The Chicago Martyrs by John P. Altgeld

52
ADDRESS OE SAMUEL FIELDEN.
ADDRESS OF SAMUEL FIELDEN.
53
about a year ago. There was quite a Vvely quarrel between them and'the
box-nailers. I understand that after the introduction of taose box·makin'g
machines only one man was required to do the work that was formerly done
by two and a half-two persons could do the work of five. Now. I ,claimed in
public speeches and discussions that these men who fought about the intraduction~fthe
box machines did not unders'tand the real question at iSSQ~.
Improved machinery-I claim now what I have claimed all along in the discussion
of this industrial problem-is calculated to benefit all classel! of humanity
and society. But it is the use to which they are put. If they can be
bought by one person and used in the interests of that person, so that he can
hire labor cheap, or dispense with.labor, they are a benefit to no person save
the man who has money enough to purchase a machine, and they are a direCt
injury under such regulations to those who cannot purchase a machine. It is
ridiculous to argue that it nquires men to make machines and it makes work
in that way. If it required as much labor to make them and as much expe~diture
to make them as it did away with labor, there would be no object in a
man's buying the machine. That answers itself. So that under the present
regulations,-and this language of mi~e will bear the interpretation which I
have given, when you take everything into consideration, and I think.it is
the more plausible interpretatior.-and I will say to you here that, when Mr.
English brought this report, he admitted it to be but a garbled report of my
speech-Diy conception of justice is this, that a man ought never to be allowed
to testify against a man who is on trial for his life, when he admits, before he
gives his testimony, that it is incorlect. I do not think that it is in the int~rest
of justice that such testimony should be given. Mr. English admits that
before he left the Tj'ibune office that night' to go to that mEeting, he was
advised not to bring a correct report. If he had brought a correct report he
might have been discharged. He was instructed not to do it. That was l:iis
work for that night, to only take what he considered the inflammatory or
incendiary portions of the speeches. You can take no speech delivered by
any person and do it justice by extracting what you consider the inflammatory
portion. I have heard men make speeches in my time, and I have had to pay
very close attention to know what they were driving at. They would take an
hour to prove a position. If you judged them in half an hour you would not
get at all the position they were trying to prove. It is often the case when
listening to public speakers'that I have noticed they will speak along and
along, and then in the last few minutes of the speech they, will show exalltly
what they mean. There will be some language used there that modifies your
~onception of their meaning, and opens it all up,and you see the beauty of
the whole argument. Mayb.e you would not have seen it if it hadn't been for
that unlocking of the secret.
I am charged with having spoken of rebellion. But before I 8peak of
that, I will refer again to some of the words which have been introduced here.
I am charged with having said" stab the law." No one claims but that :it
was in connection with my conception of the meaning of FO,ran's speech, aJ?d
the word" stab" is not necessarily a threat of violence upon any person. Here
at your primary elections you frequently hear the adherents of differentc8:ndidates
state before the primaries are called'that they will'" knife" so and ,so.
Do they mean that they are going to kill him, stab him, take his life away
from him? 'Ilhey are forcible expressions-very emphatic expressions. They
are adjectfves which are used in different ways to carry conviction and perhaps
make the language more startling to the audience in order that they
may pay attention. I remember now when the dispute was going on in England
as to the extention of the franchise in 1866 and 1867, when such large
meetings were called all through England to dispute the aIlsertion of Disraeli,
afterward Lord Beaconsfield, that the working classes did not want the franchise,
that John Bright replied to the letter of Beaconefield, saying that there
might be some excuse for Beaconsfield if he had said this in the heat of a
speech, but having sat down and coolly written it out, there was no excuse
for it, showing that such a parliamentarian ~s John Bright is, with.per~aps
no superior in his time, thought there was an excuse for men droppmg mto
language in the heat of speeches which afterward they might have thought it
;'ould have been better not to have used, as their speech might have looked
better without it. I say this language does not necessarily mean an incitement
to violence. I have used the word" rebellion." Now, you know the
~ord " rebellion" is not neces8arily an incitement to violence. And if it
were, let me call your attention to an incident which occurred in the House
of Commons a hundred years ago. When the ill-starred attempt was made
under Montgomery to capture Quebec and he lost his life, a member of the
House of Commons, generous as he wae, brought up the question of the death
W. Montgomery, whom many there had known. He spoke of him as a gallant,
brave, generous, able, and amiable gentleman. Another member said he was
a gallant, generous and an amiable rebel. Lord North rose in his majesty on
the floor of the House of Common!!. and said: "I am far from conceding that
it is a disreputable term to be called a rebel. The very principles' and the
privileges which we in constitutional England enjoy on this floor today; were
acquired by rebellion." That langu,age could be used on the floor of the Honse
of Commons a hundred years a~o, and it was not thought to be an incitement·
to violence. ,
I return once more to call your attention to the coal monopoly. I believe
I called your attention to it before, but did not finish. It has raised the price
of coal by restricting the ontput. It has deprived men of their labor. The
coal monopoly wants money for its coal. The miners want coal to burn.
They must pay money for the coal. It'turns its miners away from the mines
and restricts the output, and then it raises the price of coal. Of course it does
Dot need a very great logician to know that when a man is turned out of employment
he cannot pay more for his coal than he could before. Looked at in
this way, this is the logic of the coal monopoly and the injustice it has .done
to the public. A Chicago-I will not mention the paper-a prominent ChICago
paper advises the" throttling of the coal monopoly." Henry George, in his
work on protection, advises the throttling of protection. He does not mean
to say that he wants to throttle Judge Kelley or James G. Blaine. I also said
the law turns large numbers out on the wayside. Does anybody deny it? If
it is true that the law does not make laws in the interest of th.e working
laee s, but makes la~s-andit must necessarily make them in the interests of
tb tb r claes if it does not for them-then it does trirn men out upon the