The Chicago Martyrs by John P. Altgeld

120
ADDRESS OF ALBERT R. PARSONS.
I
the bankers, millionaires, etc., everything was against these poor men. We
had no money, influence, or friends. It was not difficult to bring that about
at all, and if they did not have a case they could make one easily. That was
an easy matter for them to do-a very, very easy thing for them to do. Now,
Mr. Grinnell must have known that Gilmer's testimony was false. I don't
know whether he did or not. But it seems to me he ought to have known it,
because it was dearly dem'onstrated by the witness Burnett, who stood upon
the stand, and whose testimony is unimpeached, that he called upon' and had
talks with Attorney Grinnell as early as May 6, and had a number of interviews
with him for the express pUl'-pose of having him identify Schnaubelt's
pic~nre and fasten the deed upon Schnaubelt. Burnett refused to do that. He
said: "No, no; that ain't the man. Besides, it was not that way. He was
further down. It was not up at the aUey." Now, Burnett's testimony contr,-!.­
dieted every statement of Gilmer, and Burnett is unimpeached and Gilmer is
impeached. If the district attorney knew of this fact, if he knew the fact that
Burnett was an honest mau, and called at his office and refused to identify
Schnaubelt, your honor, did not the district attorney lend himself to a very
bloody piece of work? I do not see how he is going to get clear of that. It
may be he will, but it seems to me that if this verdict is to be carried out then
our blood will be on his head for sub~rnation of perjury. I may be mistaken,
your honor; I do not impugn any man's motives. I don't know, but it seems
to me it is the only construction which could be put upon this testimony.
Two witnesses, since this verdict was made, came forward voluntarily and
made an affidavit that they bad been in Gilmer's company the night of May
4, at another place, and that Gilmer was not at tbe Haymarket. Then Mr.
Bonfield, the chief of detectives, who is Mr. Grinnell's right hand man-he
takes these two men in his charge, and by bribery or intimiJation, or by SODle
other means, I don't know what, he induces them to retract their sworn statement.
Wasn't that a scaly traneacti9n, worthy of the villainy and' corruption
of the detective depaJ;.tment?
Your honor, I have got what would take me an hour and a half, p,ossibly
two hours, at least, to say. , I am used to an active, outdoor life, and until my
incarceration here I have never been deprived of personal activity, and the
close confinement in a gloomy cell-I only have about two hours and a half
exercise each day, practically about two hours of the twenty-four-and of
course it has deteriorated my physical system somewhat; and then, the long
mental strain of this trial in addition to it. I thought if your honor could
possibly give me a little rest for lunch, if we could adjourn until 20'cI0l'k-it
il:l now 1 o'clock-I don't think I could get through under two hf)urs. Still, if
your h';)nor insists, I am ready to proceed.
The Court-I do not thin:!>: I am under any obligation to have repeated
adjournments of the court for the purpose of listening to the reading of newspapers
or disquisitions upon political economy, the question only being in tbis
case, whether the defendants killed Mathias Degan. That is the only
question in the case.
Mr. Parsons-Yes, sir; of course.
The Court~Not whether they did it with their own hands, but whether
they set causes at work which did end in his death.
/
ADDRESS OF ALBER'!' ~"
PARSONS
Mr. Parsons-Well, your honor, I am proposing to show you here that by
a new trial, by a suspension of the judgment and sentence of death, we can
6lltablish our innocence; that is what I am proposing here to do; that is why
I am offering this. You quoted our speeches and read many articills from our
labor papers to prove that we " set causes at work which did end in his (Degan's)
death." Now, sir, I am showing you by the very same kind of ,testimony
taken from the speeches 3nd newspapers of monopolists that they and
not we .. set causes at work which did end in his death." And, sir, I leave
the world to judge if our testimony against them is not as strong or stronl/;er
than is your testimony against us. Of course it is not sworn to; it cannot be.
. I cannot get witnesses in here to swear them. I cannot swear to it myself.;
that is the purpose I have in view. But you did not have our Ilpeeches and
newspaper articles sworn to. You took them for granted. Now, sir, against
these I put the utterances and newspaper articles of the monopolists. Now,
my long review of the labor question was made for the express purpose of ,
having your honor understand the motives that were actuating us in this
labor movement; that you might see that labor had, grievances; that it had
teasons for org.anizing; that it was not a matter of mere peevish discontent,
as we are charged by some unthinking people, or that the grievances of the
workingmen are imaginary, as alleged by those people who do not feel any
interest in this matter.
In over-ruling the motion for a new trial, your'honor used this language:
"Whether these defendants, or allY of them, did participate or expect the
throwing of the bomb on the night of the 4th of May is not a question which
I need to consider, because the instructions did not go upon that ground. The
jury were not instructed to find them guilty if they believed that they participated
in the throwing of the bomb, or enconraged or advised the throwing
of that bomb, or had knowledge that it was to be thrown, or anything.of that
sort. The conviction has not gone upon the Jl:round that they did have any
,actual participation in the act which caused the death of Degan, but upon the
ground, under the instructions, that they had generally, by speech and print,
advised a large class to commit murder, and had left the occasion, time and
place to the individual will, whim and caprice of the individuals so advised'
and that in consequence of that advice and in pursuance of it, and influenced
by it, somebody not known did throw the bomb that caused Degan's death.
Now, if that is not a correct principle of law, then the defendants are entitled
to a new trial. This case is without precedent. There is no example in the
law books of a case of this 80rt. No such occurrence has ever happened before
in the history of the world." Now, your honor, you, by these words, frankly
admit that we have not been convicted for any act done, but simply because
of speeches made and of opinions expressed. I am, therefore, showing you
that that bomb was hurled by labor's enemies at the instigation of the monopolists,
and not by us. Their speeches, their utterances, their newspapers
openly coumeled ,and advised by "speech and print" just such things. Did
they not? Then are they not the guilty perpetrators? The question, to use
your honor's language, is "not whether they did it with their own hands, but
wbether they (the monopolists) set causes at work which did end in the Hayroark
t trngedy." By their own proposals I have shown you that they did.
/