CHAPTER IV.

UNDER A CLOUD. A STRUGGLE for life. Contesting every point by shrewd counsel. Braving it out. The defense.

Attorney Zeisler moved to have the jury sent from the room pending a motion, and this the Court refused to do, saying it was a vicious practice, and that the jury should hear all there was in a case.

Capt. Black—“The motion we desire to make is that your Honor now instruct the jury, the State having rested, that they find a verdict of not guilty as to Oscar Neebe; and we desire to argue that motion.”

Counsel for the defense proceeded to argue the motion, and held that Neebe was not amenable; not having been present at the Haymarket, and having nothing to do with the Arbeiter Zeitung until after the arrest of Spies.

The Court—“If he had had prior knowledge of the participation in the Haymarket meeting the question would be quite different, but if there is a general advice to commit murder, and the time and occasion not being foreseen, the adviser is guilty if the murder is committed. Whether he did participate, concurred, assented, or encouraged the publication of the Arbeiter Zeitung is a question for this jury upon the testimony that he was frequently there, and that so soon as Schwab and Spies were away he took charge. Everything in which his name has been mentioned must be taken together, and then what the proper inference is, is for the jury to say.”

Capt. Black—“Does your Honor overrule the motion?”—The Court—“I overrule the motion.”

Counsel for Defendants.

Capt. Black—“We except, if your Honor pleases. We desire also to make a like motion, without arguing it, in behalf of all the defendants except Spies and Fischer.”—Motion overruled.

Mr. Salomon then began the opening argument for the defense. There were two leading points in his argument:

1. There cannot be accessories without a principal. The state must prove that somebody was a principal in committing murder before it can convict others as accessories.

2. The defendants did not throw the bomb: therefore they are not guilty.

“True, the defendants made bombs; true, they intended to use dynamite. What if they did?” asks Mr. Salomon. “They were preparing for a revolution by force of arms and by means of dynamite—but what has that to do with the case? Did they kill Matthias J. Degan, for which act they were specifically indicted? That is the question.”

Mr. Salomon then argued that the State would have to prove that the object of the Haymarket meeting was to “aggressively kill the police.” He pointed out that the defendants had consecrated their lives to the benefit of their fellow men. They did not seek McCormick’s property for themselves—they did not want the goods in Marshall Field’s store for themselves. Their methods were dangerous, but why were they not stopped at inception? They advocated force, because they believed in force. No twelve men—no 12,000 men—could root out Anarchy. Anarchy is of the head—it is implanted in the soul! As well attempt to root out Republicanism or Democracy! They intended revolution—a revolution similar to that of the Northern states against slavery, or of America against British oppression. They wanted to free the white slaves—the working classes. They intended to use dynamite in furtherance of that revolution. But they did not expect, nor did they conspire to take, the life of officer Degan. Lingg had the right to manufacture bombs and fill his house with dynamite, if he so pleased. There was no law against it. Mr. Salomon intimated that an attempt would be made to show who threw the bomb, or that it was thrown by somebody other than Schnaubelt; also that the police began the riot by shooting into the crowd; that Schwab was not at the meeting at all, and that when the bomb exploded Parsons and Fischer were in Zephf’s hall drinking beer.

“We expect further to show you,” said Mr. Salomon, “that this meeting had assembled peaceably, that its objects were peaceable, that they delivered the same harangues, that the crowd listened quietly, that not a single act transpired there previous to the coming of the police, for which any man in it could be held amenable to law. They assembled there under the provisions of our Constitution in the exercise of their right of free speech, to discuss the situation of the working men, to discuss the eight-hour question. They assembled there and incidentally discussed what they called the outrages perpetrated at McCormick’s. No man expected that bomb would be thrown, no man expected that any one would be injured at that meeting.”

The witness who gave, perhaps, the strongest evidence for the defense was Dr. James D. Taylor, an aged physician of the Eclectic school. On the direct examination, Captain Black asked:

“How old are you?” Answer—“I am seventy-six years of age.”

“Where were you on May 4, in the evening?”—“At the Haymarket.”

“Tell us when you reached the Haymarket.”—“About twenty minutes before the speaking commenced.”

“During that twenty minutes where were you?”—“I was standing in the alley—Crane’s alley—near Desplaines street.”

“How near to the west edge of the sidewalk?”—“Very close to it.”

“How long did you occupy that position?”—“As long as the bullets would let me.”

“How long was that?” asks Mr. Grinnell.—“I was the last man that left the alley after the bomb exploded.”

“Did you hear the speeches at the Haymarket?”—“Oh, yes; distinctly.”

“What did Spies say?”—“He spoke about Jay Gould, and some one said: ‘Hang him,’ and Spies said: ‘No, it is not time for that.’”

“What did Parsons say?”—“He spoke of the necessity for union. The substance of his remarks was that if the working men expected to win they must unite.”

“Did you notice the approach of the police?”—“I did; the first column came up close to where I was standing. They were so close I could touch them.”

“Did you hear Fielden?”—“Yes.”

“What did he say?”—“Well, he spoke about the law, and said: ‘It is your enemy. Kill it, stab it, throttle it; if you don’t, it will throttle you.’”

“Did you hear the command given to disperse?”—“Yes, sir.”

“What did Fielden say?”—“He said: ‘We are peaceable,’ or ‘This is a peaceable meeting.’”

“Did you see Fielden again?”—“I did. He got down out of the wagon and came around where I was standing.”

“Did you see him with a revolver?”—“I did not.”

“Did you see him shoot at all?”—“Never. I did not.”

“Did you see the bomb?”—“I did.”

“Where did it come from?”—“About twenty feet, or perhaps forty, south of the alley, behind some boxes on the sidewalk.”

“Now, tell what you saw.”—“Well, the bomb looked to me like a boy’s firecracker. It was then about five feet in the air. It circled in a southeast direction, and fell, I think, between the first and second columns of the police.”

“When did the shooting commence?”—“Almost simultaneously.”

“Did the firing proceed from the crowd, or the police?”—“It came from the street, near where the police were.”

“Did you see or hear of any pistol shots from the crowd?”—“Not one.”

“You say you went to the Haymarket the next morning. Did you make any examination of the neighborhood?”—“I did.”

“Did you find any marks of bullets in the walls around there?”—“Yes, a great many. They were in the north end of the wall of Crane Bros.’ building. Then I examined a telegraph pole north of the alley, on the west side of the street. There were a great many perforations on the south side of this pole.”

“Were there any perforations on the north side of the pole?”—“Not one.”

“Did you visit the place a second time?”—“I did.”

“For the purpose of examining this telegraph pole?”—“Yes, sir.”

“Tell the jury whether you found the pole there or not.”—“It was not there.”

“How long ago was that?”—“A week.”

“And the pole was gone?”—“It was gone.”

“What course did you take, doctor, in going out of the alley?”—“I took a zig-zag...