CHAPTER XXXIII.
The Last Scene in Court—Reasons Against the Death Sentence—Spies’ Speech—A Heinous Conspiracy to Commit Murder—Death for the Truth—The Anarchists’ Final Defense—Dying for Labor—The Conflict of the Classes—Not Guilty, but Scapegoats—Michael Schwab’s Appeal—The Curse of Labor-saving Machinery—Neebe Finds Out what Law Is—“I am Sorry I am not to be Hung”—Adolph Fischer’s Last Words—Louis Lingg in his own Behalf—“Convicted, not of Murder, but of Anarchy”—An Attack on the Police—“I Despise your Order, your Laws, your Force-propped Authority. Hang me for it!”—George Engel’s Unconcern—The Development of Anarchy—“I Hate and Combat, not the Individual Capitalist, but the System”—Samuel Fielden and the Haymarket—An Illegal Arrest—The Defense of Albert R. Parsons—The History of his Life—A Long and Thrilling Speech—The Sentence of Death—“Remove the Prisoners.”
AFTER motion in arrest of judgment had been overruled by Judge Gary, Spies was asked if he had anything to say why sentence of death should not be passed upon him. The prisoner rose, with pallid cheeks and distended eyes, and advanced toward the bench with a hesitating tread. The moment he faced the court he recovered his equanimity and proceeded with much deliberation to give his reasons why he should not be sent to death on the gallows. He spoke in a firm, almost a menacing tone of voice, and seemed bent on posing as a martyr to the cause of the laboring classes. In his very opening sentence he desired to have that understood. “In addressing this court,” he said, “I speak as the representative of one class to the representative of another. I will begin with the words uttered five hundred years ago, on a similar occasion, by the Venetian Doge Falieri, who, addressing the court, said, ‘My defense is your accusation. The cause of my alleged crime is your history.’” He then referred to his conviction, holding that there was no evidence to show that he had any knowledge of the man who threw the bomb, or that he had had anything to do with its throwing. There being no evidence to establish his legal responsibility, he maintained, his “conviction and the execution of the sentence would be nothing less than willful, malicious and deliberate murder, as foul a murder as may be found in the annals of religious, political or any sort of persecution.” He charged that the representative of the State had “fabricated most of the testimony which was used as a pretense to convict,” and that the defendants had been convicted “by a jury picked out to convict.”
“I charge,” he continued, “the State’s Attorney and Bonfield with the heinous conspiracy to commit murder.” Having thus proved the truth of the old adage that “no rogue e’er felt the halter draw with good opinion of the law,” Spies next paid his compliments to the Citizens’ Association, the Bankers’ Association and the Board of Trade, attributing to them the inspiration for the attack on the Haymarket meeting, and he proceeded to give an account of his movements on the night of that meeting in the company of Legner. He again repeated that, “notwithstanding the purchased and perjured testimony of some,” the prosecution had not established the defendants’ legal responsibility, and insisted that those who had brought about their conviction were the “real and only law-breakers.” When he approached this part of the subject Spies’ anger scarcely knew any bounds. He rose in a towering passion and characterized the proceedings of the trial as “rascalities perpetrated in the name of the people.” He continued:
“The contemplated murder of eight men, whose only crime is that they have dared to speak the truth, may open the eyes of these suffering millions; may wake them up. Indeed, I have noticed that our conviction has worked miracles in this direction already. The class that clamors for our lives, the good, devout Christians, have attempted in every way, through their newspapers and otherwise, to conceal the true and only issue in this case. By simply designating the defendants as ‘Anarchists,’ and picturing them as a newly-discovered species of cannibals, and by inventing shocking and horrifying stories of dark conspiracies said to be planned by them, these good Christians zealously sought to keep the naked fact from the working people and other righteous parties, namely: That on the evening of May 4 two hundred armed men, under the command of a notorious ruffian, attacked a meeting of peaceable citizens! With what intention? With the intention of murdering them, or as many of them as they could. I refer to the testimony given by two of our witnesses. The wage-workers of this city began to object to being fleeced too much—they began to say some very true things, but they were highly disagreeable to our patrician class; they put forth—well, some very modest demands. They thought eight hours’ hard toil a day, for scarcely two hours’ pay, was enough. This lawless rabble had to be silenced! The only way to silence them was to frighten them, and murder those whom they looked up to as their ‘leaders.’ Yes, these foreign dogs had to be taught a lesson, so that they might never again interfere with the high-handed exploitation of their benevolent and Christian masters. Bonfield, the man who would bring a blush of shame to the managers of the Bartholomew night—Bonfield, the illustrious gentleman with a visage that would have done excellent service to Doré in portraying Dante’s fiends of hell—Bonfield was the man best fitted to consummate the conspiracy of the Citizens’ Association of our patricians. If I had thrown that bomb, or had caused it to be thrown, or had known of it, I would not hesitate a moment to state so. It is true a number of lives were lost—many were wounded. But hundreds of lives were thereby saved! But for that bomb there would have been a hundred widows and hundreds of orphans where now there are few. These facts have been carefully suppressed, and we were accused and convicted of conspiracy by the real conspirators and their agents. This, your honor, is one reason why sentence should not be passed by a court of justice—if that name has any significance at all.”
Spies then adverted to the fact of his having published articles on the manufacture of dynamite and bombs, and wanted to know what other newspapers in the city had not done the same thing. He forgot to show, however, that other papers had never urged the people to use dynamite to the destruction of the lives and property of the people.
Spies claimed that his only offense was in espousing the cause of “the disinherited and disfranchised millions,” and asked what they had said in their speeches and publications.
“We have interpreted to the people their condition and relations in society. We have explained to them the different social phenomena and the social laws and circumstances under which they occur. We have, by way of scientific investigation, incontrovertibly proved and brought to their knowledge that the system of wages is the root of the present social iniquities—iniquities so monstrous that they cry to heaven. We have further said that the wage system, as a specific form of social development, would, by the necessity of logic, have to make room for higher forms of civilization; that the wage system must prepare the way and furnish the foundation for a social system of coöperation—that is, Socialism. That whether this or that theory, this or that scheme regarding future arrangements were accepted, was not a matter of choice, but one of historical necessity, and that to us the tendency of progress seemed to be Anarchism—that is, a free society without kings or classes—a society of sovereigns in which the liberty and economic equality of all would furnish an unshakable equilibrium as a foundation and condition of natural order.”
After some further explanation of Socialism, he said:
“I may have told that individual who appeared here as a witness that the workingmen should procure arms, as force would in all probability be the ultima ratio, and that in Chicago there were so and so many armed men, but I certainly did not say that we proposed to inaugurate the social revolution. And let me say here: Revolutions are no more made than earthquakes and cyclones. Revolutions are the effect of certain causes and conditions. I have made social philosophy a specific study for more than ten years, and I could not have given vent to such nonsense! I do believe, however, that the revolution is near at hand—in fact, that it is upon us. But is the physician responsible for the death of the patient because he foretold that death?”