THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL OVERRULED.
Judge Gary said:
“In passing upon this motion for a new trial the case is so voluminous, there is such a mass of evidence, that it is impossible, within anything like reasonable limits, to give a synopsis or epitome. I do not understand that either upon the trial before the jury or upon the arguments of this motion before me there have been any arguments tending or intended to deny that all of the defendants, except Neebe, were parties to whatever purpose or object there was in view—that the other seven were combined for some purpose. I, of course, do not wish to attribute to the defendants’ counsel any admissions which they have not made, but my impression is that there has been no argument tending or intending to deny that all the other seven, except Neebe, were engaged in the pursuit of some object. What it is, the counsel have debated before the jury and before me. Now, it is important to know what that object was, whether it was as counsel for defense have stated—merely to encourage working men to resist, if unlawful attacks were made upon them—or whether it was something else. There is no better way to ascertain what the object was, than to read what they have spoken and written as the object, while the events were transpiring. Now, from the files of their newspapers, which go back a good way, a good deal can be taken, which must of necessity be taken as the truth of what their object was. I have not had time and opportunity to arrange either the translations of the Arbeiter Zeitung or the files of the Alarm, and pick out those which in the fullest shape show what they were proposing to do. These translations from the Arbeiter Zeitung now come to my hands for the first time. I have here a translation of the Arbeiter Zeitung, January 11, 1885, headed ‘To Arms’.”
The Court proceeded to read numerous and lengthy extracts from translations offered in evidence of articles in the Arbeiter Zeitung, in which revolution by force was advised, and the approaching revolution, it was declared, would be greater than that of the last century. Among the extracts read were the following:
“Dynamite! Of all stuff, this is the stuff.”
“The day draws near when the working people of America, in an outburst of passion and ungovernable rage, will revolt and demand the total abolition of the existing state of things which brings to the working classes so much misery and death. Have you all prepared yourselves with knives, pistols, guns and dynamite for the unavoidable conflict between labor and capital?”
“It was decided at the last mass-meeting at No. 54 West Lake street that the next meeting will be devoted to the consideration of the military laws and necessity of using force in the warfare between capital and labor.”
“Each working man ought to have been armed long ago. Daggers, revolvers and explosives are cheap, and can be easily obtained.”
“Those who want to talk to capitalists in earnest must be prepared to attain their object by killing them. This can only be accomplished by systematic organization. The time for all this is short—look out—”
“In addition to all this,” continued Judge Gary, “there is the testimony of witnesses that there was a combination which was formed as early as 1884, and that combination had for its purpose the changing of the existing order of things, the overthrow of government, and the abolition of all law. There can be no question in the mind of any one who has read these articles or heard these speeches, which were written and spoken long before the eight-hour movement was talked of, that this movement which they advocated was but a means in their estimation toward the ends which they sought, and that the movement itself was not primarily any consideration with them at all. The different papers and speeches furnish direct contradiction to the arguments of counsel that they proposed to resort to arms merely to resist any unlawful attacks which the police might make upon them, because these all show that their object was this: If, during the eight-hour movement, strikes occuredoccurred, and if the employers chose to employ other men in the place of those who had struck, then these men so employed must be prevented by force from going to work, and if the police then undertook to resist the force so employed on behalf of the strikers; if the police undertook to prevent this force from being so employed, then that was the ground on which the police force was to be destroyed. There can be no doubt that that was an unlawful combination. It is impossible to argue that any set of men have the right to dictate to others whether they should work or not, and if they chose to work in defiance of their dictation, drive them away by force, and if the police undertook to prevent that force, then kill the police. It is impossible for an instant to support any such principle as that. The members of this combination publicly announce that they had no hope of winning the majority over to their side by argument, and no hope of attaining their object by getting rid of this majority by violence. There is no doubt that seven of the defendants were in the combination formed for that purpose. As to Neebe’s part, there is the evidence of witnesses that he presided at meetings called by the class of people from whom this combination was drawn, and that he called meetings of the people who were engaged in the movement. There is evidence that he marched in the Board of Trade procession, the object of which was said to be the demolition of that building.”
The Court proceeded to discuss all the evidence against Neebe, which tended to show that he was associated with the rest of the defendants in the encouragement of the movement which had for its object the destruction of the government. The Court resumed:
“On the question of the instructions whether these defendants, or any of them, did anticipate or expect the throwing of the bomb on the night of the 4th of May, is not a question which I need to consider, because the instructions did not go upon that ground. The jury were not instructed to find them guilty if they believed that they participated in the throwing of the bomb, or encouraged or advised the throwing of that bomb, or had knowledge that it was to be thrown, or anything of that sort. The conviction has not gone upon the ground that they did have any actual participation in the act which caused the death of Deegan, but upon the ground, under the instructions, that they had generally by speech and print advised a large class to commit murder, and had left the occasion, time and place to the individual will, whim and caprice of the individuals so advised, and that in consequence of that advice, and in pursuance of it, and influenced by it, somebody not known did throw the bomb that caused Deegan’s death.
“There is no example in the law books of a case of this sort. No such occurrence has ever happened before in the history of the world. I suppose that in the Lord George Gordon riots we might find something like this. Lord George Gordon was indicted for treason, and the government failed in its proof upon the trial as to what he had done. Very likely they did not want to prove it very strongly against him; I do not know; it is none of my business. If the bomb was thrown in pursuance of the prisoners’ advice, the instruction as to the law of accessories before the fact applied to the case, and the instruction to the jury was proper. If the radical Prohibitionists should make up their minds that the only way to stop the liquor traffic was by destroying the saloons and killing the saloon-keepers, and if some crank should blow up a saloon with a bomb for whose manufacture the radicals had furnished specific directions, and in the explosion a saloon-keeper was killed, there could be no question but that the radical temperance men were guilty of murder. But there was no question that when some one said ‘Hang McCormick,’ or ‘Hang Gould,’ the reply was given to make no idle threats, but when they got ready to do anything, to do it.”
The shorthand report of the speeches of Spies, Parsons and Fielden at the Haymarket meeting was then read, after which the Court said:
“Now, the general advice throughout was to each individual-man—I mean the general teachings on this subject of associated revolution—was to each individual-man to do it himself, without combination; that men working together in deeds of violence were to be avoided; that they were to go alone where one man only was required to accomplish the work, and where more than one man was required, as few as was necessary should be taken. Now, under these circumstances, in the inflamed state of the public mind at the time, each of these orators was still more inflaming the public mind when he advised the people to use force, and some man—I do not say identified, but unidentified—some man in that crowd, when the police approached, with a bomb of Lingg’s manufacture, killed Deegan; all who have advised such action are guilty of his murder. If anything can be proved by circumstantial evidence, that is proved; that he threw that bomb in consequence of the influence of these teachings, this advise by speech and printing over a course of two years; that the man who threw that bomb had been educated up to it by the teachings of these defendants. The case, as I said before, is unprecedented. There is no example of any such crime having been committed; there is no precedent of any case like this having become the subject of judicial investigation; but the principle of law is well fixed. It is the boast of people who profess to admire the common law, that it adapts itself to human events, and that no situation or no new form of industry can arise but the common law has principles which may be applied.”
The prisoners spoke in their own behalf before sentence was passed. The courtroom was crowded as usual. The police department was represented by Chief Ebersold, Capt. Schaack, and twenty officers. The prisoners wore a look of even greater anxiety than at the morning session. Parsons appeared particularly thoughtful and gloomy. The greater part of the session he sat with his cheek resting in his hand and taking less note of the proceedings than usual. Spies was laboring under great excitement. Before he began his speech Judge Gary repeated the caution he had before given the auditors to refrain from any demonstration of approbation or disapprobation during the session. He insisted that every one in the court should be seated, and seeing two men at the rear of the room seated on a table he compelled them to take chairs or sit on the floor. Everything was quiet as the grave when Spies began his address. During the impassioned passages he raised his voice and indulged in violent gesticulation. Neebe’s utterance was quite rapid, and he spoke like one at home before an audience. His speech would have produced an impression on any jury. His voice is clear and resonant, and he has a better presence than any of the other defendants. Fischer spoke hesitatingly, and would probably not have spoken at all but for an uncontrollable desire to express his opinion of the State’s Attorney and all representatives of the law. Lingg’s rather handsome face was flushed, and his eyes flashed as he poured out his denunciation of Messrs. Grinnell and Bonfield. When he took his seat his face was covered with perspiration. He made the walls ring, and as each sentence had to be translated by Prof. Ficke, he had ample opportunity to deliver each sentence with renewed emphasis. Schwab read his speech in a clear, resonant voice, and it had been evidently prepared with much care.
