The Argument for the Defendants—“Newspaper Evidence”—Bringing
about the Social Revolution—Arson and Murder—The Right to
Property—Evolution or Revolution—Dynamite as an Argument—The
Arsenal at 107 Fifth Avenue—Was it all Braggadocio?—An Open
Conspiracy—Secrets that were not Secrets—The Case Against the
State’s Attorney—A Good Word for Lingg—More About “Ruhe”—The
“Alleged” Conspiracy—Ingham’s Answer—The _Freiheit_ Articles—Lord
Coleridge on Anarchy—Did Fielden Shoot at the Police?—The Bombs
in the Seliger Family—Circumstantial Evidence in Metal—Chemical
Analysis of the Czar Bomb—The Crane’s Alley Enigma.
ON the morning of August 12, Mr. Sigismund Zeisler opened his argument
on behalf of the defendants. In view of the desperate condition of his
case Mr. Zeisler made an able and ingenious plea. His argument occupied
a whole day.
During the morning hour, he elaborated at some length upon his theory
of the law, and claimed that it was not only necessary to establish
that the defendants were parties to a conspiracy, but it was also
necessary to show that somebody who was a party to that conspiracy
had committed an act in pursuance of that conspiracy. Besides that it
was essential that the State should identify the principal. This, he
held, was the law of the State and of the land and of the Constitution
of the United States. If the principal is not identified, then no one
could be held as accessory. Upon this theory the case should stand or
fall, and it was for this reason that the defense endeavored to impeach
the testimony of Harry L. Gilmer, as that testimony, he maintained,
was vital for the case. Mr. Walker, he said, had stated that there
was a conspiracy to inaugurate the social revolution on the 1st of
May, citing in support of the claim the conversation between Spies
and Moulton at Grand Rapids, a resolution adopted at the West Twelfth
Street Turner Hall in October, 1885, and a conversation between Spies
and Reporter Wilkinson; but after showing the general drift of those
conversations and the tenor of the resolutions, Mr. Zeisler contended
that the reports of these matters in the newspapers at the time could
not be accepted as evidence, as newspapers are frequently given to
misstatements. Then, referring to the testimony given by the parties
named, he said:
“Now, what does that testimony amount to?—the testimony of Mr.
Moulton, the testimony of Mr. Wilkinson and the testimony in regard
to the resolutions adopted at the West Twelfth Street Turner Hall?
Nothing but the fact which is known to all Chicago, that the laboring
classes had combined to fight for an eight-hours’ work-day on and
after the 1st of May. That is one thing. And another thing, as far as
these resolutions are concerned, that it was resolved that, inasmuch
as the workingmen had to anticipate that the employers would call out
the police and militia against them, that they should arm themselves
to meet the employers by the same means that they, the employers, used.
“Now, further than that, Mr. Spies has spoken with Mr. Moulton and
with Mr. Wilkinson about the coming social revolution; and when asked
by Mr. Moulton, ‘How can you ever accomplish such a result? How can
you ever bring about the social revolution? Under what circumstances
can it be done?’ he says it can be done at a time when the workingmen
will be unemployed. Substantially the same thing was said to Mr.
Wilkinson at the time of that interview last January. Now, the State’s
Attorney and his associates argue to you that Spies said himself the
social revolution is coming. When is it coming? On the 1st of May. Can
that be taken literally?”
[Illustration: SIGISMUND ZEISLER.
From a Photograph.]
Mr. Zeisler held that in the progress of the civilized world a social
revolution was inevitable, not by the use of dynamite or force, but by
the peaceable forces at work among the people.
“Now, the attorneys for the State talk to you about the social
revolution, and try to make you believe that the social revolution
means bombs and dynamite, and killing and arson and murder and all
crimes that we know of. Mr. Fielden on the stand gave the proper
expression. Asked whether he believed in the revolution, he said:
‘Yes, in the evolutionary revolution.’ And I tell you, gentlemen of
the jury, this social revolution is coming—this social revolution in
the sense in which Webster defines the word Socialism.”
Mr. Zeisler next said that they had not denied that the defendants had
declared that they would head a procession to go and sack Marshall
Field’s or Kellogg’s store, because it was a fact, but asked if after
such advice any one of them had taken the lead in any such procession.
“No, sir,” he said. “They went and armed themselves with beer. That is
what they did.” On the night of the Board of Trade opening, Parsons and
Fielden proposed to lead the crowd to attack the groceries and clothing
houses, but what did they do? They gracefully retired into the room of
the _Arbeiter-Zeitung_ office and were interviewed by a reporter about
the terrible effects of a fulminating cap. Did any one come up and
inquire why they had not led the procession to those places? They did
not, as everybody understood what was meant. Mr. Zeisler continued:
“The listeners of these people are not very highly educated men.
They are laboring men who, raised in poor families, did not have the
benefits of a collegiate education; men who since that time worked at
manual labor from the early morning until the late evening. They could
not in the nature of things be very intelligent and highly cultivated
and educated. Now, Fielden and Parsons and Spies could not talk to
those men by stating to them abstract principles of social science;
but they told them: ‘Here, look at this state of things. There is a
man who owns three hundred million dollars; there is another man who
owns one hundred million. You starve, you get starvation wages. Is
that a just condition of things? Now, I tell you, Mr. Marshall Field,
who owns twenty-five millions of dollars, has no right to own them.
I tell you, you have a right to take from the property which he has
accumulated; part of it belongs to you. By natural, by equitable laws
this man is not entitled to live in a palace while you starve. I am
going to lead you down, if you want me, at once, and we will supply
our wants from there.’ What is that? Is that an offer to go there?
Is that an advice to go there? It is an illustration, as you give
it in school to a child which cannot understand abstract principles
of science. When they say to them: ‘You have a right to take from
Marshall Field and Kellogg,’ that means simply in the present state
of society that is allowed, but this is not a just and equitable
condition of affairs, and if it were as it ought to be you would
have a right to share with Marshall Field what he owns. Take it in
this common-sense view and don’t allow yourselves to be deceived by
declamations on the part of the attorneys for the State.
“Can a revolution be made? A revolution is a thing which develops
itself, but no single man nor a dozen of men can control the
inauguration of a revolution. The social revolution was fixed for the
1st of May! Just think of it! The social revolution, the revolution
by which the present state of proprietary conditions should be
changed all over the world, was to be inaugurated by Mr. Spies and
by Mr. Parsons and Mr. Fielden on the first day of May! Has ever a
ridiculous statement like that been made to an intelligent jury? But
all that is told you not because they believe it, but because they
want to make you blind to the real issues in this case, by telling
you that the social revolution was coming on the 1st of May, and that
Inspector Bonfield by his cry, ‘Fall in, fall in,’ on the night of
May 4th, saved the country from the social revolution; by that they
want to deceive you, they want to scare you, they want to show you
the monstrosity of these defendants. The social revolution to be
brought about or inaugurated by the throwing of a bomb on the night
of May 4th! What do you take these men for? Are they fools? Are they
children? Don’t you see what their ideal is, and the last aim and
end of theirs? It is the social revolution, yes, but not the social
revolution brought about by the throwing of dynamite. It is the social
revolution which will give the poor man more rights and which will do
away with pauperism. And the means are left to the future; but for the
present, in order that you may be strong and respected and be a power
in the land, arm yourselves, organize. That is the meaning of it.”
Mr. Zeisler then touched on the preparation of bombs and dynamite for
that social revolution, referring to the evidence showing the finding
of dynamite and bombs in the _Arbeiter-Zeitung_ office. He held that
Linnemeyer, who calcimined the closet in which the bag of dynamite was
found, had proven that there was nothing of the kind there when he
went in to search for a brush just immediately preceding the arrival
of the police. He also pointed to a contradiction in the testimony of
one of the officers that the dynamite was found on a floor below that
of the closet, in a room not used by Spies and not occupied by him at
the time of the police search, but in the counting-room, and then the
subsequent correction by the officer, on being recalled by the State,
that the package was found in Spies’ editorial room. In reference to
the bombs there was no secrecy, and Spies admitted that he had one more
bomb than the police had discovered. That information was volunteered
on the witness-stand, and the possession of those bombs explained.
“That is the testimony in regard to the arsenal of dynamite and
bombs and weapons of destruction at 107 Fifth Avenue, and Mr. Spies
bragged about three thousand revolutionists ready to throw bombs and
to annihilate the police. What was it? Braggadocio; the same object
which all these people had in advocating the use of force, in calling
upon workingmen to arm themselves, to organize, to buy weapons and all
that sort of thing; and the purpose for which they did it openly and
publicly was the same purpose Mr. Spies had in bragging that there
were three thousand revolutionists—to scare the capitalists, to scare
them into yielding to the demands of the workingmen, to try to induce
them to make concessions to the laboring classes, as Mr. Fielden said
in his speech on the night of May the 4th. And remember, gentlemen of
the jury, that it has been testified to by all the witnesses who spoke
in regard to the speeches and articles of these men, that they always
made the same argument. Now, Mr. Fielden made the same argument a
hundred times before. ‘The employers will not like to see dissatisfied
workingmen in the community, and the laborer can get some relief if
the employers find that there are dissatisfied workingmen in the
city.’ That was the reason why they told them, ‘Arm yourselves and
organize.’ That was the reason why Mr. Spies bragged about the three
thousand revolutionists and about the bombs ready to be thrown; that
was the reason why he told Mr. Wilkinson all about their plans.”
Mr. Zeisler ridiculed the idea that a social revolution was to have
been inaugurated with the dozens of bombs made by Lingg, and held there
had been no preparation for it. Coming to the question of conspiracy,
he said:
“What is a conspiracy? What were you used to understand by the word
conspiracy all your lifetime? Isn’t in the first place secrecy the
test of a conspiracy? Was there anything secret about the doings of
these men, or about their teachings and writings? When they vented
their feelings at 54 West Lake Street at the meeting of the American
group and told the people to go to Marshall Field’s and Kellogg’s, and
offered to head the procession, told them about their rights, told
them to use force, told them to arm themselves and to organize, the
next morning the daily press of the city of Chicago, which reaches
five hundred thousand people, and the State’s Attorney’s office, and
the Mayor’s office, and the office of every authority in the city of
Chicago, were informed of it.”
The speaker then proceeded to define conspiracy, and said that to
constitute a conspiracy “they must agree with one another to do an
unlawful act; one must have communicated the purpose to another, and
the others must have consented to it.” Nothing of this kind had been
done. They had simply propounded principles and expressed truths from
their standpoint.
“You remember the testimony of Officer Trehorn, who saw the dynamite
and the caps and the fuse on the night of the inauguration of the
Board of Trade building, and who the next morning says he went to
Lieutenant Bedell of the Cottage Grove Avenue Station and told him all
about it. If that was a conspiracy, and that conspiracy has existed
for three years, why has the State’s Attorney, or his predecessor in
office, yet not prosecuted those who are parties to that conspiracy?
The law of the State of Illinois makes it his duty to prosecute every
crime which comes to his knowledge. He may plead that he has not known
of it. If he did not, then it was culpable negligence that he did not
know it. If he will answer to you that as long as those people did
not do any overt act there was no reason for him to interfere, then I
say as long as these people have not done any overt act there was no
conspiracy. There is no way of escaping this consequence, gentlemen
of the jury; to every logical mind it is clear. Either the State’s
Attorney himself must plead guilty to the charge of the murder of
Mathias J. Degan, or every one of these defendants who cannot be shown
to have actually thrown or lighted the bomb must be acquitted. If it
was not conspiracy then, if they had committed a crime up to the 4th
of May for which it was the duty of the State’s Attorney to prosecute
them, then what have they added to make their doings murder—to make
them amenable to the law on a charge for the highest and gravest
offense, the most heinous crime known to law?”
Mr. Zeisler next turned his attention to the special conspiracy entered
into by a number of persons at No. 54 West Lake Street and held that
of all the defendants it had only been shown that Engel and Fischer
were present. He denied that Lingg was there or that any evidence had
been introduced to prove it. He scored Waller and reviewed some of
his testimony, taking occasion to call the attention of the jury to
the fact that the man testified that the signal word “Ruhe” was not
mentioned in connection with the Haymarket meeting. Next he alluded
to the places where some of the witnesses for the State and some of
those present at 54 West Lake Street had been on the night of May 4,
and spoke of Engel being at home enjoying a social glass of beer,
and the others widely scattered. “The only evidence of a conspiracy
was that of Seliger, who testified that Lingg had asked him if he
should throw a bomb. Fischer and others who saw the word ‘Ruhe’ in the
_Arbeiter-Zeitung_ did not go to Wicker Park, but went elsewhere. What
does Waller’s testimony say? It says that on the appearance of the
word ‘Ruhe’ all should go to their meeting-places in the outskirts of
the city, and that none of them were to be at the Haymarket except the
observation committee.”
“Has ‘Ruhe’ any reference to the Haymarket meeting? Does it not rather
show that the parties who conspired there were not to take part in
the Haymarket meeting at all? What, then, has the evidence in regard
to that meeting got to do with the case? That much (illustrating by
snapping the fingers).
“Now, to return for a moment to Lingg’s alleged attempt to throw a
bomb. Has there ever been heard such a ridiculous story as that? It
is an absolute falsehood upon its face. A revolutionist, a true
disciple of Herr Most, goes out with bombs in his pocket, next to
his friends, and takes a walk, and when he goes to the station and
wants to throw a bomb into the station he isn’t even provided with a
light to ignite the fuse; he has to ask his friend, ‘Have you got a
light?’ And the other one says he hasn’t got it or makes some kind of
excuse. Don’t you see that all that testimony is given in order to
show you, or in order that Mr. Seliger may show himself to you as a
highly moral person who has been the dupe of Lingg? He, the man who
has been an Anarchist for years and years—and his wife herself says
so—he has been persuaded by Lingg to make bombs, he has been misled
by Lingg, has been the dupe of Lingg. Seliger, the man with a full
beard (Seliger had a full beard at the time of the trial), a man of
over thirty years, has been the dupe of this innocent-looking fellow,
Lingg! If one was the dupe of the other, then Lingg surely was the
dupe of Seliger. Seliger is the one who was arrested first. In order
to save his own worthless neck, he betrays his friend and companion
and swears against him, and upon the testimony of these treacherous
lips you are asked to convict Lingg.”
Mr. Zeisler maintained that he had shown that there was no conspiracy,
no general conspiracy, and insisted that the alleged conspiracy of May
3 had no reference whatever to the Haymarket meeting; that the throwing
of the bomb at the Haymarket meeting was in direct contradiction of the
agreement by the conspirators of May 3, and if one of them had done it,
he would have done contrary to the conspiracy. He then spoke of the
object of the Haymarket gathering and said:
“It was called for the purpose of denouncing the atrocious act of
the police in shooting down their brethren at the McCormick factory.
That was the only purpose of the meeting, as Mr. Waller testified. Of
course his testimony is the one that the State relies upon mostly.
Now, what was the occasion of calling such a meeting to denounce the
act of the police? It was the meeting at McCormick’s factory.”
The counsel then reviewed the testimony with reference to the
meeting near McCormick’s factory, pointing to the fact that no one
had testified to what Spies had actually said on that occasion, and
maintained that not a single witness had been produced to prove that
Spies had then and there incited men to riot. Witnesses for the State,
he said, had shown that Spies continued talking after many of the men
had started toward McCormick’s factory. Did any one suppose he would
thus quietly continue speaking there if he had precipitated that riot?
Mr. Zeisler did not excuse the men for stoning the factory—it was
wrong—but he did not believe that gave the right to the police to
shoot at those excited people. Coming back to the Haymarket, he read
some of the testimony on the side of the State to show that it was an
ordinary, peaceable meeting, and then said that on the day Spies wrote
the “Revenge” circular Parsons was on his way back from Cincinnati and
Fielden in a suburban town in a quarry. He next proceeded to show that
there was no connection with the printing of the “Revenge” circular
and the Monday night meeting, and said Spies knew nothing about the
call for that meeting. He closed by saying that the circular meant
simply the same thing that Fielden and Parsons meant in their speeches
on the evening of May 4, and that meaning, he said, he had made plain
in the earlier part of his address.
MR. GEORGE C. INGHAM, special counsel for the State, followed next.
His argument was clear, concise and to the point. He opened by citing
the law in the case, reading numerous authorities with reference to
conspiracies and commenting thereon at some length. One authority he
read was “Russell on Crimes,” to show that it was simply putting in the
shape of a statute that which the common law already declares to be an
offense, and then cited a case which arose not many years ago upon that
very statute:
“Johann Most, in the city of London, was indicted, because while there
he published a paper advocating the assassination of the crowned heads
of other countries. He was indicted under that statute, and he was
convicted by a jury. The case went to their highest court, and I wish
now to read you what the Justice of that court says as to what is
meant by a solicitation to murder.”
The opinion of Lord Coleridge was read, and Mr. Ingham continued:
“You, gentlemen, will remember that that paper (_Die Freiheit_) is
now published in the city of New York. The sentence is not given in
the report I read. The custom is in England that before a sentence is
pronounced, in case an appeal is taken, that is first passed upon,
and after that the sentence is pronounced. That case was decided in
1881. Shortly after that John Most came to America. They probably
thought the best thing they could do with him was to pass upon him a
light sentence and ship him. At any rate they landed him here, and he
started his _Freiheit_ paper in New York.”
Mr. Ingham next read the case of _Cox_ vs. _The People_, from the
Illinois Reports, and continued:
“Now, apply the law which I have read to the facts of this case. It
appears in evidence in this case from the documents which I have read
to you that these men—Schwab, Fischer and Parsons—were from time
to time in this city publishing articles printed in papers which
they owned, for the publishing of which Spies paid, and which they
declared to be their own, in which they advised the destruction of the
police of this city by force, in which they advised workingmen from
time to time to arm themselves with dynamite and be ready whenever
a conflict came to destroy the police of this city by force. For
the publication of any one of those articles, if the law had been
correctly understood, those men could have been convicted and punished
for a misdemeanor; and when on that night Fielden, in the presence of
the crowd, told the people before him assembled that the war had come,
that war had been declared, that they must arm themselves to resist
what he knew never had taken place, he was making a seditious address,
and for that reason, if for no other, the police force of this city
had a right to appear and disperse the meeting.
“Fielden took the stand at the Haymarket, and until he concluded every
sentence he uttered was a sentence seditious in its character, and
which, under the decisions of the Supreme Court, would alone subject
him to punishment for misdemeanor. A trap had been laid—Spies laid
it; Schwab laid it; Fischer laid it; Engel laid it. A trap had been
laid to bring out the police force of this city, and that trap was
baited by the speeches of Parsons and Fielden. When the bait grew
strong enough, the police did come. The moment they got there—the
moment they stood opposite that alley, the moment their marching
motion was stopped and they stood in that position where the bomb
could be thrown with unerring certainty, the bomb came.
[Illustration: GEORGE C. INGHAM.
From a Photograph.]
“Now, who made that bomb? You, gentlemen, have heard the evidence in
this case, which is not disputed. I ask you, gentlemen, to remember
that so far I have not alluded to a single fact about which there is
or can be any dispute. It is uncontradicted in this case that Louis
Lingg for months had been making bombs of a certain construction. It
is uncontradicted that on the morning of Tuesday Louis Lingg said
to Seliger that he must work hard all day; that the bombs would be
needed and could be disposed of before night. It is in evidence in
this case that on that morning Louis Lingg left that house and was
gone all the morning, and nothing has been shown as to where he was.
It is in evidence that he came back at noon, and because Seliger had
filled only one bomb and had then laid down on the bed and gone to
sleep, that Lingg upbraided him and told him that this matter must be
hurried; and it is in evidence in this case that all that afternoon
after that time men were coming and going to and from that house and
working at that house on those bombs. Men came there whom Seliger
knew; men came there whom Seliger did not know; men came there whom
Mrs. Seliger knew; men came there whom Mrs. Seliger did not know. She
tells you that during the whole of that day—Tuesday—men were coming
and going to and from that house. What for? We put one man on the
stand who went to that house in the afternoon—the witness Lehman.
Lehman tells you that on Tuesday he was working at his trade; that he
quit his work at three o’clock in the afternoon, instead of working
until the afternoon was over; that he took a fellow-countryman of his,
whose name I have forgotten, and with him went to Lingg’s house to buy
a revolver; that they went to the house and dickered first about the
revolver, and then went back again, and when he went back the second
time Louis Lingg gave him dynamite—loaded bombs, fuse and detonating
caps; that during the day Louis Lingg was distributing these bombs to
different persons in the city.
“I want to call your attention to those bombs of Lingg’s—admitted to
be his—bombs which he admitted to the officers that he himself made,
and which were found where he had sent them. Every one of those bombs
is about three inches in diameter, as nearly as they could be made
with the rough material which he had. I want to call your attention to
this bomb, called the ‘Czar’ bomb, obtained from Spies. That bomb in
its appearance is composed of the same sort of material that Lingg’s
bombs were. You can see that the only difference is in the bolts; that
the bolt in the ‘Czar’ bomb was smaller than the bolt in the Lingg
bomb. This bolt (exhibiting same) would not be large enough to fasten
together the three-inch bombs; it would not quite reach through. Now,
suppose that Louis Lingg had this bolt in his possession and wanted
to make a bomb for it, what would he do? He would file off the edges
here so as to make its diameter smaller. If you will look at this
bomb called the ‘Czar’ bomb, you will see that that is just what has
been done—the edges of it filed off, and it is just in the condition
it was, with the exception of this scraping here, when the reporter
Wilkinson got it. The result of that is that its diameter through
here would be shorter (indicating) than the diameter across there
(indicating). What else does that show? Of course, as this was filed
off, it would lessen the diameter of the bomb, and when you measure
this you will find that that only lacks the eighth of an inch of being
the same size as the bombs found in Lingg’s possession. In other
words, if that had not been filed off as it has been in order that
this shorter bolt could be used, these bombs would be identical in
size.
“What else is there in evidence in this case in regard to bolts?
Seliger tells you that he was sent after bolts that day, that he
bought a lot of bolts. They have been introduced in evidence. You,
gentlemen, noticed it as soon as they were introduced in evidence,
that the nut found in the body of the Socialist, and which came out
of the bomb exploded at the Haymarket Square, is identically the same
sort of a nut as those found on the bombs in Lingg’s possession on
that day.
“We have placed on the stand the two most eminent chemists in the
city of Chicago. Those gentlemen told you that they made examinations
of pieces of this ‘Czar’ bomb which they took from it themselves;
that they made examinations of pieces of the four bombs which came
from Lingg, and that they examined certain articles found in Lingg’s
possession. And what is the result? They told you that these bombs
were not made of lead alone; that they were not lead and solder alone;
that there is not in the city of Chicago or known to commerce any one
article of which those bombs could be made, but that they are made
of a mixture—not only the Lingg bombs, but the ‘Czar’ bomb. They
tell you that three of the Lingg bombs and the ‘Czar’ bomb contained
identically the same constituents, without any difference whatever
so far as the constituents themselves are concerned, and the only
difference is that between those bombs there was a slight difference
in the amount of the tin and the amount of the lead. They told you
that in the ‘Czar’ bomb one per cent. or one and one-tenth per cent.
is tin; that in one of the Lingg bombs one and five-tenths per cent.
was tin; that in another of them two per cent. was tin. The point of
it is this: that every bomb was composed of a mixture and not of any
one metal; that the mixture in the bombs was as nearly identical as it
could be made by any man using the materials which Louis Lingg used,
in the way in which he used them. You will remember that he told Capt.
Schaack that he made these bombs with a mold made of clay; that he
could only mold one or two bombs, when he had to make a new mold. If
you will look on the inside of these bombs you will find that they
were all made by a rough mold, just as you would expect from one made
with a mold of clay; the only difference being that in the case of the
‘Czar’ bomb it had been filed off, as you can see, with a file, in
order to smooth it.”
Mr. Ingham then read the testimony of Walter S. Haines, one of the
chemists, and proceeded:
“One of these bombs which Louis Lingg admitted that he made differed
from the others in that it contained a trace of copper. In the trunk
of Louis Lingg was found this piece of metal, which he had undoubtedly
used in making that particular bomb, and which accounts for the trace
of copper in it, the point being that everything found in any one
of those bombs was found in some shape in Louis Lingg’s trunk and
possession.
“The answer to all this is that the bomb, instead of being thrown from
the alley, was thrown thirty-five feet south of the alley. What of it?
What if they have proven that? What if they have satisfied your minds
clearly that the bomb came from thirty-five feet south of the alley?
Can there be any question in the minds of any reasonable man that he
who threw that bomb, whether he stood in the alley or thirty-five feet
south of the alley, was one of the Anarchists associated with these
men?
“When that question is settled in your minds, that ends this case. We
have proven the conspiracy. It has not been denied. We have proven
that Degan died from the effects of that bomb; it has not been denied.
We have proven it by circumstances making it as clear as the daylight
that that bomb was thrown by one of the Anarchists, and when we have
done that we have proven this case—when we have done that we have
sealed the fate of these men, if jurors do their duty under the law as
it is written and declared.
“There was a conspiracy. These men know it and have not denied it.
That bomb came from that conspiracy, and the moment it resulted in
the death of Degan the crime of conspiracy was merged in the crime of
murder, and every one of these men made amenable under the law.
“The meeting came; the crowd did not. The Haymarket was covered with
little groups of people scattered around. Spies goes around and picks
out the place for the meeting, and, although he knew that the word
‘Ruhe’ had been published, although he knew that these armed groups
were scattered all over this city, although he knew that Balthasar
Rau in an hour could not notify every man who knew of that plan, he
himself called it to order in the very place where the police force
could be massed together and the most enormous destruction done. He
told Wilkinson that it was discovered that bombs of composite metals
were best, and when on that fatal night the bomb was thrown seven men
were killed and sixty wounded, and to-day in a public hospital of this
county, while these men sit here decked with flowers, there is one man
with eighteen drainage tubes in his body. Was Spies right when he said
that bombs of composite metal were best?”