Parsons then referred to attacks of the police on workingmen’s meetings, and reviewed some of the evidence against himself, insisting that he had never seen Lingg until he saw him in the court-room.
“Waller testified in chief, and reiterated it in cross-examination, that Engel and Fischer, these noble and brave Germans, offered a resolution at Greif’s Hall, on the announcement that six men had been wantonly and brutally murdered by the police at McCormick’s, that if other men should come into encounter with the police we should aid them; and further swore that this plan was to be followed only when the police, by brutal force, should interfere with the workmen’s right of free assemblage and free speech. Now, then, where is the foul and dastardly criminal conspiracy here? Where is it? So preposterous was it on its face to call such a noble compact to do a lawful thing a conspiracy, that it became necessary, in face of a dozen witnesses, both for the prosecution and the defense, who swear that the bomb came from the pavement on Desplaines Street, south of the alley, between the alley and Randolph Street—a statement made by Bonfield himself to reporters about half an hour after the tragedy occurred, and published in the Times, on May 5, the following morning—Louis Haas, Bonfield’s special detective on the ground, at the Coroner’s inquest, swore the bomb was thrown from the east side of Desplaines Street, and about fifteen feet, he believed, south of the alley, a statement confirmed by the witness Burnett, for the defense, who located it fifteen feet further south than Haas or Bonfield did—still, on the impeached testimony of Gilmer, who swore the bomb was thrown from within the alley, we are convicted, because he was also willing to perjure himself by swearing that Spies lit the fuse of the fatal missile. The idea of a man striking a match in an alley to light a bomb in the midst of a crowd, the people and police standing all around him! It seems to me that such a statement as that ought, among sensible men, on the face of it, to carry its own refutation. Perfectly absurd! If this statement bore the semblance of truth with regard to Gilmer, or was the truth, not one of these defendants would shrink from the responsibility of the right of self-defense, your honor, and of free speech, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble. It is because this is not the work of the Anarchists or of the workingmen that we repel the charge, which proves there was no concerted action, and that it was none of the plans of these groups. It is not unlawful to repel an invasion of our meetings.
“About this time some one, as testified to by three reputable witnesses, stopped at Indianapolis. That was in May. The Haymarket tragedy was the 4th. This man testifies to that fact. A stranger stops there. He says: ‘I am going to Chicago. I have something that will work. You will hear from it.’ The man was in his cups, no doubt; probably he drank too much. The Pinkertons are not all temperance men; they sometimes take a little, and sometimes possibly take a little too much. Possibly he talked a little more than he ought to have talked. Possibly he didn’t care, but at any rate it is sworn to that he said it. He came to Chicago, and the bomb was heard from and heard around the world. Your honor, is this an unreasonable assumption? It is far more likely, much more reasonable than your honor’s surmise that I instigated some one to do it.
“The absolute proof that the missile thrown was not dynamite, but what was known in the late civil war as an infernal bomb, is in the evidence of every surgeon who testified—that all incisions were clean, and that the flesh was torn as from an explosive in the interior. It was testified by these scientific men, your honor, that dynamite is percussive, and had a shell the size of Lingg’s manufacture, on exhibition in evidence, been thrown in the closed ranks of the police, as was this infernal machine, instead of killing but one on the spot, and wounding a few others, it would have blown to unrecognizable fragments the platoons in the vicinity, and the wounds, where there were wounds, would have been as clean as with solid projectiles.
“This was an infernal bomb from New York, brought there by the Indianapolis traveler, and not a dynamite bomb, the description in its effects upon its victims exactly corresponding with the description of those explosives when once used in battle on the Potomac. The hollow bullets within the shell, after entering the victim, exploded, lacerating the flesh and inflicting ugly internal and really infernal wounds.
“Six of these condemned men were not even present at the Haymarket meeting when the tragedy occurred. One of them was five miles away, at the Deering Harvester Works, in Lake View, addressing a mass-meeting of two thousand workingmen. Another was at home, in bed, and knew not of the meeting being held at all until the next day. These facts, your honor, stand uncontradicted before this court. Only one witness—Gilmer—and his testimony is overwhelmingly impeached, as I remarked before—connected the other two—two only—of these men with the tragedy at the Haymarket at all.
“Now, with these facts, the attempt to make out a case of conspiracy against us is a contemptible farce. What are the facts testified to by the two so-called informers? They said that two of these defendants were present at the so-called conspiracy meeting of Monday night. What, then, have you done with the other six men who were not members—who were not present, and did not know of the meeting being held Monday night? These two so-called informers testified that at the so-called conspiracy meeting of May 3 it was resolved that in the future, when police and militia should attack and club and kill workingmen at their meetings, then, and then only, they were in duty bound to help defend these working people against such unlawful, unrighteous and outrageous assaults. That was all that was said or done. Was that a conspiracy? If it was, your honor, it was a conspiracy to do right and oppose what is wrong.
“But your sentence says that it is criminal for the workingmen to resolve to defend their lives and their liberties and their happiness against brutal, bloody and unlawful assaults of the police and militia.”
Parsons again returned to Anarchy and defined its doctrines at some length. In concluding his remarks, which consumed two hours on Friday and six hours on Saturday, he said:
“The next day I saw that they were dragging these men to prison, treating them in a shameful manner. I left the city. I went to Geneva, Ill., for a couple of days; staid there with friend Holmes. Then I went to Elgin, Ill.; staid there a couple of days. Then I left there and went to Waukesha, Wis., where I obtained employment as a carpenter and afterwards as a painter, and remained for over seven weeks in Waukesha. My health was debilitated, and I went to the springs when I was thirsty. The house I was working on was only half a block from the springs, and I needed the recreation and the rest, and the pure air, and the water besides. When I saw the day fixed for the opening of this trial, knowing I was an innocent man, and also feeling that it was my duty to come forward and share whatever fate had in store for my comrades, and also to stand, if need be, on the scaffold, and vindicate the rights of labor, the cause of liberty, and the relief of the oppressed, I returned. How did I return? It is interesting, but it will take time to relate it, and I will not state it. I ran the gauntlet. I went from Waukesha to Milwaukee. I took the St. Paul train at the Milwaukee depot and came to Chicago; arrived here at 8:30, I suppose, in the morning; went to the house of my friend Mrs. Ames, on Morgan Street, sent for my wife and had a talk with her. I sent word to Captain Black that I was here and prepared to surrender. He sent word back to me that he was ready to receive me. I met him at the threshold of this building, and we came up here together. I stood in the presence of this court. I have nothing, not even now, to regret.”