The Chicago Martyrs by John P. Altgeld

90
ADDRESS OF ALBERT R. PARSONS.
Verein should assemble in the park _with arms. After Engel said this, a
cominittee was appointed to watch the m?vements in the city and report to us
if a riot should occur.
Now then, take into consideration this language. Just consider the situation.
Look at the attitude of these capitalist papers for years toward the
workingmen; and not only that, but the actual use of these armed hirelings
at East St. Louis, at Saginaw, at Pittsburg, all over the country, and at Mc­
Cormick's the day before. Look at the condition of affairs, and I ask you if
these men were not justified in making some preparl!:tion by which they could
defend themselves, because there is no proposition here to assault anybody.
There is no propoRition here to make war upon anybody, either their persons
or their property: .
Q. "Now, was anything saidabout having a meeting of worklllgmen the
next day?"
'
A. "Yes, sir; I proposed that a meeting should be held the next after­
'noon, but that was rejected. It was decided to have a meeting in the evening,
as more could come then."
Q. "Who proposed calling a meeting in the evening?" .
A. "Fischer. He proposed having one at the Haymarket and It was
finally l'esolved to call one at 8 o'clock."
Q. "Was anything said as to what should be done at that meeting?"
A. "It was intended to cheer up the workmen so that if anything shoul,d
happen they should be prepared for a conflict. It was decided to call this
meeting by means of hand bills. The getting up of this was intrust~ to
Fischer but he did not say where they should be printed. It was deCided
that as ~ body we should not participate in the Haymarket meeting, but
should meet at halls. While only a committee should be at the Haymarket,
if the committee reported that something happened, we should attack the
police where it was arranged for each ?~O?p to do so; if necessa~;, in addition
to the police, we would attack the mlhtm and fire department. .
Now then in the first part of this it says that in the case of the pohee
coming ~pon the strikers, shooting the strikers ?own, d,estro~ing them~ interfering
with the people, interfering unlawfully, lllterferlllg With the right of
the people to assemble, interfering with the right of the people to express
their views, mark you, it was said in such a contingency they would defend
themselves. Now, these men here upon the stand, Schroeder and Waller who
were giving the testimony, used the word "attack." When it was translated
"attack" you must not take that as a literal meaning of these men. It was
defense: They meant by this word defense. If it had been literally translated
as these men meant it, and as the spirit of the testimony shows, the
word would not have been "attack," but would have been defense. In every
instance the whole preparation and proof about it shows that it was for defense.
What could they attack? What can a handful of men attack? There
was only a handful of men there at best. What can they attack? Who can
they attack? What could they capture? What coul.d they t~ke? Wouldn't
it be ridiculous for them to underta.ke to attack the cIty of ChIC,ago, to attack
the authorities, to undertake to seize the city? Why, that would be nonesense.
It would be ridiculous. Upon the very face {If it, it is an absurdity.
ADDRESS OF ALBERT R. PARSONS.
It was for defense. They said that it was for defense, and for no other purpose,
in the event that the police invl,\ded the meetings of workingmen llnd
unlawfully-as JudjZe McAllister had told the workingmen of the city, that
the police of Chicago could not unlawfully ~nvade their meetings, and break
them up-Judge McAllister had told us this in his decision. We believed
that that was' what theJaw was. We believed that we had tbe constitutional
right to assemble. Now, why shouldn't we protect ourselves in suc~ a contingency?,
In this connection right here [Judge Gary indicated his impatience]­
Please, bear with me for a few minutes. In 1877-to show you what the police
will do, and what they will do unlawfully-they broke down the doors;, they
entered the hall at West Twelfth street Turner Hall, where the Furniture
Workers' Union was in session considering the eight hour movement just as
. we were at the Haymarket that night, and the question of wages. They broke
into that hall. They drove the people out with club and pistol, and fired
among them, and they killed one of the people in that hall, and Judge Mc­
Allister, upon the trial afterward declared that that was an outrageous
assault, that it was cruel, bloody murder, and that if every single policemanand
there were about twenty-five or thirty who went into that establishment­
Judge McAllister said that if every policeman, if every single one of them had
been killed on th~ spot, no one could have been harmed for doing it. This
was the decision of the judge j that has stood as the law. These things had
been done in Chicago. The police s}Vept down through the lumber yards at
McCormick's the day before. Those things were done all over the country,
and through the city to put down strikes everywhere. Now, where is the
crime in our having said that we would, if no other remedy or redress was
left us, that we would follow the law laid down by JudKe McAllister and use
our right, our constitutitmal right, ollr legal right to defend ourselves?
Well, now, mark you, this Schroeder and this Waller were witnesse~ for
the State; they were what is called "squealers," and they were men-now,
don't forget this point-these men were telling their story under a great bribe.
What was that bribe? Liberty and life, two of the greatest and sweetest
things known to man. Life and liberty were offered to Schroeder and Waller.
Was it from the fact that they were given money, as was testified to by both
of them, ~nd uncontradicted by the prosecution? Aside from that fact, life
and liberty were given to these men if they would tell a story thllt would fit a
theory and carry out a certain line of the prosecution to bring about a certain
verdict. They gave that kind of testimony. You will remember that Seliger's
wife upon the stand testified that these men were kept by Captain Schaack in
the station, under durance vile, and herself also, until both Seliger and Waner
were compelled, under intimidation, to sign four different statements in writing
j that is an uncontradictable statement. Consider the condition un~er
which these men gave this testimony, and even with all that, they only testIfy
that the meeting was for the purpose of defense, and not for any action at the
Haymarket meeting, and had, nothing to do with the Haymarket meeting,
und no connection with the Haymarket meeting. This is the statement of
the willlosses for the State on the part of the conspilators, so·called. On
r 1:1- I\miuation the question was asked: "Well, didn't Engel saY,in refer-
91