The Chicago Martyrs by John P. Altgeld

124
I '
ADDRESS OF ALBERT R, PARSONS.
ADDRESS OF ALBERT R. PARSONS.
125
m6neyed class can set aside the law with impunity? Is it true that we aro
in an ~ra when only property is sacred, and not the liberty or right of the
common citizen; when the poor man may be arrested; or a hated minority
hung with impunity, but to touch the institution of property is sacrilege? Is
it true't!J,at the processes which resulted in this verdict were as illegal as those
original proceedings against us were high-handed, unauthorized, and unconstitutional,
as confessed by the mayor? Is it true that the verdict itself is tho
result of the same public sentiment which sustained the unauthorized, unlawful
conduct spoken of by Mayor Harrison? Can these things be true? See the
methods employed to cook up testimony against us. On the 22d day.of August,
1886, the day following the verdict, at the conclusion of the trial, Captain
Michael Schaack, who is credited with manipulating the evidence a~ainst us,
made a statement which was sont out by the Associated Press as follows: He
was asked if tjle police were now through with their labors. "Through,"
said he, "why, they have barely commenced. We mean to have others who
are liable to the same charge indicted. I tell you the Anarchist business in
Chicago is only commenced and before it is through we will have them all in
jail, hanged or driven out of the city." '.' Did you place any men under arrest
yesterday?" "That I do not wish to state." "The report is'made that there
are warrants out for a large number of persons." "If you think a moment
you will see how foolish the idea would be. We have no room for a large
number of persons in the jail, and it would be a needless expense to arrest
many at once. We can get them as fast as we want them. We do not need
to arrest them now. They may try to leave the city. Time enough to arrest
them when they do." " \VilI any women be arrested? " "Why not? Some
of them are a, mighty sight worse than the men." "Do you think," said the
captain, continuing, "that if I had told the newspapers what I was doing
when the Anarchist trial was going on that the jury would have brought in
t'he verdict of yesterday?- No, sir, a thousand times, no I Every prisoner
would have gone free. Every reporter who came to me got nothing. I was
making up the evidence, piece by piece, little by little, putting it where it belonged.'
If I had told all I knew as fast as I got the points the defense would
have known what evidence was to be brought against them, and would have
been prepared to meet it."
Now, your honor, it was claimed throughout this trial-the State's attorney
claimed t,hroughout the trial that he relied confidently on a verdict of
guilty. They maintained that there was no doubt about it. I wish to call your
attenUon to the declaration of Schaack: "No, sir, a thousand times, no I Every
prisoner would have gone free had I told all I knew as fast as I got the points.
The defense would have known what evidence was to be brought against them,
and would be prepared to meet it." This is equivalent to a declaration that
if the~accusedpersons had known what evidence was to be brought a~ainst
them they would have brought evidence that would have been sufficient to
acquit them" a thousand times" over.. Here, then, is an explicit confe~sion
that we were condemned to death by evidence that was kept secret from both
us and the public, and finally sprung upon us at the trial. See how Gilmer
was sprung upon us. The district attorney, when he opened bis case, 'said
that he had nothing to conceal; he was going to be fair, and square, and
honest about' the thing; going to tell us wbat he was going to prove, and in
the middle of the trial he brings up this man Gilmer, a wholly unexpected
thing -to us, and that was the hair upon which hung the thread which connected
us with Mathias Degan, and the instrumentality by which the verdict
was brought about. The State's attorney said be was' not going to conceal
anything and then concealed the very thing that was material.
Now, your honor, this confession that certain testimony was sprun~ upon,
us at the ,trial, this Gilmer matter, for instance, when no'earthly opportunity
was given us to meet it, and Captain Schaack's admission, that we would have
been acquitted a thousand times over, if we had known this evidence and then
been permitted to contradict it and explain it; this confession, says 'Boston
Libel·ty, commenting upon this infamous proceeding, is equivalent to a confession
that we were innocent and that Captain Schaack knew we were inno-"
cent, or what is the same thing, that he knew that there was evidence that
would have acquitted us a thousand times over if we had been allowed to produce
it; but he glories in the fact that he was too smart for us; that by keeping
this evidence secret from us and the public he was enabled to bring us
into the trap; a trap, your honor, a trap which be and one other man-I sup­
-pose he refers to the State's attorney-had prepared for us, and thus secured
our convictioD.
I" Now, if this is not a confession that Captain 8cbaack and one other man,
an accomplice, set themselves deliberately to work to procur~ the judicial.
murder of seven innocent men, men whom they declare themselves to be in-.
nocent men,' known by him and his accomplice to be innocent, then what is
it? Plainly, it is nothing else. Schaack's confession that our evidence was
such that,if permitted to be introduced it would have acquitted us a thousand
~imes over, is equivalent to a confession that it is true, and that to procure our
conviction by the suppression of this evidence was to procure the judicial
-murder of innqcent men. And this work, says Captain Schaack, is to go on
until be has all th~ Anarchists in jail, hung, or driven out of the city.
Your honor, I would'like to make a remark right here. ~hat stronger
evidence can be required to prove the infamous character of what are called
our criminal courts? Evidently, tp,e courts are criminal, whether the persons
they convict are criminal or not. Under such a condition of things as this,
manifestly, a trial can have no color of justice or reason or be anything else
than a conspiracy to convict a man, whether he be innocent or guilty, unless
he is permitted to know what it is that they propose to prove upon him. This
would be just, but justice and law are quite different things.
, Now, as a part of this foul conspiracy the district attorney sprung his wit.'
ness, Gilmer, upon us when it was too late for us to' prove him to be a suborned,
perjured liar, and the confession of this rp.an Schaack is one that concerns
the American people. They are bound to take notice of it. This trial,
your honor, is not simply the trial and condemnation of seven Anarchists, but
it is the trial of the government of the State of Illinois, as represented by the
jJentlemen in this prosecution, and the go~ernmentof the United States itself. ­
The oppressions of which we complain are such as the 'government of the
nlted States is responsible for, andisuch as many millions of people, in fact,
i\riy all the people in the United States, are crying out against. You need