THE SUPERSEDEAS GRANTED.

There was no doubt from the beginning that the supersedeas asked for in behalf of the condemned anarchists would be granted. Capt. W. P. Black and Hon. Leonard Swett, who had been retained to present the petition and make the argument for a new trial, met Chief Justice Scott at Bloomington by appointment, Nov. 25, 1886, and he directed the writ of error to issue. The only thing of substance which Justice Scott said at the entering of the order was to call attention to the following language in Mooney vs. The People, CXI. Illinois, page 388—an opinion by the full court:

Recognizing to the fullest extent the rule of law that the jury in their deliberations are judges of the facts and the weight of the evidence in criminal cases, yet the law has imposed on the court the solemn and responsible duty to see to it that no injustice is done by hasty action, passion, or prejudice, or from any other cause on the part of the jury. This duty the court may not omit in any case.

It is almost needless to state that the anarchists were well pleased with their temporary reprieve, and opportunity to have their able counsel argue for a rehearing of their case. The arguments were finished March 18, 1887, before the Supreme Court at Ottawa, States Attorney Grinnell and Attorney General Hunt appearing for the State. The decision was rendered Wednesday, September 14, before the full bench of Supreme justices, being read by Judge Magruder, of Chicago. It will thus be seen that the Supreme Court gave the questions at issue full and ample consideration during a period of nearly six months. The courtroom was crowded by an expectant throng, and the announcement of the decision was foreshadowed by impressive solemnity. In a condensed review like this it would be manifestly impossible to give a decision comprising upwards of 60,000 words, and covering every point and detail of the case. It is sufficient to state that the decision was unanimous on the part of the justices. Even Justice Mulkey, who was thought to lean toward a new trial, declared that, after having fully examined the record and given the questions arising on it his very best thought, with an earnest and conscientious desire to faithfully discharge his whole duty, he was fully satisfied that the opinion reached vindicates the law and does complete justice between the people and the defendants, fully warranted by the law and evidence.

Chief Justice Sheldon made the following announcement:

“In this case the court orders that the sentence of the Criminal Court of Cook county on the defendants in the indictment of August Spies, Michael Schwab, Samuel Fielden, Albert R. Parsons, Adolph Fischer, George Engel, and Louis Lingg, be carried into effect by the sheriff of Cook county on Friday, November 11 next, between the hours of 10 o’clock in the forenoon and 4 o’clock in the afternoon of that day.”

The formal order for the execution of the anarchists was received by Sheriff Matson, of Cook county, Monday, September 26. The guards inside and patrol outside the jail had been doubled upon receipt of the news that the Supreme Court had sustained the verdict. Monday night Oscar Neebe was quietly removed from the jail in a carriage and taken to Joliet by train by Deputy Sheriffs Gleason and Spear, Neebe being handcuffed securely to the latter officer. Neebe’s companions and outside sympathizers did not know of his removal. Neebe said to a reporter of the News that he had abandoned all hope. He said he would rather step upon the gallows with his companions than to go to prison; related what he had accomplished for employees of Chicago breweries and the grocery clerks, in getting their hours shortened; was unrepentant of his part in the conspiracy, and said: “What I have done I would do again, and the time will come when the blood of the martyrs about to be sacrificed will cry aloud for vengeance, and that cry will be heard, aye, and that, too, before many years elapse.”

EFFORTS TO SAVE THE ANARCHISTS HAD FAILED.

Upon receipt of the news of the affirmation of the sentence by the Supreme Court, A. R. Parsons sent to the newspapers an appeal, “To the American People,” in which he maintained his innocence; declared that his speeches were lawful; condemned the evidence of detectives; refused executive clemency, concluding in the words of Patrick Henry, “I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”

A. R. Parsons’s open letter to the American people in which he justifies his actions, maintains his innocence, and refuses executive clemency, ran as follows, under date of September 22, 1887:

“TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE—Fellow Citizens: As all the world knows, I have been convicted and sentenced to die for the crime of murder, the most heinous offense that can be committed. Under the form of law two courts—viz: the Criminal and Supreme courts of the State of Illinois—have sentenced me to death as an accessory before the fact to the murder of Officer Degan on May 4, 1886. Nevertheless, I am innocent of the crime charged, and to a candid and unprejudiced world I submit the proof:

PARSONS MAINTAINS HIS INNOCENCE.

“In the decision affirming the sentence of death upon me the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois says: ‘It is undisputed that the bomb was thrown that caused the death of Degan. It is conceded that no one of the defendants threw the bomb with his own hands. Plaintiffs in error are charged with being accessories before the fact.’ If I did not throw the bomb myself it becomes necessary to prove that I aided, encouraged, and advised the person who did throw it. Is that fact proved? The Supreme Court says it is. The record says it is not. I appeal to the American people to judge between them.

“The Supreme Court quotes articles from the Alarm, the paper edited by me, and from my speeches running back three years before the Haymarket tragedy of May 4, 1886. Upon said articles and speeches the court affirms my sentence of death as an accessory. The court says, ‘The articles in the Alarm were most of them written by the defendant Parsons, and some of them by the defendant Spies,’ and then proceeds to quote these articles. I refer to the record to prove that of all the articles quoted only one was shown to have been written by me. I wrote, of course, a great many articles for my paper, the Alarm, but the record will show that only one of these many quoted by the Supreme Court to prove my guilt as an accessory was written by me. This article appeared in the Alarm December 6, 1884, one year and a half before the Haymarket meeting. As to Mr. Spies, the record will show that during the three years I was editor of the Alarm he did not write for the paper half a dozen articles. For proof as to this I appeal to the record.

“The Alarm was a labor paper, and, as is well known, a labor paper is conducted as a medium through which working people can make known their grievances. The Alarm was no exception to this rule. I not only did not write ‘most of the articles,’ but wrote comparatively few of them. This the record will also show.

“In referring to my Haymarket speech the court says: ‘To the men then listening to him he had addressed the incendiary appeals that had been appearing in the Alarm for two years. The court then quotes the incendiary article which I did write, and which is as follows: ‘One dynamite bomb properly placed will destroy a regiment of soldiers, a weapon easily made, and carried with perfect safety in the pockets of one’s clothing.’”

SIMPLY A QUOTATION FROM GENERAL SHERIDAN.

“The record will show by referring to the Alarm that this is a garbled extract taken from a statement made by Gen. Philip Sheridan in his annual report to Congress. It was simply a reiteration of General Sheridan’s statement that dynamite was easily made, perfectly safe to handle, and a very destructive weapon of warfare. The article in full as it appeared in the Alarm is as follows: ‘Dynamite—The protection of the poor against the armies of the rich—in submitting his annual report, November 10, 1884, Gen. Philip Sheridan, commander of the United States army, says: “This nation is growing so rapidly that there are signs of other troubles, which I hope will not occur and which will probably not come upon us if both capital and labor will only be conservative. Still, it should be remembered, destructive explosives are easily made, and that banks, United States sub-treasuries, and large mercantile houses can be readily demolished and the commerce of entire cities destroyed by an infuriated people with means carried with perfect safety to themselves in the pockets of their clothing.”’

“The editorial comment upon the above as it appeared in the Alarm is as follows: ‘A hint to the wise is sufficient’. Of course General Sheridan is too modest to tell us that himself and army will be powerless in the coming revolution between the propertied and the propertyless classes. Only in foreign wars can the usual weapons of warfare be used to any advantage. One dynamite bomb properly placed will destroy a regiment of soldiers; a weapon easily made and carried with perfect safety in the pockets of one’s clothing. The First regiment may as well disband, for if it should ever level its guns upon the working men of Chicago it can be totally annihilated.

“Again the court says: ‘He (Parsons) had said to them (referring to the people assembled at the Haymarket) Saturday, April 24, 1886, just ten days before May 4, in the Alarm that had appeared: “Working men, to arms! War to the palace, peace to the cottage, and death to luxurious idleness! The wage system is the only cause of the world’s misery. It is supported by the rich classes, and to destroy it they must be either made work or die. One pound of dynamite is better than a bushel of ballots! Make your demand for eight hours with weapons in your hands to meet the capitalist bloodhounds—police and militia—in the proper manner.”’

“The record will show that this article was not written by me, but was published as a news item. By referring to the columns of the Alarm the following comment appears, attached to the above article, viz: ‘The above hand bill was sent to us from Indianapolis, Ind., having been posted all over that city last week. Our correspondent says that the police tore them down wherever they found them.’

“The court continuing, says: ‘At the close of another article in the same issue he said: “The social war has come, and whoever is not with us is against us.“’ Assistant State’s Attorney Walker read this article to the jury, and at its conclusion stated that it bore my initials and was my article. It is a matter within the knowledge of every one present that I interrupted him and called his attention to the fact that the article did not bear my initials, and that I was not its author. Mr. Walker corrected his mistake to the jury.

“Now these are the three articles quoted by the Supreme Court as proof of my guilt as an accessory in a conspiracy to murder Officer Degan. The record will prove what I say.

HIS SPEECHES WERE ALL RIGHT.

“Now as to my speeches—all of them, with one exception purporting to be my utterances at the Haymarket, are given from the excited imaginations and preverted perverted memories of newspaper reporters. Mr. English, who alone took shorthand notes and swore to their correctness, reports me as saying. ‘It is time to raise a note of warning. There is nothing in the eight-hour movement to excite the capitalist. Don’t you know that the militia are under arms and a gatlingGatling gun is ready to mow you down? Was this Germany, or Russia, or Spain? [A voice: “It looks like it.”] Whenever you make a demand for eight hours’ pay or increase of pay the militia and the deputy sheriffs and the Pinkerton men are called out and you are shot and clubbed and murdered in the streets. I am not here for the purpose of exciting anybody, but to speak out, to tell the facts as they exist even though it shall cost me my life before morning!’ Mr. English continuing, said: ‘There is another part of it (the speech) right here. It behooves you, as you love your wife and children, if you don’t want to see them perish with hunger, killed, or cut down like dogs on the street—Americans, in the interest of your liberty and your independence, to arms; arm yourselves!’

“This, be it remembered, is a garbled extract, and it is a matter of record that Reporter English testified that he was instructed by the proprietor of his paper to report only the inflammatory portions of the speeches made at the meeting.

THE MAYOR HEARD THE SPEECH.

“Mayor Harrison, who was present and heard this speech, testified before the jury that it was simply ‘a violent and political harangue’ and did not call for his interference as a peace officer. The speech delivered by me at the Haymarket, and which I repeated before the jury is a matter of record and undisputed, and I challenge any one to show therein that I incited any one to acts of violence. The extract reported by Mr. English, when taken in connection with what preceded and what followed, cannot be construed by the wildest imagination as incitement to violence. Extracts from three other speeches alleged to have been delivered by me were made more than one year prior to May 4, 1886, are given. Two of these speeches were reported from the memory of the Pinkerton detective Johnson. These are the speeches quoted by the court as proof of my guilt as accessory to the murder of Degan. Where, then, is the connection between these speeches and the murder of Degan? I am bold to declare that such connection is imperceptible to the eye of a fair and unprejudiced mind. But the honorable body, the Supreme Court of Illinois, has condemned me to death for speeches I never made, and for articles I never wrote. In the affirmation of the death sentence the court has ‘assumed,’ ’supposed,’ ‘guessed,’ ’surmised,’ and ‘presumed’ that I can and did ’so and so.’ This the record fully proves.

“The court says: ‘Spies, Schwab, Parsons and Engel were responsible for the articles written and published by them, as above shown; Spies, Schwab, Fielden, Parsons and Engel were responsible for the speeches made by them respectively, and there is evidence in the same record tending to show that the death of Degan occurred during the prosecution of a conspiracy planned by the members of the international groups who read these articles and heard these speeches.’

OBJECTS TO THE PINKERTON MEN.

“Now, I defy any one to show from the record the proof that I wrote more than one of the many articles alleged to have been written by me. Yet the Supreme Court says that I wrote and am responsible for all of them. Again—concerning the alleged speeches—they were reported by the Pinkerton detective Johnson, who was, as the record shows, employed by Lyman Gage, president of the First National Bank, as the agent of the Citizens’ Association, an organization composed of the millionaire employers of Chicago.

“I submit to a candid world if this hired spy would not make false reports to earn blood-money. Thus, it is for speeches I did not make, and articles I did not write I am sentenced to die, because the court ‘assumes’ that these articles influenced some unknown and still unidentified person to throw the bomb that killed Degan. Is this law? Is this justice?

“The Supreme Court, in affirming the sentence of death upon me, proceeds to give further reasons, as follows: ‘Two circumstances are to be noted. First, it can hardly be said that Parsons was absent from the Haymarket meeting when he went to Zepf’s Hall. It has already been stated that the latter place was only a few steps north of the speakers’ wagon and in sight from it. We do not think that the defendant Parsons could escape his share of the responsibility for the explosions at the Haymarket because he stepped into a neighboring saloon and looked at the explosion through a window. While he was speaking men stood around him with arms in their hands. Many of these were members of the armed sections of the international groups. Among them were men who belonged to the International Rifles, an armed organization in which he himself was an officer, and with which he had been drilling in preparation for the events then transpiring.’

“The records of the trial will show that not one of the foregoing allegations is true. The facts are these: Zepf’s Hall is on the northeast corner of Lake and Desplaines streets, just one block north of the speakers’ wagon. The court says ‘it was only a few steps north of the speakers’ wagon.’ The court says further that ‘it can hardly be said that Parsons was absent from the Haymarket meeting when he was at Zepf’s Hall.’ If this is correct logic, then I was at two different places a block apart at the same instant. Truly the day of miracles has not yet passed. Again, the record will show that I did not ’step into a neighboring saloon and look at the explosion through a window.’ It will show that I went to Zepf’s Hall, one block distant, and across Lake street, accompanied by my wife and another lady, and my two children (a girl of five and a boy of seven years of age), they having sat upon a wagon about ten feet from the speakers’ wagon throughout my speech; that it looked like rain; that we had started home and went into Zepf’s Hall to wait for the meeting to adjourn, and walked home in company with a lot of friends who lived in that direction. Zepf’s building is on the corner and opens on the street with a triangular door six feet wide. Myself and ladies and children were just inside the door. Here, while waiting for our friends and looking toward the meeting, I had a fair view of the explosion. All this the record will show.

ABOUT THE BOMB.

“It would seem that, according to circumstances, a block is at one time ‘a few steps’ or a ‘few steps’ is more than a block, as the case may suit. The logical as well as the imaginative faculties of the Supreme Court are further illustrated in a most striking manner by the credence of the court to the ‘yarn’ of a ‘reporter,’ who testified that Spies had described to him the ‘Czar’ bomb, and the men who were to use them as follows. ‘He spoke of a body of tall, strong men in their organization who could throw bombs weighing five pounds 150 paces. He stated that the bombs in question were to be used in case of conflict with the police or the militia.’

“The court gives this sort of testimony as proof of the existence of a conspiracy to murder Degan. Wonderful credulity. To throw a five-pound bomb 150 paces or yards is to throw it 450 feet or a quarter of a mile.

“Gulliver, in his travels among the Brobdingnag race, tells us of the giants he met, and we have also heard of the giants of Patagonia. But we did not know until now that they were mere Lilliputians as compared with the ‘anarchist Swedes’ of Chicago.

“The court proceeds to say, ‘While he (Parsons) was speaking, men stood around him with arms in their hands.’ The record as quoted by the court shows that only one man flourished a pistol, not a number of men. Again, the court says, ‘Most of the men were members of the armed sections of the “International groups,”’ thus making it appear that many of these men (when there was only one who was even alleged to have exhibited a pistol) were armed.

“The court says: ‘Among them were men who belonged to the “International Rifles,” an armed organization in which he himself was an officer, and in which he had been drilling in preparation for the events then transpiring.’

“Now I Cchallenge the Supreme Court or any other honorable gentleman to prove from the record that there ever existed such an organization as the armed section of the American group, known as the ‘International Rifles.’ It cannot be done. The record shows that some members of the American group did organize the ‘International Rifles,’ which never met but four or five times; was never armed with rifles or any other weapons, and was disbanded nearly a year before the 4th of May, 1886.

“The Pinkerton man Johnson says that dynamite bombs were exhibited ‘in the presence of the “International Rifles.”’ It will take corroborative testimony before the American people will credit the statements of such a man engaged for such a purpose; and it is well known that Supreme courts have decided that the testimony of detectives should be taken with great caution.

HE APPEALS TO THE PEOPLE.

“I appeal to the American people, to their love of justice and fair play. I submit that the record does not show my giltguilt of the crime of murder, but on the contrary it proves my innocence.

“Against me in this trial all the rules of law and evidence have been reversed in that I have been held as guilty until I proved my innocence. I have been tried ostensibly for murder, but in reality for anarchy. I have been proved guilty of being an anarchist and condemned to die for that reason. The State’s attorney said in his statement before the court and jury in the beginning of the trial: ‘These defendants were picked out and indicted by the grand jury. They are no more guilty than the thousands who follow them. They are picked out because they are leaders. Convict them and our society is safe,’ and in their last appeal to the jury the prosecution said: ‘Anarchy is on trial. Hang these eight men and save our institutions. These are the leaders. Make examples of them.’ This is a matter of record.

A WORD FOR HIS COMRADES.

“So far as I have had time to examine the records I find the same fabrication and perversion of testimony against all my comrades as exists against myself. I therefore again appeal to to the American people to avert the crime of judicial murder. And this appeal I have faith will not be in vain.

“My ancestors partook of all the hardships incident to the establishment of this Republic. They fought, bled, and some of them died that the Declaration of Independence might live and the American flag might wave in triumph over those who claim the ‘divine right of kings to rule.’ Shall the flag now, after a century’s triumph, trail in the mire of oppression and protect the perpetration of outrages and oppressions that would put the older despotisms of Europe to shame?

“Knowing myself innocent of crime I came forward and gave myself up for trial. I felt that it was my duty to take my chances with the rest of my comrades. I sought a fair and impartial trial before a jury of my peers, and knew that before any fair-minded jury I could with little difficulty be cleared. I preferred to be tried and take the chances of an acquittal with my friends to being hunted as a felon. Have I had a fair trial?

PARSONS REFUSES EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY.

“The lovers of justice and fair play are assiduously engaged in an effort to thwart the consummation of judicial murder by a commutation of sentence to prison. I speak for myself alone when I say that for this I thank them and appreciate their efforts. But I am an innocent man. I have violated no law; I have committed no offense against any one’s rights. I am simply the victim of the malice of those whose anger has been aroused by the growth, strength and independence of the labor organizations of America. I am a sacrifice to those who say: ‘These men may be innocent. No matter. They are anarchists. We must hang them anyway.’

“My counsel informs me that every effort will be made to take this case before the highest tribunal in the land, and that there is strong hope of a hearing there. But I am also reliably informed that from three to five years will elapse before the Supreme Court of the United States can hear and adjudge the case.

“Since surrendering myself to the authorities, I have been locked up in close confinement twenty-one hours out of every twenty-four for six days, and from Saturday afternoon till Monday morning (thirty-eight hours) each week in a noisome cell, without a ray of sunlight or a breath of pure air. To be compelled to bear this for five or even three years would be to suffer a lingering death, and it is only a matter of serious consideration with me whether I ought to accept the verdict as it stands rather than die by inches under such conditions. I am prepared to die. I am ready, if needs be, to lay down my life for my rights and the rights of my fellow men. But I object to being killed on false and unproved accusations. Therefore I cannot countenance or accept the efforts of those who would endeavor to procure a commutation of my sentence to an imprisonment in the penitentiary. Neither do I approve of any further appeals to the courts of law. I believe them to be all alike—agency of the privileged classes to perpetuate their power, to oppress and plunder the toiling masses. As between capital and its legal rights, and labor and its legal rights, the courts of law must side with the capitalistic class. To appeal to them is in vain. It is the appeal of the wage slave to his capitalistic master for liberty. The answer is curses, blows, imprisonment, and death.

“If I had never been an anarchist before, my experience with courts and the laws of the governing class would make an anarchist of me now. What is anarchy? It is a state of society without any central or governing power. Upon this subject the court, in its affirmation of the death sentence, defines the object of the International Working Peoples’ Association as follows:

“‘It is designed to bring about a social revolution. Social revolution means the destruction of the right of private ownership of property, or of the right of the individual to own property. It means of the bringing about of a state of society in which all property should be held in common.’

HE REFERS TO THE SCRIPTURES.

“If this definition is right, then it is very similar to that advocated by Jesus Christ, for proof of which I refer to the fourth and fifth chapters of the Acts of the Apostles; also Matthew xxi., 10 to 14, and Mark xi., 15 to 19.

“No, I am not guilty. I have not been proved guilty. I leave it to you to decide from the record itself as to my guilt or innocence. I cannot, therefore, accept a commutation to imprisonment. I appeal—not for mercy, but for justice. As for me, the utterance of Patrick Henry is so approposappropos that I cannot do better than let him speak:

“‘Is life so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but, as for me, give me liberty or give me death.’”

A. R. PARSONS,
“Prison Cell 29, Chicago, Ill., Sept. 21, 1887.”

THE CASE BEFORE THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

The anarchists were not lacking in funds to secure every chance of reprieve or commutation, as contributions had poured into their coffers swelling the sum total over $50,000. Every opportunity was accorded to the condemned men to place their case in as favorable a light as possible before the Federal Court. But the flagrant and far-reaching character of their crime gave little hope to the unbiased that the judges composing that honorable body would interfere. Following our readers will find Attorney Grinnell’s argument before the United States Supreme Court. Also General Butler’s defense for the impenitent yet doomed men.

GRINNELL’S ARGUMENT BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Mr. Grinnell, addressing the court, said that it had not been his intention to take part in the oral argument, and that he came here primarily for the purpose of assisting Mr. Hunt by means of his familiarity with the record in this case. He thought that by the presentation of the law and the facts yesterday it was clearly shown that there was no federal question involved, and that the court was without jurisdidtionjurisdiction to grant the writ of error. The assignments of error in the lower court, and the parts of the record relating to the jurors Denker and Sanford had been printed and were in the court’s hands. In all the twenty-eight assignments of error there was no reference directly or indirectly to the constitution of the United States or any of its amendments. There were some things, he said, which were here generally conceded, and one of them was that the constitution itself confers no rights which need be here considered. It is simply a limitation of the rights of the legislative power in dealing with the rights of citizens.

THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION.

The constitution of the State of Illinois contains almost all the provisions which are embraced in the constitution of the United States. This court had settled, he believed, the question of jurisdiction as far as the first ten amendments are concerned, and also, he thought, under the fourteenth amendment. The only clause of the latter which could figure here was that “no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Whatever affects liberty and life is made by this clause to affect also property. If the court has jurisdiction of this case under this provision of the amendment then every State question relating to property, such as special assessments, the condemnation of property, etc., might be brought to this court for review.

The Chief Justice—“Because they take property without valuation by a jury.”

Mr. Grinnell—“Yes, your honor, in some cases they do, especially in the matter of drainage, where the proceedings may be before a justice of the peace.”

PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES.

Mr. Grinnell said he thought it to be conceded that a State Legislature had a right to prescribe how many peremptory challenges should be allowed in the formation of a jury. The common law of Illinois had been radically changed in this respect, and both prosecution and defendant now stood on an equal footing. Each defendant was entitled to twenty peremptory challenges, and as the eight defendants in this case acted in concert and were all consulted, each of them had practically 160 peremptory challenges. The State had a like number. The defendants exhausted all of their 160 peremptory challenges before a jury was obtained and the State availed itself of its priviledgeprivilege to the extent of fifty-two challenges. He maintained, however, that no federal question would be involved even if the State allowed only one peremptory challenge to one side and 160 to the other. It was the State’s right. In this case there were 931 men called into the jury box and examined in order to obtain twelve jurors.

JURORS SANFORD AND DENKER.

No objection was raised to any one of the twelve jurors with the single exception of Sanford. Denker was challenged for cause after a brief examination; the challenge was overruled and the defense accepted, but they then proceeded with a further and more elaborate examination of him, and it is shown by the record that after this second examination they desired to keep him, that they did keep him, and that they did make no further exception. When Denker was taken the defense had left 142 peremptory challenges and they could have used one of these challenges to get rid of him if they had been very deirsousdesirous of so doing. They had forty-three peremptory challenges left after eleven jurors had been sworn. These forty-three challenges they frittered away frivolously for the purpose of taking some possible advantage. Their peremptory challenges were then exhausted, and they had to either take a juror or show cause why he should be rejected.

The examination of Sanford, the last juror, clearly demonstrated, Mr. Grinnell said, that the defense were more ready to take him than the State was. Not a single juror was put upon the defense to exhaust their peremptory challenges. Whenever a man said that he had talked with a witness or any one who was present at the Haymarket meeting, or that he had attended the coroner’s inquest he was rejected for cause.

EULOGIZING THE JURY.

Speaking of the jury as a whole, Mr. Grinnell said: “I wish and am constrained to pay one tribute to that jury. It exemplified American citizenship in this country more than any jury that was ever looked upon. It embraced all walks of life. Three of them earned their living by manual work. They came from all parts of the country and one of them was born on foreign soil. They were not a class jury. They were honest citizens with the solemn duty devolving upon them of determining what should be done with those men. No judge could look in the faces of that jury without saying: ‘They are intelligent; they represent American citizenship; they are fit to be trusted with the rights of freemen under our constitution.’ There was not a capitalist on that jury. They were all common-place small dealers and intelligent men.”

Mr. Grinnell said he would challenge any one to show that a single member of that jury was not a competent juror, not only under the jury law of Illinois, but under the common law. “Congress,” he said, “had recognized the right of States to make their own jury laws.”

Section 800 of the Revised Statutes provides that “jurors to serve in the courts of the United States in each State respectively shall have thethe same qualifications and be entitled to the same exemptions as jurors of the highest court of law in such State may have and be entitled to at the time when such jurors for service in the courts of the United State are summoned.”

Almost every State in the North, he said, now had its new jury law, and these laws have been sustained by the highest State courts.

THE SEIZURE OF SPIES’ PAPERS.

Proceeding to the question of “unreasonable search and seizure” in Spies’ office, he said it did not strike him as being any part of this case. He was not here to offer any apologies for his own conduct. He then recited at some length the circumstances of the bomb-throwing in the Haymarket, the search of the Arbeiter Zeitung office, the prying open of Spies’ desk, the finding of dynamite and letters there, the breaking open of Lingg’s domicile, and the finding in his trunk of dynamite bombs precisely like the one thrown. Mr. Grinnell was interrupted at this point by General Butler, who said he should want to cross-examine him if it was competent for him to do so.

Mr. Grinnell—“You shall have that privilege, General.”

Mr. Grinnell, resuming, said that such seizure was not a thing which this court could regulate. It had said in the Ker kidnappingkidnapping case that it was not for the court to determine how he (the prisoner) got here. The court simply said: “You are here.” The things seized in the search of these prisoners’ premises “were there,” and it was for the court to determine whether they were legally there. The only question was, “Are these things testimony?” and that was not an inquiry for the court.

SIMPLY EVIDENCE.

Forgery, murder, and other crimes had to be proved, Mr. Grinnell said, by such evidence. “The pistol found in the hand of the assassin Guiteau was forcibly taken from him, and his papers, if I remember rightly, were overhauled. They were ’there’ (that is, in the court), and it was nobody’s business how they got there. That the search and seizure in this case was an unreasonable search and seizure from the point of view of the defendants I have no doubt.”

In conclusion Mr. Grinnell said: “It strikes us from our standpoint that the foundation of the constitution is less likely to be impaired by refusing to grant this writ than by granting it.”

THE GENERAL’S INDIVIDUALITY.

After a great deal of rambling talk about the composition of the jury, dissatisfaction with the record, lack of time for preparation, the sentencing of the prisoners in their absence and that of their counsel, the injustice done them by “unreasonable search and seizure,” etc., General Butler said that if all these things could be done the question was to be debated whether this government would not be a little better if it were overturned into an anarchy than if it were to be carried on in this fashion.

“I have no fear,” he said, “of being misunderstood upon this question. I have the individuality of being the only man in the UuitedUnited States that condemned and executed men for undertaking to overturn the law. There were thousands of them. And for that act, please your honors, a price was set on my head as though I were a wolf, and $25,000 was offered to any man that could capture me, to murder me, by Jefferson Davis and his associates, and who, if they were here at your bar, trying to ascertain whether they should have an honest and a fair trial for their great crimes, and they called upon me—their lives in danger—I should hold it to be my duty to stand here and do all that I might to defend them. That is the chivalry of the law, if I understand it, and if I don’t it is of not much consequence, for I am quite easily and quickly passing away.”

INHERENT RIGHTS OF CITIZENS

After some further talk General Butler said he agreed fully that the first ten amendments to the constitution were limitations of federal power and not restrictions of the rights of the States. The “privileges and immunities” however, claimed by these prisoners were privileges inherent in each one of the citizens of the several States of the United States, because in vast majority we were British subjects and had certain privileges and immunities inherited under the common law and mMagna cCharta, and among them, and the most thoroughly known and defined were the trial by jury for all high crimes, exemption from search and seizure without warrant of law, protection from self-accusation when a witness, and not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. We claim that all the rights, privileges, and immunities that belonged to a British subject under mMagna cCharta belong to each citizen of the United States; and that as new citizens of the United States were made, not citizens of States, by naturalization, these rights, priviligesprivileges, and immunities came to them as citizens of the United States. The effect of the fourteenth amendment was to guarantee these rights, privileges, and immunities to the citizens of all the States.

MEANING OF “DUE PROCESS OF LAW.”

The words “due process of law” as contained in the fourteenth amendment, and as used to define one of these guaranteed rights, mean “by the law of the land,” not the law of a county, a province, or a State, but the law of the country—the whole country. That is the law of the land, and was so understood by our forefathers as due process of law. Any other meaning given to “due process of law” as it is used in the fourteenth amendment would make it simply ridiculous and frivolous, because any State may enact a “due process of law” according to that State, by which a man’s life may be taken and from which not a single right or immunity of citizenship can protect him. Any law a State may make after the passage of this amendment for dealing with the rights of a citizen of the United States becomes wholly inoperative, because the “law of the land” must forever remain fixed as at that moment, not to be changed in regard to its citizens without a change of organic law, and for some purposes not to be even so changed.

THE CASES OF FIELDEN AND SPIES.

General Butler then proceeded to a consideration of the special and peculiar questions raised by the cases of Fielden and Spies who are foreigners. He contended that treaties were the supreme law of the land, and that these prisoners were entitled, by virtue of treaties with Germany and Great Britain, to all the rights and privileges of American citizens at the time such treaties were made. A State had no power to try these men by one of its own laws which was not the law of the land at the time the treaties were ratified. He did not mean, he said, that a foreigner could come into a State, and break its laws with impunity and that the State could not touch him. But he did mean that the State could only try him in accordance with the law of the land—the whole land—at the time the treaty with his government was made. This, he said, was an important question to every American citizen, because in return for the concession made by this government in the treaty with Great Britain the government of that country had made similar concessions to us. Suppose that a citizen of the United States should go to Ireland and should make some remarks about the advantages of a republican form of government, and should be arrested and tried by the crimes act in violation of the treaty. Would we not stand up and say that this man must be tried by a fair and impartial jury? He must be tried as an Englishman would have been tried at the time the treaty was made, and he cannot be dealt with in a more summary way under a later law.

GENERAL BUTLER’S ARGUMENT.

If this should happen, General Butler said, he hoped that the English authorities would not be able to hold up to him a decision of the United States Supreme Court sustaining the right to try an Englishman by the local law of a State which was nothing but a swamp and a howling wilderness at the time the treaty was ratified.

Returning to the rights of States, General Butler said that he was not prepared to deny that a State might change its organic laws with the consent of all its citizens, but such change would not bind a citizen of another State who had not assented to them.

IMPARTIAL JURIES AND NEWSPAPER LIES.

After some desultory remarks about the record and the necessity of laying it before the court, and another reference to breaking open safes and desks, General Butler said: “There is no doubt that the prisoners were entitled to a trial by an impartial jury—a stupid jury, if you please—because I don’t think a man who reads newspapers is any more competent to try a case—rather worse if he pays any attention to their lies.” As enunciated by chief justices of the Supreme Court an impartial juror, he said, is one who “stands in freedom of mind, without bias or prejudice, and is indifferent.” The petitioners were not tried by such a jury and are entitled to protection under the federal constitution.

“If” he said, “the court is to give me jurors as prejudiced as some of those in this case I had better go to a land of Hottentots, for they would not allow me to be stolen and taken back into Illinois.” General Butler’s allusion is to the kidnapingkidnapping of Ker, referred to by counsel on the other side in defending their search and seizure.

In reply to Mr. Grinnell’s statement that the records would show that the defense were more ready to take the last juror (Sanford) than the State was, General Butler said that they were compelled to accept the last juror. Their peremptory challenges were exhausted and they could do nothing else. Under these circumstances they talked to him and coaxed him, and tried to get him into a state of mind as favorable to their side as they could. That was what the parts of the record referred to by Mr. Grinnell would show, and nothing more.

NO WAIVER OF RIGHTS IN CAPITAL CASES.

General Butler then referred to the assertion of counsel on the other side that the petitioners had wavedwaived some of their rights through not insisting upon them by exception or objection at the proper time, and that therefore, they were estopped from asserting these rights now in this court. He contended, however, that when a man was on trial for his life there was no such thing as a waiver or estoppal. In capital offences a prisoner cannot waive wittingly or unwittingly anything that will affect the issue. In support of this contention he cited the opinion of Chief Justice Shaw in the case of Dr. Webster. The prisoners, he maintained, could not now be barred out because they had not raised sufficiently formal objections.

General Butler then returned again to the “unreasonable searches and seizures” complained of by the petitioners, and said his associate, Mr. Tucker, had characterized the proceeding as a “subpoenÆ duces tecum.” executed by a locksmith. “Why your honors,” he exclaimed, “they searched under a burglary, headed by the State’s attorney on his own admission—no miserable policeman or half-witted constable, but the State’s prosecuting attorney does the burglary, steals the papers, and says you can’t help that. He puts it with a sort of triumph, and yet we are told that our immunities and privileges are not invaded, and our remedy is to sue for trespass. What a beautiful remedy! Sue the State’s attorney and be tried by such a jury as the laws of Illinois would give. Better be in a place not to be named for comfort.”

PRISONERS ABSENT WHEN SENTENCED.

As a final reason why the writ should be granted, General Butler urged that the prisoners had been sentenced to death in their absence, and without being asked whether they had any reason to give why sentence of death should not be pronounced upon them. The record, he said, did not show that they were absent when sentenced, but they could prove it. The record showed that they were present, but they could prove by half Chicago that this was a mistake.

In conclusion, General Butler said: “May I, in closing, make one observation? If men’s lives can be taken in this way, as you have seen exhibited here to-day, better anarchy, better be without law, than with any such law.” General Butler then thanked the court for its indulgence and took his seat.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT’S DECISION NOVEMBER 2, 1887

Is as follows:

The court holds in brief: First, that the first ten amendments to the constitution are limitations upon federal and not upon State action: second, that the jury law of Illinois is upon its face valid and constitutional, and that it is similar in its provisions to the statute of Utah, which was sustained in this court in the case of Hopt vs. The Territory of Utah; third, that it does not appear in the record that upon the evidence the trial court should have declared the juror Sanford incompetent; fourth, that the objection to the admission of the Johann Most letter and the cross-examination of Spies, which counsel for the prisoners maintained virtually compelled them to testify against themselves, were not objected to in the trial court, and that therefore no foundation was laid for the exercise of this court’s jurisdiction, and fifth, that the questions raised by General Butler in the cases of Spies and Fielden upon the basis of their foreign nationality were neither raised nor decided in the State courts, and therefore cannot be considered.

The writ of error prayed for was consequently denied.

There was no dissenting opinion.

The above decision of the Supreme Court was received by the condemned anarchists with coolness amounting to indifference. A. R. Parsons then handed the copy of a letter sent to Governor Oglesby to the Daily News for publication, as follows:

“To His Excellency Richard J. Oglesby, Governor of the State of Illinois—DEAR SIR:

I am aware that petitions are being signed by hundreds of thousands of persons addressed to you, beseeching you to interpose your perogativeprerogative and commute the sentences of myself and comrades from death to imprisonment in the penitentiary. You are, I am told a good constitutional lawyer and a sincere man. I therefore beg of you to examine the record of the trial, and then conscientiously decide for yourself as to my guilt or innocence. I know that as a just man you will decide in accordance with the facts, the truth, and the justice of this case. But I write to reiterate the declaration made in my published appeal to the people of America September 21, 1887. I am guilty or I am innocent of the charge for which I have been condemned to die. If guilty, then I prefer death rather than to go ‘like the quarry slave at night scourged to his dungeon’. If innocent then I am entitled to and will accept nothing less than liberty. The records of the trial made in Judge Gary’s court prove my innocence of the crime of murder. But there exists a conspiracy to judicially murder myself and imprisoned companions in the name and by virtue of the authority of the State. History records every despotic, arbitrary deed of the people’s rulers as having been done in the name of the people, even to the destruction of the liberties of the people.

“I am a helpless prisoner, completely in the power of the authorities, but I strongly protest against being taken from my cell and carried to the penitentiary as a felon. Therefore, in the name of the people, whose liberty is being destroyed; in the name of peace and justice, I protest against the consummation of this judicial murder, this proposed strangulation of freedom on American soil. I speak for myself, I know not what course others may pursue, but for myself I reject the petition for my imprisonment. I am innocent, and I say to you that under no circumstances will I accept a commutation to imprisonment. In the name of the American people I demand my right—my lawful, constitutional, natural, inalienable right to liberty. Respectfully yours,

“A. R. PARSONS, Prison Cell 29.”

On receipt of the decision of the Federal Court not to interfere in the anarchists case, the doomed men were sullen. Louis Lingg, the bomb-maker, was blatant and defiant, and said to his attendants, “I will never die on the scaffold,” he continued, “I hate and defy you all.” A week before the execution Lingg said: “I approach my last moment cheerfully, but I will not go alone.” This was significant language, and no doubt was an allusion to the fact that he intended to use the bombs, afterwards found in his cell for the purpose of producing an explosion in the jail that might have resulted in the death of scores of victims. Lingg, EngleEngel, Fischer and Parsons refused absolutely and persistently to sign any petition to His Excellency, Governor Oglesby, for executive clemency in the commutation of their sentence to imprisonment. The following is a copy of letters from Lingg, Engel and Fischer to Governor Oglesby. They demand liberty or death:

Cook County Jail, November 1.—An open letter to Mr. R. J. Oglesby, Governor of the State of Illinois.

Dear Sir: I am aware that petitions are being circulated and signed by the general public, asking you to commute the sentence of death which was inflicted upon me by a criminal court of this State. Anent the action of a sympathizing and well-meaning portion of the people, I solemnly declare that it has not my sanction. As a man of honor, as a man of conscience, and as a man of principle, I cannot accept mercy. I am not guilty of the charge in the indictment——of murder. I am no murderer, and cannot apologize for an action of which I know I am innocent. And should I ask “mercy” on account of my principles, which I honorably believe to be true and noble! No! I am no hypocrite, and have, therefore, no excuses to offer with regard to being an anarchist, because the experiences of the past eighteen months have only strengthened my convictions. The question is: Am I responsible for the death of the policemen at the Haymarket? and I say no, unless you assent that every abolitionist could have been responsible for the deeds of John Brown. Therefore I could not ask or accept “mercy” without lowering myself in my self-estimation. If I cannot obtain justice from the authorities and be restored to my family, then I prefer that the verdict should be carried out as it stands. Every informed person must, I should think, admit that this verdict is solely due to class hatred, prejudice, the inflaming of public opinion by the malicious newspaper fraternity, and a desire on the part of the privileged classes to check the progressive labor movement. The interested parties, of course, deny this, but it is nevertheless true, and I am sure that coming ages will look upon our trial, conviction, and execution as the people of the ninteenthnineteenth century regard the barbarities of past generations—as the outcome of intolerance and prejudice against advanced ideas. History repeats itself. As the powers that be have at all times thought that they could stem the progressive tide by exterminating a few “kickers,” so do the ruling classes of to-day imagine that they can put a stop to the movement of labor emancipation by hanging a few of its advocates. Progress in its victorious march has had to overcome many obstacles which seemed invincible, and many of its apostles have died the death of martyrs. The obstacles which bar the road to progress to-day seem to be invincible, too; but they will be overcome, nevertheless. At all times when the condition of society had become such, that a large portion of the people complained of the existing injustice, the ruling classes have denied the truth of these complaints, and have said that the discontent of the portion of the people in question was due only to the “pernicious influence” of “malicious agitators.” To-day, again, some people assert that the “d----d agitators” are the cause of the immense dissatisfaction among the working people! Oh, you people who speak thus, can you not, or will you not, read the signs of the time? Do you not see that the clouds on the social firmament are thickening? Are you not, for instance, aware that the control of industry and the means of transportation, etc., is constantly concentrating in fewer hands; that the monopolists, i. e., the sharks among the capitalists, swallow the little ones among them; that “trusts,” “pools,” and other combinations are being formed in order to more thoroughly and systematically fleece the people; that under the present system the development of technic and machinery is from year to year throwing more working men on the wayside; that in some parts of this great and fertile land a majority of the farmers are obliged to mortgage their homes in order to satisfy the greed of monstrous corporations; that, in short, the rich are constantly growing richer, and the poor poorer? Yes? And do you not comprehend that all these evils find their origin in the present institution of society which allows one portion of the human race to build fortunes upon the misfortunes of others; to enslave their fellow men? Instead of trying to remedy these evils, and instead of ascertaining just what the cause of the widening dissatisfaction is, the ruling classes, through their mouth-pieces, press, pulpit, etc.—defame and misrepresent the character, teachings, and motives of the advocates of social reconstruction, and use the rifle and the club on them, and, if opportunity is favorable, send them to the gallows and prisons. Will this do any good? As an answer I may as well quote the following words with which Benjamin Franklin closed his satirical essay, “Rules for Reducing a Great Empire to a Small One,” which he dedicated to the English government in 1776: “Suppose all their (the ‘kickers’) complaints to be inverted, and promoted by a few factious demagogues, whom if you could catch and hang, all would be quiet. Catch and hang a few accordingly; and the blood of the martyrs shall work miracles in favor of your purpose” (i. e., your own ruin).

So, I say, society may hang a number of disciples of progress who have disinterestedly served the cause of the sons of toil which is the cause of humanity, but their blood will work miracles in bringing about the downfall of modern society, and in hastening the birth of a new era of civilization. Magna est veritas et prevalebet!

Adolph Fischer.

A letter to Governor Oglesby

Dear Sir—I, George Engel, citizen of the United States and of Chicago, and condemned to death, learn that thousands of citizens petition you as the highest executive officer of the State of Illinois, to commute my sentence from death to imprisonment. I protest emphatically against this on the following grounds: I am not aware of having violated any laws of this country. In my firm belief in the constitution which the founders of this republic bequeathed to this people and which remains unaltered, I have exercised the right of free speech, free press, free thought and free assemblage, as guaranteed by the constitution, and have criticised the existing condition of society, and succored my fellow-citizens with my advice, which I regard as the right of every honest citizen. The experience which I have had in this country, during the fifteen years that I have lived here, concerning the ballot and the administration of our public functionaries who have become totally corrupt, have eradicated my belief in the existence of equal rights of poor and rich, and the action of the public officers, police and militia have produced the firm belief in me that these conditions cannot last long. In accordance with this belief I have taught and advised. This I have done in good faith of the rights which are guaranteed by the constitution, and, not being conscious of my guilt, the “powers that be” may murder me, but they cannot legally punish me. I protest against a commutation of my sentence and demand either liberty or death. I renounce any kind of mercy.

Respectfully,
George Engel.

AN OPEN LETTER.

To Mr. R. J. Oglesby, Governor of Illinois: Anent the fact that the progressive and liberty-loving portion of the American people are endeavoring to prevail upon you to interpose prerogative in my case, I feel impelled to declare, with my friend and comrade Parsons, that I demand either liberty or death. If you are really a servant of the people according to the constitution of the country, then you will, by virtue of your office unconditionally release me.

Referring to the general and inalienable rights of men. I have called upon the disinherited and oppressed masses to oppose the force of their oppressors—exercised by armed enforcement of infamous laws, enacted in the interest of capital—with force, in order to attain a dignified and manly existence by securing the full returns of their labor. This—and only this—is the “crime” which was proved against me, notwithstanding the employment of perjured testimony on the part of the State. And this crime is guaranteed not only as a right, but as a duty, by the American constitution, the representative of which you are supposed to be in the State of Illinois. But if you are not the representative of the constitution, like the great majority of officeholders, a mere tool of the monopolists or a specific political clique, you will not encroach upon the thristthirst for blood displayed by the executioner, because a mere mitigation of the verdict would be cowardice, and a proof that the ruling classes which you represent are themselves abashed at the monstrosity of my condemnation, and consequently, of their own violation of the most sacred rights of the people.

Your decision in that event will not only judge me, but also yourself and those whom you represent. Judge then!

Cook County Jail, 30, 10, ‘87.
Louis Linng.

P. S.—In order to be sure that this letter will come to your official notice, I will send you the original manuscript as a registered letter.

L. L.