Anarchy and Anarchists / A History of the Red Terror and the Social Revolution in America and Europe; Communism, Socialism, and Nihilism in Doctrine and in Deed; The Chicago Haymarket Conspiracy and the Detection and Trial of the Conspirators

by Michael J. Schaack

The Argument for the Defendants—“Newspaper Evidence”—Bringing about the Social Revolution—Arson and Murder—The Right to Property—Evolution or Revolution—Dynamite as an Argument—The Arsenal at 107 Fifth Avenue—Was it all Braggadocio?—An Open Conspiracy—Secrets that were not Secrets—The Case Against the State’s Attorney—A Good Word for Lingg—More About “Ruhe”—The “Alleged” Conspiracy—Ingham’s Answer—The Freiheit Articles—Lord Coleridge on Anarchy—Did Fielden Shoot at the Police?—The Bombs in the Seliger Family—Circumstantial Evidence in Metal—Chemical Analysis of the Czar Bomb—The Crane’s Alley Enigma.

ON the morning of August 12, Mr. Sigismund Zeisler opened his argument on behalf of the defendants. In view of the desperate condition of his case Mr. Zeisler made an able and ingenious plea. His argument occupied a whole day.

During the morning hour, he elaborated at some length upon his theory of the law, and claimed that it was not only necessary to establish that the defendants were parties to a conspiracy, but it was also necessary to show that somebody who was a party to that conspiracy had committed an act in pursuance of that conspiracy. Besides that it was essential that the State should identify the principal. This, he held, was the law of the State and of the land and of the Constitution of the United States. If the principal is not identified, then no one could be held as accessory. Upon this theory the case should stand or fall, and it was for this reason that the defense endeavored to impeach the testimony of Harry L. Gilmer, as that testimony, he maintained, was vital for the case. Mr. Walker, he said, had stated that there was a conspiracy to inaugurate the social revolution on the 1st of May, citing in support of the claim the conversation between Spies and Moulton at Grand Rapids, a resolution adopted at the West Twelfth Street Turner Hall in October, 1885, and a conversation between Spies and Reporter Wilkinson; but after showing the general drift of those conversations and the tenor of the resolutions, Mr. Zeisler contended that the reports of these matters in the newspapers at the time could not be accepted as evidence, as newspapers are frequently given to misstatements. Then, referring to the testimony given by the parties named, he said:

“Now, what does that testimony amount to?—the testimony of Mr. Moulton, the testimony of Mr. Wilkinson and the testimony in regard to the resolutions adopted at the West Twelfth Street Turner Hall? Nothing but the fact which is known to all Chicago, that the laboring classes had combined to fight for an eight-hours’ work-day on and after the 1st of May. That is one thing. And another thing, as far as these resolutions are concerned, that it was resolved that, inasmuch as the workingmen had to anticipate that the employers would call out the police and militia against them, that they should arm themselves to meet the employers by the same means that they, the employers, used.

“Now, further than that, Mr. Spies has spoken with Mr. Moulton and with Mr. Wilkinson about the coming social revolution; and when asked by Mr. Moulton, ‘How can you ever accomplish such a result? How can you ever bring about the social revolution? Under what circumstances can it be done?’ he says it can be done at a time when the workingmen will be unemployed. Substantially the same thing was said to Mr. Wilkinson at the time of that interview last January. Now, the State’s Attorney and his associates argue to you that Spies said himself the social revolution is coming. When is it coming? On the 1st of May. Can that be taken literally?”

SIGISMUND ZEISLER.
From a Photograph.

Mr. Zeisler held that in the progress of the civilized world a social revolution was inevitable, not by the use of dynamite or force, but by the peaceable forces at work among the people.

“Now, the attorneys for the State talk to you about the social revolution, and try to make you believe that the social revolution means bombs and dynamite, and killing and arson and murder and all crimes that we know of. Mr. Fielden on the stand gave the proper expression. Asked whether he believed in the revolution, he said: ‘Yes, in the evolutionary revolution.’ And I tell you, gentlemen of the jury, this social revolution is coming—this social revolution in the sense in which Webster defines the word Socialism.”

Mr. Zeisler next said that they had not denied that the defendants had declared that they would head a procession to go and sack Marshall Field’s or Kellogg’s store, because it was a fact, but asked if after such advice any one of them had taken the lead in any such procession. “No, sir,” he said. “They went and armed themselves with beer. That is what they did.” On the night of the Board of Trade opening, Parsons and Fielden proposed to lead the crowd to attack the groceries and clothing houses, but what did they do? They gracefully retired into the room of the Arbeiter-Zeitung office and were interviewed by a reporter about the terrible effects of a fulminating cap. Did any one come up and inquire why they had not led the procession to those places? They did not, as everybody understood what was meant. Mr. Zeisler continued: