AUGUST SPIES.

Schwab stepped down and Spies took the stand. “Give your full name to the jury,” said Captain Black.

“August Vincent Theodore Spies,” replies the prisoner.

He is thirty-one years old, and came to this county from Germany in 1872. Spies speaks with a marked accent, but very distinctly. He is cool and collected apparently, and sits back in the witness chair very much at ease.

He has been a member of the Socialistic Publishing Society, and that concern exercised control over the policy of the Arbeiter Zeitung, of which paper the witness was editor for six years. Spies said he was at a meeting on the “black road” on May 3. Spies reached the meeting on the “black road” about 3 o’clock in the afternoon. There was a crowd of perhaps three thousand present. Some men were speaking, but they were very poor speakers, and the crowd was not interested. Balthazar Rau was with him, and introduced him to the chairman of the meeting. It was called for the purpose of discussing the eight-hour question. While Spies was there a committee was appointed to wait on the bosses; then he was introduced, and spoke for possibly twenty minutes. Spies went on:

“I was almost prostrated. I had been speaking two or three times daily for the past two or three weeks, and was very much worn. I did not jump around and wave my hands as one witness testified here on the stand, and I made a very common-place, ordinary speech. I told the men to hold together, to stand by their union, or they would not succeed. That was the substance of what I said. While I was speaking some one cried out in an unknown tongue, and about two hundred men detached themselves from the crowd and went on to McCormick’s. Pretty soon I heard firing, and on inquiring what was the matter was told the men had attacked McCormick’s men, and that the police were firing on them. I stopped for about five minutes, was elected a member of the committee; then I went to McCormick’s. A lot of cars were standing on the tracks. The men were hiding behind these cars, others were running, while the police were firing on the flying people. The sight of this made my blood boil. At that time I could have done almost anything, I was so excited. A young Irishman came out from behind one of the cars. I think he knew me and said: ‘What kind of —— business is this? There are two men over there dead; the police have killed them.’ I asked him how many were killed. He said five or six, and that twenty-five or thirty were injured. I came down town then and wrote the report which appeared in the Arbeiter Zeitung the next day.”

“Did you write the ‘Revenge Circular’?”—“Yes; only I did not write the word ‘Revenge.’”

“Can you tell how that word happened to be put in the circular?”—“I cannot.”

“How many of those circulars were distributed?”—“About twenty-five hundred.”

“How soon was it written after your return to the office?”—“Immediately.”

“At that time were you still laboring under the excitement incident to the riot?”—“I was.”

“What was your state of mind?”—“I was very indignant. I knew from experience of the past that this butchering of people was done for the express purpose of defeating the eight-hour movement.”

Spies is growing excited. Mr. Grinnell objects. The Court says his last answer is not proper and orders it stricken from the record.

“On the evening of May 4 you attended the Haymarket meeting?”—“I did.”

“You were asked to speak there?”—“I was.”

“When did you learn there was to be a meeting?”—“About 8 o’clock that morning. I was advised there was to be a meeting and was asked to address it.”

“What time did you reach there?”—“About 8:20 o’clock.”

“Did you see the notice of that meeting in the Arbeiter Zeitung?”—“Yes; I put it in myself.”

“Did you see a circular that day, calling for a meeting at the Haymarket?”—“Yes. It was the circular containing the line: ‘Working men, arm yourselves and appear in full force.’ When I read that line I said: ‘If this is the meeting I am to address I will not speak.’ He asked why. I said on account of that line. He said the circulars had not been distributed, and I said: ‘If the line is taken out I will go.’ Fischer was sent for and he told the men to have that line taken out.”

“Who was this man that brought the circulars?”—“He was on the stand; Gruenberg is his name, I think.”

“Was there any torch on the wagon?”—“No; I think the sky was clear and that the lamp was burning near the corner of the alley.”

“Was that selection made by yourself, or upon consultation?”—“Well, I consulted with my brother Henry. He was with me all evening.”

“After you got them together, what did you do?”—“Some one suggested we had better move the wagon around on Randolph street, but I said that might impede the street cars. Then I asked where was Parsons. I was not on the committee of arrangements and had nothing to do with the meeting except to speak. One Schroder said Parsons was speaking then at the corner of Halsted and Randolph streets, and I went up to find him with my brother Henry and Schnaubelt.”

“Did you see Schwab?”—“No, I did not. Schnaubelt told me Schwab had gone to Deering’s.”

“Did you go to Crane’s alley with Schwab?”—“I could not very well do that, as I had not seen him that night.”

“Just answer the question,” cried Mr. Ingham.—“Well, I did not go to the alley. I did not even know there was an alley there.” The witness denies the conversation Mr. Thompson alleges he overheard Spies engage in with Schwab. He said Schnaubelt cannot speak any English—that he has only been about two years in the country.

“Did Schwab say to you that evening: ‘Now, if they come, we are prepared for them’?”—“No, sir; I did not see him that evening.”

“Did you talk with Schwab on the east side of Desplaines street, about twelve feet south of the alley that evening?”—“I did not. I was not anywhere near that alley with any man.”

“You remember what the witness Thompson said, that he saw you walk with Schnaubelt east on Randolph street; that he saw you hand him something; that you then returned to the meeting together. Is that true?”—“It is not. That man told a different story before the coroner’s jury.”

This last answer is ordered stricken out, and Spies was told to say nothing but in answer to questions. Spies was asked to tell what he said at the meeting. It was a short synopsis of the existing state of the labor world. First, he said that the meeting was to be a peaceable one; that it was not called for the purpose of creating trouble. Attention was directed to the strike at East St. Louis, where those who were active in the riots there were not Socialists nor Anarchists, but church-going people, and honest, sincere Christians. It was admitted by students that society was retrograding; the masses were being degraded under the excessive work they had to carry on. For twenty years the working men asked in vain for two hours less work a day, and that finally they resolved to take the matter in their own hands and help themselves. “About this time I saw Parsons, then I broke off. I was not in a state to make a speech. I was tired. I introduced Parsons, and he proceeded to address the meeting.”

“What was the size of the crowd then?”—“About two thousand persons.”

“Where did you go after finishing your speech?”—“I remained on the wagon.”

“You spoke in English?”—“Yes. I made no speech in German that night. I was asked to do so, but was too tired. I introduced Fielden and he made a brief speech, then we intended to go home.”

“What did Parsons say in his speech?”—“Parsons made a pretty good speech. He said of the dollar earned by the working men they got only fifteen cents, while the pharisaical class got eighty-five cents, and that the eight-hour movement was a still-hunt for that eighty-five cents.”

“What do you remember of Fielden’s speech?”—“Well, Fielden did not say much. I don’t remember now what he did say.”

“Were you on the wagon when the police came?”—“Yes. I saw the police on Randolph street.”

“At that time what was the size of the meeting?”—“It was as good as adjourned. About two-thirds of those present went, some going to Zephf’s hall when the black cloud came up.”

“What did you hear when the command to disperse was given?”—“I was standing in the middle of the wagon, back of Fielden. I heard Captain Ward say; ‘I command you, in the name of the people of Illinois, to disperse.’ Captain Ward had a cane or club in his hand. ~~Fidlden~~Fielden said to him: ‘Captain, this is a peaceable meeting.’ I started to get down out of the wagon. My brother Henry and one Legner helped me down. I was indignant at the thought that the police had come to disperse the meeting, as it was a quiet one. Just as soon as I reached the ground I heard a loud detonation. I thought the police had a cannon to frighten the people. I did not dream for a moment of a bomb, and I did not even then think the police were firing at the crowd. I thought the police were firing over their heads.”

“Where did you go to?”—“I was pushed along by the crowd. I went to Zephf’s hall.”

“Did you at any time that night get down from the wagon and go into an alley and light a bomb in the hands of Rudolph Schnaubelt?”—“I never did.”

“Did you see Schnaubelt in the alley that night while Fischer was there?”—“I did not.”

“You remember the witness Gilmer?”—“Yes.”

“Is his story true?”—“Not a word of it.”

“You remember Wilkinson, the reporter for the Daily News?”—“Yes. I had a conversation with him in January.”

“Well, go on and tell us about it.”—“He was introduced to me by Joe Gruenhut. He said he wanted to get some data wherewith to prepare an article on Anarchism, Socialism and dynamite, and all that. I happened to have four shells in my office. I had them for about three years. A man on his way to New Zealand gave me two bombs; another man some time after called at my office with two bombs, and wanted to know if their construction was proper. That’s how I came to possess them. He wanted one to show to Mr. Stone. I let him take it. We went to dinner at a ~~restaurent~~restaurant, and we conversed about society, its present state, and the trouble that was likely to ensue. We spoke about street warfare, as all this was contained in the papers every day. There was constant talk that so many wild-eyed Socialists were arriving every day, and I told him it was an open secret that there were 3,000 armed Socialists in Chicago, and we spoke about revolutions, and I said that in past ages gun-powder had come to the assistance of the down-trodden masses, and that dynamite was a child of the same parent, and was a great leveler.”

“Do you remember the toothpick illustration?”—“Yes. I remember that, and also re-call speaking of the Washington street tunnel, saying how easy comparatively few men could hold that tunnel against a body of soldiers, but nothing was said about Chicago, nor was any time fixed for the revolution.”

“You wrote the word ‘Ruhe’ for insertion in the Arbeiter Zeitung May 4?”—“I did.”

“How did you come to do that?”—“The night before at 11 o’clock I received a letter as follows: Mr. Editor: Please insert in to-day’s letter-box the word ‘Ruhe’ in prominent letters.”

“At that time did you know there was any import attached to the word?”—“I did not.”

“When did you next hear of it?”—“The next afternoon Balthazar Rau asked me if the word was in the paper. I said: ‘Yes.’ He asked me if I knew the meaning. I said: ‘No.’ Then he said: ‘The armed section had a meeting last night and adopted the word ‘Ruhe’ as a signal to keep their powder dry and be in readiness in case the police precipitated a riot.’ I asked if that had anything to do with the meeting I was to address at the Haymarket, and he said: ‘Oh, no; that’s something the boys got up themselves.’ I said it was very foolish, that it was not rational, and asked if there was no way in which it could be undone. Rau then went to see the people of the armed section and told them the word was put in by mistake.”

“Were you a member of the armed section?”—“No, not for six year.”

“Did you ever have dynamite and a fuse in your desk?”—“Yes, I had two packages of giant powder and some fuse in my desk for two years. I had them chiefly to show to reporters, they bothered me a good deal. They always wanted some sensation. Then, too, I wanted the dynamite to study it; I had read a great deal about explosives.”

“Do you know anything about a package of dynamite found on the shelf in the closet of the Arbeiter Zeitung?”—“Ab-so-lute-ly nothing.”

“Do you know anything about a revolver that was found in the Arbeiter Zeitung office?”—“No. I do not. I carried a revolver myself, but it was a good one.”

“Did you carry a revolver?”—“Yes. I always thought it was a good thing to be prepared. I was out late at night a good deal.”

“Did you have a revolver that night?”—“No, it was too heavy. I left it with ex-Ald. Frank Stauber.”

“You were arrested May 5?”—“Yes.”

“Tell us how.”—“Well, an officer—James Bonfield, I think—came to my office and asked for Schwab. He said Chief Ebersold would like to see him. Schwab asked me if he should go. I said yes, he might. Then the officer turned to me and asked me if my name was Spies. I said yes. Then he said Superintendent Ebersold would like to see me about that affair of last night. I went over there, unsuspectingly. I was never so treated before in all my life.”

“Tell what happened?”—“Well, as soon as I got into the station Superintendent Ebersold started at me. He said: ‘You dirty Dutch dog; you hound; you whelp—you, we will strangle you! We will kill you!’ Then they jumped on us, tore us apart from each other. I never said anything. Then they searched us, took our money, even our handkerchiefs, and would not return them to us. I was put in a cell, and have not had my liberty since.”

Mr. Ingham cross-examined the witness. Spies said he came to this country when seventeen years old, and that he has lived in Chicago some thirteen years. The Arbeiter Zeitung was controlled by what Spies termed an “autonomous editorial arrangement;” that is, the powers of the several editors were co-ordinate, but the general policy of the paper was under the supervision of the board of trustees.

“Did you ever receive any money for the Alarm?”—“Yes.”

“Did you ever pay out any money for the Alarm?”—“Yes.”

“Did you ever write any articles for the Alarm?”—“I may have.”

“How many bombs did you have in the Arbeiter Zeitung office?”—“Four, I think. Two I got from a man named Schwab. I forget now. He was a shoemaker. He went to New Zealand.”

“How did this man come to give you those bombs?”—“He came to me and asked me if my name was Spies. I said yes. Then he asked me if I had seen any of the bombs they were making. I said no. Then he left them with me.”

“Who did he mean by ’they’?”—“I don’t know.”

“Didn’t he say who they were?”—“No.”

“And you never saw him before or since?”—“No, sir.”

“And when did you get these czar bombs?”—“I never got them. That is an invention of that reporter. A man came there while I was at dinner and left them there. He left the bombs with the bookkeeper. I never saw him before or after.”

Mr. Ingham introduced a letter and a postal card found in Spies’ desk, the reading of which, as translated by Mr. Gauss, created a great sensation. Spies acknowledged the writing as addressed to him by Johann Most, the noted Anarchist:

“DEAR SPIES:—Are you sure that the letter from the Hocking Valley was not written by a detective? In the week I will go to Pittsburgh, I have an inclination also to go to the Hocking Valley. For the present I send you some printed matter. There Sch. and H. also existed but on paper. I told you this some months ago. On the other hand, I am able to furnish “medicine”, and the “genuine” article at that. Directions for use are perhaps not needed with these people. Moreover, they were recently published in the “Fr.” The appliances I can also send. Now, if you consider the address of Buchtell thoroughly reliable, I will ship twenty or twenty-five pounds. But how? Is there an express line to the place? Or is there another way possible? Polus the great seems to delight in ~~hoping~~hopping about in the swamps of the N. Y. V. Z., like a blown-up (bloated) frog. His tirades excite general detestation. He has made himself immensely ridiculous. The main thing is only that the fellow cannot smuggle any more ~~rotton~~rotten elements into the newspaper company than are already in it. In this regard the caution is important. The organization here is no better nor worse than formerly. Our group has about the strength of the North side group in Chicago, and then, besides this, we have also the soc. rev. 6, the Austrian and Bohemian leagues—three more groups. Finally, it is easily seen that our influence with the trade organizations is steadily growing. We insert our meetings only in the Fr., and cannot notice that they are worse attended than at the time when we yet threw the weekly $1.50 and $2 into the mouth of the N. Y. V. Z. Don’t forget putting yourself into communication with Drury in reference to the English organ. He will surely work with you much and well. Such a paper is more necessary than the Tooth. This, indeed, is getting more miserable and confused from issue to issue, and in general is whistling from the last hole. Inclosed is a fly-leaf which recently appeared at Emden, and is, perhaps, adopted for reprint. Greetings to Schwab, Rau, and to you. Your

“JOHANN MOST.

“P.S.—To Buchtell I will, of course, write for the present only in general terms.

“A. Spies, 107 Fifth avenue, Chicago, Ill.”

Mr. Gauss then read the following as his translation of the postal card:

“DEAR SPIES:—I had scarcely mailed my letter yesterday when the telegraph brought news from H. M. One does not know whether to rejoice over that or not. The advance in itself is elevating. Sad is the circumstance that it will remain local and therefore may not have the result. At any rate, these people made a better impression than the foolish voters on this and the other side of the ocean. Greeting and a hail. Your

“J. M.”

W. A. S. Graham, a reporter for The Times, testified that he talked with the witness for the prosecution, Harry Gilmer, on the afternoon of May 5, and that Gilmer said the man who threw the bomb lit the fuse himself. “He said he saw the man light the fuse and throw the bomb, and that he could identify him again if he saw him. He said the man was of medium size and had a soft hat and whiskers. He said the man’s back was turned to him.”

At this stage the defense rested, and evidence in rebuttal was introduced. Justice Daniel Scully testified that in the preliminary examination of one Frank Steuner, charged with shooting from the wagon at the Haymarket, Officers Foley and Wessler did not testify that it was Steuner who fired on the police.

“Did the officers not say the man who jumped up from behind the wagon was a heavy man, with long whiskers (Fielden)?”—“They did.”

“Did not Officer Foley say he would be able to identify this man if he ever saw him again?”—“He did.”

John B. Ryan, an attorney who defended Steuner before Justice Scully, testified that Steuner said at the time that the man who did the shooting was a short, heavy-set man with full whiskers.

United States District Attorney R. S. Tuthill, Charles B. Dibble, an attorney, Judge Chester C. Cole, of Des Moines, Iowa, E. R. Mason, Clerk of the United States District Court at Des Moines, George Crist, Ex-City Marshal of Des Moines, and Ex-Governor Samuel Merrill of Iowa, all testified to the good character of the witness Gilmer. They would believe him under oath. Governor Merrill had known Gilmer since 1872, and had given him employment.

As the great trial drew toward its close popular interest in the proceedings increased. The Criminal Court building was crowded with people daily long before the hour for opening court arrived, and many times the number who gained admission were turned away. On the day of the closing argument by the prosecution, and while the jury were deliberating over their verdict, extra precautions were taken to protect the administrators of the law. A cordon of police and deputy sheriffs surrounded the building, and no one was allowed to enter who could not be properly identified.

[CHAPTER V.]

Arguments for the prosecution and defense.

Assistant State’s Attorney Frank Walker began the opening argument for the prosecution Wednesday, August 11. The speaker said:

“We stand in the temple of justice to exercise the law, where all men stand equal. No matter what may have been the deep turpitude of the crime, no matter what may have been the design, though it aim even at the overthrow of the law itself, no man ought to be convicted of the crime charged until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. These men were presumed innocent at the outset until the proof presented by the State established their guilt. The defendants were charged with murder. Murder was defined to be the unlawful killing of a person in the peace of the people. An accessory was he who stands by and aids or abets or advises the deed, or who, not standing by, aids or abets or advises the deed, and such persons are to be considered as principals and punished. Whether the principals are punished or not, they are equally as guilty as the principals. When a number of persons conspire together to do a certain act, and when, in furtherance of this design, some one is killed, all those in the conspiracy are guilty of murder before the fact. The defendant’s counsel have told you these men conspired to precipitate the social revolution, and though that conspiracy cost Matthias J. Degan his life, yet you are told these defendants are guilty only of murder. Was Luther Payne or Mrs. Surratt held guilty when in the execution of a conspiracy President Lincoln was killed? Neither Payne nor Surratt committed the deed, yet they were held guilty. There was a conspiracy; it was designed to bring about another revolution. Booth killed President Lincoln, but all who participated in the conspiracy had to forfeit their lives.”

Counsel for the State.

“If a body of men, inflamed with resentment, proceed to pull down a building, or to remove an objectionable obstruction and death to some one ensues, each one of these men is individually responsible for the killing. Nobody knew this better than August Spies, the author of the ‘Revenge’ circular. Suppose that a body of men undertake to pull down a building; there is a common design to demolish that building, and a stone is thrown, not at any individual but at the building, and some one is struck by this stone and killed, all of those engaged in the execution of that common design are ~~responsable~~responsible for the killing of this one person. When there is an intent grievously to hurt and death is occasioned, then the offense is murder. Was this man [pointing to Fischer] in this conspiracy for murder? This man with his revolver a foot long and his file dagger with a groove? What is this groove for? It is for prussic acid. Was this man in the conspiracy?”

Mr. Walker then read a passage from Most’s “Revolutionary Warfare” telling how prussic acid can be applied to grooved daggers, making them the more deadly. “This is the test: Was the bomb thrown in furtherance of the common design? If it was it makes no difference whether it was thrown by one of these conspirators here or not. Nobody had been advocating the use of dynamite but Socialists. Was there anybody who would throw a bomb except a Socialist? We have proved that Lingg made the bomb in furtherance of the common design. ‘You have done this, Louis Lingg,’ said Huebner, and Lingg went away and complained that he was blamed for doing the good work.”

Mr. Walker reiterated that every one of the 3,000 men said by Spies to have participated in the conspiracy were equally guilty of the murder of Officer Degan. All the members of the Lehr und Wehr Verein were included in this charge. He pointed out the fact that nearly all of the witnesses for the defense are members of Anarchist bodies; that their sympathies are with the prisoners, and that it has been abundantly shown by their cross-examination that they would not hesitate to pervert the truth in order to shield their confederates from the consequences of their acts.