Carl Richter and F. Liebel gave practically similar stories of the riot. The point which the defense seemed to wish to bring out in their testimony was that the gravamen lay rather with the police than with the Anarchists. They swore that, although standing close to the famous wagon, they had heard nothing about “bloodhounds.”
Along this line, also, was the evidence of Dr. James D. Taylor, who gave a practically identical account of the explosion. This gentleman, however, seemed to be certain that the police had attacked the crowd. He had examined the scene of the riot on the next day and found that the bullet marks on the buildings came chiefly from the direction from which the police had charged. Quite a point was made by the Anarchists upon the fact that a telegraph pole, which was said to have thoroughly borne out Dr. Taylor’s testimony, had disappeared from the Haymarket. It was insinuated that the prosecution had made away with this pole. The fact was that the pole had been very prosaically, and in the common course of business, removed by the telegraph company.
Frank Stenner, Joseph Gutscher and Frank Raab gave their memories of the riot, all agreeing closely with the theory of the defense. Wm. Urban, a compositor on the Arbeiter-Zeitung, after telling the same story, swore that he saw something shining—which he believed were revolvers—in the hands of the police as they came up toward the meeting. The story of the explosion and the murder of the police, from the Anarchists’ point of view, was also detailed by Wm. Gleason, Wm. Sahl, Eberhard Hierzemenzel, Conrad Messer and August Krumm. This last witness, Krumm, also testified that he was lighting his pipe, in company with another man, in Crane’s alley, at the time that the bomb was thrown, which, it will be remembered, Gilmer swore had been fired in this alley by Spies and Schnaubelt—and Krumm declared that there was nobody in that little thoroughfare then save his friend and himself.
This was not the only attack on Gilmer’s veracity. Lucius M. Moses had known Harry Gilmer six or seven years and would not believe him on oath. John O. Brixey stated on the stand that Gilmer’s reputation was bad and that he was not worthy of belief. John Garrick, an ex-deputy sheriff, knew Gilmer and would not believe him on oath. Mrs. B. P. Lee was another who had no confidence in Gilmer’s truth and veracity.
CHAPTER XXVI.
Malkoff’s Testimony—A Nihilist’s Correspondence—More about the Wagon—Spies’ Brother—A Witness who Contradicts Himself—Printing the Revenge Circular—Lizzie Holmes’ Inflammatory Essay—“Have You a Match About You?”—The Prisoner Fielden Takes the Stand—An Anarchist’s Autobiography—The Red Flag the Symbol of Freedom—The “Peaceable” Meeting—Fielden’s Opinion of the Alarm—“Throttling the Law”—Expecting Arrest—More about Gilmer.
THE evidence so far produced for the defendants showed that their counsel had done everything possible in their efforts to offset the damaging testimony of the State. They proved themselves not only fertile in resources, but ingenious in the selection of witnesses and in the manner of presenting their points before the jury. It was no fault of theirs that they failed to make “the worse appear the better reason.” They labored incessantly for the cause of their clients, and they certainly called the best witnesses that could be found among the Anarchists and their sympathizers.
Robert Lindinger lived with Carl Richter and accompanied him to the Haymarket meeting. He stood at the mouth of the alley and saw at the meeting Spies, Parsons and Fielden. He did not see the gentleman on trial (indicating Schwab); had never seen him before in his life, and he (Schwab) was not on the wagon when Spies was there. He did not hear anybody say, “Here come the bloodhounds,” etc., saw no one in the crowd fire any shots, and saw no pistol in Fielden’s hand. Witness was a cornice-maker, and had been in the country about three years. He was not a Socialist, but read the Arbeiter-Zeitung.