Extract from the Catalogue.
THE ORIGIN OF THE EARTH.
434. The real Genesis of Earth. The Origin of our Globe distinctly and indisputably revealed in its Structure, Location, Moments and Characteristics. 7 Illustrations. Paper, $0.30. Cloth, gilt top, $0.50.
435. The Earth not "created," but developed. An Exposition of the Facts and Circumstances under which our Globe came into Existence, with glimpses of Terrestrial and Stellar Cosmogony. 6 Illustrations. Paper, $0.30. Cloth, gilt top, $0.50.
436. The Earth not "created out of Nothing," but derived from Materials which have always existed and which will always exist. 9 Illustrations. Paper, $0.30. Cloth, gilt top, $0.50.
437. The Earth not originated by a Being outside of Nature, as an arbitrary, unnatural, unnecessary, or gratuitous Act, but EVOLVED wholly within Nature by natural Laws and Forces, as a necessary and inevitable Outcome and Result of the eternal Evolutions of Matter. 9 Illustrations. Paper, $0.30. Cloth, gilt top, $0.50.
438. The Earth not formed of Materials peculiar and exclusive to itself, but of the same Sort of Substances which enter into the Composition of all other Worlds. 10 Illustrations. Paper, $0.30. Cloth, gilt top, $0.50.
439. The Earth not evolved by Laws and Forces peculiar and exclusive to itself, but by the same Sort of Laws and Forces which have produced Mars and Jupiter and all the Worlds around us. 8 Illustrations. Paper, $0.30. Cloth, gilt top, $0.50.
440. The Earth not called into Existence alone, but simultaneously with infinite Millions of similar Planets. 10 Illustrations. Paper, $0.30. Cloth, gilt top, $0.50.
441. The Earth not called into Existence suddently, but by Processes extending over more Years than there are Drops of Water on our Planet. Illustrated. Paper, $0.30. Cloth, gilt top, $0.50.
442. Where the Earth came from. Tracing our Globe to the Sun, the Sun to the Milky Way, and the Milky Way to the Materials resulting from the Dissolution of the Suns and Worlds of preceding Astral Systems. 23 Illustrations. Paper, $0.60. Cloth, gilt top, $1.00.
443. The Origin of the Earth a simple and single Event in the MIdst of infinite MIllions of Events of the same Nature, Value, Character, Meaning, Purpose and Importance. Illustrated. Paper, $0.15. Cloth, gilt top, $0.30.
THE CASE STATED.
Why existing "Law and Order" constitute a State of Anarchy, and why even a Reign of so-called "Anarchy" would result in Law and Order. Illustrated. Paper, $0.30. Cloth, gilt top, $0.50.
A real government (if one should ever be organized) will be nothing more or less than a simple recognition of the laws of Nature, as existent between man and man. Thus far, we have advanced only to class tyranny; to armed oppressions and repressions of the Many by the Few; to bellowing herds of lawyers, etc., whose wordy patchwork and fricasseed drivel form our Constitutions and Revised Statutes. That such an infamous state of things can exist for a single night is surprising. This book shows that our only path to freedom lies through a total abolition of all existing dominations, both religious and political. The first step towards real Law and Order is the extermination (with blood and fire, if necessary,) of the hideous impostures and infamies which are carried on in these names.
THE EIGHT CONDEMNED LEADERS.
Author of "The Water Ghoul," "Daredeath Dick," "The Cowboy Couriers," "The Rancher's Four Millions," "Doctor Paul, Detective," "The Sons of Thunder," etc., etc., in the Banner Weekly, of New York; of "The Young Explorers," "The Boy King," "The Mountain of Gold," "The Boy Baronet's Millions," "The Mad Crusoe," "The Boy Miners," "The Flying Islands," "The King of Golconda," "The Boy Pilot," "The Ice Boat," "A Boy and Girl's Battle," etc., etc., in the Boy's World, of London, England; of "Red Knife," "The Boy Magician," "The Broken Home," "The Girl Hermit," "Life in Salt Lake City," "Eddy's Search," "The Club Foot Bear," "Mark Heber's Look," "The Plot against Hawley," "The Fire Spreaders," "An Extraordinary History," "A Girl Missing," "The Turtle Hunter," "The Golden Idol," "A Lost Fortune," "The Prairie Inn," "The Isis Mystery," "Gowton's Vengeance," "The Serf Lovers," "The Haunted Throne," "The Ransom Bearer," "The Lost Overlanders," "Warming a Serpent," "The Centurion's Mission," "Miss Wynd's Enemy," "The Lord of Strathmore," "The Deputy's Double," "The Three Survivors," "A Russian Hero," "The Sponge Gatherers," "The Wagon Train," "The Silver Digger," "The Pearl Diver," "The Reef Spider," "The Diamond Seeker," etc., etc., in the New York Ledger; of "The Silver Ship," "Syria, the Jewess," "The Water Wolf," "The Witch Finder," "The flower of Suda," etc., etc., in the New York Weekly; of "The Maid of Mona," "A Life at Stake," "The House of Secrets," "The Sword-Maker of Toledo," etc., etc., in the London Reader, of London, England; and of other works too numerous to mention.
"Hang me, too; for I think it is more honorable to die suddenly than to be killed by inches. I have a family and children; and if they know their father is dead, they will bury him. They can go to the grave, and kneel down by the side of it; but they can't go to the penitentiary and see their father who was convicted for a crime that he hasn't had anything to do with."
"I know a certain titan who is on the way to becoming a murderer, an assassin, and that man is Grinnell — the States Attorney Grinnell — because he brought men on the witness stand who he knew would swear falsely."
"Let the public sit in judgment on the would be assassins."
"To term the proceedings during the trial JUSTICE would be a sneer."
"Grinnell and his associates have committed perjury."
"I know nothing of the conspiracy which the State's Attorney pretends to have discovered."
"We have been tried by a jury that has found us guilty. You will be tried by a jury now that will find you guilty."
"Being unable to discover the guilty man, the machinery is set to work to convict seven innocent ones in his stead."
A. R. PARSONS.
LEON LEWIS, Publisher.
The Catalogue of the WORKS of LEON and HARRIET LEWIS is divided into ten Parts, as follows:
PART I. — Curiosities of Life and Nature. Nos. 1-416.
PART II. — Cosmogonies and Evolutions. Nos. 417-705.
PART III. — Man and his Development. Nos. 706-880.
PART IV. — Errors of Society and Government. Nos. 881-1043.
PART V. — Religious Ignorance and Depravity. Nos. 1044-1192.
PART VI. — Refutations of the Current Superstitions. Nos. 1193-1339.
PART VII. — The Science of Social Organization. Nos. 1340-1504.
PART VIII. — The Coming Reign of Man. Nos. 1505-1727.
PART IX. — The Science of the Soul. Nos. 1728-1989.
PART X. — The Mysteries and Marvels of the Cosmos. Nos. 1990-2340.
Each of these Parts forms a handsome volume, with numerous engravings. Any of these will be sent free to our correspondents upon application.
Copyright, 1887, by LEON LEWIS.
The WORKS of LEON and HARRIET LEWIS cover the one really great and ever-memorable Evolution of human History, namely, the advance of Man from Superstition to SCIENCE; from ecclesiastical Dogma to NATURAL LAW; from the Falsehoods and Impostures of ignorant and designing Men to the REVELATIONS OF NATURE; from imaginary "Creation" to ACTUAL COSMOGONY; from baseless Assertions and Conjectures concerning a Future Life to its POSITIVE DEMONSTRATION; from the ignoble Scarecrows of tribal Fanaticism to THE INFINITE SPIRIT OF THE UNIVERSE; from the Earth to the COSMOS, or from the Terrestrial to the COSMICAL — in a word, the advance of the human Race from all its Earth-in-the-Centre Errors to a RECOGNITION of the ACTUAL FACTS of our Being and Surroundings.
Two or three weeks since, feeling the necessity of taking action in this matter, I wrote and published The Ides of November, which has been so well received by the Press and Public.
That hasty sketch, however, did not at all respond to my desire to publish A CLEAR AND CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE FACTS concerning the hideous and horrible Crime which has been contrived in Chicago, and I have accordingly returned to the charge in these pages.
Realizing, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that I am voicing the FINAL VERDICT OF HISTORY in this solemn Protest against the awful JUDICIAL MASSACRE planned by Gary and Grinnell and their aiders and abettors, I have taken care not to admit a line here which is not an ABSOLUTE FACT or an UNANSWERABLE PIECE OF LOGIC.
I invoke the aid of all good men and women everywhere in scattering these pages, in the hope and belief that they may contribute essentially towards sparing our beloved country — still beloved, with all her terrible prostitutions and debasements — the unutterable shame and disgrace of this fiendish "CONTRIVED MURDER!"
GREENPORT, N. Y., Oct. 16, 1887.
The Facts Concerning the Eight Condemned Leaders.
1. — They are Innocent.
The first great objection to the judicial murder of the accused is the fact that they are INNOCENT of any offense against the laws of the State of Illinois.
All they have done is this:
As pioneers of a just and rational social organization, they have recognized and severely criticised, from their platforms and in their newspapers, a portion of the evils and corruptions of our so-called "civilization," especially the enslaved condition of the workingman, and they have sought to arouse the People and Press to the absolute necessity of toiling in concert to bring about a change for the better.
They have recognized and announced that the actual situation of the workingman is the result of violence, injustice, robbery, abuse, and corruption, as existent in all our social, judicial, governmental, and administrative organizations and institutions; that the current dominations, whether of religion, law, or government, are infamously, absurdly, and stupidly false, partisan, inadequate, and effete; that the existing state of affairs is unworthy, unjust, inhuman, unnatural, idiotic, atrocious and brutal; and that we are on the eve of a mighty change for the better.
They have recognized and announced that this necessary and inevitable evolution is not likely to be accomplished without bloodshed and violence, for the reason that the champions and supporters, who are also the beneficiaries, of the reigning religious Mummery and Superstition, judicial Prostitution and Depravity, and political Jobbery and Expediency, are ready and eager to murder, with or without pretense of law, anybody and everybody who ventures to denounce or oppose their ignoble cruelties, lusts, rapacities, debasements, extortions, assassinations, blasphemies, robberies, illegalities, stupidities, and oppressions.
They have taken some measures towards organizing workingmen in this sense, and have advised an ARMED DEFENSIBILITY as the first essential condition of escaping the bullets of hireling assassins and the noose of the hangman.
It is for these and cognate propositions, as spoken and written, and to some extent acted upon, that these men have been illegally and murderously condemned.
There is absolutely nothing else that can be alleged against them!
These men are AT WAR, as every REAL man OUGHT TO BE, with our actual social and industrial ideas and institutions, and that's the whole head and front of their offense.
"We claim that upon a fair consideration of the evidence adduced in this record, under the rules of law properly applicable thereto, these defendants, these plaintiffs in error, ARE SHOWN TO BE INNOCENT of the crime of which they stand charged, and of the commission of which they have been convicted." — Capt W. P. BLACK, Oral Argument before the Supreme Court of Illinois.
2. — They were Entitled to an Impartial Jury.
The Constitution of the United States guarantees to every accused person the right of trial by an IMPARTIAL JURY.
Let us quote the exact words of the great Magna Charta of our rights and liberties
"In all criminal prosecutions the accused SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT to a speedy and public trial by an IMPARTIAL JURY."
The Constitution of Illinois of 1818, article 8, section 9, in the last clause, provides
"In prosecutions by indictment or information, the accused HATH A RIGHT to a speedy public trial by an IMPARTIAL JURY."
The Constitution of Illinois of 1848, article 13, section 9, provides
"In all criminal prosecutions the accused HATH A RIGHT to * * a speedy public trial by an IMPARTIAL JURY."
The Constitution of Illinois of 1870, article 2, section 9, provides
"In all criminal prosecutions the accused SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT to * * a speedy public trial by an IMPARTIAL JURY."
There is not a shadow of a doubt, therefore, that the accused were entitled to be tried by an IMPARTIAL JURY.
The fact is so self-evident from both the federal and state constitutions that there is no necessity of advancing a single word beyond the terms of these basic documents.
"The great value of a trial by jury," said Chief Justice MARSHALL, of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the trial of Aaron Burr, "certainly consists in its fairness and impartiality. Those who most prize the institution, prize it because it furnishes a tribunal which may be expected to be uninfluenced by any bias of the mind. I have always conceived, and still conceive, an IMPARTIAL JURY, as required by the common law, and as secured by the constitution, must be composed of men, who will fairly hear the testimony which may be offered to them, and bring in their verdict according to that testimony, and according to the law arising on it. THIS IS NOT TO BE EXPECTED, certainly the law does not expect it, WHERE THE JURORS, before they hear the testimony, HAVE DELIBERATELY FORMED AND DELIVERED AN OPINION that the person whom they are to try is guilty or innocent of the charge alleged against him. The Jury should enter upon the trial with minds open to those impressions which the testimony and law of the case OUGHT TO MAKE, NOT WITH THOSE PRE-CONCEIVED OPINIONS WHICH WILL RESIST THOSE IMPRESSIONS. All the provisions of the law are calculated to obtain this end."
3. — The Jury was Illegal.
In defiance and in contumacy of these sacred guarantees and provisions of both the federal and state constitutions, the jury which tried the accused, instead of being IMPARTIAL, was NOTORIOUSLY, CONFESSEDLY and INFAMOUSLY PARTIAL, PREJUDICED, ILLEGAL and INCOMPETENT.
The following is the status of the great majority of these jurors, as briefly set forth in LUM'S History of the Great Trial:
"In answer to questions 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."
"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 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."
"HE HAD SAID SOMEBODY OUGHT TO BE MADE AN EXAMPLE OF in connection with the Haymarket affair, and if it should be proved that the DEFENDANTS WERE THE MEN WHOSE NAMES HE SAW IN THE PAPERS, connected with the affair, then he thought THEY SHOULD BE MADE AN EXAMPLES OF."
"HE ADMITTED A PREJUDICE against Socialists, Communists and Anarchists."
"HE STATED that he had taken some interest in Socialistic theories, and as a result of his investigations 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 reading, as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants."
"HE also STATED that HE HAD FORMED AN OPINION concerning the commission 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 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."
"HE ADMITTED upon examination that HE HAD AN OPINION that some of the defendants were guilty of the crime commuted at the Haymarket, WHICH OPINION HE STILL ENTERTAINED."
"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."
Is there any necessity of insisting that this is NOT the sort of jury GUARANTEED to every accused person by the Constitution of this Republic?
Taking these men upon their own showing, can any language do them justice?
Would any reader of these lines be willing to place his purse — to say nothing of his life — at the mercy of such men?
There is not an honest Justice of the Peace in the country who would try a man for shooting a dog with a jury thus constituted — not one.
"Nine members of that Jury admitted their prejudice or their pre-judgement. Perhaps you will say to us, why did you take such jurors? And my brother Grinnell's argument LIES practically along the line that we took these men, or some of them, against whom these objections were raised or existed, when we were not compelled to take them. He advanced the argument before your Honors that because when we took these men under these rulings there were still with us certain peremptory challenges unexhausted, therefore we have no occasion to complain. Our main complaint in this matter is this: Not the complaint of an isolated ruling as to an individual juror, which might be met by a peremptory challenge and somebody else entirely satisfactory put in his place, and where it might be said it was damnum absque injuria, as your Honors have said in such a case; but our complaint is, that from the time these jury examinations commenced a line of rulings was established under which we had to face the fact that we could not get an impartial jury; that it was vain for us to make the effort; that we must content ourselves with choosing out of those who were brought to us and placed before us, those who seemed the least objectionable." — Capt. W. P. BLACK, Oral Argument.
4. — Such Jurors have been again and again declared by the Supreme Court of Illinois to be Incompetent.
With such a jury as this, was there the least chance for the accused to "enjoy the right" to which they were entitled under both the federal and state constitutions?
NO! A thousand times NO!
Is such a jury as sat in this case the sort of jury which is GUARANTEED by the documents which form the very source of all law and judicial administration applicable to the matter?
To the contrary: entirely to the contrary!
Such jurors as sat in this case have been condemned again and again by the Supreme Court of Illinois.
By the Supreme Court of Illinois such jurors as these have been declared DISQUALIFIED and INCOMPETENT, their verdicts disapproved, and new trials ordered.
"The Prisoner," says Justice BREESE, of the Supreme Court of Illinois, in Gray v. The People, 26 Ill., 344, (April term, 1861,) "OUGHT NOT to be forced to encounter A PRE-EXISTING OPINION, deliberately formed on statements believed to be true, and which he would be required to remove."
"It was held," says Chief Justice TREAT, of the Supreme Court cf Illinois, in Neeley v. The People, (June term, 1852,) 13 Ill., 685, "in Smith v. Eames, 3 Scam., 76, that, if a juror has made a decided opinion respecting the merits of the controversy, either from a personal knowledge of the facts, from the statements of the witnesses, from the relations of the parties, or from rumor, HE is DISQUALIFIED from trying the case, if challenged for cause. THE RULE WAS ADHERED TO in the case of Gardner v. The People, 3 Scam., 83; Vennum v. Harwood, 1 Gilman, 659, and Baxter v. The People, 3 Gil., 368, and MUST NOW BE CONSIDERED AS THE SETTLED DOCTRINE OF THIS COURT."
"It is not necessary," says Justice THORNTON, of the Supreme Court of Illinois, in Winnesheik Insurance Company v. Schneller, 60 Ill., 465, (September term, 1871,) "that HIS UNFAVORABLE IMPRESSSONS should be so strong that they cannot be shaken by evidence. It is sufficient [to disqualify him] if proof be necessary to restore his impartiality. A party should NEVER BE COMPELLED to produce proof to change A PRECONCEIVED OPINION or PREJUDICE which may control the action of the juror."
"IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD BY THIS COURT," says Justice WALKER, of the Supreme Court of Illinois, in Collins v. The People, (September term, 1868,) 48 Ill., 146, "THAT IF A JUROR HAS A DECIDED OPINION respecting the merits of the controversy, from the statements of witnesses, from the relations of the parties, or from rumor, HE IS DISQUALIFIED FROM TRYING THE CASE, if challenged for cause." * * "A prisoner should NEVER BE REQUIRED to encounter A PRE-EXISTING OPINION deliberately formed, which the juror believes is true, and which the prisoner would be obliged to overcome. WHEN TRIED BY SUCH JURORS, HE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE HAD A FAIR TRIAL."
Against the corrupt, debased, and infamous Supreme Court of Illinois of today, let us accept the decisions of the wise, honest, and upright Judges who constituted the Supreme Court of Illinois before it had become the willing instrument of murder!
5. — They were Illegally Convicted.
It's a lie; a hideous, horrible LIE!
There is not an honest and intelligent man in the world who will affirm, after taking adequate cognisance of the facts, that the condemned men were LEGALLY CONVICTED.
Of what use is it to prate of "due process of law," "twelve good men and
9true," "the Supreme Court of Illinois," etc., when the whole prosecution is a LIE, a PRETENCE, a CONSPIRACY, a vengeance of Shylocks, an apotheosis of perjurers, a vagary of idiocy?
Is not a lie always and everywhere a lie, and would it not always and everywhere remain a lie, even if untold millions of human beings should believe it or affirm it?
And is not an illegality always and everywhere an illegality, notwithstanding all possible declarations to the contrary by all the perjured and subsidized courts in existence?
Of what consequence is the chatter of these vestibuled idiots from the moment when they wilfully, knowingly, and blasphemously prostitute the machinery of the law to murder innocent men?
Can the rehash and re-affirmation of the same vicious pettifogging, the same infamous falsehood, ever transform it into THE TRUTH, even if this rehashing and re-affirmating should go on and stretch out till the last hour of eternity?
The defendants are charged:
1. With having thrown the bomb which killed a certain policeman, Mathias J. Degan, or
2. With having aided, abetted, assisted, advised, or encouraged some person in the throwing of that bomb.
But not a single fact, suggestion or probability has ever been advanced in proof of either of the said accusations.
To the contrary, the accused have been proved, a thousand times over, and in a thousand ways, inclusive of their own words and acts, to be ENTIRELY INNOCENT of either of the acts with which they are charged.
"In reference to that conviction, we claim that it was induced because, first, the case was tried before a tribunal that had prejudged it; that such a tribunal was secured because of the grave, persistent and inexcusable errors of the trial court in the rulings in reference to the qualifications of jurors. But beyond that, we claim that that conviction was induced by the introduction of improper testimony under the application of improper rules, or supposed rules, of law; and that it was measurably contributed to by improprieties, which characterized the progress of the trial itself, alike from the judge upon the bench and the prosecuting attorney who represented the people." — Capt. W. P. BLACK, Oral Argument.
6. — The third Juror was infamously corrupt, tainted, incompetent and illegal.
After the trial and in support of a motion for a new trial, the defendants introduced the affidavits of two citizens named MORGAN, who both testified unequivocally that on the morning of the 6th of May — the second morning after the bomb throwing — the third juror 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 Haymarket affair, and referring to Spies: "He and the whole damned crowd ought to be hung!" This remark the affiants declared, was made with much feeling and emphasis. Was it right that this man, after thus expressing his sentiments months beforehand, should figure in this case? Was it legal for this man to express officially in the verdict of this jury the OPINION and CONVICTION to which he had thus given utterance long months before?
"We took the man because we were acting under this line of rulings — only to find what? That, when the sentence of death had been spoken by this jury, that man who sat upon it had publicly declared in advance that Spies and the whole damned crowd ought to be hung! Those were his words; words proved by the affidavits of two unimpeached and unimpeachable witnesses adduced in support of the motion for a new trial. True, Mr. Denker's affidavit denying that he made that statement to those men was presented. It was one affidavit against two. It was the affidavit of the juror charged against the affidavits of two disinterested parties, who were, as stated, unimpeached and unimpeachable. The trial court chose to give weight to his affidavit rather than the affidavits of the others. And yet, in that affidavit, he admitted that he had frequently expressed to others his condemnation of the accused; and, strange to say, the affidavit does not deny that he ever used the expression attributed to him by these witnesses; it only says he did not use it to them." — Capt. W. P. BLACK, Oral Argument.
"The opinion which has been avowed by the court," said Chief Justice MARSHALL, in the trial of Burr, "is that LIGHT IMPRESSIONS which may be fairly supposed to yield to the testimony that may be offered; which may leave the mind open to a fair consideration of that testimony; CONSTITUTE NO SUFFICIENT OBJECTION TO A JUROR; but that those STRONG AND DEEP IMPRESSIONS which will close the mind against the testimony that may be offered in opposition to them; which will combat that testimony and resist its force; DO CONSTITUTE A SUFFICIENT OBJECTION TO HIM."
7. — The eleventh Juror was as tainted as the third.
The status of the eleventh juror is as bad as that of the third. Not long after the Haymarket affair, as appears from a sworn affidavit,
"That the police ought to have shot them all down; that they, the defendants, had no fights in this country; and that if I were on the jury, I would hang all the damned buggars." Well, this man in due course sat "on the jury," in due course he expressed his murderous spite in the jury's verdict. Is not the mere statement of such facts a sufficient portrayal of the character of Gary's "tribunal" and of every man who becomes or remains responsible for it?
8. — The Jury was summoned illegally.
How came such men to be assembled in the jury-box to give a coloring of legality to the murder contrived by the conspirators?
Why, nothing is easier.
Just listen to the declarations of special bailiff RYCE, who had in charge the summoning of the jurors, and who said, in substance, to a citizen named FAVOR, as duly affirmed by sworn affidavit
"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 when they have exhausted their peremptory challenges they will have to take such jurors as are satisfactory to the State."
How sublime must be the constitution of that court wherein even the "special bailiff" — no doubt taking his cue from his superiors — is so anxious to conspire to murder!
"What shall be said now of the action of the court in reference to the conduct of the special bailiff? I am not going to dwell upon it; but with an affidavit showing that the special bailiff had gone forth into the field committed to the hanging of these men and announcing that he would select only such men as jurors as would secure this result; upon an affidavit that this could be proved by a certain reputable witness, who would not give his affidavit, but would appear to submit to examination, the court refused our application for an order for his examination, REFUSED to order the issuance of a subpoena, although it was asked for instanter, REFUSED to take any steps to bring before the court this evidence of this misconduct; misconduct that, if established, showed that the plaintiffs in error were the victims of a conspiracy as infamous as ever wrought judicial murder!" — Capt. W. P. BLACK, Oral Argument.
9. — The Meeting at the Haymarket was a strictly legal Meeting.
The facts in regard to the meeting at the Haymarket are as follows:
1. The meeting was legally called. 2. It was legally conducted. 3. Its purpose was a legal one. 4. The speeches and proceedings were legal. 5. The police hadn't a particle of right to interfere with it or intrude upon it. 6. All the speakers and by-standers had the fullest right to be there. 7. All persons present had the fullest right to stand their ground in defiance of the attempt of the police to disperse them. 7. The police, by the mere act of resorting to violence to disperse the speakers and the audience, were guilty of a breach of the peace and became by that very act liable to arrest and punishment as the aggressors. 8. The speakers and audience had the right of armed resistance to this invasion of their rights and liberties, and could have killed every assailant that night within the limits of legitimate self-defence!
The right of self-defense is founded on the law of nature, and is not, nor can be, superseded by any law of society. — Wharton, Hom., p. 230.
"If the defendants, or any of them, were unlawfully attacked, then, of course, they had a right to defend themselves." — M. SALOMON,Argument for the Defense.
10. — The Killing of Degan not Murder.
It is evident from what precedes that the killing of Degan, whoever is guilty of it, cannot possibly be classed as murder. The indictment of the accused for murder is simply an illegal pretext, as are, in fact, all other features and procedures of the so-called "trial." WHEN DEGAN WAS KILLED, he was in the act of committing a breach of the peace! WHEN DEGAN WAS KILLED, he was actually engaged in a criminal assault, Å main armée, or with deadly weapons, upon peaceable citizens! He had no warrant for anybody's arrest, and was simply advancing in an illegal and arbitrary manner, without a shadow of right, to assault persons who were legally present and acting in a strictly legal manner. So certain and absolute is this fact, that the prosecution made no attempt during the trial to establish the legality of Degan's presence at the Haymarket or the legality of his actions. They simply ASSUMED that he was there legally, and that he assaulted legally the persons he found there. They ASSUMED these things, I say, as they ASSUMED everything else, but assumptions are not law, and cannot be made to stand in place of the law. If it were right for the prosecution to ASSUME that Degan was there legally and acting in a legal manner, it would be equally right for the defence to ASSUME exactly the contrary. As a simple matter of fact, assumptions have no place in this matter. The legality or illegality of Degan's presence and action at the Haymarket is to be decided by evidence, which I will now proceed to give.
On the 2d of August, Hon. Carter H. Harrison, the mayor of Chicago, was placed on the witness stand as the first witness for the defense. 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 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 immediately 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 disperse that meeting.
Q. How long did you remain at the meeting?
A. It was about five minutes before eight o'clock when I arrived. I should judge from the time when the bomb sounded and the time it took me to walk home, that I left the meeting between 10 and 10.05 o'clock. I heard all except probably a minute or a minute and a half of Mr. Spies' speech, and all of Mr. Parsons' up to the time I left, with the exception of a break when I left him talking and went over to the station. I was absent five or ten minutes. It was near the close of Parsons' speech. I should judge he was looking toward a close. I went to the station to speak to Captain Bonfield, and had determined to go home, but instead of going home I went back to hear a little more, and then left.
Q. Up to the time that you went to the station and had this interview 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 statistics as to the amount of returns given to labor from capital, and showing, if I remember rightly now, that capital got eighty-five percent 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?
Q. Do you recollect any suggestion made by either of the speakers looking toward the immediate use of force or violence toward any person?
A. There was none. If there had been I should have dispersed them at once.
Q. How long was the interview that you had with Inspector Bonfield?
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 occured 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.
It is thus clearly established that the meeting at the Haymarket was perfectly peaceable. Nothing is shown to have occured 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.
Now let us see what well-known and recognized authorities have to say in regard to the situation of affairs which is here presented.
"All persons have a right peaceably to assemble for worship, for political discussion, or for any other purpose not in itself unlawful, and THE INVASION OF THIS RIGHT BY OTHERS IS AN INDICTABLE OFFENSE." — Robinson on Elementary Law, § 459.
"The right to assemble may be important for religious, social, industrial or political purposes. * * * Social meetings and industrial meetings are seldom likely to be disturbed by the authorities, except when they are believed to contemplate public disorder, and are in open defiance to the law: but there must be an ACTUAL breach of the law before they can be intermeddled with. — Cooley on Principles of Court, p. 268.
We have thus established by due evidence and authority the following points in regard to the Haymarket meeting:
1. — The meeting was peaceful and legal, and as such was beyond the interference or intermeddling of any human authority whatever upon this planet.
2. — Hence, anyone coming to the Haymarket to disperse the said meeting, be he Bonfield or be he Degan, could only come there at his risk and peril, could only come there by committing a breach of the law, and consequently under the penalty of being indicted and punished.
Such was the situation of affairs at the Haymarket at the moment Degan advanced to his death.
Now, the section of the law under which the accused were indicted reads 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 circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart."
Bear in mind now what has been said about the right of self-defense, as also what is everywhere conceded and recognized under this head, by all codes and by all authorities, and in all times and in all situations. Bear in mind that Degan, at the moment of the killing, was engaged in an armed attack upon his fellow-citizens, who had done him no wrong and offered him no violence, and who were under the safeguard of the Constitution and the laws, while he himself possessed the attitude and status of a criminal assailant. Give due heed to all the facts and circumstances of the case, and the conclusion will be reached irresistibly that the "CONSIDERABLE PROVOCATION" which is expressly recognized by the law is here present in a marked and ineffaceable degree, and that the killing of Degan is consequently NOT murder.
"An illegal attempt to restrain a man's liberty, even under color of legal process, is such provocation as to reduce the offense [of homicide] to manslaughter. — Wharton, Law of Homicide in the U. S., p.203.
11. — The Police as the Aggressors in the Haymarket Tragedy, are solely and entirely responsible for it.
It is undeniable that the police who appeared at the Haymarket that night are directly and solely responsible for all the outcomes of the collision. If the "rank and file" of these intruders should be in a measure excused in their own sight by the fact that they were simply obeying the orders of their superiors, this plea can in no wise be used in their justification. No policeman or other official, anywhere, or under any circumstances, is authorized to make any illegal arrest, or interfere illegally with any man or meeting, or obey any illegal order from any source or person whatever, and any one who does anything of the kind does so at his risk and peril. Upon the whole body of police, therefore, which broke the peace that night at the Haymarket — upon every police official there, from Bonfield and Ward down to their meanest clubber, and UPON THESE AGGRESSORS ALONE — rests and remains the entire responsibility for the killing of Degan, and for all else that happened. The indisputable and unchangeable fact that the police officials were the aggressors makes them inevitably and eternally responsible for all the violence and bloodshed that succeeded, and all the sophistry in the world cannot nullify this responsibility nor conceal it. How many innocent and unarmed citizens who chanced to be in the vicinity of the Haymarket that night were killed or wounded by the police, no one can undertake to say definitely, but they are known to have been MANY. If there is any hanging to be inaugurated, therefore, on the part of the survivors, it will be as natural as right to begin with Bonfield and Ward and the other actual and responsible aggressors.
"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 assembled, there, gentlemen, under the provision of our Constitution, to exercise the right of free speech, to discuss the situation of the workingmen, to discuss the eight-hour question. They assembled there to incidently 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 defendants 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." — M. SALOMON, Argument for the Defense.
"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?" — Capt. W. P. BLACK, Address.
12. — The Accused are the Victims of a hellish Conspiracy.
No one who has given the subject due attention can possibly be the dupe of the ghastly farce which is being played in Chicago.
Everybody knows that the trial and condemnation of the seven champions of the workingman is a fraud and a mockery and a tissue of lies and false pretences from its very incipiency.
The facts in the case are:
A group of tainted and perjured pettifoggers, assisted by a few police bullies, and incited by a mob of newspaper blatherskites and worshippers of Mammon, HAVE CONTRIVED the JUDICIAL ASSASSINATION of the accused, under a flimsy pretext and coloring of legal process, for an act with which they have had NO proved connection, and of which the real author is still unknown, as is also the fact whether he belonged to the Pinkertons or to some other source of agents provocateurs, or was merely some solitary workingman acting SOLELY upon his own volition.
A more infamous conspiracy than the one thus planned and arranged is not known to human annals.
Will the People and Press of these United States permit this foul and horrible murder to be committed?
If they do, they and their children will deserve to be slaves and accursed forever.
"There have been many judicial murders committed where the representatives of the State were acting in good faith, believing their victims to be guilty of the charge accused of. In this case the representatives of the State cannot shield themselves with a similar excuse. For they themselves have fabricated most of the testimony which was used as a pretense to convict; to convict us by a jury picked out to convict! Before this court, and before the public, which is supposed to be the State, I charge the State's Attorney and Bonfield with the heinous conspiracy to commit murder." — AUGUST SPIES.
"To term the proceedings during the trial justice, would be a sneer. Justice has not been done, more than this, could not be done. If one class is arrayed against the other, it is idle and hypocritical to think about justice. Anarchy was on trial, as the State's Attorney put it in his closing speech. A doctrine, an opinion hostile to brute force, hostile to our present murderous system of production and distribution. I am condemned to die for writing newspaper articles and making speeches." — MICHEL SCHWAB.
"We claim that the foulest criminal that could have been picked up in the slums of any city in Christendom, or outside of it, would never have been convicted on such testimony as has been brought in here if he had not been a dangerous man in the opinion of the privileged classes. We claim that we are convicted, not because we have committed murder. We are convicted because we were very energetic in advocacy of the rights of labor. — SAMUEL FIELDEN.
"What stronger evidence can be required to prove the infamous character of what are called our criminal courts? Evidently the courts are criminal, whether the persons they convict are criminal or not. Under such a condition of things as this, manifestly, a trial can have no color of justice or reason, or be anything else than a conspiracy to convict whether he be innocent or guilty." — A. R. PARSONS.
13. — The Accused had nothing whatever to do with the Throwing of the Haymarket Bomb.
"The Judge himself," observed LINGG, "was forced to admit that the State's Attorney had not been able to connect me with the bomb-throwing."
"There was no evidence produced by the State," said SPIES, "to show or even indicate that I had any knowledge of the man who threw the bomb, or that I myself had anything to do with the throwing of the missile."
"I have not the slightest idea who threw the bomb on the Haymarket," declared SCHWAB, "and had no knowledge of any conspiracy to use violence on that or any other night."
"There is no evidence" affirmed NEEBE, "to show that I was connected with the bomb-throwing, or that I was near it, or anything of that kind."
"Although one of the parties who arranged the Haymarket meeting," declared FISCHER, "I had no more to do with the throwing of that bomb, I had no more connection with it, than State's Attorney Grinnell had."
"There was no evidence produced to implicate me with the Haymarket bomb," was the declaration of PARSONS. "Why, the evidence that was produced, only touched two of us, only implicated two of us, and that evidence, as your honor must know, was paid for. Everybody knows it. Your honor knows it. Your honor does not credit that testimony of Gilmer. You cannot do it. It was overwhelmingly and irresistibly impeached."
In other terms, none of the defendants threw the bomb, and no human being knows who did.
The real offender, the actual bomb thrower, remains unknown to this present day.
It is notoriously KNOWN and ACKNOWLEDGED by EVERYBODY that the man who really threw the bomb, and who is SOLELY responsible for that act, has never been discovered.
It is needless to add that in the person of this unknown we have a really dangerous man, if not a guilty one. HE is the man the police should look for. He is the man to be arrested and punished. In the absence of this real offender, is it desirable to seize upon innocent men and hang them for a deed of which they are as innocent as a babe unborn?
"For aught which appears in this record, your honors upon your consciences will be compelled to say that bomb may have been thrown by somebody in no way connected with these defendants, directly or indirectly. It may have been done by an enemy of theirs. It may have been done by some man acting upon his own mere malice and ill-will. It was thrown outside of the purpose of the Haymarket meeting. It was thrown in disregard of the arrangement and understanding for that meeting. It was thrown to the overthrow of the labor and the effort that these men were then giving their lives to, namely, the establishment 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." — Capt. W. P. BLACK, Argument.
"We have never changed our opinion," says one of the noblest men in this nation — MOSES HULL, in his New Thought — that some capitalist employed a tool to throw that bomb on purpose to create a prejudice in the public mind."
"But here comes in another important fact in this discussion. There is a most complete military organization in this country entirely independent of all law, state or national. It is used for the purpose of killing people, and has so done in
more than one instance. Why don't the very patriotic lovers and expounders of law do something to bring these murderers to justice? Why not bring to bear the law against Pinkerton's thugs and hang them for conspiracy and murder? Why? Oh, that is another case entirely, Pinkerton's men only shot down the workingmen, and what do they amount to anyway? But we have a right to demand why a military organization, formed to kill the people at the call of Jay Gould and other corporation cormorants, and which has killed them, shall go unhung while another, formed to protect the people, shall be condemned." — Prof. J. F. LOVELAND, in New Thought.
14. — The Accused have never been guilty of Violence nor counselled it.
The more prominent of the accused; especially SPIES and PARSONS, have been TALKING and WRITING for years in favor of the workingman's emancipation from the bondage in which his spoilers have placed him.
In this capacity they have traversed the land.
In this capacity they have established newspapers and held meetings in various places, with more or less frequency and regularity.
They have portrayed what every workingman knows to be the absolute truth — that misery, starvation, ill-paid and excessive labor, etc., which afflict the GREAT MAJORITY of the citizens of this land — and hence they have become widely known as leaders in the movements of the workingmen for the bettering of their condition.
It is almost unnecessary to add that they have ALWAYS conducted this long and effective crusade WITHIN STRICTLY LEGAL LIMITS.
They have NEITHER BEEN GUILTY OF VIOLENCE NOR COUNSELLED IT,
From this STRICTLY LEGAL METHOD the accused have never departed — NEVER! NOT FOR A SINGLE MOMENT!
"It is true we have called upon the people to arm themselves. It is true that we have told them time and again that the great day of change was coming. It is true we have called upon the people to arm and prepare for the stormy times before us." — AUGUST SPIES, Reply to the Court.
"The right declared [namely, to bear arms] was meant to be a strong moral check upon usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation." — Cooley on Court Law, p. 270.
15. — The Accused are the Prophets and Apostles of a great and glorious Change.
The first great fact, then, in regard to the accused is this:
They have recognized the WHITE SLAVERY of their generation, precisely as JOHN BROWN recognized the BLACK SLAVERY of his day, and they have cried out nobly and grandly against it, in words that will echo the whole world around forever.
"Talk about a gigantic conspiracy!" cried SCHWAB, when asked why sentence of death should not be pronounced upon him. "A MOVEMENT IS NOT A CONSPIRACY! All we did was done in open daylight. There were no secrets. We prophesied in word and writing the coming of a great revolution, a change in the system of production in all industrial countries of the globe. AND THE CHANGE WILL COME, AND MUST COME!"
These grand words are the keynote of the situation.
They not only show the objects sought, but the method of the seeking.
They not only point to what is to-day, but they point to what is inevitably coming.
And it is simply because the accused have TALKED and WRITTEN in this sense that they are now condemned to die.
Let this be understood now and here.
THE ACCUSATION AGAINST THESE HEROES AND MARTYRS IS A MERE PRETENCE TO GET RID OF THEM! — TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTHS THEY HAVE BEEN TEACHING, AND TO COWER THE WORKINGMEN OF AMERICA INTO SUBMISSION TO THE ORDERS OF THEIR TYRANTS!
Fair warning to all present, coming, and to come!
LET NO ONE IGNORE IT!
THE ACCUSED ARE SIMPLY THE VICTIMS OF FALSE WITNESS, PERJURY, NEWSPAPER CLAMOR, SUBORNING AND LYING!
"When the spirit of liberty has fled, and truth and justice are disregarded, private rights [i. e. liberty and life,] can easily be sacrificed under the forms of law." — Kent's Com., vol. 1., p. 618.
16. — The utter Falsity and Illegality of Judge Gary's Rulings.
"H. N. Smith, when presented as a talesman, and examined with reference to his competency to sit as a juror, said that he had formed a quite 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 that agreed with his opinion than to testimony on the other side. Then followed these questions and answers, taken from the record verbati
"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. Q. You think you would be prejudiced? A. I think I would be prejudiced, because my feeling is very bitter. * * * 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 the conclusion which you now have than to come to the opposite conclusion? A. Yes, sir. Q. That is your best judgement now? A. Yes, sir."
"Upon these questions and answers Mr. Smith was challenged. He was taken in hand by the other side. He was educated and led along by the other side and the court until he said, yes, he rather thought he could lay aside his feelings and prejudices, and render a verdict in accordance with the evidence — a fair and impartial verdict. The challenge for cause was thereupon overruled, and it was held that this man was competent."
"H. L. Anderson (Vol. C. of the record, p. 517), said that he had read and heard about the Haymarket affair, and formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of some of the defendants; that he had frequently talked the matter over with other people, and expressed his opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants, which opinion he still retained, and which was based not only upon what he had read but what he heard; that he was sure he could lay aside his prejudice and grant a fair trial upon the evidence. That he was well acquainted with some of the police force who were present at the Haymarket, and they had given him their views of the matter since that meeting, and told him what occurred there in connection with the effort to disperse the crowd. That some of them were injured by the explosion of the bomb, and that he knew well one of the parties killed by the bomb. That he had formed an unqualified opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants which he regarded as deep-seated, a firm conviction that THESE DEFENDANTS, OR SOME OF THEM, WERE GUILTY. That as a result of the conversation that he had with the policemen present at the meeting, he reached his opinion as to the guilt or innocence of some of the defendants. And yet this juror was held by Judge Gary to be COMPETENT!"
These two cases are samples of scores which might be quoted. We have drawn them from the Argument of Capt. BLACK, before the Supreme Court of Illinois, retaining the very words of the Captain, who added
"Now, I am not going to spend much time in arguing to your Honors the UTTER FALSITY AND ILLEGALITY of such rulings. I am not going to insult your intelligence by arguing that a jury of such men as these whose examinations I have read, would not constitute a fair and impartial jury to try these defendants by. No!"
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, I am willing to admit that my opinion would handicap my judgment, possibly."
Further on he was asked
"Now, do you believe that you can fairly and impartially render a verdict without any regard to rumor and what you may nave 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 accordance 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 impartially make up your mind from the evidence, whether that evidence prove that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not?
A. I think I could, but I should feel that I was a little handicapped in my judgment, sir.
THE COURT. — Well, that is a sufficient qualification for a juror in the case. Of course, the more a man feels that he is handicapped, the more he will be guarded against it."
Could anything be more revolting? Can any worse flippancy than this be produced from the annals of the bench?
The counsel for the defence, in their brief before the Supreme Court, took notice of this very singular matter, as follows
"We beg leave to state that not only is the remark given above contrary to experience, but to all the authorities. According to the remark of the court, the stronger the opinion of the juror against the 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 jury man ‘handicapped’ by previous opinions and prejudices, and the more he is handicapped the better the juryman will be."
We have already briefly indicated how terribly Gary and Grinnell have violated the Sixth Amendment in reference to the right of the accused to be tried by an impartial jury. Sworn to seek for "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," these conspirators neglect no opportunity of "ruling" the truth out of court, and "objecting" to every measure looking to its elucidation. For instance, after the perjurer, Thompson, swore that he had overheard Spies and Schwab talking about "police," "pistols," etc., in English — a statement which no human being can believe, so completely is it refuted in a thousand ways — it naturally became a simple detail of the search for the truth to show that Schwab speaks English very imperfectly, and that he speaks habitually in German. Spies, when on the stand, was accordingly asked
"What is the usual language in which you carried on conversations with Schwab?"
The answer would, of course, have been
This answer would have tended to the discovery of the truth, and would have been an instant refutation of the impudent lies of the aforesaid perjured witness.
But this answer Spies was not allowed to utter.
The truth-seeking Grinnell objected to the question, and Judge Gary sustained the objection!
A hundred examples of this same sort of "ruling" could be given, by the sacrifice of the necessary space, but cui bono?. Enough has been said already to give the public the measure of these men.
17. — Judge Gary's Substitution of Fiction for Fact.
The very first day on which testimony was taken, Judge Gary rendered the following ruling, which governed all subsequent proceedings
"If the fact be that a large number of men concurred with each other in preparing to use force for the destruction of human life, upon occasions which were not yet foreseen, but upon some principles which they substantially agreed upon, as, for example, taking the words of this witness, if a large number of men agreed together to kill the police, if they were found in conflict with strikers — I believe is the phrase — leaving it to the agents of violence to determine whether the time and occasion had come for the use of violence, then if the time and occasion do come when the violence is used, are not all parties who agreed beforehand in preparing the means of death, and agreed in the use of them upon the time and occasion, equally liable?"
Now, the moment any one gives attention to this ruling, it presents the following well-defined characteristics:
1. It has no raison d'Ätre, as a French jurist would say, no cause to exist, NO BASIS.
2. It is not even "founded on facts."
3. Neither on that first day of the testimony nor at any subsequent time was a particle of evidence offered that there had been an agreement between a large number of men "to kill the police."
4. This chatter about an agreement "to kill the police" is a mere theory, assumption, or baseless imagining — a mere conception or conjecture of Gary's mind.
5. Yet Gary treats this intangible shadow of his own mind as a reality, and makes it a stay of his court, a principle of his action, a prime agent in the "trial" of the accused!
6. This ruling is disloyal and dishonest — doubly dishonest and disloyal, for the reason that it substitutes a phantom of Gary's mind for the facts concerning the accused, and prevents these facts from taking their due place and bearing in the record.
7. And, finally, this ruling is evidently designed to "darken counsel," to conceal the truth, to distract attention from the real business in hand, and to confuse and mislead the jurors.
In proof of this assertion, it is only necessary to paraphrase this ruling, putting the ACTUAL FACTS in the place of Gary's chimeras, and the whole thing falls to pieces as a mass of pettifogging gibberish.
"If the fact be that a large number of men, [say WORKINGMEN,] concurred with each other in preparing to use force for the destruction of human life, [say 180 POLICEMEN LYING IN WAIT WITH REVOLVERS,] upon occasions which were not yet foreseen, [say A MEETING IN THE HAYMARKET,] but upon some principles which they substantially agreed upon, [such as SELF-DEFENCE,] leaving it to the agents of violence, [THE SAID WORKINGMEN,] to determine whether the time and occasion had come for the use of violence, [say SELF-DEFENSE,] then if the time and occasion do come when the violence is used, [the SAID WORKINGMEN DEFENDING THEMSELVES,] are not all parties who agreed beforehand in preparing the means of death, [or OF BEATING BACK THE AGGRESSORS,] and agreed in the use of them upon the time and occasion, [WHEN MURDEROUSLY ASSAULTED,] equally liable?"
Thus actually asking the question which Judge Gary only pretends to ask, we see at a glance that the answer is directly contrary to the conclusions he seeks to establish!
In over-ruling the motion for a new trial, Judge Gary used this language
"The conviction has not gone upon the ground that they did have any actual participation in the act which caused the death of Degan, but upon the ground, under the instructions, that they had generally, by speech and print, advised a large class to commit murder."
This is MERE ASSERTION. Not a word of proof to this affect was offered during the whole course of the trial. Not a single line can be quoted from the writings of any of the accused to the effect stated.
There had, indeed, been some TALK — and only TALK — of responding to the violence of the police WITH violence, and what is more natural and at the same time more in accordance with the whole spirit and letter of our institutions?
Is it necessary to remind the men who are seeking to throw the glamor of legality over the contrived murder of SPIES and his associates that the right of rebellion against any form of tyranny and oppression is the very foundation principle of our national existence?
We got rid of GEORGE THE THIRD and his hireling Hessians by a successful revolution, and we shall get rid of SHYLOCK and his hireling Pinkertons in precisely the same manner — if they elect to force the issue.
There can be no doubt of that.
Our entire country is not only an embodiment of Revolution, but of many successive revolutions — first against England, then against black slavery, and now against the slavery of the workingman.
THE VERY CONSTITUTION OF THESE UNITED STATES IS THE ABSOLUTE AND ETERNAL CONSECRATION OF THE DIVINE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY AND VIOLENCE OF ANY AND EVERY DESCRIPTION.
In other terms, the RIGHT OF REVOLUTION, or of rebellion against illegal authority of every name and nature, is everywhere and eternally SACRED AND UNPRESCRIPTIBLE.
So far as the condemned men have announced this right, therefore — and there is not a particle of evidence anywhere that they have done more than announce it — their actions are in perfect harmony with our institutions and history, and will command the respect and assent of every man worthy of the name of American or citizen.
The Judge continues
"In consequence of that advice and in pursuance of it, and influenced by it, somebody not known did throw the bomb that caused Degan's death."
ANOTHER MERE ASSERTION! Not a particle of evidence has ever been offered, or can in the very nature of things be offered, that the unknown bomb-thrower was in any way influenced by the speeches or writings of the accused. So absolutely is this the case that an infinite sea of conjectures is open to us in regard to the identity of the actual bomb-thrower, as also in regard to his motives. He may have been a man who had been clubbed by the police during some of the collisions which had previously taken place between the citizens and the police-aggressors. He may have been a detective, who intended to use the bomb against the workingmen, and who, in the haste and apprehension of its discharge, threw it unintentionally in the direction of his friends, or he may possibly, in view of the unscrupulous character of many of these disturbers of the peace, have wilfully and knowingly sacrificed a few of his friends in the hope and expectation of making business, of being revenged upon the agitators, and of defeating the eight-hour movement, etc., etc. In short, nobody knows who the bomb-thrower was, or what were the motives influencing him, or who were the persons who actually aided and abetted him, if any, and hence it is not only a mere assumption on the part of Judge Gary to attempt to make the accused responsible for this unknown's actions, but it is also an assumption which is not easily to be distinguished from a malignant and infamous falsehood.
The actual facts of Judge Gary's action in this matter may accordingly be summarised as follows:
1. He falsely affirms that the accused "advised a large class to commit murder," and then
2. He falsely affirms that the unknown bomb-thrower was influenced by words the accused wrote or uttered!
And upon these two lies, these two baseless and malicious assertions, the accused have been denied a new trial!!
If there is a more flagrant case of judicial corruption and outrage than this in human annals, I shall be glad to have the same pointed out to me.
"If a mob upon the street to-day rushes off in some given direction, and some one man in that mob commits a crime, and it is attempted to hold me on the ground that, at some indefinite prior time, I advised that offense, there has got to be some connection established between the man who committed the crime and myself, and that can only be done by individuating that man, by taking him out of the multitude. The crime is committed: non constat, but that it may have been committed upon the individual malice, ill-will or criminal disposition of the doer of the deed: non constat, but that in the case at bar the bomb-thrower may never have heard of the views of the plaintiffs in error, may never have entered at all into their plans and purposes. Their plans and purposes for that night were peaceable, and the evidence discloses it!
"Now, when it is attempted to be made out that somebody in that meeting against the then purpose and desire, against the then expressed disposition, of the parties who were there speaking, did a crime for which it is sought to hold them, despite their disclaimer and their opposition; on the ground that at some previous time they had given some advice, or entered into some plan which possibly covered this thing, we maintain that justice and the law alike require that the evidence shall individuate the doer of the crime, and shall meet, legally and conclusively, the hypothesis that the crime may have been committed by some man out of his own malice, and without any reference whatever to any plan or conspiracy of action. One man's malice or misdeed cannot create another man's guilt. And when it is sought to hold one man, on the doctrine of agency, for what is done by another, the evidence must establish the agency." * * "It must be made to appear that the man who threw the bomb was a man acting under the advice, encouragement, aiding or abetting of the plaintiffs in error." — Capt. W. P. BLACK, Argument.
18. — Gilmer's Perjury.
As is known to everybody, there are presented in this case a pair of perjurers of such infamous character as to cause Judas Iscariot to look like a gentleman.
The name of one of these accursed reprobates is Harry L. Gilmer.
"Two witnesses gave affidavits that they were playing pool with Gilmer at the very moment when he claimed to have been at the Haymarket!!" — SAMUEL FIELDEN, Mss. note in a copy of "The Ides of November."
As a matter of fact, which the defense will, no doubt, be able to show in due course, this brazen and monumental perjurer was not at the Haymarket at all on the night of the bomb-throwing.
This is Capt. BLACK'S positive conviction, as avowed to me in person.
Yet, despite that fact, this Gilmer came into court and testified as follows
1. That Spies lighted the bomb. 2. That Schnaubelt threw it. 3. That Fischer was present. 4. That he thought he saw Schwab present. 5. That Schnaubelt was five feet ten inches in height. 6. That he saw Schnaubelt throw the bomb "from the alley," and so on.
The first witness we have to offer against Gilmer's assertion that three or four of the accused were concerned in the bomb-throwing is Grinnell himself!
In his opening address to the jury, the State's Attorney made use of the following language
"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."
Now, here is a flat contradiction between Grinnell and his witness. Which of these two men are we to believe? Are we not strictly held and enjoined, by every principle of morality and decency, to repudiate both of them?
As a matter of fact
1. Schnaubelt is six feet and two or three inches in height and was not present at the time of the explosion. 2. The bomb was not thrown from the alley, but from a point on the sidewalk fifteen to thirty feet south of the alley. 3. The day after the Haymarket affair, Mr. Graham, a reporter of the Chicago Times, had a talk with Gilmer, who said "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!" 4. Gilmer swore positively that he knew Spies' face well, having frequently heard him at meetings, and from that knowledge recognized him. Yet in the conversation with Graham on the afternoon of the fifth of May, he never alluded directly or indirectly to Spies as participating in throwing or lighting the bomb. 5. It appears upon the testimony of three or four witnesses that Fischer, at the time of the explosion of the bomb, was in Zepf's Hall, sitting at one of the tables in company with Mr. Wandry, who was one of the witnesses. 6. Schwab was not present at all at Haymarket meeting. 7. Gilmer was impeached by ten persons, from among the most respectable classes of the community, some of them large property holders, coming forward and swearing that they were acquainted with his general reputation for truth and veracity among his neighbors, 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.
"Gilmer swore," says Capt. BLACK, Argument, "that that bomb was thrown out of the Crane Brothers' alley, by Rudolph Schnaubelt — the only effort made by the state to identify in any manner the thrower of the bomb — and that Spies lit the fuse, while Fischer stood by. Now, I need not say again that the testimony overwhelmingly disproves that whole story. Fischer is shown by the testimony of four or five witnesses to have been then in Zepf's Hall. Schnaubelt is shown to have been a man six feet, three inches high; while Gilmer says that the bomb thrower was five feet, eight, nine or ten inches, and he could look over his head; while nearly a score of witnesses in this record swear, and establish beyond controversy the fact, that that bomb was thrown from a point on the sidewalk, somewhere from fifteen to thirty feet or more south from the alley. Again, there are witnesses, numbers of them, who prove to an absolute demonstration that Spies never got down off that wagon until just contemporaneously with the explosion of the bomb, when he was helped to dismount; and when, instantly after having helped him to dismount, Henry Spies was shot by a pistol in the hands of some officer standing by in citizen's clothes.
"That testimony is absolutely false. There is not any getting away from this conclusion. And that effort to connect these parties, or any of them, utterly fails, because of the absolute failure of that testimony."
19. — Thompson's Perjury.
The other false witness to which I have alluded is M. M. Thompson, who described himself as being employed in the dry goods house of Marshall Field & Co., which, as is well to mention for the information of distant readers, is one of the largest business establishments in Chicago. His "testimony" is a lie from beginning to end, and is PROVEN to be such by a "cloud of witnesses," and a host of facts and circumstances about which there can be no sort of question.
"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 swears that while in that neighborhood Schwab came down the street, witness not knowing him before, and that he inquired of Mr. Brazelton, a reporter, as to who that was, and Brazelton said it was Schwab. He says that very soon after that Spies, whom also he had never seen before or heard speak, rose up on a wagon and called out, "Is Parsons here?" in a loud tone of voice; that directly after making that inquiry Spies got down from the wagon, and he and Schwab entered the alley, going into it about the middle, and that there was a crowd there. They remained in the alley about three minutes, and witness swears that standing three feet north of the alley, admitting that he could not see down the alley, and did not try to look into it, yet he distinctly heard a conversation between Spies and Schwab, in which the words "pistols" and "police" were used, in a voice that he recognized as that of Spies, spoken in such a tone that nothing of the rest of the conversation could be caught; consequently, spoken in a low tone. Remember, he could not see the speakers and admitted a crowd to be there. He had never heard Spies speak in the world, except the loud inquiry from the wagon, "Is Parsons here?" addressed to the crowd, yet he swears to Spies conversational tones in a low conversation, out of his range of vision. And while he had never heard Schwab speak at all, he swears he asked the question, "Is one enough, or had we better go and get more?" He relates a story of then following them north on Randolph 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 conversation; that there Spies gave "something" to the third party, and then they all went and got on the wagon."
"Now, that is his story," resumes Capt. BLACK. "The evidence of a score of witness demonstrates its falsity in every particular. Cosgrove, one of the officers of the police force and a witness put upon the stand by the State, swore that he was present in the crowd around that wagon when Spies got up and said: "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 southwesterly to Randolph street — here is the wagon (illustrating on diagram),
24there is southwesterly to Randolph street — and then he lost him. McKeough, the very next witness, a city detective, an officer, following that up, swears that he also was in that crowd when Spies got on the wagon and said: "Is Parsons here?" He also swears that Spies got down from that 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 this man Thompson, instead of going southwesterly as Cosgrove swears, to the corner, and whither McKeough swears he followed him, Spies went 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?"
"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 telephone message was sent from Deering is shown by the testimony of Preusser. That he was seen on the corner of Randolph and Desplaines streets, while looking for Spies to go to Deering, is evidenced by the testimony of two reporters, witnesses for the prosecution, Heineman and Owen. No other witness except this man Thompson claims to have seen Schwab upon this alleged journey from the alley on Desplaines and Randolph streets and back again. That something after eight o'clock, before the meeting was called to order, Schwab went south to the corner of Randolph and took an east bound car is shown by the testimony of Hermann Becker.
"That he, in fact, went to deering and spoke there, is beyond question; that the time requisite to go there prevented him from being at the Haymarket when the speaking began is also clearly shown. Concerning 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 Parsons 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 wagon directly southwest, precisely as officer Cosgrove swore, down to that corner, to which Detective McKeough swears he followed him; and he says that the party consisted of August Spies, Henry Spies, Ernst Legner and Rudolph Schnaubelt." — DYER D. LUM, A Concise History, etc.
"The testimony of Mr. Thompson," concludes Capt. BLACK, "is a fabrication from its beginning to its end, judged by every rule of evidence; shown such not only by the testimony that we offered, but by the witnesses of the State themselves. The attempt to implicate these defendants, or any of them, in any personal participation in that act, utterly fails!"
20. — The deep and suspicions Darkness in which the whole Affair is still enveloped.
Does it not seem strange that Gary and Grinnell never caused a reward to be offered for the real bomb-thrower? That Governor Oglesby never offered one? That no eager and greedy detective ever solicited the offering of a reward for the unknown? That the hireling press, which has so much to say about matters of no consequence whatever, has never demanded that an attempt should be made to get hold of the actual bomb-thrower by the power of a reward large enough to induce some confederate to betray him? Is not this general silence on the part of all the representatives of the capitalistic conspiracy significant? Is it not suggestive? Does it not more than indicate that the hideous band of conspirators who are really
25responsible for the Haymarket outrage KNOW ALREADY all they desire to know in regard to the bomb-thrower's identity? Is it not apparent that the world would be startled if we could once get down to the "true inwardness" of this matter? who does not realize that there is a back-ground to the so-called "trial" in which all sorts of hideous monsters are watching and listening? Down deep in the darkness and slime of Gary's "tribunal," are there not scores of facts and persons whose outlines are not distinctly seen, but of which enough is visible to show that there is here a festering hell of which no man has yet seen the height and the depth? Does not all that has been done, as also all that has been left undone, show the absolute necessity of a thorough exploration of this abyss? of a rigorous and implacable inquiry? of an honest and earnest attempt to pierce the suspicious darkness in which the whole affair is still enveloped?
Why Gilmer? Why Thompson?
What is the real meaning of the presence of these conscienceless miscreants upon the witness stand? Can that be a righteous cause which requires the support of such rank perjurers. Why were they suborned and paid? Gilmer was absolutely impeached by TEN witnesses, and contradicted by FORTY-SIX, some of whom were called by the prosecution! Thompson was contradicted by THIRTEEN witnesses, and so thoroughly discredited and refuted that even Grinnell shrank from asking instructions based upon his falsehoods. Who invented the lies which were placed in the mouths of these sinister villains? Is there not some good reason why they are still accorded immunity from the penalties of perjury? Why should Gary and Grinnell still be in the company of such liars and assassins? Is not the law violated and polluted by the very thought of taking action or attributions upon the responsibility of such infamous persons? Would any court which had a particle of self-respect allow the holy name of justice to be contaminated by association with such arrant knavery?
What was the real motive and purpose of that hasty and murderous attack upon a peaceable meeting which was already rapidly dispersing, which he KNEW from the reports of his detectives to be already in process of dissolution, and which Mayor Harrison had advised him in the plainest of terms and for the best of reasons to leave unmolested?
Has Bonfield ever been pressed by Gary and Grinnell to explain his conduct on this occasion and avow his motives and intentions?
"All witnesses agree that the audience was rapidly thinning out, that Fielden had twice said "in conclusion," that no resistance was given to the aproach 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 was given by any of the officers in charge of the force that night of this singular haste. The reader
will bear in mind, however that both Holloway and Weimeldt when on the stand, were prepared 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!" — DYER D. LUM, A Concise History, etc.
What, I repeat, is the secret of Bonfield's action on that occasion? Has he ever avowed it? Is he willing to avow it? And unless he can and will avow it, is there not danger that he will eventually find himself under the ban of a horrible suspicion? It has more than once happened, in the annals of persecution and political assassination, that a partisan leader has suddenly resolved, at the last minute, after realizing that the enemy were not likely to offer him any pretext for murdering them, to go and murder them without any pretext! Inspector, I await your answer!
That there is a sinister secret here which needs to be explained by Bonfield, is apparent upon the very face of things, and it is more than suggested already that the truth is to be sought in the direction of a premeditated design to get rid of the obnoxious labor element on that night by some summary process.
For instance, when the speakers vacated the wagon which had served as their platform, after the summons to disperse, there appeared on the scene an unknown, supposed to be a detective in plain clothes, who deliberately levelled a revolver at the back of SPIES and pulled the trigger, with the evident intention of murder. Fortunately, HENRY SPIES noticed this unknown and his intention in time to save his brother, but not without receiving a serious wound.
And Legner? What is the secret underlying the dealings of the state with Legner?
Legner is the name of a young man who was with SPIES, on the night of the Haymarket tragedy, from eight o'clock, or before the meeting, until a few seconds before the explosion of the bomb.
Hence Legner was in a position to utterly annihilate the pretended testimony of Gilmer and Thompson.
"He knew," says SPIES, "that I had not seen SCHWAB on that evening. He knew that I had no such conversation with anybody as Mr. Marshall Field's protégé, Thompson, testified to. He knew that I did not jump from the wagon to strike the match and hand it to the man who threw the bomb. He is not a socialist."
Then, why wasn't Legner produced?
Simply because Grinnell and Bonfield spirited him away!
They "knew everything about Legner," declares SPIES. "They knew that his testimony would prove the perjury of Thompson and Gilmer beyond any reasonable doubt. Legner's name was on the list of witnesses for the State. He was not called, however, for obvious reasons. Aye, he stated to a number of friends that he had been offered $500 if he would leave the city, and threatened with direful things if he remained here and appeared as a witness for the defense. He replied that he could neither be bought nor bulldozed to serve such a damnable and dastardly plot. When we wanted Legner, he could not be found."
And why not found?
"Because," explains SPIES, "he had been kidnapped and taken to Buffalo, N. Y.,
27by two of the illustrious guardians of ‘Law and Order,’ two Chicago detectives," in order to get him out of the way!
Now, these facts are patent to all the world, and is there a single reader of this pamphlet who will say that the absence of Legner, under these circumstances, is not a grave reflection and imputation upon the prosecution? Has the Bench and Bar of this Republic fallen so low that treachery and dishonesty of this kind, will fail to receive everywhere a prompt, indignant condemnation?
"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 defendants 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 disappearance is extremely significant. Spies and Schwab were extremely 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 testimony without attempting to corroborate it by Brazleton; and did not produce Legner, although they had him as a witness before the grand jury." — DYER D. LUM, A Concise History, etc.
The meaning of all these facts, and of many more of the same nature of which these facts are sufficient examples?
The meaning is as evident as the stars in the firmament!
No one who gives due attention to the partial and illegal procedure displayed in this "trial"can doubt for a moment that the ingenuity and zeal of Gary and his aids were directed to the exclusion of the truth, and to the admission of every falsehood, prejudice, and assumption which could serve as a pretext for the judicial assassination which had been planned from the beginning.
21. — Grinnell's False Pretences.
In his opening address to the jurors, Grinnell made the following declarations
"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,"
That this was merely talking for effect, is apparent on the very face of things.
If Grinnell had ever possessed any facts to hang "at least thirty men," wouldn't he still possess them?
Couldn't he have brought the facts concerning the other TWENTY-TWO before ANY of the grand juries which have sat during the last eighteen months?
Moreover, if there were thirty offenders in this case, is it not an absolute duty of the prosecution to bring to trial the twenty-two whose names are still kept from the public?
Is it not a simple act of justice to the seven condemned leaders to have a new trial, and try the whole thirty at once, thus bringing out the relations of one to another, and so fixing upon each the due measure of his guilt?
Oh, no! Don't mention it!
Grinnell might not be at all embarrassed, not even to the extent of blushing, for what are a few lies more or less? But he'll never trouble the mysterious two-and-twenty!
He knows only too well that the said two-and-twenty never had any existence!
He merely invented them to prejudice the jury against his eight innocent victims!
Another of the State's Attorney's declarations, in the, course of his opening address to the jury, was as follows
"The conspiracy was so large, the numbers so appalling, that it seems impossible to describe it!"
Many a man with the "jim-jams" has said precisely the same thing! And with just as much show of proof as Grinnell has furnished!
Surely, if the conspiracy was "so large," it could have certainly been made visible under a microscope, if not to the naked eye!
If the "numbers" were "so appalling," surely "at least thirty" could have been brought to book!
But nothing of the sort has been done.
This State's Attorney did not proceed to set forth a single fact suggestive or indicative of any such "conspiracy."
Did he say anything like this:
"1. The conspirators are so many. 2. These are their names. 3. They met at Zepf's Hall, with closed doors, and hatched out their plot. 4. They were all armed with revolvers. 5. Every man of them had dynamite bombs under his jacket. 6. It was arranged that they should call a meeting at the Haymarket, ostensibly to protest against the killing of another workingman or two, but in reality to provoke a charge of the police. 7. It was, agreed that "at least thirty men" should throw their bombs as soon as the police came to a halt and ordered the meeting to disperse. 8. The said meeting was accordingly called. 9. The conspirators were all present, each man in his assigned place, all armed and provided with bombs as arranged. 10. The police were duly "provoked" and made their appearance. 11. The bombs were duly thrown, or as many of them as seemed necessary. 12. As the result of this encounter, 168 policemen were killed, and 2 seriously wounded. 13. In the confusion that ensued, all of the conspirators save one escaped to parts unknown. 14. You are here, gentlemen of the jury, to make things hot for the ONE we have captured!"
Now, this is the sort of complexion a real conspiracy of bomb-throwers would possess, and it is easy to see by comparison that Grinnell has never produced a single fact which even smells of conspiracy.
That such is really the case, in all fairness and candor, is seen at a glance as soon as we aggregate the facts concerning the accused in their actual truth and simplicity.
Let us briefly specify a few of them
1. As labor agitators, the accused have more or less points of contact. 2. Spies and Lingg had met but twice before they were arrested. 3. Engel and Spies had not been on speaking terms for a year. 4. Fischer had even made speeches against Spies. 5. Four of the alleged conspirators — Schwab, Neebe, Engel and Lingg — were not present at the Haymarket meeting at all. 6. Parsons and Fischer were at Zepf's Hall when the bomb exploded. 7. None of the accused had a bomb. 8. They were not even armed. 9. There was no concerted movement or action. 10. Fielden never had a revolver and never saw a bomb in his life. 11. The meeting was legal and peaceable, which, of course, excludes all thought of violence and disorder on the part of the accused and the workingmen who had come to hear them. 12. Parsons was accompanied to the Haymarket that night by his children, a little girl of five and a boy of seven, and by Mrs. Parsons and other ladies — an act which, when taken in connection with the fact that he was unarmed, is in itself enough to refute the whole theory of the prosecution.
"One thing must be conceded to these men," says Prof. J. S. LOVELAND in New Thought, "and that is ordinary common sense. But, if the theory of the court is true, that they had conspired to attack the police on that occasion, the manner in which it was done, shows the most stupid bungling conceivable. They knew the strength of the police — they had ample means to have destroyed them all. They had, or could have had ample means, any number of bombs, and men to use them. But the men were not there — the bombs were not there. Only a single bomb, and that thrown by a man who has disappeared. Any man, with the slightest knowledge of human nature, must see, at a glance, that if these seven men had been in any conspiracy to destroy life on that day they would not have been found in the places and circumstances they were. To be found as they were would have been "more than a crime," it would have been "a blunder," THEY WERE TAKEN BY SURPRISE, as well as others. Let any candid person take all the facts as they appear on the minutes of the trial, examine them dispassionately and he will be compelled to the conclusion that the pretense of a conspiracy to
murder on the part of those men, and particularly in this case, is the veriest moonshine conceivable. But the entire support of the verdict against them, is this assumption of conspiracy. Let the reader bear in mind, that even if some sort of a plan of an indefinite kind, and having reference to some possible but indefinite time in the future, could be proved, it would be at an infinite distance from proof of participation in, and planning of, the slaughter of the ill-fated policemen. There must be something to show some direct connection between the plan and the act."
"A review of the evidence touching Parsons' presence and utterances 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' economic beliefs, that he had no idea of any alleged conspiracy against the police, or that violence was at all likely to happen." — DYER D. LUM, Concise, History.
22. — Capt. Schaack's Confessed Infamy.
"On the 22nd of August, 1886, the day following the verdict at the conclusion of the trial," narrates PARSONS, in his glorious speech after conviction, "Capt. Michael Schaack, who is credited with manipulating the evidence against us, made a statement which was sent out by the "Associated" Press, as follows. He was asked if the police were now through with their labors.
A. Through, said he, why they have barely commenced. We mean to have others, who are liable to the same charge, indicted. I tell you the anarchist business in Chicago is only commenced, and before it is through we will have them all in jail, banged, or driven out of the city.
Q. Did you place any men under arrest yesterday?
A. That I do not wish to state.
Q. The report is made that there are warrants out for a large number of persons.
A. If you think a moment you will see how foolish the idea would be. We have no room for a large number of persons in the jail, [!] and it would be a needless expense [!!] to arrest many at once. We can get them as fast as we want them. We don't need to arrest them now.
Q. They may try to leave the city.
A. Time enough to arrest them when they do.
Q. Will any women be arrested?
A. Why not? Some of them are a mighty sight worse than the men. Do you think that if I had told the newspapers what I was doing when the anarchist trial was going on, that the jury would have brought in the verdict of yesterday? No, sir, a thousand times, no. EVERY PRISONER WOULD HAVE GONE FREE! Every reporter who came to me got nothing. I WAS MAKING UP THE EVIDENCE, PIECE BY PIECE, LITTLE BY LITTLE, PUTTING IT WHERE IT BELONGED. If I had told all I knew as fast as I got the points, the defense would have known what evidence was to be brought against them and would have been prepared to meet it!
"Now," demands PARSONS, "if this is not a confession that Capt. Schaack and one other man, an accomplice, set themselves deliberately to work to procure the judicial murder of seven innocent men, men who they declare themselves to be innocent men, are known by him and his accomplice to be innocent, then what is it? Plainly it is nothing else. Schaack's confession that our evidence was such that if permitted to be introduced it would have acquitted us a thousand times over, is equivalent to a confession that it is true, and that to procure, our conviction by the suppression of this evidence was to procure the judicial murder of innocent men!"
23. — The Violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
The prescription of our great Magna Charta, to which allusion is now made, reads as follows
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated."
This supreme law of the land has been notoriously violated in the case now under discussion.
1. By the forcing open of Spies' desk at the editorial rooms of the Arbeiter-Zeitung, and
2. By taking from said desk a letter addressed to SPIES, and a postal card in the handwriting of JOHN MOST; a letter and a postal card which were perfectly legitimate, harmless, and legal in themselves and in their whole existence, intent, relations, and history, and
3. By making use of these harmless and legitimate documents to prejudice the case against not only SPIES, but also against all the defendants, seven of whom had nothing whatever to do with them, and no possible connection or association with them, or responsibility for them.
The letter in question, as officially translated and placed in evidence, reads as follows:
N. Y. 1884.
"DEAR SPIES: — Are you sure that the letter from the Hocking Valley 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 present I send you some printed matter. There Sch. ‘H’ also existed but 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 thoroughly 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 reference to the English organ. He will surely work with you much and well. Such a paper is more necessary than The Truth. This, indeed, is getting more miserable and confused from issue to issue, and in general is whistling from the last hole. Enclosed is a fly-leaf which recently appeared at Emden and is, perhaps, adapted for reprint. Greeting to Schwab, Rau and you. Yours, JOHANN MOST.
"P. S. — To Buchtell I will, of course, write only in general terms."
The only point Grinnell and his fellow-conspirators have sought to evolve from the "inner consciousness" of this letter is that the word "medicine" is probably another name for "dynamite." But what if such were really the case? There is nothing illegal in the possession of dynamite. Every citizen of this land has as much right to have a ton of dynamite in his possession as he has to have a barrel of flour. The status of dynamite, as a fact or as a merchandise, has been so well stated by Capt. BLACK in his address to the twelve perjurers who pretended to try this case that we will quote what he says
"I beg you to remember, in the consideration of this case, that dynamite is not the invention of Socialists; it is not their discovery. Science has turned it loose upon the world — an agency of destruction, whether for defense or offense, whether for attack or to build the bulwarks round the beleaguered city. It has entered into modern warfare. We know from what has already transpired in this case that dynamite is being experimented with as a weapon of warfare by the great nations of the world. What has been read in your hearing, has given you the results of experiments made under the direction of the government of Austria, and while you have sat in this jury box considering the things which have been deposed before you, with reference to reaching a final and correct result, the government of the United States has voted $350,000 for the building of a dynamite cruiser. It is in the world by no procurement of Socialism, with no necessary relationship thereto, It is in the world to stay! It is manufactured freely; it is sold without let, hindrance or restriction. You may go from this jury box to the leading powder companies of the country, or their depots, and buy all the dynamite that you wish without question as to your purpose, without interrogation as to your motive. It is here. Is it necessarily a thing of evil? It has entered into the great industries, and we know its results. It has cleared the path of commerce where the great North River rolls on its way to the sea. It is here and there blasting out rocks, digging out mines, and used for helpfulness in the great industries of life. But there never came an explosive into the world, cheap, simple of construction, easy of manufacture, that it did not enter also into the world's combats. I beg you to remember also, that hand bombs are not things of Socialistic devising. It may be that one or another, here and there, professing Socialistic tenets, has devised some improvements in their construction, or has made some advances with reference to their composition; they have not invented them. The hand-grenade has been known in warfare long ere you and I saw the light. The two things have come together — the hand-grenade, charged no longer with the powder of old days, but charged with the dynamite of modern science. It is a union which Socialists are not responsible for. It is a union led up by the logic of events and the necessities of situations, and IT IS A UNION THAT WILL NEVER BE DIVORCED."
Not only is the manufacture, possession, sale and barter of dynamite perfectly legal and legitimate, but, as events are turning, I recommend to all sensible persons to lay in a goodly supply. Since two or three persons of humane and progressive views can no longer get together without the risk of being clubbed by police bullies, I am of the opinion that a pinch of dynamite is a much more desirable commodity to carry around in your vest pocket, than a pinch of snuff. Let no man use it illegally! Let no man resist the law of this land, anywhere! I take pleasure in putting myself "on record" herewith, as a friend of law and order. But, I charge you, fellow-citizens, and any of you, or all of you, if you find yourself assailed by a murderous outlaw of any kind or name, or under any sort of pretext, to resist the said attack, as promptly and effectively as possible. To do so is your legal right as has already been shown in these pages by quotations from M. SALOMON and other eminent authorities. To judge by the wholly illegal and unwarrantable aggressions of the police at the Haymarket, Union Hill and Union Square, it is high time for the people of this land to realize that they are entitled to resist all illegal assaults by any means in their power. If Gary and his aids see aught in this advice to "kick against," they can send me their views by mail or telegraph at their earliest convenience, and I will incorporate the same in the next edition of this work.
The postal card referred to reads as follows
"D. S. (presumably, Dear Spies): — I had scarcely mailed my letter 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 therefore 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."
It is needless to say that these communications have no relation whatever to the eight condemned anarchists. They are even without point or consequence. No one can undertake to say just what they refer to, or what they are designed to communicate. Their admission into the case was manifestly improper, and the "ruling" which admitted them was, of course, another illustration of "Judge" Gary's willingness to resort to any possible illegality to accomplish the murder of his victims.
24. — The whole Prosecution is an Imposture, Fraud, and Pretense.
The accused were indicted for the murder of a certain policeman, in whose death they had no proved agency. But they were not tried under the indictment, nor convicted under it, nor could they have possibly been legally convicted of the crime with which they stand charged.
To begin with, as I have already shown, the killing of Degan was not murder under the statute, so far as the circumstances of the killing are known or probable.
There are two theories in this matter, and I propose to briefly state the facts they both cover.
The first of these theories is that the bomb was thrown by some workingman or other citizen "in the peace of the people" — to quote the statute.
If such is the case, the bomb-thrower was acting in legitimate self-defence, and was guilty of no crime whatever.
The second theory is that the bomb-throwing is the result of some plot, mistake, or accident, on the part of some Pinkerton or other hired assassin.
All I need insist upon here is that the prisoners have had no connection with the bomb-throwing, and are in no wise responsible for it. The fact is as palpable as any fact can be, and the indictment is accordingly a fraud, an illegallity, and an arrant imposture, on its very face.
The fact that the accused were convicted as anarchists, and not as murderers, is apparent upon every square inch of the procedure.
This fact has been avowed by Grinnell and his aids, and by many scores of their aiders and abettors.
No one can doubt, therefore, that the Judicature of Illinois has been wantonly prostituted by these perjurers to the extent of accusing innocent men of murder, and then convicting them of being anarchists. This is the whole truth of the matter.
"But there was another line of testimony received over our objection, embracing a vast amount of matter that we claim was improperly admitted. There was evidence admitted of things that were not shown by the testimony in any way to be in pursuance of the aliened conspiracy, or to constitute part of the res gestae. Let me single out now one illustration which the gentlemen have conveniently omitted to remember. Let me tell you in sober earnest what occurred upon this trial toward the close of it. Some witnesses were called, and there were put upon the table in front of the jury three or four tin cans, that would hold, perhaps, a pint and a half apiece, fitted with a screw top, apparently. As preliminary to doing anything more with these cans than the parading of them around, so the jury could get a look at them, and think there was something mysterious and strange about them, there was testimony introduced that those tin cans were found under a sidewalk, out in a portion of the city about a mile away from where any of these defendants lived; more than a mile away from any of their usual meeting places; and not shown to have been within a mile of where any of these alleged conspirators, nor even any members of the International, ever resided or were even seen; found under a sidewalk, four of these cans. When? A month after the Haymarket meeting! Think of it! They proposed to offer the cans. We objected. We said to the court, there is nothing connecting those cans with any of these defendants, nor even showing any connection of those things with anybody that was ever connected with the defendants. Now, upon what ground do you suppose the court let those in? Upon the ground that something of that sort was described in Most's book! A book that the prosecution had been in possession of for at least a month; a book which they had gone to the labor of translating into English for the first time in its history; a book whose teachings the state has done more to disseminate than was ever done before! An infamous book! We admit it. But merely because Johann Most described a can, was such a can admissible in evidence against these men, on trial for their lives, without any testimony showing that they ever saw such a can, that they ever read such a description, that they ever touched such a can, or had anything to do with it?
"What was this can, or what was its materiality? It was what may be called an inflammable bomb, put in English. This screw top was provided with a little vial. The can was filled with benzine, or some other inflammable substance. The vial was filled with powder. The vial was stopped with a sponge, the sponge saturated with kerosene. The theory was, that one of those cans could be set down in a place, the sponge lighted, and the fellow who lighted it quietly get away some little distance, by which time it would burn to the powder, the powder would explode and burst the vial, and the bonzine would ignite and set the building on fire. Here was that most vulgar of all appeals, an appeal to the property prejudices and passions of the jury, against men who were not, by the evidence, connected directly or remotely, in any manner, with such a structure — simply because Johann Most described it! Non constat, but that these cans were manufactured, and put where they were found, by detectives, after the 4th of May. There was time enough intervening. It would not take very long to make those four tin cans. You or I could go to a tinshop and have it done inside of twenty-four hours. Those cans found under that sidewalk, not traced in any way to the defendants, or any of them, a month after the Haymarket; no pretense whatever that they had ever engaged in any such manufacture; were allowed to be offered in evidence against these defendants and all of them in support of the THEORY that there was a plan here to burn the city!! Now, if there was a plan to burn the city, was that competent to be proved in support of the claim that there was a plan also to kill Degan? If the introduction of these cans had any effect or tendency, it was to prove a conspiracy to burn, not necessarily to murder. They were therefore irrelevant, independently of the fact that they were not found in the defendants' possession, without some other evidence than this record discloses; but when the proof showed simply that thay were found under a sidewalk a month afterward, and a mile away from the residence of any of the defendants, I venture the assertion that there never before in the history of civilization was such a mockery of justice, as was involved in the admission of those tin cans before that jury, in a case where the lives of seven men were at stake." — Capt. W. P. BLACK, Argument before the Supreme Court of Illinois.
Extract from the Catalogue.
THE COMING DISSOLUTION OF THE NATIONS.
Why they are going the way of ancient Egypt, Assyria and Rome. 25 representative Portraits of the current "Man" taken from real life. Cloth, gilt top, $1.00.
A superficial survey of human affairs would seem to suggest that we are civilized, and that our civilization is progressive. But on looking further we find ourselves confronted by a bottomless abyss. To possess any real claim to civilization, men must be humane, reasonable, adn even enlightened. Their "government" — if they are still so childish as to need one — must be an incarnation and exponent of natural equity. They must occupy themselves with the real business of existence. They must e in harmony with Nature. The basis of their belief must be absoluted fact and truth. Their business relations must be predicated upon absolute justice and bortherhood. None of these conditions are realized upon our globe, nor are they likely to be realized at present. The current generation, like its predecessors, in all ages, will doubtless fail, as a whole, to recognize and secure the great natural and essential basis of progress and development. There is scarcely a sign of real civilization in anything we see around us. Man himself is deteriorating, as is abundantly proven in this volume. The result to which all nations are rapidly tending is dissolution, decline and extinction. In a word, they are going the way of all former empires, states and kingdoms, and for precisely the same reason, namely, the failure of man to place himself in harmony with Nature, or with the real laws of human progress and development.
THE EARTH AS THE KEY OF THE UNIVERSE.
80 Illustrations. 8vo. Cloth, gilt top, $2.00. Sheep, $2.50. Half Calf, $3.50.
448. The Earth not the first World. Showing that Planets like our Globe have always existed. 8 Illustrations. Paper $0.30. Cloth, gilt top, $0.50.
449. The Earth not the last World. Showing that Worlds like Ours will always exist. 7 Illustrations. Paper $0.30. Cloth, gilt top, $0.50.
450. The Earth not the most important World. Comparing our Globe with some of its sister Planets. 10 Illustrations. Paper, $0.30. Cloth, gilt top, $0.50.
451. The Earth not the only inhabited World. Showing that the Purpose of every World is to possess Inhabitants. 6 Illustrations. Paper, $0.30. Cloth, gilt top, $0.50.
452. The Earth's Place in the Solar System. 34 Illustrations. Paper, $0.60. Cloth, gilt top, $1.00.
453. The Earth's Solidarity with the Universe. The Earth a LInk in the universal and eternal Chain of Facts, Events, and Manifestations which constituted the Universe, or a Feature in a Sequence of Evolutions dating from all Eternity into all Eternity. 7 Illustrations. Paper, $0.30. Cloth, gilt top, $0.50.
454. The Facts and Truths of the Earth the Facts and Truths of all other Planets. Showing that the Features and Characteristics of our Globe, including its natural Developments and historical Occurrences, are of the same general Type as the Features and Characteristics of all other Worlds. 8 Illustrations. Paper, $0.30. Cloth, gilt top, $0.50.