This sort of fire was kept up for some time, but the witness always dodged behind “I could not say positive.” He was asked how long it was after August Spies got through speaking when he (Spies) left, but the only answer was: “Well, that is something I don’t know certain.”
Now, why should the State want such a witness, or what interest could it have in spiriting him away? He certainly developed a remarkable want of memory, and with his testimony before the grand jury the defendants, if they had put him on the stand, could not have utilized him on their side. If he knew anything, as would seem to be the case, judging from his brother’s advice to tell everything and some statements he had previously made to the State’s Attorney, it all must have been in favor of the State. It is a justifiable conclusion that Chris Spies, on meeting him the day preceding his appearance before the grand jury, must have influenced him to testify the way he did. The truth about the whole matter is that the defendants would not have touched Legner had he been procurable, and if he went out of the city it must have been at their instigation. The above samples of his testimony show that his appearance on the stand would have made him dead timber to either side.
A good deal was also said about the absence of Mr. Brazleton, an Inter-Ocean reporter, from the witness-stand. He was not produced by the State because many of his statements were not of a positive character.
As there were so many other witnesses who had paid special attention to the incendiary character of the speeches, and remembered distinctly the various details in connection with the Haymarket meeting, there was no occasion to use Brazleton as a witness. All the others who were put on the stand gave fuller particulars and corroborated each other in all essential points. Had the general information of the others been of the same nature as that of Brazleton, it might have been well to have used him as a witness, but, with so much direct testimony as the State possessed, his evidence was not necessary. The defense simply sought to make a point on his absence—that is all.
A great deal has been said with reference to Schnaubelt. There is no doubt that he threw the fatal bomb. The defense at the trial of Spies and the others sought, however, to discredit such a belief. They asserted that there was not an iota of evidence to sustain such an opinion, and for their part they did not believe it. Per contra, it may be said that if he was innocent he took the wrong course to show it. Schnaubelt was arrested by Officers Palmer and Boyd, of the Central Station. Before the grand jury Palmer testified as follows:
HON. JOSEPH E. GARY.
From a Photograph.
“I was told that he was working at 224 Washington Street, rooms 5 and 6. I went up there and found him and brought him to the Central Station. That was on the 6th of this month.”
“Did he have whiskers, or not?”
“His face was shaved clean, except a mustache.”