“Has ‘Ruhe’ any reference to the Haymarket meeting? Does it not rather show that the parties who conspired there were not to take part in the Haymarket meeting at all? What, then, has the evidence in regard to that meeting got to do with the case? That much (illustrating by snapping the fingers).
“Now, to return for a moment to Lingg’s alleged attempt to throw a bomb. Has there ever been heard such a ridiculous story as that? It is an absolute falsehood upon its face. A revolutionist, a true disciple of Herr Most, goes out with bombs in his pocket, next to his friends, and takes a walk, and when he goes to the station and wants to throw a bomb into the station he isn’t even provided with a light to ignite the fuse; he has to ask his friend, ‘Have you got a light?’ And the other one says he hasn’t got it or makes some kind of excuse. Don’t you see that all that testimony is given in order to show you, or in order that Mr. Seliger may show himself to you as a highly moral person who has been the dupe of Lingg? He, the man who has been an Anarchist for years and years—and his wife herself says so—he has been persuaded by Lingg to make bombs, he has been misled by Lingg, has been the dupe of Lingg. Seliger, the man with a full beard (Seliger had a full beard at the time of the trial), a man of over thirty years, has been the dupe of this innocent-looking fellow, Lingg! If one was the dupe of the other, then Lingg surely was the dupe of Seliger. Seliger is the one who was arrested first. In order to save his own worthless neck, he betrays his friend and companion and swears against him, and upon the testimony of these treacherous lips you are asked to convict Lingg.”
Mr. Zeisler maintained that he had shown that there was no conspiracy, no general conspiracy, and insisted that the alleged conspiracy of May 3 had no reference whatever to the Haymarket meeting; that the throwing of the bomb at the Haymarket meeting was in direct contradiction of the agreement by the conspirators of May 3, and if one of them had done it, he would have done contrary to the conspiracy. He then spoke of the object of the Haymarket gathering and said:
“It was called for the purpose of denouncing the atrocious act of the police in shooting down their brethren at the McCormick factory. That was the only purpose of the meeting, as Mr. Waller testified. Of course his testimony is the one that the State relies upon mostly. Now, what was the occasion of calling such a meeting to denounce the act of the police? It was the meeting at McCormick’s factory.”
The counsel then reviewed the testimony with reference to the meeting near McCormick’s factory, pointing to the fact that no one had testified to what Spies had actually said on that occasion, and maintained that not a single witness had been produced to prove that Spies had then and there incited men to riot. Witnesses for the State, he said, had shown that Spies continued talking after many of the men had started toward McCormick’s factory. Did any one suppose he would thus quietly continue speaking there if he had precipitated that riot? Mr. Zeisler did not excuse the men for stoning the factory—it was wrong—but he did not believe that gave the right to the police to shoot at those excited people. Coming back to the Haymarket, he read some of the testimony on the side of the State to show that it was an ordinary, peaceable meeting, and then said that on the day Spies wrote the “Revenge” circular Parsons was on his way back from Cincinnati and Fielden in a suburban town in a quarry. He next proceeded to show that there was no connection with the printing of the “Revenge” circular and the Monday night meeting, and said Spies knew nothing about the call for that meeting. He closed by saying that the circular meant simply the same thing that Fielden and Parsons meant in their speeches on the evening of May 4, and that meaning, he said, he had made plain in the earlier part of his address.
Mr. George C. Ingham, special counsel for the State, followed next. His argument was clear, concise and to the point. He opened by citing the law in the case, reading numerous authorities with reference to conspiracies and commenting thereon at some length. One authority he read was “Russell on Crimes,” to show that it was simply putting in the shape of a statute that which the common law already declares to be an offense, and then cited a case which arose not many years ago upon that very statute:
“Johann Most, in the city of London, was indicted, because while there he published a paper advocating the assassination of the crowned heads of other countries. He was indicted under that statute, and he was convicted by a jury. The case went to their highest court, and I wish now to read you what the Justice of that court says as to what is meant by a solicitation to murder.”
The opinion of Lord Coleridge was read, and Mr. Ingham continued:
“You, gentlemen, will remember that that paper (Die Freiheit) is now published in the city of New York. The sentence is not given in the report I read. The custom is in England that before a sentence is pronounced, in case an appeal is taken, that is first passed upon, and after that the sentence is pronounced. That case was decided in 1881. Shortly after that John Most came to America. They probably thought the best thing they could do with him was to pass upon him a light sentence and ship him. At any rate they landed him here, and he started his Freiheit paper in New York.”
Mr. Ingham next read the case of Cox vs. The People, from the Illinois Reports, and continued: