“Nobody understands why the police came down to break up the meeting. Detectives have sworn here that after Mr. Parsons suggested that the meeting adjourn to Zephf’s hall, and the sky clouded up, the crowd dwindled down to two hundred or three hundred men, and then came this army of 180 policemen, armed with clubs and revolvers, headed by this hero, Bonfield, the savior of his country, to break up this meeting of peaceable and unarmed citizens. Was this courageous, or was it cowardly? It was an assault in the eyes of the law. The counsel for the State have attempted to make you believe that these disciples of Herr Most took a match and lighted a bomb which Most says should have a fuse not longer than two inches. Doesn’t it seem very probable that they would have lighted with a match this fuse, which would burn out in a few seconds, when they could have carried a lighted cigar to do it with? We have the testimony of a number of witnesses that Spies was not out of the wagon till the trouble began; and if Mr. Grinnell had had more sense in the prosecution of this case; if he had not been blinded by malice and prejudice; if he had not been influenced by the police conspiracy to send these men to the gallows, he would have seen the uselessness of attempting to secure a conviction by such testimony as that of Gilmer.”
MR. INGHAM FOR THE PROSECUTION.
Mr. George Ingham addressed the jury for the prosecution. He told them that there are verdicts which make history, and that theirs will be a history-making verdict. On the night of May 4, at 10 o’clock, Matthias J. Degan marched out of the Desplaines street station, full of life, and was soon afterward struck down by the hands of these defendants, not one of whom he had ever injured. The speaker told the jury again what “reasonable doubt” means. He said that the grand jury might have indicted 300 men instead of eight, but they saw fit to pick out the eight whom they deemed the leaders of the conspiracy against law and human life. There had been a good deal of talk, he said, about the constitutional right of free speech. The Constitution gave the people the right to meet and petition, but not to advise other people to commit murder. This right was based upon the old English common law, and in England was also found a definition of what constitutes incitement to murder. The case he was going to quote had also had another connection with the present one. It was brought in London in 1881 against Johann Most, who was then publishing his sheet, the Freiheit, in that city. It was shortly after the assassination of the Czar of Russia. He there advocated the assassination of all the heads of States, from Constantinople to Washington, and was convicted of inciting to murder. Mr. Ingham read the proceedings in the English court, the article upon which he was tried, and Lord Coleridge’s decision. Then he said: “It is shown that these defendants—Spies, Parsons, Schwab and Fischer—were engaged in the publication of articles in which they advised the destruction of the police by force, in which they advised working men to arm themselves with dynamite and be ready whenever the conflict should come to destroy the police force. For the publication of any one of these articles the defendants could have been convicted of a misdemeanor. And when Fielden that night told the people that war had been declared and that they must arm themselves to resist what had never taken place, he was guilty of a misdemeanor, and for that reason, if for no other, the police had a right to disperse the meeting. The treatment that Herr Most received in London shows you that the only salvation of a community is to enforce the letter of the law without sentiment, that bloodshed may be avoided. Herr Most was convicted for the publication of that article, and no English policemen have been blown up with dynamite. He came to this country, and the policemen who have been blown up are the American officers right here in this city. If we have not enforced the law it is high time that we enforce it now.”
Mr. Ingham then showed that the Haymarket meeting was a trap for the police designed for the purpose of leading them into a dark, dangerous place, the speeches being the bait, artfully increased until the police came to the alley and the bomb could be thrown. “Now who made the bomb? It is in evidence that Louis Lingg had been making bombs of a certain construction which Spies had said were superior, being of composite metal. It is in evidence that Lingg all the morning of May 4 was away from his house; that he upbraided Seliger for having made but one bomb. During the afternoon he was busy making bombs, and men came and went and worked at the bombs in his house. There is a story of a man who that day received bombs and dynamite from Lingg, showing that he distributed them.” Mr. Ingham read to the jury the chemical analysis of the bombs furnished by Drs. Haines and Delafontaine. What is the answer to all this? That the bomb was not thrown from the alley, but from thirty-eight feet south of the alley. And if they had satisfied you of that, was it not still thrown by one of the Anarchists—one of the conspirators? The bomb came from the conspiracy. And the moment it resulted in the death of Degan the crime of conspiracy was merged into the crime of murder.
“When Sumter was fired on, when the flag was insulted, when the attempt was made to destroy the Government, it was an attempt merely to change the form of government. When the bomb in this war was thrown it was the opening shot of a war which should destroy all government, destroy all law, leave men free to live as they see fit, and leave nothing to guide but the strong arm. I believe for myself that humanity—not merely our people, not merely we of America, but that humanity the wide world over—has no hope or no safety save the law. Law is the very shield that guards the progression of the race; it is the palladium of the liberty and lives of all people. Law which does not punish murder breeds death. Jurors who from the merciful instincts of their hearts hesitate to convict the guilty, are, in reality, mercilesssmerciless as the grave, for by their verdict they people graves with the innocent victims of midnight assassination and fill the mind with deeds of blood. Innocent blood from the days of Abel till now cries to Heaven for vengeance; innocent blood that contaminates the ground upon which it falls, and from it spring up dragon’s teeth. And now if you believe these men guilty, if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, as you cannot help but be, that these men were a party to a conspiracy unlawful in its nature, and that from that conspiracy a human life was taken, that they are murderers under that law, see to it that the majesty of the law of the state of Illinois is vindicated, and its penalties enforced. That is the demand upon you this day and this hour, not only of the people of the state of Illinois, but of humanity itself; for humanity, with all its fears, with all its hopes for future years, is hanging breathless on your fate.”
MR. FOSTER FOR THE DEFENSE.
Mr. Foster, who followed for the defense, had not lived long in Chicago. He came in March from Davenport, Iowa, near which city he was born about forty years ago. He is of medium height and square build. His features are refined and intellectual. An abundant growth of rich auburn hair adorns his shapely head. Mr. Foster obtained considerable fame as a lawyer in his native state, took an active part in politics, and was one of the Blaine Electors in 1884, and was very active in the campaign of that year. After having made an energetic and finely-eloquent plea to the jury to cast aside all prejudice arising from hatred of the principles of the Anarchists, love of and loyalty to the land, inherent patriotism, and the teachings of the popular press, Mr. Foster proceeded, in order to set himself right, to tear down without apology the theory of the defense set up by Messrs. Salomon & Zeisler. He had no defense to make for Socialism—it is dangerous; Communism is pernicious, and Anarchism is damnable. Lingg had manufactured bombs, and he ought to be punished therefor; but he was on trial for throwing, not manufacturing bombs. Spies, Schwab and Fischer had no business to preach social revolution in America. If they were not satisfied with the state of things here they ought to have gone back to Germany and tried to reform things there. Mr. Fielden might have found occupation in teaching his brother Englishmen to be just to Ireland. Parsons he rebuked in an eloquent passage for his lack of patriotism. Having thus skillfully set himself right with the jurors, Mr. Foster proceeded to define the issue of the trial as he understood it, and as he wished the jury to understand it. He admitted the moral responsibility of some of the prisoners for the crime. He denied their legal responsibility.
“Our law knows no citizenship when a defendant is brought to the bar of justice. Our law is grand enough, our law is broad enough, the principles upon which our Government is founded are such that it matters not whether he be French, German, Irish, Italian, or wherever his birthplace may be. All men are equal before the law. They are all citizens of the United States except Louis Lingg. I believe the testimony shows that he has been in the country two years. I think that Spies said he came here in infancy. I know as a matter of fact that Neebe, born in the state of Pennsylvania, never was a foreigner. Schwab has been in this country long enough to be a citizen. Whether he is or not is entirely immaterial for the purposes of this case. I know that Fielden has been here more than twenty years. I know that Fischer has been in Chicago for the last ten to twelve years, and Engel for fifteen or twenty years. What is the importance of the suggestion that they are foreigners, and Germans, except that it is important to wring from you a verdict grounded on prejudice. * * * It was an open secret that the defendants were indicted for murder, conspiracy and riot, but I will only argue the question of conspiracy so far as it relates to the crime of murder. The question of Socialism was of no importance unless it was connected with the murder of Degan, and the defendants were not being tried for any offense but that of conspiracy which resulted in the murder of Degan. The prosecution had been trying to tote the defendants out into the underbrush and assassinate them on immaterial issues; but the defendants’ counsel were too smart to be seduced by the song of the siren. Suppose Spies et. al. did conspire to overthrow society and their conspiracy stopped there, then there was nothing to argue. A verdict rendered upon anything else than a conspiracy directly connected with the outrage perpetrated at the Haymarket, would fall to the ground and amount to nothing.”
Referring to the popular clamor against the Socialists, Mr. Foster said: “Outside of you twelve gentlemen, the judge upon the bench, and counsel on either side, there is not a man in Chicago who has a right to say he has an opinion founded upon the facts in this case. If these men are to be tried on general principles for advocating doctrines opposed to our ideas of propriety, there is no use for me to argue the case. Let the Sheriff go and erect the scaffold; let him bring eight ropes with dangling nooses at the ends; let him pass them around the necks of these eight men; and let us stop this farce now, if the verdict and conviction is to be upon prejudice and general principles. We boast of our courts of justice, of our equitable law, but if the time has come, when men are to be prejudged before the trial and convicted upon general principles, all that is grand, sacred, noble and praiseworthy in our temples of justice will be destroyed. Considering the experience of us all in relation to this Haymarket tragedy, considering the facts that we know to be true, do you blame me for saying I am afraid of your passions? I am afraid of your prejudices.” Holding up the Czar bomb, Mr. Foster exclaimed in a loud voice: “Hang Spies, and Neebe, and Schwab, and Parsons, and Fielden, and Fischer, and Lingg, and Engel!” Taking up a tin dynamite can he continued: “Among other things, three tin cans were found under a sidewalk in the city. Strangle them to death, in part because these three cans were found! When were they in possession of any of the defendants? Never, so far as the testimony is concerned. When were they prepared and filled at the house of any of the defendants, or any of their associates? Never, so far as the testimony is concerned. And yet they are not only introduced in evidence, their contents examined and sworn to, but you are expected to smell them; you are asked to examine them at the risk of a headache, and they want your noses near to their tops. Why? Because they were found in the city of Chicago. And that is part of the testimony upon which the lives of these eight men are to be destroyed. But it is all in a lifetime; it is all part of the grand combination; it is all in the great conspiracy, because counsel tell us it is. Such evidence was never introduced in any court of justice in the civilized world without objection. It was said Herr Most described such things in his book on ‘Revolutionary Warfare.’ There is not a word of testimony that any of the defendants ever read that book. But that does not make any difference. They are Socialists—hang them. That does not make any difference. They are Communists—hang them; they are Anarchists—hang them. I always supposed that the lowest creature that possessed life was entitled to some consideration. I supposed there was not a thing in existence so low, so poor or loathsome, but had some rights, and I do not believe it now, except it be a Socialist, Communist or Anarchist. That puts them beyond the pale of civilization; it puts them beyond the protection of the law; it convicts them of itself.”
