house, 
 and paints it up and does all such things. He does not do anything 
 of the kind. He is simply my agent to look after these things, and I, 
 as his tenant, pay for it all. So it is with all tenants. 
 
 I said that labor bears all the burdens but derives none of the 
 benefits of our present civilization. I referred to the fact that it was 
 through these methods that the working people, who produced all the 
 wealth, were kept poor,*and being poor they were ignorant. That our 
 school teachers had yet to learn the fact that the great need of the 
 people was more material comforts before it would be possible for them 
 to become amenable to the influences of educational forces; that ignor¬ 
 ance was the result of poverty; that intemperance was the result of pov¬ 
 erty, and for every man who was poor because he drank I could show 
 twenty men who drank because they were poor. I said that this pov¬ 
 erty, this discord, this commotion in the civilized world was because of 
 the social disease, the cramming of people into hovels and dens unfit 
 for animals to live in; it was the cause of the death of the young, of 
 old age coming upon middle age; that it was the cause of crime; that. 
 
46 
 
 SPEECH OF A. R. PARSONS. 
 
 poverty was at the root and bottom of war, of discord and of strife, and 
 that this poverty was an artificial, unnatural poverty which Socialism 
 proposed to remedy. 
 
 I was at this time, as you understand, gentlemen, making a speech 
 for Socialism. I had been talking especially for Socialism. I then 
 spoke as a trades-unionist, I am a member of my union and of the 
 Knights of Labor. I said that these organizations differed somewhat 
 with Socialism in that they hoped to receive and obtain redress within 
 the present system, but that was not possible, in my belief; that a 
 study of social affairs and of historical development had taught me 
 that the system itself was at fault, and that as long as the cause re¬ 
 mained the effects would be felt; that every trades union, every assem¬ 
 bly of the Knights of Labor, every organization of workingmen, had 
 for its ultimate end—let its course be what it might—the emancipation 
 of labor from economic dependence, and whether they sought it or not, 
 events and the developments of this existing wage system would of 
 necessity force or drive these men into Socialism as their only savior, 
 and the only means by which they could live—that they could exist in 
 the end in no other way. If I remember rightly I then said that strikes 
 were attempts to right these wrongs on the part of the unions and the 
 Knights of Labor; that I did not believe in strikes; I did not believe 
 that redress could be had by that method; that the power was in the 
 hands of the employer to refuse; that if the men went on a strike the 
 employer could meet the strike with a lockout, and could keep them 
 out until they were so hungry that they would through their destitu¬ 
 tion be compelled to return and accept the terms of the employer; 
 therefore, strikes must of necessity fail—as a general thing. 
 
 I called attention to the scabs, and said that the unionist made 
 war on the scabs. Now, said I, here is the distinction between a So¬ 
 cialist and a trades-unionist. The unionist fights the scab. What is 
 a scab ? As a general thing, a man who, being out of employment 
 and destitute, is driven by necessity to go to work in some other man’s 
 place at less wages than has previously been paid. He is at once de¬ 
 nounced as a scab by the unionists, and war is made upon him. Now, 
 bocialists don t do this; they regard these men as the victims of a false 
 system and to be pitied. The scabs might be compared to fleas on a 
 dog. The unionists want to kill the fleas, but the Socialists would kill 
 the dog; that dog is the wage system of slavery. 
 
 I then pointed to the ballot—how we were swindled at the ballot 
 box and defrauded and cheated, how we were bulldozed and intimi¬ 
 dated and bribed and corrupted—yes, corrupted by the very money 
 that had been stolen from us. Men would come to us when we were 
 
SPEECH OF A. R. PARSONS. 
 
 47 
 
 poor and give us bread-money if we would vote their ticket, and we 
 often did it through necessity, and for these and other reasons, 
 through this intimidation, bribery and corruption, the workingmen had 
 but little to expect from the ballot—that a man who could not control 
 his bread stood a poor chance to control his ballot. I said we had 
 petitioned and passed resolutions, and had done everything in our 
 power for redress; in fact, there was a rebuff on every occasion. 
 
 I then said to them: Gentlemen, Socialism means the free associa¬ 
 tion of the people for the purpose of production and consumption — 
 in other words, universal co-operation. Socialism is the abolition of 
 the private ownership or monopoly of the resources of life, the means 
 of subsistence — capital; placing the means of life in the hands of the 
 whole people f'^r their joint use and equal benefit. This is the sum 
 total of Socialism, and the only permanent solution of the difficulties 
 between capital and labor. I said that monopoly and corporation had 
 formed a gigantic conspiracy against the working classes. I then 
 called upon them to unite, to organize, to make every endeavor to ob¬ 
 tain eight hours; that the less-hours movement meant a peaceful 
 solution of the labor trouble; that if the employers in this and all 
 other countries would concede this demand it meant peace. If they 
 refused — it meant war; not by the working classes, not by laborers, 
 but by monopolists and corporations upon the lives, liberty, and hap¬ 
 piness of the working classes. 
 
 I said that capital in the hands of corporations and monopoly 
 deprived the laborers of their labor product, of their right to live, and 
 was driving labor into open revolt and forcing people to defend them¬ 
 selves and to protect and maintain their right to self-preservation, and 
 self-preservation would compel the workers to abolish the government 
 which enslaves them. I said the monopoly conspiracy originated in 
 the great railroad strike of 1877, that this conspiracy since that time 
 had proposed to use force, and that they used force. Vanderbilt said 
 ‘ the public be damned.’ The New York World and other papers had 
 said that the American laborer must be contented with the wages he 
 received, and not expect any more wages than his European brother, 
 and be contented with that station in life to which it had pleased God 
 to call him. I then appealed to them to defend themselves, then- 
 rights and their liberties — to combine, to unite, for in union there 
 was strength. 
 
 That, gentlemen, was the subject of my hour’s speech at the 
 Haymarket. 
 
 Captain Black — When you were referring in your speech to Jay 
 Gould or to the Southwestern system, do you remember any interrup- 
 
48 THE EMPANELING OF THE JUEY. 
 
 tion from the crowd, or any response connected with the name of 
 Gould? 
 
 A. Yes. I omitted that. Some one said “ Hang him.“ My re¬ 
 sponse to that was, that this was not a conflict between individuals, 
 but for a change of system, and that Socialism designed to remove 
 the causes which produced the pauper and the millionaire, but did not 
 aim at the life of individuals. 
 
 Mr. Fielden’s speech was not reported. Some of the papers of 
 the next day contained a condensed report, but as it was brought out 
 on the evidence that the reporter had been charged only to report 
 “ incendiary passages," perfect reliance cannot be placed on the re¬ 
 ports they submitted for acceptance. Mr. Fielden, in his speech be¬ 
 fore sentence was passed upon him went sufficiently into the details of 
 his speech, to which the reader is referred. 
 
 CHAPTEE IV. 
 
 THE EMPANELING OF THE JURY. 
 
 On May 18th the Grand Jury began the examination of witnesses, 
 Judge Kogers having charged them “ that Anarchism should be sup¬ 
 pressed.’' On the 25th they indicted August Spies, Michel Schwab, 
 Albert E. Parsons, Adolph Fischer, Samuel Fielden, Louis Engel, 
 Louis Lingg, Oscar Neebe, Eudolph Schnaubelt and Wilhelm Seliger, 
 for the murder of Mathias J. Degan, and others for conspiracy, riot 
 and unlawful assembly. Schnaubelt left the city and never returned. 
 Neebe had not been arrested at first, but immediately on the suppress¬ 
 ion of the Arbeiter-Zeitung he had stirred himself so energetically in 
 its behalf that it soon bid fair to stand on a firmer basis than ever. 
 He was then arrested, but on June 14 he was admitted to bail in the 
 sum of $17,000, his share in the “conspiracy” and its results not con¬ 
 sidered to be so well established as that of' the other prisoners. 
 Seliger turned informer and was not included with the others. 
 
 The trial was commenced before Judge Gary in the Criminal 
 Court June 21, and the sensation of the day was the return and sur¬ 
 render of A. E. Parsons, who walked quietly into court with his 
 counsel. Captain Black, and took his seat beside his indicted comrades. 
 And in this connection the following story, related by a reporter 
 in one of the city dailies, is too good to be lost: 
 
THE EMPANELING OF THE JUEY. 
 
 49 
 
 The question is often asked, “ Do detectives detect ? ” It is fair 
 to presume that in some cases they do not. Schnaubelt, whom it is 
 now believed is the man who threw the Haymarket bomb, was firmly 
 in the clutches of the detectives, but after being questioned by Lieu¬ 
 tenant John Shea, was allowed to go on his way unmolested. 
 
 During the trial of the Anarchists a party of newspaper men and 
 several Central Station detectives were standing one afternoon in front 
 of the Criminal Court building. A little wiry fellow, with black hair 
 and mustache and piercing black eyes, walked by briskly with Captain 
 Black and entered the court house. 
 
 “I’ll bet a dollar to a nickel,” said a newspaper reporter, “that 
 that little man is A. E. Parsons.” 
 
 “Nonsense,” said one of the detectives, “not in a thousand 
 years. Why, man, don’t you suppose I know Parsons when I see 
 him ? He isn’t within five hundred miles of Chicago. Say, we detect¬ 
 ives have been looking for him, ’ ’ and, as if this settled the matter, the 
 detective entered the building. He had no sooner reached the stair¬ 
 way that leads to Judge Gary’s court-room than an officer met him 
 and exclaimed, “Parsons has just given himself up.” The detective 
 nearly fainted, and for several weeks he kept out of the way of the 
 newspaper man. 
 
 Twenty-one days were consumed in the effort to secure twelve men 
 who were esteemed competent to give the accused an unbiased trial on 
 the evidence. But as the question of what was and what was not 
 “bias” entered largely into the effort, and forms an important part 
 of the history of the trial, let us examine the process of selecting 
 “ twelve men, good and true.” 
 
 The right of trial by “an impartial jury” is a Constitutional pro¬ 
 vision, and it is a well-known principle that aU statutes must be con^ 
 struecl in conformity with the Constitution. The statute (March 12, 
 1874,) provides “ that in the trial of any criminal cause, the fact that 
 a person called as a juror has formed an opinion or an impression, 
 based upon rumor or newspaper statements (about the truth of which 
 he has expressed no opinion,) shall not disqualify him to serve as a 
 juror in such case, if he shall, upon oath, state that he believes that 
 he can fairly and impartially render a verdict therein, in accordance 
 with the law and the evidence, and the court shall be satisfied of 
 the truth of the statement.” 
 
 In cases which have since arisen this statute has received a con¬ 
 struction, and the essence of these cases is that this statute declares 
 to be competent a juryman who has a slight opinion, or an opinion 
 based upon rumor or newspaper statements, and where he will swear 
 and the court is satisfied that such opinions will not affect him in the 
 rendition of a fair and impartial verdict. This was always the con¬ 
 struction of the law. In the first case in which this statute came 
 
50 
 
 THE EMPANELING OF THE JUKY. 
 
 under consideration, (September Term, 1874, 74 Ill., 361,) Mr. Justice 
 Schofield, delivering the opinion of the court, says: 
 
 “ The juror, Broubaker, we do not think was competent. He is 
 unable to state that he could sit as an impartial juror in the case. He 
 was, among others, asked this question: ‘ You think that you have 
 
 heard reports which you believe to be true, in respect to the defendants, 
 which would have a tendency, in some degree, to bias your mind in 
 this respect ? ’ and he answers: ‘ It may have.’ 
 
 “ When the juror has been exposed to influences, the probable 
 effect of which is to create a prejudice in his mind against the defend¬ 
 ant, which it would require evidence to overcome, to render him 
 competent it should appear that he can, when in the jury box, entirely 
 disregard those influences, and try the case without in any degree 
 being affected by them.” Judgment reversed. 
 
 Let us now proceed to the examination of jurors as illustrating 
 Judge Gary’s rulings, 'bearing in mind that the number of peremptory 
 challenges permitted to each prisoner arraigned was twenty. 
 
 M. T. Carey, on the first day, stated that he had read an account 
 of the case, had talked of it, believed what he had heard and read to be 
 true, and had formed and expressed an opinion as to the guilt or inno¬ 
 cence of the defendants. He also expressed the belief that he could 
 try the case fairly. He was asked the question whether that was 
 such an opinion as would require evidence to remove. The court decided 
 that this was an incompetent question, because it called for the opin¬ 
 ion of the juror as to the future effect of evidence on his mind. This 
 juror was subsequently challenged for cause, but upon another ground. 
 
 Clarence H. Hill stated that he had read accounts of the 
 Haymarket meeting, had conversations in reference to it, and upon 
 the information derived from all sources, had formed an opinion as to 
 the guilt or innocence of the defendants, which he still entertained, 
 and which was based upon his belief in tvhat he had read ; and that he 
 was prejudiced against Socialists, Anarchists, etc. He was finally 
 asked: 
 
 Q. You have no opinions, biases or prejudices, which would 
 require evidence to overcome ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir; I have. 
 
 The juror was challenged for cause, the challenge was overruled, 
 and he was thereupon challenged peremptorily by defendants. 
 
 W. N. Upham was another who was examined on the first day. 
 He stated that he had read the newspaper accounts of the Haymarket 
 affair, and had conversation with various persons u;pon the subject; 
 that from all sources of information he had formed an opinion upon 
 
THE EMPANELING OF THE JUEY. 
 
 51 
 
 "the guilt or innocence of some of the defendants, which he believed 
 he had expressed to others; that he believed to he true the statement which 
 he had heard and read, and that he expressed a belief that what he had 
 heard was true. Subsequently, upon a direct question by the court, 
 to-wit: 
 
 Q. The question is whether you have ever formed or expressed 
 an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of any one of these eight men 
 of the murder of Officer Degan ? 
 
 A. I can’t say what I have expressed in words, but my opinion 
 was that some of them are guilty. 
 
 He also said he believed that he could render a fair verdict on the 
 evidence. 
 
 The Couet. — That is not any ground of challenge under the law ! 
 
 He stated further that he had the same opinion as to the guilt of 
 some of the defendants, and then the question was asked as to whether 
 testimony would be required to remove that opinion before he would 
 be unbiased and free to act upon the evidence. The question was ob¬ 
 jected to, quite freely argued, and the objection was then sustained by 
 the court. The juror was then challenged for cause, the challenge 
 was overruled, and then challenged peremptorily. 
 
 E. F. Skedd, examined on June 23d, stated that he had read of 
 the Haymarket affair in the papers, and at the time formed an opin¬ 
 ion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants, which opinion he 
 still entertained, no circumstances having occurred to change it. That 
 such opinion was formed from the belief by him of the truth of the 
 statements which he had heard and read, and that he had expressed 
 the opinion to others. He said also : “ I would have my opinion, my 
 own opinion, until it was set aside by the whole testimony,” and that 
 it would require evidence to remove the opinion which he had. He was 
 thereupon challenged for cause and the court overruled the challenge. 
 
 The same person was thereupon interrogated, and stated that he 
 had a prejudice against Communists, Anarchists and Socialists as a 
 class, which was of such a character that it would prevent his listening 
 to the testimony and rendering an impartial verdict if it were conceded or 
 proved that the defendants belonged to such class. He stated further: 
 
 “ I think the mere fact of their being Communists would iufluence 
 my opinion as a juror. ” 
 
 Q. And therefore you would not find the same verdict upon the 
 same evidence as you would if they were not so — you would require 
 additional evidence. 
 
 A. Yes, sir; and that he would find the defendants guilty upon less 
 evidence than if they were law-abiding citizens. 
 
52 
 
 THE EMPANELING OF THE JDBY. 
 
 But having stated that he thought he could try the cause fairly, 
 the challenge for cause was overruled and another peremptory chal- 
 lenge used. 
 
 William Neil stated'that he had heard and read about the Hay- 
 market difficulty, and believed enough of what he had so heard to/^ 
 an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of some of the defendants but 
 thought strong evidence to the contrary would change that opinion, 
 that he had expressed said opinion and that “rt would ta,ke pret y 
 strong evidence to change my opinion.” And again be said. I* 
 take nretty strong evidence to remove the impression that I no\^ 
 
 That he believed his opinion, based upon what he had heard ^nd ^ad 
 would accompany him through the trial, and woukl vnfluence himm 
 determining and getting at a result. But he also stated “ he be¬ 
 lieved he could give a fair verdict on whatever evidence he should heai. 
 Thereupon the juror was challenged for cause on all his answers, and 
 particularly on the ground that he had expressed the opinion which he 
 still entertained, which challenge was overraled, and thereupon was 
 challenged peremptorily. tt 
 
 James S. Oakley stated that he had heard and read of the Hay- 
 market difficulty, and believed enough of what he had so read and 
 heshxdi to form an opinion SiS to the guilt or innocence of some of the 
 defendants, which opinion he had expressed and sthl entertained He 
 was asked if that opinion was so strongly and firmly fixed that it 
 would take strong evidence to the contrary to overrule it 
 tion was refused by the court. He also stated that he believed that he 
 could determine the question of the guilt or innocence of the defend¬ 
 ants on the evidence alone. He still further stated as follows: 
 
 Q. Still you think that the opinion you now have and what you 
 have heard and read would influence you in arriving at a verdict? 
 
 A. I do. 
 
 Q. Foi6 do think it would influence you ? 
 
 A. I do. 
 
 He was further asked as to his prejudice against Socialists, An¬ 
 archists, etc., and admitted that he had such a prejudice, and was then 
 asked: “ If it should be proven or conceded on the trial of this case 
 that some of them are Anarchists or Communists, would this opinion 
 of yours, in regard to these classes, influence you in arriving at a just 
 and impartial verdict ?” The question was refused by the court. Mr. 
 Oakley again stating that he had expressed his opinion as to the guilt 
 or innocence of the defendants, or some of them, was challenged for 
 cause on all his answers, and particularly on the ground of the expres- 
 
THE EMPANELING OF THE JFKY. 
 
 53 
 
 sion of his opinion. The challenge was overruled and another per¬ 
 emptory challenge rendered necessary. 
 
 Pages might be filled with similar evidence; but for the purpose 
 of introducing some of the rulings of the court, and its peculiar 
 method in “ coaching ” jurors, a few more should be cited. 
 
 H. F. Chandler stated that he had heard and read of the Hay- 
 market affair, and from what he had so read and heard, had formed 
 an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of one or more of the defend¬ 
 ants, which he still entertained and which he had expressed. That he 
 beheved in the truth of the statements he had read and heard, and 
 had never questioned it. The following questions and answers theie- 
 iipon ensued: 
 
 Q. Is that a decided opinion as to the guilt or innocence ? 
 
 A. It is a decided opinion; yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Your mind is pretty well made up now as to their guilt or in¬ 
 nocence ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. Well, it will take evidence to satisfy me on that 
 point. I don’t know. I have simply heard one side of the case. I 
 have just read the newspaper matter. I have formed an opinion as 
 far as that goes. 
 
 Q. Would it be hard to change your opinion. 
 
 A. It might be hard; I can’t say. I don’t know whether it would 
 be hard or not. 
 
 He also stated that he had a strong prejudice against Socialists, 
 Anarchists and Communists, and was then asked if that prejudice 
 would influence his verdict; which question was refused by the court. 
 He further stated that he thought he had expressed his opinion as to 
 the guilt or innocence of the defendants quite frequently; and was 
 thereupon challenged for cause. 
 
 Certainly not a very marked case of impartiality, but the court 
 thereupon took him in hand and he was led to state that he had an 
 opinion as to whether the defendants did the act which caused the 
 death of Hegan, but that that opinion was based wholly upon what he 
 had heard and read and not from conversation with any person who 
 was present at the time of the transaction. While it may not be ap¬ 
 parent that this in the least mitigates the fact that the juror was not 
 competent to decide impartially, the court thought otherwise and laid 
 down the following ruling: “ It don’t seem to me that it makes any 
 difference in the competency of a juror whether he has simply/omcd 
 an opinion, or expressed an opinion which he has formed. I don’t see 
 how it makes a particle of difference in his state of mind. Every man 
 is in favor of justice and fair dealings as between other people where 
 
54 
 
 THE EMPANELING OF THE JUKY. 
 
 his own interests are not affected; and, as I have said before, I think 
 it must be — I think it is the nature of any man to find out the troth 
 of any transaction, that he will, when the original sources are pre¬ 
 sented to him, follow them, and not any hearsay that he has ever 
 heard.” The challenge for cause was thereupon overruled and resort 
 rendered necessary to another peremptory challenge. 
 
 D. F. Swan presents another typical instance. He had heard and 
 read about the Haymarket trouble; had formed an opinion as to the 
 guilt or innocence of the defendants, or some of them, which he still 
 entertained, and had frequently expressed. The opinion was firmly 
 fixed in his mind at the time of his examination. He stated, however, 
 that he believed he could be governed by the evidence and the law ; 
 that he had discussed the case with his neighbors and friends, and was 
 prejudiced in a general way against labor organizers. The court re¬ 
 fused to allow him to be questioned as to whether his admitted preju¬ 
 dice against Socialists, Anarchists, etc., would influence his verdict. 
 Being challenged for cause, the court interrogated him as follows: 
 
 Q. Have you any feeling against either of them, other than such 
 as grows out of what you have heard about their connection with the 
 Haymarket ? 
 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. That is the only feeling you have ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And that feeling is based upon the assumption — you have 
 taken it for granted that what you have read and heard about them 
 was true, substantially ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Now, do you believe that you can sit here as a juror and listen 
 to the evidence on both sides that may be presented here on their trial, 
 and from that evidence only make up your mind fairly and impartially 
 as to what the real truth is about their connection with the matter ? 
 
 A. I guess I could. 
 
 Q. Without any reference to what you have heard about it here¬ 
 tofore, or what you have read about it ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 That was sufficient; his “firmly-fixed opinion,” his prejudice 
 “ against labor organizers,” counted for nought. However narrow his 
 mind, his “ guess ” that he was broadminded enough to rise above his 
 own narrowness, inherent in his nature from the very nature of the 
 case, was enough for an American judge, between whom and Jeffries 
 there, had elapsed two centuries, to overrule the challenge for cause 
 and compel resort to the rapidly diminishing number of peremptory 
 
THE EMPANELING OF THE JUEY. 
 
 55 
 
 challenges. An Orangeman trying a Eoman Catholic for an alleged 
 assault; a politician investigating a “ bloody outrage ” at the South; 
 even a judge of the supreme court sitting on an electoral commission, 
 might affirm ability to rise above prejudice and firmly-fixed opinions, 
 but instances are rare. 
 
 George N. Porter said that he had both formed and expressed 
 an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants, which opin¬ 
 ion he thought ivould bias his judgment. He would try to go by the evi¬ 
 dence, but what he had read xooidd have a great deal to do with his verdict. 
 His mind was certainly biased now, and it would take a great deal of 
 evidence to change it. Whereupon Mr. Porter was challenged for cause. 
 
 On examination by the State, in answer to the question whether 
 he believed he could determine alone from the proof the guilt or inno¬ 
 cence of the defendants, without consulting his opinion, or without 
 being influenced by it, he said: “ I hardly know how to answer that 
 question, I should certainly try to.” Being asked the same question 
 over again he said: “ Well, I rather think I could.” In answer to the 
 court, Mr. Porter said: “ I think what I have read and heard before I 
 came into court would have some influence with me.” He was afraid 
 that what he had read and heard before would have some effect upon 
 the kind of verdict which he should render. He was finally led to say 
 he believed he could fairly and impartially try the case and render a 
 verdict according to the law and the evidence; at least, he would cer¬ 
 tainly try to. Whereupon challenge for cause was overruled. 
 
 The defendant’s counsel pushed the inquiry still further and Mr. 
 Porter admitted that he had a prejudice against Communists, Social¬ 
 ists and Anarchists, and said that he should certainly try to go by the 
 evidence, but he thought in this case it would he awful hard work for 
 him to do it. He should try very hard to do it, and he believed he could. 
 He was asked whether he had ever expressed his opinion that he be¬ 
 lieved the narration. He said: “ Well, I don’t know that I ever said 
 it in that many words, but I meant that, of course, certainly.” 
 
 Q. You don’t know, then, that you ever did say that you believed 
 what you heard, or that you believed what you had read ? 
 
 A. Why, we have talked about it there a great many times, and 
 I have always expressed my opinion, I believe what I have read in 
 the papers — believe that the parties are guilty. 
 
 Q. Now, then, you say that you did, in the discussion of it, in 
 substance, say that you believed what jou have read in the papers? 
 
 A. Yes, sir; I have. 
 
56 
 
 THE EMPANELING OF THE JURY. 
 
 Q. And it was from what you have read in the papers that you 
 formed an opinion ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Challenge for cause was hereupon renewed. It would seem to be 
 awful hard work to “ coach ” this juryman up to the proper point of 
 impartiality to fairly try the case; the court, however, again took him 
 in hand. Being asked whether he had expressed an opinion as to the 
 truthfulness of the account itself which he had read or heard, he 
 said: 
 
 “ Well, that is a pretty hard question to answer ; I don’t know. I 
 have expressed myself as believing it. I don’t know.” 
 
 Q. Well, believing— 
 
 A. Believing what I read in the papers. 
 
 Q. Believing the opinion that you had about the case and the de¬ 
 fendant, or believing the story as it was printed ? 
 
 A. Why, believing, of course, the opinion of the defendants, and 
 the story, believing it all, believing it just as I read it in the news¬ 
 papers. * * * * 
 
 Q. Did you ever express any opinion as to whether the news¬ 
 papers had got bodily or the substance of the story right or not ? 
 
 A. Oh, I don’t know that I ever did that; no, sir. 
 
 This last was sufficient to overrule the challenge and to oblige the 
 issuance of another peremptory challenge. In other words, he had 
 never expressed an opinion on what he had never thought about; or, 
 in view of his previous replies, he had never expressed an opinion 
 against his own expressed opinion ! and therefore was fully quahfied 
 to sit on the jury ! 
 
 H. N. Smith, in his examination, exhibits very clearly on his 
 part, if not on that of the court, a decided bias. He said he had 
 formed quite a decided opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the 
 defendants; had read the newspapers at the time; had had frequent 
 conversations in regard to the matter; had expressed his opinion and 
 still entertained it. He said he was afraid he would listen a little 
 more intently to testimony which concurred with his opinion than to 
 testimony on the other side. 
 
 Q. That is, you would be willing to have your opinion strengthened 
 and would hate very much to have it dissolved ? 
 
 A. I would. 
 
 Q. Under these circumstances, do you think you could render a 
 fair and impartial verdict ? 
 
 A. I don’t think I could. 
 
THE EMPANELING OF THE JUEY. 
 
 57 
 
 Q. You think you would be prejudiced? 
 
 A. I think I would be prejudiced because my ' feeling is very 
 hitter. * * * * 
 
 Q. The question is whether or not your prejudice would in any 
 way influence you in coming to an opinion, arriving at a verdict ? 
 
 A. I think it would. 
 
 Q. You think it would take less testimony as a juryman to come 
 to a conclusion which you now have than to come to the opposite 
 conclusion ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. That is your best judgment now? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Whereupon the state took him in hand as a promising juror and 
 induced him to retract his statement that he thought his “ decided 
 opinion ” and “ bitter feeling ” must influence his verdict, and led him to 
 state that he thought he would nevertheless act fairly. The court 
 then followed this up and the juror then stated that he didn’t know 
 any of the defendants ; he had a personal feeling; some of the offlcers 
 were personal friends of his, but he had no feeling toward any of the 
 defendants upon any ground o^/ler than what he had heard or read. 
 He had talked with persons who were at the Haymarket at the time 
 of the excitement, but the name of no man was mentioned. 
 
 The challenge for cause was overruled and another peremptory 
 challenge sacrificed. One more instance and we will pass on to the 
 accepted jury. 
 
 James H. Walker said he had formed an opinion on the question 
 of the guilt or innocence of the defendants of the murder of Mr. 
 Degan, which opinion he still entertained and had expressed to others. 
 Asked as to whether this opinion would influence his verdict, he 
 replied: 
 
 “ Well, 1 am willing to admit that my opinion would handicap my 
 judgment, possibly. I feel that I could be governed by the testimony." 
 
 Further on he was asked: 
 
 “ Then your belief is that you could listen to the testimony and 
 other proof that might be introduced, and the charge of the court, 
 and decide upon that alone, uninfluenced and unbiased by the opinion 
 that you now have ? 
 
 A. No, I don’t say that. 
 
 Q. That is what I asked you. 
 
 A. I said I would he handicapped." 
 
 He also stated that he was prejudiced against Socialists, Anarch¬ 
 ists and Communists. 
 
58 
 
 THE EMPANELING OF THE JURY. 
 
 The following question was then asked him: 
 
 Q. Now, considering all prejudice, and all opinions that you now 
 have, is there anything which, if the testimony was equally balanced, 
 would require you to decide one way or the other in accordance with 
 your opinion or your prejudice ? 
 
 A. If the testimony was equally balanced I should hold my 
 present opinion, sir. 
 
 Q. That is, you would throw your opinion upon the scale, which 
 would give it greater weight, your present opinion would turn the bal¬ 
 ance of the scale in favor of your present opinion ? That is, assuming 
 that your present opinion is that you believe the defendants guilty— 
 or some of them—now suppose, if the testimony were equally balanced, 
 your present opinion would warrant you in convicting them, you 
 believe, assuming that your present opinion is that they are guilty ? 
 
 A. I presume it -^ould. 
 
 Q. Well, you believe it would—that is your present belief, is it? 
 
 A.. Yes. 
 
 Thereupon counsel for defense challenged Mr. Walker for cause. 
 
 Upon examination by the State’s Attorney he, like the others, 
 answered the usual questions satisfactorily, and thereupon was inter¬ 
 rogated by the court, as follows : 
 
 The Court.— Mr. Walker, I suppose you know that the law is that 
 no man is to be convicted of any crime unless the evidence upon his 
 trial, unless that evidence proves that he is guilty beyond a reasonable 
 doubt ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Now, this confusion about opinions and verdicts I want to 
 clear up if I can. I suppose you know that no man is to be tried 
 upon prior impression or prior opinion of the jurors that are called 
 into the case ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q But only on the evidence. That you are familiar with, of 
 course. Now, do you believe that you can fairly and impartially ren¬ 
 der a verdict without any regard to rumor and what you may have in 
 your mind in the way of suspicion and impression, etc., but do you 
 believe that you can fairly and impartially render a verdict in accord¬ 
 ance with the law and evidence in the case ? 
 
 A. I shall try to do it, sir. 
 
 Q. But do you believe that you can sit here and fairly and impar¬ 
 tially make up you mind from the evidence, whether that evidence 
 prove that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not ? 
 
THE EMPANELING OF THE JUEY 
 
 59 
 
 A. I think I could, but I should feel that I was a little handi¬ 
 capped in my judgment, sir. 
 
 The Coukt. — Well, that is a sufficient qualification for a juror in the 
 case. Of course, the more a man feels that he is handicapped, the more he 
 will he guarded against it. 
 
 The counsel for the defense, in their brief before the Supreme 
 Court, make the following remarks upon this ruling: 
 
 “ We beg leave to state that not only is the remark given above 
 contrary to experience, but to all the authorities. According to the 
 remark of the court, the stronger the opinion of the j urcr against the 
 defendant, and the more bias and prejudice he has, the better juryman 
 he will make; because, having this hostile opinion and this bias and 
 prejudice, he will be conscious of it, and will isolate it from himself, 
 and that will leave his mind to act on the evidence alone. The common 
 experience is that a previously-formed opinion or prejudice is like the 
 sand-drift that permeates and mixes with everything, or like green 
 spectacles that color everything within the vision. The authorities, 
 all agree that the defendants are not bound to take such a juryman,, 
 or, as the Chief Justice says in the Burr case, ‘the law will not trust 
 him.' Judge Gary seems to think that the Constitution is all wrong. 
 This provision should have been that a defendant should be entitled 
 to a juryman ‘ handicapped' by previous opinions and prejudices, and 
 the more he is handicapped the better the juryman will be.” 
 
 The attitude (for it would be improper to say bias) of the court 
 may be illustrated by giving here a carefully formulated question which, 
 was propounded to a large number of the proposed jurors, but which 
 in every instance was refused by Judge Gary, although Mr. Grinnell, 
 the state’s attorney, said: “ I will not object to that question.” It 
 was as follows: 
 
 “ Suppose it should appear that the meeting held at the Haymar- 
 ket square was a meeting called by Socialists or Anarchists and waa 
 attended by them and others; suppose that it should further appear 
 that the bomb which is alleged to have caused the death of Mr. Degam 
 was thrown by some one in sympathy with the Anarchists or Social¬ 
 ists : Now, I will ask you, provided it was not established beyond all 
 reasonable doubt that these defendants actually threw the bomb, or 
 aided, participated in or advised the commission of t)iat wrong, would 
 the fact that they are Socialists or Communists have any influence 
 upon your mind in determining their innocence ? ” 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE JURY IN THE CASE. 
 
 Under such rulings as have been cited, the defendants being lim¬ 
 ited in their number of peremptory challenges by statutory regulation, 
 it is evident that counsel for the defense were constrained to secure a 
 jury as best they could, accepting only the least objectionable out of 
 those presented for examination. 
 
 Taking now the jurors who were accepted, we find fully illustrated 
 the great difdculties under which the defendants labored, and the, from 
 the start, almost hopeless result of the trial, which led the defendants 
 to anticipate the verdict which was attained. 
 
 I. Major James H. Cole, of Lawnsdale, was the first chosen. He 
 was born in Utica, N. Y.; 53 years of age. Was a captain and major 
 in the Forty-first Ohio Infantry, and during his life as a railroad con¬ 
 structor and contractor has been a citizen of Vermont, Ohio, Iowa, 
 Tennessee and Illinois. He is an Episcopalian. 
 
 He was asked the same questions as quoted in the preceding chap¬ 
 ter. The rulings of the court were the same, refusing to allow said 
 questions to be answered, as in other instances. In answer to ques¬ 
 tions which were permitted, he stated that he was prejudiced against 
 Socialists, Anarchists and Communists as a class. The rulings of the 
 court, however, prevented inquiries as to whether that prejudice would 
 influence his verdict, or the weight he would give to the testimony of 
 the defendants, if they should be sworn, and to their witnesses, in his 
 determination of the cause. 
 
 II. Scott G. Randall, born in Erie county, Pennsylvania; was 
 23 years of age and raised on a farm. Had lived in Chicago three years, 
 and at the time was salesman for J. C. Vaughan & Co., seedsmen, 45 
 La Salle street. There was nothing marked in his examination. 
 
 III. Theodore E. Denker, Woodlawn; was born in Wisconsin; 
 27 years of age; shipping clerk for H. H. King & Co. He was exam¬ 
 ined on the fourth day of the trial. He admitted that he had heard of 
 the Haymarket affair and that he had expressed an opinion as to the 
 guilt or innocence of the defendants of the murder charged, which he 
 still entertained; that he believed what he had read and heard upon 
 the subject, and that he thought that the opinion was such as would 
 prevent him from rendering an impartial verdict. He was therefore 
 challenged for cause. 
 
THE JUEY IN THE CASE. 
 
 61 
 
 Mr. Grinnell, the state’s attorney, then asked him if he believed 
 he could determine the guilt or innocence of the defendants upon the; 
 proof presented in court, without reference to his prejudice or opinion 
 and regardless of what he had heard, and he stated that he believed 
 he could. Thereupon the court asked this question: 
 
 “ Do you believe that you can fairly and impartially try the case 
 and render an impartial verdict upon the evidence as it may be pre¬ 
 sented here and the instructions of the court ? ” To which he replied : 
 “Yes, I think I could.” The court then overruled the challenge for 
 cause, and he was re-examined by defendants and again admitted that 
 he had formed an opinion of the guilt or innocence of the defendants, 
 which he had expressed freely and without hesitation. He persisted, 
 however, in stating that he believed that he could lay aside his preju¬ 
 dice or opinion and try the case fairly, and was finally accepted. 
 
 After the trial, however, in support of the motion for a new trial, 
 the defendants introduced the affidavits of Thomas J. Morgan,— well- 
 known as an old-time antagonist to Anarchy and Anarchists, — and of 
 Thomas S. Morgan, who both testified unequivocally that on the morn¬ 
 ing of the 6th of May Denker stated to them, and in their hearing, 
 referring to Spies, Fielden, Schwab and Fischer particularly, who had 
 been arrested on the 5th of May for alleged complicity with the Hay- 
 market affair, and referring to Spies : “He and the whole damned crowd 
 ought to he hung” This remark, the affiants declared, was made with 
 much feeling and emphasis. 
 
 Mr. Denker, in his affidavit in rebuttal, denied having made the 
 remark sworn to by the Morgans, yet again admitted that he had an 
 opinion which he had freely expressed. The two affidavits remain 
 unimpeached, and the sole ground on which they were refused consid¬ 
 eration was that the party accused denied the charge! Further, in 
 Denker’s affidavit he simply denies having made the quoted remark to 
 the Morgans, but does not deny that it expressed his conviction, nor 
 that he might or did not make the remark to others. 
 
 IV. Charles B. Todd, 1013 West Polk street; born in Elmira, 
 N. Y.; 47 years of age; served in the Sixth New York Heavy Artillery ; 
 was a salesman in the Putnam clothing house ; Baptist. He stated 
 that from all sources of information, from what he had read and heard 
 concerning the Haymarket affair, he had formed an opinion upon the 
 guilt or innocence of the defendants of the crime of murder, which 
 opinion he had freely expressed in conversation with others. 
 
 V. Frank S. Osborne, 134 Dearborn avenue; born in Colum 
 bus, Ohio; 39 years of age; Episcopalian. He is head salesman in. 
 
62 
 
 THE JURY IN THE CASE. 
 
 ihe retail carpet department of Marshall Field, the millionaire. He 
 'was the foreman of the jury. 
 
 VI. Andrew Hamilton, 1521 Forty-first street; hardware mer¬ 
 chant at 3913 Cottage Grove Avenue. Belongs to no church, though 
 his wife is a Baptist. Upon examination he stated, in substance, that 
 he had said somebody ought to be made an example of in connection 
 with the Haymarket affair, and that if it should be proved that the 
 defendants were the men whose names he saw in the papers, con¬ 
 nected with the affair, then he thought they should be made examples 
 of. His other answers proving satisfactory, he was sworn. 
 
 VH. Charles A. Ludwig, 4101 State street; 27 years of age; 
 born in Milwaukee; book-keeper in the wood-mantel shop of C. L. 
 Page & Co. Is an active member of the Immanuel Baptist Church. 
 He admitted a prejudice against Socialists, Communists and Anarch¬ 
 ists, but his other answers were comparatively unobjectionable. 
 
 VHI. James H. Brayton, Englewood; born in Lyons, N. Y.; 
 principal of the Webster school at Wentworth avenue; 40 years of age. 
 By education a Methodist. His selection is said to have prevented a 
 hunting and fishing excursion for the summer. He stated that he had 
 taken some interest in Socialistic theories, and as a result of his in¬ 
 vestigations he had a prejudice against Anarchists, Socialists and 
 Communists. He had formed an opinion of the nature and character 
 of the crime perpetrated at the Haymarket, and, based upon his read¬ 
 ing, as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants. 
 
 IX. Alanson H. Eeed, 3442 Groveland Park; born in Boston; 
 49 years of age; of the firm of Eeed & Sons, of Eeed’s Temple of 
 Music, 136 State street. He is a Free-thinker, but alluded to by the 
 Chicago Daily News at the time as “ one of Chicago’s best citizens.” 
 He also stated that he had formed an opinion concerning the commis¬ 
 sion of the offense at the Haymarket, and from newspaper reports had 
 an opinion concerning the guilt or innocence of the defendants, or 
 some of them, and that he had a prejudice derived from his reading 
 against Socialists, Anarchists and Communists. He also stated that 
 the opinion which he formed, touching the guilt or innocence of the 
 defendants, was both from what he read in the papers and what he 
 heard, but principally from the newspaper reports. 
 
 X. John B. Greiner, No. 70 North California avenue; born in 
 Columbus, Ohio; 25 years of age; stenographer in the freight depart¬ 
 ment of the Chicago & Northwestern railway. He said that from his 
 reading concerning the Haymarket affair he had formed an opinion as 
 to the guilt of the defendants, or some of them. In the course of his 
 -examination the following colloquy ensued: 
 
THE JUEY IN THE CASE. 
 
 63 
 
 Q. The distinction is this, whether or not your opinion is that an 
 offense was committed at the Haymarket merely, or whether it is that 
 the defendants are connected with the offense that was so committed ? 
 
 A. Well, it is evident that the defendants are connected with it 
 from their being here, as far as that is concerned. 
 
 Q. You regard that as being evidence ? 
 
 A. Well—well, I don’t know exactly; I would expect, of course, 
 that it connected them, or they would not be here. 
 
 Q. Well, that would infer that somebody thought so, anyhow, or 
 else the whole thing would be a very foolish proceeding. So then the 
 opinion you have has reference to the guilt or innocence of some of 
 these men, or all of them? Now, is that opinion one, Mr. Greiner, 
 which would influence your verdict if you should be selected as a juror 
 to try the case, do you believe? 
 
 A. I certainly think it would affect it to some extent. I don’t 
 see how it could be otherwise. 
 
 Juror Greiner, in his youthful innocence, thus held that accusa¬ 
 tion was presumptive evidence of guilt! 
 
 XI. George W. Adams, Evanston; born in Indiana; 27 years of 
 age; travels in the State of Michigan as commercial agent for Geo. 
 W. Pitkin & Co., dealers in liquid paints, Clinton street. He admitted 
 upon examination that he had formed an opinion that some of the 
 defendants were guilty of the crime committed at the Haymarket, 
 which opinion he still entertained. But upon his further statement 
 that his opinion was not a strong one, he was sworn. 
 
 In the case of Mr. Adams, as in that of Mr. Denker, upon the 
 motion for a new trial before Judge Gary, an affidavit was filed im¬ 
 peaching Mr. Adams’ alleged impartiality. It was made by Michael 
 Cull, who stated that shortly after the Haymarket affair he had a con¬ 
 versation with said Adams, at which a number of other persons were 
 present, in which said Cull stated: “ That the police had no right to 
 interfere with the meeting; that if they, the police, had let the meet¬ 
 ing alone they would have gone home in a short whileto which said 
 Adams replied that the police ought to have shot them all down; that 
 they, the defendants, had no rights in this country, and that “ if I 
 was on the jury I would hang all the damned buggars.” Further, 
 that Adams evinced considerable bitter feeling against the defendants. 
 It is true that an affidavit was filed in behalf of the State which de¬ 
 nied the charge. But the fact stands with reference to Mr. Adams 
 that after first stating that he had formed no opinion as to the guilt 
 or innocence of the defendants as to the Haymarket affair, he subse. 
 quently, on cross-examination, admitted that he had formed such an 
 
64 
 
 THE JUEY IN THE CASE. 
 
 opinion; while Cull’s affidavit, if believed, shows the expression of 
 a strong feeling adverse to the defendants. 
 
 XII. Howaed T. Sanfoed, Oak Park; born in New York City and 
 son of Lawyer Sanford, compiler of the Superior Court reports of New 
 York; 24 years of age; formerly he was a petroleum broker in New 
 York, but for a little over a year past had been voucher clerk in the 
 auditor’s office of the Chicago & Northwestern railway. He was the 
 last juror examined, on the twenty-second day of the proceedings, 
 July 25. 
 
 He stated that he had an opinion from what he had read and 
 heard as to the guilt or innocence of the eight defendants of the 
 throwing of the bomb. He also said that he had a decided prejudice 
 against Socialists, Communists and Anarchists. He was thereupon 
 challenged for cause by the defendants despite his statement that he 
 believed he could fairly and impartially render a verdict in the case. 
 He was then questioned by the State as follows: 
 
 Q. Have you ever said to anyone whether or not you believed the 
 statement of facts in the newspapers to be true ? 
 
 A. I have never exactly expressed it in that way, but still I have 
 no reason to think they were false. 
 
 Q. The question is not what your opinion of that was. The 
 question simply is—it is a question made necessary by our statute, 
 perhaps. 
 
 A. Well, I don’t recall whether I have or not. 
 
 Consequently the challenge for cause was promptly overruled. 
 Previous to the examination of this juror the defendants had 
 exhausted ail their peremptory challenges, and although they refused 
 to accept Mr. Sanford as a competent juror, he was accepted by the 
 State and sworn. 
 
 Another affidavit on the motion for a new trial merits attention 
 in this connection, relative to the conduct of the special bailiff who 
 had in charge the summoning of the jurors. Application was made 
 for leave to examine in open court one Otis Favor. The reason there- 
 ffir was given in an affidavit of E. A. Stevens, a well-known citizen of 
 irreproachable character and president of the Secular Union, who 
 stated that Favor was an intimate acquaintance of the special bailiff 
 Eyce, and that affiant had learned from Favor that while said Eyce 
 was serving the venires in the present case he' stated to said Favor, 
 and to others in Favor’s presence, in substance, this : 
 
 “ I am managing this case, and I know what I am about. Those 
 fellows will hang as certain as death. I am summoning as jurors 
 such men as they will be compelled to challenge peremptorily, and 
 
THE JURY IN THE CASE. 
 
 65 
 
 when they have exhausted their peremptory challenges they will have 
 to take such jurors as are satisfactory to the State.” 
 
 Judge Gary, however, refused to order the examination of Mr. 
 Favor upon this application, although it appeared that while Mr. Fa- 
 vor refused to present himself or to make an affidavit in the matter, 
 he would, however, if compelled, substantiate the charge as true. 
 Here was a vital point, affecting the fate, if not the lives, of eight 
 men; the case was still in court awaiting final disposition, and courts 
 have always exercised plenary power to compel the appearance and 
 testimony of witnesses; but on technical points all sense of justice 
 was waived and, if not intentionally at least in effect, the special 
 bailiff was screened from all investigation as to his alleged villainous 
 action. 
 
 In conclusion we present the complaints made by the counsel for 
 the defendants on Judge Gary’s rulings on the qualification of jurors: 
 
 1. Judge Gary, in this trial, recognized the statute alone as the 
 basis of the right of trial by jury. He absolutely ignored the consti¬ 
 tutional right of trial by an impartial jury, and construed the statute 
 broadly against the defendants in reference to its meaning, as though 
 it were the only provision in existence in reference to the right named, 
 and the only source of the right of trial by jury. 
 
 2. The court held that jurors were competent who had formed 
 and expressed an opinion of the guilt or innocence of the accused, 
 based on newspaper reports and rumors, and held such opinions at 
 the time of their examination and which it would require evidence to 
 remove, provided they could swear that they could “ fairly and impar¬ 
 tially render a verdict therein.” 
 
 3. The court held that a juryman who had formed and expressed 
 an opinion of the guilt or innocence of the accused, based upon ru¬ 
 mors or newspaper articles, and had also, in the past, expressed an 
 opinion of the truth or falsity of such rumors or articles, is thereby 
 disqualified as a juror; but the present statement by the juror, at 
 the time of his examination on his voir dire, that he believed then 
 what he had heard and read to be true, and that he had formed and 
 expressed an opinion of the guilt or innocence of the defendants, based 
 on what he had so heard, read or believed, did not disqualify him. 
 
 In other words. Judge Gary held that, if a proposed juryman, 
 who had formed and expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence 
 of the accused, based upon newspaper accounts and rumors, had also 
 expressed an opinion about the truth of such newspaper accounts and 
 rumors, previous to his examination as a j uror, that in itself disquali- 
 
66 
 
 the JURY IN THE CASE. 
 
 fied him. But if he, for the first time during his examination, stated 
 that he then believed such accounts and rumors to be true, and stiU 
 had such an opinion of the guilt or innocence of the accused, that, m 
 itself, did not disqualify him. ^ 
 
 In his construction of the statute Judge Gary introduced the 
 words “ and expressed” after the word “ formed,” and makes it read, 
 
 “ formed and expressed; ” and introduces after the words in parenthe¬ 
 sis “ about the truth of which he had expressed an opinion, the 
 words “previous to his examination,” and not applying to a present 
 
 fixed belief. . . 
 
 4 The fact that the proposed juror swore that the opinion or 
 prejudice which he had at the time of the examination fixed and 
 positive, and that the juror had expressed such opimon, and would 
 require evidence, and even a good deal of evidence, for its removal 
 did not disqualify the juror, provided he could swear that he believed 
 he could render a fair and impartial verdict in the case. 
 
 Judge Gary finally refused to allow the proposed jurors to be asked 
 whether their opinion concerning the guilt or innocence of the defen - 
 ants or their prejudice against them was such as would require 
 evidence for its removal, even for the purpose of determining as to 
 exercising a peremptory challenge. 
 
 5. Where proposed jurors admitted a prejudice or bias agains 
 Socialists, Anarchists or Communists, as a class, the judp refused 
 to allow the defendants to ask questions as to whether that Prejudice 
 was such as to materially affect the credence they would accord to the 
 evidence of the defendants, or as probable to affect them in deter¬ 
 mining the question of the guilt or innocence of the said defendants, 
 if it should appear or be conceded that said defendants, or some of 
 them, were Socialists, Anarchists or Communists: and refused to 
 allow’challenges for cause on account of any such prejudice or bias 
 against such classes, and refused to allow this question to be asked, 
 even as to determining upon a peremptory challenge. 
 
 The citizens summoned to serve on the jury (about one thousand) 
 were almost without an exception wholesale dealers, board of trade 
 gamblers, bankers, real estate agents and book-keepers and clerks of 
 large business houses. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 
 
 The indictment called upon the defendants to answer to the spe- 
 ■cific charge of the murder of Officer M. J. Degan. It contained sixty- 
 mine counts. In the technical language of the law the eight defend¬ 
 ants, together with Rudolph Schnaubelt and William Seliger, were 
 accused jointly of the act first with a bomb, second with a revolver, 
 third with an unknown weapon; then seriatim each of the prisoners 
 was charged in the same manner, the other nine being present, aiding, 
 etc,, and in another long series with not being present, but having 
 aided, advised, etc. 
 
 Motion for separate trials having been refused and the jury empan¬ 
 eled, the trial began. State’s Attorney Grinnell, in his opening address, 
 hook the position that there had been a conspiracy. He said: 
 
 “ On May 3 everything was done that could be done to arouse the 
 people to anarchy. The conspiracy was so large, the numbers so appal¬ 
 ling, that it seems impossible to describe it. I believe at least thirty 
 men should have been indicted for murder, and this would have been 
 done had I known all the facts now in my possession at the time the 
 grand jury was in session. The men who have incited this bloodshed 
 have been picked out and should be blotted out. * * * * 
 
 “In breaking up the meeting Inspector Bonfield did the wisest 
 ■thing he could have done. If he had waited until the next night the 
 Socialists would have gained strength, and hundreds would have been 
 MUed instead of the seven that did fall. The action was the wisest 
 ■thing ever done in this city. The courage and strength of the police 
 saved the town. The inflammatory speeches of these people decided 
 Inspector Bonfield that the meeting should be broken up. He formed 
 his men in a court near the station and marched them north on Ran¬ 
 dolph street, their ranks filling the street from curb to curb. Fielden 
 was speaking. Captain Ward alone of all those policemen had a 
 revolver in his hand. He stepped forward in the usual manner, and 
 ordered the people to disperse. At this command Fielden stepped 
 from the wagon and said in a loud voice: “ We are peaceable.” At 
 
 ■this remark, as though it was some secret signal, a man who had 
 before been on the wagon, taking a bomb from his pocket, lit the fuse 
 and threw it into the ranks of the police. Fielden, standing behipd the 
 wagon, opened fire and kept it up for several minutes, when he in turn 
 
68 
 
 THE EVIDENCE FOK THE PKOSECUTION. 
 
 disappeared. Fielden was the only one of all the men who had a spark 
 of heroism in him. He stood his ground until he saw that any further 
 opposition was useless, when he made his escape. The action of the 
 police cannot be too highly commended. In all my e^iamination of 
 them I failed to find a man who ran. They stood and quietly awaited 
 orders. Not a shot was fired by them until many of their comrades 
 had fallen. 
 
 “ I will try and show to you who threw the bomb, and I will prove 
 to your satisfaction that Lingg made it. There never was a conspiracy 
 yet where some conspirator did not divulge the secret. In this case 
 the man was Seliger. I have yet to see the first man who will deny 
 that a conspiracy existed. 
 
 “ There are a great many counts in this case, but murder is the 
 main one. It is not necessary to bring the bomb-thrower into court. 
 Though none of these men, perhaps, threw the bomb personally, they 
 aided and abetted the throwing of it, and are as responsible as the 
 actual thrower.” 
 
 On the 15th of July the testimony began. After the introduction 
 of some maps and plans, Inspector Bonfield was sworn. 
 
 He testified that he was second in command on May 4. During 
 that day had seen the circular calling the meeting and conversed with 
 the mayor on the matter. At the Desplaines Street station there were 
 all told about 180 men. Between 10 and 10:30 o’clock the order to 
 march was given. Captain Ward and witness were at the head. Near¬ 
 ing the truck, where there was a person speaking. Captain Ward gave 
 the statutory order to disperse, and added: “I command you and you 
 to assist.” Immediately Mr. Fielden, who was speaking, turned and 
 said, “ We are peaceable.” Almost immediately after the bomb was 
 thrown. At once firing from the front and both sides poured in. In 
 a few moments the crowd was scattered in every direction. 
 
 On cross-examination he testified that he had been on the police 
 force for ten years, part of which time he was a detective. 
 
 Godfried Waller was next sworn. As will appear from the tes¬ 
 timony, he stood in the role of an informer. 
 
 By trade a cabinetmaker; born in Switzerland and been in this 
 country three years. Was a member of the “ Lehr und Wehr Verein.” 
 “ In the evening of the 3d of May I was at Grief’s hall, 54 West Lake 
 street; went there pursuant to a notice in the Arbeiter-Zeitung : “ Y— 
 
 come Monday night.” This notice was a sign for a meeting of the 
 armed section; called the meeting to order and was made chairman. 
 There were about seventy or eighty men. Of the defendants there 
 were only present Engel and Fischer*. 
 
THE EVIDENCE FOE THE PEOSECUTION. 
 
 69 
 
 “ There was talk about the men said to have been killed at McCor¬ 
 mick’s. Mr. Engel stated a resolution of a prior meeting as to what 
 should be done, to the effect that if on account of the eight-hour strike 
 there should be an encounter with the police they were to aid the men 
 against them. He stated that the Northwest-Side group had resolved 
 that in such a case they were to gather at certain meeting places, and 
 the word “Euhe” (translated as “quiet” or “rest”), published in the 
 letter-box of the Arheiter-Zeitung, should be the signal. A committee 
 were to observe the city, and in case of conflict occurring bombs were 
 to be thrown into the police stations.” 
 
 Witness proposed a meeting of workingmen for Tuesday morning 
 on Market square. Fischer said that was a mouse-trap and suggested 
 the Haymarket and eight P. M., as there then would be more working¬ 
 men out. It was stated as the purpose of the meeting to cheer up 
 the workingmen so that they might stand together in case of an attack. 
 It was agreed that those present need not attend the meeting, save a 
 committee to see and report if anything happened. Nothing was said 
 as to what should be done in case the police attacked the meeting, 
 though there had been discussion as to why police stations should be 
 attacked if the police proved the aggressors. 
 
 “ There was nothing said about the Haymarket. There was noth¬ 
 ing expected that the police would get to the Haymarket, only if strikers 
 were attacked we should strike down the police however we best could, 
 with bombs or whatever would be at our disposition. The committee 
 which was to be sent to the Haymarket was to be composed of one or 
 two from each group. They should observe the movement, not only 
 in Haymarket square, but in the different parts of the city. If a con¬ 
 flict happened in the daytime they should cause the publication of the 
 word ‘Euhe.’ If at night, they should report to the members person¬ 
 ally at their homes. On the 4th of May we did not understand ourselves 
 why the word ‘Euhe’ was published. It should be inserted in the 
 paper only if a downright revolution had occurred. Engel moved that 
 the plan be adopted. The motion was seconded and I put it to vote.” 
 
 Witness further testified that nothing was said on that evening 
 “ where dynamite or bombs or arms could be obtained.” Admitted 
 that six months before he had an eight-inch gas-pipe bomb, which was 
 subsequently exploded in a hoUow tree. Was present at a meeting the 
 Sunday before on Emma street; of the defendants only Engel and 
 Fischer were present. The same plan was discussed. “Somebody 
 opposed this plan, as there were too few of us, and it would be better 
 if we would place ourselves among the people- and tight right in the 
 midst of them. There was some opposition to this suggestion to be in 
 
70 THE evidence FOE THE PEOSECUTlON. 
 
 the midst of the ^rowd, as we could not know who would be our neigh¬ 
 bors; there might be a detective right near us, or some one else;, 
 Engel’s plan was finally accepted.” 
 
 I have given all the vital points in this testimony because upon: 
 this informer’s word is mainly based the charge of a preconcerted plan 
 and conspiracy. It will be remarked that he distinctly states that 
 only two of the defendants were present, and that force Was only to bo 
 resorted to in case of an unprovoked attack, or tvhat they considered, 
 such, by the police upon the strikers. The cross-examination brought 
 out a few additional facts. 
 
 He stated that none of the defendants belonged to the “ Lehr und. 
 "Wehr Verein ” about the 4th of May. He had seen the call by the 
 letter “ Y ” in the Arheiter-Zeitung over a month previous. Neither 
 Engel nor witnesses knew why the meeting was called. “ We did not. 
 know for what purpose it was called. When more people arrived, I 
 requested Engel to lay his plan again before the meeting. Engel stated 
 both at the meeting on Sunday and at the Monday-night meeting that, 
 the plan proposed by him was to be followed only if the police should, 
 attack us; any time when we should be attacked by the police, we; 
 should defend ourselves. 
 
 “ Nothing was said with reference to any action to be taken by us 
 at the Haymarket. We were not to do anything at the Haymarket 
 square. The plan was, we should not be present there at all; we did 
 not think that the police Would come to the Haymarket; for this rea¬ 
 son no preparations were made for meeting a police attack there. 
 
 “ * * * On the Haymarket, on my way to the meeting of the 
 Furniture Workers’ Union, I met Fischer; we were Walking about 
 some time. We once walked over to the Desplaines Street station; the 
 police were mounting five or siv patrol-wagons. I made the remark: 
 
 * I suppose they are getting ready to drive out to McCormick’s, so that 
 they might be out there early in the morning.’ Fischer assented ta 
 my remark; that was all that was Said about the police between us; 
 nothing was said about preparations to meet an attack by the police. 
 
 »**«•]; I indicted for conspiracy; I was arrested 
 about two weeks after the 4th of May by two detectives, Stift and 
 Whalen, and taken to East Chicago Avenue station; I saw there CapL 
 Sehaack, and in the evening, Mr. Furthman (assistant state’s attor¬ 
 ney) ; I was released about half-past eight of the same day. No War¬ 
 rant Was shown to me; I was never arrested since my indictment; L 
 was ordered to come to the station four or five times; at every occa¬ 
 sion had conversation with Furthman'about the statements made hero 
 in teonrt. I live now at 130 Sedgwick street, since one month -; Caph 
 
THE EVIDENCE FOE THE PEOSEOUTION. 
 
 71 
 
 Shaack.gave me $6.50 for the rent; whenever I used my time sitting in the 
 station, I wajs jpaid for it; once we had to sit all day, and we were paid 
 two dollars for that day. I was out on a strike, and Capt. Schaack 
 gave m,y wife three times three dollars; he gave me twice before, five 
 dollars each time. I have been at work for the last two weeks for 
 Peterson; when I went there to commence work I was told that I was 
 on the black list, and could not get work, and Capt. Schaack helped me 
 to get the job. By the black list, I mean that the bosses put all those 
 on a list who were in any way connected with the strike to obtain eight 
 hour’s work, and they were not to be employed any further. I know 
 Spies by sight; I never had any conversation with him; I spoke to 
 Mr. Neebe once a few words, at a meeting of the basket makers; I 
 have no acquaintance whatever with Schwab, Parsons, Fielden or 
 Lingg. I saw Lingg once making a speech.” 
 
 Comment is unnecessary on the character of the witness as dis¬ 
 played under cross-examination, or on the generous disinterestedness 
 of the police captain who so kindly nursed the willing informer. Engel, 
 the former of the “ plan,” was at home and first heard of the occur¬ 
 rence from Waller himself, who says he “ came to Engel’s at about 
 half-past ten,” and in the words of a later witness, “ came in and 
 said he came from the Haymarket, and that 300 men were shot by the 
 police and we ought to go down there and do something. Engel said 
 whoever threw that bomb did a foolish thing; it was nonsense, and he 
 didn’t sympathize with such a butchery, and he told Waller he had 
 better go home as quickly as possible; he said the policemen were ]ust 
 as good people; the revolution must grow out of the people, then the 
 police and militia would throw away their arms and go with the 
 people.” 
 
 Beknabd Scheade followed Waller; he was also present at the 
 Monday-night meeting; “ We went down to the basement; nothing 
 kept us back; when I got down the meeting was in order. Waller was 
 presiding; there were about thirty or thirty-five people. The chairman 
 stated the objects of the meeting; that so many men at the McCormick 
 factory had been shot by the police; that a mass-meeting was to be 
 held at the Haymarket square, and that we should be prepared, in case 
 the police go beyond, their bounds —attack us. I heard nothing about as¬ 
 sembling in other parts of the city.” 
 
 Witness was present at the Sunday-morning meeting on Emma 
 street. “ We talked there about the condition of the workingmen after 
 the first of May, and the remark was made that it might not go off so 
 easy after the first of May, if it should not, that they would help them¬ 
 selves and each other. It was said that if ,we were to get into a conflict 
 
72 
 
 THE EVIDENCE FOE THE PEOSECUTION. 
 
 with the police, we should mutually assist ourselves, and the members 
 of the Northwestern group should meet at Wicker Park, in case it 
 should get so far that the police would make an attack, and should 
 defend themselves as much as possible, as well as any one could; noth¬ 
 ing tvas said about dynamite; the word ‘ stuff ’ was not used. Nothing 
 was said about telegraph wires.” 
 
 In relation to the “ Lehr und Wehr Verein,” witness said : “ We 
 had our military drills for pleasure ; most of the members had been 
 soldiers in the old country, and we were drilling here for fun—pleas¬ 
 ure; we drilled once a week, at times.” The signal “Y” was a signal 
 for the “ armed section ” to meet at 54 Lake street. Did not hear 
 anything said about the word “ Euhe ” at the Monday night meeting. 
 
 “ I know Spies, Parsons, Fielden, Neebe and Schwab only by 
 sight, never had any business or conversation with any of them. Lingg 
 and I belonged to the same Carpenters’ Union, but we were not on 
 terms of friendship; none of the defendants are members of the ‘ Lehr 
 und Wehr Verein,’ to my knowledge. I paid attention to all that w^as 
 done while I was at the 54 West Lake Street meeting. I was at the 
 Sunday meeting from half-past nine until half-past eleven. The dis¬ 
 cussion was, that if the police made an attack upon workingmen we 
 would help the workingmen to resist it, and if the firemen helped, we 
 would cut the hose. Nothing was said about dynamite or bombs at 
 any of the meetings. Nothing was said about a meeting at any partic¬ 
 ular night to throw bombs. It was not agreed to throw bombs at the 
 Haymarket meeting. While at the Haymarket I had no bomb; I 
 don’t know dynamite; I knew of no one who was going to take a bomb 
 to that meeting. When I left the Haymarket everything was quiet; I 
 did not anticipate any trouble; I had seen the signal ‘ Y ’ before; it was 
 understood that the meetings were to be called by that kind of notice. 
 I left the Haymarket meeting only on account of the approach of the 
 storm. There were about two hundred people there when I left.” 
 
 It will be seen by the above that the State’s witness Schrade di¬ 
 rectly contradicts Waller as to the number present and subjects dis¬ 
 cussed at the Monday-evening meeting when the “ conspiracy to 
 destroy the city” was said to have been planned. In connection with 
 the question asked Waller, whether he ever had any bombs, an inter¬ 
 esting discussion arose between counsel which will explain the ground 
 taken by the State and the court. 
 
 To the above question Mr. Foster of the defense objected. He 
 held that the witness was not on trial, and that the fact that he might 
 have had bombs was no evidence against the defendants on their trial 
 for murder. Any bomb that the witness might have had had nothing 
 
TH£ EVIDENCE FOK THE PKOSECUTION. 
 
 73 
 
 to do with the case, unless it were traced to the man who threw it at 
 the Haymarket. Mr. Foster also alluded to the fact that the witness 
 in becoming an informer was evidently attempting to clear his own 
 skirts by implicating his associates, and claimed that the witness had 
 already shown that the two defendants who were present at that meet¬ 
 ing could not have conspired to commit the particular crime charged 
 in the indictment. 
 
 Mr. Ingham replied, saying that the theory of the State was that 
 the defendants for two or three years had been engaged, as the leaders, 
 in a gigantic conspiracy against law and order, of which the meeting on 
 Monday night was but one step. 
 
 Ml. Foster asked: “If you show that some man threw one of 
 these bombs without the knowledge, or authority, or approval of any 
 of these defendants, is that murder ? ” 
 
 Mr. Ingham replied: “ Under the law of the State of Illinois 
 it is murder. The law of this state is strong enough to hang every one 
 of these men.” 
 
 This the court virtually sustained. 
 
 Edward J. Steele, lieutenant of police, was in charge of a 
 company at the Haymarket on the 4th of May. “ When the command 
 to halt was given I heard somebody say: ‘Here comes the blood¬ 
 hounds. You do your duty and we will do ours.’” Did not mean 
 that the remark was made by the speaker from the wagon. “ The 
 word ‘fire’ was not given by anybody, but we began firing when they 
 fired on us.” 
 
 Martin Quinn, ‘also a lieutenant in command on that night, testi¬ 
 fied to hearing about the same remark and that it did come from the 
 speaker on the wagon. He says, further: “ At that moment there 
 was a bomb or shell fired into the rear, and when Ward had not quite 
 finished his sentence there was a shot fired from the wagon by the 
 man who was speaking at the time. It was Mr. Fielden. Just as he 
 was goingdown he said: ‘ We are peaceable.’ Some person had hold 
 of his left leg. He reached back, and just when he was going down he 
 fired right where the Inspector was. Captain Ward and Lieutenant 
 Steele.” 
 
 In this connection, recurring to Bonfield’s testimony he stated 
 that he and Captain Ward were not more than a few feet from the 
 truck; that Fielden was facing him when he said in a loud voice; 
 “ We are peaceable.” On cross-examination Bonfield said: 
 
 “ Between my calling the halt and the explosion of the bomb I 
 don’t think it was a minute. As the captain finished, Fielden stepped 
 from the truck and faced us, and stepping an the street, he turned to 
 
74 THE EVIDENCE FOE THE EEO'SEOUTION. 
 
 the sidewalk or curb, which is perhaps ten inches above the street and 
 said: “ We are peaceable.” Within two or three seconds the .explo¬ 
 
 sion followed. When he stepped on the street I could have reached out 
 and touched him." 
 
 Yet Lieutenant Quinn, who admits that he ivas “ within about 
 fifty feet of where the speaker was,” identifies Fielden as the man 
 who fired at Bonfield twice before leaving the truck, all of which 'time 
 Bonfield was close to him and facing him ! Yet, “ he fired a revolver 
 right where ” the Inspector was standing. We may dismiss 'him with 
 his concluding remark: “I have done detective duty as an officer; 
 am liable to be sent on that business at any moment.” 
 
 James P. Stanton, another lieutenant on duty that evening, 
 was about four feet from where the bomb fell. “ !No shot was fired to 
 my knowledge before the explosion of the bomb. I cannot swear from 
 whom the firing began first, the police or the crowd.” 
 
 H. F. Kkeuger, police officer, also heard someone cry out: 
 “ Here they are now, the bloodhounds.” He “ should judge it was the 
 speaker on the wagon; would not be positive, though. To the com¬ 
 mand by Ward I heard the man on the wagon respond: ‘We are 
 peaceable.’ It was this man that spoke (pointing out Fielden.) He 
 stood at the south end of the wagon.” This is the third position in 
 which Fielden was seen while saying three words ! Kreuger further 
 contradicts Quinn. He said: “ He stepped down from the wagon and 
 
 passed right to my right behind the wagon and in a moment the bomb 
 fell behind me. Then I saw a pistol in his hand and he fired two shots 
 at the column of police, taking cover behind the wagon.” He also 
 added upon cross-examination: “ At the time Fielden was down on 
 
 the ground off the wagon, the bomb had not exploded. It was two or 
 three seconds after. I did not hear any pistol fired before the bomb 
 exploded. I don’t know that Fielden fired from the wagon. I did not 
 see the blaze of a pistol from the wagon before he got off. There was 
 another man in front of me. Fielden was standing a little north of 
 the south end of the wagon.” 
 
 John Weslee, an officer, was standing right behind Kreuger. 
 After he had shot twice he “ saw Mr. Fielden stand at the middle of 
 the south end of the wagon, and I noticed before I got there a man 
 who would not stand up, and who would shoot into the police and get 
 down behind the wheel. I went up and saw Mr. Fielden was there, 
 and he got up a second time and shot into the police, and he gOt down 
 by the wheel of the wagon, and as he did I shot him and hejell nndex 
 the wagon. Then I ran and left -him. ’ ’ 
 
THE EVIDENCE FOE THE PROSECUTION. 
 
 75 
 
 At tke date of trial this veracious witness was “ on detedtive ser¬ 
 vice.” He admitted that he didn’t “ know at the time who this man 
 was, that I shot at the wagon, I am positive now it was Fielden; ” and 
 further that he might have seen pictures of Fielden in the paper be¬ 
 fore identifying him! 
 
 Peter Foley followed. Another position was discovered for the 
 ubiquitous Fielden by this brother detective. He saw Wessler fire a 
 shot at a man lying under the wagon; the man was under the wagon 
 at the time the shot was fired.” To be more precise he added: “ The 
 man at whom Wessler fired was lying under the body of the wagon, 
 between the fore and hind wheels.” 
 
 Whether Mr. Fielden was on the wagon, getting down from the 
 wagon, on the sidewalk, back— not quite behind the wagon, in the center 
 of the rear, or under the wagon when he was severally recognized, we 
 need not concern ourselves, as no two agree. The wonder remains that 
 Inspector Bonfield, who saw him descend in obedience to the order 
 before the bomb was thrown, and to whom Mr. Fielden addressed the 
 remark “We are peaceable” while within touching distance of each 
 other, and who was admittedly the nearest witness, should have failed 
 to discover the murderous weapon aimed “directly at him,” simul¬ 
 taneously, from so many points of the compass ! 
 
 Having settled Fielden’s fate on the above evidence, Spies is impli¬ 
 cated in the murder of Officer Degan by the introduction of the next 
 witness, Luther Moulton, of Grrand Eapids, Mich. He announced 
 himself as a patent solicitor and mechanical expert, and, through some 
 occult cause, an officer in the Knights of Labor. He met August Spies 
 in Grand Eapids on February 22, 1885, where he came to lecture. 
 Though the seven other defendants objected, Mr. Moulton proceeded 
 to unfold the following fearful tale: 
 
 “ Spies Was introduced to me as a prominent leader of the Social¬ 
 ists of Chicago by Mr. Tandler. Tandler requested me to introduce 
 Spies at the meeting that was to follow that day. Spies stated that 
 the organization which he represented was for the purpose of reorgan¬ 
 izing society upon a more equitable basis, that the laboring man might 
 have a better and a fairer division of the products of his labor. I re¬ 
 marked that the ballot-box and the legislation of the country were the 
 proper means to resort to. He expressed no confidence in such meth¬ 
 ods, and that force and arms was the only way in which the result 
 could be accomplished ■; that they were prepared for such a demonstra¬ 
 tion in Chicago and aE the commercial centers of the country; that 
 they had about three thousand men organized in Chicago; they had 
 superior means of warfare; they wonld rapidly ^in accession to their 
 
76 the evidence FOR THE PROSECUTION. 
 
 ranks if they were successful, from the laboring men to whom they 
 would hold out inducements; demonstrations would be made, and 
 laboring men would be idle in large numbers; they thought the coun¬ 
 try would fall in line, because they would be able to propagate their 
 ideas rapidly among the country people and satisfy them that they, 
 were improving the condition of society. He thought there 
 bloodshed, for that happened frequently in the case of revolution, that 
 might be a punishable crime if it failed, but if a success it would be a 
 revolution; George Washington would have been punished had he 
 failed No details were given in regard to the means or mode of war¬ 
 fare I am quite certain the term ‘explosives’ was used in connec¬ 
 tion with arms, but nothing very definite. The conversation lasted 
 about half an hour. ^ ^ presided at the meeting at which 
 
 Spies spoke, and introduced him.” _ j 
 
 Upon’this valuable piece of information connecting the eight de¬ 
 fendants with the murder of Officcv Began, the cross-exammation 
 elicited the following: 
 
 “ I first communicated this narrative to Mr. James H. Bonfield a 
 few days ago at Grand Eapids. I was^ furnished with the means to 
 come here by the Grand Eapids police. ^ 
 
 Another man was also brought on to corroborate Mr. Moulton b 
 
 terrible tale. ^ • ttT 
 
 Lieut. James Bowler did not recognize anybody firing. 1 says 
 to my men: ‘Fire, and kill all you can.’” He fired nine shots. 
 “ Saw no one, either in the wagon or getting out of the wagon,^ do any 
 
 firing. JsawMr.Fielden coming off the wagon very plainly.” 
 
 Officer L. C. Baumann thought he could swear he saw Fielden 
 fire the historic shot from the sidewalk, right behind the hind wheel. 
 “Saw him fire only once. There were a couple of hundred people 
 there. The men in my company had broken ranks after that bomb¬ 
 shell had exploded.” 
 
 Q. How did you know it was Fielden then ? 
 
 A. Well, I simply asked who that man was that fired the shot, 
 ■and so they told me it was Fielden. 
 
 Q. Who told you it was Fielden that fired the shot? 
 
 A. Some of the officers. I have seen Fielden’s picture in the 
 
 paper.” 
 
 Officer Hanley also saw Fielden by one of the wheels of the truck' 
 in the street, with a revolver. He saw one shot go, and just as he found 
 time to think of his revolver saw him rush for the alley. 
 
 Mr. J. K. Magie then testified to attending a meeting where Spies 
 and Fielden had spoken and advocated force. He had advocated the 
 
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 
 
 77 
 
 ballot, and incidentally mentioned that Spies alluded to him as “a 
 political vagabond.” Could not swear, notwithstanding, that either 
 had used the word “ dynamite.” 
 
 Thomas Gkief, proprietor of 54 West Lake street, where the alleged 
 “ conspiracy” was planned, next took the stand. His saloon, on the 
 ground floor, had been closed by the city since May 5. He rented 
 the basement for a meeting on Monday, May 3, simply because his 
 upper halls were all engaged. He had occasion to go down stairs to 
 tap beer, and saw some twenty-five or thirty people there. The stair¬ 
 way leading from the saloon to the basement was open; no door to shut 
 it off; there were no curtains before the windows; no attempt at con¬ 
 cealment. 
 
 John E. Doyle, an ofiicer injured at the meeting by a piece of the 
 bomb, heard a man jump from the wagon and shout: “ Now is your 
 
 time, now is your time ! ” He was looking at the man and knows he 
 did not shoot. He thought the man resembled Fielden. 
 
 Officer Spierling saw Fielden fire a shot from the sidewalk, behind 
 the wagon, where he never could have reached the alley Officer Hanley 
 saw him so distinctly rushing for. The only other noteworthy remark 
 he offered was: “ After he shot I paid no attention to him.” 
 
 Detective James Bonfield followed, the same who unearthed the 
 historian Moulton, of Grand Eapids. Was formerly bailiff and assist¬ 
 ant jailer. Arrested Spies and Schwab on May 5. Eeturned to the 
 Arbeiter-Zeitung office several times—three times. On some of his later 
 visits was successful in finding “a small piece of fuse, a fulminating 
 cap and a large double-action revolver. * * * l never saw the cap 
 used for anything except dynamite and nitro-glycerine. I have used it 
 in mines for that purpose.” There was also paraded a box of empty 
 Winchester rifle shells. On the evening of the 5th took some reporters 
 down to interview Spies and Fielden, while he listened. In Fischer’s 
 house he had found an empty piece of gas-pipe about three or three and 
 a half feet, which dangerous article was at once confiscated. “ On my 
 fourth visit I took away a lot of red flags and such stuff as that. * * 
 Twenty or twenty-one compositors were arrested during that day. We 
 had no search-warrant when any of these things were taken. We 
 searched Spies and took the personal effects away from him. I took 
 Mr. Spies, keys out of his pocket—everything I found, little slips of 
 paper and everything I found. 1 had no warrant for anything of that 
 kind. * * * I -went down with the reporters about eight or nine 
 o’clock. Spies, Schwab and Fielden were in separate cells. Spies said 
 the action taken at the Haymarket was premature; it was done by a 
 hot-head that could not wait long enough. I cannot use the words; 
 
78 
 
 THE EVIDENCE FOE THE PEOSECUTION. 
 
 that is the sentimeni and perhaps the words. Fielden said the police 
 came np there to disperse them, and they had no business to. He 
 claimed that they had a right to talk and say what they please under 
 the Constitution, and they should not be interfered with. I don’t think 
 it was ever questioned that the meeting was a peaceable and quiet 
 meeting. I don’t think that he ever claimed that it was quiet or dis¬ 
 orderly. The fulminating cap which I found did not look fresh and 
 bright; it looked as though it might have laid there for a long while. 
 When Chief of Police Ebersold came into the office at the central sta¬ 
 tion he was quite excited, and talked to Spies and Schwab in German 
 and made motions, and I got between them, and I told him this was 
 not the time or place to act that way. I took the liberty to quiet him 
 down a little. He used a word which I understood to compare a man 
 to a dog, or something lower” 
 
 Considerable time was then consumed in hearing testimony rela¬ 
 tive to the character of the crowd of strikers at McCormick s who were 
 addressed by Mr. Spies on the 3d of May. Policemen and others gave 
 evidence that while Mr. Spies was speaking some called out to go and 
 kill the “ damn scabs,” but none stated that Spies was the man, but 
 that it was a different man. None testified that Spies indorsed the cry 
 or ceased speaking. The evident object of this testimony was to 
 lead the jury to infer that but for Spies’ speech that cry might not 
 have been made. 
 
 Officer Enright stated that the police fired as soon as they heard 
 shots but “ could not state exactly whether the police had fired before 
 I heard these shots.” Further: ” I personally fired five shots. The 
 firing was pretty general from the men under my command. Some of 
 my men were hit with rocks, hit not one of them shot” 
 
 Captain Ward, who gave the order to disperse at the Haymarket 
 meeting, and who stood,beside Inspector Bonfield when Fielden said: 
 
 “ We are peaceable,” followed. He was close enough to the wagon to 
 “ almost touch it ” and Fielden was facing him. “ There was no pistol 
 firing of any kind by anybody before the explosion of the bomb.” 
 
 Officers testified to arresting Fischer and finding on him a revol¬ 
 ver, a belt having “ L. & W. V.” on the buckle and containing a dirk. 
 In excuse Mr. Fischer is said to have alleged that he carried arms 
 because he often carried sums of money in returning home late at 
 night. 
 
 In Fielden s house no munitions of war of any kind ” were to 
 be found. 
 
 Theodore Fricke, business manager of the Arheiter-Zeitung, was 
 called by the State for the purpose of identifying the handwriting of 
 
THE EVIDENCE EOR THE PEOSEGUTION. 79 
 
 copy ” found in the office. He testified thait the manuscript of the 
 "word “Euhe” was in Spies’ handwriting. The call “ T ” was in the 
 handwriting of Mr. Eau. He reeidily identified the ” Eevenge circu¬ 
 lar” as from the pen of Mr. Spies. Editorial matter was identified as 
 from Spies or Schwab. He narrated glibly to what “ groups ” of the 
 International the several defendants belonged ; some by knowledge, 
 some by “guess.” Established for the State the fact that Most’s 
 book on “ Eevolutionary Warfare ” had been sold at their picnics and 
 was at the office. Further, that Parsons and Fielden were often 
 present at meetings where this book in German, of which neither 
 could even read the title, was sold; though none of the defendants, 
 it was elicited, had anything to do with the sale. After which grate¬ 
 ful task he retired. 
 
 William* Seliger, co-respondent with the defendants, and who 
 secured his liberty by offering to turn State’s evidence, now comes on 
 the scene. His testimony is that of a man swearing to save his life, 
 and who undoubtedly believed that immunity depended upon the 
 character of his evidence against his former associates. He is a car¬ 
 penter and Louis Lingg boarded with him. He was not at the 
 Monday night meeting. In explanation of the “ Y ” call for armed 
 men he said: “ The armed men were divers ones, all the Sociahstic 
 organizations,” of which there were several. On Tuesday he did not 
 work at his trade, but did “ diligently at some bombs.” Lingg kept 
 urging him on to more diligence. Three others were helping, and there 
 were thirty ,or forty or fifty bombs made that afternoon, which Lingg 
 declared were going to be good fodder for the capitalists and the 
 police, when they came to protect the capitalists; “ nothing was said 
 about when they wanted the bombs completed or ready.” 
 
 In the evening he and Lingg filled a small trunk with bombs and 
 carried it to Clybourn avenue, a long distance away from the Hay- 
 market. He stated that Lingg after leaving the hall and his comrades 
 there, expressed to him alone “ that there should be made a disturbance 
 everywhere on the North Side to keep the police from going over to the 
 West Side. In front of the Larrabee Street station Lingg said it might 
 be a beautiful thing if we would walk over and throw one or two bombs 
 into the station. There were two policemen sitting in front of the 
 station, and Lingg said that if the others came out these two couldn’t 
 ^do much. We could shoot these two down.” After which brilliant 
 suggestion, made a/ter depositing his bombs, they went on and instead 
 indulged in beer. He alsO' testified that a little later Lingg saw a 
 patrol wagon and becoming " quite wild, excited” wanted a match as 
 he had none. Witness was smoking a cigar, and “ jumped into a front 
 
80 
 
 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 
 
 opening before a store and lighted a match, as if I intended to light 
 a cigar, so I could not give him a light,” (!) After this demonstration 
 of his inability to furnish a light the fellow bomb makers passed on. 
 Lingg wanted to follow the wagon to see what had happened, thinking 
 something might have happened on the West Side. (The Haymarket 
 was on the West Side fully two miles distant.) Finally he went 
 home with Seliger, arriving there at eleven o’clock, where Lingg first 
 saw the word “ Ruhe ” in the columns of the Arheiter-Zeitung, which he 
 explained to his innocent fellow conspirator to mean “that everything 
 was to go topsy turvy, that there was to be trouble.” 
 
 Later they returned to the hall on Clybourn avenue, where there 
 were several persons present, and perhaps owing to this circumstance, 
 “ did not speak with Lingg ” there. After some further testimony re¬ 
 lative to the purchase of more dynamite, and the manner of makmg 
 bombs, witness was turned over to the defense for cross-examination, 
 their motion to exclude this witness on behalf of all defendants other 
 than Lingg having been overruled. 
 
 When first arrested he made a partial statement, “ but nOt all 
 that I have testified to-day.” Made statements three times; “in the 
 first statement I had not said much; I had done no work, earned no 
 money ” Admitted receiving from Capt. Schaack once a dollar and a 
 half, at another time five dollars. After he had made his third and 
 fuller statement Capt. Schaack “ told me that it would be best if I 
 would tell the truth, and asked me whether I would tell the truth before 
 the court, and I said yes.” Upon further questioning he admitted 
 that “it was not understood or agreed between me and other men 
 who had the bombs that night at Clybourn avenue, that any one of us 
 was to go to the Haymarket meeting. I know that Capt. Shaack paid 
 my wife money at different times since my arrest; I don’t know how 
 much; I think $20 or $25. * * * I did not hear anything about 
 an agreement that any of the bombs manufactured on the afternoon 
 of May 4th were to be taken by anybody to the Haymarket.” Did not 
 know of a single bomb made for use at the Haymarket, nor who were 
 .expected to be there. 
 
 Mrs. Seliger affirmed her husband’s testimony as to Lingg’s 
 “ diligence ” in the work of casting, filling and riveting bombs, using 
 her cook stove to her great annoyance. She admitted telling all when 
 locked up; that Capt. Schaack paid her rent besides giving money. 
 Comment on this singular and self-contradictory story may well be de¬ 
 ferred till we come to sum up the whole testimony. 
 
 A reporter named Williamson was introduced who had seen a 
 public procession of Socialists in Chicago the year before, upon occa- 
 
THE EVIDENCE FOE THE PROSECUTION. 81 
 
 sion of the grand banquet given at the opening of the new Board of 
 Trade. With his own eyes he saw several red flags and banners there 
 and actually beheld Parsons, Spies and Fielden in sympathy with and 
 addressing the crowd. The point of the testimony was that the wit¬ 
 ness stated the speakers called the police bloodhounds and called upon 
 the “ mob to follow in an assault on Marshall Field’s dry goods house 
 and various clothing houses,” etc. He called at the Arbeiter-Zeitung 
 office to obtain a sensational interview and was fully gratified. Mr. 
 Parsons and Mr. Spies gratified his love for the marvelous by exhibit¬ 
 ing a veritable, yet solitary, “ dynamite cartridge,” or rather, “what 
 they told me was ” such. After exhibiting dynamite in the raw state, 
 a coil of fuse and witnessing the explosion of a fulminating cap, all 
 exhibited for the purpose of convincing a stranger and a repoiier that 
 “they were preparing for a fight for their rights” our credulous if 
 veracious pencil pusher went down stairs, “ where I met ” two detec¬ 
 tives, who of course would substantiate his terrible tale. Frequently 
 during the winter months of 1884 and 1885 he attended their meetings 
 and learned “ that five cents’ worth of dynamite carried around in the 
 vest pocket would do more good than all the revolvers and pistols in the 
 world.” These meetings, he said, were always public. He heard 
 proposals to sack clothing houses “ at every single meeting,” though 
 he admitted that the “mob” gathered in halls averaged not “over 
 twenty-five present,” and always “ quie+ly disposed.” Yet even when 
 only “ten men ” were present the same proposal was invariably made. 
 He admits that “ both Parsons and Fielden knew me as a reporter at 
 the time ” of the first interview, on which occasion “ there was nobody 
 present! ” 
 
 Fred. L. Buck electrified the jury with an account of the explo¬ 
 sive power of some dynamite, “ which I received from the detectives’ 
 office.” 
 
 Several police officers testified to hearing dire threats against the 
 police in public meetings where all were free to go in. Officer Jones 
 directly contradicted other witnesses as to the finding of the dynamite 
 in the Arbeiter-Zeitung office; the advocate of seeing it found on the 
 second and third floors being equally positive under oath. 
 
 Several detectives swore positively to finding dynamite, differing, 
 however, as to its location. 
 
 John J. Eyan, a retired army officer, attended several meetings 
 and heard advice given to purchase rifles and dynamite for other pur¬ 
 poses than “ civilized warfare,” as their objective aim was the police 
 rather than foreign enemies. He admitted the “lake front meetings ” 
 were always public and a “policeman was usually around there.” 
 
82 the evidence FOR THE PROSECUTION. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson, a city reporter, gave a thrilling description of Mr. 
 Spies showing him a “ czar bomb,” and giving him a full description 
 of how the revolution was to be inaugurated in the absence of leaders, 
 and other tales, and he “ wrote them up the first opportunity.” He 
 quoted Spies as saying that they had 9,000 bombs and a company of 
 “tall men who could throw a five-pound bomb fifty paces.” He 
 added: “ I did not believe all Spies said; 1 believed about half of it. 
 The article written by me is wound up by the suggestion that when 
 dressed to cold facts it was like a scare-crow flapping in the com field; 
 
 I did not write that; that was edited by some one who told me he did 
 not believe as much of the matter as I did.” Before Judge Gary, Spies’ 
 jokes became very solemn facts. 
 
 Franz Hein, a saloon-keeper, was sworn to connect Neebe with 
 the conspiracy, which was done by stating that Neebe actually showed 
 to him, on the evening of May 3, the “ Revenge Circular.” In speak¬ 
 ing of the McCormick affair Neebe said: “ It is a shame that police 
 act that way, but may be the time comes that it goes the other way— 
 that they get the chance, too.” “ He didn’t say anything about the 
 circular, he only showed it to me. He said: ‘ That is just printed 
 now,’ when he came in; was in five or ten minutes and went out.” 
 
 At this stage the platform of the International Working Peoples’ 
 Association and John Most’s “ Science of Warfare ” were submitted 
 in translation, and Edward Olsen testified to their correctness. The 
 defense objected to their introduction as evidence (1) because the 
 platform had never been published editorially by the defendants; (2) 
 that it had no connection with the death of Mr. Began; (3) that 
 Most’s book had no relevancy to this case ; (4) that the proper object 
 of the trial is not to prove that certain men are Socialists or Anarch¬ 
 ists, but who threw the bomb. 
 
 The State’s attorney maintained that the platform was advocated 
 by the defendants, and that Most’s book was sold at their meetings, , 
 therefore they were admissible as evidence against them for the mur- : 
 der of Mr. Began under the statutes. The court thereupon ruled as j 
 follows: 
 
 “ I have no doubt but what it is competent. The circumstances 
 may be significant or not, depending on the surroundings; whether it is 
 significant or not it is for the jury to determine from the surroundings 
 which come before them. Whether the defendants or any of them j 
 were intending to have a mob kill people, and were teaching them hoy 
 to kill people, is a question which this jury is to find out from the evi¬ 
 dence. And these two translations are admissible upon the investiga¬ 
 tion of that question.” ■' 
 
THE EVIDENCE FOE THE PEOSECUTION. 
 
 83 
 
 Whereupon the conservative middle-class jury were edified with 
 the reading of the two translations in question by the prosecution, 
 the reader losing no opportunity to give due emphasis to any part 
 calculated to strike the jury and inflame them against the defendants. 
 
 Gustav Lehmann was present at the meeting of Monday night on 
 May 3, and testified that he got at the meeting late, but on suggestion 
 stood at the door to see that those not interested should not remain 
 and listen. He did not see Lingg at the meeting, but did afterwards, 
 “ we had a little quarrel." “ Lingg came up to us from behind, on the 
 sidewalk, and said to us, ‘ You are all oxen, fools ! ’ ” Lingg said, “ if 
 I wanted to know something I should come to 58 Clybourn avenue the 
 next morning.” At 3 o’clock the next day—May 4—he quit work 
 and went to Lingg’s, arriving there about 5 o’clock, remaining about 
 ten minutes. “ They did some work in the bed-room. I couldn’t 
 understand what they were doing. I did not work at anything. Lingg 
 and Huebner had a cloth tied around their faces.” At about 7 o’clock 
 witness returned to Lingg’s and found them “ still busy in the bed¬ 
 room,” making fuse and caps. Although he “couldn’t understand 
 what they were doing,” still, “that afternoon Lingg gave me a small 
 hand-satchel, with a tin box in it, and three round bombs, and two 
 coils of fuse and some caps.” These he took home “ to the wood¬ 
 shed, got up at three o’clock that night and carried them away to the 
 prairie” and hid them; but “ afterwards went to the prairie a 
 detective about May 19th or 20th to find the things that Lingg had 
 given me.” 
 
 He had attended in March a ball of the Carpenters’ Union, where 
 about ten dollars was realized from the sale of beer, which by resolu¬ 
 tion was handed over to Lingg with the instruction to buy dynamite 
 with it and* experiment with it to find out how it was used. He also 
 presided over a meeting at which Engel spoke and made the “ treason¬ 
 able” suggestion that dynamite was cheaper than revolvers, and ex¬ 
 plained how it could be made a weapon. Said meeting “was a public, 
 open-door meeting.” Had seen the call “ Y” before; was a member of 
 the “ armed section.” 
 
 Clakence E. Dkessee, a reporter, was present when the demon¬ 
 stration was made against the festival upon the opening of the Board 
 of Trade, which was intended, “ in their language, to carry terror to 
 the capitalistic heart. I asked Spies what was the object of the dem¬ 
 onstration. He said, ‘ We ought to blow the institution up,’ and made 
 some reference to the character of the people that did business there.” 
 He also testified to hearing Persons and Fielden denounce the capital¬ 
 ists, express a desire to see them “blown to hell,” and a wish “that 
 
84 THE EVIDENCE FOE THE PEOSECDTION. 
 
 the workingmen rouse up and arm themselves and meet their oppres¬ 
 sors, with weapons—meet them face to^face, and consider that they 
 
 were to be treated in the same manner.” 
 
 Much of such testimony was introduced that space will not permit 
 to give in full In the opinion of the court it was legitimate to prove 
 that the prisoners were opposed to the present order of society to estab¬ 
 lish that whoever threw the bomb must have acted upon their teach¬ 
 ing, and consequently under the lawthey could be found guilty as con¬ 
 spirators, though they were ignorant of who did that act. At the Board 
 of Trade demonstration some of the defendants gathered all the poor, 
 unemployed “tramps,” etc., they could collect and marched them 
 through the city to show the degree of prosperity existing, which was 
 
 being toasted in champagne within. 
 
 T L. Trbhorn, police officer, was on duty where said demonstra¬ 
 tion hkltk for speeches. He said: “ Parsons characterized the Board 
 of Trade as a rohhers' roost and den ; that they were reveling in the pro¬ 
 ceeds of the workingmen. He said: ‘ How many of my hearers could 
 give twenty dollars for a supper to-night ? ’ The invitations there were 
 twenty dollars, I believe. He says, ‘We will never gain anything by 
 argument or words. The only way to convince these capitalists and 
 robbers is to use the gun and dynamite.’ Fielden said the Board of 
 Trade was the largest gambling house in the world; that they were 
 dabbling in money, the proceeds of the workingmen ; that they raised 
 the price of food to such an exorbitant price that they cannot live,” 
 etc., etc. Another detective told virtually the same story, and to wit¬ 
 nessing the conversation between Spies and Williamson in which ffie 
 latter was told a “ ghost story” by Spies, and saw the dynamite, which 
 “looked like red sand,” and for all he knew might have been such. 
 
 Moriz Neff kept a saloon at 58 Clybourn avenue, where Seliger 
 testified Lingg and he left a trunk of bombs. He said that back of the 
 saloon was a hall. The North-Side group used to meet there. “ On 
 the night when the bomb was thrqwn I was at my saloon. Louis Lingg 
 came in company with Seliger and another man whom I had not seen 
 before. This stranger carried the satchel. It was a common bag, 
 about a foot and a half long and six inches wide. He put it on the 
 counter, after that on the floor. Lingg and Seliger were standing by, 
 and Lingg asked me if , some one had asked for him. That stranger, 
 whose name I afterward found out to be Muensenberger, carried the 
 satchel on his shoulder. That was ten or fifteen minutes after eight. 
 I told Lingg that nobody had inquired after him. * * * I saf 
 
 Lingg and Seliger again that night about eleven o’clock. Nobody had 
 in the meantime inquired for Lingg. I saw Huebner there before 
 
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 85 
 
 Lingg came. * * * Before Lingg and Seliger came back about 
 
 eleven o’clock several individuals had come into the saloon. Lingg 
 and Seliger dropped in a little later. They were all talking together. 
 I didn’t pay much attention to it. I heard one of them holloa out very 
 loud, ‘ That’s all your fault.’ I heard them also say that the bomb had 
 been thrown among the police and some of them had been killed; they 
 came from the meeting.” He also testified that Engel addressed a 
 group in his hall in the preceding February. Engel wanted money for 
 a new paper, The Anarchist, of which he was the editor, and gave a 
 sketch of revolutionary history in the old country, and “ stated that 
 the nobility of France were only forced to give up their privileges by 
 brute force; that the slaveholders in the South were compelled by 
 force to liberate their slaves, and the present wage slavery would be 
 done away with only by force, also; and he advised them to arm them¬ 
 selves, and if guns were too dear for them they should use cheaper 
 weapons—dynamite, or anything they could get hold of to fight the 
 enemy. To make bombs, anything that was hollow—in the shape of 
 gas-pipes, would do.” 
 
 Witness identified a copy of The Anarchist. 
 
 CHAPTEE VII. 
 
 EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.-(Con’d.) 
 
 On the 24th day of July the first witness called was George B. 
 Miller, a lieutenant in the Chicago fire department. He testified to 
 finding three bombs under a plank sidewalk some indefinite time after 
 May 4. 
 
 Next followed a lawyer who undertook to report the substance of 
 a public speech by Fielden on the lake front, in which he understood 
 the speaker to advocate the “ equality of possession.” 
 
 W. M. Knox, one of the reporters who interviewed Spies on the 
 night of May 5 in the presence of Detective Bonfield, said: “ Spies 
 asked us what the coroner’s jury had done. We told him that they 
 had held him to the grand jury, without bail, on the charge of murder. 
 He said he didn’t understand how they could do that; he had nothing 
 to do with throwing the bomb; he did not want to go to the Haymarket 
 meeting, and when he got there he didn’t want to make a speech. He 
 said he told Schwab so. He made a quieting speech; told the people 
 that the time had not come for action; they should keep thoroughly 
 organized and be prepared for the time when action should be neces- 
 
86 THE EVID^INCE FOE THE PEOSECUTtON. 
 
 sary He said he didn’t know where the ‘Bevenge’ circular was 
 printed, neither where the circular calling the Haymarket meeting was 
 printed'- that some one had come to the of&ce and showed-him one of 
 the latter circulars in the afternoon. He saw the sentence in the hand¬ 
 bill calling upon workingmen to come armed to the meeting. He in¬ 
 sisted that it should be taken out, and he had the man go and take it 
 out. When the bomb exploded he went to Zepf’s hall. The explosion 
 of the bomb was a surprise to him; he thought the police had opened 
 on the crowd with artillery. Some one there told him that a bomb had 
 exploded. He stayed there a short time and then went home. He said 
 he had a couple of giant-powder cartridges and some dynamite in the 
 office for the purpose of showing them to reporters; that was aU the 
 dynamite in the office that he knew about, Schwab said he had writ¬ 
 ten of late the greater part of the editorials, and that he had urged 
 workingmen to arm, but never urged them to use dynamite. Fielden 
 said he belonged to the American group, and that it met at the Arheiter- 
 Zeitung office on the night of May 4 for the purpose of organizing the 
 sewing girls into a union. There he heard of the Haymarket meeting 
 and went over there.” 
 
 He said Spies said he could prove by a number of persons that he 
 didn’t want to go to the meeting, and disapproved of it. “ I think 
 Spies said: ‘ If I had known how the meeting would have resulted, 
 
 I would have prevented it at all hazards.’ Fielden said he didn’t 
 know anything about who threw the bomb; they all said that. 
 
 John Aschenbkenner, the assistant foreman of the Arbeiter-Zei- 
 tung, under Fischer, testified to the setting up of the “Bevenge” circular. 
 On the morning of May 5, between eight and nine, Fischer said he 
 had to go out. “ Fischer said, I believe, that his wife was sick, and 
 he went home. After coming back I found, while I looked for a shoot¬ 
 ing stick and mallet in the drawer underneath the stone that I was 
 working at, a revolver and a belt of the L. & W. V. I asked him to 
 take that away, so as not to get anybody into trouble who does not 
 use any arms, as I was working at the place ; and Mr. Fischer took 
 the revolver and the belt and went off, and while going doivn he teas 
 arrested and taken back.” 
 
 Hermann Podeva, a compositor on the Arheiter-Zeitung, worked 
 on the “Bevenge” circular. The word “revenge” was not on the copy. 
 He put in that word. 
 
 Lawrence Hardy, a reporter, attended a public meeting of 
 McCormicks’ employes on March 12th, at which Spies, Fielden and 
 Parsons made speeches. Fielden is reported to have said: “ We are 
 told that we must attain our ends or aims by obeying law and order. 
 
THE EVIDENCE FOE THE PEOSECUTION. 
 
 87 
 
 Damn law and order. We have obeyed law and order long enough. 
 The time has come for you men to strangle the law or the law will 
 strangle you. What you should do is to organize, and march up the 
 Black road and take possession of McCormick’s factory; it belongs to 
 you and not to him. You made it.” Parsons called on workingmen 
 “to assert their rights,” and made the horrifying declaration that 
 capitalists had “ ground the workingmen under their heel and had 
 robbed them for years past; ” he also “ abused the Pinkerton men 
 and he advised them to get their rights, by force, in some way.” 
 
 The most sensational feature of the day was the appearance on 
 the stand of Andrew C. Johnson, a detective on the Pinkerton force, 
 who became a member of the “American Group” at “the instance 
 of the detective agency, and made a report of what I heard and saw 
 in writing.” On February 22, 1885, at a meeting of the group, “Par¬ 
 sons stated that the reason the meeting had been called in that locality 
 was to give the merchant princes that resided there an opportunity to 
 attend and hear what the Communists had to say about the distribu¬ 
 tion of wealth. ‘ I want you all to unite together and throw off the 
 yoke; we need no President, no congressmen, no police and no militia, 
 and no judges. They are all leeches, sucking the blood of the poor, 
 who have to support them all by their labor. I say to you rise one 
 and all, and let us exterminate them all; woe to the police or militia 
 whom they will send against us.’ ” 
 
 At a meeting on March 4, “ a stranger present gave a lecture; he 
 introduced Christianity. Spies said: ‘ We don’t want Christianity 
 in our meetings at all. We have told you so before.’ ” Nothing more 
 sanguinary was reported on that occasion. 
 
 On March 22d, Spies spoke. “ Previously a man named Bishop 
 introduced a resolution of sympathy for a girl named Sorrel; the girl 
 had been assaulted by a master; she had applied for a warrant which 
 had been refused her on account of the high social standing of her 
 master. Spies said what was the use of passing resolutions. ‘ We 
 must act and revenge the girl. Here was a line opportunity for some 
 of our young men to go and shoot Wight.’ Tha,t was the man whom 
 this young girl was said to have been assaulted by.” This was all the 
 detective had to report of that meeting. 
 
 On March 29th, Fielden said: “A few explosives in the city of 
 Chicago would help the work considerably; there is the new board of 
 trade, a roost of thieves and robbers, we ought to commence by blow¬ 
 ing that up.” At the meeting of April 1, Spies “ referred to a case of 
 Martha Siedel, a girl who had preferred a charge of assault against 
 the police sergeant, Patten. Spies said he had advised the girl to get 
 
88 
 
 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 
 
 a pistol and go and shoot the policeman. Fielden said that is what 
 she ought to do.” 
 
 On April 8th Parsons spoke, and referring to a strike at LaSalle, 
 Ill., said that the next day “the authorities will probably send a train 
 loaded with police and militia to shoot down the workingmen there.” 
 He proposed the following blood-curdling advice: “ AU you have got 
 
 to do is to get some soap and place it on the rails and the train will be 
 unable to move,” and urged organization. 
 
 On April 19th Parsons offered a resolution of sympathy for Louis 
 Eeil and the half-breeds in the northwest. 
 
 In all the above cases I have given, somewhat condensed, every¬ 
 thing that the detective could report of a “ revolutionary character.” 
 It would be useless to encumber pages with a mere repetition of such 
 reports. In the remainder only the most violent expressions of the 
 defendants will be given. 
 
 On April 26th Parsons said: “I wish you all to consider the con¬ 
 dition of the working classes, the cause of which are these institutions 
 and government. I lived on snow-balls aU last winter, but, by God, 
 I will not do it this winter.” Various remarks are reported in which 
 the necessity of arming was urged. 
 
 On the 24th of August he was present where “a man armed with 
 a long cavalry sword, dressed in a blue blouse, wearing a slouch 
 hat, came into the room. He ordered all those present to fall in. He 
 then called off, certain names, and all those present answered to their 
 names. He then inquired whether there were any new members who 
 wished to join the military company. Myself and two others did so.” 
 Whereupon a drill took place. The remainder of this testimony is of 
 the same character, identifying Parsons, Spies, Fielden and Schwab 
 as frequently advocating the use of force and dynamite. 
 
 On the occasion of the drill “ a man whose name I do not know, 
 came into the room with two tin boxes, which he placed on the table. 
 The drill instructor asked us to examine them, as they were the latest 
 improved dynamite bomb. They were about in size and had the ap¬ 
 pearance of ordinary preserve fruit cans, the top part unscrewed; the 
 inside of the cans were filled with a light brown mixture. There was 
 also a small glass tube inserted in the center of the can. The tube 
 was in connection with a screw, and it was explained that when the 
 can was thrown against any hard substance it would explode. The 
 inside of the glass tube was a liquid.” 
 
 Upon cross-examination he stated: “ I was a police officer at 
 Lancastershire, England, for eight years, three years out of that a 
 detective. I have been a detective ever since, pretty nearly. * * 
 
THE EVIDENCE FOE THE PKOSECUTION. 
 
 89 
 
 When I became a member of the American Group my antecedents 
 were not inquired into. The group is open to anybody who has got 
 ten cents and expresses a desires to come. I have sometimes seen 
 reporters excluded from the meetings, but nobody else. * •* * 
 
 There was no ushers at the meetings, but I have seen some of the 
 older members, when they saw strangers come, give up their own seats 
 and ask them to sit down. * * * i have never heard in 
 
 any of the meetings of an arrangement made or time fixed for the 
 blowing up of the board of trade building, or any other building in the 
 city of Chicago, or for the taking of the life of any one, or of the tak¬ 
 ing of any store in the city of Chicago. At the meeting on the night 
 of the opening of the new board of trade no violence was proposed in 
 any of the speeches that night; I heard of no proposal of violence of 
 any kind. I heard Parsons when he first got up and stated the object 
 of the meeting; I heard Fielden speak and Parsons when he replied, 
 and I was there when the procession moved. Parsons said that there 
 were the board of trade men sitting down to their twenty-doUar sup¬ 
 per while the poor workingmen had to starve. I never heard either 
 Parsons or Fielden or anybody else say they would go down there by 
 force and eat of that twenty-dollar supper. I was listening there all 
 the time.” 
 
 William H. Freeman, a reporter, testified to reporting speeches 
 made at the lake-front meetings. On one occasion Parsons said, 
 “ that if the workingmen were driven to starvation they would unfurl 
 the banner of liberty and equality and sweep e.verything before them, 
 sweep away all their oppressors. He said it very emphatically and 
 turned and shook his finger at the red banner that was hanging on the 
 platform. He urged the workingmen there to take up arms and by 
 that means right their wrongs. Spies spoke in German, which I do 
 not understand. Fielden claimed that all aggregation and accumula¬ 
 tion of property by individuals was wrong; that the workingmen had 
 a direct interest in everything that was produced and that they could 
 only be enabled to enjoy the fruits of their labor by the use of force.” 
 
 Was present at the Haymarket meeting. “ I remember Parsons 
 alluding to Jay Gould, that he was a robber, and about his vast accum¬ 
 ulations. Somebody in the crowd shouted out they would hang him 
 or throw him in the lake. Parsons said: ‘ No, not yet,’ if they did 
 another Jay Gould would pop up in his place like a jack in the box. 
 They must overturn the whole system by which Jay Gould was able to 
 secure the vast amount of money and power that he had secured, and 
 the way to do that was to use force, and he said, ‘ To arms ! To arms !’ 
 
90 
 
 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 
 
 a number of times during his remarks. The crowd applauded from 
 time to time the utterances of the speakers. 
 
 “ Fielden discussed legislation and congress. Martin Foran had 
 stated that no legislation could be enacted that could benefit the work¬ 
 ingman ; from that it was clear that it was impossible for the working¬ 
 man to obtain any sort of redress through legislation. They ought 
 no: to be fools enough to send such men as Martin Foran to congress 
 to legislate for them, when they admitted that there w'as no possibility 
 of doing anything that would redound any benefit to the workingman. 
 He compared the revolution proposed by the workingmen to the revo¬ 
 lution which established the government of this country, and that it 
 was equally as proper. He spoke of the law and of the oppressive 
 acts of capital which injured the workingmen, as being the result of 
 the law, and urged his hearers to overthrow the law, to kill it, stab it, 
 to throttle it. Those are about the last words I remember before the 
 arrival of the police. The police came up very quietly, and, standing 
 between the two wagons, I had no knowledge that they were on the 
 ground until the command to disperse was given. After hearing that 
 I stepped at once onto the sidewalk and started to go south towards 
 the police, and before I reached the south end of the wagon the bomb 
 was exploded. The explosion made a great noise, buf I saw no light 
 or fire. Immediately after the explosion the firing began, and I simply 
 crouched behind the wagon for a moment or two, and then went towards 
 the alley. (I saw that there wg,s no firing from there.) * * * I 
 
 crouched behind the speakers’ wagon. I was almost alone in the space 
 behind that wagon. I don’t know where the firing began first. * * * 
 
 “ I was within eight or ten feet of Fielden. I did not hear Fielden 
 say: ‘There come the bloodhounds now,’ or anything of that kind. 
 I did not hear him say: ‘ Now you do your duty and I will mine.’ I 
 know of nothing to prevent my hearing that remark if Mr. Fielden 
 had said it in a loud tone of voice before I was aware of the presence 
 of the police. * * * i g^w no shots fired from the wagon. I did 
 not see Mr. Fielden shoot as he jumped off the wagon. After the 
 bomb exploded the firing began. Who was firing? I don’t know, 
 except I presume the officers were. I saw the flashes near the police, 
 where the police were at that time.” 
 
 Joseph Gruenhut, inspector of the health department, was 
 present at the interview between Wilkinson and Spies. Mr. Wilkinson 
 asked how many members belonged to the military societies of organ¬ 
 ized trade and labor unions. Spies said there were many thousand; 
 that these organizations we:e open to everybody, and at meetings 
 people were asked to become members, but their names would not be 
 
THE EVIDENCE FOE THE PEOSECUTION. 
 
 91 
 
 known because they would be numbered, and they didn’t keep any 
 record of names. Mr. Spies laid some toothpicks on the table so as 
 to show the position of armed men on tops of houses, on street cor¬ 
 ners, and how they could keep a company of militia or police in check 
 by the use of dynamite bombs. The conversation was carried on in a 
 conversational tone, half joking. 
 
 “ At the time of the conversation, and the discussion over the 
 toothpicks there, no date was fixed when there was going to begin 
 trouble in Chicago. I didn’t hear in that conversation anything about 
 an attack to be made on the 1st of May.” “ Parsons and Spies, dur¬ 
 ing conversations within twelve months before the bomb was thrown, 
 said that arming meant the use of dynamite bombs by individuals; 
 all men should individually self-help, as against a squad of policemen 
 or company of militia, so that they need not be an army.” 
 
 Dr. F. H. Newman identified a nut and some fragments of metal 
 taken from wounded officers. 
 
 M. E. Dickson, a reporter, testified to conversations with some of 
 the defendants at a meeting on Twelfth street. “ Mr. Parsons made a 
 speech, during which he said that the degradation of labor was 
 brought about by what was known as the rights of private property,” 
 etc. Schwab “ said that the gap between the rich and poor was grow¬ 
 ing wider; that, although despotism in Eussia had endeavored to sup¬ 
 press Nihilism by executing some and sending others to Siberia, but 
 Nihilism was still growing. * * * That freedom in the United 
 States was a farce, and in Illinois was literally unknown; that both of 
 the political parties were corrupt, and what was needed here was a 
 bloody revolution which would right their wrongs. Spies said in Ger¬ 
 man that the workingmen should revolt at once; he had been accused 
 of giving this advice before, it was true, and he was proud of it; that 
 wage-slavery could only be abolished through powder and ball.” 
 
 “ Parsons said to me that when the social revolution came, it 
 would be better for all men, it would place every man on an equality* 
 He pictured me personally as a wage-slave, referring to my position 
 as a newspaper reporter, and that all reforms had to be brought about 
 through revolution, and bloodshed could not be avoided. Parsons 
 never expressed any distinct proposal to inaugurate the revolution at 
 any particular time, or by the use of any particular force. He simply 
 spoke of the social revolution as the inevitable future.” 
 
 Paul C. Hull, a reporter, was confident that on the evening of 
 Haymarket meeting, “the firing began from the crowd before the 
 police fired.” “ I saw arching through the air the sparks of the burn¬ 
 ing fuse; according to my recollection, it seemed to come from about 
 
92 
 
 THE evidence for THE PROSECUTION. 
 
 fifteen or twenty feet south of Crane’s alley, flying over the third 
 division of police and falling between the second and third. It seemed 
 to throw to the ground the second and third division of police. At 
 almost the same instant there was a rattling of shots that came from 
 both sides of the street and not from the police.” 
 
 Whiting Allen, a reporter, was also present at the Haymarket 
 meeting. Parsons “mentioned the name of Jay Gould; there were 
 cries from the crowd: ‘Hang Jay Gould, throw him into the lake,’ and 
 so on. He said, ‘ No, no, that would not do any good. If you would 
 hang Jay Gould now, there would be another and perhaps a hundred 
 up tomorrow. It don’t do any good to hang one man; you have to 
 kill them all, or get rid of them all.’ Then he went on to say that it 
 was not the individual, but the system; that the government should 
 be destroyed.” 
 
 Chaeles E. Tuttle, a reporter, was at the Haymarket meeting, 
 in company with the preceding witness. “ One man, I believe the 
 same one who had spoken when he referred to Gould, stuck up his 
 hand with a revolver in it and said: ‘We will shoot the devil,’or 
 some such expression, and I saw two others sticking up their hands, 
 near to him, who made similar expressions, and had what I took to be 
 at the time, revolvers.” 
 
 Edwaed Cosgrove, a detective, was present at the Haymarket 
 meeting. “ I reported at the station from time to time what was going 
 on at the meeting.” 
 
 Timothy McKeough, also “ on the detective force.” Both testified 
 to seeing Schwab at the meeting in the early portion of the evening. 
 “ Later I heard Mr. Parsons say, taking off his hat in one hand: ‘To 
 arms! to arms ! to arms ! ’ Then I went over to Desplaines street 
 station and reported to Inspector Bonfield. When I came back Fiel- 
 den was speaking. He criticised Martin Foran, the congressman 
 that was elected by the working people. Speaking about the law, he 
 says the law was for the capitalists. Yesterday when their brothers 
 demanded their rights at McCormick’s the law came out and shot 
 them down. When Mr. McCormick closed his door against them for 
 demanding their rights the law did not protect them. If they loved 
 their wives, their children, they should take the law, kill it, stab it, 
 throttle it, or it would throttle them. That appeared to make the 
 crowd near the wagon more excited, and I made another report to In¬ 
 spector Bonfield.” 
 
 Edgar E. Owens, a reporter, was on duty at the meeting. He 
 met Mr. Parsons early in the evening and “ asked him where the meet¬ 
 ing was to be held; he said he didn’t know anything about the 
 
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 
 
 95 
 
 meeting. I asked him whether he was going to speak. He said no^ 
 he was going over to the South Side. Mrs. Parsons and some children 
 came up just then and Parsons stopped a car and slapped me famil¬ 
 iarly upon the back, and asked me if I was armed, and I said: ‘No. 
 have you any dynamite about you?’ He laughed, and Mrs Parsons 
 said: ‘ He is a very dangerous looking man, isn’t he ? ’ * * * 
 
 I believe the bomb exploded about ten minutes after ten o’clock. I 
 heard the explosion of the bomb and pistol shois almost simultane¬ 
 ously with the outcry.” Did not see Schwab there after 8: 30. 
 
 Me. Heinemann was recalled. Heard no shots before the explo¬ 
 sion of the bomb. “ Almost instantly after it shots were heard: I 
 could not say whether the first shots came from the police or the 
 crowd. Spies started out by saying that the meeting was intended to- 
 be a peaceable one. It was not called to raise a disturbance, and 
 then gave his version of the affair at McCormick’s the day before.” 
 
 Louis Haas, detective, recalled to testify that Fielden, on the ap¬ 
 proach of the police, made this remark: “Here comes the blood¬ 
 hounds; now, men, do your duty and I’ll do mine.” Upon cross- 
 examination he stated that he was a witness at the coroner’s inquest, 
 on May 5, and “ did not say in my testimony there anything about 
 this alleged remark of Fielden’s.” 
 
 G. P. English, reporter; was at the Haymarket meeting. Took 
 short-hand notes; “ had a note book and a short pencil in my over¬ 
 coat pocket, and made notes in the pocket. My notes are correct 
 some of them I can read, some I can’t.” 
 
 His synopsis of Spies’ and Parsons’ remarks present no 
 marked differences from what they admit to have said. Concerning 
 Fielden’s speech, the first he had written out was: “ There are pre¬ 
 
 monitions of danger, all know it. The press say the Anarchists' wiU 
 sneak away; we are not going to. If we continue to be robbed it will 
 not be long before we will be murdered. There is no security for the 
 working classes under the present social system. A few individuals 
 control the means of living and hold the workingmen in a vice. 
 Everybody does not know that. Those who know it are tired of it, 
 and know the others will get tired of it, too. They are determined to* 
 end it and will end it, and there is no power in the land that will pre¬ 
 vent them. Congressman Foran says the laborer can get nothings 
 from legislation. He also said that the laborers can get some relief 
 from the present conditions when the rich man knew it was unsafe 
 for him to live in a community where there are dissatisfied working¬ 
 men, for they would solve the labor problem. I don’t know whether 
 you are democrats or republicans, but whicliever you are, you worship, 
 
94 
 
 THE EVIDENCE FOE THE PEOSECUTION. 
 
 at the shrine of heaven. John Brown, Jefferson, Washington, Pat¬ 
 rick Henry and Hopkins said to the people, the law is your enemy. 
 We are rebels against it. The law is only framed for those who are 
 your enslavers. (A voice : ‘That is true.’) Men in their blind rage 
 attacked McCormick’s factory and were shot down by the law in cold 
 blood, in the city of Chicago, in the protection of property. Those 
 men were going to do some damage to a certain person’s interest who 
 was a large property owner, therefore the law came to his defense and 
 not the workingman’s defense, when he, McCormick, attacked him and 
 his living. There is the difference. The law makes no distinctions. 
 A million men hold all the property in this country. The law has no 
 use for the other fifty-four millions. (A voice : ‘ Eight enough.’) 
 
 You have nothing more to do with the law except to lay hands on it 
 and throttle it until it makes its last kick. It turns your brothers out 
 on the wayside and has degraded them until they have lost the last 
 vestige of humanity, and they are mere things and animals. Keep 
 your eye upon it, throttle it, kill it, stab it, do everything you can to 
 wound it—to impede its progress. Eemember, before trusting them 
 to do anything for yourself, prepare to do it yourself. Don’t turn 
 over your business to anybody else. No man deserves anything unless 
 he is man enough to make an effort to lift himself from oppression.” 
 
 Then there was an interruption on account of some storm-clouds ; 
 everybody started to go away. Mr. Parsons suggested that they ad¬ 
 journ over to Zepf’s hall. Fielden said no, the people were trying to 
 get information, and he would go on. And he went on; 
 
 “ Is it not a fact that we have no choice as to our existence, for we 
 can’t dictate what our labor is worth ? He that has to obey the will 
 of another is a slave. Can we do anything except by the strong arm 
 of resistance ? The Socialists are not going to declare war; but I tell 
 you war has been declared on us; and I ask ’you to get hold of any¬ 
 thing that will help you to resist the onslaught of the enemy and the 
 usurper. The skirmish lines have met. People have been shot. Men, 
 women and children have not been spared by the capitalists and min¬ 
 ions of private capital. It has no mercy—so ought you. You are 
 called upon to defend yourselves, your lives, your future. What mat¬ 
 ters it whether you kill yourselves with work to get a little relief, or 
 die on the battlefield resisting the enemy ? What is the difference ? 
 Any animal, however loathesome, will resist when stepped upon. Are 
 men less than snails or worms ? I have some resistance in me; I 
 know that you have, too; you have been robbed and you will be 
 starved into a worse condition.” 
 
 “ That is all I have. At that time some one alongside of me asked 
 
THE EVIDENCE FOE THE PROSECUTION. 95 
 
 if police were coming. I was facing the northeast, looked down the 
 street and saw a tile of police about the middle of Randolph street. 
 
 Upon cross-examination witness made the following important 
 statements: 
 
 “I thought the speeches they made that night were a little milder 
 than I heard the u make for years. I didn’t hear any of them say or 
 advise that they were going to use force that night. Before I went to 
 the meeting my instructions from the Tribune office was to take onli^ the 
 most incendiary parts of the speeches. I did not hear Mr. Fielden say: 
 
 ‘ There come the bloodhounds now; you do your duty and i'll do mine.’ 
 I heard nothing of that import at all.” 
 
 M. M. Thompson, “ employed in the dry-goods business of Marshall 
 Field & Co.,’' the merchant princes, was at the meeting. He testified 
 to seeing Mr. Schwab about eight o’clock. He “ saw Spies get up on 
 the wagon and he asked for Parsons. Parsons didn’t respond. He 
 then got down and Schwab and Spies walked into the alley at Crane 
 Brothers’, near which the wagon was situated. The first word I heard 
 between Schwab and Spies was ‘pistols,’ the next word was ‘police.’ 
 I think I heard ‘ police’ twice, or ‘ pistols’ twice. I then walked just a 
 little nearer the edge of the alley, and just then Spies said: ‘ Do you 
 
 think one is enough, or hadn’t we better go and get more ? ’ I could 
 hear no answer to that. They then walked out of the alley and south 
 on Desplaines street, and west on the north side of Randolph to Hal- 
 sted, and cut across the street and went over to the southwest corner 
 and was there about three minutes; came out of the crowd again and 
 came back. On the way back, as they neared Union street, I heard 
 the word ‘police’ again. Just then I went past them and Schwab said: 
 ‘Now, if they come we will give it to them.’ Spies replied he thought 
 they were afraid to bother with them. They came on and before they 
 got up near the wagon they met a third party, and they bunched right 
 together there, south of the alley, and appeared to get right in a huddle, 
 and there was something passed between Spies and the third man; 
 what it was I could not say. This here (indicating picture of Schnau- 
 belt) is, I think, the third man.” 
 
 Certainly most positive and damaging evidence, if true. Bearing 
 in mind that both Schwab and Spies are Germans, and that Schwab 
 at that time talked but broken English, let us follow the cross-exam¬ 
 ination. He had never seen any of the defendants before that night. 
 “When I saw Spies and Schwab go into the alley there was a crowd 
 there. I couldn’t see down the alley unless I turned my face to it. I 
 was right around the comer of the alley, within three feet, probably, 
 at the farthest, and I moved down to within half a foot. I did not look 
 
96 
 
 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 
 
 down the alley, only when they came out of the alley I did look. The 
 conversation between Spies and Schwab was in English. I do not 
 understand German. I didn’t hear any words between ‘police’ and 
 ‘ pistols.’ They were in there probably two or three minutes. * * * 
 I cannot say that I knew Mr. Schwab’s voice at that time. I only 
 knew Mr.’ Spies’ voice from what 1 heard him ask on the wagon. Spies 
 was the one who used the words ‘ pistols’ and ‘ police.’ I did not see 
 Mm,when he said it. I could not see him without putting my head 
 around the corner. They went out of my sight when they went into 
 the alley.” When they came out and walked two blocks west to Hal- 
 sted “ I trailed after them all the time, part of the time beside of them, 
 part of the time ahead and past them, but all the time- close to them. 
 There was nobody else following them besides me.” He testified to 
 this conversation before the coroner’s jury. Had seen picture of Schnau- 
 belt before. “I think Mr. Furthman showed it to me about a week 
 ago.” 
 
 Comment on this remarkable account of persistently following two 
 Germans who were totally unknown to ■witness, who were discussing 
 conspiracy in a language they were not in the habit of using in ordi¬ 
 nary conversation, will be deferred till after the testimony for the defense 
 is placed before the reader. 
 
 August Huen, printer, set up the German part of the circular call¬ 
 ing the meeting. He “saw the boss take out the line, ‘Workingmen, 
 come armed and appear in full force.’ ” 
 
 A detective testified to finding dynamite, or “ a kind of yellowish, 
 greasy sawdust, ” at the Arheiter-Zeitung office. It was in a bag, wrapped 
 in brown paper, lying on a closet shelf. 
 
 Hugh Hume, a reporter, saw “ Mr. Fielden and other defendants 
 in the sweat-box ” at the central station on the night of May 5. Had 
 a conversation with Spies, in which Spies “ said to me that the people 
 had reached a condition where they were ready to do any violence, and 
 he had advocated violence of that kind; it was necessary to bring about 
 the revolution the Socialists wanted. He said he had advocated the 
 use of dynamite. I asked him if h* was in favor of killing police 
 officers with dynamite. He hesitated a little, and then said the police 
 represented the capitalists and were enemies of theirs, and when you 
 have an enemy he has got to be removed. This is the gist of what he 
 said. Spies said he didn’t know anything about the bomb having ex¬ 
 ploded until afterwards; he had heard a noise that resembled the 
 sound of a cannon, and thought the police were firing over the heads 
 of the people to frighten them. 
 
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 
 
 97 
 
 “I had a little talk with Mr. Fielden. He was suffering somewhat 
 from his wound. When I asked him how the Haymarket affair ac¬ 
 corded with his ideas of Socialism, he said: ‘ You are on dangerous 
 
 ground now. There is an argument, though, that we have, that is to 
 the effect that if you cannot do a thing peaceably it has got to be done 
 by force.’ Something to that effect.” 
 
 The conversation was not confidential; several detectives were 
 present. “ Spies saw me write down his answers. He knew I wanted 
 the interview for publication.” Remembered that Spies said: “I 
 thought I would not be at the meeting, but finally went when the 
 people who got up the circular promised to take out the words ‘ with 
 arms.’ He also said the throwing of the bomb was wrong. In answer 
 to the question: ' Do you consider the work of Tuesday night as a vic¬ 
 tory?” witness said that Spies answered, “No, it was disgusting.” 
 Witness further stated, “ Schwab speaks English somewhat labor¬ 
 iously.'^ 
 
 Harry L. Gilmer was called, and as his testimony contains the 
 most direct evidence against Spies, and was the one most relied on by 
 the prosecution, considerable space must be given to it. He was a 
 painter by trade. He arrived at the meeting that night about a quar¬ 
 ter to ten o’clock. Took his position at the corner of the alley and 
 near the wagon. 
 
 “ I was standing in the alley, looking around for a few minutes; 
 noticed parties in conversation right across the alley. Somebody in 
 front of me, on the edge of the sidewalk, said: ‘ Here comes the police.’ 
 There was a sort of rush to see the police come up. There was a man 
 came from the wagon down to the parties that were standing on the 
 south side of the alley; he lit a match and touched it off, something 
 or another. The fuse commenced to fizzle, and he give it a couple of 
 steps forward and tossed it over into the street. I knew the man by 
 sight who threw the fizzing thing into the street. I have seen him sev¬ 
 eral times at meetings at one place and another in the city. I do not 
 know his name. He was a man about Jive feet ten inches high; some¬ 
 what full-chested, and had a light sandy beard, not very long; he was 
 fuU-faced; his eyes somewhat back in his head; judging from his ap¬ 
 pearance he would probably weigh 180 pounds. My impression is his 
 hat was dark brown or black. This here (indicating photograph of 
 Schnaubelt) is the man who threw the bomb out of the alley. There 
 were four or five standing together in the group. This here (pointing 
 to Spies) is the man who came from the wagon towards the group. 
 That man over there (pointing at defendant Fischer) was one of the 
 parties.” 
 
gg the evidence for the prosecution. 
 
 Upon crosS'Gxaniination witnGSS said iiG had been at the trial sev¬ 
 eral times during the previous two weeks. He told a reporter of hav¬ 
 ing seen the match lighted and the bomb thrown; that was on May 6. 
 He “was in the neighborhood of where Fielden talked for about fifteen 
 minutes,” but could not remember anything Fielden said. Communi¬ 
 cated his information to Mr. Bonfield on the 6th or 7th. The wagon 
 had low side-boards. Was positive that Spies lighted the bomb and 
 Schnaubeit threw it from the alley. Thinks he saw Schwab. Was as 
 positive Fischer was there as that it was Schnaubeit who threw the 
 
 “ I did not run at the time of the shooting. I did not move at all. 
 
 I stood right at the mouth of the alley. There were no bullets coming 
 in around my locality in the alley.” Up to the evening of May 6th 
 he talked with several about the riot; stated he was there, but told no 
 one that he had seen the bomb lighted and thrown. “The man who 
 threw the bomb was about five feet and eight, ten or nine inches high. 
 Admitted having “received some money two or three times from De¬ 
 tective Bonfield. I did not tell to any person at any time, except the 
 officers that I mentioned, that I saw the act of lighting the bomb ac¬ 
 complished. Neither Mr. Grinnell or Bonfield, or any officer, told me 
 to keep silent in regard to the matter. I am six feet three in height. 
 
 I could pretty near see right over the head of the fellow who threw the 
 bomb.” 
 
 On presenting the testimony for the defense it will be seen: 
 
 First. Gilmer was impeached by ten persons, from among the 
 most respectable classes of the community, some of them large prop¬ 
 erty holders, coming forward and swearing that they were acquainted 
 with his general reputation for truth and veracity among his neigh- , 
 bors, these being persons who had lived in the same house with him, 
 or in the same immediate locality, and swearing, without hesitation, 
 that his reputation for truth and veracity was bad, and that they 
 would not believe him under oath. It is true that counterproof was 
 introduced, including a number of citizens of Iowa and of Chicago; 
 but not one of all these had ever lived in the same neighborhood with 
 Gilmer, or had ever conversed about his reputation with those who 
 did so live in his immediate vicinity, nor did they know where Gilmer 
 lived at any time. 
 
 Second. It appears upon the testimony of three or four witnesses 
 that Fischer, at the time of the explosion of the bomb, was in Zepf’s 
 hall, sitting at one of the tables in company with Mr. Wandi-y, who 
 was one of the witnesses. 
 
 Third. It is shown upon the testimony of several that Spies did ■ 
 
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION 
 
 99 
 
 not leave the wagon and go to the alley in question at all, but was on 
 the wagon at the time the order to disperse was given, and had just 
 dismounted from the wagon to the pavement when the bomb exploded. 
 
 Fourth, It is proved by officers, reporters and several other wit¬ 
 nesses that the bomb was, in fact, thrown not from the alley at all, but 
 from a point on the sidewalk from fifteen to twenty feet south of the 
 alley. One witness, Burnett, states that he was alongside of the man 
 who threw the bomb, and this was the story Burnett told the day after 
 the meeting as well as under oath. The testimony is overwhelming to 
 this fact. 
 
 Fifth. It is shown by the testimony of Mr. Graham, a reporter 
 for The Times, that on the day after the Haymarket affair he had a 
 conversation with Gilmer, in which Gilmer stated to him that he saw 
 the man light the fuse and throw the bomb, and that he believed he 
 could recognize the man if he were to see him again. That nothing 
 whatever was said by Gilmer about any other man participating in 
 the act. Gilmer swore positively that he knew Spies’ face well, hav¬ 
 ing frequently heard him at meetings, and from that knowledge recog¬ 
 nized him. Yet in the conversation with Graham on the afternoon of 
 the 5th of May, he never alluded directly or indirectly to Spies as par¬ 
 ticipating in throwing or lighting the bomb. 
 
 Sixth. Schnaubelt is shown to have been six feet two or three 
 inches in height and not present at the time of the explosion. 
 
 Seventh. In his opening address Mr. Grinnell himself used the 
 following language: “ At that moment a man, who had a moment 
 before been on the wagon, lighted the bomb and threw it into the police.” 
 
 It is perhaps sufficient to say in conclusion, that so completely 
 and overwhelmingly was Gilmer impeached, contradicted and discred¬ 
 ited that the State did not ask a single instruction to the jury, based, 
 upon the belief by them that Schnaubelt threw the bomb. 
 
 Officers testified to finding an apparatus or “ blasting machine ” 
 at Engel’s house, which Engel stated had been left there by another 
 man. The machine, or furnace, was new; never had fire in it or been 
 used. 
 
 Hejeman Schuttler, police officer, narrated the story of the arrest 
 of Lingg. That Lingg on being accosted jumped back and drew a 
 revolver and half cocked it, and both struggled together for the pos¬ 
 session of it. Another officer came to his companion’s rescue and 
 Lingg was ironed, demanding of them to shoot and kill him. In his 
 trunk there was found “ a small lead bomb in a stocking ” and in an¬ 
 other stocking a revolver. The accompanying officer testified to find¬ 
 ing four bombs instead of one. 
 
100 
 
 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 
 
 Dr. John B. Murphy, surgeon at the County Hospital, testified as 
 to the nature of the wounds inflicted on the officers at considerable 
 length. Objection was entered as not material to the issue; overruled. 
 Clothing worn by the wounded officers on the night of the 4th was 
 offered in evidence, evidently for the purpose of working on the feel¬ 
 ing of the jurors. 
 
 Capt. Michael Schaack, of the fifth police precinct, was sworn. 
 Talked with Lingg after his arrest; he admitted being at the Monday- 
 night meeting. “ He said he had made some bombs to use them him¬ 
 self. He said he had reason for being down on the police, they had 
 clubbed him out at McCormick’s. He said he was down on capitalists, 
 and found fault with the police for taking the part of the capitalists. 
 If the capitalists turned out the militia and the police force with their 
 gattling guns, they couldn’t do anything with revolvers, and therefore 
 they had adopted these bombs and dynamite. He said he had learned 
 to make bombs in scientific books of warfare published by Most of 
 New York. He had got his dynamite on Lake street. He said the 
 bombs they found in his place were all he made.” 
 
 He said Mrs. Engel called at the station ; she said to Engel: “ Do 
 you see what trouble you got yourself into?” That Engel answered: 
 “ Mama, I can’t help it.” “I told him why he didn’t stop that non¬ 
 sense, and he said: ‘ I promised my wife so many times that I would 
 stop this Anarchism or Socialism business. But 1 can’t stop it. 
 What is in me has got to come out. I can’t help it, that I am so 
 gifted with eloquence. It is a curse. It has been a curse to a good 
 many other men, a good many men have suffered already for the same 
 cause, and I am willing to suffer and will stand it like a man.’ ” He 
 testified to experiments made with the dynamite found in Lingg’s 
 room, which Lingg had bought in open market, showing its terrible 
 effectiveness as a destructive agency, for the edification of the jury. 
 
 Witnesses testified to finding cans filled with dynamite underneath 
 a sidewalk, three miles from the Haymarket, and surgeons gave testi¬ 
 mony to the ghastly nature of bomb wounds. 
 
 Charles B. Prouty, manager in a gun store told of the heinous 
 offense committed by Engel, calling at the store, buying a pistol and 
 inquiring the price for “ perhaps one or two hundred.” Later Engel 
 said ‘ they had found something else for a little less money that would 
 answer the purpose.” 
 
 Another dealer in guns said Mr. Parsons had visited his store and 
 inquired the price of “ a quantity of revolvers — I think forty or fifty. 
 * ^ * He did not purchase any.” 
 
 W. S. Haines, professor of chemistry in Kush Medical College, 
 
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 
 
 101 
 
 made a chemical examination of pieces of metal said to have been 
 taken from Officer Degan, and also pieces of metal said to have been 
 connected with Lingg and with Spies, and found in all about the same 
 proportion of tin, antimony, zinc and iron. He said finally: “ In a 
 mixture of the ordinary commercial tin and the ordinary commercial 
 lead you would find traces of antimony, zinc and iron. I do not think 
 they they would have been added to the substances I examined. They 
 probably came in as impurities in both the two constituents.” The 
 amount of tin varied from to 2^ per cent. The remainder was lead. 
 Divested of learned technicality the bombs said to have been made by 
 Lingg, that given by Spies to the reporter, Wilkinson, and that found 
 on the Haymarket were all made of lead, but differed from commercial 
 lead in containing slight traces of tin. 
 
 Officers testified to knowing Officer Degan and to his death. 
 
 Detective Bonfield testified to finding about forty banners at 
 the office of the Arheiter-Zeitung, containing such inscriptions as these: 
 “ Every government is a conspiracy against the people“ Down with 
 all law.” They were duly paraded before the jury. 
 
 The prosecution here rested its case. 
 
 Counsel for defendants moved the court to send the jury from the 
 court-room while they would present and urge on behalf of the defend¬ 
 ant Neebe the motion that the jury be instructed to find a verdict of 
 not guilty as to said Neebe. The court refused; thereupon a motion 
 was made that the court instruct the jury to find a verdict of not 
 guilty for Neebe. Counsel for the defense argued the motion at some 
 length; the attorneys for the State remained quiet. During the dis¬ 
 cussion the following expressions were made by the court; 
 
 The Court. —There are other things. I won’t respect them, how¬ 
 ever, unless you want me to call your attention to the things that are 
 in my mind so you can argue the question to me. 
 
 Mr. Salomon. —It is proper your Honor should state that. 
 
 The Court. —There is testimony from which the State will be 
 permitted to urge upon this jury that he (Neebe) presided at meetings 
 at which some of the speeches were made, urging the killing of people. 
 Is there not evidence in the case from which the State will be per¬ 
 mitted to urge upon the jury that he, without being an active man in 
 the Arheiter-Zeitung, yet was interested in it, and it was published with 
 his co-operation and assent ? What inference can they urge upon 
 this jury from the testimony, that when the officers went there, he 
 replied that he supposed that in the absence of Spies and Schwab he 
 was in charge * * * Whether he had anything to do with the 
 dissemination of advice to commit murder, is, I think, a debatable 
 
102 
 
 THE EVIDENCE FOB THE PBOSECUTION. 
 
 question which the jury ought to pass upon; whether the Arheiter- 
 Zeitung was published with his aid or not. 
 
 Mr. Black.— There is not a particle of testimony—I desire your 
 Honor to call attention if you can, or the gentlemen on the other side, 
 to call attention to any evidence in this case—that shows it was pub¬ 
 lished with his aid. 
 
 The Court.— There, have been witnesses who said he was Jre- 
 quently seen there * ’ ^ and that when Spies and Schwab 
 
 were arrested and in custody, then he took charge of it. 
 
 Mr. Black.— Certainly; what does that prove ? 
 
 The Court. -It proves that he had some control. * * * 
 
 Why he took control of it is a matter you must debate—whether he 
 did it at the request of Spies or Schwab or took possession because 
 he was next in command, or why he took it, I shall not undertake to 
 
 say. . . 
 
 The Court.— If it depended upon prior knowledge and participa¬ 
 tion at the Haymarket meeting, the question would be quite different, 
 but if there is general advice to commit murder, the time and occasion 
 not being foreseen, the adviser is guilty when it is committed. 
 
 After full argument the court overruled the above motion on be¬ 
 half of the defendant Neebe, to which counsel for defendants excepted. 
 But, in the language of the court, “when Spies and Schwab 
 were arrested and in custody, then he took charge ” of the Arheiter- 
 Zeitung, was sufficient to secure a sentence of fifteen years at hard 
 labor from a jury, the majority of whom admitted that they enter¬ 
 tained “ a prejudice against Socialists, Anarchists and Communists. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 On Saturday, July 31, forty days after the trial began, the evidence 
 for the State closed and Mr. Salomon opened the case for the defend¬ 
 ants as follows: 
 
 It is a usual thing in all important cases, especially in criminal 
 cases, after the selection of a jury, for the counsel to express their 
 opinion, individually or collectively, to the jury, and it seems to me in 
 this instance it is most proper for me to say to you, gentlemen, that 
 sitting here for a number of weeks as you have, patiently listening to 
 the evidence that has been introduced so far by the State, and in the 
 
ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 103 
 
 manner of your selection and while waiting for the evidence to be in¬ 
 troduced, you have each and all of you shown admirable patience and 
 judgment. You have proven yourselves in my eyes and in my judg¬ 
 ment, willing, patient and able to listen to the evidence in this case 
 and decide it upon its merits. It is therefore almost unnecessary for 
 me to beg of you a further continuance of that faithful canvass and 
 consideration that you have already shown. We expect it and feel 
 that you will bestow it. This, gentlemen of the jury, as you have 
 heard said often in your presence, is no common case. It is no ordi¬ 
 nary case, both from the nature of the crime that is charged and 
 from the number of defendants whom it is sought to hold responsible 
 for the commission of the crime. It has been stated to you by Mr. 
 Grinnell, the state’s attorney, in his opening—and he said it for the 
 first time—that this was a trial of Anarchy and of Socialism and for 
 the life of Anarchy and of Socialism. We have steadily refused, and 
 we still refuse to believe that any man on this jury will be willing to 
 convict any of these defendants either because he may be an Anarch¬ 
 ist or a Socialist. Every question put to you both by the defense and 
 by the prosecution in this case tended and its purpose was, and it was 
 said under your obligation of oaths as jurors, to ascertain whether or 
 not these defendants are guilty of the crime thar is charged against 
 them. The state’s attorney detailed to you the proof which he 
 expected to introduce in this case, and he stated that he told you aU 
 fully and frankly. I ask you, gentlemen of the jury, whether the 
 state’s attorney did make a full, free and frank statement of what he 
 was going to prove ? If he had followed out his proof and statement 
 of proof, I feel satisfied, and I hope to convince you that the law is, 
 that this prosecution could not be maintained. 
 
 Mr. Grinnell failed to state to you that he had a person by whom 
 he could prove who threw the bomb, and he never expected to make 
 this proof until he found that without this proof he was unable to 
 maintain this prosecution against these defendants; and it was as 
 this case neared the prosecution end of it that the prosecution sud¬ 
 denly changed their front and produced a professional tramp and a 
 professional liar, as we will show you, to prove that one of these 
 defendants was connected with the throwing of it. They then recog¬ 
 nized, as we claimed and now claim, that that is the only way they 
 can maintain their case here. It heeds, I hope, gentlemen, no apology 
 from me for the manner in which I shall present this case of the 
 defendants to you. This burden, this duty towards our clients has 
 devolved upon me, and, gentlemen, I shall endeavor to fully and fairly 
 state to you what these defendants rely upon, and when the proof is 
 
104 
 
 AKGUMENT FOE THE DEFENSE. 
 
 made as I shall state it to you upon which they will rely for an acquit¬ 
 tal, you will acquit them. Now, gentlemen, I desire to call your 
 attention to what these defendants on trial are charged with. As I 
 told you a moment ago, they are not charged with Anarchy; they are 
 not charged with Socialism; they are not charged with the fact that 
 Anarchy and Socialism is dangerous or beneficial to the community; 
 but, according to the law under which we are now acting, a charge 
 specific in its nature must be made against them, and that alone, 
 must be sustained, and it is the duty of the jury to weigh the evidence 
 as it bears upon that charge: and upon no other point can they pay 
 attention to it. Now, gentlemen, the charge here is shown by this in¬ 
 dictment. This is the accusation. This is what the case involves, 
 and upon this the defendants and the prosecution must either stand 
 or tall. This indictment is for the murder of Mathias J. Degan. It 
 is charged that each one of these defendants committed the crime, 
 each defendant individually; and it is charged in a number of differ¬ 
 ent ways. Now, I desire to call your attention to the law governing 
 this indictment and to read it to you; and I am presenting the law to 
 you now, gentlemen, so that you can understand how we view this 
 case and how the evidence is affected by what the law is. The section 
 of the law under which this indictment is framed is as follows : 
 
 “ Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being in the peace 
 ‘ of the people with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied. 
 ‘ The unlawful killing may be perpetrated by poisoning, striking, 
 ‘stabbing, shooting, etc., or by any other of the various forms or 
 ‘ means by which human nature may be overcome and death thereby 
 ‘ occasioned. Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully 
 ‘ to take away the life of a fellow-creature which is manifested by 
 ‘ external circumstances capable of proof. Malice shall be implied 
 ‘ when no considerable provocation appears, or when all the circum- 
 ‘ stances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.” 
 
 Now, it is not claimed that any of these defendants did what the 
 statute, which I have just read, said they must do or what the proof 
 must show they have done before they can be held; but it is sought 
 by the following provision to hold them accessory. Section 274 of the 
 Eevised Statutes, Chapter 38: 
 
 “ An accessory is he who stands by and aids, abets or assists, or 
 “ who not being present aiding, abetting or assisting, hath advised, 
 “ encouraged, aided or abetted the perpetration of the crime. He who 
 “ thus aids, abets, assists, advises, or encourages shall be considered 
 “ as principal, and punished accordingly.” 
 
AEGUMENT FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 105 
 
 Section 275 says: 
 
 “Every such accessory, when a crime is committed within or 
 “ without this State by his aid or procurement in this State, may be 
 “ indicted and convicted at the same time as the principal, or before, 
 “ or after his conviction, and whether the principal is convicted or 
 “ amenable to justice or not, and punished as principal.” 
 
 The specific crime which was committed, and which, I expect to 
 show you the law says, no matter whether these defendants advised 
 generally the use of d3mamite in the purpose which they claimed to 
 carry out, and sought to carry out, yet if none of these defendants 
 advised the throwing of that bomb at the Haymarket, they can not be 
 held responsible for the action of others at other times and other 
 places. What does the evidence introduced here tend to show ? It 
 may occur to some of you, gentlemen, to ask: “What, then, can these 
 defendants preach the use of dynamite? May they be allowed to go 
 on and urge people to overturn the present government and the present 
 condition of society without being held responsible for it and without 
 punishment? Is there no law to which these people can be subjected 
 and punished if they do this thing ?” There is, gentlemen, but it is not 
 and never has been murder, and if they are amenable, as the evidence 
 introduced by the prosecution tends to show, it is under another and a 
 different law, and no attempt on the part of the prosecution to jump 
 the wide chasm which separates these two offenses can be successful 
 unless it is done out of pure hatred, malice, ill-will, or because of 
 prejudice. The law protects every citizen. It punishes every guilty 
 man, and according to the measure of his crime; no more and no less. 
 If a man be guilty of conspiracy, or if he be guilty of treason, he is 
 liable to punishment for that offense, and not for a higher one. This 
 is what the people of the State of Illinois have said, and that is their 
 law. That is what they want enforced, and that is what I stand here 
 for as the advocate of these defendants. I claim for them, and for 
 the entire people of this State, that the law shall be applied as it is 
 found, and as they have directed it to be enforced. Now, what is the 
 statute on conspiracy, of which these defendants may be guilty, if 
 they are guilty of anything ? It reads: 
 
 “ If two or more persons conspire and agree together with a fraud- 
 “ ulent and malicious intent to injure the person, character, business, 
 “ or property of another, or to obtain money on other property by 
 “ false pretenses, or to do any illegal act injurious to the public trade, 
 “ health, morals, police, or administration of public justice, or to 
 “ prevent competition in the letting of any contract by tne State or 
 “ the authorities of any county, city, town, or village, or to induce any 
 
106 
 
 AEGUMENT FOE THE DEFENSE. 
 
 “ person not to enter into said competition, or to commit any felony, 
 “they shall be deemed guilty of a conspiracy; and every such of- 
 “ fender, and every person convicted of conspiracy at common law, 
 “ shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not exceeding three years, or 
 “ fined not exceeding $1,000.” 
 
 The next section is as follows: 
 
 “ That if two or more persons conspire either to commit any 
 “ offense against the State of Illinois or any county, incorporated city, 
 “ etc., in any manner, or for any purpose, and one or more of such 
 “ parties do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, all parties 
 “ to such conspiracy shall be liable to a penalty of not less than $100 
 “ and not more than $5,000, and to be imprisoned either in the peni- 
 “tentiary or the county jail for any period not exceeding two years. 
 “ The time and place of the confinement and the amount of the fine 
 “ to be determined by the jury trying the cause.” 
 
 Gentlemen, the state’s attorney’s opening statement to you, the 
 proof in this case, with the exception of Gilmer’s testimony, shows 
 and shows only that the State has a case within those sections which 
 I have last read to you, and no other, if they have a case against them 
 at all. Now, gentlemen, I have read to you the section of the statute 
 relating to accessories. As I have told you before, it is only the perpe¬ 
 trator and the abettor in the perpetration of a crime who, under the 
 decision of almost every supreme court in the United States and in 
 England, can be held. 
 
 [Mr. Salomon here quoted from Wharton’s Criminal Law and also 
 read from reports of various cases corroborative of his argument.] 
 
 Now, gentlemen, that is one theory of this case, and this law must 
 be applied to each and every one of these defendants who was absent 
 from that meeting, unless it is shown by the prosecution that they 
 were connected with the bomb throwing, and we shall endeavor to 
 show you that they knew nothing of the throwing of the bomb. Those 
 defendants who are present, however, might be held under this indict¬ 
 ment if you believe from the evidence that the object of the meeting 
 and those present was to use force and violence against the police. 
 Then all who took part knowingly in that meeting can be held liable 
 as being present there if the proof shows that the meeting itself was 
 an unlawful one and that its purpose was unlawful; that its purpose 
 was to kill the police—to aggressively kill the police; and when I say 
 aggressively I mean that the defendants willfully attacked them, be¬ 
 cause, if the defendants, or any of them, were unlawfully attacked, 
 then, of course, they had a right to defend themselves. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I don’t care to read to you any more authorities 
 
ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 107 
 
 than those I have referred you to. That view of the law that they must 
 be proven to be accessories to the crime is the one point only upon 
 which the prosecution can sustain their case, and is the only one upon 
 which this case must proceed according to our view. Now, these de¬ 
 fendants are not criminals; they are not robbers; they are not bur¬ 
 glars ; they are not common thieves; they descend to no small crim¬ 
 inal act. On the contrary, this evidence shows conclusively that they 
 are men of broad feelings of humanity, that their only desire has been 
 and their lives have been consecrated to the betterment of their fellow- 
 men. They have not sought to take the life of any man, of any indi¬ 
 vidual, to maliciously kill or destroy any person, nor have they sought 
 to deprive any man of his property for their own benefit. They have 
 not sought to get McCormick’s property for themselves; they have not 
 sought to get Marshall Field’s propeidy for themselves; and to deprive 
 Marshall Field of it feloniously, but they have endeavored and labored 
 to establish a different social system. It is true they have adopted 
 means, or wanted to adopt means that were not approved of by all 
 mankind. It is true that their methods were dangerous, perhaps, but 
 then they should have been stopped at their inception. We shall 
 expect to prove to you, gentlemen, that these men have stood by the 
 man w’ho has the least friends ; that they have endeavored to better 
 the condition of the laboring men. The laboring men have few friends 
 enough. They have no means without the combination and assistance 
 of their fellow-men to better their condition, and it was to further 
 that purpose and to raise them above constant labor and constant toil 
 and constant worry and constant fret, and to have their fellow-men 
 act and be as human beings and not as animals, that these defendants 
 have consecrated their lives and energies. If it was in pursuance of 
 that, wrought up perhaps through frequent failures and through the 
 constant force exercised against them, that they came to the conclu¬ 
 sion that it was necessary for them to use force against force, we know 
 not, and we do not expect to prove nor to deny that these defendants 
 advocated the use of force, nor do we now intend to apologize for any¬ 
 thing they have said, nor to excuse their acts. It is neither the place 
 nor the time for counsel in this case nor of the gentlemen of the jury 
 to either excuse the acts of these defendants nor to encourage them. 
 With that we have here nothing to do. Our object is simply to show 
 that these defendants are not guilty of the murder with which they 
 are charged in this indictment. But the issue is forced upon us to say 
 whether it was right or wrong, and whether they had the right to ad¬ 
 vocate the bettering of their fellow-men. As Mr. Grinnell said, he 
 wanted to hang Socialism and Anarchy; but twelve men nor twelve 
 
108 
 
 ARGUMENT FOE THE DEFENSE. 
 
 hundred nor twelve thousand can stamp out Anarchy nor root out So¬ 
 cialism, no more than they can democracy or republicanism, that lie 
 within the heart and within the head. Under our forms of govern¬ 
 ment every man has the right to believe and the right to express his 
 thoughts, whether they be inimical to the present institutions or 
 whether they favor them; but if that man, no matter what he advo¬ 
 cates or who he be, whether democrat, republican. Socialist or Anarch¬ 
 ist, kill and destroy human life deliberately and feloniously, that man, 
 whether high or low, is amenable to criminal justice, and must be 
 punished for his crime, and for no other. 
 
 Now, what was the object of these defendants, as they are charged, 
 in being so bloodthirsty ? Their purpose was to change society, to 
 bring into force and effect their Socialistic and Anarchistic ideas. 
 Were they right or were they wrong, or have we nothing to do with it ? 
 As I told you, they had the right to express their ideas. They had the 
 right. They had the right to gain converts, to make Anarchists and 
 Socialists, but whether Socialism or Anarchy shall be established never 
 rested with those defendants, never rested in a can of dynamite or in 
 a dynamite bomb. It rests with the great mass of people, with the 
 people of Chicago, of Illinois, of the United States, of the world. If 
 they, the people, want Anarchy, want Socialism, if they want democ¬ 
 racy or republicanism, they can and they will inaugurate it. But the 
 people also will allow a little toleration of views. Now, these defend¬ 
 ants claim that Socialism is a progressive social science, and it will be 
 a part of the proof which you will have to determine. Must the world 
 .stand as we found it when we were born, or have we a right to show 
 our fellow-men a better way, a nobler life, a better condition. That 
 is what these defendants claim, if they are forced beyond the issue in 
 this case. We find that the government is constantly progressing, 
 endeavoring to institute reforms and new movements. We find that 
 it is for the betterment of commerce that there should be a time for 
 every district in the United States, and they inaugurate an eastern 
 time, a central time, and a western time. The country thinks it is for 
 the best. They endeavor to establish a uniform dollar in every com¬ 
 munity in the United States. The country thinks it is for the best. 
 Many of you, gentlemen, fought for this Union and liberated the slave 
 because you thought you had a right to fight. You had to take life in 
 freeing those slaves, and many lives were lost, and it was because you 
 -thought it was right, as men living among men, to do that act. You 
 recognized the fact that slavery should go under, and that no man 
 should own another. You fought in the Kebellion because there were 
 men who held and controlled other men, and these defendants talked 
 
ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 109 
 
 because they thought that there were white slaves and white men who 
 were under the control of their bosses. In furtherance of that plan 
 what have these defendants done? Have they murdered many people ? 
 What was their plan when they counseled dynamite ? They intended 
 to use dynamite in furtherance of the general revolution; never, never 
 against any individual. We will show you that it was their purpose, 
 as the proof, I think, partly shows already, that when a general revo¬ 
 lution or a general strike was inaugurated, when they were attacked, 
 that then, in fact, while carrying out the purposes of that strike or 
 that revolution, that then they should use dynamite, and not until 
 then. If it is unlawful to conspire to carry out that thing, these men 
 must be held for that thing. We shall show you that these men, in 
 carrying out their plan for the bettering of the condition of the work¬ 
 ingmen, inaugurated the eight-hour movement; they inaugurated the 
 early-closing movement; they inaugurated every movement that tended 
 to alleviate the condition of the workingman and allow him a greater 
 time to his family for mutual benefit. That is what these defendants 
 set up for a defense. That is what they claim was their right to do, 
 and that is what they claim they did do, and they did nothing more. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, we don’t say that we desire to go into this proof, 
 because we think it has nothing to do with this case, if our theory is 
 correct, but if we are forced to show why they did these things it is 
 simply to convince you that their objects were not for robbery, not for 
 stealing, not to gain property for themselves, and not to maliciously 
 or willfully destroy any man’s good name or his property interests. 
 
 We expect to show you, further, that these defendants never con¬ 
 spired, nor any one of them, to take the life of any single individual at 
 any time or any place; that they never conspired or plotted to take at 
 this time or at any other time the life of Mathias Degan or any num¬ 
 ber of policemen, except in self-defense while carrying out their origi¬ 
 nal purpose. We expect, further, to show you that on the night of the 
 4th of May these defendants had assembled peaceably, that its purpose 
 was peaceable, that its objects were peaceable, that they delivered the 
 same harangue as before, that the crowd listened, and that not a single 
 act transpired there previous to the coming of the policemen by which 
 any man in the audience could be held amenable to law. They as¬ 
 sembled, there, gentlemen, under the provision of our Constitution, to 
 exercise the right of free speech, to discuss the situation of the work¬ 
 ingmen, to discuss the eight-hour question. They assembled there to 
 incidentally discuss what they deemed outrages at McCormick’s. No 
 man expected that a bomb would be thrown; no man expected that 
 any one would be injured at that meeting, but while some of these de- 
 
110 
 
 ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 fendants were there and while this meeting was peaceably in progress, 
 the police, with a devilish design, as we expect to prove, came down 
 upon that body with their revolvers in their hands and pockets, ready 
 for immediate use, intending to destroy the life of every man that stood 
 upon that market square. That seems terrible, gentlemen, but that is 
 the information which we have and which we expect to show you. We 
 expect to show you, further, gentlemen, that the crowd did not fire, 
 that not a single person fired a single shot at the police officers. We 
 expect to show you that Mr. Fielden did not have on that night and 
 never had in his life a revolver; that he did not fire, and that that por¬ 
 tion of the testimony here is wrong. We expect to show you, further, 
 gentlemen, that the witness Gilmer, who testified to having seen Spies 
 light the match which caused the destruction coming from the bomb, 
 is a professional and constitutional liar; that no man in the city of 
 Chicago who knows him will believe him under oath, and, indeed, I 
 might almost say that it would scarcely need even a witness to show 
 the falsity of his testimony, because it seems to me that it must fall 
 of its own weight. We expect to show you, gentlemen, that Thompson 
 was greatly mistaken; that on that night Schwab never saw or talked 
 with Mr. Spies; that he was at the Haymarket early in the evening, 
 but that he left before the meeting began and before he saw Mr. Spies 
 on that evening at all. We expect to show that Mr. Parsons, so far 
 from thinking anything wrong, and Fischer, were quietly seated at 
 Zepf’s hall, drinking, perhaps, a glass of beer at the time the bomb 
 exploded,and that it was as great a surprise to them as it was to any 
 of you. We expect to show you that Engel was at home at the time 
 the bomb exploded, and that he knew nothing about it. With the 
 whereabouts of Lingg you are already familiar. It may seem strange 
 why he was manufacturing bombs. The answer to that is, he had a 
 right to have his house full of dynamite. He had a right to have 
 weapons of all descriptions upon his premises, and until he used them, 
 or advised their use, and they were used in pursuance of his advice, 
 he is not liable any more than the man who commits numerous bur¬ 
 glaries, the man who commits numerous thefts, who walks the streets 
 is liable to arrest and punishment only when he commits an act which 
 makes him amenable to law. 
 
 I did not expect to address you concerning Mr. Neebe, and it is 
 unnecessary for me to make much comment on that, but will show you 
 that Mr. Neebe did not know of this meeting, that he was not present, 
 that he was in no manner connected with it, and there is no proof to 
 show that he was. We will also prove to you, gentlemen, that Mr. 
 Fielden did not go down the alley, as some of the witnesses for the 
 
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 Ill 
 
 State have testified, but that he went down Desplaines street to Ean- 
 dolph, and up Eandolph, as, indeed, if my memory serves me right, 
 the statements made by Mr. Fielden immediately after the occurrence 
 already sufficiently show. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, in conclusion, as I stated to you a moment ago, 
 we do not intend to defend against Socialism, we do not intend to de¬ 
 fend against Anarchism, we expect to be held responsible for that only 
 which we have done, and to be held in the manner pointed out by law. 
 Under the charge upon which these defendants are held under this in¬ 
 dictment, we shall prove to you, and I hope to your entire satisfaction, 
 that a case has not been made out against them. Whether they be 
 Socialists or whether they be Anarchists we hope will not influence any 
 one of you, gentlemen. Whatever they may have preached, or what¬ 
 ever they may have said, or whatever may have been their object, if 
 it was not connected with the throwing of the bomb it is your sworn 
 duty to acquit them. We expect to make all this proof, and we expect 
 such a result. Gentlemen, I thank you. 
 
 CHAPTEE IX. 
 
 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 On the morning of Monday, August 2, the defense placed its first 
 witness on the stand in the person of Caeter H. Harrison, Mayor of 
 Chicago. We have already alluded to his testimony in part. He said 
 that on the morning of the 4th he “ received information of the issu¬ 
 ance of a circular of a peculiar character,” calling the Haymarket 
 meeting. He directed the chief of police that if anything should be 
 said at that meeting “ that might call out a recurrence of such pro¬ 
 ceedings as at McCormick’s factory, the meeting should be dispersed. 
 I believed that it was better for myself to be there and disperse the 
 meeting myself instead of leaving it to any policeman.” He heard 
 Spies’ speech “ and all of Mr. Parsons up to the time I left, with the 
 exception of about five or ten minutes, during which I went over to 
 the station. When I judged that Mr. Parsons was looking towards 
 the close of his speech I went over to the station, spoke to Captain 
 Bonfield and determined to go home, but instead of going immediately 
 I went back to hear a little more; staid there about five minutes 
 longer and then left. Within about twenty minutes from the time 
 that I left the meeting I heard the sound of the explosion of the bomb 
 at my house. 
 
112 
 
 TESTIMONY FOE THE DEFENSE. 
 
 “ I did in fact take no action at the meeting about dispersing it. 
 There were occasional replies from the audience as ‘shoot him,’ ‘hang 
 him, ’ or the like, but I do not think from the directions in which they 
 came, here and there and around, that there were more than two or 
 three hundred actual sympathizers with the speakers. Several times 
 cries of ‘ hang him, ’ would come from a boy in the outskirts, and the 
 crowd would laugh. I felt that a majority of the crowd were idle 
 spectators, and the replies nearly as much what might be called 
 ‘ guying ’ as absolute applause. Some of the replies were evidently 
 bitter; they came from immediately around the stand. The audience 
 numbered from 800 to 1,000. The people in attendance, so far as I 
 could see before the speaking commenced, were apparently laborers 
 and mechanics, and the majority of them not English-speaking peo¬ 
 ple, mostly Germans. There was no suggestion made by either of the 
 speakers for the immediate use of force or violence toward any person 
 that night; if there had been I should have dispersed them at once. 
 * * * When I went to the station during Parson’s speech, I 
 
 stated to Captain Bonfield that I thought the speeches were about 
 over; that nothing had occurred yet or looked likely to occur to require in¬ 
 terference, and that he had better issue orders to his reserves at the 
 other stations to go home, * * * j don’t remember hear¬ 
 ing Parsons call ‘ To arms ! To arms ! To arms !’ ” 
 
 Bakton Simonson, born in Chicago, and traveling salesman for 
 seven years. On May 4, “ after supper^ I went to the Haymarket 
 meeting. In the afternoon I had received a copy of the circular call¬ 
 ing the Haymarket meeting. This (producing circular) is the copy of 
 the circular I received.” It did not contain the line “Workingmen, arm 
 yourself and appear in full force.” 
 
 “ I reached the Haymarket about 7:30. I found no meeting 
 there. I walked around among the crowd, which was scattered over 
 the Haymarket, then I went to the Hesplaines Street station and shook 
 hands with Captain Ward, whom I knew. He introduced me to In¬ 
 spector Bonfield and I had a conversation with him. Later on I went 
 back and remained throughout the whole meeting until the bomb had 
 exploded. The speakers were northeast of me in front of Crane 
 Brothers building, a few feet north of the alley. I remember the 
 alley particularly. As far as I remember Spies’ speech, he said: 
 
 ‘ Please come to order. This meeting is not called to incite any riot.’ ” 
 Witness then gave a synopsis of the speech, which in no wise differs 
 from that previously given as written out by Spies. 
 
 He thought Mr. Parsons did say “To arms, to arms,” but in what 
 connection could not remember. “Somebody in the crowd said 
 
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 113 
 
 ‘ shoot ’ or ‘ hang Gould,’ and he says, ‘ No, a great many will jump 
 up and take his place. What Socialism aims at is not the death of 
 individuals, but of the system.’ 
 
 “ Fielden spoke very loud, and as I had never attenaed a Socialist 
 meeting before in my life, I thought they were a little wild. Fielden 
 spoke about a Congressman from Ohio who had been elected by the 
 workingmen and confessed that no legislation could be enacted in 
 favor of the workingmen; consequently he said there was no use try¬ 
 ing to do anything by legislation. After he had talked a while a dark 
 cloud with cold wind came from the north. Many people had left 
 before, but when that cloud came a great many people left. Some¬ 
 body said, ‘Let’s adjourn’—to someplace—I can’t remember the name 
 of the place. Fielden said he was about through, there was no need 
 of adjourning. He said two or three times, ‘Now, in conclusion,’or 
 something like that, and I became impatient. Then I heard a com¬ 
 motion and a good deal of noise in the audience, and somebody said, 
 ‘ police.’ I looked south and saw a line of police. The police moved 
 along until the front of the column got about up to the speaker’s 
 wagon. I heard somebody near the wagon say something about dis¬ 
 persing. I saw some persons upon the wagon. I could not tell who 
 they were. About the time somebody was giving that command to 
 disperse, I distinctly heard two words coming from the vicinity of the 
 wagon or from the wagon. I don’t know who uttered them. The 
 words were, ‘ peaceable meeting.’ That was a few seconds before the 
 explosion of the bomb. I did not hear any such exclamation as, 
 ‘ Here come the bloodhounds of the police ; you do your duty and I’ll 
 do mine,’ from the locality of the wagon or from Mr. Fielden. I heard 
 nothing of the sort that night. At the time the bomb exploded I was 
 still in my position upon the stairs. There was no pistol firing by 
 any person upon the wagon before the bomb exploded. No pistol 
 shots anywhere before the explosion of the bomb. 
 
 “ Just after the command to disperse had been given, I saw a 
 lighted fuse, or something—I didn’t know what it was at the time- 
 come up from a point twenty feet south of the south line of Crane’s 
 alley, from about the center of the sidewalk on the east side of the 
 street, from behind some boxes. I am positive it was not thrown from 
 the alley. I first noticed it about six or seven feet in the air, a little 
 above a man’s head. It went in a northwest course and up about 
 fifteen feet from the ground, and fell about the middle of the street. 
 The explosion followed almost immediately. Something of a cloud of 
 smoke followed the explosion. After the bomb exploded there was 
 pistol shooting. From my position I could distinctly see the flashes 
 
114 TESTIMONY POE THE DEFENSE. ’ 
 
 of the pistols. My head was about fifteen feet above the ground. 
 There might have been fifty to one hundred and fifty pistol shots. 
 They proceeded from about the center of where the police were. I 
 did not observe either the flashes of the pistol shot or hear the report 
 of any shots from the crowd upon the police prior to the firing by the 
 pohce. The police were not only shooting at the crowd, but I noticed 
 several of them shoot just as they happened to throw their arms. I 
 concluded that my position was possibly more dangerous than down 
 in the crowd, and then I ran down to the foot of the stairs, ran west 
 on the sidewalk on Randolph street a short distance, and then in the 
 road. A crowd was running in the same direction. I had to jump 
 over a man lying down, and I saw another man fall in front of me 
 about 150 to 200 feet west of Desplaines street. I took hold of his 
 arm and wanted to help him, but the firing was so lively behind me 
 that I just left go and ran. I was in the rear of the crowd running 
 west,'the police still behind us. There were no shots from the direc¬ 
 tion to which I was running. 
 
 “I am not and never have been a member of any Socialistic party 
 or association. Walking through the crowd before the meeting, I no¬ 
 ticed that the meeting was composed principally of ordinary working¬ 
 men, mechanics, etc. The audience listened and once in while there 
 would be yells of ‘ Shoot him,’ ‘Hang him.’ The violent ones seemed 
 to be in the vicinity of the wagon. My impression is that some were 
 making fun of the meeting. I noticed no demonstration of violence, 
 no fighting or anything of that kind on the part of the crowd. 
 
 “ I heard about half a dozen or perhaps a few more of such ex¬ 
 pressions as ‘ Hang him ’ or ‘ Shoot him,’ from the audience. I did 
 not find any difference in the bearing of the crowd during Fielden’s 
 speech from what it was during Parsons’ or Spies’. In the course of 
 the conversation with Capt. Bonfield at the station before the meeting 
 that night, I asked him about the trouble in the southwestern part 
 of the city. He says: ‘ The trouble there is that these ’—whether he : 
 used the word Socialist or strikers, I don’t know—‘ get their women j 
 and children mixed up with them and around them and in front 
 of them, and we can’t get at them. I would like to get 3,000 of 
 them in a crowd without their women and children ’ — and t(» the 
 best of my recollection he added—‘ and I will make short work of 
 them.’ I noticed a few women and children at the bottom of the steps 
 where I was.” 
 
 Upon cross-examination this graphic and evidently truthful nar¬ 
 ration was not weakened in the least. Among other things he added 
 in confirmation the following: “ The firing began from the police, right. 
 
TESTIMONY FOK THE DEFENSE. 
 
 115 
 
 in the center of the street. I did not see a single shot fired from the 
 crowd on either side of the street. I don’t know what became of the 
 men on the wagon. I was not looking at the wagon all the time, but 
 was looking over the scene in general. If you get up on a place as 
 high as I was, and it was dark, you could see every flash; the flashes 
 show themselves when they are out of the revolvers, on a dark night. 
 The scene impressed itself so upon me, that now, looking back, I see 
 it as I did then. Looking at where the bomb exploded, I could not 
 help looking towards the wagon, too.” 
 
 The witness went to the meeting out of mere curiosity to see what 
 Socialist meetings were, and no subsequent witness could in any man¬ 
 ner affect his character as an exemplary citizen and Christian gentle¬ 
 man. 
 
 John Ferguson, a resident of Chicago for seventeen years and 
 engaged in the business of cloak-making. His testimony was straight¬ 
 forward and pertinent as to the character of the meeting. On May 
 4th he happened to be passing through an adjoining street with an 
 acquaintance, “ and noticing something of a crowd further south on 
 Desplaines street we walked down to it. Some gentleman was speak¬ 
 ing in broken English. My acquaintance told me he believed it was 
 Spies. I stopped about ten minutes and listened to his speech. Then 
 we walked down Desplaines street about half way to the station, and 
 passed Carter Harrison and two gentlemen with him. I turned around 
 and went back, expecting to hear one of Carter’s speeches. Spies was 
 still speaking, but finished in a few minutes, and Mr. Parsons made a 
 speech of about thirty or thirty-five minutes. Then Mr. HarriSon 
 went away, and I turned to go away, and, meeting an acquaintance, 
 stopped and conversed with him for a few minutes. I then listened to 
 about fifteen minutes more of Mr. Parsons’ speech from the crossing 
 of Eandolph street. During his speer*h, when he mentioned Jay 
 Gould’s name, somebody said, ‘ Throw him in the lake,’ and a man 
 almost in front of me took his pipe from his mouth and hollered out, 
 ‘Hang him.’ Parsons replied that would do no good, a dozen more 
 Jay Goulds would spring up in his place. ‘ Socialism aims not at the 
 life of individuals, but at the system.’ I didn’t hear any other re¬ 
 sponses from the crowd than those I mentioned. 
 
 “ After Parsons concluded another gentleman got up and began 
 speaking about Congressman Foran. After a few minutes I saw quite 
 a storm cloud come up. Some one interrupted the speaker with the 
 remark: ‘ There is a prospect of immediate storm, and those of you 
 who wish to continue the meeting can adjourn to ’—some hall, I don’t 
 remember the name of it; but the speaker, resuming, said: ‘ I havn’t 
 
IIG 
 
 TESTIMONY FOK THE DEFENSE. 
 
 but two or three words more to say, and then you can go home.’ I 
 walked away from the meeting, across Eandolph street to the south¬ 
 west corner. There I saw the police rush out from the station in a 
 body; they whirled into the street and came down very rapidly to¬ 
 wards us; the gentleman in command of the police was swinging his 
 arm and told them to hurry up. After they had passed us we turned 
 to walk south towards the station and we heard a slight report, some¬ 
 thing like breaking boards, or like slapping a brick doym on the pave¬ 
 ment. We turned, and we had just about faced around, looking at 
 the crowd, when we saw a fire flying out about six or eight feet above 
 the heads of the heads of the crowd and falling down pretty near the 
 center of the street. It was all dark for almost a second, perhaps, 
 and then there was a deafening roar, then almost instantly we saw 
 flashes from towards the middle of the street, south of Eandolph on 
 Desplaines, and heard reports. That side of the street where the 
 crowd was was dark; at that time there did not appear to be any light 
 there. Then we hurried away. I did not see any flashes from either 
 side of the street. The crowd was very orderly, as orderly as I ever 
 saw anywhere in the street. 
 
 “ It could not have been longer than five minutes from the time 
 Fielden said that we will be through in a short time that the police 
 marched down the street. I am not a Socialist, nor an Anarchist, nor 
 a Communist; I don’t know anything about what those terms mean.” 
 
 Ludwig Zellee was the next witness. Went to the meeting after 
 ten o’clock, stopping because attracted by the crowd. Shortly after 
 he saw the police marching towards them. He was standing by the 
 lamp post near Crane’s alley. “ When they passed me I heard the 
 command of the captain; heard no reply from anybody on the wagon 
 or near the wagon. I turned and went south to Eandolph street, and 
 in turning I saw a light go through the air about six, or eight, or ten 
 feet south of the lamp. It went in a northwesternly direction, right 
 into the middle of the police; then I heard an explosion and shooting. 
 ^ ^ * The shots came from the center of the street.” 
 
 Witness was present at a meeting of the Central Labor Union on 
 Sunday, May 2d, as a delegate from the Cigar Makers’ Union, No. 15. 
 “ The delegates of the Lumber-Shovers’ Union at that meeting re¬ 
 quested me to send a speaker to a meeting of the Lumber-Shovers’ 
 Union to be held on Monday, May 3d, at the Black road; they wanted 
 a good speaker, who could keep the meeting quiet and orderly. In the 
 afternoon of the same day we had another meeting of the Central 
 Labor Union, at which Mr. Spies was present as a reporter of the 
 Arbeiter-Zeitung, and I told him personally to go out to the meeting 
 
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 117 
 
 and speak in the name of the Central Labor Union. * * * I did 
 not notice any firing back from the crowd at the police.” 
 
 Upon cross-examination he said: 
 
 “ I am not an Anarchist; I am a Socialist. I was standing about 
 five or six feet south of that alley. I saw the fuse about eight or ten 
 feet south of me. * * * There was an express wagon about ten or 
 twelve feet south of the alley. I can’t remember any boxes there, 
 there were so many men standing around me, and I was only a few 
 minutes there.” 
 
 Gael Eichtek, in the leather business, was at the meeting, and 
 particular attention is called to his testimony in connection with the 
 evidence of Thompson that Spies and Schwab conversed in the alley. 
 He said: 
 
 “ I was standing at the mouth of Crane’s alley when the meeting 
 was opened. Mr. Spies was on the wagon, a little north of the alley, 
 and asked, ‘ Is Parsons here ?’ or something like that. After that 
 Spies left the wagon. I did not notice in whart direction he went. 
 About five or ten minutes later Spies was on the wagon again, and 
 commenced his speech. During all the time Spies was away I was 
 standing right there at the alley. There was nothing to prevent my 
 seeing whoever went in the alley.” He was slightly acquainted with 
 Mr. Spies, but no tie of relationship or friendship connected them. 
 “ I never saw this gentleman (indicating Schwab) before in my life, to 
 my knowledge. I did not see Mr. Spies or Mr. Schwab go into the 
 mouth of the alley at the mouth of which I was standing. There 
 were not many people around me at the time, may be ten people in 
 my immediate neighborhood.” 
 
 The meeting was quite orderly. Witness was not a Socialist, a 
 Communist, nor an Anarchist, nor connected with any of their organ¬ 
 izations. Saw no firing from the crowd. Heard all the speaking, but 
 did not hear the police called bloodhounds or any remark referring to 
 them. Saw no change in the demeanor of the crowd during Fielden’s 
 speech from what it had been. 
 
 Feiedeich Liebel also gave testimony directly opposite to that 
 of Gilmer and Thompson. He was standing on the southeast corner 
 of the alley, the previous witness being about in the center of the 
 mouth of the alley. Is a carpenter. Heard Spies ask for Parsons and 
 saw him leave the wagon. Did not leave his position while Spies was 
 about. Had frequently heard him speak and therefore knew his face. 
 Did not see Schwab that night. Did not see Spies go towards the alley 
 and the gas lamp was lighted. 
 
 As to the direction from which the bomb proceeded, he directly 
 
118 
 
 TESTIMONY FOE THE DEFENSE. 
 
 contradicts Gilmers’ tale. Wlien the police ca-me he was a few feet 
 south of the alley, the wagon being a few feet north of it. “ After I 
 heard the captain’s command I went south (that is, still further from 
 the alley), tried to get out of the crowd, partly I was shoved, partly I 
 shoved myself. The next thing I observed was a light which 1 took at 
 the time for the stump of a cigar, about midway between the alley and 
 the corner of Eandolph street (still further south), over the east side¬ 
 walk, about four feet over my head. It went in a northwesternly di¬ 
 rection. After that I heard shots coming from west of me, from the 
 direction of the police. I didn’t see any of the people on the sidewalk 
 return the dre. I heard the explosion of the bomb and the revolver 
 shots so near together that I can’t say which was first. A great many 
 shots came from behind me while I was running on Eandolph street. 
 I did not notice anybody in front of me shoot back." 
 
 Witness never belonged to any Socialistic group, armed or other¬ 
 wise. 
 
 The reader will bear in mind that the burden of Gilmer’s evidence 
 was that Spies lit the fuse and Schnaubelt threw the bomb from the 
 mouth of the alley, Fischer being present. Thompson was called to 
 prove that Spies and Schwab talked about “ pistol ” and “ police ” in 
 the alley, and inferentially about bombs. We have seen them both 
 flatly contradicted by fair and unbiased witnesses. But the counter¬ 
 proof is by no means exhausted. 
 
 Dr. James D. Taylor, physician by profession, came to this coun¬ 
 try from England forty-four years ago and is seventy-six years old. 
 On the night of May 4th he was at the Haymarket meeting and stood 
 close to the north side of Crane’s alley. It will be remembered that 
 Eichter stood at about the center and Liebel on the south side of the 
 alley, all three of them on the sidewalk of Desplaines street, thus giv¬ 
 ing them all a full view of the entrance to the alley. He was there 
 twenty minutes before the speaking began and remained there till the 
 storm of bullets suggested other thoughts. The tail end of the wagon 
 was about four feet from where he stood on the curbstone. “ What 
 particularly struck me in Spies’ speech was his reply to some persons 
 who said ‘ Hang Jay Gould.’ Spies said: ‘You had better shut up 
 and go home and learn more about what you ought to know before you 
 begin talking about hanging anybody. We are not here for that pur¬ 
 pose.* * * * 
 
 “ I saw the police come up. The front rank was on line with me. 
 I could have touched the first man with my arm. They went up to 
 within about six feet from the wagon. I heard one of them say; ‘ I 
 command you in the name of the State of IlYnois to disperse.’ Mr. 
 
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 119 
 
 Fielden was on the wagon or just about coming down from the wagon 
 at that time. When the police came up I noticed ^those south of the 
 alley began to disperse. Just before that I heard Mr. Fielden say, 
 ‘We have talked long enough and it is time to disperse.’ Fielden 
 spoke in his ordinary tone. 
 
 “ I heard the explosion of the bomb. I heard no pistol shot prior 
 to it. I saw Fielden get down from the wagon. I saw him after the 
 bomb exploded. I heard Fielden reply to the command to disperse: 
 
 ‘ We are peaceable,’ while he was still on the wagon. I did not see 
 Fielden draw a revolver and shoot in the direction of the police; I 
 never saw anything of the kind. He came down from the wagon near¬ 
 est to the police; he was only a few feet distant from me at the time. 
 I watched him as long as I could, but finally looking in the direction in 
 which he had been standing, he wasn’t there. I did not see him use a 
 pistol on or off the wagon. 
 
 “ I saw the bomb in the air, as near as I could judge twenty to 
 forty feet south of the alley, and the man who threw it stood beyond 
 a number of boxes. These boxes were about five or six feet elevated 
 one on the other, on the sidewalk, south of the lamp-post. I revisited 
 the ground the next morning and saw the boxes there. * * * * 
 
 “ The pistol firing and the explosion of the bomb seemed to me 
 almost simultaneous. The pistol firing came from the direction where 
 the police were. I did not see any pistol-firing from the crowd upon 
 the police; I went up to Crane’s alley behind other people going into 
 the same alley. When I revisited the ground the next morning I no¬ 
 ticed bullet marks on the wall of Crane’s building, which form the 
 north side of Crane’s alley. I could not find one bullet mark on the 
 wall of the south side of the alley. I examined a telegraph pole on 
 the west side of Desplaines street north of Crane’s alley. I noticed 
 that all the perforations were on the south side of that telegraph pole. 
 I did not find one pistol shot or fresh mark upon the north side of that 
 telegraph pole.” 
 
 Yet Gilmer said he remained quietly during the shooting “ right 
 at the n^outh of the alley; and after it was all over I backed out the 
 alley, took a car and went home !” Dr. Taylor further said: “ After 
 I got into the alley I took a zigzag course to get out of the way of 
 pistol shots” which were being fired into and down the alley. On 
 cross-examination he said Fielden could not have pulled out a revolver 
 before he left the scene without witness seeing it. “ A good many 
 bullets came into the alley. ” He went south afterwards on Desplaines 
 street and for two blocks distant had to dodge in several places as 
 “ the police were shooting all the way down. They shot down Ran- 
 
120 
 
 TESTIMONY FOE THE DEFENSE.; 
 
 dolph street, they shot on Madison street, two blocks south of Randolph 
 street. I took refuge in the court of St. Dennis Hotel. There was 
 one policeman who passed me saying, ‘ God damn you, you shall go 
 to hell,’ and away he blazed at the people going on Madison street. 
 
 I heard him shoot about three times. * * * I believe in organized 
 government: I believe in the oath in courts of justice, but I believe a 
 man ought to speak the truth even if there was no oath. I know 
 nothing about the armed section of the American group. I never ad¬ 
 vocated the use of force ; I never handled any dynamite bombs.” 
 
 Next follows some testimonials as to the character of Mr. Gilmer. 
 
 L. C. Moses, a grocer, sixty-four years of age. “ I know Harry 
 Gilmer, who I understand was a witness in this case, since he came 
 into the neighborhood, between six and seven months ago. I know 
 his general reputation for truth and veracity in the neighbor¬ 
 hood in which he resides. It is very bad, I should judge. I 
 should not believe him under oath.” He said that he wouldn’t trust 
 Gilmer a dollar; but why he would not believe him was not on that 
 account, but from information received from people who boarded 
 where he did. 
 
 Mrs. B. P. Lee knew Gilmer. Had always heard that his rep¬ 
 utation for veracity was bad and that he was not to be believed under 
 oath. Had heard this before Gilmer’s name appeared in the case as 
 a witness. 
 
 Frank Stenner was called to testify in Fielden’s behalf. He is a 
 machinist and attended the meeting because he had read the circular 
 calling it. Hs was four or six feet from the speaker’s wagon. He 
 heard Fielden say: “ We are peaceable,” or something like that, but 
 that afterwards Fielden said “ all right ” and got down from the 
 wagon on the west side. “ As soon as the bomb was thrown the 
 policemen shot. I didn’t see anybody except the police shoot.” He 
 laid down for safety on the steps of Crane Brothers’ factory. “ I re¬ 
 mained there a few minutes, a policeman came and arrested me. 
 From reading the paper I guess the policeman’s name was Foley. 
 When I was in the cell Officer Wessler came to me, showed me a revol¬ 
 ver and said, ‘ It is your revolver.’ When I was examined before the 
 justice of the peace, Wessler said to the judge, he had seen me on the 
 steps of Crane Brothers; there was a shot from that place and he 
 guessed I was the man that shot. That revolver was found by Officer 
 Foley, about fifty feet from the wagon while I was in his custody. He i 
 said three shots were out and two were in.” Foley swore that he j 
 picked up this pistol while “going by the wagon.” Witness further said i 
 the crowd was peaceably inclined; while some cried “Hang him,” others J 
 
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 121 
 
 called “ rats.” “ When Parsons was talking one man who stood by 
 my side said, ‘You are a liar.’” 
 
 “ There was no shot fired from the wagon before the bomb ex¬ 
 ploded. I was looking at Fielden when he got off the wagon.” He 
 was held as a “suspect” under arrest for three weeks, but discharged 
 upon examination. 
 
 Joseph Gutscher, a shoemaker, was also at the meeting, and 
 standing on the west side of Desplaines street, across from the speak¬ 
 ers’ wagon. He also testified to the fact that the police did all the 
 shooting. “ I was shot myself in the back and in the leg. There 
 were three other men near me who were shot. One of them received 
 three shots. The police took me to the station and locked me up for 
 two weeks.'' Nothing appears to show the witness was in sympathy 
 with the social heretics to whom he was listening, he stating, in fact, 
 that living half a block distant he went “ because I saw many people 
 go there.” After being confined in the station for two weeks, with two 
 bullets in him, for the crime of being there, he was removed to the 
 hospital, where he remained one week. 
 
 Frank Eaab, a baker, was casually passing, and seeing the crowd, 
 stopped. Had no acquaintance with any of the defendants; although 
 a Socialist, belongs to no organization. Was present when the bomb 
 was thrown, but “saw no fire go through the air from the mouth of the 
 alley.” 
 
 “I did not see any shooting from the audience at the police either 
 before I started to run or when I was running. Lots of men were fall¬ 
 ing down while I was running. I jumped over three or four. After I 
 turned the corner a man fell before me and another behind me, and I 
 jumped and sort of caught my foot and fell down into the basement. I 
 stayed there two or three minutes; then went out and the police were 
 still shooting, not very much, however. I went across the street, where 
 there is a saloon on the corner, and there I saw a citizen shot right 
 through his hand.” Cross-examination only brought out the fact that 
 he was not a reader of any Socialistic paper, and had never even seen 
 the Arheiter-Zeitung. 
 
 John 0. Brixey had known Gilmer since 1880; had lived in the 
 same neighborhood with him in 1880 and 1881, and again “ some time 
 last year. I was then living where I am living now, and Gilmer lived 
 next door to me. I think I know his general reputation for truth and 
 veracity among his neighbors. It is bad. I don’t think I could believe 
 him under oath.” Had heard his reputation discussed as far back as 
 1880. “ It was a kind of a general thing to discuss Gilmer’s truthful¬ 
 ness and veracity.” Testified reluctantly. 
 
122 
 
 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 John Gakrick, ex-chief deputy-sheriff, was slightly acquainted ’ 
 with Harry L. Gilmer. Had first met him in 1881, “ when he was a 
 tenant of mine. I am acquainted with his general reputation for truth 
 and veracity among his neighbors and acquaintances where he resides. 
 His reputation is very bad, as far as I heard. I should hate to believe 
 him under oath; I could notd' Had “seen him associate with very 
 questionable characters, both men and women.” Got rid of him as a 
 tenant as quickly as possible. 
 
 William Urban, compositor at the Arbeiter-Zeitung since 1879; 
 a member of the Central Labor Union; knows Mr. Spies. Witness cor¬ 
 roborated Mr. Zeller that Spies was selected to speak at the Lumber- 
 Shovers’ Union, near McCormick’s factory, on May 3. “Mr. Spies 
 said he was very busy, and if he could go out to the Black road the 
 next day he would do so.” It was not of his own inclination that Spies 
 went. 
 
 Was at the Haymarket. Mr. Parsons was speaking from the 
 wagon when he arrived, a few feet north of the alley. Heard Parsons 
 propose an adjournment and Fielden reply that he woqld “only talk 
 a tew minutes longer.” When the police came he was on the corner of 
 the alley, near the lamp-post. “ Captain Ward stepped forward and 
 said, ‘ In the name,’ etc., and I saw two or three policemen four or five 
 feet behind the captain have something shining in their hands. I guess 
 it was revolvers. Then I looked around and saw something like a fire¬ 
 cracker in the air, then I heard a deep noise and shooting. It seemed 
 to me all these noises came at once. This fire that looked to me like 
 a fire-cracker must have started about fifteen to eighteen feet south of 
 the lamp-post, at Crane’s alley. It went awfully fast, made a kind of 
 circle,” etc. He ran toward Eandolph street, but “ fell over a pile of 
 people lying there and couldn’t get any further,” so jumped over a 
 railing into an area-way. Saw none of the citizens return the fire of 
 the police. Neither heard Mr. Fielden nor any one else refer to the 
 police as “bloodhounds.” 
 
 William Gleeson ; not a Socialist, Communist nor Anarchist. Was 
 at the Haymarket meeting with witness Ferguson. “ Parsons was 
 speaking when I arrived at the meeting. I remember his making some 
 comments as to Gould. Some person in the audience cried out, ‘ Hang 
 him! ’ Parsons replied something to the effect that Socialism or Social¬ 
 ists did not want any one killed; they wanted the system killed that 
 created and encouraged such men as Gould. In this connection he 
 deprecated the abusing of scabs by trade unionists, stating that they 
 were only parasites on the body politic. He told the story about the J 
 fleas and the dog, and said that while the trade unions were going to ,J 
 
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 123 
 
 kill off the fleas, which he compared with the scabs, Socialists wanted 
 to kill the dog—which was the system that created these scabs.” While 
 standing on the southwest corner of Kandolph street with Ferguson, 
 “we suddenly saw a number of policemen rush out of the alley that 
 led down to the police station, coming on and forming along the street, 
 and they were so impetuous that one of the young lieutenants, I pre¬ 
 sume he was*in command, ran five or six feet in advance of his column 
 and was shouting and hurrying them up to be quick, and rallying them, 
 as it were, to advance quicker than they were doing. They advanced 
 very quickly, I should say between a run and a walk. ” Instantaneously 
 with the bomb the shooting began, and came from the center of the 
 street. 
 
 William Sahl, blacksmith; in sympathy with the Socialists, but 
 not an Anarchist. Heard Spies ask for Parsons from the wagon, and 
 saw him get down and walk with two or three other persons in a south¬ 
 westerly direction. Knows Mr. Schwab and that he was not one of 
 those accompanying Spies; did not see him on the wagon. Did not 
 see Mr. Schwab around that place at any time that night. Never be¬ 
 longed to any group. 
 
 Eberhakdt Hiersemenzel, painter, testified that all the shots came 
 from the police. “ I only saw that everyone wanted to get away to 
 save himself. I did not see any of the citizens have in their posses¬ 
 sion any revolvers or weapons of any kind.” When he ran he saw sev¬ 
 eral lying prostrate and others near him fell, and he fell over them and 
 injured his knee. 
 
 Conrad Messer, cabinet-maker, stood by the wagon when the 
 police came and heard Fielden respond, “We are peaceable.” Saw 
 Fielden get down. “ I saw Fielden all that time. He had no pistol in 
 his hand. I didn’t see him fire one shot. I saw no citizen shoot there. 
 The firing came from the police. I am not a Socialist. I do not belong 
 to any group of Anarchists or armed section.” 
 
 August Krumm, woodworker and machinist, gave important testi¬ 
 mony. He was neither Socialist, Communist nor Anarchist. Don’t 
 think he ever saw any of the defendants before that night. Arrived at 
 the meeting about a quarter of nine. Knew nothing about the meeting, 
 and being down town stopped merely out of curiosity. A Mr. Albright 
 was with him. “ I stood close to the north wall of Crane Brothers’ 
 building, right at the comer of Crane’s alley. Eemained there all the 
 evening. Later in the evening Albright and myself went back a little 
 ways into the alley. He gave me a pipe of tobacco. I lit a match and 
 lighted his pipe and mine. When we went back to the corner I saw 
 the police coming up, and one man walked up to the wagon. Shortly 
 
124 
 
 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 after that I heard a shot fired from the direction where the police 
 stood, from the south. Eight after the bomb exploded. 1 didn’t see 
 any shot fired from the wagon. While we were lighting our pipes in 
 the alley, and while we were at the comer, I did not see any one enter 
 the alley. We went back into the alley to light our pipes because there 
 was a kind of draft on the sidewalk.” Saw the bomb in the air, “some¬ 
 thing like a burnt-out match,” coming from a point about twenty feet 
 south of the alley. “ It could not have started from the mouth of the 
 alley.” He knew none of the speakers; thought it was Spies who spoke 
 last, but, asked to point him out, promptly indicated Fielden. A long 
 and searching cross-examination failed to shake his testimony. 
 
 Egbert Lindinger was at the meeting with Carl Eichter, and 
 standing with him at the mouth of Crane’s alley when Spies asked for 
 Parsons and got down from the wagon. Did not see Spies approach 
 him and never saw Schwab before in his life. Stayed there till the 
 close and heard Fielden reply something containing the word “peace¬ 
 able.” Heard no one refer to the poUce as “bloodhounds.” Saw no 
 pistol in Fielden’s hand when he got down. “ I did not see anybody in 
 the crowd fire a shot. I saw shots when I last looked at the wagon 
 from, where the police were standing. I did not see anybody on the 
 sidewalk shoot back at the police. I am no Socialist.” Witness was 
 a member of the Knights of Labor and belonged to no other organiza¬ 
 tion.” 
 
 William Albright, who was with Krumm in the alley, corrobor¬ 
 ated his companion’s testimony as to the lighting of the pipe and “ as 
 I came out I saw the police coming.” Was not a Socialist, but was a 
 Knight of Labor. His testimony was essentially the same as that of 
 Krumm’s. 
 
 George Koehler testified to the police doing the shooting and to, 
 the bomb starting from south of the alley. 
 
 Theodore Weimeldt, canvasser, was at the meeting. Saw the 
 circular on the street and it did not contain the words, “Workingmen, 
 arm yourselves and appear in full force.” On his way to the meeting 
 had a conversation with Mr. Kelly, the bailiff of the police station, 
 whom he had known for four or five years. The State objected to the 
 next question, which was: 
 
 Q. I will ask you what Mr. Kelly said, if anything, in regard to 
 trouble that might be expected that night ? 
 
 The court sustained the objection, but witness stated that after the 
 conversation he concluded not to stay and went directly home. 
 
 Frederick C. Groh, carpenter, was at the meeting in April where 
 Engel spoke. Mr. Engel never spoke at those meetings but once. They 
 
 i 
 
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE 
 
 125 
 
 were Carpenters’-union meetings. “ I didn’t hear Mr. Engel say in his 
 speech anything in regard to saving money to buy revolvers. He said 
 he wanted all workingmen to join the union. I did not hear him say 
 anything about getting revolvers to shoot policemen down. Am sec¬ 
 retary of the union.” 
 
 August Keause, carpenter, was chairman of the meeting where- 
 Engel spoke, and corroborated the previous witness. 
 
 William Eadtke keeps a saloon at 888 Clybourn avenue, in th& 
 suburbs. “ On the night of May 4 last, I saw Mr. Schwab in my 
 saloon about fifteen or twenty minutes after nine. He stayed there 
 about ten minutes. Then I saw him go over to the prairie and maka 
 a speech.” 
 
 Diedeich Beheens lived in the same vicinity. “I remember to 
 have seen the defendant Schwab, on the night of May 4 last, in. 
 Schilling’s saloon, on the corner of Clybourn and Ashland avenues, 
 between a quarter-past ten and half-past ten.” 
 
 Chaeles Heideekeeugee, eighteen years of age, while passing the 
 meeting stopped. Stood by the corner of the wagon; was suddenly 
 pushed, and looking up saw the police sixteen or twenty feet away from 
 him and the crowd already running. He threw himself on his face for 
 safety; saw no arms in the crowd. “ When I laid myself down officers 
 got around me; I wanted to get away. I got up and went towards the 
 officers, wanted to go home; one of the officers stopped me, told me 
 to hold up my hands, which I did, and he hit me with his club, arrested 
 me, and I was taken to the station and locked up.” 
 
 JosEPH ScHwiNDT, shoemaker, was at the meeting; “ stood ten or 
 twelve feet south of the wagon, between the lamp-post and the boxes on 
 the sidewalk, at the time the police came up, facing the police.” Saw 
 no one shoot except the police. 
 
 M. D. Malkoff, reporter, attended a meeting of the Furniture 
 Workers’ Union at Zepf’s Hall on the evening of May 4. At the 
 time of the explosion was standing down stairs in the saloon with Mr. 
 Allen. “ I saw Parsons at Zepf’s Hall from five to ten minutes before 
 the explosion of the bomb. He was sitting at the window, north of 
 the entrance door, in company with Mrs. Parsons and Mrs. Holmes. 
 The saloon was pretty crowded at that time.” Although nearly a. 
 block distant witness heard “ the bullets rattling on the walls.” 
 
 Wm. a. Patteeson, printer, was a member of the American 
 Group, and in response to an “ad ” in the News attended a meeting 
 of the group at 107 Fifth avenue on the evening of May 4. There 
 were present Parsons, Fielden, Schwab and others. “The business of 
 the meeting was to organize the working-women of Chicago. There ^ 
 
126 
 
 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE, i ^ 
 
 was a call at the telephone. I believe they wanted a speaker at Deer- 
 ing (Clybourn avenue), and a young man, a clerk in the office, an¬ 
 swered.” Mr. Schwab’s name was mentioned and he was sent. Shortly 
 before they adjourned “a gentleman came in and said that speakers 
 were wanted at the Haymarket.” Never heard of the word “ Euhe ” 
 nor knew its meaning; cannot read German. “ The children of Mrs. 
 Parsons were present at the meeting.” 
 
 John Holloway, expressman, on May 4 was walking on Des- 
 plaines street with a friend; looked at the patrol wagons near the sta¬ 
 tion and was roughly accosted by some one. 
 
 Q. State what you saw and heard there. 
 
 Objected to. 
 
 Me. Salomon. —I wish to show by this witness that he was told at 
 the station by persons connected with the same that before twelve 
 o’clock at night blood would flow pretty freely, or words to that effect. 
 
 Jvdge Gat'y sustained the objection. The witness, however, went 
 and stood near the alley until “ the police came up and charged the 
 meeting to disperse.” Heard Fielden say, “ We are peaceable.” “I 
 was looking at the speaker up to the time he was spoken to by one of 
 the policemen, and listened to him. My hearing and eyesight are 
 pretty good. I did not hear anybody at any time that night say, 
 
 ‘ Here come the bloodhounds,’ nothing of the sort took place.” There 
 were no shots from the direction of the wagon; they came from the 
 center of the street. Saw no one have weapons. “ I am sure that 
 nothing came out of the alley while I stood there.” The bomb came 
 from the south. “ Have never had anythinfr to do with any Socialistic 
 group,” and knew none of the speakers. 
 
 Heney Lindmeyee, mason, calcimined the Arbeiter-Zeitimg rooms 
 from May 2 to the 5th. It will be remembered that Officers Duffy 
 and Marks testified to finding a greasy bag containing dynamite on a 
 closet shelf there on May 5th. Witness the same morning, missing a 
 brush, searched the closet and the shelf. “ I found no bundle, no 
 large package, no dynamite on the shelf. Saw no indication of greasi¬ 
 ness there.” He had previously calcimined the closet. His clothes 
 were on that shelf. “ There was no grease on there, else I wouldn’t 
 have put my clothes there.” The closet was on the third floor. 
 
 A very suspicious circumstance regarding the finding of this dy¬ 
 namite is the fact that while the detectives Haas and Marks swear 
 positively that this alleged find was captured on the third floor of that 
 building, Officer Duffy, who was the first of these witnesses, swears 
 just as positively that it was found on the second floor of the building. 
 Duffy located the room where the stuff was found, as being on 
 
TESTIMONY FOE THE DEFENSE. 
 
 127 
 
 the first floor of the Arheiter-Zeitung office; second, as on the second 
 floor of the building; third, as two floors below the type-setting room, 
 and, fourth, as being one floor below the third floor. All these locations 
 refer to the second floor of the building. The only evidence produced 
 came from men for years in the detective service, trained to produce 
 evidence. 
 
 Edward Lehnert, engineer, saw Schnaubelt at the Haymarket 
 meeting about ten o’clock, and conversed with him. 
 
 Q. What was the conversation ? 
 
 Objected to by the State. 
 
 Mr. Zeisler. —We offer to show by this witness that Schnaubelt 
 stated to Lehnert that he did not understand English, that he had ex¬ 
 pected a German speaker would be present, that no one was present 
 who spoke German except Spies, that Spies had already made an En¬ 
 glish speech, and that he did not want to stay any longer, and asked 
 Lehnert if he would go along; that Lehnert thereupon said he did not 
 go in the same direction, and that then Schnaubelt went away with 
 another party. We have been able to trace Schnaubelt only a short 
 distance on his way home. We offer this conversation with Lehnert 
 for the purpose of explaining Mr. Schnaubelt’s movements after meet¬ 
 ing Lehnert.” 
 
 Euled out by the court. 
 
 Witness, however, stated that he saw Schnaubelt leave with a Mr. 
 Erueger. Saw the bomb rise south of the alley. 
 
 William Snyder, born in New York, was on the wagon with the 
 speakers. Was first at the meeting of the American Group to organize 
 the sewing girls and acted as chairman. Knew nothing of the meet¬ 
 ing till he saw notice in the paper. Was on the wagon when the police 
 came; “they were marching up very fast.” He helped Fielden down 
 and just then they heard the explosion of the bomb. “ Fielden did not 
 shoot; he would have killed me if he had shot; I was south of him.” 
 They separated at the alley into which witness ran. “ Fielden did not, 
 after getting out of the wagon, stand on the sidewalk between the 
 wheels of the wagon and fire at the police or in the direction of the 
 police. I had my hand right on him a while, until we reached the 
 mouth of the alley.” Heard no shooting except on the part of the 
 police. Never heard of the word “Kuhe;” cannot read German; was 
 of Yankee descent. Never saw any dynamite. Left a note under 
 Mrs. Parsons’ door on May 6 which was found by detectives. Was 
 thereupon arrested without a warrant and was still in confinement. 
 
 Thomas Brown, of the American Group, also arrested with Snyder 
 as a “ suspect,” was at the meeting, and went with Parsons to Zepf’s 
 
128 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 Hall, where they were when the bomb exploded. “I saw Fischer 
 there.” Never knew the meaning of the word “ Euhedoes not read 
 German. Was not armed that night and never carried arms in his 
 life. 
 
 Henry W. Spies, cigar manufacturer, brother of defendant August 
 Spies. Accompanied his brother to the Haymarket meeting. When 
 they got off the wagon before the meeting opened “ we went in a south¬ 
 westerly direction,” or nearly the opposite direction of the alley. 
 Schwab was not there. They walked one block only, it was not two, as 
 Thompson alleged. “ August was not out of my sight or out of my 
 hearing at any time of that walk. I was right behind him all the time. 
 I never heard my brother and Schnaubelt talk in English. I don’t 
 believe Schnaubelt can speak English. ” His account of the meeting 
 and speeches is similar to that heretofore given. He saw Fielden get 
 off the wagon. 
 
 “ I told my brother to get off and reached my hand over to help 
 him jump. He took my hand, and in fact got down on the side of the 
 wagon, pretty near the middle of it. Just at that time the explosion 
 took place. I asked him what it was, he said ‘ They got a gatling- 
 gun down there,’ and at the same time as he jumped, somebody jumped 
 behind him with a weapon, right by his back, and I grabbed it, and in 
 warding of the pistol from my brother I was shot.” A man named 
 Legner was present. All the firing came from the center of the 
 street. There was no firing back. Never carried arms. Was arrested 
 on May 6. 
 
 August Krueger, to whom Lehnert referred, testified that he left 
 the Haymarket with Schnaubelt about ten o’clock. After going some 
 blocks they separated. On his way home witness stopped at Engel’s 
 house, reaching it about 10:15. Engel was at home. Later Waller 
 came and informed them “ that three hundred men were shot by the 
 police and we ought to go down there and do something. Engel said 
 whoever threw the bomb did a foolish thing; it was nonsense, and he 
 didn’t sympathize with such butchery, and he told Waller he had bet¬ 
 ter go home as quick as possible; he said the policemen were just as 
 good people; the revolution must grow out of the people.” 
 
 John F. Waldo, printer, attended the meeting of the American 
 Group at 107 Fifth avenue, on the evening of May 4. Corroborated 
 testimony as to telephone message for Schwab to go out to Deering. 
 Did not know anything about the word “ Euhe ; ” does not understand 
 German. The “armed group” never had arms. Was at the Hay¬ 
 market and shot in the leg; “ the ball went in from behind while I was 
 running. I was not armed that night; I never carried a revolver in 
 
TESTIMONY FOK THE DEFENSE. 
 
 129 
 
 my life; I did not see any revolvers in the audience. Schwab left af¬ 
 ter receiving the message.” 
 
 John M. Fleming, M.D., surgeon, performed service on the 
 wounded at the Desplaines street station. Took a bullet from the 
 knee of an officer named Kreuger. Asked what conversation ensued, 
 and the State objected. 
 
 Me. Foster— We propose to prove by this witness that at the 
 time the officer asked to see the bullet it was handed to him, and that 
 he at once recognized it and said, “ that came from the police revol- 
 ; ver.” 
 
 ! Judge Gary sustained the objection. 
 
 : . On being shown a regulation bullet the witness thought it was the 
 
 1 same. Other bullets extracted were of the same appearance. 
 
 Otto Wandray was at the Haymarket and met Fischer there. 
 
 - When Fielden was speaking they left and went to Zepf’s hall, where 
 li they were together sitting at a table when the bomb exploded. Saw 
 
 Parsons there. 
 
 Edward Preusser lives near Deering’s factory. “ Not a Socialist, 
 r Anarchist or Communist.” In response to a request from a commit- 
 
 - tee he telephoned for a speaker, suggesting Spies. Spies, he was an- 
 ^ swered, could not attend, “and I said, ‘I don’t suppose it makes any 
 
 difference which one.’ ’ Later he was informed that Mr. Schwab was 
 IS on his way. Went to meet Mr. Schwab on the car. Met him about 
 half-past nine. They then went to Radtke’s saloon, 888 Clybourn av- 
 iti enue and then to the prairie meeting. After the meeting they went to 
 SJ Schilling’s and had lunch and beer. From there to the Haymarket 
 If. is nearly an hour’s ride. 
 
 Other witnesses testified to hearmg Schwab’s speech. Another 
 1 ■ saw him leave the Haymarket on a car before the speaking began. 
 l^The next, from five years’ acquaintance with Gilmer, “ would not be- 
 JMffieve him under oath.” 
 
 Henry Witt, a member of the Lumber-Shovers’ Union, heard 
 “^'Mr. Spies speak on May 3. Witness had made the request for a 
 speaker and Mr. Spies had been sent-. They had nothing to do with 
 mSMcCormick’s factory; were not employed there. When some,- three 
 iflffiundred to four hundred, left on hearing McCormick’s bell ring. Spies 
 eBSadvised them to remain, as they had no connection with McCormick’s; 
 siffie continued to speak fifteen minutes longer. Witness was not a So- 
 Bipialist. “ When McCormick’s bell rang Spies said the people should 
 imot go to McCormicks, as they had no interest in the McCormick 
 ferfactory; they should remain there quietly; he did not go to McCor- 
 
130 
 
 TESTIilONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 mick’s himself.” There were between six and seven thousand pres- 
 ent. 
 
 Three other witnesses corroborated the above testimony. 
 
 William Murphy, cooper, was at the Haymarket on the wagon 
 with the speakers when the police came up. Before the order to dis¬ 
 perse was given no one else had got off. Saw no revolvers around 
 him in the crowd and heard no threat. Got up on the wagon to look 
 for a friend, and while looking the police came and the bomb was 
 thrown. Had been there five or ten minutes. Was not a Socialist. 
 
 Johann Grueneberg, a friend of Fischer. On May 4 he w^ent from 
 the Arhciter-Zeitung office to get the Haymarket circulars. At Fisch¬ 
 er’s order he went l)ack “ and gave the printer the order to leave out 
 the line ‘Workingmen, arm yourselves,’ etc., from the English as well 
 as the German part.” He ordered those already printed to be sup- 
 pressed. Fischer gave him the order in the presence of Spies and 
 Schwab. 
 
 Under cross-examination several questions were asked having no 
 bearing.upon his direct examination, ffir instance, as to where a cer¬ 
 tain group drilled, to which the defense objected. Whereupon the 
 court gave the following remarkable ruling: 
 
 The Court —You have put this witness upon the stand for the 
 purpose of showing a thing was taken out a particular circular; 
 whether he has told that thing as it occurred depends in some degree 
 upon what his associations, feelings, inclinations, biases are in refer¬ 
 ence to the whole business. 
 
 Mr. Black— Whether he has told the truth in regard to that de¬ 
 pends upon his bias and inchnations? 
 
 The Court —Whether it is to he believed. I don’t mean wdiether he 
 has told the truth. 
 
 In other words, it may be the truth, but by permitting an irregular 
 cross-examination, the State may lead the jury to disbelieve it! 
 
 Two other witnesses, business men, knew Gilmer and “ would not 
 believe him under oath.” 
 
 Adolph Tennes was at the Haymarket. Had no knowledge of 
 Socialism and never saw Spies or Parsons before. Was four or five 
 feet from the wagon when the police came. When he started to run 
 Spies and Fielden were not yet off the wagon. The explosion and 
 firing followed immediately. 
 
 Martin Bechtel, brewer, knew Oscar Neebe since March. Was 
 chairman of a meeting of brewers at which Neebe spoke on May 3. 
 Afterwards he went with Neebe to Hein’s saloon, nobody being with 
 
131 
 
 TESTIMONY FOll THE DEFENSE. 
 
 them. He saw none of the “ Kevenge circulars ” in Neebe’s hands or 
 on the tables, thus directly contradicting Hein. 
 
 Beporter Heineman, recalled, testified to meeting Mr. and Mrs 
 ■ Parsons and two little children about half-past seven on the evening 
 of May 4. 
 
 Lizzie May Holmes, assistant editor of the Alarm, was present 
 i at the American Group on Tuesday evening. May 4, “called to con- 
 [ sider the organization of the sewing girls, the working girls in the 
 [ city.” She arrived late with Mr. and Mrs. Parsons, and Schwab was 
 no longer there. Some one came in and requested speakers at the 
 ; Haymarket. They walked over; subsequently went to Zepfs Hall 
 ^vith Mr. and Mrs. Parsons and Mr. Brown. Mr. Parsons remained 
 ^ there till after the explosion of the bomb. Also saw Mr. Fischer there 
 Never heard of the word “ Kuhe ” till after this trial began; knew 
 i nothing about anticipated trouble at the Haymarket. Was arrested 
 on the 5th of May as a " suspect “ and confined until the Saturday 
 following. Was an Anarchist. “ The word Anarchy, from its defini¬ 
 tion, means ‘ no coercion; ’ it really means self-government. I 
 sliould consider it perfect liberty to live according to natural laws as 
 distinguished, from compulsory laws; that is the kind of Anarchist I 
 am: I don’t understand Anarchy, and I didn’t teach it in my articles, 
 
 ! as having reference to force or dynamite. The theory of Anarchy is 
 opposed to all idea of force or coercion.” 
 
 Samuel Fielden followed. On the 4th of May he was engaged, 
 as a teamster, in hauling stone. When he got home in the evening 
 and read the evening paper he saw an announcement of a meeting of 
 the American Group. As he was the treasurer he attended. Eemem- 
 bered the telephone request for a speaker at the Deering meeting to 
 which Schwab responded. Paid out five dollars for hand bills for the 
 purpose of calling sewing girls together. During the meeting a re¬ 
 quest for speakers came from the Haymarket meeting to which 
 witness and Parsons responded. “ 1 did not wish to speak, but Mr. 
 Spies urged me and I spoke about twenty minutes. Then I went on to 
 state that under such cii-cumstances (referring to Congressman Foran’s 
 declaration) the only way in which the working people could get any 
 satisfaction from the gradually decreasing oppoHunities for their liv¬ 
 ing—the only thing they could do with the law was to ‘ throttle it.’ 
 
 I used that word in a figurative sense. I said they should throttle it 
 because it was an expensive article to them and could do them no 
 good.” 
 
 Witness gave a summary of his speech and a detailed account of 
 its close. When Captain Ward commanded them to disperse, he re- 
 
132 
 
 testimony for the defense. 
 
 AaA the meeting was a peaceable one “ in a very conciliatory 
 ?oC of voice, and he very angrily and defiantly retorted that he com- 
 tone 01 ^ 0 > as I understood, upon the police to 
 
 disperse it. JusUs he turned around in that angry mood, I said. ‘Ah 
 “ ft we «-illffo’ and iutnped from the wagon and jumped to the 
 sidewalk.” ^Then the explosion followed. He ran to Eandolph street 
 and turned east, but on his way receiyed a shot m the leg. I had no 
 revolver with me on the night of May 4. I never had a revolver .n 
 mv life. I never fired at any person in my life. Never heard of the 
 'word“Ruhe” or its significance until some days after ms arrest. 
 Knew nothing of the Haymarket meeting until he was informed that 
 evening that speakers were wanted there Never heard of the Mon- 
 Ly night meeting at 54 West Lake street till he read of he alleged 
 coMpiracy in the papers. Eemembers the detective, Johnson, but 
 Tevef had any conversation with him as aUeged; knew long before 
 that he was a detective. “ The American Group was open to every. 
 
 *’°%nder cross-examination witness was required to answer questions 
 having no reference to his direct examination, thus making him a direct 
 witness tor the State against himself, which the court sustamed, such 
 as the organization of groups, his connection with the Atom, etc. 
 Knowing his innocence, he had expected to be dischapd by the cor- 
 oner’s jury. He was engaged to speak elsewhere on the mght of May 
 4 but only yielded to urgent solicitation when he vvent to the Haymar. 
 k'et. His remarks were all in a general sense; had no idea of violence 
 from any one that night. 
 
 Ernst Nienporf presided over a meeting of the Carpenter’s Union 
 at Zepf’s Hall, on Monday evening. May 3, at which defendant Lmgg 
 was present; he was there early; made a report at nine o clock and 
 had the floor two or three times later. The meetmg lasted till eleven 
 
 o’clock, and Lingg was there till the close. , . r i 
 
 This was the evening of the alleged conspiracy at 54 West Lake 
 street. Another member of the union testified to Lmgg s presence at 
 Zepf’s Hall the entire evening. 
 
 Henry Schultz, of Wisconsin, strayed mto the Haymarket meet¬ 
 ing while visiting Chicago. Is not a Socialist, and knew none of the 
 defendants at that time. When the bomb exploded he ran north to 
 Lake street, where he saw the police clubbing two men they had do\m 
 in the gutter. When the cloud came up most of the audience and all 
 “the women and childi-en left.” Heard the speaker say he would get 
 through in a few minutes. 
 
 Joseph Bach attended the meeting of the American group and cor- 
 
TESTIMONY FOR T^E DEFENSE. 
 
 133 
 
 roborated previous testimony as to Schwab going to Deering, and the 
 rest going, by request, to the Haymarket. When the police came he 
 was standing on an elevated platform where he could look over the 
 heads of the crowd. Heard the command to disperse and saw Fielden 
 getting off the wagon and Spies making his way to the sidewalk. Pistol 
 shots all seemed to come from the center of the street, where the police 
 were. The bomb did not come from the alley. When the police came 
 the crowd had thinned out fully one-half. Fielden w’as about con¬ 
 cluding. 
 
 Max Mitlacher, brother-in-law to the previous witness, was pres¬ 
 ent throughout the meeting with Bach and corroborated his testimony. 
 
 S. T. Ingram, nineteen years old; working for Crane Brothers, 
 near wdiere the meeting of May 4 was held. Eeceived on that day a 
 circular, which he still had. It was produced and did not contain the 
 line, “Workingmen, arm yourselves,” etc. Saw Spies when he inquired 
 for Parsons, and saw him get down from the wagon on its south side, 
 but not go to the alley. When the cloud came up the witness left; 
 stopped at Zepf’s Hall and identified Mr. Parsons as being there. Ee- 
 turned to tlie meeting; was there when the police came and saw 
 Fielden jump from the wagon. “After the explosion of the bomb I 
 stepped back against the wall to keep from getting killed. There was 
 a great deal of shooting going on then; most of it seemed to come from 
 the policemen, from the center of the street. I did not see anybody 
 where I stood have a revolver or speak about a revolver. My hearing 
 and eyesight are good, and were so on that night. I saw no citizen or 
 person dressed in citizens’ clothes use a revolver. It was a very peace¬ 
 able meeting. I heard nobody say that night, at any time, ‘Here 
 come the bloodhounds ; do your duty and I’ll do mine.’ If Mr. Fielden 
 had said those words I -would have heard them. I am sure he did not 
 utter those words.” No shots were fired from or near the wagon. 
 
 After another witness, a business man, had sworn that Gilmer’s 
 reputation for truth and veracity was nil, an important witness was 
 called. 
 
 John Bernett, a candymaker; “not a Socialist, Communist nor 
 Anarchist.” Was at the Haymarket meeting, between thirty-five and 
 forty feet south of Crane’s alley. 
 
 “I saw the bomb in the air. I saw the man who threw it; he was 
 right in front of me. It went west and a little bit north. The man who 
 threw it was about my size, maybe a little bit bigger, and I think he 
 had a moustache. I think he had no chin beard.” Witness was five 
 feet nine inches in height. On being shown Schnaubelt’s photograph 
 witness promptly said that it was not the man, and that he had pre- 
 
134 
 
 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 viously SO informed the state’s attorney. The same story he had told 
 right after the occurrence. 
 
 Michel Schwab. When called by telephone to go to Deering to 
 speak on the evening of May 4, he walked over to the Haymarket to 
 see if he could get Mr. Spies to go, but did not see him and imme¬ 
 diately took a car and left. He spoke at Deering, as testified to by 
 Preusser and others. He returned home about eleven o’clock. He at 
 no time that evening saw Mr. Spies, or entered Crane’s alley for any 
 purpose. 
 
 August Vincent Theodore Spies testified at some length. Had 
 been an editor on the Arheiter-Zeitung since 1880. On the evening of 
 Sunday, May 2, he attended a meeting of the Central Labor Union at 
 54 West Lake street, in the capacity of a reporter. While there he was 
 invited to address the Lumber-Shovers’ Union the following day. He 
 did not know until his arrival at the meeting that it was in the imme¬ 
 diate neighborhood of McCormick’s factory. 
 
 “ Having spoken two or three times almost every day for the pre¬ 
 ceding two or three weeks I was almost prostrated, and spoke very 
 calmly, and told the people, who in my judgment were not of a very 
 high intellectual grade, to stand together and to enforce their demands 
 at all hazards, otherwise the single bosses would one by one defeat 
 them. While I was speaking I heard somebody in the rear, probably 
 a hundred feet away from me, cry out something in a language which 
 I didn’t understand—perhaps Bohemian or Polish. After the meeting 
 I was told that this man had called upon them to follow liim up to 
 McCormick’s. I should judge about two hundred persons standing a 
 little ways apart from the main body detached themselves and went 
 away. I didn’t know where they were going, until, probably five min¬ 
 utes later, I heard firing.” Shortly afterward, having finished his 
 business, he went up to McCormick’s to see what was going on. “ When 
 I came up there on this prairie, right in front of McCormick’s I saw a 
 policeman run after and fire at people who were fleeing, running away.” 
 
 Not being able to do anything he returned to the place of the meet¬ 
 ing, and thence back to the city. ‘ The same evening I wrote the re¬ 
 port of the meeting which appeared in the Arheiter-Zeitwig of the next 
 day. Immediately after I came to the office I wrote the so-called ‘ Ee- 
 venge’ circular, except the heading ‘ Eevenge.’ At the time I WTote it 
 I believed the statement that six workingmen had been killed that after¬ 
 noon at McCormick’s. I wrote at first that two had been killed, and 
 after seeing the report in the five-o’clock News 1 changed the two to 
 six, based upon the information contained in the News. I believe 2,600 
 copies of that circular were printed, but not more than half of them 
 
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 135 
 
 distributed, for I saw quite a lot of them in the office of the Arheiter- 
 Zeitung on the morning I was arrested. At the time I wrote it I was 
 still laboring imder the excitement of the scene and the hour. I was 
 very indignant. 
 
 On May 4 I was performing my regular duties at the Arbeit^- 
 Zeitung. A little before nine in the forenoon I was invited to address 
 ; a meeting at the Haymarket that evening. That was the first I heard 
 : of it. I bad no part in calling the meeting. 1 put the announcement 
 ' of the meeting into the Arheiter-Zeitung at the request of a man who 
 invited me to speak. The Arheiter-Zeitung is an afternoon daily paper, 
 and appears at two o’clock. About eleven o’clock a circular calling the 
 I Haymarket meeting was handed to me to be inserted in the Arbeiter- 
 !. Zeitung, containing the line, ‘ Workingmen, arm yourselves and appear 
 1 in full force.’ I said to the man who brought the circular that if that 
 i was the meeting which I had been invited to address, I certainly should 
 ! not speak there on account of that line. He stated that the circular 
 had not been distributed, and I told him if that was the case and if he 
 would take out that line it would be all right. Mr. Fischer was called 
 down at that time, and he sent the man back to the printing-office to 
 have the line taken out. I struck out the line myself before I handed 
 it to the compositor to put it in the Arheiter-Zeitung. The man who 
 brought the circular to me and took it back wdth the line stricken out 
 was on the stand here—Grueneberg, I believe is his name.” 
 
 When he walked down to the Haymarket that evening with his 
 brother Henry he expected to address the meeting in German. Finding 
 t no other speakers there he opened the meeting. When he asked for 
 i Parsons some one told him that Parsons had been seen shortly before 
 ' at the comer of Halsted and Eandolph, two blocks west. He told him 
 to go and call him. “ He left and stayed quite a while, and I left the 
 wagon myself, and in the company of my brother Henry, one Legner 
 and Schnaubelt, whom I had just met, w'ent up the street to find Par¬ 
 sons. Schwab was not with me at that time or at any time during that 
 evening. Schnaubelt told me that I had been wanted at Peering, but 
 f as I had not been at hand Schwab had gone out there. After I left 
 I the wagon I did not go to the mouth of Crane’s alley. I did not even 
 
 I know at the time that there was an alley there at all. I did not enter 
 the alley with Schwab; had no conversation with him there in which 
 = I referred to pistols and police, and Schwab asked whether one would 
 be enough, etc., nor anything of that kind; neither did I have that con. 
 
 I versation with anybody else. I left the wagon and moved in a south¬ 
 westerly direction obliquely across the street to the comer of the street. 
 From there I w-ent in company with those I mentioned up on Piandolph 
 
136 
 
 TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 street (west), beyond Union and pretty near Halsted street, but seemg 
 only a few people, probably twenty or twenty-five, standing there scat¬ 
 tered, and not seeing Parsons, we returned, walking on the north side 
 of Eandolph street, as we had in going down. I went on the wagon 
 and addressed the meeting. I had no conversation with Schwab at or 
 about the crossing of Union street in which we spoke about being ready 
 for them and that they are afraid to come. I had no such conversa¬ 
 tion with any one. I don’t remember exactly of what we were speak¬ 
 ing, but Schnaubelt and I, as we walked along, were conversing in 
 German. I have known Schnaubelt for about two years. I think he 
 has not been in the country more than two years. lie cannot speak any 
 English at all. I never had an English conversation with him, and I 
 don’t know of anybody who ever attempted to carry on a conversation 
 with Schnaubelt in English.” 
 
 He then gave a sketch of his remarks that evening, substantially 
 as already given, which is uncontradicted by the evidence of others. 
 On seeing Mr. Parsons present, and being fatigued, he stopped and in¬ 
 troduced Mr. Parsons. When Parsons had concluded, the hour being 
 late, he asked Mr. Fielden to say a few words in conclusion and then 
 adjourn. When the police came the meeting was almost as well as 
 adjourned, there being only about 200 left. The appearance of the 
 weather was so threatening that most of the people left. His brother 
 and Legner helped him to alight from the truck upon hearing Capt. 
 Ward’s summons to disperse. Distinctly heard Fielden respond that 
 the meeting was a peaceable one. On reaching the ground he heard 
 the explosion and thought it was a cannon. “ Fielden did not draw a 
 revolver and fire from the wagon upon the police or in their direction. 
 I did not, before the explosion of the bomb, leave my position upon 
 the wagon, go into the alley, strike a match and light a bomb in the 
 hands of Eudolph Schnaubelt. Schnaubelt is about six feet three 
 inches tall, I should judge, of large frame and large body. 
 
 Q. What is the usual language in which you carried on conversa¬ 
 tions with Schwab ? 
 
 To this question Mr. Grinnell objected and was sustained by Judge 
 Gary. 
 
 He ■ remembered the witness Wilkinson, a reporter, who came to 
 interview him. Among other things “ he asked whether I had ever 
 seen or possessed any bombs ? I said yes, I had had at the office for 
 probably three years four bomb-shells; two of them had been left at 
 the office in my absence, by a man who wanted to know if it was a 
 good constructi(ffi; the other two were left with me one day by some 
 man who came, I think, from Cleveland or New York, and was going 
 
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 137 
 
 to New Zealand from here. I used to show those shells to newspaper 
 reporters, and I showed one to Mr. Wilkinson and allowed him to 
 take it along and show it to Mr. Stone; I never asked him for it 
 since. * * * 
 
 “ Talking about the riot drill that had been shortly before held on 
 the lake front, and about the sensational reports published by the 
 papers in regard to the armed organizations of Sociahsts, I told him 
 that it was an open secret that sctoie 3,000 Socialists in Chicago were 
 armed; I told him that the arming of these people, meaning not only 
 Socialists but workingmen in general, began right after the strike of 
 1877, when the police attacked workingmen at their meetings, killed 
 some and w^ounded others ; that they w’ere of the opinion that if they 
 would enjoy the rights of the constitution, they should defend them 
 too, if necessary; that it was a kno\vn fact that these men had par¬ 
 aded the streets, as many as 1,500 strong at a time, with their rifles; 
 so that there was nothing new in that, and I could not see why they 
 talked so much about it. And I said that I thought they were still 
 arming and I wished that every workingman was well armed. 
 
 “ Then we were speaking generally on modern warfare. Wilkin¬ 
 son was of the opinion that the militia and the police could easily de¬ 
 feat any effoi-t on the pait of the populace, by force, could easily quell 
 a riot. I differed from him. I told him that the views the hourgeoise 
 ! took of their military and pohce was exactly the same as the nobihty 
 took, some centuries ago as to their owm armament, and that gun- 
 ; powder had come to the relief of the oppressed masses and had done 
 ’ away with aristocracy very quickly; that the iron armor of the nobil- 
 ; ity was penetrated by a leaden bullet just as easily as the blouse of 
 
 i the peasant; that dynamite, like gunpowder, had an equalizing, level- 
 
 [. ing tendency, that the two were children of the same parent, that 
 djmamite would eventually break down the aristocracy of this age and 
 ’ make the principles of democracy a reality. I stated that it had been 
 attempted by such men as General Sheridan and others, to play havoc 
 with an organized body of military or police by the use of dynamite, 
 and it -would be an easy thing to do it. It was a kind of disputing 
 dialogue wdiich we carried on. He asked me if I anticipated any 
 trouble, and I said I did. He asked me if the Anarchists and Social¬ 
 ists were going to make a revolution. Of course I made fun of that; 
 told him that revolutions were not made by individuals or conspir¬ 
 ators, but were simply the logic of events resting in the condition of 
 things.” 
 
 Witness then proceeded to illustrate how the militia could be 
 effectively resisted by the use of fire-arms and dynamite in case the 
 
138 
 
 TESTIMONY FOE THE DEFENSE. 
 
 contingency should arise. “ I knew he wanted a sensational article for 
 publication in the News, but there was no particular reference to Chi¬ 
 cago, or any fighting on our part. The topic of the conversation was 
 that a fight was inevitable, and that it might take place in the near 
 future, and what might and could be done in such an event; it was a 
 general discussion of the possibilities of street warfare under modem 
 science.” 
 
 Admitted having written the word “ Kuhe ” for insertion in the 
 Arbeiter-Zeitung on May 4. He was in the habit of receiving an¬ 
 nouncements from labor organizations and unions, and on that day 
 received a letter in German which read: “ Mr. Editor, please insert in 
 the letter box the word ‘ Kuhe ’ in prominent letters.” Accordingly 
 he had done so. “ The manuscript which is evidence is in my hand¬ 
 writing. At the time I wrote the word and sent it up to be put in the 
 paper, I did not know of any import whatever attached to it. My 
 attention was next called to it a little after three o’clock in the afternoon. 
 Balthazar Rau, an advertising agent of the Arbeiter-Zeitung, came and 
 asked me if the word ‘ Kuhe ’ was in the Arbeiter-Zeitung. I had my¬ 
 self forgotten about it, and took a copy of the paper and found it 
 there. He asked me if I knew what it meant; I said I did not. He 
 said there was a rumor that the armed sections had held a meeting 
 the night before, and had resolved to put in that word as a signal for 
 the armed sections to keep themselves in readiness in case the police 
 should precipitate a riot, to come to the assistance of the attacked. 
 I sent for Fischer, who bad invited me to speak at the meeting that 
 evening, and asked him if that word had any reference to that meet¬ 
 ing. He said none whatever, that it was merely a signal for the boys, 
 for those who were armed, to keep their powder dry, in case they 
 might be called upon to fight within the next few days. I told Rau 
 that it was a very silly thing, or at least there was not much rational 
 sense in that, and asked him if he knew how it could be managed that 
 this nonsense would be stopped, how it could be undone; and Rau 
 said he knew some persons who had something to say in the armed 
 organizations, and I told him to go and tell them that the word was put 
 in by mistake. 1 was not a member of any armed section; I have not 
 been for six years. 
 
 “ I know absolutely nothing about the package of dynamite which 
 was exhibited here in court and was claimed to have been found in a 
 closet in the Arbeiter-Zeitung building; I never saw it before it was 
 produced here in court.” 
 
 When arrested he was attending to his usual work in the office. 
 When taken to the pohce headquarters they were received by the super- 
 
TESTIMONY FOE THE DEFENSE. 
 
 139 
 
 intendent, who accosted them as follows: “ You dirty, Dutch sons of 
 bitches, you dirty hounds, you rascals, we will choke you, we will kill 
 you,” forgetting in his rage that he was himself a German. “ Then 
 they j umped upon us, tore us from one end to the other, went through 
 our pockets, took my money and everything I had. I never said any¬ 
 thing.” 
 
 Under cross-examination he was interrogated at length upon mat¬ 
 ters which did not appear in his direct examination, which, notwith¬ 
 standing every objection, were uniformly admitted by the court, and 
 thus converted into a witness for the prosecution against himself. 
 For instance, he was made to identify a postal card from Johann Most, 
 and admit having received it, though he had never carried on any cor¬ 
 respondence with Most. As to the phrase, “the social revolution,”' 
 sometimes used in his articles, he always meant by it the evolutionary 
 process, or changes from one system to another, which takes place in 
 society. “ I wrote the ‘ Eevenge circular,’ everything except the word 
 ‘Eevenge.’ I wrote the line, ‘ "Workingmen, to arms ! ’ When I wrote 
 it I thought it was proper; I don’t think so now. I wrote it to arouse 
 the working people who are stupid and ignorant to a consciousness of 
 the condition they were in, not to submit to such brutal treatment as 
 that by which they had been shot down at McCormick’s the previous 
 day. I Avanted them not to attend meetings under such circumstances 
 unless they could resist. I did not want them to do anything in par¬ 
 ticular. That I called them to arms is a phrase, probably an extrav¬ 
 agance. I did intend that they should arm themselves, and it would 
 be well for them if they were all armed. I called upon them to arm 
 themselves, not for the purpose of resisting lawfully constituted author¬ 
 ities of the city and county, in case they should meet with opposition 
 from them, but for the purpose of resisting the unlawful attacks of the 
 poHce or the unconstitutional and unlawful demands of any organiza¬ 
 tion, whether police, militia or any other.” 
 
 The letter from Most, not referred to in the direct examination, 
 which was taken from the Arbeiter-Zeitung office without warrant, and 
 had no reference to the case, and certainly none to the other defend¬ 
 ants, was then offered in evidence by the State. Objection thereto waa 
 made, but, as usual, unavailingly. The letter was translated, and ap¬ 
 pears on the record as follows: 
 
 “ N. Y., 1884. 
 
 “ Dear Spies :—Are you sure that the letter from the Hocking Val¬ 
 ley was not written by a detective ? In a week I will go to Pittsburgh, 
 and I have an inclination to go also to Hocking Valley. For the pres¬ 
 ent I send you some printed matter. There Sch. ‘ H’ also existed bui 
 
140 
 
 TESTIMONY FOE THE DEFENSE. 
 
 on paper. I told you this some months ago. On the other hand I am 
 in a condition to furnish ‘medicine,’ and the ‘genuine’ article at 
 that. Directions for use are probably not needed with these people. 
 Moreover, they were recently published in the “Fr.” The appliances 
 I can also send. Now, if you consider the address of Buchtell thor¬ 
 oughly reliable I will ship twenty or twenty-five pounds. But how? 
 Is there an express line to the place, or is there another way possible ? 
 Don’t forget to put yourself into communication with Drury in refer¬ 
 ence to the English organ. He will surely work with you much and 
 well. Such a paper is more necessary than The Truth. This, indeed, 
 is getting more miserable and confused from issue to issile, and in gen¬ 
 eral is whistling from the last hole. Enclosed is a fly-leaf which re¬ 
 cently appeared at Emden and is, perhaps, adapted for reprint. Greet¬ 
 ing to Schwab, Eau and you. Yours, Johann Most. 
 
 “P. S.—To Buchtell I will, of course, write only in general terms.” 
 
 The postal card which was offered by the State in evidence where 
 eight lives were in jeopardy, read as follows: 
 
 ‘L. S. (presumably. Dear Spies):—I had scarcely mailed my let¬ 
 ter yesterday when the telegraph brought news from H. M. One does 
 not know whether to rejoice over that or not. The advance is in itself 
 elevating. Sad is the circumstance that it will remain local, and there¬ 
 fore might not have a result. At any rate, these people make a better 
 impression than the foolish voters on this and the other side of the 
 ocean. Greetings and a shake. Yours, “J. M.” 
 
 Albert E. Parsons was called. Caused a notice calling for a meet¬ 
 ing of the American group on the evening of May 4 to be inserted in 
 the Daily News of that evening, “In the evening I left my house in 
 company with Mrs. Holmes, my wife and two children about eight 
 o’clock; we walked from home until we got to Eandolph and Halsted 
 streets. There I met two reporters that I had seen frequently at work¬ 
 ingmen’s meetings. One of them was a Times reporter whose name I 
 don’t know; the other was Mr. Heinemann of the Tribune." 
 
 Taking the car, they proceeded to 107 Fifth avenue, where, as all 
 witnesses agree, the only topic of discussion was how best to organize 
 the sewing women of Chicago. While there some one came and said 
 there was a large body of people at the Haymarket and no one to address 
 them but^ Mr. Spies, and witness and Mr. Fielden were urged to go 
 there. He had returned from Cincinnati, Ohio, that morning, and knew 
 nothing of that meeting. 
 
 After his speech he mounted another wagon where his wife and 
 Mrs. Holmes were seated and remained about ten minutes, when a sud¬ 
 den coolness in the atmosphere attracted his attention. “ I looked up 
 
TESTIMONY FOE THE DEFENSE. 
 
 141 
 
 and observed white clouds rolling over from the north, and as I didn’t 
 want the ladies to get wet I went onto the speakers’ wagon and said: 
 ‘Mr. Fielden, permit me to interrupt you a moment.’ ‘ Certainly,’ he 
 said. And I said, ‘ Gentlemen, it appears as though it would rain; it 
 is getting late, we might as well adjourn anyway, but if you desire to 
 continue the meeting longer we can adjourn to Zepf’s Hall, on the cor¬ 
 ner near by.’ Some one in the audience said, ‘ No, we can’t, it is occu¬ 
 pied by a meeting of the Furniture Workers.’ With that I looked and 
 saw the lights through the windows of the hall and said nothing further. 
 Mr. Fielden remarked that it did not matter, he had only a few more 
 words to say.” 
 
 Witness then went back to where the ladies were, and, as did .the 
 larger portion of the crowd, at once left the meeting. The speaking 
 having made him somewhat hoarse, they, with a friend, Mr. Brown, 
 went to Zepfs Hall to get a glass of beer. While there he also saw Mr. 
 Fischer seated at one of the tables. Anxious to go home and get rest, 
 he looked out to see if the meeting had not closed, and “.all at once I 
 saw an illumination. It lit up the whole street, followed instantly by 
 a deafening roar, and almost simultaneously volleys of shots followed, 
 every flash of which it seemed I could see. The best comparison I 
 can make, in my mind, is that it was as though a hundred men held 
 in their hands repeating revolvers and flred them as rapidly as possible 
 until they were all gone. That was the flrst volley. Then there were 
 occasional shots, and one or two bullets whistled near the door and 
 struck the sign. I was transflxed. Mrs. Parsons did not move. In a 
 moment two or three men rushed breathlessly in at the door. That 
 broke the apparent charm that was on us by the occurrence in the 
 street, and with that I called upon my wife and Mrs. Holmes to come 
 with me to the rear of the saloon.” 
 
 Witness then proceeded to recapitulate for the benefit of the jury 
 the points of his speech of that evening, as given in preceding pages. 
 In the course of his speech he said: “In the light of these facts and 
 of your inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, 
 it behooves you, as you love >our wives and children, and if you would 
 not see them perish of want and hunger, yourselves killed or cut down 
 in the streets, Americans—in the interest of your liberty and independ¬ 
 ence, to arm, to arm, to arm yourselves.” A voice said, “We are 
 ready now.” Parsons responded, “ You are not.” ’ 
 
 Several witnesses having saidthat he used the expression “ To 
 arms! to arms! to arms! ” corroboration of this statement is essen¬ 
 tial, and it is not wanting. It was a very natural mistake for persons 
 in the audience, not listening closely and not taking notes of the 
 
142 
 
 TESTIMONY FOE THE DEFENSE. 
 
 speech, to have received that erroneous impression. The reader will 
 remember the testimony of Mr. Enghsh, a reporter for the Tribune, 
 from whose notes we have given Mr. Fielden’s speech. We have re¬ 
 served Mr. English's testimony to bring in in connection with this 
 point. His notes are identically the same, containing also the same 
 interruption and reply. And Mr. English says positively that when 
 Parsons said “ to arms ” he said it “ in his ordinary way of talking. 
 I did not notice any difference in him when he said that.” He says 
 further that this expression followed shortly an utterance of Parsons 
 in the following language: “ I am not here for the purpose of inciting 
 
 anybody, but to speak out, to tell the facts as they exist, even though 
 it shall cost me my life before morning.” 
 
 The short-hand notes of Mr. English are surely more reliable 
 than the testimony of other witnesses testifying merely from recollec¬ 
 tion. And further, bear in mind the fact that Mr. Enghsh was under in¬ 
 structions to report only “ the most inflammatory utterances,” and that 
 his entire notes of Parsons’ speech would not make here even one page 
 of print; showing that he found scarcely anything to report under his 
 instructions. There is not a single point in the speech as delivered 
 before the jury that conflicts with the few notes that Mr. English 
 took, a plain indication that it was a moderate utterance for the time 
 and place. Certainly there was nothing in that speech which in the 
 remotest degree incited immediate violence, or indicated in any man¬ 
 ner that the speaker contemplated any immediate outbreak on the 
 part of his audience or any portion of it, a fact still further sustained 
 by Mayor Harrison’s testimony as to its nature. 
 
 Under cross-examination he said that for the past two years he 
 had been editor for the Alarm, for which he received eight dollars per 
 week. He made no mention of dynamite that evening; admitted be¬ 
 ing a Socialist and an Anarchist, as he understood those terms. 
 
 W. A. S. Geaham, the reporter of the Times who talked with 
 Gilmer on the 5th of May about the bomb, testified to that fact. The 
 conversation was in the corridor of the City Hall, just outside the 
 police headquarters. “ He said to me in that conversation, at the 
 time and place referred to, that he saw the man light the fuse and 
 throw the bomb, and added ‘ I think I could identify him if I saw him.’ 
 I asked him what kind of looking man he was, and Gilmer said; ‘He 
 was a man of medium height, and I think he had whiskers, and wore 
 a slouch hat, but his back was turned to me.' And to the best of my 
 recollection Gilmer said the man had dark clothes. He said nothing 
 about anybody else in that connection. 
 
TESTIMONY FOK TEtE DEFENSE. 
 
 143 
 
 “ I had this conversation about four o’clock in the afternoon of 
 May 5. I talked with him about three or four minutes.” 
 
 At this point the defense rested and by agreement the following 
 articles were read to the jury: 
 
 For the State an extract from the Alarm, which, as epitomized, 
 read as fellows: 
 
 “ THE EIGHT TO BEAE AEMS. 
 
 “ After the conspiracy of the workingmen, [which expression did 
 not appear in the Alarm,] the working classes in 1877, the breaking up 
 of the meeting on Market square, the brutal attack upon a gathering 
 of furniture-workers in Vorwart Turner Hall, the murder of Tessmann 
 and the general clubbing or shooting down of peaceably inclined 
 wageworkers, the proletarians organized the Lehr und Wehr Verein, 
 which in about a year and a half had grown to a membership of about 
 one thousand. This was regarded by the capitalists as a menace, and 
 they procured the passage of the militia law, under which it became 
 an offense for any body of men, other than those authorized by the 
 governor, to assemble with arms, drill or parade the streets. The 
 members of the Lehr und Wehr Verein, mostly Socialists, who be¬ 
 lieved in the baUot, made up a test case to determine the constitution¬ 
 ality. of this act, rejecting the counsel of t'he extremists. Judge 
 Barnum held the law to be unconstitutional—an appeal was taken— 
 and the Supreme court upset this decision and held the law constitu¬ 
 tional. Thereupon the Lehr und Wehr Verein applied to the Supreme 
 Court of the United States, which, within a few days, af&rmed the 
 decision of the Supreme Court of the State. Do we need to comment 
 on this ? 
 
 “ That militia'law has its uses. Where there was before a mili¬ 
 tary body, publicly organized, whose strength could be easily ascer¬ 
 tained now there exists an organization whose numbers cannot be 
 estimated, and a network of destructive agencies of modern military 
 character that will defy suppression.” 
 
 The defendants submitted and read to the jury Victor Hugo’s 
 well-known “ address to the Eich and Poor, ” containing language far 
 more startling; an article from the Alarm by Parsons defining An¬ 
 archy, as follows: 
 
 “ ANAECHY vs. GOVEENMENT. 
 
 ‘ Anarchy, from the Greek, meaning no government, is the denial 
 of the right of coercion—the abrogation of statute law, a constitution 
 by means of which man governs his fellow man. In behalf of govern¬ 
 ment it is argued that man is wicked and must be restrained, and 
 
144 
 
 TESTIMONY FOE THE DEFENSE. 
 
 therefore government is necessary. The free society which Anarchy 
 would establish proceeds upon the theory that under natural law men 
 could not but act right, since none would be protected in wrong doing. 
 
 “ Under government we see the standard of right and wrong reg¬ 
 ulated by enactments. One portion of society dictating to the other 
 and exacting service. Anarchy teaches that law is to be discovered, 
 not manufactured, and that conformity to natural law means happi¬ 
 ness ; disregard thereof, misery. The form of government is imma¬ 
 terial. Anarchy denies the right of one man to rule another, and to 
 the shibboleth, ‘ The greatest good to the greatest number ’ answers, 
 ‘ The greatest good to all.' Under Anarchy arbitration would take the 
 place of courts; asylums of prisons; voluntary co-operation of 
 wage-slavery. Exchange of equivalents would take the place of the 
 system of competition and modern commerce. The workshops would 
 belong to the workers, the tools to the toilers, the product to the pro¬ 
 ducers, while the means of existence would become the heritage of 
 the race. Occupation and use would be the sole title. But under 
 government natural law is set aside by statutory enactment. Natural 
 law is self-enforcing—statutory law requires the paraphernalia of 
 courts, jail, pohce and armies to its enforcement.” 
 
 The following incendiary language of John Stuart MiU was quoted 
 to the jury from the Alarm : 
 
 “ If, therefore, the choice were to be made between Communism, 
 with all its chances, and the present state of society, with all its suf¬ 
 ferings and injustice; if the institution of private property necessarily 
 carries with it as a consequence that the produce of labor should be 
 ^apportioned, as we now see it, almost in an inverse ratio to the labor 
 —the largest portion to those whose work is almost nominal, and so 
 on, in a descending scale, the remuneration dwindling as the work 
 grows harder and more disagreeable, and until the most exhausting 
 and fatiguing bodily labor cannot count with certainty on being able 
 to earn the necessaries of life; if this or Communism were the alter¬ 
 native, all the difficulties, great or small, of Communism would be as 
 dust in the balance.” 
 
 There was also submitted another extract from the Alarm, being 
 a passage from a discourse delivered in New York by the Eev. Dr. Ky- 
 lance, in which he indulged in the following expressions : 
 
 “ FORCIBLE GOSPEL. 
 
 Patronizing talk was of no use as a remedy for existing evils. 
 Workingmen were not to be won over by mere potent eloquence. It 
 was no use telling a man that if he were industrious and saved his 
 money he might become a capitalist himself, when, in many cases, the 
 
EEBUTTING EVIDENCE. 
 
 145 
 
 amount he received as wages was barely sufficient for a mere existence. 
 The tyranny of capital was fast becoming as bad as European despot¬ 
 ism. He contrasted the squalid tenements and crowded neighborhoods 
 in which the working people were huddled together with the stately 
 residences of those who lived in luxury from the results of labor, and 
 maintained that poverty was not the result of ignorance, and that 
 wealth was the result of co-operation of labor and capital. The pres¬ 
 ent condition of capital was founded on force and not on knowledge.” 
 
 The State then proceeded to introduce rebutting evidence. 
 
 Captain Bonfield, recalled, admitted having a conversation with 
 Mr. Simonson on the night of May 4, but denied haviug made the 
 assertion that he “ would like to get a crowd of three thousand with¬ 
 out the women and children, and in that case make short work of 
 them.” 
 
 Eichaed S. Tuthill, a lawyer, would believe Harry L. Gilmer 
 under oath from what he knew of him. Admitted that Gilmer had 
 never been to his house or any place of entertainment with him; 
 never knew where he lived nor his neighbors, nor even investigated his 
 character. 
 
 Charles A. Dibble, a lawyer, knew Gilmer and would believe 
 him under oath. Admitted that he didn’t know where Gilmer lived 
 for three years past; Gilmer was never at witness’house; had met 
 him at picnics, but had never introduced his family or anybody to him; 
 having never heard anything against him supposed his reputation 
 good ; their meetings were casual. 
 
 John Steele, painter, knew Gilmer for six or seven years; would 
 believe him under oath. Admitted that they had never worked to¬ 
 gether, never knew where Gilmer lived or of his neighbors’ opinion as 
 to his character. Witness had marched with Gilmer in a military com¬ 
 pany and seen him at balls, but “ I never introduced Gilmer to my 
 wife or to my daughter, or to anybody, or to any of my acquaintance.” 
 
 Other witnesses were called who testified to the same effect. Some 
 had met Gilmer in the militia at their regular drill, but didn’t know 
 anything of his habits, whether married or single, or where he lived. 
 
 Witness from Des Moines swore to the reputation of Gilmer as 
 good while residing there. 
 
 Ex-Judge Cole, while willing to believe him under oath, had 
 known nothing about him since 1879. Though knowing him in Des 
 Moines, had never invited him to his house. He had occasionally em- 
 
146 
 
 EEBUTTIN^G EVIDENCE. 
 
 ployed Gilmer by the day, “ paid him, and with that our associations 
 substantially terminated.” 
 
 Others for whom he had worked as a painter doing odd ■jobs were 
 equally ignorant of Gilmer’s habits. He had worked in their houses 
 and nothing was missing; never heard his character disputed and con¬ 
 sequently never investigated it; knew him as a mechanic and not as 
 an associate or friend. It appeared, however, that he had served as a 
 special policeman while living there. In Chicago he was a member of 
 the Veteran Police Patrol, and employed as police patrolman in strikes. 
 
 John L. Manning, lawyer and manager of the Veterans’ Police Pa¬ 
 trol, said in reference to Gilmer: “ I employed him on the occasion of 
 a strike on the Wabash road. I did not have him on the 4th of May; 
 I had him on the night of the 7th, 8th and 9th of May; he was a spe¬ 
 cial deputy sheriff under the management of our officers on the Wa¬ 
 bash road; his duties were simply to guard the property. I only know 
 Gilmer from that occasion and from meeting him at the Veteran Club; 
 I recommended him a great many times for employment as a member 
 of the club. I don’t inow anything about his reputation for truth and 
 veracity in the neighborhood in which he lived.” 
 
 Asa sample of the testimony brought to sustain the character of 
 Gilmer we will quote from the last witness brought forw^ard: 
 
 C. F. Schaefer, of Des Moines, Iowa. Had been a policeman 
 there for nearly nine years; knew Gilmer and would believe him under 
 oath. Under cross-examination witness said; 
 
 '* I got acquainted with Gilmer in 1876, about the time he went on 
 the police force as special officer on the occasion of the Centennial. He 
 was on the force off and on, when we needed any officer. He seemed 
 to be busy at work in the city, and when we called him for assistance 
 he generally went to work. I don’t know where Gilmer lived in 1876, 
 but I knew where his wife died; that was about nine blocks from where 
 I livpd. I never visited at his house nor he at mine, except that he 
 did a job of painting for me. I did not inquire around his associates 
 in the neighborhood where he resided, or within several blocks around 
 his house, about his reputation. I don’t know anything about what 
 he did since he went away from Des Moines.” 
 
 Edward Furthman testified that John Bemett told him on the 6th 
 Or 7th of May that the bomb was thrown from ten to fifteen feet smth 
 of the alley. Another witness said that he was engaged in the fish 
 business on the corner of Desplaines and Eandolph streets, and that 
 he had some fish boxes on the sidewalk on the evening of May 4. 
 
 Fourteen police officers then followed and swore that on the even¬ 
 ing in question they had nothing “ bright and shining” in their hands 
 before the bomb was thrown, whereupon the case rested. 
 
CHAPTEE X. 
 
 REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 
 
 The position taken by the State may be summed up briefly as 
 follows: 
 
 They contended that the death of Began was murder, resulting 
 from a conspiracy, a conspiracy in which all of the defendants were 
 held to be accessory; that its general object and design was the over¬ 
 throw of the existing social order and of the constituted authorities of 
 the law, by force. This premise being assumed they proceeded to lay 
 down the law of conspiracy, to wit: 
 
 1. Where there is a conspiracy to do an unlawful act, which 
 naturally or probably involves the use of force or violence, the act of 
 each conspirator done in furtherance of the common design is the act 
 of all. If murder results, all are guilty of murder; and that, too, 
 although the conspirator who does the act cannot be identified; and 
 
 2. Even though the particular act may not have been arranged 
 for, or the means of its perpetration, provided the act was the natural 
 result of the conspiracy and was perpetrated in furtherance of this 
 common design; whether the act was the act of a member of the 
 conspiracy, whether it was done in furtherance of the common design, 
 is a question for the evidence to determine. 
 
 As to the competency of the evidence the prosecution held that: 
 
 1. Any act or declaration of any of the defendants tending to 
 prove the conspiracy, or the connection of that defendant with it, 
 whether made during the existence of the conspiracy or after its com¬ 
 pletion, is admissible against him. 
 
 2. That the conspiracy having been established in the opinion of 
 the trial judge, any act or declaration of any member of the conspiracy, 
 though he may not be a party defendant, in furtherance of the con¬ 
 spiracy, is evidence against all the conspirators on trial. 
 
 3. That the conspiracy per se may be established in the first in¬ 
 stance by evidence having no relation to the defendants. It may be 
 shown by acts of different persons at different times and places and 
 by any circumstances which tend to prove it. 
 
 It is admitted that neither of the defendants on trial actually 
 threw the bomb, that the language used in their writings and speeches 
 
148 
 
 EEVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 
 
 was general in its character and not specifically directed to any par¬ 
 ticular person to do any particular act, but that the law of accessories 
 was sufficient to convict them of murder, even though that party was 
 unknown. To sum up the whole spirit of the prosecution without 
 doing them any injustice we might say that the defendants were tried 
 for being social heretics, for long and persistent invective against social 
 conditions, for prominence as “ leaders.” 
 
 Judge Gary gave the following illustration of the law: 
 
 “ Suppose that the leaders of the radical temperance men should 
 for a long period of time, by speeches and publications, declare that 
 there was no hope of stopping the evils of the liquor traffic except by 
 blowing up saloons and killing saloonkeepers; that it was useless to 
 expect any reform by legislation; that no prohibition laws or high 
 license laws, or any other laws, would have any effect in their estima¬ 
 tion, and that therefore they must blow up the saloons and kill the 
 saloonkeepers, and justify that course of conduct. Suppose, further, 
 that in addition to all this teaching they had further taught the means 
 by which saloons could be blown up and saloonkeepers killed, advising 
 how to manufacture dynamite, the easiest mode of making bombs, how 
 to throw them and declaring that their use against the saloonkeepers 
 and the saloons was the only remedy and the only way to reach the 
 end desired by the radical temperance men. Then supposing these 
 same leaders called a meeting in front of the saloon at 54 West Lake 
 street, Chicago, and spoke denouncing the liquor traffic and denounc¬ 
 ing the saloons and the saloonkeepers, indulging in figures and facts 
 about the liquor traffic, and one would say, ‘ If you are ready to do 
 anything, do it without making any idle threats,’ and another speaker 
 says, ‘throttle,’ ‘kill,’ ‘stab’ the saloon busines, ‘or it will kill, 
 throttle and stab you and then while that speaking is going on some 
 unknown man out of the crowd, with a bomb of the manufacture and 
 design of the temperance men, explodes No. 54 West Lake street and 
 kills the occupant of the house. Can there be any doubt that such 
 leaders, so talking, so encouraging, so advising, would be guilty of 
 mui’der ?” 
 
 Without entering into any discussion of the exactness of the par¬ 
 allel, would it not have been still more so if the learned jurist had 
 further “ supposed ” that the suppositious meeting had been invaded 
 by 180 armed and drilled saloonkeepers with the avowed intent to dis¬ 
 perse the assemblage by force ? 
 
 We have given at some length the position taken by the prosecu¬ 
 tion. Does the evidence sustain it ? Let us first take into considera- 
 
REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 
 
 149 
 
 tion the character of the Haymarket meeting itself, as shown by the 
 record. 
 
 The Haymarket, so called, is a widening of Eandolph street be¬ 
 tween Desplaines and Halsted streets, extending a distance of two 
 blocks. The territory was sufficiently large for the holding of an im¬ 
 mense meeting, and the evidence shows that when it was called a very 
 large attendance was expected. This expectation was not realized. 
 Only here and there small groups of men gathered on the Haymarket 
 square, and the speakers were late in arriving. At the hour named, 
 7:30 in the evening, no one was upon the ground to call the people 
 together or to open the meeting. There is no contradiction of the tes¬ 
 timony as to these points. It is proved alike by the witnesses for the 
 State and for the defense, that no move was made toward calling to 
 order the meeting itself until August Spies, looking around for a suit¬ 
 able rostrum from which to address the crowd, selected the truck 
 wagon which he found standing close to the edge of the sidewalk on 
 Desplaines street, and directly in front of the steps leadmg up to the 
 door entering into the Crane Bros’, manufacturing establishment. The 
 end of the wagon was some six or eight feet, or more, north of the 
 north line of the Crane Bros’, alley. This is a short alley, as shown 
 by the diagram, which enters the block from Desplaines street towards 
 the east upon the south line of Crane Bros', building, and extends 
 about halfway through the block, then makes a junction with another 
 short alley extending out from the point of junction southward to 
 Eandolph street. This alley is a perfect trap rather than a means of 
 escape, as all egress from it could be stopped by a handful of men at 
 the Eandolph street exit. 
 
 Having selected the wagon Mr. Spies mounted it about half-past 
 eight o’clock and inquired for Parsons. Parsons not responding. Spies 
 dismounted from the wagon and went in search of him, being absent, 
 as estimated by the different witnesses, from five to ten minutes, and 
 returning again, mounted the wagon and commenced to speak. He 
 spoke about twenty minutes. As soon as Parsons and Fielden arrived 
 Spies brought his remarks to a close and introduced Parsons. Par¬ 
 sons did not commence to speak until about nine o’clock; he spoke 
 from three-quarters of an hour to an hour. At the end of Parsons’ 
 speech Fielden was introduced. He spoke ab.out fifteen minutes ; and 
 at about ten minutes past ten o’clock, when he was about concluding, 
 his speech was interrupted by the arrival of the police, the order to 
 disperse, and the subsequent explosion of the bomb. 
 
 From its beginning to its close, the meeting was as orderly as any 
 ordinary out-door meeting. Mr. English, the Tribune reporter and 
 
150 
 
 EEVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 
 
 present private secretary to Mayor Koche, says : “ It ■was a peaceable 
 and quiet meeting for an out-door‘meeting. I didn’t see any turbu¬ 
 lence. I ■was there all the time.” 
 
 Mayor Harrison’s testimony was equally explicit. He estimated 
 the audience at one time to be from 800 to 1,000; but when the cloud, 
 threatening rain, came up ” there was not one-fourth of the crowd 
 that had been there during the evening, listening to the speakers at 
 that time. When I went to the station, during Parsons’ speech, I 
 stated to Capt. Bonfield that I thought the speeches were about over ; 
 that nothing had occurred yet, or looked likely to occur, to require inter¬ 
 ference, and that he had better issue orders to his reserves at the other 
 stations to go home.” 
 
 While alarmed lest the meeting might be a covert plan to attack 
 McCormick’s, yet in listening to the speeches he concluded it was not 
 an organization to destroy property that night, and went home. 
 
 This was the testimony of the chief executive officer of the city, 
 who was there upon the ground, charged with the duty of preserving 
 the peace and preventing violence. Did the meeting change its char¬ 
 acter in the twenty minutes intervening between the mayor’s departure 
 and the ordering out of the police ? All witnesses agree that the audi¬ 
 ence was rapidly thinning out, that Fielden had twice said “ in con¬ 
 clusion,” that no resistance was given to the approach of the police or 
 crowd sufficient to impede their progress. As to the character of this 
 movement of the police, the testimony of the officers themselves shows 
 that the order to fall in was given urgently; there was no halting of the 
 head of the column until the complete column was formed; the head 
 of the column moved without halting at a rapid march, so that those 
 who came later out of the station and formed the second and third 
 companies of the column were compelled to proceed almost if not 
 quite at a double quick in order to get their position in the line, and 
 that they did not, in fact, gain that position until the head of the column 
 had reached the position of the halt. This appears from the testimony 
 of Lieutenant Stanton, Ferguson and Gleeson. 
 
 No explanation is given by any of the officers in charge of the force 
 that night of this singular haste. The reader will bear in mind, how¬ 
 ever, that both Holloway and Weimeldt when on the stand were pre¬ 
 pared to testify that they had been informed at the station that blood 
 would flow before midnight, and that Judge Gary refused to permit 
 them to do so. Here was in process of dissolution a meeting from which 
 no violence or danger was apprehended before. Captain Bonfield says 
 that he was in receipt of constant information from this meeting. We 
 are therefore warranted in saying that when he ordered his men to fall 
 
KEVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 
 
 15. 
 
 in he must have known that the meeting was about to break up and 
 the people to go home; that he knew up to the time of the latest advices 
 received by him that no proposal to do any unlawful act had been ad¬ 
 vanced, and no turbulent or lawless character had been developed in 
 the meeting itself. Substantially all the witnesses concur in saying 
 that the meeting was more enthusiastic and responsive while Parsons 
 spoke than whenFielden spoke, a position vouched for by the fact that 
 those present were wearied of their long standing in the cold street. 
 
 When Captain Ward ordered the meeting to disperse lie turned at 
 once to the bystanders and said: “ And I call upon you and you to 
 
 assist.” To assist in what ? In dispersing a meeting that was refusing 
 to peacefully disperse upon command? Was it a riotous or unlawful 
 assemblage of citizens ? Did it in any way menace the peace and dig¬ 
 nity of “the people of the State of Illinois?” Nothing of the kind. 
 No resistance was attempted by the speakers, unless it was Fielden’s 
 exclamation of surprise, “We are peaceable.” When the order to dis¬ 
 perse was given no reasonable and proper opportunity for compliance 
 was given, or a moment allowed to see whether it would not be 
 complied with, but there was an immediate call upon the bystanders 
 to assist in the forcible dispersion of a meeting that was confessedly 
 quiet, orderly, peaceable, small in numbers, and upon the very eve of 
 voluntary dispersion. 
 
 Where were the alleged conspirators? Upon the arrival of the 
 police Spies and Fielden alone were present. Parsons and Fischer had 
 left and were in Zepf’s Hall. Schwab was at Peering. Engel, Lingg 
 and Neebe were quietly sitting in their own homes. The order for dis¬ 
 persion was given but a minute before the bomb exploded. 
 
 Gilmer swore that he saw Spies get down from the wagon, come 
 into Crane’s alley with Fischer and Schnaubelt, and saw him light the 
 bomb that was thrown from the alley. The improbabilities of this story 
 are: 
 
 1. He made no outcry. 
 
 2. He did not tell of this to any one, although the same evening 
 and a few moments afterward he had different conversations about the 
 meeting, and talked with people in the street car going home 
 
 3. He would not be positive he ever even told Bonfieid he saw the 
 fuse lighted. 
 
 4. He was not called before the coroner’s jury the next day, nor 
 before the grand jury, where there were full investigations, notwith¬ 
 standing before the grand jury met he had talked with the prosecuting 
 officer in reference to wffiat he knew. 
 
 5. He told Grinnell these facts (?) Sunday morning after the Hay- 
 
152 
 
 KEVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 
 
 market meeting on Tuesday evening, but didn’t tell him he knew the 
 parties. 
 
 6. The prosecuting attorney, Mr. Grinnell, in his opening speech, 
 said he had a witness who sq,w a man light and throw the bomb, instead 
 of two men, as Gilmer subsequently swore. 
 
 Gilmer stated that he only told Mr. Grinnell that he believed he 
 could identify the person who threw the bomb if he saw him. He ad¬ 
 mitted to having received unknown sums of money from time to time 
 from the prosecution. Witness was six feet three inches in height and 
 could nearly see right over the head of the man who threw the bomb. 
 The testimony absolutely demolishes this “evidence,” and in ashing 
 instructions the prosecution virtually abandoned it. The record shows 
 that Gilmer’s testimony did not fit Schnaubelt, whose photograph he 
 identified as that of the bomb-thrower, probably because he was absent, 
 for Schnaubelt was of equal heighth, and witnesses swore that he left 
 the meeting before the police arrived. That Spies did not leave the 
 wagon—and therefore could not have been in the alley before the bomb 
 was thrown—is abundan|tly proven. 
 
 AUGUST SPIES. 
 
 1. August Spies himself so testifies. He says that his brother 
 Henry and Ernst Legner helped him down; that just as they reached 
 the sidew’alk the bomb exx)loded. They were pushed by the fleeing 
 crowd to the north, away from the alley, which was ten feet south and 
 east, and went to Zepf’s Hall, three-quarters of a block north. 
 
 2. Spies gave the same account when first arrested. 
 
 3. Henry Spies testifies that when the police commanded the 
 meeting to disperse his brother August wms still on the wagon and he 
 assisted him to alight; that almost immediately afterward he was him¬ 
 self shot in warding off a’pistol-shot from his brother, and there was 
 no shooting by anybody, as the whole case shows, until after the bomb 
 exploded. 
 
 4. Ernst Legner, who knew all these facts and assisted Spies from 
 the wagon, was a witness before the grand jury and his name was in¬ 
 dorsed as one of the witnesses for the State on the indictment, but for 
 some unknown reason was not produced, nor have his whereabouts 
 been since ascertained. We claim, therefore, that it follows as an irre¬ 
 sistible conclusion that Ernst Legner, when under oath, gave substan¬ 
 tially the same account as to Spies being on the wagon when the police 
 came up and his helping Spies from the wagon, that was given by Spies 
 to Bonfield after his arrest. Therefore, when the case was put together 
 afterward Legner’s testimony was adverse to the new theory advanced 
 
EEVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 
 
 153 
 
 by Thompson and Gilmer, and he was not only left out as a witness on 
 the trial, but mysteriously disappeared from tJie city! 
 
 5. That Spies urns seen to get down from the wagon after the order 
 of dispersal was given by Joseph Bach, Max Mitlacher, Sleeper T. 
 Ingram, Conrad Messer, August Krumm, William Albright, William 
 Murphy, Adolph Tenues and Samuel Fielden. 
 
 It is thus demonstrated by a conclusive preponderance of testi¬ 
 mony that Mr. Spies did not leave the wagon until the order to disperse 
 had been given. It is therefore impossible that he should have stood 
 on the sidewalk at the side of the wagon in conversation with some¬ 
 body before Gilmer went into the alley. The fact is, Gilmer said on 
 his direct examination that Spies came down from the wagon into the 
 alley and lighted the bomlj. But upon cross-examination he stated 
 that at the time Spies came into the alley he, Gilmer, was standing 
 about twelve or fourteen feet from the mouth of the alley, and was forced 
 to admit that it was physically impossible for him to have looked 
 around the corner and seen the wagon from that point. Finding him¬ 
 self thus cornered, he said Spies did not get down off the wagon, but 
 came from toward the wagon, where he had seen him standing on the 
 sidewalk, before he (Gilmer) went into the alley. We have already 
 shown by abundant testimony that Gilmer could not have seen Spies 
 in the alley at all, as he remained on the wagon. 
 
 As to the McCormick meeting the State signally failed to identify 
 Spies with the riot, and the defense showed clearly that his mission 
 there was a peaceable one. This is uncontradicted and appears from 
 the testimony of Zeller, Urban, Witt, Breest, Schlavin, and Pfeiffer. 
 
 Spies swears that he had no idea, when he was invited, of any 
 relationship of McCormick’s employes to that meeting, or that the lo¬ 
 cality of the proposed meeting was in the neighborhood of McCormick’s 
 factory. Besides, it is shown, without contradiction, that the lumber- 
 shovers whom Spies was addressing had absolutely no connection 
 with the factory or employes of McCormick. While having no weight 
 as regards the other defendants even if proven, its complete failure in 
 reference to Spies himself show's that its only effect was to inflame the 
 jury against Spies and his associates as dangerous labor agitators. 
 
 In regard to the “ Eevenge circular ” but little need be said. But 
 twenty-five hundred were printed, of which not more than half were 
 distributed. Mr. Spies admits that he wrote it under a high degree of 
 excitement. His testimony is manly and straightforward, but no evi¬ 
 dence was brought to show' that Spies had any connection with armed 
 groups of workingmen. Not one w'ord can be found in the circular 
 itself which in any way relates to the Haymarket meeting, or to the 
 
154 
 
 KEVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 
 
 throwing of the bomb thereat. There is no evidence whatever that 
 the party who threw the bomb ever read the circular, even heard of it 
 or even was influenced or induced by it to commit the act charged in 
 the indictment. Its being permitted to be introduced in evidence and 
 read to the jury as evidence against all defendants was characteristic 
 of the rulings of the court. 
 
 The Haymarket circular, it will be remembered, was said to con¬ 
 tain these words: “ Workingmen, arm yourselves, and appear in full 
 force ! ” It is a matter of record that Mr. Spies ordered that line 
 stricken out. His reasons for doing so he stated as follows: 
 “ I objected to that principally because I thought it was ridiculous to 
 put a phrase in which would prevent people from attending the meet¬ 
 ing ; another reason was that there was some excitement at the time, 
 and a call for arms like that might have caused trouble between the 
 police and the attendants of that meeting.” It is not shown that any 
 containing that line were distributed, while it appears that those 
 which witnesses received on the street, some of which were presented 
 in court did not contain the line in question. This is established 
 by the testimony of Grueneberg, who carried the message to the prin¬ 
 ters, and of Heun who set up the type. Further, in the Arbeiter-Zei- 
 tung of that date the circular appeared without the line in question. 
 
 The signal “ Euhe.” It appears from the testimony that on this, 
 and previous occasions, it had been determined by the armed groups, 
 in certain contingencies the word “ Euhe ” should appear in the 
 Arheiter-Zeitung as a signal for certain meetings by those present. 
 
 Theodore Fricke identified the manuscript of the word “Euhe” 
 as in Spies’ handwriting, as well as a lot of other manuscript, but 
 there is no evidence tending to show that Spies knew the significance 
 of the word. This will be considered further when we come to the ex¬ 
 amination of the alleged Monday-night conspiracy. 
 
 MICHEL SCHWAB. 
 
 The incriminating evidence added by the State against Mr. 
 Schwab is alone that of M. M. Thompson. It is a matter of record 
 that Mr. Schwab came to the Haymarket from the east. He was 
 hunting Spies who came to the meeting from the north. Schwab went 
 there before Spies came, and left before he came. When Schwab left 
 for the court house to take the car to Deering, Spies was coming to 
 the meeting from the north west, and they did not meet that night. 
 
 Thompson’s testimony is substantially as follow's: He swears 
 that before the meeting convened he was standing with his back 
 against Crane Brothers’ building, some three or four feet from the 
 alley, and facing west. He says that while in that neighborhood 
 
REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 
 
 155 
 
 Schwab came down the street, witness not knowing him before, and 
 that he inquired of Mr. Brazleton, a reporter, as to who that was, 
 and Brazleton said it was Schwab. He says that very soon after that 
 Spies, whom also he had never seen before or heard speak, rose up on 
 a wagon and called out, “ Is Parsons here ?” in a loud tone of voice; 
 that directly after making that inquiry Spies got down from the 
 wagon, and, he and Schwab entered the alley, going into it about the 
 middle and that there was a crowd there. They remained in the alley - 
 about three minutes, and witness swears that standing three feet north 
 of the alley, admitting that he could not see down the alley, and did 
 not try to look into it, yet he distinctly heard a conversation between 
 Spies and Schwab in which the words “pistols” and “police” were 
 used, in a voice that he recognized as that of Spies, spoken in such a 
 tone that nothing of the rest of the conversation could be caught; 
 consequently, spoken in a low tone. Eemember, he could not see the 
 speakers and admitted a crowd to be there. He had never heard Spies 
 speak in the world, except that loud inquiry from the wagon, “ Is 
 Parsons here? ” addressed to the crowd, yet he swears to Spies’ con¬ 
 versational tones in a low conversation, out of his range of vision. 
 And while he had never heard Schwab speak at aU, he swears he 
 asked the question, “ Is one enough or had we better go and get more ?” 
 He relates a story of then following them north on Eandolph street 
 and back to the place of meeting where the two defendants and a 
 third party, who stood with his back toward him, yet whom he was 
 willing to identify from a photograph as Schnaubelt, fell into conver¬ 
 sation ; that there Spies gave “ something ” to the third party and 
 then they all went and got on the wagon. 
 
 The evidence of a score of witnesses demonstrates its falsity in 
 every particular. Cosgrove, one of the officers of the police force and 
 a witness for the prosecution, swore that he was present in the crowd 
 around that wagon when Spies got up and asked: “Is Parsons here ?” 
 That there was a suggestion that Parsons was away somewhere and 
 that some one would go and look for him. He then swears positively 
 that Spies got down from the wagon, and that with a party of two or 
 three men he proceeded south-westerly to Eandolph street and then he 
 lost him. McKeough, the very next witness, a city detective officer, 
 following that up, swears that he also was in that crowd when Spies 
 got on the wagon and inquired for Parsons. He also swears that Spies 
 got down from the wagon and with a party of men moved off; and he 
 swears that Officer Myers and himself followed Spies to the corner. 
 Now, that is the interval when, according to Thompson, instead of 
 going south westerly, as Cosgrove swears, to the corner, and whither 
 
1'56 
 
 EEVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 
 
 McKeough swears tie followed him, Spies was asserted to have gone 
 almost due east into this alley, and remained there a period of three 
 minutes, in order to have this conversation about “ pistols ” and 
 “police,” and “is one of them enough?” 
 
 That is not aU of the testimony. It is a matter, of record that 
 Schwab was at No. 107 Fifth avenue that evening and there received 
 a telephone call to Deering, Spies being first called for, and that he 
 left that place after receiving the message is evidenced by the positive 
 testimony of Patterson, Waldo, Bach and Fielden. That the tele¬ 
 phone message was sent from Deering is shown by the testimony of 
 Preusser. That he was seen on the comer of Piandolph and Des- 
 plaines streets, while looking for Spies to go to Deering, is evidenced 
 by the testimony of two reporters, witnesses for the prosecution, 
 Heinemann and Owen. No other witness except this man Thompson 
 claims to have seen Schwab upon this alleged journey from the alley 
 on Desplaines and Randolph streets and back again. That something 
 after eight o’clock, hefoj'e the meeting ivas called to order, Schwab went 
 south to the corner of Randolph and took an east bound car is shown 
 by the testimony of Hermann Becker. 
 
 That he, in fact, went to Deering and spoke there, is beyond ques¬ 
 tion ; that the time requisite to go there prevented him from being at 
 the Haymarket w^hen the speaking began is also clearly shown. Con¬ 
 cerning his arrival at Deering the testimony of Preusser, Stittler, 
 Radtke and Behrens confirm that of Schwab in every particular, and 
 that he did not leave Deering, an hour’s journey from the Haymarket, 
 till after half-past ten. 
 
 Further, other evidence remains as to Schwab’s non-connection 
 with the Haymarket meeting. Carl Richter, Robert Lindinger and 
 Frederick Liebel all swore that they saw Spies when he asked for Par¬ 
 sons from the wagon; that they stood at the entrance to the alley and 
 are sure that he did not enter it. Liebel knew Schwab by sight, and 
 although standing under the lamp-post at the corner of the alley, a 
 few feet from the wagon when Spies asked, “Is Parsons here?” he 
 did not see either of them go near the alley, nor saw Schwab that 
 night. 
 
 Three different witnesses, August Spies, his brother, Henry Spies, 
 and Henry Zohl confirm the above. Zohl swears he stood in the street 
 southwest from the wagon; that he knew these parties; that Spies 
 passed him going from the W'agon directly southioest, precisely as Officer 
 Cosgrove swore, down to that corner, to which Detective McEeough 
 swears he followed him; and he says that the party consisted of August 
 Spies, Henry Spies, Ernst Legner and Rudolph Schnaubelt. 
 
EEVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 
 
 157 
 
 The fact is worthy of attention that Brazelton, the reporter of the 
 Inter Ocean, was named by Mr. Thompson as the man who pointed 
 out Schwab to him upon the Haymarket some time before eight 
 o’clock. Brazelton’s name was indorsed on the back of the indictment 
 as one of the witnesses for the State, yet Brazelton was not produced 
 by the State as a witness, even when the State was notified by the de¬ 
 fendants to produce him, thus leaving Thompson’s story entirely 
 unsupported. Another suspicious omission deserves attention. Ernst 
 Legner, who assisted Mr. Spies from the wagon and who accompanied 
 him when he went in search of Parsons, had his name indorsed on 
 the indictment as a witness for the State, but he was not produced as 
 a witness though formal notice was demanded by 'the defendants. 
 This omission to produce Legner and his subsequent mysterious dis¬ 
 appearance is extremely significant. Spies and Schwab were ex¬ 
 tremely desirous that Legner should be put on the stand, and every 
 effort was made by their counsel to find him after it became known 
 that the prosecution would not call him, but unavailingly. Legner 
 had left the State and his whereabouts could not be ascertained, nor 
 his attendance procured. The State chose to offer Thompson’s testi¬ 
 mony without attempting to corroborate it by Brazelton; and did not 
 produce Legner although they had him as a witness before the grand 
 jury. 
 
 Mr. Thompson’s testimony being thus utterly discredited, not 
 only from lack of support but by direct conflicting evidence, there 
 remains not a shadow of proof connecting Mr. Schwab with the Hay- 
 market meeting, or any alleged conspiracy, or any throwing of a 
 bomb. The whole testimony is a fabrication from beginning to end, 
 judged by every rule of evidence; shown such by not only the wit¬ 
 nesses for the defense, but equally so by the witnesses for the State. 
 The attempt, by such evidence, to implicate the defendants, or any of 
 them, in any personal participation in that act, entirely fails. There 
 was was no evidence against Schwab whatever, unless it be that given 
 by Ericke that he WTote editorials for the Arheiter-Zeitung, and for 
 this he was sentenced to death ! 
 
 Gilmer’s testimony has been shown to be equally unreliable and 
 he was successfully impeached. It is true that a number of witnesses 
 were called by the State who were willing to believe Gilmer under 
 oath, but every one of them admitted that they were not acquainted 
 with his neighbors, did not know the opinion entertained of him by 
 those with whom he was in daily contact, and were only casual asso¬ 
 ciates. And yet on the unsunported evidence of Thompson and the 
 testimony of the detective Gilmer, men’s lives were sworn away. 
 
158 
 
 REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 
 
 Before leaving this part of the evidence let us consider the evi¬ 
 dence regarding the locality from which the bomb was thrown. Gilmer 
 alone, it will be remembered, swore that it came from the alley, and 
 further that he remained standing quietly at the mouth of the alley 
 where the firing was the heaviest till it was over. 
 
 Three witnesses for the State, Officer Haas, Hull and Heineman 
 state positively that the bomb was thrown from a point south of 
 Crane’s alley, between that and Eandolph street. Of the witnesses 
 for the defense, Simonson, Zeller, Liebel, Dr. Taylor, Urban, Krumm, 
 Albright, Bach, Holloway, Koehler, Lehnert and Bennett are equally 
 positive; some of these stood at the opening ♦of the alley and could 
 not be mistaken. Bernett saw the man who threw the bomb and told 
 the same story in the evening papers of May 5. 
 
 In conclusion, the rules of criminative evidence are: 1. All facts 
 accepted in the conclusion of guilt must be satisfactorily proven. 
 2. When such conclusion rests upon a variety of facts then each fact 
 which forms the basis of the conclusion must be proved beyond a rea¬ 
 sonable doubt, the same as though the whole conclusion rested upon 
 that fact. 
 
 Under these rules Thompson’s evidence is worthless because it 
 is contradicted by facts absolutely inconsistent with it. Further, the 
 story that two men raised in Germany, speaking the German language 
 and associates on a German paper would publicly plot revolution in 
 English, when the subject-matter of such plotting were words to be 
 understood between themselves, such as “ pistols, police, do you think 
 one is enough, etc.,” remarks simply addressed from one to the other, 
 is self-evidently absurd. 
 
 Yet upon the testimony of Thompson and Gilmer, the first of 
 whom was contradicted by thirteen witnesses, and the latter contradicted 
 by forty-six different witnesses, some of whom were called by the pro¬ 
 secution, and impeached by nine other witnesses. Spies and Schwab 
 were sentenced to death ! 
 
 SAMUEL FIELDEN. 
 
 That Fielden was present at the meeting is admitted by all; that 
 he knew anything of the meeting having been called before he was 
 asked, after eight o’clock on that evening fails to appear. He at¬ 
 tended a meeting at 107 Fifth avenue, as treasurer, called to consider 
 the organization of the sewing women of Chicago, with reference to 
 the eight-hour movement, and some money was paid out by Fielden, 
 upon the order of the meeting for that purpose. The meeting lasted 
 till nearly nine o’clock. During the progress of the meeting, Balthazar 
 Eau called and said speakers were wanted at the. Haymarket meeting, 
 
KEVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 
 
 159 
 
 whereupon nearly all shortly went to the Haymarket meeting. Wit¬ 
 nesses to this effect were Patterson, Snyder, Brown, Waldo, Mrs. 
 Holmes, Parsons and Fielden. 
 
 We have seen that the only report of Mr. Fielden’s speech was 
 that taken by Mr. English, and be it remembered English himself says 
 his instructions from the Tribune office were to take only the most incen¬ 
 diary parts of the speeches. His testimony, in fact, presents only an 
 abstract of what was said, and Fielden claims that English’s report 
 was garbled, not giving the connections, and therefore does not make 
 sense. In Fielden^'s speech, however, even as reported by English, not 
 one word can be found which has the least reference to bomb-throwing, 
 or contains any proposition or suggestion to excite his hearers to the 
 use of violence. In lact, in alluding to the McCormick riot of the pre¬ 
 ceding day, he spoke of the men W'ho stoned the factory as men who 
 acted “ m their blind rage." As to his figurative expression about 
 “throttling the law,” his own speech before Judge Gary is its complete 
 explanation. 
 
 That Fielden fired a pistol-shot that night, as testified by some 
 pohcemen only, we have already shown to be discredited by the wide 
 diversity of statements made as to his position when the alleged act 
 was committed. Captain Bonfield, Captain Ward and Lieutenant 
 Steele, at whom, according to Detective Quinn, the shot was fired, were 
 close to Mr. Fielden and did not see it, while Quinn admits that he 
 “was twenty or twenty-five feet farther away from the wagon than 
 Steele or Ward.” His evidence is also contradictory; he said he saw 
 Fielden shoot and immediately returned the fire, and taming saw the 
 bomb explode. Upon cross-examination he says that immediately upon 
 hearing the order “Halt! ” he turned around and repeated the com¬ 
 mand, facing his men, with his back to the wagon. He had no time to 
 dress up his line before the bomb exploded 1 The whole story is abso¬ 
 lutely inconsistent with itself as well as with the facts. Captain Ward, 
 who was looking at him and could have touched him,Jinew nothing of 
 it. Among the witnesses who were either on or close by the wagon was 
 Freeman, a reporter, who stood three or four feet from the wagon, and 
 when the pistol-firing commenced crouched down behind the wagon, 
 where Officer Kreuger swears Fielden took cover and fired two shots. 
 Freeman says there was no shooting between him and the wagon, and 
 after a few minutes ran to the alley; that there were no shots coming 
 from near the wagon directed toward tl^e wagon. He failed to see 
 Fielden shoot. Snyder, Tennes, Dr. Taylor, Messer, Holloway and 
 Ingram were all present, and could not have been deceived had Fielden 
 had a pistol. 
 
160 
 
 REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 
 
 The vindictive attack made upon Mr. Fielden, attempting to im¬ 
 plicate him in shooting on that evening, besides being so grossly con¬ 
 tradictory, utterly fails of corroborative support. On this point we 
 call attention to the fact that when an effort was made to show by the 
 testimony of Mr. Fielden that he was present at the examination of the 
 various officers, upon the coroner’s inquest, and that not a word was 
 there testified as to his having fired at any time that night, the prose¬ 
 cution interposed objection, and the proposed testimony was excluded 
 by the court. Further, Mr. Knox, a reporter, put upon the stand by 
 the prosecution, testifying to an interview with Mr. Fielden on the night 
 of the 5th of May, in the presence of one or more of the police officers, 
 after the coroner’s inquest had recommended that Fielden be held for 
 the murder of Began, says he does not think anything was asked of 
 Fielden as to his having fired any shots at the Haymarket; that he did 
 not know of such a charge at the time, and had never heard of such a 
 claim advanced up to that time by anybody. Hume, another reporter 
 with him, gave substantially the same evidence. The charge, there¬ 
 fore, is one of subsequent invention, and so clumsily presented as to 
 make him firing from a number of irreconcilible positions at one and 
 the same time. 
 
 As to the charge that Fielden made threats by exclaiming, “Here 
 come the bloodhounds of the police ! Men, do your duty and I’ll do 
 mine,” or similar words, the evidence is equally unsatisfactory. This 
 statement is made by detectives Quinn and Haas, the first of whom 
 heard it when fully fifty feet of where the speaker was ; the latter was 
 from ten to fifteen feet from the wagon. Yet Haas admits on cross-ex¬ 
 amination that he was a witness at the coroner’s inquest, on which oc¬ 
 casion he said nothing of having heard Fielden utter these words. 
 These two are the only witnesses who positively swear that it was 
 Fielden who made the alleged remark. 
 
 Quinn further swore that he is not positive whether it was Ward 
 or Bonfield who commanded the meeting to disperse, although he had 
 known Ward for fourteen years and Bonfield for eight or ten years. 
 The witness therefore confesses that he could not distinguish the voice 
 of the officer, who admittedly gave the command to disperse in a very 
 loud tone of voice, and whom he had known for fourteen years. But 
 still he claims to have positively identified the voice of Fielden, who 
 was a stranger to him, at the distance of fifty feet! 
 
 Five other officers heard a somewhat similar remark, though they 
 differ in giving the words, but were unable to state who made it. This 
 is the whole of the State s case as to this asserted threat, and it w ill be 
 observed that of all the witnesses called by the State, only a few police- 
 
REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 
 
 161 
 
 men, mainly professional detectives, pretend to have heard these sig¬ 
 nificant words. These also claim to have heard it from all possible 
 directions and in a conflicting variety of forms. None of the report¬ 
 ers heard it who were on the alert for every incident, though they were 
 mainly called by the prosecution. 
 
 On the other hand, the following witnesses for the defendants, 
 many of whom were in immediate proximity to the wagon, and there¬ 
 fore nearer than the officers, testified positively that no such remark was 
 made, and they were all in a position where, if such a remark had been 
 made in a tone of voice loud enough to be heard by Quinn at a distance 
 of fifty feet, they could not but have heard it, and from the very nature 
 of the remark it could not but have attracted their attention, namely: 
 Simonson, Eichter, Liebel, Taylor, Gutscher, Urban, Lindiuger, Heid- 
 ekmeger, Holloway, Snyder, Murphy, Bach, Ingram, Spies, andFielden 
 himself. 
 
 Mr. English, although he was upon the scene with instructions to 
 report the most incendiary utterances, and believing that he heard all 
 that was said, says positively that he did not hear this remark, in 
 fact, no reporter on any paper of the city embodied that remark in his 
 account of the meeting. The counsel for the defendants call attention 
 to the fact that this alleged utterance, so lightly fixed upon Mr. Fielden, 
 is one of the detectives and the police, having served on duty on pre¬ 
 vious occasions, as, for instance, in the trial of Thomas Eeynolds, re¬ 
 ported in Morgan’s “ Trials in Ireland,” page 53, where in the attempt 
 to procure a conviction upon a charge of riot and assault, precisely the 
 same remark was attributed by the police swearers to the accused, and 
 counsel claim that they are justified in saying that this charge against 
 Mr. Fielden is also absolutely exploded, and that the respective state¬ 
 ments of the witnesses in that behalf are shown by the whole evidence, 
 when taken together, to be mere idle creations of professional detect¬ 
 ives’ fancy. 
 
 As to Mr. Fielden, therefore, we may affirm truly from the record: 
 
 1. That he had nothing to do with calhng the Haymarket meet¬ 
 ing. 
 
 2. That he had no knowledge that such a meeting was to be held 
 or was in progress until hurriedly summoned as a speaker. 
 
 3. That his presence when the bomb was thrown was entirely 
 accidental and without thought that any violence would occur. 
 
 4. That he made no threats or advised violence. 
 
 5. That he did not make use of any fire-arms, either in attack 
 or defense. 
 
162 
 
 REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 
 
 6. That his own statement that he never had a revolver, and 
 never saw a bomb in his life, remain unimpeached. 
 
 ALBERT R. PARSONS. 
 
 The testimony shows, without any contradiction, that on Sunday, 
 May 2, 1886, Mr. Parsons was in the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, and 
 came back from there on the morning of Tuesday May 4; that he 
 called a meeting at 107 Fifth avenue for that evening; that in com¬ 
 pany with his wife, Mrs. Holmes and his two little children he at¬ 
 tended that meeting; that on his way there he met two reporters, 
 Owen and Heineman, and in answer to their inquiries said he knew 
 nothing of the Ilaymarket meeting, having an engagement at another. 
 Like Fielden he yielded to a pressing request for speakers and spoke 
 there. His speech is admitted to have been largely statistical in its 
 nature and containing so little of an “ incendiary ” character that 
 English reported but a few paragraphs, and that he denounced a 
 proposition to hang Gould and urged attacks to be made only on the 
 economic system that rendered a Gould possible. This is borne out 
 by the following witnesses : Simmison, Ferguson, Gleeson, Snyder, 
 Bach and Freeman. His alleged call “To arms!” we have already 
 examined and found exploded by the positive testimony of Mr. En¬ 
 glish, the reporter. 
 
 After Parsons had concluded, and be it remembered that the 
 mayor beard nearly the entire speech, he suggested an adjournment, 
 and upon Fielden remarking that he would be through in a few 
 minutes. Parsons and his ladies left the meeting, and a large portion 
 of the audience did likewise. This is established by a large number 
 of witnesses on both sides and was not contested. 
 
 A review of the evidence touching Parsons’ presence and utter¬ 
 ances at the Haymarket meeting, accompanied by ladies, proposing 
 an adjournment, and himself leaving the place, must satisfy any 
 rational mind, or one not blinded by prejudice against Parsons’ econ¬ 
 omic beliefs, that he had no idea of any alleged conspiracy against 
 the police, or that violence was at all likely to happen. It is not, 
 therefore, to be wondered at that when the trial came! on, involving 
 Mr. Parsons in a charge of participating in the murder of Mr. Began, 
 he should voluntarily come to the bar of the court, as he did, and pre¬ 
 sent himself for trial. His consciousness of innocence and his strong 
 sense of duty to his associates and the cause they represented, im¬ 
 pelled him to this course. That, in his rectitude, he may have 
 believed it to be to an acquittal is a reflection on the court and jury 
 rather than on him. Honor demanded it and he has not yet given 
 one expression of regret. 
 
REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 
 
 163 
 
 OSCAR NEEBE. 
 
 A review of the evidence against Neebe is hard to present from 
 the lack of the requisite testimony to implicate him. He waB not at 
 the Haymarket; does not appear to have known of it, or of the Mon¬ 
 day night “ conspiracy.” All in the evidence bearing upon his case 
 is the following not very incriminating points: 
 
 1. That he was an acquaintance with certain of the defendants 
 and had been seen a few times at the Arheiter-Zeitung office by witness 
 Gruenhut, in regard to the organization of certain branches of indus¬ 
 try into unions. 
 
 2. The testimony of Franz Hein that on the night of May 3, 
 
 Neebe came into witness’ saloon, showed him a copy of the “ Eevenge 
 circular ” and said in reference to the McCormick riot: “ It is a shame 
 
 that the police act that way, but may be the time comes that it goes 
 the other way—that they get the chance, to©.” 
 
 3. The evidence of two detectives, who helped themselves to 
 what they wished without warrant in the Arheiter-Zeitung building on 
 May 5, that Neebe said, “ I am in charge in the absence of Spies and 
 Schwab.” 
 
 4. Officer Stift says that he was at the house of Neebe, on the 
 7th of May, and there found a Colt’s pistol, an old sword, a breech¬ 
 loading gun and a red flag; witness admitted that the gun might have 
 been a sporting gun. 
 
 5. A number of witnesses admitted that they knew Neebe and had 
 seen him at Socialistic picnics. 
 
 6. From the testimony of Fricke, Seliger and Heinemann it ap¬ 
 peared that Neebe had at one time been a member of the International 
 Working People’s Association. 
 
 7. Fricke testified that Neebe was a member of the corporation 
 publishing the Arheiter-Zeitung and that he had seen him at picnics 
 where some one else had sold Most’s book! 
 
 This is all; and for this Neebe received a sentence of fifteen years 
 for participation in the murder of Degan! One ruling of the court 
 has already been given showing that taking charge of the Arheiter- 
 Zeitung, in the opinion of Judge Gary, was a questionable action 
 leaving “ a debatable question which the jury ought to pass upon.” 
 There is absolutely no evidence in the record that Neebe presided over 
 meetings where “ advice to commit murder ” was submitted by the 
 speakers. Yet the court held: 
 
 “If it depended on prior knowledge or participation at the Hay- 
 market meeting, the question would be quite different; but if there is 
 
164 
 
 THE ALLEGED CONSPIKACY. 
 
 general advice to commit murder, the time and occasion not being 
 foreseen, the adviser is guilty when it is committed!” 
 
 Such rulings could not but have a direct influence upon the minds 
 of the jurors in prejudicing Neebe’s case, not even a causal relation¬ 
 ship as accessory before the fact, as between him and the other 
 defendants, being established. 
 
 CHAPTEE XI. 
 
 THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY. 
 
 We have reserved the review of the evidence against Fischer, 
 Engel and Lingg to consider it in connection with the evidence of 
 the meeting of Monday night, where the conspiracy was said to have 
 been planned or more definitely arranged. It is claimed that all three 
 were present on that occasion, when conspiracy was entered into and 
 the calling of the Haymarket meeting resolved on. The witnesses 
 were Waller, who presided, Schrade, Lehman and Greif. Waller, 
 who distinguished himself by the alacrity with which he turned in¬ 
 former, was the main witness.. He says he called the meeting to order 
 at about half-past eight o’clock, and that there were some seventy or 
 eighty persons present. The testimony of Schrade, Lehman and 
 Greif shows that there were not over thirty or forty in attendance 
 When the Haymarket meeting was agreed upon it was stated that the 
 pm-pose of the meeting was to cheer up the workingmen so that they 
 should be prepared in case of an attack by the police to defend them¬ 
 selves. Further than this no conspiracy is shown to have existed. 
 That the Haymarket meeting was there agreed upon and Fischer au¬ 
 thorized to issue a hand-bill, is not denied. Waller himself proposed 
 the Tuesday meeting, and in his direct examination by the State he 
 distinctly repudiated any conspiracy in connection with the Hay¬ 
 market, as follows: 
 
 Q. What was said, if anything, as to what should be done in 
 case the police should attempt to disperse the Haymarket meeting? 
 
 A. There was nothing said about the Haymarket. There was 
 nothing expected that the police would get to the Haymarket. 
 
 A committee, however, was appointed of one or two from each 
 group to observe the movement not only on the Haymarket, but in 
 various portions of the city. If an onslaught was made by the police 
 in the day-time, the word “Euhe” was to be published; if at night, 
 the different members were to be notified at their homes. The McCor- 
 
THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY., 
 
 165 
 
 mick attack had convinced them that the police would on the slightest 
 provocation attack them and they “ conspired ” to protect themselves 
 in such case. 
 
 By reference to the testimony of Waller it will be seen that the 
 witness testified that Mr. Engel said the plan proposed by him was to 
 be followed only in the event of a police attack, and that the working¬ 
 men should only defend themselvek if thus attacked by the police. 
 The testimony of Waller that no allusion was made to the Haymarket, 
 that none of the persons present at the Monday-evening meeting were 
 proven to be present when the bomb was thrown, that he himself left 
 to attend a meeting of the Furniture-Workers’ Union, that he and 
 Fischer were together early in the evening and on seeing the police- 
 patrol wagons supposed that they were “ getting ready to drive out to 
 McCormick’s, so that they might be out there early in the morning ”— 
 is entirely in accordance with other testimony and conclusively proves 
 that there was no conspiracy to throw a bomb, even to resist police 
 brutality, at the Haymarket on May 4. As to Waller’s further testi¬ 
 mony two facts are worthy of attention: 1. He, as chairman of the 
 meeting, was in imminent peril under the reign of terror that pre¬ 
 vailed and was willing to testify to what would save his own neck. 
 2. He admitted that he had received various sums of money from 
 Captain Schaack, and that his wife also had received indefinite sums. 
 
 Bernard Schrade, testifying to the same meeting for the State, 
 says, that arriving late at the Monday-night meeting, Waller ex¬ 
 plained what had been done, stated that six men had been shot at 
 McCormick’s by the police, and that they should be prepared in case 
 the police went beyond their bounds to resist invasion upon their 
 natural and civil rights. He also said that nothing was said about 
 dynamite and that the phrase “ having stuff ” was not used. He said 
 further that nothing was said at any of their meetings about dyna¬ 
 mite or bombs, and that no discussion arose, or understanding arrived 
 at, to use bombs on any particular occasion. This witness for the 
 prosecution also said that he did not anticipate any trouble at the 
 Haymarket, and that he only left on account of the approach of the 
 storm. 
 
 Thomas Greif, the proprietor of the hall, swore that there were 
 only twenty-five or thirty persons present, and he saw no effort made 
 to keep the meeting secret. 
 
 If there was a conspiracy, depending upon the witnesses for the 
 prosecution alone, we are justified in stating that it had no reference 
 to the Haymarket meeting, and that the alleged conspiracy, even if 
 proven, was simply one to resist what was considered unjustifiable in- 
 
166 
 
 THE ALLEGED CONSPIKACY. 
 
 vasion. Only two, Fischer and Engel, were shown to have been 
 present, yet eight were pnt on trial for their lives on this assumption. 
 Again, from the testimony of the prosecution it appears that the 
 throwing of the bomb on May 4 was entirely opposed to the alleged 
 “conspiracy.” According to the original design the “conspirators” 
 ought to have been notified at once when the police attacked the peace¬ 
 able meeting on the Haymarket square. This was not done ; no-part 
 of the design alleged to have been agreed upon Monday evening was 
 carried out. But somebody threw a bomb into the ranks of the police. 
 If he was a member of that conspiracy—of which there is no proof— 
 he must have acted in direct contradiction to the plan said to have 
 been agreed upon, he disregarded the directions of his associates, he 
 defeated their objects and ruined the eight-hour movement for the 
 time being. ^Yho employed him is still a conundrum. His connec¬ 
 tion with the “ conspiracy ” has not been established. The evidence 
 is conclusive that Schnaubelt did not throw the bomb. It is perhaps 
 enough to state in regard to the testimony of Special Officer Gilmer 
 that so completely and overwhelmingly was he impeached, contra¬ 
 dicted and discredited, that the State did not ask a single instruction 
 to the jury based upon the belief by them that Rudolph Schnaubelt 
 threw the bomb as detailed by Gilmer. The testimony of Gilmer was 
 abandoned by the representatives of the State as unworthy of credence 
 or consideration, in the instructions asked by them. Schnaubelt had 
 attended the Monday night meeting and we have seen that two wit¬ 
 nesses, Lehnert and Krueger, testified to his leaving the Haymarket 
 some time before the bomb was thrown. 
 
 Yet Fischer’s presence at the Sunday and Monday-night meetings 
 is the sole reason for his conviction. We have seen that he was at 
 Zepf’s Hall at the time the police raided the meeting at the Haymarket. 
 No utterance of Fischer’s suggesting violence upon that evening, either 
 in speech or in print, is in record of the case. The whole testimony as 
 to the Monday-night meeting is entirely irrelevent as to all the prison¬ 
 ers other than Fischer and Engel. As far as Fischer is concerned it 
 has been conclusively shown that he was not at the Haymarket when 
 the bomb exploded, did not contemplate either tho throwing of one or 
 that occasion would arise to exert self-defense. Further, the whole 
 testimony presented by the State absolutely refutes the theory that 
 the Emma-street meeting or the West Lake-street meeting had any re¬ 
 ference whatever to the throwing of a bomb at the Haymarket meeting. 
 
 GEORGE ENGEL. 
 
 The case presented by the prosecution against Engel is nearly 
 identical with that urged against Fischer. There are, however, some 
 
THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY. 167 
 
 \ 
 
 points which require brief consideration. Engel, it will be remem¬ 
 bered, was credited with being the proposer of the “ plot.” There was 
 no pretense that Engel was present at the Haymarket meeting at the 
 time that the bomb was thrown, nor for some considerable time prior 
 thereto. Waller testified that after the bomb was exploded he left 
 Zepf’s Hall and proceeded immediately home, stoppiug on the way at 
 Engel’s house. That he found Engel there with a few friends having 
 a quiet di’irk of beer, and that he first informed him of what had oc¬ 
 curred at the. Haymarket. He said that upon this announcement 
 being made, he told the party there gathered that he thought they had 
 better go home, to which Engel fully assented, saying yes, they should 
 all go home; and that nothing else occurred. 
 
 August Krueger says that he left the Haymarket about ten o’clock 
 and arrived at Engel’s house at about quarter past. That later Wal¬ 
 ler came in and said that three hundred men had been shot by the 
 police at the Haymarket, and added, “ we ought to go down there and 
 do something.” To this Engel responded that whoever threw that bomb 
 did a foolish thing, it Was nonsense and that he did not sympathize with 
 such a butchery, and he told Waller that he had better go home as 
 quick as possible; he said the policemen were just as good people as 
 other citizens, and that the revolution must grow out of the people. 
 
 From the concurring testimony of these two witnesses, one of 
 whom the State had secured as an informer, it appears beyond ques¬ 
 tion that when the bomb was thrown Engel was quietly at home with 
 a few friends, not anticipating any violence or conflict with the police; 
 that he deprecated what had occurred as unwise, and ad^dsed all to 
 go home. If the Haymarket meeting had been planned with reference 
 to carrying out the programme of action discussed and alleged to have 
 been agreed upon Monday night, then the natural thing for Engel and 
 his associates, when the news was brought to them of the outbreak at 
 the Haymarket, would have been to have gathered themselves together 
 and inaugurated a movement against the police. The fact that no 
 such suggestion came from Engel, and that upon Waller hinting that 
 something ought to be done, Engel refused to entertain any such prop¬ 
 osition, along with all the other testimony in the case, is conclusive 
 that the Haymarket bomb was a matter of absolute surprise to Mr. 
 Engel. 
 
 LOUIS LINGO. 
 
 The evidence introduced by the State shows that Louis Lingg did 
 not attend the Haymarket meeting, nor was within a distance of two 
 miles thereof during the entire evening. Captain Schaak said that 
 Lingg admitted to him after arrest that he was present at the meeting 
 
168 
 
 THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY. 
 
 at No. 54 West Lake street on Monday night, May 3. But the doughty 
 captain was the only witness who made this charge. On the defense 
 it was shown by two witnesses that Lingg passed the entire evening 
 at a meeting of his union—the carpenters—until after eleven o’clock. 
 These witnesses were Ernest Niendorf and Jacob Sherman. 
 
 Further, in proof that Lingg could not have been at the meeting 
 where the alleged conspiracy was planned, it will be seen on reference 
 to the testimony of the informer Seliger that when he (Seliger) showed 
 to Lingg the word “ Euhe ” in the paper, it was late on the night of 
 May 4, after the bomb had been thrown, and that consequently Lingg 
 had not thought of looking for it! He added that Lingg said it was a 
 notice “ that everything was to go topsy-turvey ” and that aU the 
 armed men should appeal* at 54 West Lake street. According to in¬ 
 former Waller’s testimony, however, a far different meaning was in¬ 
 tended to be conveyed by the word. If any preference is to be given 
 between these contradictory statements of the two informers. Waller, 
 who was present and chairman, should know best. 
 
 The whole evidence against Lingg is that he did manufacture 
 bombs. Yet even Seliger, who seemed willing to swear to any incrim¬ 
 inating story, admitted that nothing was said as to when or where these 
 bombs were to be used. He had been making them for weeks, long 
 before any Haymarket meeting was contemplated. He was not shown 
 to have been on terms of intimacy with the other defendants, in fact, 
 some had never seen or heard of him. In behalf of Lingg the counsel 
 submitted an instruction which they asked to be given to the jury, 
 which was refused by the court. It was as follows: 
 
 “ It is not enough to warrant the conviction of the defendant Lingg 
 that he may have manufactured the bomb, the explosion of which killed 
 Mathias J. Degau. He must have aided, abetted or advised the ex¬ 
 ploding of the bomb, or of the doing of some illegal act, or the doing of 
 a legal act in an unlawful manner, in the furtherance of which, and as 
 incident thereto, the same was exploded and said Began killed. If, as 
 to the defendant Lingg the jury should find bej^ond all reasonable 
 doubt that he did in fact manufacture said bomb, but are not satisfied 
 beyond all reasonable doubt that he aided, advisee]., counseled or abetted 
 the throwing of said missile, or the doing of any unlawful act which 
 resulted in the explosion of said bomb, your verdict shoul^l acquit him 
 as far as the establishment of his guilt is attempted by the manufact¬ 
 ure of said missile or bomb.” 
 
 After examination, Judge Gary marked this “Given,” and pro¬ 
 ceeded to read it to the jury. The record shows that he read it but half 
 way tinough, then stopped, and marked the instruction “Refused.” 
 
THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY. 
 
 1GD 
 
 This action was tantamount to an indirect instruction to the jury that 
 a foan who manufactured a weapon was accessory to the act of any 
 man who might use it with murderous intent! How would this logic 
 apply to Smith & Wesson, Remington, or Colt? Upon this point his 
 counsel say: 
 
 “ Whatever may he our criticism upon the matter of manufactur¬ 
 ing dynamite bombs for any purpose, there is no law within this State 
 which makes the mere manufacture of such missiles a crime punish¬ 
 able with death or otherwise. Louis Lingg could not have been con¬ 
 victed of murder because of all this matter detailed by Seliger and his 
 wife and Lehmann, even if it were clear that the bomb thrown at the 
 Haymarket had come from his hands, if it had been thrown by a third 
 party acting upon his own responsibility and without Lingg’s knowl¬ 
 edge, consent, aid, assistance, advice or encouragement. For example, 
 the manufacturers of revolvers, bowie knives, dirks, poisoned daggers, 
 gatling guns, air guns, have never been held responsible for the conse¬ 
 quences of the use of these weapons by a third party acting sua sponte. 
 These weapons are harmless in themselves, and cannot be involved in 
 the commission of crime until some free moral agent intelligently ap- 
 phes them to some purpose of destruction. Nor is this rule affected by 
 the fact, if conceded, that the manufacturer must have known that 
 the natural use to which the implement manufactured would be put 
 would be the taking of human life. We may deprecate such industry, 
 but we cannot say that the mere pursuit of the industry makes the 
 man engaged in it responsible for every use of the implement produced* 
 By way of illustration, we may suppose that some third party, an 
 enemy of Lingg’s, had obtained one of the bombs of his manufacture 
 and use for the purpose of deliberate murder, with the design of involv¬ 
 ing Lingg himself in ruin, and with it committed a crime to which 
 Lingg himself was a stranger, such result would not obtain. 
 
 “ In order to justify a legal conviction of murder there must be sat¬ 
 isfactory and conclusive proof of the commission by the party accused, 
 in his own person or through another acting under his aid and advice, 
 of the crime alleged. It will not do to allow our horror over the use of 
 this terrible explosive to carry us away from the moorings of the law. 
 It will not do for us to allow the realm of jurisprudence to be invaded 
 by the mere dictates of supposed policy. We must stand by fixed prin¬ 
 ciples of general application. Only thus can the law be administered 
 as a science, and be made the protection of the innocent and the terror 
 only of the guilty. 
 
 “We submit and insist that this record is barren of evidence just¬ 
 ifying the conclusion by the jury that Louis Lingg was a party to a 
 
170 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 conspiracy to throw a bomb on the night of May 4,1886, or to a common 
 object, in the attempt to execute which that bomb was thrown. The 
 evidence is conclusive that Lingg did not throw the bomb, did not stand 
 by and assist the perpetration of the deed. It follows as an irresistible 
 conclusion from Seliger’s testimony that whatever Lingg did, whatever 
 he may have atteaipted or proposed on the North Side, he had no 
 knowledge that a bomb would be thrown at the Haymarket meeting. 
 The evidence fails to show, that without being present, he had advised, 
 encouraged, aided or abetted the perpetration of the crime charged in 
 the indictment.” 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 But little remains to be said. We have carefully gone through the 
 evidence, conscienciously bringing out the strongest points made 
 against the accused, and endeavored to carefully weigh the evidence as 
 bearing on each one of the defendants. But there still remains a mat¬ 
 ter upon which counsel for defendants lay considerable stress in their 
 brief and argument before the Supreme Court of Illinois for a new trial. 
 This is what they denominate the illegitimate evidence, which I will 
 endeavor as briefly as possible to epitomize. The reader will remember 
 considerable so-called evidence was introduced by the State over the 
 protest of the defendants, but which was allowed by the court upon the 
 assumption—before evidence—that the defendants were guilty of an 
 illegal conspiracy. 
 
 This was shown on the very first day on which testimony was 
 taken, when Waller was asked : “ Did you ever have any bombs?” 
 
 At that time Judge Gary rendered the following ruling, which gov¬ 
 erned all subsequent proceedings: 
 
 “ If the fact be that a large number of men concurred with each 
 other in preparing to use force for the destruction of human life, wpon 
 oecasions which were not yet foreseen, but upon some principles which 
 they substantially agreed upon, as, for example, taking the words of 
 this witness, if a large number of men agreed together to kill the police, 
 if they were found in conflict with strikers—I believe is the phrase— 
 leaving it to the agents of violence to determine whether the time and occa¬ 
 sion had come for the use of violence, then if the time and occasion do 
 come wdien the violence is used, are not all parties who agreed before¬ 
 hand in preparing the means of death, and agreed in the use of them 
 upon the time and occasion, equally liable?” 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 171 
 
 There had been no evidence then, nor was there afterwards, that 
 there had been an agreement between a large number of men “ to kill 
 the police,” yet that assumption was taken for granted by the court. 
 It was argued at some length, and among the various rulings of the 
 judge the following will suffice as an exposition of Illinois law: 
 
 “If the time and occasion were left to the different conspirators, 
 or to the different parties to the agreement, and then, when the time 
 did come, in the judgment of some one of those, and he did use the 
 force and kill, then they are all liable.'’ 
 
 Under this construction of the law anything that might tend, 
 however remotely, to proving that the defendants were social heretics, 
 and which might have a tendency to inflame the admitted bias of the 
 jurors, was admitted and days consumed in matters wholly foreign to 
 the issue in this case. 
 
 The counsel for the defendants sum up the illegitimate evidence 
 under the following heads : 
 
 I. Newspaper Literature. —Whole files of the Arheiter-Zeitung and 
 the Alarm were paraded before the jury and days passed in reading 
 editorials, notices, communications and reprints. Both of these 
 papers were published by a corporation duly organized under the laws 
 of Illinois, of which only four of the defendants were stockholders. 
 Both were openly published and circulated, had never been interfered 
 with and entitled to protection under the charter of the company. 
 Every word read was general in its character, such as Victor Hugo’s 
 addresses, eight-hour editorials, scientific reprints, denunciation of 
 capitalistic exploitation, etc. By the introduction of all this irrele¬ 
 vant matter it was shown, on mere newspaper authority, remember, 
 that Oscar Neebe had presided, or was reported to have presided, at 
 two Socialistic meetings. Therefore, fifteen years hard labor! Ee- 
 prints from Truth, Die Freiheit, and an article by Bakounine, the Eus- 
 sian nihilist, which had passed into the current literature of the day, 
 were gravely read at length to the astonishmeht of the middle-class 
 jury. 
 
 II. Johann Most’s Book on the Science of Eevolutionary Warfare 
 was introduced as evidence to convict men of murder, some of whom 
 were unable to read the language in which it was written. The book 
 was openly published by the International News Company of New 
 York, and I presume is still supplied by them when ordered. Fricke 
 had testified that it was on sale at the office of the Arheiter-Zeitung, 
 where be was a book-keeper, and had seen it sold at picnics where the 
 defendants w^ere present, though none of them had anything to do 
 with its sale. Here again was the introduction of matter foreign to 
 
172 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 the issue, containing only general not specific directions and fully as 
 permissible a production as Hardee’s Tactics. The only possible use 
 of the translation read to the jury was to still further inflame the 
 prejudice of the jurors. 
 
 TIL Varimis OhjecU were introduced evidently for the same reason, 
 such as soiled and blood-stained garments said to have been worn by 
 oflicers wounded on the Haymarket. It was not Degan’s clothing thus 
 paraded, showing holes made by fragments of the shell, and it was 
 not shown in evidence that the clothing belonged to officers who died. 
 At best it was a disgusting and vulgar appeal to passions and fears to 
 convict men alleged to have some indefinite connection with the un¬ 
 known indiyidual who did throw the bomb, and who, it was assumed, 
 acted upon their general advice to defend themselves. 
 
 The State also introduced a lot or cans, gas-pipes, boxes and frag¬ 
 ments which had been fractured in experiments, to show to the now 
 awe-struck jury the terrible destructive effect of dynamite. Said col¬ 
 lection, upon evidence of detectives, having been found at the Arheiter- 
 Zeitung office, Lingg’s room, and under sidewalks three miles from the 
 Haymarket. These last were four tin cans, found four weeks after 
 the Haymarket meeting and, from their very construction, altogether 
 different from the bomb used on the night of May 4. Broken barrel 
 staves, indented iron, torn links, tin cans containing combustible ma¬ 
 terial, and even a, piece of gas-pipe gravely termed an empty bomb, were 
 used to prejudice the jury against men accused of the murder of 
 Mathias J. Began. 
 
 TJie Furnace^ or “ blasting machine, ” found at the house of Mr. 
 Engel, where it had been for a year, and which was shown to have 
 never been used, was introduced in order to get Bonfield’s testimony 
 that it could be used for the melting of metals. Irrelevant even as 
 against Engel, it was atrocious as bearing on his comrades. Its intro¬ 
 duction but served to insinuate into the minds of the jurors that they 
 actually saw before them an Anarchist’s blast furnace ! 
 
 Various Flags and Banners found at the office of the Arbeiter-Zeitung 
 were waved before the jury that all might see what a red flag or ban¬ 
 ner looked like. Waiving the point that these were admittedly seized 
 without warrant, they had been carried in the streets of Chicago for 
 years, for the most part belonging to trade-unions and figuring in 
 their processions. Yet they were again flaunted as evidence against 
 all the defendants! 
 
 Fischer's Armory, as it was called, was also duly paraded. We 
 have seen from the testimony of Mr. Aschenbrenner that the articles 
 were i,i a drawer in the composing room of the Arbeiter-Zeitung build- 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 173 
 
 ing where he was employed; that Fischer was asked by witness to 
 remove them to avoid getting others in trouble, and while doing so was 
 arrested. There was no pretense that he had been in the habit of 
 carrying these, or that he had them on his person May 4. Having 
 been arrested while removing them, at the request of a fellow-work¬ 
 man, their introduction as evidence made him in the eyes of the jury, 
 now already sufficiently excited a veritable walking arsenal or a modern 
 Captain Kidd. 
 
 IV. The counsel complain that upon cross-examination the ac¬ 
 cused were compelled to answer questions not brought out on the 
 direct examination. Thus Fielden was asked a variety of questions 
 as to his past connection with the Alarm, the International, speeches 
 
 t delivered long before and his Socialistic views. Spies was made to 
 identify Herr Most’s letter, though he stated he had no recollection as 
 to having received or read it, and did not think he had replied to it, 
 and stated positively that he never carried on any correspondence 
 with Most. 
 
 V. Speeches and Private Utterances .—Under this head we find in 
 the record speeches delivered at the board of trade demonstration in 
 April 1885; the West Twelfth street meeting and others early in 1885; 
 remarks made at the meetings of the American Group, which were 
 always public and open to everybody, and where the attendance was 
 never larger than twenty-five people; private conversations of Mr. 
 Spies in Grand Eapids, Mich., and with reporters greedy for a sensa¬ 
 tional article. Testimony of statements made in a private conversa¬ 
 tion by Spies outside of the State, a year and a quarter before the 
 Haymarket meeting, was admitted as not only evidence against Spies, 
 but against all the other defendants. As to M^. Spies’ “ ghost story ” 
 to the reporter Wilkinson the evidence shows its weakness and Mr. 
 Gruenhut said it was carried on in a half-joking manner; utterances 
 at eight-hour meetings and inferences as to the tendency of these utter¬ 
 ances had nothing to do with the charge of murder, save as foisted on 
 the record by Judge Gary’s rulings. 
 
 VI. Injuries of Officers as brought out by the testimony of surgeons, 
 describing the ghastly nature of bomb wounds, etc., that the “ im¬ 
 partial jury” might be the better enabled to discuss the question 
 whether the defendants were connected in spirit or deed with the death 
 of Degan. 
 
 When the jury retired each one had ringing in his ears the epithets 
 bestowed upon the defendants by State’s-Attorney Grinnell, such as 
 “loathsome murderers;” also “ these wretches here” and “assassins.” 
 Consider also the following sample extracts from his closing address 
 
174 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 in the light of the desperate effort that had been made to inflame the 
 passions and fears of the jurors. For instance: 
 
 “ Prejudice ? Men, organized assassins, can preach murder in our 
 city for years, you deliberately under your oath hear the proof, and 
 then say you have no prejudice ? ” 
 
 “We stand here, gentlemen, with the verdict in our favor—I mean 
 in favor of the prosecution as to the conduct of this case.” 
 
 “Don’t try, gentlemen, to shirk the issues. Law is on trial! 
 Anarchy is on trial!" 
 
 “ If I had the power I would like to take you all over to the Hay- 
 market that night, and with you with tears in your eyes see the dead 
 and mingle with the wounded and dying, see law violated, and then I 
 could, if I had the power, paint you a picture that would steel your 
 hearts against the defendants.” 
 
 From these words it will be seen, as is sufficiently shown in the 
 testimony, that the defendants were condemned less for the murder of 
 Degan than because they were Anarchists, because they held theoreti¬ 
 cal views at variance with those in general acceptance—in short, be¬ 
 cause they were social heretics. 
 
 Captain Black closed his eloquent plea before the Supreme Court 
 in words with which we conclude. He said: 
 
 “ For aught which appears in this record, your honors upon your 
 consciences will be compelled to say that bomb may have been thrown 
 by somebody in no way connected with these defendants, directly or 
 indirectly. It may have been done by an enemy of theirs. It may have 
 been done by some man acting upon his ovra mere malice and iU-will. 
 It was throvm outside of the purpose of the Haymarket meeting. It 
 was thrown in disregard of the arrangement and understanding for 
 that meeting. It was thrown to the overthrow of the labor and the 
 effort that these men were then giving their lives to, namely, the estab¬ 
 lishment of the eight-hour day. It brought an end to their efforts. It 
 was not of their devising. The record shows it. 
 
 “ The record fails to show who threw that bomb. And the question 
 is, whether upon the barbaric lex talionis, that whenever a man was 
 slain a man of the opposing faction must be slain, these seven men 
 shall die because seven policemen, whom they did not like as a class, 
 and who certainly did not love them, have died ? You know the bar¬ 
 barians never stopped to fix individual responsibility for the crime. 
 They simply said, ‘ One of ours is dead, and we cannot rest till one of 
 theirs die for him ! ’ It has been so here.” 
 
My rights! ’Tis easy to run o’er the score, 
 
 For they are marked by anguish, tears and pain; 
 
 A right to add a mite to garnished store 
 When I have toiied to increase others’ gain; 
 
 A right to cail my wife and babe my own. 
 
 But not the muscle on which they depend; 
 
 A right to love when other joys have flown. 
 
 But not from hunger always to defend; 
 
 A right to beg to toil from sordid greed, 
 
 But only as a favor must I crave; 
 
 A right to starve ’mid plenteousness—from need, 
 
 But not to claim more than a pauper’s grave. 
 
 Yet aye! And may they heed who rights would spurn. 
 The right of e’en the trodden worm to turn. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 I. 
 
 CAPTAIN BLACK’S ADDRESS. 
 
 “On the morning of the 5th of May, 1886, the good people of the 
 city of Chicago were startled and shocked at the event of the previous 
 night, frightened, many of them, not knowing whereunto this thing 
 might lead. Fear is the father of cruelty. It was no ordinary case. 
 Immediately after that first emotion came a feeling which has found 
 expression from many lips in the hearing of many, if not all of you: 
 ‘A great wrong has been done; somebody must be punished, somebody 
 ought to suffer for the suffering which has been wrought.’ Perhaps it 
 was that feeling—I know not—which led to the unusual and extraordi¬ 
 nary proceedings which were taken in connection with this matter im¬ 
 mediately following the 4th of May. Perhaps it was that feeling, in a 
 large measure, which led to the arrest and presentment of these eight 
 defendants. Perhaps it was something of that feeling which wiU ex¬ 
 plain the conduct of the prosecution in this case. I am not disposed 
 to say that there has been any willful or deliberate intent on the part 
 of the representatives of the State to act unfairly. I am not disposed 
 to charge that there has been upon their part any disposition to do an 
 injustice to any man. But in their case, as in the case of aU, passion 
 perverts the heart, prejudice corrupts the judgment. 
 
 “ The serious question which confronts us, in our view of the case, 
 as we stand here to argue with you the effect of this testimony which 
 has been presented in these past, days, is, to what extent you may be 
 influenced in your deliberations by passion or prejudice. I will not 
 dwell at length upon that; it has been admirably presented by one of 
 my associates. I need only to say that our hope, as against your pas¬ 
 sion, lies in our confidence that your purpose is true; that our hope, as 
 against your prejudice, lies in the conviction that your hearts are full 
 of human tenderness. We can only offset the one against the other. 
 We can only hope that that human tenderness which we believe is in 
 your hearts, and looks upon us from your faces—that that purpose of 
 righteousness which we believe forms an element of your character, as 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 177 
 
 it is inscribed upon your countenances—will stand us in stead as against 
 the passion which has been stirred in your hearts, and the prejudice 
 which has been sought to be instilled into your bosoms. If we can have 
 —and that is all that we desire—a fair and impartial consideration of 
 the testimony in this case, as the testimony in every case ought to be 
 considered, and as the testimony in any other case would be considered, 
 we shall be content, assured of the result. 
 
 “ On the night of the 4th of May a dynamite bomb was thrown in 
 the city of Chicago and exploded. It w^as the first time that in our im¬ 
 mediate civilization, and immediately about us, this great destructive 
 agency was used in modern contests. I beg you to remember, in the 
 consideration of this case, that dynamite is not the invention of Social¬ 
 ists ; it is not their discovery. Science has turned it loose upon the 
 world—an agency of destruction, whether for defense or offense, whether 
 for attack or to build the bulwarks round the beleagured city. It has 
 entered into modern warfare. We know from what has already trans¬ 
 pired in this case that dynamite is being experimented with as a weapon 
 of warfare by the great nations of the world. What has been read in 
 your hearing has given you the results of experiments made under the 
 direction of the government of Austria, and while you have sat in this 
 jury box considering the things which have been deposed before you, 
 with reference to reaching a final and correct result, the government of 
 the United States has voted $350,000 for the budding of a dynamite 
 cruiser. It is in the world by no procurement of Socialism, with no 
 necessary relationship thereto. It is in the world to stay. It is manu¬ 
 factured freely; it is sold without let, hindrance or restriction. You 
 may go from this jury box to the leading powder companies of the 
 country, or their depots, and buy all the dynamite that you wish with¬ 
 out question as to your purpose, without interrogation as to your 
 motive. It is here. Is it necessarily a thing of evil ? It has entered 
 into tha great industries, and we know its results. It has cleared the 
 path of commerce where the great North Eiver rolls on its way to the 
 sea. It is here and there blasting out rocks, digging out mines, and 
 used for helpfulness in the great industries of life. But there never 
 came an explosive into the world, cheap, simple of construction, easy 
 of manufacture, that it did not enter also into the world’s combats. I 
 beg you to remember also that hand bombs are not things of Social¬ 
 istic devising. It may be that one or another, here and there, profess¬ 
 ing Socialistic tenets, has devised some improvements in their construc¬ 
 tion, or has made some advances with reference to their composition • 
 they have not invented them. The hand-grenade has been known in 
 warfare long ere you and I saw the light. The two things have come 
 
178 
 
 APPE>TDIX. 
 
 together—the hand grenade, charged no longer with the powder of old 
 days, but charged with the dynamite of modern science. It is a union 
 which Socialists are not responsible for. It is a union led up to by the 
 logic of events and the necessities of situations, and it is a union that 
 will never be divorced. We stand amazed at the dread results that are 
 possible to this union; but as we look back over history we know this 
 fact, contradictory as it may seem, strange as it may first strike us, 
 that in the exact proportion in which the implements of warfare have 
 been made effective or destructive, in that precise proportion have wars 
 lost the utmost measure of their horror, and in that precise proportion 
 has death by war diminished. When gunpowder came into European 
 warfare there was an outcry against it. All the chivalry which had 
 arrogated to itself the power and glory of battle in martial times sprang 
 up against the introduction of gunpowder, an agency that made the 
 iron casque and shield and cuirass of the plumed knight no better a 
 defense than the hemp doublet of the peasant. But now, instead of 
 wars that last through thirty years, that are determined by the personal 
 collision of individuals, that desolate nations, the great civilized nations 
 of the world hesitate at war because of its possibilities of evil, and diplo¬ 
 macy sits where once force alone was entrenched. The moral respon¬ 
 sibility for dynamite is not upon Socialism.” 
 
 Captain Black went on to urge that the sole question before the jury 
 was who threw the bomb, for the doctrine of accessory before the fact, 
 under which it was sought to hold the defendants, was nothing but the 
 application to the criminal law of the civil or common law doctrine that 
 what a man does by another he does himself. When the prosecution 
 charged that the defendants threw it, their charge involved that the 
 bomb was thrown by the procurement of these men, by their advice, 
 direction, aid, counsel or encouragement, and that the man who threw 
 it acted not alone for himself, or upon his own responsibility, but as a 
 result of the encouragement or procurement of these men. He held 
 that the State must show that the agent of the defendants did the deed, 
 and that it is not sufficient to show that the defendants favored such 
 deeds. Upon this point counsel spoke at some length. Next he took 
 up the case of one of the talesmen examined with reference to his tak¬ 
 ing a place on the jury, who sw'ore that, having been for three years 
 connected with the office of the prosecuting attorney in the State of New 
 York, he found in himself that the habit of thought and life to which 
 he had there devoted himself had created in him a predisposition to 
 believe every accused man guilty, which, in his own deliberate judg¬ 
 ment before God, disqualified him from sitting as an impartial juror in 
 a criminal case. The application of this case to the attaches of the 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 179 
 
 state’s attorney’s office who have appeared before the jury was made 
 the most of. The Captain then spoke as follows : 
 
 “ And now, gentlemen, let us take up the real issues. I believe I 
 can read in your faces that you are ready to give an answer to your con¬ 
 sciences, to your fellow-men and yourselves for your conduct in the 
 investigations you are now making. I pray you, lend me at once your 
 judgment and your hearts. 
 
 “ Has the State proven to your satisfaction, beyond a reasonable 
 doubt, that August Spies, Michel Schwab and Adolph Fischer were per¬ 
 sonally and individually advising and providing for the throwing of the 
 bomb on the night of May 4 ? Direct testimony has been introduced 
 to prove that. It is not pretended that the other defendants are con¬ 
 nected by direct testimony with the offense of that night. Two wit¬ 
 nesses were placed upon the stand to prove the lighting and throwing 
 of the bomb, Harry L. Gilmer and M. M. Thompson. I must say, gen¬ 
 tlemen, that I think their testimony is altogether untruthful.” Captain 
 Black analyzed the testimony of these witnesses, and contended that 
 they had laid perjury to their souls. Gilmer’s story was utterly incred¬ 
 ible and absurd. Could the jury believe beyond any reasonable doubt, 
 beyond any substantial question, that August Spies, the brainiest man 
 of the crowd, would commit the stupendous and supreme folly of first 
 illuminating his face so that every man might see it and know it and 
 then lighting the fuse of the bomb ? “ You saw Spies on this stand; 
 
 you heard his testimony. I think I can safely leave his case in your 
 hands. If it is a fact that Spies was on the wagon when the bomb was 
 thrown the story of Gilmer is shattered and has not a shadow or shade 
 of truth in it. Then this perjured witness tried to connect Fischer with 
 this awful event, when it had been conclusively shown that this defend¬ 
 ant was drinking beer at Zepf’s Hall at the time. If there had been 
 any effort on the part of the State to deliberately corrupt justice in one 
 particular, and make the jurors parties to murder, they should bear that 
 in mind in considering the whole case. Besides, there was evidence that 
 the bomb did not come from the alley, but was thrown about twenty or 
 forty feet south of the alley. It was not the duty of the defense to prove 
 the falsity of Gihner’s and Thompson’s testimony; their business was"^ 
 only to raise a reasonable doubt as to its truth, and it was the duty of 
 the jurors, as citizens and men, acting under the law which is above 
 all law, to give the defendants the benefit of that doubt.” 
 
 Passing from the consideration of the direct testimony. Captain 
 Black then turned to the circumstantial evidence out of which the 
 State sought to forge the chain of conviction and bring the defendants 
 to the extreme penalty of the law. The theory of the State was this: 
 
180 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 That the meeting on the night of May 4 was a result and incident in 
 the carrying out of a general conspiracy to murder; that all the defend¬ 
 ants were parties to that conspiracy; that certain of them were active 
 participants in the meeting, and the evidence sufficiently and incon- 
 trovertibly connected them all with and made them guilty of the mur¬ 
 der. Now, the fact was that the Haymarket meeting was not called by 
 any of the defendants. The “Eevenge circular,” which Spies wrote 
 after the Black road tragedy, had no reference to that meeting. The 
 attention of this defendant was called to the wording of the circular 
 calling the meeting, and he pointed out an objectionable line. Spies 
 had slept over the matter. Perhaps the very excess and violence of his 
 feelings the day before had brought about a reaction; he was just and 
 calm, and at his direction the objectionable line was stricken out. Did 
 that look like the action of a man who was preparing for the culmina¬ 
 tion of a scheme of revolution ? That day a request came through the 
 mail to Spies to insert the word “Euhe” in the letter-box. That was 
 an ordinary request and Spies complied with it, not knowing the sig¬ 
 nificance of the word. Upon the State’s own showing the word had no 
 reference to the Haymarket meeting. It was claimed that it was part 
 of the general plan that the armed groups should be present at that 
 gathering. But they were not there, and so far as known there was 
 just one bomb with which to inaugurate the great revolution. Who is 
 the man that had the bomb and why was he there. They knew not, 
 nor did they know what his motive in his final action was. But they 
 did know that August Spies had nothing whatever to do with the throw¬ 
 ing of the bomb. In his opening remarks at that meeting Spies said 
 they had not assembled for the purpose of rioting or making a disturb¬ 
 ance, but for the discussion of the grievances of the laboring men. Par¬ 
 sons next took the stand and talked for an hour. His speech was full 
 of statistics, and by no means inflammatory. He told them Socialism 
 aimed at the life of no man; it aimed at the system of society and not 
 at individuals. This remark was made in response to a cry “ Hang 
 Jay Gould,” in whose place. Parsons declared, hundreds would rise 
 were he slain. 
 
 Captain Black read the evidence of a shorthand reporter who had 
 attended the meeting to prove the declaration that it was peaceable 
 and orderly and no unusual remarks were made by the speakers. “ There 
 was nothing dreadful in the expression. Arm yourselves in the inter¬ 
 ests of liberty and of your rights. But still Spies, the arch-conspir¬ 
 ator, was bent, determined, resolved irrevocably, that then and there 
 should the inauguration of the social revolution take place! It was 
 nonsense to advance or believe in any such proposition. Whatever 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 181 
 
 might have been the ultimate desires of these men, whatever might 
 have been the social change to which they looked forward and of 
 which they spoke, it was more than idle to take the position and argue 
 to intelligent men that the meeting was taken hold of by Spies and 
 manipulated for the purpose of precipitating a conflict with the police. 
 That idea was utterly refuted by the absence of preparations for such 
 an event and the conduct of the speakers. It was a gratuitous assump¬ 
 tion on the part of the State that Fischer went to the meeting of the 
 armed groups as Spies’ lieutenant for the purpose of arranging the 
 Haymarket meeting and that Spies attended to carry out the pro¬ 
 gramme which he devised for him. In a case where life and death is 
 at stake, the imagination of the prosecuting attorneys should be 
 brought to a halt; it is time that you as jurors should say in your 
 conscience, and before the tribunal of your own manhood, ‘We cannot 
 guess away the life of any man.’ Spies might be a Socialist, an An¬ 
 archist perhaps, but he was not devoid of the common feelings of 
 humanity. There had been frequent contests with the police and the 
 people, and as the editor of the workingmen’s paper of Chicago, a 
 paper devoted to the consideration of the interests of the great wage 
 classes, he naturally took their side against the organized police. 
 When he saw the police firing into the flying crowd on the Black road, 
 they could imagine such a man under such circumstances going to 
 his office and writing the‘revenge circular.’ In which there was no 
 suggestion of a meeting, in which there was nothing but the breaking 
 out of an intense indignation, and an attempt to arouse that feeling 
 which sometime in the future would reach such a point that such 
 would no longer be possible or tolerated. That could be imagined 
 without the proposition that Spies’ design and intention was to pre¬ 
 cipitate a conflict. 
 
 “Who was next charged with active participation in this pretended 
 conspiracy ? Fielden. This defendant addressed the meeting. He 
 had reached the conclusion of his speech and the whole meeting was 
 about to separate peacefully and quietly when the police came. It was 
 stated that Fielden fired three shots at the police. He did not believe 
 the story told as to the first shot while he was getting out of the 
 wagon; it was a deliberate lie. Officer Krueger testified as to the 
 other shots, and wanted the jury to infer that he was wounded in the 
 leg by Fielden. Officer Wessler also claimed to have had a duel with 
 Fielden. This testimony was contradictory, and if false the State 
 had introduced it to hang a poor teamster; it was more wicked and 
 cowardly than the alleged conspiracy of the Socialists. ‘Oh!’ cried 
 the prosecution; ‘ he is only a Socialist; it is only the life of one of 
 
182 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 the common herd, who has grown dangerous to the peace of those who 
 would wrap the mantle of their selfishness about them, and he is to he 
 put away.’ The measure of the civilization of the State is the care 
 that it has for the life and safety of its common people. If there were 
 members of the police capable of such action it was time that the 
 strong arm of the law laid hold of them and prevented further mis¬ 
 chief. There was not a word of truth in the story that Fielden fired 
 at the officers. That story is a wicked, wicked effort to bring a fellow¬ 
 being to the scaffold by false swearing. 
 
 “What were the circumstances upon which the State relied to place 
 the noose about Parsons’neck? First, that he was an American. It 
 was a horrible thing that an American should sympathize with 
 the common people; that he should feel his heart respond to the de¬ 
 sires of the oppressed workingmen! Second, he was the editor of the 
 Alarm; and third, he spoke at the Haymarket meeting. It was not 
 suggested that he knew anything about the Monday night meeting. If 
 Parsons had ever dreamed of violence that night would his wife and 
 her lady friend have attended the meeting? Was there anything in 
 those circumstances to show that Parsons knew of any plan to throw 
 the bomb ? 
 
 “ Against Schwab it was proven that he wrote an occasional edito¬ 
 rial, attended meetings of Socialists, and upon that particular night 
 he was at a safe distance from the Haymarket. If anybody was there 
 it was a suspicious circumstance; if anybody was not there it was 
 still a suspicious circumstance. It was the old parson’s dilemma: 
 
 ‘ You will be damned if you do, and you will be damned if you don’t.’ 
 The case of Fischer and Engel could be considered together. They 
 attended the Monday night meeting. Fischer was at the Haymarket 
 a short time on Tuesday night, and he then went to Zepf’s Hall, where 
 he and Parsons were when the bomb was thrown. 
 
 “ It is perhaps proper, that in view of the circumstance that 
 Fischer and Engel were the only two defendants at the West Lake 
 street meeting on Monday night, I should present briefly my opinions 
 touching that meeting as relating to this case. Two witnesses, Waller 
 and Schrade, testified as to what occurred at that meeting. Waller 
 said there were seventy or eighty people present; the other placed the 
 attendance at thirty-five to forty. Let us suppose thirty-five or forty 
 met together in that basement. In the progress of the meeting it 
 transpired that there had been a meeting of the north side group, of 
 which Mr. Engel was a member, on the previous morning (Sunday). 
 At that meeting a resolution was adopted, which was brought before 
 the Monday night meeting for consideration, and it was adopted in 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 18.'] 
 
 the manner indicated by Waller. What was the purport of that reso¬ 
 lution ? I think 1 state it fairly to the State and fairly to the de¬ 
 fendants themselves, when I say that the action then and there re¬ 
 solved upon was this, no more, no less: That if in the event of a 
 struggle the police should attempt by brute force to overpower the 
 strikers unlawfully and unjustly, those men would lend their help to 
 their fellow-wageworkers as against the police. A plan of action was 
 suggested by one of the group which contemplated the blowing up of 
 police stations, cutting telegraph wires and disabling the fire depart¬ 
 ment. Every particle of that resolution, gentlemen, was expressly 
 dependent upon the unlawful invasion of the rights of the working 
 people by the police. Nothing was to be inaugurated by the so-called 
 conspirators, there was to be no resort to force by them in the first 
 instance. It was solely defensive, and had reference alone to meeting 
 force by force; it had reference alone to a possible attack in the 
 future, dependent upon the action that the police themselves might 
 take. I am not here to defend the action of that meeting. The ques¬ 
 tion here is : Had that action anything whatever to do with the result 
 of the Haymarket meeting ? The action of the north side group had 
 nothing to do with that, since the Haymarket meeting had never been 
 dreamed of or suggested at that time. By whom was the Tuesday 
 meeting suggested? What was its scope, purpose and object? As 
 then and there declared, it w'as simply to be a mass meeting of work¬ 
 ingmen with reference to police outrages that had already taken place. 
 Were the armed men, those conspirators who met at West Lake street, 
 present ? No; they were not to be there. That is the testimony of 
 Waller and Schrade. I am not here even to say that the proposition 
 to call that meeting was a wise one. The event has proven how sadly 
 unwise it was. But I am here to say that the men who in that Mon¬ 
 day night meeting proposed the calling of the Tuesday night meeting, 
 if we take the testimony of the State itself, had no dream or expecta¬ 
 tion of violence, difficulty or contest on that eventful night. But be¬ 
 fore the Tuesday night meeting was proposed, a suggestion was made 
 that they ought to have some sort of signal for action, and the word 
 ‘Euhe’ was suggested by somebody. Waller could not tell who 
 suggested it; Schrade did not know it had been agreed upon. Evi¬ 
 dently there was no very clear idea that night what ‘ Euhe’ did mean, 
 because Lingg saw it in the paper at 11 o’clock, and said: ‘ That is a 
 signal that we ought to be over at 54 West Lake street.’ Waller fin¬ 
 ally, under close examination by the State, said the word ‘ Euhe’ was 
 to be inserted in the ‘ letter-box’ otihe Arheiter-Zeitung in the event 
 of the time arriving for a downright revolution. Had that revolution 
 
184 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 come; had it commenced when the word’ was put in the ‘ letter-box ?’ 
 No. When the members saw this in the ‘ letter-box’ what were they 
 to do? Go to the Haymarket and attack anybody? No. They were 
 to go to there respective places of meeting, and then, according to ad¬ 
 vices brought to them, were to determine upon a course of action. It 
 had no reference to the throwing of the bomb at the Haymarket. Did 
 that Monday night meeting pick out t^ie man who was to throw the 
 bomb? Did it provide that a collision between the police and the 
 people wasdo be brought about at the Haymarket? Did it contem¬ 
 plate murder? Not at all. When Fischer told Spies that the word 
 ‘Euhe’ had no connection with the Haymarket meeting he spoke the 
 truth. It was a signal that the armed men should meet at the places 
 designated by themselves to determine what action should be taken 
 with reference to whatever might have transpired. 
 
 “But it is to be borne in mind that the meeting of the armed sec¬ 
 tion never took place. There was no meeting of the Northwest side 
 groups; there was no meeting of any group pursuant to the word 
 ‘Kuhe.’ Were any bombs to be thrown, any violence to be resorted 
 to ? No. If the police made an attack, a committee was to take word 
 to the groups, and the groups were then, and not till then, to deter¬ 
 mine what action they should take in the line of offense. Does that 
 make every man who was present at the Monday night meeting re¬ 
 sponsible fox the throwing of the bomb ? Not at all. Unless they are 
 all responsible, it does not make Fischer and Engel responsible. En¬ 
 gel was not at the Tuesday night meeting. Fischer was there and 
 went quietly away before the bomb was thrown. There was abso¬ 
 lutely nothing in connection with the Monday night meeting which 
 contemplated violence at the Haymarket or provided for the throwing 
 of the bomb. 
 
 “Let me call your attention in passing to another thing. When 
 Waller, having from some source heard of the lamentable occurence 
 at the Haymarket, went to Engel’s house he found him drinking beer 
 with two or three friends. After listening to the details of the affair 
 Engel said, while Waller was saying, ‘Let’s do something,’ ‘ You had 
 better go home. I have no sympathy with a movement of this kind. 
 The police are of the common people, and when the general revolu¬ 
 tion does occur, they should be with us. I am utterly opposed to this 
 slaughtering of them.’ That is the full extent of the case against 
 these two defendants, except the further fact that Fischer had a pistol 
 and a dagger. It is not right to hang any man for the Haymarket 
 murder simply because he had a dagger or a pistol in his posession. 
 
 “ As to Lingg, he came from that republic sitting in the center 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 185 
 
 of Europe preaching the everlasting lesson of liberty. He came here 
 in the fall of 1885, and became a member of the Seliger household. 
 Whatever he knows of social and labor conditions in this country he 
 learned from those about him. He joined a carpenters’ union, being 
 himself a carpenter by trade. He attended the meetings of that union. 
 Young, active, bright, capable, he enters the band of which they 
 speak, and manufactures bombs. There is no law against that, 
 gentlemen; but they claim that is a circumstance from which you 
 must draw the conclusion of his guilt, when taken with other circum¬ 
 stances, for the Haymarket tragedy. The State put on the stand one 
 man, Lehmann, to whom he gave bombs. Did he tell Lehmann to go 
 to the Haymarket and use the bombs there. No. Lehmann swears 
 that he said: ‘You take these and put them in a safe place.’ And 
 Lehmann hid them where the officer, piloted by him, found them. 
 Does that prove that Lingg sent a bomb to the Haymarket for the pur¬ 
 pose of having somebody killed ? How did he come to make bombs; 
 was it a matter to engage in on his own volition or responsibility ? 
 No. The Carpenters’ Union at one of its meeting resolved to devote 
 a certain amount of money for the purpose of experimenting with 
 dynamite. You may say that was not right, but he was not respon¬ 
 sible for it. There is no more reason in holding him responsible for 
 the Haymarket affair on account of his experiments than there is to 
 hold every other member of the Carpenters’ Union for the same thing. 
 That is how Lingg came to make bombs. Without dynamite a bomb 
 shell is a toy. The man who manufactures the dynamite is the one 
 who sets the engine of destruction in motion; but no one ever thinks 
 when a murder has been committed through any instrumentality, of 
 fastening the responsibility of the crime upon the man who made the 
 instrument of death. If it were so, you could trace to the Colt Manu¬ 
 facturing Company, the Remington Manufacturing Company, and 
 the manufacturers of bowie knives, all the murders resulting from the 
 use of their weapons. But, it is said, a dynamite bomb has no use in 
 civihzation but for violence. Has a bowie knife or a revolver any 
 known use in civilization but for violence ? Lingg manufactured one 
 of the bombs which the police officers exploded. Suppose that in ex¬ 
 ploding it some one had been killed, would it occur to anybody to put 
 Lingg on trial for murder in that case ? The State must show not 
 that a bomb of a certain manufacture did a certain work, but that the 
 man charged with murder exploded it. A bomb is perfectly harmless 
 until some other instrumentality intervenes. The Lingg bombs would 
 kill nobody unless some human independent agency took hold of them. 
 Did Lingg know on Monday night that one of his bombs was to be 
 
186 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 used ? He could not have known it, because the testimony is incon¬ 
 trovertible that it was understood by the men who met at 54 West 
 Lake street there should be no violence at the Haymarket meeting. 
 And yet the State asks you to say that Lingg shall be hanged because 
 he manufactured bombs. The man who threw the bomb did the in¬ 
 dependent act necessary for its explosion. Who was that man ? Was 
 he connected with the defendants ? The evidence does not show it. 
 
 “And a word more about that. This boy (Lingg) was dependent 
 upon others as to his impressions of our institutions. He went to 
 Seliger’s house. Seliger is a Socialist; he has been in this country 
 for years. He is thirty-one years of age; Lingg is twenty-one. And 
 yet the great State of Illinois, through its legal representatives, bar¬ 
 gains with William Seliger, the man of mature years, and with his 
 wife, older even than himself, that if they will do what they can to put 
 the noose around the neck of this boy they shall go scathless. Ah! 
 gentlemen, what a mockery of justice is this.” 
 
 Several cases were referred to, and he then proceeded to discuss 
 the Haymarket meeting. There was no law that could take away the 
 right of the people to meet and consider grievances. When it was 
 proposed to adopt the Constitution in 1787 the States were so careful 
 to preserve the rights of the people that several amendments were, put 
 in. Captain Black spoke of our forefathers, who had made the name 
 of the revolutionist immortal, and referred to the meetings that had 
 to be held as a preliminary to that great struggle. It was charged 
 against these men that they were guilty of misdemeanors for holding 
 meetings, and they were prosecuted for crimes. Before the Constitu¬ 
 tion could receive the approbation of the States it was necessary that 
 the amendment providing that no laws should be passed by Congress 
 abridging free speech should be inserted. Such a provision was in¬ 
 corporated in the first constitution of Illinois in 1818, and renewed in 
 the subsequent constitutions of 1848 and 1870. The Haymarket meet¬ 
 ing was called for the common good. Those nien believed that a great 
 wrong had been done, a great outrage committed, and the rights of 
 the citizens in that assemblage had been invaded by an unlawful, 
 unwarrantable and outrageous act. Continuing the speaker said: 
 
 “ Bonfield, in his police office, surrounded by his minions, one 
 hundred and eighty strong, armed to the teeth, knew that the meeting 
 was quietly and peacefully coming to its close. Nay, he had said so 
 to Carter Harrison. When Parsons had concluded Mayor Harrison 
 went to the station and told Bonfield that it was a quiet meeting, and 
 Bonfield replied, ‘My detectives make me the same report.’ Yet Carter 
 Harrison did not get out of hearing before Inspector Bonfield ordered 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 187 
 
 his men to fall in for that death march. Who is responsible for it ? 
 Who precipitated that conflict ? Who made that battle in that street 
 that night ? The law looks at the approximate cause, not the remote. 
 The law looks at the man immediately in fault; not at some man who 
 may have manufactured the pistol that does the shooting, the dyna¬ 
 mite that kills, the bomb that explodes. I ask you, upon your oath 
 before God, in a full and honest consideration of this entire testimony, 
 who made the Haymarket massacre ? Who is responsible for that 
 collision ? If Bonfield had not marched there would there have been 
 any death? Would not that meeting have dissolved precisely as it 
 proposed to do ? Did the bomb-thrower go down to the station where 
 the police were and attack them ? A bomb could have been thrown 
 into that station with even more deadly effect than at the Haymarket 
 itself. There they were, massed together in close quarters, in hiding, 
 hke a wild beast in its lair ready to spring. Did the bomb-thrower 
 move upon them? Was there here a design to destroy? God sent 
 that warning cloud into the heavens; these men were still there, 
 speaking their last words; but a deadlier cloud was coming up behind 
 this armed force. In disregard of our constitutional rights as citizens, 
 it was proposed to order the dispersal of a peaceable meeting. Has it 
 come to pass that under the constitution of the United States and of 
 this State, our meetings for the discussion of grievances are subject to 
 be scattered to the winds at the breath of a petty police officer ? Can 
 they take into their hands the law ? If so, that is anarchy; nay, the 
 chaos of constitutional right and legally guaranteed liberty. I ask 
 you again, charging no legal responsibility here, but looking at the 
 man who is morally at fault for the death harvest of that night, who 
 brought it on ? Would it have been but for the act of Bonfield.” 
 
 Captain Black went on to say that as long as the Mayor was there 
 Bonfield could not act, but as soon as Harrison had gone the officer 
 could not get to the Haymarket quick enough. The police, the speaker 
 urged, had been searching the files of the Arbeiter-Zeitung and the 
 Alarm for years to put before the jury the most inflammatory articles. 
 After alluding to Jesus as the great Socialist of Judea, who first 
 preached the sociahsm taught by Spies and his other modern apostles, 
 he compared John Brown and his attack on Harper’s Ferry to the 
 Socialists’ attack on modem evils, concluding:—“ Gentlemen, the last 
 words for these eight lives. They are in your hands, with no power 
 to whom you are answerable but God and history, and I say to you in 
 closing only the words of that Divine Socialist: ‘As ye would that 
 others should do to you, do you even so to them.’ ” 
 
II. 
 
 A FUND FOR THE JURY. 
 
 In discharging the jury Judge Gary addressed them as follows: 
 
 “Gentlemen of the jury, you have finished this long and very 
 arduous trial, which has required a very considerable sacrifice of time 
 and some hardship. I hope that everything has been done that could 
 possibly be done to make this sacrifice and hardship as mild as might 
 be permitted. It does not become me to say anything in regard to the 
 case that you have tried or the verdict you have rendered, but men 
 compulsory serving as jurors, as you have done, deserve some recogni¬ 
 tion of the service you have ^performed beside the meager compensation you 
 are to receive. You are discharged from further attendance upon this 
 court. I understand that some carriages are in attendance to convey 
 you from this place. Certificates for your attendance fees as jurors 
 you can get at any time in the future.” 
 
 Chicago, Aug. 20.—[Editor of The Tribune.] —In view of the long 
 and close confinement endured by the jury in the Anarchist trial, and 
 the display of manly courage evidenced by their prompt and fearless j 
 verdict, I beg to suggest the propriety of starting a subscription for 
 the purpose of raising at least $1,000 for the benefit of each juryman. 
 
 I am far from being rich, but would gladly give $25 for this purpose, 
 and will deliver same at your office the day you may start the sub¬ 
 scription. 
 
 W. C. E. i 
 
 Chicago, Aug. 20.—[Editor of The Tribune.]—The long agony is 
 over. Law has triumphed. Anarchy is defeated. The conspirators 
 have been promptly convicted. Let them be as promptly punished. 
 The “twelve good men and true” whose honesty and fearlessness made 
 a conviction possible should not be forgotten. They have performed 
 their unpleasant duty without flinching. Let them be generously 
 remembered. Eaise a fund — say $100,000 — to be presented with i 
 the thanks of a grateful people. 
 
 E. A. Mulford. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 I8y 
 
 Mr. N. B. Beam, in speaking to a Tribune reporter, thought it 
 would be eminently proper to start a fund for the purpose of indemni¬ 
 fying the jurors who so patiently sat for eight weeks at the trial, 
 thereby losing in business and time and endangering their health, for 
 which they were so meagerly paid by the county, and then in vouch¬ 
 ers which will be cashed, nobody knows when. Mr. Beam thought it 
 was not proper to mention this while the trial was in progress, but 
 now that it is over he is willing to head the list with the sum of 1500. 
 Thus will the schoolmaster, who so nobly sacrificed his vacation, be 
 in a measure repaid, and so will the others who, being mostly, if not 
 all, business men, were greatly inconvenienced by their selection as 
 jurors. 
 
III. 
 
 A. R. Parsons on the Eight-Hour Movement in 
 March, 1886. 
 
 (From an Interview in the Daily News, March 13, 1886.) 
 
 A. E. Parsons, the Anarchist, said: 
 
 “ The labor question is up for settlement. It demands and com¬ 
 mands a hearing. The existing disorders threaten not only the peace, 
 but the destruction of society itself. The movement to reduce the 
 work hours is intended by its proj ectors to give a peaceful solution to 
 the difficulties between capitalists and laborers. I have always held 
 that there were two ways to settle this trouble—either by peaceable or 
 violent methods. Eeduced hours—or eight hours—is a peace-offering. 
 It is for capitalists to give or laborers to take. I hold that capitalists 
 will not give eight hours. Why? Because the rate of waives in every 
 wage-paying country is regulated by what it takes to live on; in other 
 words, it is subsistence wages. This subsistence wage is what political 
 economists call the ‘ iron law of wages,’ because it is unvarying and 
 inviolable. How does this law operate ? In this way: A laborer is 
 hired to do a day’s work. In the first two hours labor of the ten he 
 reproduces the equivalent of his wage; the other eight hours is what 
 the employer gets and gets for nothing. Hence the laborer, as the 
 statistics of the census of 1880 show, does ten hours work for two 
 hours pay.—Now, reduced hours, or eight hours, means that the profit 
 monger is to get only six hours instead of, as now, eight hours for 
 nothing. For this reason employers of labor will not voluntarily con¬ 
 cede the reduction. 
 
 On the other hand, fewer hours means more pay. Capitalists 
 and laborers know this. Eeduced hours is the only measure of 
 economic reform which consults the interests of laborers as consum¬ 
 ers. Now, this means a higher standard of living for the producers, 
 which can only be acquired by their possessing and consuming a larger 
 share of their own product. This would diminish the surplus or 
 profits of the labor exploiters. Labor can therefore, for this reason, 
 get only what it can take. Can labor force capital to reduce the 
 work-hours ? How can it ? 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 191 
 
 The legalized possession and control of capital puts the wage- 
 ■worker or propertyless class at their mercy. Capitalists can deprive 
 labor of its bread by lock-outs and discharges. The laborer is forced 
 to yield or perish. If he becomes disorderly he is suppressed by the 
 militia and police. The last resort is force. The servitude of labor to 
 capital is now and always has been maintained by force. If the labor 
 organizations arm and force the concession of eight hours from em¬ 
 ployers, then the employing class will have to pay as much for eight 
 hours work as they now do for ten. Employers will put labor-saving 
 machinery to work instead of these high-priced laborers. The laborers 
 will then, for the same reason that they reduced the hours to eight, 
 have to reduce them to six hours per day. A voluntary reduction of 
 the work hours is a peaceful solution of the labor problem, by which 
 no disarrangement or confusion would occur. Wages in this way will 
 increase until they represent the earnings, instead of, as now, the 
 necessities, of the wage laborer. This would result in making every 
 laborer a capitalist and every capitalist a laborer; a system of uni¬ 
 versal co-operative production and distribution. Eeduced hours would 
 melt the wages or profit system out of existence and usher in the co¬ 
 operative or free-labor system. 
 
 I do not believe that capital will quietly or peaceably permit the 
 economic emancipation of their wage-slaves. It is against all the 
 teachings of history and human nature for men to voluntarily yield 
 up usurped or arbibtrary power. The capitalists of the world will for 
 this reason force the workers into armed revolution. Socialists point 
 out this fact and warn the workingmen to prepare for the inevitable.” 
 
IV. 
 
 WHY THIS BOOK WAS WRITTEN. 
 
 Cook County Jail, Chicago, Illinois. 
 
 Comrade Lum :—It has been resolved by our friends outside, that 
 the proceedings, etc., of our late trial should be published in book 
 form. We request you herewith to assume the editorship of this pub¬ 
 lication,—in fact, we know of no other man who could undertake this 
 work with the same degree of competency and discriminative capacity 
 as yourself, and trust that you will comply with our request. 
 
 The work should be begun at once. Will you to this end confer 
 with our friends ? 
 
 Fraternally, 
 
 A. Spies, 
 Michael Schwab, 
 Adolph Fischek, 
 Gr. Engel, 
 
 A. E. Paksons, 
 Samuel Fielden, 
 0. Neebe, 
 
 Louis Lingg.