Foster and Black before the Jury—Making Anarchist History—The Eight
Leaders—A Skillful Defense—Alibis All Around—The Whereabouts
of the Conspirators—The “Peaceable Dispersion”—A Miscarriage of
Revolutionary War—Average Anarchist Credibility—“A Man will Lie
to Save his Life”—The Attack on Seliger—The Candy-man and the
Bomb-thrower—Conflicting Testimony—A Philippic against Gilmer—The
Liars of History—The Search for a Witness—The Man with the Missing
Link—The Last Word for the Prisoners—Captain Black’s Theory—High
Explosives and Civilization—The West Lake Street Meeting—Defensive
Armament—Engel and his Beer—Hiding the Bombs—The Right of
Revolution—Bonfield and Harrison—The Socialist of Judea.
MR. W. A. FOSTER was the next speaker, and he made a very strong case
for his clients—the strongest that could be made in face of the many
disadvantages under which he labored in view of the evidence against
the Anarchists. He is a fluent, easy and graceful talker and held his
facts well in hand. He began in a deliberate manner, and grew at times,
as he proceeded, quite eloquent in his exposition of the virtues of
the defendants. He was pointed and caustic sometimes, but he never
seemed to lose the purpose of making a strong impression on the jury.
The opening of his argument was largely devoted to showing that the
Haymarket meeting was not riotous or boisterous, but that it had been
called for a peaceable purpose. Then he said:
“Take the theory just suggested by the prosecution in this case, that
the time had come now that was conceived of years and years ago; the
time had come now which was suggested by August Spies at Grand Rapids,
Michigan, the time had come now which was foreseen in conversation had
with the various defendants to various newspaper reporters at various
times and various places; the time had come now when the attack could
be made that was to be incited by the McCormick meeting and the
McCormick riot; the time had come now when by reason of the gathering
of the laboring people at the Haymarket Square the attempt was to be
made and the response was to be made effectual; now history was to
be written, now the point had come when bowie knives, when sharpened
files poisoned with acids, when all of these implements of modern
warfare, as we are told, were to be turned loose upon the world; when
property rights were to be destroyed, when the police were to be
killed, when any one aiding, assisting, abetting, standing up for or
protecting the law was to be ruthlessly slain. The time had come. The
men were there, the arrangements had been perfected, the police were
in line, halt was made, and they were commanded to disperse. The time,
the grand culmination of all the arrangements and conspiracies and
confederations for years back had arrived—the time when the blow was
to be struck which was to overturn civilization, which was to overturn
the country.
“These eight men are the leaders, they tell us. They tell us that
there are hundreds more that ought to have been indicted, and should
be indicted—should be prosecuted, and should be convicted, and
should be destroyed. But the time had come, and the leaders and their
friends, having been preparing for years, were ready. They courted the
attack—they hailed the day. They had pleaded for the opportunity,
and the opportunity had now arrived. Where are these men? Where are
the men that were to take charge and carry on the warfare that had
been agreed upon for the last five or six years, or longer, in the
city of Chicago? Where were they? In the first place, Mr. Parsons and
Mr. Fischer are at Zepf’s Hall. Think of it! For six long years they
had been making their preparations for the attack; for days and weeks
and months they had sown and preached revolution; the skirmish lines
had met, and they were prepared; and still Parsons and Fischer were
quietly discussing matters between themselves over a glass of beer
at Zepf’s Hall. They were principals in this matter, leaders in the
overthrowing of the Government and the establishment of this idea.
They were at Zepf’s Hall, away from any scene of action. Where is
Engel? Engel, the great conspirator—Engel, who made the inflammatory
speeches at Clybourn Avenue? Quietly at home, engaged in a game of
cards with his friend—not there at all. There is no man that pretends
or claims that Mr. Engel, at the time the bomb was thrown, was at the
Haymarket meeting or near it.
[Illustration: WILLIAM A. FOSTER.
From a Photograph.]
“Where was Schwab, one of the brainy men of this conspiracy, a man
whose pen had added to its formation, whose genius and whose brain
had been instrumental in bringing it about? An hour’s ride away, at
Deering, addressing a quiet meeting of laboring men.
“Where was Neebe? Neebe, one of the leading conspirators, they tell
us. He is one of the eight heads, one of the chiefs in the overthrow
of the Government and of property rights, and he was quietly at home.
Lingg, the man who has prepared the implements of warfare, the man who
has taken the dynamite, who has prepared the shells and loaded them,
has inserted the caps and the fuse and made all the preparations for
the destruction of the police, for the destruction of the militia and
for the destruction of property everywhere—where is Lingg? Wandering
about upon Larrabee Street, in the neighborhood of Clybourn Avenue.
“Where is Spies and where is Fielden? Spies and Fielden, the only
remaining ones of the eight, are upon the wagon, in the presence of
line after line of the police, armed to the teeth, having not only
the regulation revolvers in their coat-pockets, but those of larger
caliber, in some instances, so far as some of the companies were
concerned, in their belts. Those men were quietly standing upon the
wagon, right in sight and within the aim of all of these murderous
weapons, with the idea that an attack was to be made, with the idea
and knowledge that an assault was to take place, with the idea and
the knowledge that now the final blow was to strike which should
carry terror to the hearts of the capitalists and overturn society and
government. They were there, quietly arguing, arguing with the police
in command there, that the meeting was peaceable.
“But they say, gentlemen, ‘Ruhe’ is a German word and means peace,
quiet, rest; that because it means quiet, therefore—this is what
they intend to have you believe—that because Fielden said, ‘This is
a quiet meeting,’ or that it was peaceable, or, ‘We are peaceable,’
that that was the watchword which was to be an order in cipher to
commence immediately an attack. Now, gentlemen, I say that this is,
in my opinion, an unfair deduction; it is an unfair conclusion. The
testimony all agrees that Captain Ward appeared there and said:
‘In the name of the people of the State of Illinois, I command you
to quietly and peaceably disperse.’ That was the expression—‘I
command you to peaceably disperse’—to which Mr. Fielden replied:
‘We are peaceable,’ or ‘This is a peaceable meeting, Captain.’ Could
anything be more natural than that that reply should be made? Suppose,
gentlemen, now, that the theory of the prosecution is right; suppose
that it was the grand beginning of an uncertain end; suppose that
it was the culmination of the idea that had existed for years. Do
you believe that bombs would not have hailed from the top of every
building? Do you believe they would not have been thrown from every
sidewalk? Do you suppose they would not have been thrown from the
rear and from the front? In the nature of things, can you, in the
light of this testimony, say that because some man somewhere, on
account of some reason, which is not explained here, which never can
be explained, acting upon his own individual responsibility, lighted
a bomb and threw it, that therefore you must say that the grand
conspiracy, the arrangement for years and years had this result,
or rather that the throwing of that bomb was the result of that
conspiracy?
“But there is one thing the gentlemen have lost sight of in this
case, it seems to me. Of course they haven’t, but in their argument
they have carefully avoided it. A Socialist is not to be believed, a
Communist is a liar, and an Anarchist is capable of committing any
crime. That is what they tell us in plain language—that we have
produced some witnesses here who are Socialists, Communists and
Anarchists, and because we have done so, their testimony, for that
reason alone, is to be discarded. Mr. Walker and Mr. Ingham both made
reference to the character of some of our witnesses upon the theory
and upon the ground that the evidence showed that they were Anarchists
or Communists. Well, they were Anarchists, Socialists and Communists,
some of them.
“Although the gentlemen claim that a conviction might exist, leaving
out the testimony of Gilmer and of Thompson, they would never concede
that under any circumstances a conviction could be had were it not
for the testimony of Seliger and the testimony of Waller; they never
would concede that, and did the gentlemen ever think, while they were
presenting to you the case upon which they demanded a conviction, that
the very witnesses that they proved the facts by upon which they ask
you to hang these men are Socialists and Communists and Anarchists?
“Not only, then, are Waller and Seliger Communists, Socialists and
Anarchists, but they are State’s witnesses, co-confederates and
conspirators, men whose testimony is regarded with disfavor and with
suspicion by the law.
“They tell us that a man will lie to save his life. Said Mr. Walker,
‘Do you believe Mr. Spies? Will he not lie to save his life?’ Then I
retort the argument of the gentleman upon his own head and say, ‘Would
not Seliger lie to save his own neck?’
“They take Mr. Seliger down and they examine him and they get his
statement and they reduce it to writing. The detective force is turned
loose upon him. His statement is not strong enough; that won’t do;
it is not enough; still there are missing links. ‘Mr. Seliger, this
statement won’t do; we want something stronger than that.’ I can
imagine—I am not giving the testimony now, but I can imagine how
those detectives would go to Seliger, carried away from his family as
he was, shut up in a dark dungeon, kept there day after day—‘Now,
Seliger, here are two propositions: here is a rope and here is a
statement; choose between them.’ He chose the lesser of the two
evils—the statement, as any man would, Mr. Walker says, to save his
own life. He makes the statement. He goes away. I can imagine, I say,
the conduct and the actions of the detective force as they ply him
with questions from day to day. ‘It won’t do, Mr. Seliger, it won’t
do. There are too many missing links. We want something more. Isn’t
this so, isn’t that so? Didn’t this happen, didn’t that happen?’ And
poor Seliger, frightened, weak-minded and timid, ignorant of the
laws of this country, ignorant of the rights which American citizens
have under the laws, sits down and makes the second statement. And
still the thing goes on, still he is kept in confinement, still he
is plied with questions, still he is examined and cross-examined:
‘Mr. Seliger, the first statement won’t do, and the second statement
won’t do. Mr. Seliger, we want more from you than this.’ And, says Mr.
Walker, ‘Won’t a man lie to save his life?’ And Mr. Seliger makes the
third statement, and again he goes back to his dungeon, and after a
while again they go to Seliger and they say to Seliger, ‘This won’t
do. You have made a statement, you have made a second statement, you
have made a third statement, but still there are missing links. Isn’t
this so, isn’t that so?’ And, as Mr. Walker says, ‘Won’t any man lie
to save his life?’ And the fourth statement is made by Seliger. And
these statements are unrolled as he sits here quivering and trembling,
knowing perhaps that he is destroying the lives of these eight men,
his former friends and associates, and questions are pronounced after
questions, and the testimony is introduced before you, gentlemen, from
a Socialist, from a Communist, from an Anarchist, from a conspirator,
and from a man that will lie to save his own life; and upon that
testimony you are to act, and you are not to act upon any testimony
introduced by the defendants in this case.
“You remember the candy-maker that was brought upon the stand by the
merest accident. You remember the circumstance that when his name was
called he responded from that corner of the room (indicating)—none
of us had ever seen him; we didn’t know it, and I don’t to-day hardly
know how we got any information in regard to the man at all. And when
he came forward here you will remember that this case was delayed
until Mr. Zeisler and myself took him into the other room to ascertain
if possible why he was here and to what facts he was going to testify.
He came upon the stand, and what does he tell you? He tells you that
on the night of the 4th of May he was at the Haymarket. He tells you
that he was south of the alley, and when it was rumored there that
the police were coming he started with others down. He tells you that
at the time he did not know how far it was south of the alley, but he
knows from the location and from the surroundings, and that since then
he has gone there with his tape-line and he has measured it, and that
it is thirty-eight feet south of the south line of Crane’s alley. He
tells you that as they were going down, when the police had come up he
saw a man with this motion, indicating a backward and upward motion
with the right hand—not with this motion that Frank Walker tells
about—cast a burning fuse, as it went hissing through the air; that
he followed it until it struck, that he looked at it until the whole
country around about was illuminated by the explosion and policemen
bit the dust.
“Is he a reliable man, gentlemen? Is there anything wrong in his
character? If there was, why, as late as two weeks before the time
that he testified, was Mr. Furthmann placing before him the picture of
Rudolph Schnaubelt? If he was an unreliable man and they knew it, if
they did not believe his statement because of his unreliability, why,
I say, was Mr. Furthmann two weeks before—according to the testimony
of the witness which Mr. Furthmann has not undertaken to gainsay or
deny—presenting the photograph of Rudolph Schnaubelt to see whether
he could identify that man as being the man who threw the bomb? If he
was an unreliable man, he tells us where he has worked; he tells us
where he has lived; he tells us who his associates are; he tells us
all about it. If there is anything wrong, then Captain Schaack would
turn loose his detectives and his police and in less than an hour’s
time the character, the true character, the villainous character of
the man would have been exhibited before you. But nothing of that kind
is done. They ascertain the fact that he saw the bomb-thrower—they
know that he saw the bomb-thrower—at least, they believe that he saw
the bomb-thrower, and the question is, Who shall be used? Shall the
candy-maker be used, or shall Gilmer be used? Which shall it be—the
candy-man or Gilmer?
“Now, you will remember that the State was two weeks putting in their
testimony, and you will remember that the defense was one week—a week
and one day more. You will remember the testimony of this witness was
that two weeks before that time, which was one week after the State
began to introduce their testimony, Mr. Furthmann presented before his
face the picture of Rudolph Schnaubelt and demanded to know whether he
could recognize the picture as being the man who threw the bomb. I say
then it seems, Mr. Gilmer to the contrary notwithstanding, that a week
after they had commenced the introduction of their testimony it was
still a doubtful, uncertain and mooted question as to where took place
the throwing of that bomb, and into whose hands to place it.
“What does the candy-maker say? He says honestly to Mr. Furthmann: ‘I
cannot recognize that man as being the man; I don’t believe that that
man had whiskers; all I know is that I think he had a light mustache
and I think he was an ordinary-sized man; that is all I know about
him.’
“And, gentlemen, that is a reasonable story. Hurrying away as he was
in that crowd, supposing that the police had come there for a purpose,
seeing this thing take place and the disaster that resulted from it
and the excitement incident to it, would we expect that he would know
or would be able to see any more than that? He did not recognize
Schnaubelt as being the man; he did not recognize Fischer as being
present at the time the bomb was thrown; he did not recognize Spies
as being the man who lighted the fuse, and the prosecution did not
want him, and so they sent him back to the candy-shop in obscurity,
and there intended that he should remain. They did not want him. Why
didn’t they? They had found a conspiracy, they say, to use violence
for certain illegal purposes. They had established the fact of murder;
there was a missing link; that was what was troubling them, and that
is what has troubled them from the beginning of this trial down to the
present time—the missing link. Where is the man in all the face of
God’s green earth, where is the man that can identify one of these men
that we will show was in any conspiracy to do anything which we might
criticise or object to, that is in any way responsible for what was
done at the Haymarket that night? They must have the missing link, or
else they must fail in this prosecution. The candy-man won’t furnish
it. He tells his story, a consistent and reasonable story. They
believe his story because they take him up and they exhibit to him the
picture—‘Is that the man?’ Oh, if he had only said, ‘Yes, that is the
man, that is the man that was in company with him,’ how quickly the
candy-maker would have come before us as a witness. But no; the man
said honestly, ‘I cannot do that; I was in a crowd in the darkness; I
was in the bustle and the excitement; I cannot do that.’ They didn’t
want him; they sent him home. And still there is a missing link. Who
is going to furnish it?
“Gilmer comes proudly to the front. He says, ‘Rather than have the
play stopped I will furnish the missing link.’ Gilmer—Harry L.
Gilmer—the old soldier that they tell us about. I don’t believe it.
I don’t believe he was ever in the army a day of his life, because I
believe if he had been that my brother Grinnell, of all witnesses that
had been called, would have asked him that very first question. Some
of you gentlemen bear upon your breasts the emblem of the Grand Army
of the Republic; some of you were in the war and marched at the peril
of your lives under the stars and stripes, and you would delight in
meeting a man, and delight in believing in his honor and integrity, if
you believed that he was engaged in the common cause with you in those
trying days; and still the shrewd counsel never asked the question.
A veteran! Yes, a veteran of Battery D, a veteran of Chicago, of
the Home Rangers, a man that never smelt burnt powder in his life
perhaps—he is the veteran soldier that is lauded before you gentlemen
in the argument of counsel who have addressed you on the part of the
prosecution in this case.
“I undertake to say, gentlemen, that all history, ancient and modern,
has given to the world three of the grandest, the most consummate
and infernal liars that ever existed since Adam first was set in the
Garden of Eden—three names prominently that we find in the history
that we are making now, in modern history and in ancient, and in
importance they stand in the order in which I name them. First of all,
greater than all, above them all in infamy and falsehood, is Harry L.
Gilmer; next to him comes M. M. Thompson, and third is Ananias of old,
whose Christian name I never heard, if, in fact, he ever had one. All
history, ransacked, will furnish no three such men as the three names
that I have suggested.”
Mr. Foster then adverted to some points in the management of the case,
and touched at some length on the fact that Gilmer had not testified
before the grand jury. He proceeded as follows:
“Of all the testimony that has been introduced here, the testimony of
Harry Gilmer is paramount. Bind the rest of it together in a sheaf,
set it alongside of the testimony of Harry Gilmer, and it is as a
molehill compared to a mountain, if the testimony of Harry Gilmer is
true. If the testimony of Harry Gilmer is true, August Spies and Mr.
Fischer must die. If you believe him, they must be swept from the
face of the earth; and yet Mr. Grinnell, saying, ‘We have nothing to
conceal and nothing to hide,’ forgets to tell you that he has the
man who saw Mr. Spies, in the presence of Mr. Fischer, light the
fuse which was thrown by Mr. Schnaubelt, and which destroyed Officer
Degan. He never expected to prove it. If he did—if it is true that
he expected to, and if it is true that he had nothing to conceal and
nothing to hide, why, then, didn’t he say it? Why had it not been
published broadcast to the land by these newspaper gentlemen? Why was
it that Harry Gilmer’s face was not published and sent forth in every
paper that is published in the land? Why was it that it was not said:
‘This is the man—this is the man who has the testimony within his
knowledge which will show the connection and establish the link which
fastens some of the defendants, at least, to the murder of Mathias J.
Degan?’ Not a word—not a word upon the subject of Harry L. Gilmer,
the veteran of the war, the old soldier, so eloquently discoursed upon
by my brother Walker. Where was Gilmer then?
“I can imagine brother Grinnell, in his anxiety and his quandary in
determining what course to pursue here, discussing with himself and
his associates as to whether or not this case should be determined
upon the testimony of Thompson alone, or Thompson and Gilmer mixed. It
has been a serious consideration on the part of the gentlemen. There
can’t be any doubt about that. But the honest man who says, ‘No, I
can’t identify them,’ is sent home, and Harry Gilmer is brought to
the front. He will identify Schnaubelt—oh, yes; no question about
that. He will do more than that; he will identify Fischer—oh, yes; he
will do more than that. Fischer may prove an alibi; they do not know
whether Fischer was there, but there is one man that they do know was
there, and that he was there all that time upon that wagon, and that
was August Spies, and, if necessary, Harry Gilmer will identify Spies.
Now, do you believe that, gentlemen? Do you believe that? And I do not
charge my brother Grinnell with putting Harry Gilmer upon the stand
knowing that he was swearing to a pack of lies. Not at all; I do not
charge him with that. I charge him with placing no reliance upon the
man at all. I say that, if Mr. Grinnell knew at the time he made his
opening statement that Harry Gilmer was to come upon the stand and
swear to that fact, he did not do his duty as a lawyer and he did not
keep his pledge to the jury, and if he did not know it, it shows the
absolute unreliability of the testimony of Mr. Gilmer.
“Now, I say to you, gentlemen, from all the surrounding circumstances
in this case—I say that Harry L. Gilmer—and I stated to you the
other day that I was not in the habit of calling witnesses liars; I
preferred to present their testimony under the suspicion of mistake
rather than the suspicion of falsehood—but I say as to Harry L.
Gilmer that he is a stupendous, colossal, a monumental liar, and
there is no escape from it. Now, just think of it for a moment.
The world was excited; every daily paper in the universe published
accounts—in Paris and in London, in Petersburg and Vienna, on the
morning following the 4th of May, citizens read of the disaster of the
Haymarket; the civilized world was shocked with the outrage that was
perpetrated there. Where was Harry Gilmer, the man who could identify
the man who threw the bomb, the man who could identify his companion,
and the man who could identify the person who lit the fuse? Where was
Harry Gilmer on the 5th day of May? He tells us he was in Crane’s
alley the night of the 4th; he was there in the alley; he saw Spies;
he says, ‘That is the man right over there; that is the man that threw
it;’ he saw that man right over there—Spies—strike a match and light
the fuse, and saw Fischer in his company. Schnaubelt threw it in the
ranks of the policemen.
“There is the missing link, and if you believe that testimony as
to two of these defendants, the chain is complete. Darwin is dead,
but the missing link has been found. The man who furnished the
missing link went home. The man that has seen this meandered through
Crane’s alley and went quietly home to his roost, and he went to bed
undisturbed. It is true he had seen the man who threw the bomb; he
would know him anywhere. He would know him by his picture; he knows
how many buttons of his coat were buttoned. He saw the man that stood
by. He would know him anywhere. He knows what kind of clothing he had
on and how many buttons he had buttoned of his clothes. He knew the
kind of hat, the kind of clothes. He knew the man who lit the match,
who touched the fuse that exploded the bomb that Schnaubelt threw. He
knew him. He knew whether his coat was buttoned and how many buttons.
He knew all about it—everything that every man in the universe
demanded should be known by the officers of the law. And he went home
and went to bed and never said a word to any living soul about it. And
he got up in the morning, fresh upon his mind the fact of this great
outrage that was perpetrated and that everybody was talking about
everywhere—in restaurants, on the street and in street-cars—knowing
that he was the man that could recognize them all—he goes and buys
a paper on the street and sits down to read how terrible it was,
goes into a restaurant and there sits, where men were conversing of
the horror and of the outrage, and never opens his head in regard to
knowing anything about it—not a word. Then he goes, after he has had
his ‘meal,’ and gets upon the car—goes to the corner of Twenty-second
Street and Wabash Avenue, and there he meets a friend, a brother
painter, and they work all day, and from a third to half the time,
as he states, they were painting together and lapping each other’s
brushes as they painted upon the side of the building, and when noon
came they sat down to discuss matters and talk, over their lunch. They
speak, at times, about the Haymarket meeting and the great disaster,
and he never tells his friend that he had seen the bomb thrown, or
knew anything about it—not a word. The world was in flames, but Harry
Gilmer was cool.”
Mr. Foster continued his attention to Gilmer at considerable length,
making, however, no new points against him, and then proceeded:
“Now, Mr. Graham is not a Socialist. He is not a Communist nor an
Anarchist. He is a reporter, and I say that he is an honorable man.
His bearing showed it; his countenance indicated it; and the fact
that he is not attacked nor impeached, nor one word said against him,
either in argument or in testimony, in my mind establishes it.
“Well, that didn’t amount to very much. There are always knowing ones
around, and Gilmer was one of them. He liked to loaf about police
stations. He remembered the time when he was collecting the dog tax in
Des Moines. He associated with men that wore uniforms, and he liked
it. He wanted to ingratiate himself into their good opinions, and he
says: ‘I believe I would know the fellow. I was there. I was right in
plain sight, and I saw him light the fuse and I saw him toss the bomb.
His back was to me, it is true, but I do believe I would know him.’
Ah! where was Fischer then? Where was ‘that man sitting over there,’
as Gilmer expresses it? Where was Spies and where was Fischer then?
Well, they hadn’t developed at that stage of the proceeding, that is
all. They were the afterbirth in his testimony.”
Mr. Foster went into a long and searching examination of the evidence,
arguing out the more important facts developed, and closing with an
eloquent appeal to the sympathies of the jury. His speech was effective
and impressive.
On the next morning—Tuesday—Capt. Black began his argument for the
defense, and was listened to by the jury with marked attention. He is
a forcible speaker and dwelt upon the testimony favorable to his side
with earnestness and emphasis. He traversed necessarily a good deal of
the ground covered by his colleagues, but he clothed his argument in
captivating language, and made a striking and effective appeal for his
clients. The following will show the points he made:
“On the morning of the 5th of May, 1886, the good people of the city
of Chicago were startled and shocked at the event of the previous
night, frightened, many of them, not knowing whereunto this thing
might lead. Fear is the father of cruelty. It was no ordinary case.
Immediately after that first emotion came a feeling which has found
expression from many lips in the hearing of many, if not all of you:
‘A great wrong has been done; somebody must be punished, somebody
ought to suffer for the suffering which has been wrought.’ Perhaps
it was that feeling—I know not—which led to the unusual and
extraordinary proceedings which were taken in connection with this
matter immediately following the 4th of May. Perhaps it was that
feeling, in a large measure, which led to the arrest and presentment
of these eight defendants. Perhaps it was something of that feeling
which will explain the conduct of the prosecution in this case. I am
not disposed to say that there has been any willful or deliberate
intent on the part of the representatives of the State to act
unfairly. I am not disposed to charge that there has been upon their
part any disposition to do an injustice to any man. But in their case,
as in the case of all, passion perverts the heart, prejudice corrupts
the judgment.
“On the night of the 4th of May a dynamite bomb was thrown in the city
of Chicago and exploded. It was the first time that in our immediate
civilization, and immediately about us, this great destructive
agency was used in modern contests. I beg you to remember, in the
consideration of this case, that dynamite is not the invention of
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.
[Illustration: CAPT. WILLIAM P. BLACK
From a Photograph.]
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
to by the logic of events and the necessities of situations, and it
is a union that will never be divorced. We stand amazed at the dread
results that are possible to this union; but as we look back over
history we know this fact, contradictory as it may seem, strange as
it may first strike us, that in the exact proportion in which the
implements of warfare have been made effective or destructive, in
that precise proportion have wars lost the utmost measure of their
horror, and in that precise proportion has death by war diminished.
When gunpowder came into European warfare there was an outcry against
it. All the chivalry which had arrogated to itself the power and glory
of battle in martial times sprang up against the introduction of
gunpowder, an agency that made the iron casque and shield and cuirass
of the plumed knight no better a defense than the hemp doublet of the
peasant. But now, instead of wars that last through thirty years, that
are determined by the personal collision of individuals, that desolate
nations, the great civilized nations of the world hesitate at war
because of its possibilities of evil, and diplomacy sits where once
force alone was intrenched. The moral responsibility for dynamite is
not upon Socialism.”
Captain Black insisted that the sole question before the jury was who
threw the bomb, for the doctrine of accessory before the fact, under
which it was sought to hold the defendants, was nothing but the
application to the criminal law of the civil or common law doctrine
that what a man does by another he does himself. When the prosecution
charged that the defendants threw it, their charge involved that the
bomb was thrown by the procurement of these men, by their advice,
direction, aid, counsel or encouragement, and that the man who threw
it acted not alone for himself, or upon his own responsibility, but
as a result of the encouragement or procurement of these men. He held
that the State must show that the agent of the defendants did the deed,
and that it is not sufficient to show that the defendants favored such
deeds. Upon this point counsel spoke at some length. Next he took up
the case of one of the talesmen examined with reference to his taking
a place on the jury, who swore that, having been for three years
connected with the office of the Prosecuting Attorney in the State of
New York, he found in himself that the habit of thought and life to
which he had there devoted himself had created in him a predisposition
to believe every accused man guilty, which, in his own deliberate
judgment before God, disqualified him from sitting as an impartial
juror in a criminal case. The application of this case to the attachés
of the State’s Attorney’s office who had appeared before the jury was
made the most of.
After going over the evidence as to the other conspirators Capt. Black
came to the case against Fischer and Engel. He said:
“It is perhaps proper that, in view of the circumstance that Fischer
and Engel were the only two defendants at the West Lake Street meeting
on Monday night, I should present briefly my opinions touching that
meeting as relating to this case. Two witnesses, Waller and Schrade,
testified as to what occurred at that meeting. Waller said there were
seventy or eighty people present; the other placed the attendance at
thirty-five to forty. Let us suppose thirty-five or forty met together
in that basement. In the progress of the meeting it transpired that
there had been a meeting of the North Side group, of which Mr. Engel
was a member, on the previous morning (Sunday). At that meeting a
resolution was adopted, which was brought before the Monday night
meeting for consideration, and it was adopted in the manner indicated
by Waller. I think I state it fairly to the State and fairly to the
defendants themselves, when I say that the action then and there
resolved upon was this, no more, no less: That if in the event of a
struggle the police should attempt by brute force to overpower the
strikers unlawfully and unjustly, those men would lend their help
to their fellow-wageworkers as against the police. A plan of action
was suggested by one of the group which contemplated the blowing
up of police stations, cutting telegraph wires and disabling the
Fire Department. Every particle of that resolution, gentlemen, was
expressly dependent upon the unlawful invasion of the rights of the
working people by the police. Nothing was to be inaugurated by the
so-called conspirators, there was to be no resort to force by them in
the first instance. It was solely defensive, and had reference alone
to meeting force by force; it had reference alone to a possible attack
in the future, dependent upon the action that the police themselves
might take. I am not here to defend the action of that meeting. The
question here is: Had that action anything whatever to do with the
result of the Haymarket meeting? The action of the North Side group
had nothing to do with that, since the Haymarket meeting had never
been dreamed of or suggested at that time. By whom was the Tuesday
meeting suggested? What was its scope, purpose and object? As then
and there declared, it was simply to be a mass-meeting of workingmen
with reference to police outrages that had already taken place.
Were the armed men, those conspirators who met at West Lake Street,
present? ‘No; they were not there.’ That is the testimony of Waller
and Schrade. I am not here even to say that the proposition to call
that meeting was a wise one. The event has proven how sadly unwise
it was. But I am here to say that the men who in that Monday night
meeting proposed the calling of the Tuesday night meeting, if we take
the testimony of the State itself, had no dream or expectation of
violence, difficulty or contest on that eventful night. But before
the Tuesday night meeting was proposed, a suggestion was made that
they ought to have some sort of signal for action, and the word ‘Ruhe’
was suggested by somebody. Waller could not tell who suggested it;
Schrade did not know it had been agreed upon. Evidently there was no
very clear idea that night what ‘Ruhe’ did mean, because Lingg saw it
in the paper at eleven o’clock, and said: ‘That is a signal that we
ought to be over at 54 West Lake Street.’ Waller finally, under close
examination by the State, said the word ‘Ruhe’ was to be inserted in
the ‘Letter-box’ of the _Arbeiter-Zeitung_ in the event of the time
arriving for a downright revolution. Had that revolution come; had
it commenced when the word was put in the ‘Letter-box’? No. When the
members saw this in the ‘Letter-box’ what were they to do? Go to the
Haymarket and attack anybody? No. They were to go to their respective
places of meeting, and then, according to advices brought to them,
were to determine upon a course of action. It had no reference to the
throwing of the bomb at the Haymarket. Did that Monday night meeting
pick out the man who was to throw the bomb? Did it provide that a
collision between the police and the people was to be brought about
at the Haymarket? Did it contemplate murder? Not at all. When Fischer
told Spies that the word ‘Ruhe’ had no connection with the Haymarket
meeting, he spoke the truth. It was a signal that the armed men should
meet at the places designated by themselves to determine what action
should be taken with reference to whatever might have transpired.
“But it is to be borne in mind that the meeting of the armed section
never took place. There was no meeting of the Northwest Side groups;
there was no meeting of any group pursuant to the word ‘Ruhe.’ Were
any bombs to be thrown, any violence to be resorted to? No. If the
police made an attack, a committee was to take word to the groups,
and the groups were then, and not till then, to determine what action
they should take in the line of offense. Does that make every man who
was present at the Monday night meeting responsible for the throwing
of the bomb? Not at all. Unless they are all responsible, it does not
make Fischer and Engel responsible. Engel was not at the Tuesday night
meeting. Fischer was there and went quietly away before the bomb was
thrown. There was absolutely nothing in connection with the Monday
night meeting which contemplated violence at the Haymarket or provided
for the throwing of the bomb.
“Let me call your attention, in passing, to another thing. When
Waller, having from some source heard of the lamentable occurrence
at the Haymarket, went to Engel’s house, he found him drinking beer
with two or three friends. After listening to the details of the
affair Engel said, while Waller was saying, ‘Let’s do something,’ ‘You
had better go home. I have no sympathy with a movement of this kind.
The police are of the common people, and when the general revolution
does occur, they should be with us. I am utterly opposed to this
slaughtering of them.’ That is the full extent of the case against
these two defendants, except the further fact that Fischer had a
pistol and a dagger. It is not right to hang any man for the Haymarket
murder simply because he had a dagger or a pistol in his possession.
“As to Lingg, he came from that republic sitting in the center of
Europe preaching the everlasting lesson of liberty. He came here
in the fall of 1885, and became a member of the Seliger household.
Whatever he knows of social and labor conditions in this country he
learned from those about him. He joined a carpenters’ union, being
himself a carpenter by trade. He attended the meetings of that
union. Young, active, bright, capable, he enters the band of which
they speak, and manufactures bombs. There is no law against that,
gentlemen; but they claim that is a circumstance from which you must
draw the conclusion of his guilt, when taken with other circumstances,
for the Haymarket tragedy. The State put on the stand one man, Lehman,
to whom he gave bombs. Did he tell Lehman to go to the Haymarket and
use the bombs there? No. Lehman swears that he said: ‘You take these
and put them in a safe place.’ And Lehman hid them where the officer,
piloted by him, found them. Does that prove that Lingg sent a bomb to
the Haymarket for the purpose of having somebody killed? How did he
come to make bombs? Was it a matter to engage in on his own volition
or responsibility? No. The Carpenters’ Union at one of its meetings
resolved to devote a certain amount of money for the purpose of
experimenting with dynamite. You may say that was not right, but he
was not responsible for it. There is no more reason in holding him
responsible for the Haymarket affair on account of his experiments
than there is to hold every other member of the Carpenters’ Union for
the same thing. That is how Lingg came to make bombs. Without dynamite
a bomb-shell is a toy. The Lingg bombs would kill nobody unless some
human independent agency took hold of them. Did Lingg know on Monday
night that one of his bombs was to be used? He could not have known
it, because the testimony is incontrovertible that it was understood
by the men who met at 54 West Lake Street there should be no violence
at the Haymarket meeting. And yet the State asks you to say that Lingg
shall be hanged because he manufactured bombs. The man who threw the
bomb did the independent act necessary for its explosion. Who was that
man? Was he connected with the defendants? The evidence does not show
it.
“And a word more about that. This boy Lingg was dependent upon others
as to his impressions of our institutions. He went to Seliger’s house.
Seliger is a Socialist; he has been in this country for years. He is
thirty-one years of age; Lingg is twenty-one. And yet the great State
of Illinois, through its legal representatives, bargains with William
Seliger, the man of mature years, and with his wife, older even than
himself, that if they will do what they can to put the noose around
the neck of this boy they shall go scatheless! Ah! gentlemen, what a
mockery of justice is this.”
Proceeding to discuss the Haymarket meeting, he held that there was no
law that could take away the right of the people to meet and consider
grievances. When it was proposed to adopt the Constitution, in 1787,
the States were so careful to preserve the rights of the people that
several amendments were put in. Capt. Black spoke of our forefathers,
who had made the name of the revolutionist immortal, and referred
to the meetings that had to be held as a preliminary to the great
struggle. It had been charged against these men that they were guilty
of misdemeanors for holding meetings, and they had been prosecuted for
crimes. Before the Constitution could receive the approbation of the
States, it had been necessary that the amendment providing that no laws
should be passed by Congress abridging free speech should be inserted.
Such a provision had been incorporated in the first Constitution of
Illinois in 1818, and renewed in the subsequent Constitutions of 1848
and 1870. The Haymarket meeting had been called for the common good.
Those men believed that a great wrong had been done, a great outrage
committed, and the rights of the citizens in that assemblage had been
invaded by an unlawful, unwarrantable and outrageous act.
“Bonfield, in his police office, surrounded by his minions, one
hundred and eighty strong, armed to the teeth, knew that the meeting
was quietly and peacefully coming to its close. Nay, he had said
so to Carter Harrison. When Parsons had concluded, Mayor Harrison
went to the station and told Bonfield that it was a quiet meeting,
and Bonfield replied, ‘My detectives make me the same report.’ Yet
Carter Harrison did not get out of hearing before Inspector Bonfield
ordered his men to fall in for that death march. Who is responsible
for it? Who precipitated that conflict? Who made that battle in that
street that night? The law looks at the approximate cause, not the
remote. The law looks at the man immediately in fault; not at some
man who may have manufactured the pistol that does the shooting, the
dynamite that kills, the bomb that explodes. I ask you, upon your
oath before God, in a full and honest consideration of this entire
testimony, who made the Haymarket massacre? Who is responsible for
that collision? If Bonfield had not marched there, would there have
been any death? Would not that meeting have dissolved precisely as it
proposed to do? Did the bomb-thrower go down to the station where the
police were and attack them? A bomb could have been thrown into that
station with even more deadly effect than at the Haymarket itself.
There they were, massed together in close quarters, in hiding, like a
wild beast in its lair ready to spring. Did the bomb-thrower move upon
them? Was there here a design to destroy? God sent that warning cloud
into the heavens; these men were still there, speaking their last
words; but a deadlier cloud was coming up behind this armed force. In
disregard of our constitutional rights as citizens, it was proposed to
order the dispersal of a peaceable meeting. Has it come to pass that
under the Constitution of the United States and of this State, our
meetings for the discussion of grievances are subject to be scattered
to the winds at the breath of a petty police officer? Can they take
into their hands the law? If so, that is Anarchy; nay, the chaos of
constitutional right and legally guaranteed liberty. I ask you again,
charging no legal responsibility here, but looking at the man who is
morally at fault for the death harvest of that night, who brought it
on? Would it have been but for the act of Bonfield?”
Captain Black went on to say that as long as the Mayor was there
Bonfield could not act, but as soon as Harrison had gone the officer
could not get to the Haymarket quick enough. The police, the speaker
urged, had been searching the files of the _Arbeiter-Zeitung_ and
the _Alarm_ for years to put before the jury the most inflammatory
articles. After alluding to Christ as the great Socialist of Judea,
who first preached the Socialism taught by Spies and his other modern
apostles, he compared John Brown and his attack on Harper’s Ferry to
the Socialists’ attack on modern evils, concluding:
“Gentlemen, the last words for these eight lives. They are in your
hands, with no power to whom you ace answerable but God and history,
and I say to you in closing only the words of that Divine Socialist:
‘As ye would that others should do to you, do you even so to them.’”