The Programme of the Defense—Mayor Harrison’s Memories—Simonson’s
Story—A Graphic Account—A Bird’s-eye View of Dynamite—Ferguson
and the Bomb—“As Big as a Base Ball”—The Defense Theory of the
Riot—Claiming the Police were the Aggressors—Dr. Taylor and the
Bullet-marks—The Attack on Gilmer’s Veracity—Varying Testimony—The
Witnesses who Appeared.
MR. MOSES SALOMON opened the case for the Anarchists on Saturday, July
31. He proceeded to state that the defendants had steadily refused to
believe that any man on the jury would be willing to convict any of the
defendants because of being an Anarchist or a Socialist.
“Mr. Grinnell,” said Mr. Salomon, “failed to state to you that he had a
person by whom he could prove who threw the bomb, and he never expected
to make this proof until he found that without this proof he was unable
to maintain this prosecution against these defendants; and it was as
this case neared the prosecution end of it that the State suddenly
changed front and produced a professional tramp and a professional
liar, as we will show you, to prove that one of these defendants was
connected with the throwing of it. They then recognized, as we claimed
and now claim, that that is the only way they can maintain their case
here.”
Mr. Salomon next directed the attention of the jury to the charge
against the defendants and said:
“As I told you a moment ago, they are not charged with Anarchy;
they are not charged with Socialism; they are not charged with the
fact that Anarchy and Socialism is dangerous or beneficial to the
community; but, according to the law under which we are now acting,
a charge specific in its nature must be made against them, and that
alone must be sustained, and it is the duty of the jury to weigh
the evidence as it bears upon that charge; and upon no other point
can they pay attention to it. Now, gentlemen, the charge here is
shown by this indictment. This is the accusation. This is what the
case involves, and upon this the defendants and the prosecution must
either stand or fall. This indictment is for the murder of Mathias
J. Degan. It is charged that each one of these defendants committed
the crime, each defendant individually; and it is charged in a number
of different ways. Now, I desire to call your attention to the law
governing this indictment and to read it to you; and I am presenting
the law to you now, gentlemen, so that you can understand how we view
this case and how the evidence is affected by what the law is.”
Mr. Salomon then read the law touching murder and the statute on
accessories and explained:
“The law says, no matter whether these defendants advised generally
the use of dynamite in the purpose which they claimed to carry out,
and sought to carry out, yet if none of these defendants advised
the throwing of that bomb at the Haymarket, they cannot be held
responsible for the action of others at other times and other places.
What does the evidence introduced here tend to show? It may occur to
some of you, gentlemen, to ask: ‘What, then, can these defendants
preach the use of dynamite? May they be allowed to go on and urge
people to overturn the present government and the present condition of
society without being held responsible for it and without punishment?
Is there no law to which these people can be subjected and punished
if they do this thing?’ There is, gentlemen, but it is not and never
has been murder, and if they are amenable, as the evidence introduced
by the prosecution tends to show, it is under another and a different
law, and no attempt on the part of the prosecution to jump the wide
chasm which separates these two offenses can be successful unless it
is done out of pure hatred, malice, ill-will, or because of prejudice.
The law protects every citizen. It punishes every guilty man, and
according to the measure of his crime; no more and no less. If a man
be guilty of conspiracy, or if he be guilty of treason, he is liable
to punishment for that offense, and not for a higher one. This is what
the people of the State of Illinois have said, and that is their law.
That is what they want enforced, and that is what I stand here for as
the advocate of these defendants. I claim for them, and for the entire
people of this State, that the law shall be applied as it is found,
and as they have directed it to be enforced. Now, what is the statute
on conspiracy, of which these defendants may be guilty, if they are
guilty of anything?”
[Illustration: MOSES SALOMON.
From a Photograph.]
He next read the law with reference to conspiracy and proceeded:
“The proof in this case, with the exception of Gilmer’s testimony,
showed and shows only that the State has a case within those sections
which I have last read to you, and no other, if they have a case
against them at all. Now, gentlemen, I have read to you the section of
the statute relating to accessories. As I have told you before, it is
only the perpetrator and abettor in the perpetration of a crime who,
under the decision of almost every supreme court in the United States
and England, can be held.”
Mr. Salomon touched on one or two minor points and concluded as follows:
“That view of the law, that they must be proven to be accessories
to the crime, is the one point only upon which the prosecution
can sustain their case, and is the only one upon which this case
must proceed, according to our view. Now, these defendants are not
criminals; they are not robbers; they are not burglars; they are
not common thieves; they descend to no small criminal act. On the
contrary, this evidence shows conclusively that they are men of broad
feelings of humanity, that their only desire has been, and their
lives have been consecrated to, the betterment of their fellow-men.
They have not sought to take the life of any man, of any individual,
to maliciously kill or destroy any person, nor have they sought to
deprive any man of his property for their own benefit. They have
not sought to get McCormick’s property for themselves; they have
not sought to get Marshall Field’s property for themselves, and to
deprive Marshall Field of it feloniously, but they have endeavored and
labored to establish a different social system. It is true they have
adopted means, or _wanted_ to adopt means that were not approved of by
all mankind. It is true that their methods were dangerous, perhaps;
but then they should have been stopped at their inception. We shall
expect to prove to you, gentlemen, that these men have stood by the
man who has the least friends; that they have endeavored to better
the condition of the laboring man. The laboring men have few friends
enough. They have no means, without the combination and assistance of
their fellow-men, to better their condition, and it was to further
that purpose and to raise them above constant labor and constant toil
and constant worry and constant fret, and to have their fellow-men
act and be as human beings and not as animals, that these defendants
have consecrated their lives and energies. If it was in pursuance
of that, wrought up, perhaps, through frequent failures and through
the constant force exercised against them, that they came to the
conclusion that it was necessary to use force against force, we know
not, and we do not expect to prove nor to deny that these defendants
advocated the use of force, nor do we now intend to apologize for
anything they have said, nor to excuse their acts. It is neither the
place nor the time for counsel in this case, nor of the gentlemen
of the jury, to either excuse the acts of these defendants nor to
encourage them. With that we have here nothing to do. Our object is
simply to show that these defendants are not guilty of the murder
with which they are charged in this indictment. But the issue is
forced upon us to say whether it was right or wrong, and whether they
had the right to advocate the bettering of their fellow-men. As Mr.
Grinnell said, he wanted to hang Socialism and Anarchy; but twelve
men nor twelve hundred nor twelve thousand can stamp out Anarchy nor
root out Socialism, no more than they can Democracy or Republicanism,
that lie within the heart and within the head. Under our forms of
government every man has the right to believe and the right to express
his thoughts, whether they be inimical to the present institutions or
whether they favor them; but if that man, no matter what he advocates
or who he be, whether Democrat, Republican, Socialist or Anarchist,
kill and destroy human life deliberately and feloniously, that man,
whether high or low, is amenable to criminal justice, and must be
punished for his crime, and for no other.
“Now, what was the object of these defendants, as they are charged, in
being so bloodthirsty? Their purpose was to change society, to bring
into force and effect their Socialistic and Anarchistic ideas. Were
they right or were they wrong, or have we nothing to do with it? As
I told you, they had the right to express their ideas. They had the
right. They had the right to gain converts, to make Anarchists and
Socialists, but whether Socialism or Anarchy shall ever be established
never rested with these defendants, never rested in a can of dynamite
or in a dynamite bomb. It rests with the great mass of people, with
the people of Chicago, of Illinois, of the United States, of the
world. If they, the people, want Anarchy, want Socialism, if they want
Democracy or Republicanism, they can and they will inaugurate it.
But the people, also, will allow a little toleration of views. Now,
these defendants claim that Socialism is a progressive social science,
and it will be a part of the proof which you will have to determine.
Must the world stand as we found it when we were born, or have we a
right to show our fellow-men a better way, a nobler life, a better
condition? That is what these defendants claim, if they are forced
beyond the issue in this case.... In furtherance of that plan, what
have these defendants done? Have they murdered many people? What was
their plan when they counseled dynamite? They intended to use dynamite
in furtherance of the general revolution; never, never against any
individual. We will show you that it was their purpose, as the proof,
I think, partly shows already, that when a general revolution or a
general strike was inaugurated, when they were attacked, that then,
in fact, while carrying out the purposes of that strike or that
revolution, that then they should use dynamite, and not until then.
If it is unlawful to conspire to carry out that thing, these men
must be held for that thing. We shall show you that these men, in
carrying out their plan for the bettering of the condition of the
workingmen, inaugurated the eight-hour movement. They inaugurated the
early-closing movement. They inaugurated every movement that tended to
alleviate the condition of the workingman and allow him a greater time
to his family, for mutual benefit. That is what these defendants set
up for a defense. That is what they claim was their right to do, and
that is what they claim they did do, and they did nothing more.
“Now, gentlemen, we don’t say that we desire to go into this proof,
because we think it has nothing to do with this case, if our theory
is correct; but if we are forced to show why they did these things it
is simply to convince you that their objects were not for robbery,
not for stealing, not to gain property for themselves, and not to
maliciously or willfully destroy any man’s good name or his property
interests.
“We expect to show you, further, that these defendants never
conspired, nor any one of them, to take the life of any single
individual at any time or place; that they never conspired or plotted
to take, at this time or at any other time, the life of Mathias Degan
or any number of policemen, except in self-defense while carrying out
their original purpose. We expect, further, to show you that on the
night of the 4th of May these defendants had assembled peaceably,
that the purpose of the meeting was peaceable, that its objects were
peaceable, that they delivered the same harangue as before, that the
crowd listened, and that not a single act transpired there, previous
to the coming of the policemen, by which any man in the audience could
be held amenable to law. They 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 incidentally discuss what they
deemed outrages at McCormick’s. No man expected that a bomb would be
thrown; no man expected that any one would be injured at that meeting;
but while some of these 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, intending to destroy
the life of every man that stood upon that market square. That seems
terrible, gentlemen, but that is the information which we have and
which we expect to show you. We expect to show you further, gentlemen,
that the crowd did not fire, that not a single person fired a single
shot at the police officers. We expect to show you that Mr. Fielden
did not have on that night, and never had in his life, a revolver;
that he did not fire, and that that portion of the testimony here is
wrong. We expect to show you further, gentlemen, that the witness
Gilmer, who testified to having seen Spies light the match which
caused the destruction coming from the bomb, is a professional and
constitutional liar; that no man in the city of Chicago who knows him
will believe him under oath, and, indeed, I might almost say that
it would scarcely need even a witness to show the falsity of his
testimony, because it seems to me that it must fall of its own weight.
We expect to show you, gentlemen, that Thompson was greatly mistaken;
that on that night Schwab never saw or talked with Mr. Spies; that he
was at the Haymarket early in the evening, but that he left before the
meeting began and before he saw Mr. Spies on that evening at all. We
expect to show that Mr. Parsons, so far from thinking anything wrong,
and Fischer, were quietly seated at Zepf’s Hall, drinking, perhaps,
a glass of beer at the time the bomb exploded, and that it was as
great a surprise to them as it was to any of you. We expect to show
you that Engel was at home at the time the bomb exploded, and that he
knew nothing about it. With the whereabouts of Lingg you are already
familiar. It may seem strange why he was manufacturing bombs. The
answer to that is, he had a right to have his house full of dynamite.
He had a right to have weapons of all descriptions upon his premises,
and until he used them, or advised their use, and they were used in
pursuance of his advice, he is not liable any more than the man who
commits numerous burglaries, the man who commits numerous thefts, who
walks the streets, is liable to arrest and punishment only when he
commits an act which makes him amenable to law.
“I did not expect to address you concerning Mr. Neebe, and it is
unnecessary for me to make much comment on that, but we will show
you that Mr. Neebe did not know of this meeting, that he was not
present, that he was in no manner connected with it, and there is no
proof to show that he was. We will also prove to you, gentlemen, that
Mr. Fielden did not go down the alley, as some of the witnesses for
the State have testified, but that he went down Desplaines Street to
Randolph, and up Randolph, as, indeed, if my memory serves me right,
the statements made by Mr. Fielden immediately after the occurrence
already sufficiently show.
“Now, gentlemen, in conclusion, as I stated to you a moment ago,
we do not intend to defend against Socialism, we do not intend to
defend against Anarchism; we expect to be held responsible for that
only which we have done, and to be held in the manner pointed out
by law. Under the charge upon which these defendants are held under
this indictment, we shall prove to you, and I hope to your entire
satisfaction, that a case has not been made out against them. Whether
they be Socialists or whether they be Anarchists we hope will not
influence any one of you, gentlemen. Whatever they may have preached,
or whatever they may have said, or whatever may have been their
object, if it was not connected with the throwing of the bomb it is
your sworn testimony to acquit them. We expect to make all this proof,
and we expect such a result.”
On the Monday following, being the 2d of August, the defense began its
testimony. The first witness introduced was CARTER H. HARRISON, then
Mayor of Chicago. His evidence was as follows:
“I am Mayor of the city of Chicago since over seven years. On the
4th of May last I was present during a part of the Haymarket meeting
so-called. On the day before there was a riot at McCormick’s factory,
which was represented to me to have grown out of a speech made by
Mr. Spies. During the morning of the 4th I received information of
the issuance of a circular of a peculiar character and calling for a
meeting at the Haymarket that night. I directed the Chief of Police
that if anything should be said at that meeting that might call out a
recurrence of such proceedings as at McCormick’s factory, the meeting
should be dispersed. I believed that it was better for myself to be
there and disperse the meeting myself instead of leaving it to any
policeman. I went to the meeting for the purpose of dispersing it in
case I should feel it necessary for the safety of the city. I arrived
there about five minutes before eight. There was a large concourse of
people about the Haymarket, but it was so long before any speaking
commenced that probably two-thirds of the people there assembled left,
as it seemed to me. It was about half-past eight when the speaking
commenced and the meeting congregated around Crane’s building, or the
alley near it.
“Mr. Spies may have been speaking one or two minutes before I got near
enough to hear distinctly what he said. I judge I left the meeting
between 10 and 10:05 o’clock that night. I staid to hear Mr. Spies’
speech, and I heard all of Mr. Parsons’ up to the time I left, with
the exception of five or ten minutes, during which I went over to the
station. When I judged that Mr. Parsons was looking towards the close
of his speech I went over to the station, spoke to Capt. Bonfield,
and determined to go home, but instead of going immediately I went
back to hear a little more; staid there about five minutes longer and
then left. Within about twenty minutes from the time that I left the
meeting I heard the sound of the explosion of the bomb at my house.
While at the meeting I noticed that I was observed when I struck a
match to light my cigar and the full blaze showed my face. I thought
Mr. Spies had observed me, as the tone of his speech suddenly changed,
but that is mere conjecture. Prior to that change in the tone of Mr.
Spies’ speech I feared his remarks would force me to disperse the
meeting. I was there for that purpose; that is to say, it was my own
determination to do it against the will of the police. After that
occurrence the general tenor of Spies’ speech was such that I remarked
to Capt. Bonfield that it was tame.”
“Did anything transpire in the address of either Spies or Parsons,
after the incident of the lighting of your cigar to which you have
referred, that led you to conclude to take any action in reference to
the dispersing of the meeting?”
The State objected to an answer, and the objection was sustained.
“I did in fact take no action at the meeting about dispersing it.
There were occasional replies from the audience, as ‘Shoot him,’
‘Hang him’ or the like, but I do not think, from the directions in
which they came, here and there and around, that there were more
than two or three hundred actual sympathizers with the speakers.
Several times cries of ‘Hang him’ would come from a boy in the
outskirts, and the crowd would laugh. I felt that a majority of the
crowd were idle spectators, and the replies nearly as much what might
be called ‘guying’ as absolute applause. Some of the replies were
evidently bitter; they came from immediately around the stand. The
audience numbered from eight hundred to one thousand. The people in
attendance, so far as I could see during the half hour before the
speaking commenced, were apparently laborers or mechanics, and the
majority of them not English-speaking people—mostly Germans. There
was no suggestion made by either of the speakers looking toward
calling for the immediate use of force or violence toward any person
that night; if there had been I should have dispersed them at once.
After I came back from the station Parsons was still speaking, but
evidently approaching a close. It was becoming cloudy and looked like
threatening rain, and I thought the thing was about over. There was
not one-fourth of the crowd that had been there during the evening
listening to the speakers at that time. In the crowd I heard a great
many Germans use expressions of their being dissatisfied with bringing
them there and having this speaking. When I went to the station
during Parsons’ speech, I stated to Capt. Bonfield that I thought the
speeches were about over; that nothing had occurred yet or looked
likely to occur to require interference, and that he had better issue
orders to his reserves at the other stations to go home. Bonfield
replied that he had reached the same conclusion from reports brought
to him, but he thought it would be best to retain the men in the
station until the meeting broke up, and then referred to a rumor that
he had heard that night which he thought would make it necessary for
him to keep his men there, which I concurred in. During my attendance
of the meeting I saw no weapons at all upon any person.”
On cross-examination Mr. Harrison stated:
“The rumor that I referred to was related to me by Capt. Bonfield
immediately after my reaching the station. Bonfield told me he had
just received information that the Haymarket meeting, or a part of
it, would go over to the Milwaukee and St. Paul freight-houses, then
filled with ‘scabs,’ and blow it up. There was also an intimation that
this meeting might be held merely to attract the attention of the
police to the Haymarket, while the real attack, if any, should be made
that night on McCormick’s. Those were the contingencies in regard to
which I was listening to those speeches. In listening to the speeches,
I concluded it was not an organization to destroy property that night,
and went home. My order to Bonfield was that the reserves held at the
other stations might be sent home, because I learned that all was
quiet in the district where McCormick’s factory is situated. Bonfield
replied he had already ordered the reserves in the other stations to
go in their regular order.
“Bonfield was there, detailed by the Chief of Police, in control of
that meeting, together with Capt. Ward. I don’t remember of hearing
Parsons call ‘To arms! To arms! To arms!’ When I speak of a rumor in
regard to a possible attack upon McCormick’s, the fact is it was not a
rumor that came from others, but rather a fear or apprehension on my
own part, and it was suggested first by myself that this might be the
aim of this meeting. There was a direct statement by Mr. Bonfield to
me that he had heard the rumor about the freight-houses.”
BARTON SIMONSON, a traveling salesman for E. Rothschild & Bros.,
wholesale clothing, concluded, after taking supper at his mother’s
house, No. 50 West Ohio Street, to take in the Haymarket meeting,
and he went there and remained throughout the proceedings, until the
explosion of the bomb. He testified:
“The speakers were northeast from me, in front of Crane Bros’.
building, a few feet north of the alley. I remember the alley
particularly. As far as I remember Spies’ speech, he said: ‘Please
come to order. This meeting is not called to incite any riot.’ He then
said that McCormick had charged him with the murder of the people at
the meeting the night before; that Mr. McCormick was a liar. McCormick
was himself responsible. Somebody had opposed his speaking at the
meeting near McCormick’s because he was a Socialist. The people he
spoke to were good Christian, church-going people. While he was
speaking, McCormick’s people had come out. Some of the men and boys
had started for them, and had had some harmless sport throwing stones
into the windows, etc. Then he said that some workingmen were shot at
and killed by the police. That is as far as my memory goes.
“Parsons illustrated that the capitalists got the great bulk of the
profit out of everything done. I remember in his speech he said: ‘To
arms! To arms! To arms!’ but in what connection I cannot remember.
Somebody in the crowd said, ‘Shoot’ or ‘Hang Gould,’ and he says, ‘No,
a great many will jump up and take his place. What Socialism aims at
is not the death of individuals, but of the system.’
“Fielden spoke very loud, and as I had never attended a Socialistic
meeting before in my life, I thought they were a little wild. Fielden
spoke about a Congressman from Ohio who had been elected by the
workingmen and confessed that no legislation could be enacted in favor
of the workingmen; consequently he said there was no use trying to
do anything by legislation. After he had talked awhile a dark cloud
with cold wind came from the north. Many people had left before, but
when the cloud came a great many people left. Somebody said, ‘Let’s
adjourn,’—to some place, I can’t remember the name of the place.
Fielden said he was about through, there was no need of adjourning.
He said two or three times, ‘Now, in conclusion,’ or something like
that, and I became impatient. Then I heard a commotion and a good deal
of noise in the audience, and somebody said, ‘Police.’ I looked south
and saw a line of police when it was at about the Randolph Street
car-tracks. The police moved along until the front of the column got
about up to the speakers’ wagon. I heard somebody near the wagon say
something about dispersing. I saw some persons upon the wagon. I could
not tell who they were. About the time that somebody was giving that
command to disperse, I distinctly heard two words coming from the
vicinity of the wagon or from the wagon. I don’t know who uttered
them. The words were ‘peaceable meeting.’ That was a few seconds
before the explosion of the bomb. As the police marched through the
crowd the latter went to the sidewalks on either side, some went
north, some few went on Randolph Street east, and some west. I did not
hear any such exclamation as ‘Here come the bloodhounds of the police;
you do your duty and I’ll do mine,’ from the locality of the wagon
or from Mr. Fielden. I heard nothing of that sort that night. At the
time the bomb exploded I was still in my position upon the stairs.
A reporter talked to me while I was on those stairs. I remember he
went down, and just before the police came he ran up past me again.
There was no pistol fired by any person upon the wagon before the bomb
exploded. No pistol shots anywhere before the explosion of the bomb.
Just after the command to disperse had been given, I saw a lighted
fuse or something—I didn’t know what it was at the time—come up from
a point nearly twenty feet south of the south line of Crane’s alley,
from about the center of the sidewalk on the east side of the street,
from behind some boxes. I am positive it was not thrown from the
alley. I first noticed it about six or seven feet in the air, a little
above a man’s head. It went in a northwest course and up about fifteen
feet from the ground, and fell about the middle of the street. The
explosion followed almost immediately, possibly within two or three
seconds. Something of a cloud of smoke followed the explosion. After
the bomb exploded there was pistol-shooting. From my position I could
distinctly see the flashes of the pistols. My head was about fifteen
feet from the ground. There might have been fifty to one hundred and
fifty pistol shots. They proceeded from about the center of where the
police were. I did not observe either the flashes of pistol shots or
hear the report of any shots from the crowd upon the police prior to
the firing by the police. I staid in my position from five to twenty
seconds. There was shooting going on in every direction, as well up
as down. I could see from the flashes of the pistols that the police
were shooting up. The police were not only shooting at the crowd, but
I noticed several of them shoot just as they happened to throw their
arms. I concluded that my position was possibly more dangerous than
down in the crowd, and then I ran down to the foot of the stairs, ran
west on the sidewalk on Randolph Street a short distance, and then on
the road. A crowd was running in the same direction. I had to jump
over a man lying down, and I saw another man fall in front of me about
one hundred and fifty to two hundred feet west of Desplaines Street.
I took hold of his arm and wanted to help him, but the firing was so
lively behind me that I just let go and ran. I was to the rear of the
crowd running west, the police still behind us. There were no shots
from the direction to which I was running.
“I am not and have never been a member of any Socialistic party or
association. Walking through the crowd before the meeting, I noticed
from their appearance that the meeting was composed principally of
ordinary workingmen, mechanics, etc. The audience listened, and once
in awhile there would be yells of ‘Shoot him!’ ‘Hang him!’ from the
audience. I didn’t find any difference in the bearing of the crowd
during Fielden’s speech from what it was during Parsons’ or Spies’.
In the course of the conversation which I had with Capt. Bonfield
at the station before the meeting that night, I asked him about the
trouble in the southwestern part of the city. He says, ‘The trouble
there is that these’—whether he used the word Socialists or strikers,
I don’t know—‘get their women and children mixed up with them and
around them and in front of them, and we can’t get at them. I would
like to get three thousand of them in a crowd, without their women and
children’—and to the best of my recollection he added, ‘and I will
make short work of them.’ I noticed a few women and children at the
bottom of the steps where I was. I don’t think there were any in the
body of the crowd around the wagon. At the time the police came up
there, I did not observe any women or children.”
On cross-examination Mr. Simonson said:
“I have several times visited police stations in the city. I attended
a Salvation Army meeting on East Chicago Avenue, and I thought the
roughs there interrupted the meeting. I went across to see Capt.
Schaack two or three times about it. I was once at the Desplaines
Street Station and made complaint against a policeman for abusing
an old man, and one evening I brought there a fellow who asked me
for something to get him a lodging on the West Side, and I asked the
police to take care of him. And another time, when I heard about the
way people who had received lodging at the station were treated there,
I went to the station to satisfy myself what was the fact about the
matter, and Capt. Ward told me a different story.
“I went to the Haymarket meeting out of curiosity to know what kind
of meetings they held, believing that the newspapers ordinarily
misrepresented such things. I had my impression that the papers had
misrepresented the meetings of workingmen, not from anything definite
I had, but from having seen reports in papers of occurrences I had
seen, and, as a rule, they were one-sided. I went to the meeting to
satisfy myself—to prove or disprove my impression. That was one of my
reasons for going there. At that conversation with Mr. Bonfield that
I testified to, nobody else was present. It was in the main office of
Desplaines Street Station. Capt. Ward, I believe, was walking around
at the time. There was a good deal of noise in the police station, and
we talked quietly. I believe no one else could hear it. I believe it
was last fall that I visited the North Side police station in regard
to the Salvation Army again. I visited about a half dozen of their
meetings. I saw Capt. Schaack at the station. I did not ask him to
arrest any people who had disturbed the meeting, nor to arrest the
Salvation Army people. I told him that in going to the meeting I
heard somebody swear a very vicious oath and curse the Salvation Army
people. The police were standing within hearing, and the crowd joined
in the laugh. I told him it seemed to me that the police ought not to
allow anything of that kind. The windows of the Salvation Army were
filled with boards. I told Capt. Schaack that it seemed not right that
in front of the police station they should do any such thing. He said
he would order the boards taken down, and if they wanted protection
they could get it. I went another time to Capt. Schaack when some
of the Salvation Army people were confined in the Bridewell. Mayor
Harrison had given me a note to Mr. Felton, telling him to let them
go, and I went to Capt. Schaack to tell him that.
“My recollection is that Fielden said: ‘The law is your enemy. Kill
it, stab it, throttle it, or it will throttle you.’ When the police
came, I looked at them and at the crowd. I watched both to some
extent. I don’t know how many lines of police there were. When I saw
them at the Randolph Street tracks, I saw a straight line of police
filling the whole street. There was more than one column, but I
don’t know how many. I was at that time contemplating the question
of my own safety. I was looking in the direction of the wagon at
the time the bomb was thrown. I didn’t see the officer command the
meeting to disperse, but heard somebody, in some form, tell the
meeting to disperse. The only words I remember to have heard were:
‘Command—meeting—to disperse.’ During the delivery of that, or right
after it, I heard somebody say something, of which I caught the two
words, ‘Peaceable meeting.’ The first column of police were standing
on about a line with the north line of the alley. I don’t know where
the other columns were with reference to where the bomb exploded. I
only saw the police in a large body march out. It looked to me at
the time as if the bomb struck the ground and exploded just a little
behind the front line of police. I saw policemen behind the first line
of police, but I did not distinguish the columns. I don’t know whether
the bomb exploded directly behind the front line, or between the
second and the third or third and fourth lines.
“The firing began from the police, right in the center of the street.
I did not see a single shot fired from the crowd on either side of the
street. I didn’t know what became of the men in the wagon. I don’t
think there were any shots fired in the neighborhood of the wagon.
I was not looking at the wagon all the time, but was looking over
the scene in general. If you got up on a place as high as I was, and
it was dark, you could see every flash; the flashes show themselves
immediately when they are out of the revolver, on a dark night. The
scene impressed itself so upon me that now, looking back, I see it
as I did then. Looking at where the bomb exploded, I could not help
looking toward the wagon, too. My impression is, the boxes on the
opposite side of the street were from two to four feet high. I have
been at the Haymarket to look over the ground, several times since
the 4th of May, so as to get an idea of the dimensions of the thing.
I went there of my own volition; nobody asked me to go there. It was
on my way to mother’s house. I am employed by Rothschild Brothers, on
commission.”
When this witness returned to the store, the firm by whom he was
employed at once discharged him, saying that he was one of the worst
Anarchists in the city and they had no use for him.
JOHN FERGUSON, a resident of Chicago for seventeen years, and in
the cloak business, passed the Haymarket, and, noticing a crowd
there, stopped to listen to the speeches. He was accompanied by an
acquaintance. They stood at the Randolph Street crossing and listened
about fifteen minutes to Parsons’ speech. Said the witness:
“We could hear all of the speaking plainly, from where we stood, as
the speakers were facing Randolph Street. During his speech, when he
mentioned Jay Gould’s name, somebody said: ‘Throw him in the lake;’
and a man standing almost in front of me took his pipe from his mouth
and halloaed out: ‘Hang him.’ Parsons replied that would do no good;
a dozen more Jay Goulds would spring up in his place. ‘Socialism aims
not at the life of individuals, but at the system.’ I didn’t hear
any other responses from the crowd than those I mentioned. After
Parsons concluded, another gentleman got up and began speaking about
Congressman Foran. After a few minutes I saw quite a storm cloud come
up. Some one interrupted the speaker with the remark: ‘There is a
prospect of immediate storm, and those of you who wish to continue
the meeting can adjourn to’—some hall, I don’t remember the name
of it; but the speaker, resuming, said: ‘I haven’t but two or three
words more to say, and then you can go home.’ I walked away from the
meeting, across Randolph Street to the southwest corner. There I saw
the police rush out from the station in a body. They whirled into the
street and came down very rapidly toward us. The gentleman in command
of the police was swinging his arm and told them to hurry up. After
they had passed us we turned to walk south toward the station, and
we heard a slight report, something like breaking boards, or like
slapping a brick down on the pavement. We turned, and we had just
about faced around, looking at the crowd, when we saw a fire flying
out about six or eight feet above the heads of the crowd and falling
down pretty near the center of the street. It was all dark for almost
a second, perhaps, then there was a deafening roar. Then almost
instantly we saw flashes from toward the middle of the street, south
of Randolph on Desplaines, and heard reports. That side of the street
where the crowd was was dark. At that time there did not appear to be
any light there. Then we hurried away. I did not see any flashes from
either side of the street. The majority of the crowd had gone away on
the appearance of the approaching storm. The crowd was very orderly,
as orderly a meeting as I ever saw anywhere in the street.
“It could not have been longer than five minutes from the time that
Fielden said, ‘We will be through in a short time,’ that the police
marched down the street. I am not a Socialist, nor an Anarchist, nor a
Communist; I don’t know anything about what those terms mean.”
LUDWIG ZELLER went to the meeting about a quarter past ten, and took a
position at a lamp-post near Crane’s alley. A few minutes thereafter
the police came, and when they passed him he heard the command of the
Captain, but heard no reply from anybody on the wagon or near the wagon.
“I turned and went south to Randolph Street, and in turning I saw a
light go through the air about six, or eight, or ten feet south of the
lamp. It went in a northwesterly direction, right into the middle of
the street and in the middle of the police; then I heard an explosion
and shooting, and I tried to get out, because there were a great many
men falling around me, and a few were crying. I turned the corner on
Randolph Street east toward Clinton. A great many people were running
in the same direction; men were falling before me and on the side of
me. I heard shooting immediately upon the explosion of the bomb. The
shots came from behind me while I ran. The shots came from the center
of the street, from north and northwest of me.
“On Sunday, May 2d, I was present at a meeting of the Central Labor
Union as a delegate from the Cigar-makers’ Union, No. 15. The
delegates of the Lumber-shovers’ Union at that meeting requested me,
as a member of the agitation committee, to send a speaker to a meeting
of the Lumber-shovers’ Union to be held on Monday, May 3d, at the
Black Road. They wanted a good speaker, who could keep the meeting
quiet and orderly. In the afternoon of the same day we had another
meeting of the Central Labor Union, at which Mr. Spies was present as
a reporter of the _Arbeiter-Zeitung_, and I told him personally to
go out to the meeting of the Lumber-shovers’ Union and speak in the
name of the Central Labor Union. The Central Labor Union is a body
composed of delegates from about twenty-five or thirty different labor
unions of the city. The Lumber-shovers’ Union is represented in the
Central Labor Union by delegates. There are from fifteen to sixteen
thousand laborers represented by those unions. The agitation committee
to which I belonged was for the purpose of organizing different
branches of trade who had no eight-hour organization at that time. I
did not notice any firing back from the crowd at the police, either on
Desplaines Street or Randolph Street.”
On cross-examination Mr. Zeller stated:
“Since last December, I don’t belong to any group. Prior to that I
was a member of the group ‘Freiheit,’ which used to meet on Sherman
Street. I only attended three meetings of that group. We had no
numbers. I am not an Anarchist. I am a Socialist.
“I was standing about five or six feet south of that alley. I saw the
fuse about eight or ten feet south of me. I didn’t know what it was.
I saw behind that fuse something dark, but I couldn’t distinguish
what it was. I was only looking where it was going. I cannot say what
kind of looking thing it was; it seems to me it was more round, and
about as big as a baseball. I cannot say who fired first after the
bomb went off. I can’t say exactly whether the police fired—I didn’t
see. On the wagon I only recognized Fielden. I was too far away from
the wagon, and it was dark. The gas-light was lighted. I didn’t see
anybody put it out.”
Carl Richter and F. Liebel gave practically similar stories of the
riot. The point which the defense seemed to wish to bring out in their
testimony was that the _gravamen_ lay rather with the police than with
the Anarchists. They swore that, although standing close to the famous
wagon, they had heard nothing about “bloodhounds.”
Along this line, also, was the evidence of Dr. James D. Taylor, who
gave a practically identical account of the explosion. This gentleman,
however, seemed to be certain that the police had attacked the crowd.
He had examined the scene of the riot on the next day and found that
the bullet marks on the buildings came chiefly from the direction from
which the police had charged. Quite a point was made by the Anarchists
upon the fact that a telegraph pole, which was said to have thoroughly
borne out Dr. Taylor’s testimony, had disappeared from the Haymarket.
It was insinuated that the prosecution had made away with this pole.
The fact was that the pole had been very prosaically, and in the common
course of business, removed by the telegraph company.
Frank Stenner, Joseph Gutscher and Frank Raab gave their memories
of the riot, all agreeing closely with the theory of the defense.
Wm. Urban, a compositor on the _Arbeiter-Zeitung_, after telling the
same story, swore that he saw something shining—which he believed
were revolvers—in the hands of the police as they came up toward the
meeting. The story of the explosion and the murder of the police,
from the Anarchists’ point of view, was also detailed by Wm. Gleason,
Wm. Sahl, Eberhard Hierzemenzel, Conrad Messer and August Krumm. This
last witness, Krumm, also testified that he was lighting his pipe, in
company with another man, in Crane’s alley, at the time that the bomb
was thrown, which, it will be remembered, Gilmer swore had been fired
in this alley by Spies and Schnaubelt—and Krumm declared that there
was nobody in that little thoroughfare then save his friend and himself.
This was not the only attack on Gilmer’s veracity. Lucius M. Moses had
known Harry Gilmer six or seven years and would not believe him on
oath. John O. Brixey stated on the stand that Gilmer’s reputation was
bad and that he was not worthy of belief. John Garrick, an ex-deputy
sheriff, knew Gilmer and would not believe him on oath. Mrs. B. P. Lee
was another who had no confidence in Gilmer’s truth and veracity.