The Chicago Martyrs by John P. Altgeld

(
/
94
ADDRESS OF ALBERT R. PARSONS.
ADDRESS OF ALBERT R. PARSONS.
95
know that there was such a meeting. In fact, I was not in Chicago. I W!lS
in Ohio and the meeting was conducted in German; I cannot speak German;
I do not know the German language; I do not understand it. I do not know
these'men. I never saw Schroeder or Waller in my life until I saw them on
the witness stand here. Lingg, the first time I ever saw him ip. my life was
when I came into this court room and surrendered for trial, and saw him sitting
in the prisoner's box. Why, your honor, it is ridiculous. It is an absur-
, dity; it is a misconception of the whole situation and conjunction of circumstances
in connection with this whole affair,when I was away from the city,
and this is a sentence passed upon me for being connected with a conspiracy
which, the prosecution claims, was organized for the purpose and resulted in
the daeth of Mathias Degan at the Haymarket square on the 4th of May.
Referring again to the informer Waller's testimony; the State's attorney
is reported by the Herald of July 17, as saying aiter the adjournment: "This
man's testimony is l!;oing to convict the prisoners;" that is, \Valler. How
preposterous! The two informers disclosed no fact that bore the semblance of
a conspiracy, wh\ch in law is an agreement to do a criminal act. Now, I was
not there. I did not know anything about it. I do not speak German. I do
not know these men. I never saw them before. I don't know who the men
wer" at the meeting. The only man that I know that is connected with this
matter, I believe, is Engel j him I have met before, I don't know whether he
was at the meeting 'or not. I did not know there was such a meeting. I
never requested it to be called. Now, the State's attorney says that this
man's testimony is the thread upon -which he proposed to connect me with
this conspiracy to do a:n unlawful thing, which resulted in the death of Mathias
Degan at the Haymarket on the 4th of May. How preposterous! These
informers disclose no fact that bears the semblance of a conspiracy, but on
the contrary, their testimony simply revealed a noble and a fraternal and a
'patriotic purpose; that-quoting the langllage of Schroeder himself-" if the
police made an attack upon the workingmen unlawfully again, they would
help the workingmen to resist it, or to defend themselves." Waller testified
in chief, and reiterated it in cross-examination, that Enjl(el 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 enconuter with
the police we should aid them, and further swore that this plan was to be fol·
lowed only when the police, by brutal force, should interfere with the workman'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 the face of a dozen
witnesses, both for the prosecution and the defense, to 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, Bonfiel '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
rocated it fifteen feet even further south than Haas or Bonfield did-still,on
the impt'ached testimony of Gilmer; who swore the bomb was thrown from
within the alley, w" 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 to, among sensible men, on the face of it, carry its own refutation.
Perfectly absurb! 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.
In the case of the People vs. Miller the learned Judge McAllister expounded
the law of Illinois under which the people had the right to assemble
at the Haymarket. He said they were entitled to be as free from molestation
as in our castle and our homes. We were not obstructing the tratnc on the
highway. As there.is no travel thereon at night there was and can be no
pretense on that score, because the mayor of the city of Chicago was present
and did not interfere, and, !n fact, directed the inspector of police, after 10
.o'clock, that there was no occasion for police interference. He, therefore, as
the sole judge, under the law, recognized that assemblage not only as a lawful
assemblage, but more, a peaceful assemblage, within the law and the consti.
tution of both the State and the Federal.government, and entitled to the protection
of both, which we have here and now claimed in vain, as this court
refuses in this instance, or has up to this time, to enforce the right of the people.
For these reasons I ask the suspension of your sentence, for the reasons
that have been stated here; that there was no conspiracy, that it was an
organization for defense; that the meeting was peaceable; that it was a lawful
meeting, as the mayor of the city of Chicago declared it upon the stand to
be, and as Bonfield and Haas both said, the morning after the Haymarket
'tragedy, that the bomb did not come from the alley, but south of it. I ask
,your honor to suspend your judgment and give us innocent men a chance,
in a new trial, to prove these facts beyond any question. The meeting, your
bonor, was sacred from intrusion or trespass-as sacred as a man's home,
which is his castle; even more, for an assemblage of the people, your honor,
is the primary seat of action on their part, of all authority on their part in a
republic, and is guarded by the first amendment to the constitution of the
United States from any abridgment, as it is also by the constitution of the
State of Illinois, now violated by this unconstitutional verdict. You have read
the, decision of Judge McAllister in this case; I have it here. It would conlIume
time before this court to read it, and I will just submit it to your honor.
Our honor has read it, of course, and I will not take up your time with the'
l\