SAMUEL FIELDEN, one of the defendants, called on behalf of the defendants, was duly sworn and testified as follows:
By Mr. Foster.
Q: What is your full name?
A: Samuel Fielden.
Q: Mr. Fielden what is your age?
A: 39 the 25th of last February.
Q: Where were you born?
A: I was born in the town of Dolderdon, Lancashire, England.
Q: At what age did you come to the United States?
A: I came to the United States in the following July after I was of age, 21, 1868.
Q: Where have you resided since 1868?
A: I worked one day, I believe in Brooklyn, in a hat factory and from there I went to Providence and lived in North Providence and worked in Chapin & Town's woolen mill until the following March.
Q: When did you come to Chicago?
A: Well, I came from there to Ohio, worked on a farm four months there and from there in August I came to Chicago in 1869.
Q: That would be August of 1869?
A: Yes sir.
Q: You have resided then, about seventeen years in Chicago?
A: Well, most of the time. I have been down South twice working on levees and railroads down there and I have worked---the first work I did in Illinois I worked on John Wentowrth's farm at Summit, 12 miles from Chicago, and worked around.
Q: What had been your business before the 4th of May, for a considerable time?
A: I have worked in stone yards and driven stone teams most of the time since 1872, the year following the fire.
Q: Are you a married man?
A: I am.
Q: Is your wife living?
A: My wife is living.
Q: At what place?
A: 110 West Polk.
Q: Was that your home prior to your arrest?
A: Yes sir, I was arrested there.
Q: And is yet your home?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Have you got a family of children?
A: I have one child.
Q: You are a socialist?
A: I am.
Q: Do you remember a meeting held at the Arbeiter Zeitung office, or at the building, at least, 107 Fifth Avenue, on the evening of the 4th of May last?
A: Yes sir.
Q: How and when did you receive notice of the holding of that meeting?
A: I had been with a load of stone to Wadheim cemetery that day and I had engaged to speak at 12th street, 268 that night, and intended going there until I got home and bought a Daily News and saw the announcement of a meeting of the American Group to be held at 107 Fifth Avenue that night, important business, I believe it said; and I was the treasurer of that society or of that organization and had all the money that the organization was worth and and we should have had our semi-annula election the Sunday previous to the 4th of May, and I thought that possibly some money would be wanted as it was advertised as important business, so that I thought that I would go and not go to the meeting that I had engaged the Sunday night previous to go to that night, and that is what brought me there.
Q: At what time did you arrive there, Mr. Fielden?
A: I arrived there, I think, about 10 minutes or perhaps a little less than that, before eight.
Q: Were you there at the time that there was any telephoning done with reference to the Deering meeting?
A: Yes sir.
Q: You heard the witnesses testifying on that subject?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Is your recollection different from theirs?
A: The witnesses who have detailed the occurrence are substantially correct, I think.
Q: What was the object, as you afterwards learned, of the meeting which was held there that night?
A: I asked when I went in there what the meeting was for and a gentleman named Patterson, who was not a member of an organization, but I believe has been interesting himself in organizing different---
MR. GRINNELL: I do not think it is proper for him to state anything about that.
THE WITNESS: Mr. Patterson showed me a hand bill.
Q: Did you see there a handbill calling that meeting?
A: Yes sir.
Q: A printed circular?
A: No sir, not calling that business meeting, but a hand bill that I was told was the reason---
Q: Did you see a hand bill with reference to the organization of the sewing women?
A: Yes sir.
Q: That is the handbill that you referred to?
A: Yes sir.
Q: What business was performed there, that is, upon what general subject, not going into details?
A: I brought some money with me as I had intended, and I paid $5 to those who had paid for the printing of those handbills and who might need a little money or street car fare in going around to hire halls, and other incidental expenses.
Q: You paid this money as treasurer, I understand?
A: As treasurer of our organization.
Q: Do you remember at or about what time Mr. Schwab left that meeting, if he had left it at any time?
A: I think Schwab must have left there about quarter past 8 or 10 minutes past 8, perhaps, as near as I can think of now.
Q: After Schwab left or at any time during the progress of that meeting I will ask you, Mr. Fielden, o state whether or not a request was received, as you understand it, from the Haymarket meeting for speeches?
A: Yes sir.
Q: In response to that request whom went to the haymarket meeting?
A: Mr. Parsons and I.
Q: Did you go in company with each other?
A: Mr. Parsons I believe, brought his two children down stairs and gave them a drink of water in the saloon, if I remember correctly, and I waited at the corner for him.
Q: From the corner did you go together?
A: We walked together, I think, Mr. Parsons and I, through the tunnel and then after that I think I walked with Mr. Schneider from about the other end of the tunnel, the west end of the tunnel; I don't know whether Parsons was with us, but there was three of us in that group at that time, but I know that I had some conversation with Mr. Schneider there and I think that I walked with him over there.
Q: You remember the fact from the conversation that you had with him?
A: Yes sir.
Q: When you arrived at the Haymarket, who, if any one, was speaking?
A: Mr. Spies.
Q: How soon after you arrived did Mr. Spies stop speaking?
A: Well, I think about five minutes.
Q: Who was introduced as the speaker following Mr. Spies?
A: Mr. Parsons.
Q: By whom was Parsons Introduced?
A: By Mr. Spies.
Q: Where were you when Parsons spoke?
A: I was on the wagon.
Q: After the conclusion of Mr. Parson's speech, who, if anyone, was introduced to speak at that meeting?
A: I was introduced to make a short speech and I did not wish to speak but Mr. Spies urged me and I did.
Q: By whom were you introduced to that audience, Mr. Fields?
A: By Mr. Spies, I think.
Q: By Spies?
A: I think so, yes sir, as far as I can remember.
Q: About how long did you sepak?
A: Well, I think I spoke about 20 minutes.
Q: Now, I will ask you, without making a twenty minutes speech Mr. Fielding, if you will state in a general way to the jury, the tenor of your speech, as near as you can remember it?
A: I think I referred to some adverse criticism of the socialists by an evening paper published in this city which had been calling the socialists cowards and other uncomplimentary names, and told the audience that this was not true; that the socialists were true to the interest of the laboring classes, and that they were not cowards and would not desert the laboring classes, but would continue to advocate the rights of labor. I think that that was the essence of the first part of the speech. I then went on, so far as I remember now, to speak briefly of the condition of labor. Then I referred to that class of people who were continually posing as labor reformers for their own benefit, and who had never done anything to benefit the laboring classes, but had at all times approved the cause of labor on order to get themselves into office, and then to back up that, or substantiate it, I cited the case of Martin Foran, who had in a speech in congress, on the arbitratioon, bill that was brought in by the labor committee there, stated that the working classes of this country could get nothing through legislation in Congress, and he had stated further then that, that only when the rich men of this country understood that it was dangerous to live in a community where there were dissatisfied people, would the labor problem be solved. I stated this, and someone on the audience cried out: "That is not true", or "That is a lie." That here was a man that was rich on the spot, a man who had been there for years, who had had experience and knew what could be done there, and this was his testimony; it was not the testimony of a socialist at all. And then I went on to say that this being the case, the only thing that they could do, the only way in which they could get any satisfaction, from the gradual decreasing opportunities for living of the working people---the only thing that they could do with the law would be to "throttle it". I used that word in figurative sense. I said to throttle it, because it was an expensive article to them and could do them no good. I went on further, so far as I can remember, to state that men working all their lifetime, their love for their families influencing to put forth all their efforts that the children that came after them might have a better opportunity of starting in the world better than they had done; and the facts, the statistics of Great Britain and of the United States would prove that every year it was becoming utterly impossible for the youngest generation, under the present system, to have as good an opportunity, as the former ones had had. Mr. Spies had stated to me before I commenced to mention the boycott that the Chicago Herald had advised the labor organizations of this city to give it to the red flags.
MR. INGHAM: The question is what you said at that meeting.
THE WITNESS: I spoke briefly and told them not to boycott the red flag as they had been advised to do, because the red flag was the symbol of universal freedom and universal liberty. I didn't speak very long about that, and I was just closing my remarks--------I think I had just closed that part of my speech------when some one said "It is going to rain." There was a very dark heavy cloud which seemed to be rolling over just a little to the northwest of me, and I looked at it and someone proposed to go to Zeph's Hall and finish the meeting there. Some one else said "No, there is a meeting there." And I said "Never mind, I will not talk very long. I will close now in a few minutes, and then we will all go home." I talked then a little longer. I think the last portion of my speech was advising them to organize into different organizations, to organize any way as laboring men; to organize for their own protection; not to trust to anyone else at all, but to organize among themselves and depend only upon themselves to advance their condition. Now, I was speaking in that way and I do not think I should have spoken one minute longer, when I noticed the police. I stopped speaking and Captain Ward came up to me, and he raised his hand---and I do not remember now whether he had anything in his hand or not-----and he said: "I command this meeting, in the name of the People of the State of Illinois, to peaceable disperse." I was standing up, and I said "Why Captain, this is a peaceable meeting," in that tone of voice, in a very conciliatory tone of voice, and he very angrily and defiantly retorted that he commanded it to disperse, and called, as I understood----I didn't catch those words clearly---he called up the police to disperse it. Just as he turned around in that argry mood I jumped from the wagon and said "All right, we will go," and jumped to the side walk. This is my impression after being in jail now for three months, and I am telling it as near as I can remember it, very incident of it:
MR. FOSTER: Go right on and tell.
A: Then the explosion came. I think I went in a somewhat southeasterly direction from the time that I struck the street. It was only a couple of steps to the sidewalk. I had just, I think, got on to the sidewalk when the explosion came, and being in a dioganal position on the street I saw the flash as if in that corner (indicating) as it were, from where I was. Then the people began to rush past me and I heard someone-----I was not decided in my mind what it was---but I heard some one say "dynamite", and then in my own mind I assented that that was the cause of the explosion they rushed past me and I rushed with them, and I was crowded with them. There were some of them falling down and others calling out in agony, and the police were purring ahots into them. We tried to get behind some protection. Some men got there, but I saw there was so many trying to get there that there was very little protection afforded. I then made a dash for the corner of the street around to a saloon, I believe it is Bryan's saloon.
Q: What corner?
A: On the northeast corner of Randolph and DesPlaines. I turned that corner and ran down the street. I ran, I suppose, until I got to Jefferson street, and seeing there was no pursuit I dropped into a fast walk. I walked down to Clinton and turned on Clinton, intending at that time to go home. I have omitted one circumstance, and that is, that immediately after the explosion of the bomb---I had possibly gone three or four steps----I was struck with a ball. It felt, as near as I can estimate the feeling, now, as though a small hammer had struck me very quickly there with a strong powerful blow. I didn't feel much pain at the time in the excitement, but as I dropped into a walk down there on Randolph street I felt the pain and put my finger in the hole in my pants and felt my knee was wet. Then I concluded I had been shot, but I hadn't a great deal of pain in it at that time. As I walked down Clinton street I was thinking about going home. Then I began to think about those who had been with me, and, remembering about Mr. Spies being on the wagon at the time I was speaking, and at the time the police came up, I thought surely that some of these men must have been killed, from all that shooting. I concluded then that I would take a Van Buren street car and ride down past the Arbeiter Zeitung building and see if any one was there. I caught the car at the corner of Canal Street and VanBuren, but I found I had made a mistake. It was a car that runs directly east to State street. I turned the corner of Fifth avenue then, and walked from the corner of fifth avenue until I got to Monroe street. There came a car from down there which I thought was a Twelfth street car. Of course I was near the place and I could have walked there, but I thought at the time that I was so well known in Newspaper Row by the reporters that if I should walk I should be known. So I jumped on to the car and stood in front. I thought if I saw a light in the Arbeiter Zeitung building I would jump off and go up there; but there wasn't any. So when I got down near the Briggs House I alighted, and I thought then I would go up to Parson's House. I took an Indiana Street car and rode up to Clinton street. When we got to Clinton street the driver said "Why there is firing going on up there yet" and I saw a couple of flashes up near where I thought the Haymarket was, and I said "If there is I am not going up there." I then walked over on Jefferson street until I came to the north corner of Lake street, and I saw a terrible crowd of people around there, and I thought possibly that there would be a good many detectives there. So I turned back again and caught a Canalport Avenue car and rode down to the corner of Canal and Twelfth streets. There I got my knee dressed, it was becoming very painful at this time.
Q: Who dressed your knee?
A: A young doctor who was on the stand here the other day; Epler, I think was his name. I then went home.
Q: At the time the police came up there and Captain Ward made the proclamation to the audience, or to the meeting, to disperse, you may state whether or not Mr. Spies at that time was on the wagon with you?
A: Well, I feel sure that Mr. Spies was at my side when Captain Ward, but at the time that Captain Ward came up and made those remarks Mr. Spies was there. I will swear that he was there when Captain Ward began to talk.
Q: Did you see Mr. Spies leave the wagon?
A: I did not, I jumped off at the rear end of the wagon, what we always call the tail end of the wagon, jumped off into the street.
Q: That would be the south end of the wagon?
A: Yes sir. that would be the south end of the wagon.
Q: So that you know as a matter of fact, that Mr: Spies was on the wagon at the time that the proclamation was begun?
A: Yes sir, I do.
Q: After that you paid no particular attention in that direction?
A: No sir, I looked at the Captain, and from him I turned around to leave----to get off the end of the wagon.
Q: How many other persons were on the wagon at that time besides you and Mr. Spies?
A: Well, I didn't look much at the crowd on the wagon. I would sometimes turn my face to the sidewalk, sometimes south and sometimes north in addressing the audience, and I didn't pay any attention to the wagon, but I think I noticed there were four or five on there a little previous to the police coming up.
Q: Did you see Mr. Schneider on the wagon?
A: Mr. Schneider assisted me to get on the wagon. He went on the wagon before I did. When he got on there he caught hold of my hand and assisted in pulling me up.
Q: Did he remain on the wagon, so far as you know, until the order to disperse was given?
A: No sir, I think Mr. Schneider was on the ground when I got down. I think I saw him on the sidewalk there. Of course I don't remember everything as distinctly now as I did the next day.
Q: Mr. Fielden did you have a revolver that night?
A: I never had a revolver in my life. I never carried one in my pocket three feet out of doors, and I never had one in my house, and I don't believe that my wife knows what a revolver is.
Q: You say, then, that you didn't have one in your pocket or about your person on the night of the 4th of May?
A: No sir, I did not.
Q: I will ask you whether or not you fired at any policeman at any other person at the Haymarket meeting on the night of the fourth of May?
A: No sir, I never fired at a person in my life.
Q: Did you on the fourth of May, did you fire?
A: No sir.
Q: Did you, at any time after you got off the wagon step back between the wheels of the wagon, crouch down, rise and fire, and crouch down again and rise and fire repeatedly?
A: No sir, I didn't stay there, I went the other way from the wagon. I went from the first man that I met when I came on the street----my whole course was from the wagon south.
Q: You never came to a stop at any time?
A: No sir; I may have stopped for the smallest perseptible space of time when I was startled with the explosion, but it was hardly any stoppage at all, I think, before I began to go with the crowd.
Q: Mr. Fielden, when did you first hear of the word Ruhe having been published in the Arbeiter Zeitung, or hear anything as to the import or siginficance of that word?
A: I think I saw it in one of the papers when I was in the County Jail here.
Q: How long were you in the County Jail?
A: I cannot tell now, I think it was some days.
Q: At the time you were in the Arbeiter Zeitung office attending the organization of the sewing women, or the meeting that was called for that purpose, or at the Haymarket that night, or at any time during that day or night, did you hear of that word?
A: No sir, I never saw the word before in my life, and, as I understand it is a German word, I would not have known what it meant if I had seen it.
Q: Do you read German?
A: No sir.
Q: Was there any understanding, arrangement or agreement on the part of you or any other person or persons, to your knowledge, that violence should be used at the Haymarket meeting?
A: No sir.
Q: Or that arms should be used or that dynamite should be used at the meeting?
A: No sir.
Q: You anticipated no trouble of that character of kind?
A: No sir.
Q: How long did you speak that night, Mr. Fielden?
A: I think I spoke about twenty minutes, as near as I can remember now.
Q: I will ask you whether or not, upon the approach of the police there you used these words of words of similar report: "There come the bloodhounds", or "There come the bloodhounds, you do your duty and I'll do mine?
A: No sir, I did not.
Q: Did you hear any such expression as that from any person that night?
A: I did not.
Q: When did you first hear of the Haymarket meeting?
A: I heard of it after I got to the American Group meeting. that is the first I heard of it.
Q: At the Arbeiter Zeitung building,
A: Yes sir.
Q: On the night of May 4th?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Now you have heard the testimony with reference to a Monday night meeting that had been held by certain persons at number 54 Lake street, I presume?
A: Yes sir.
Q: When did you first hear that such a meeting had been held?
A: I heard of that about four days----no, I heard of that, I think, about ten or fourteen days after I was in the County Jail. I saw it, I think, in the morning Times, and the gist of what I saw there was that the police had got track of some meeting that had been held there on Monday night. That is the first that I had heard of any such meeting. However, I wish to say that I was at number 54 Lake street on Monday night. I spoke to the wagon makers in the upper hall.
Q: What floor did you speak to them on?
A: On the upper floor the largest hall.
Q: Do you remember how many floors there are in that building?
A: There are some living rooms on the second floor. Then there is a hall on the third floor, and the largest hall is on the top floor. The one on the third floor is not so large. In the rear of the saloon there is a little room I believe it has been called a kitchen here, but sometimes committee meetings and small meetings have been held there that I know of.
Q: Were you ever down in the basement of that building?
A: I was never in the basement, except to the water closet in my life.
Q: You simply have been down under the sidewalk?
A: Under the sidewalk. You go down a space and then turn back under the sidewalk.
Q: But were you ever in the basement proper under the main room?
A: No sir, I didn't think, from the appearance of it, but what it was full of old lumber and trash and so fourth? I never thought that there was anything of a hall there.
Q: You didn't go down stairs that night?
A: No sir, I didn't go down stairs at all.
Q: And didn't hear of any meeting being held there until you learned it ten or fifteen days after the fourth of May.
A: That was the first notice that I had of it.
Q: Were you a member of any armed section or organization of similar purport?
A: Well, we drilled there at number 54 Lake street on that Monday night without arms, but there never was anybody ever had any arms there.
Q: How many times did you drill there, Mr. Fielden.
A: Not over six times, I think, so far as I can remember now.
Q: What did you call yourselves, what was your society.?
A: I think it was proposed to call it the International Rifles, but I don't think, as near as I can remember now, that it was ever really decided, as the organization was in an imperfect state, and never was perfected, because it never became an armed organization. I don't think we really decided positively to call it that, but that name was talked of.
Q: When was the last time, if you know, that there was any drilling or any meeting of that group or the International Rifles at Lake street or anywhere else?
A: I think it must have been----I think we began there in August.
Q: What year?
A: Last year, a year from this fall, a year back, and the last meetings must have been in the latter part of September, very near to that, I think.
Q: The last of September of that year?
A: The last of September of that year.
Q: Then there was no drilling during the winter of 1885--6 and the spring og 1886?
A: No, sir.
Q: And no arms were ever obtained?
A: No sir.
Q: You never had any arms at the time of any drilling?
A: No sir----well, there were a few men belonging to the Lehr and Wehr Verein who came in there as one of these witnesses said----Johnson, one of the Pinkerton agents----one night with their guns and grounded arms, or shouldered arms, something of that kind, but that is the only time that I ever saw any arms there. They didn't belong to the American Group at all.
Q: I am only speaking now of you own group, the International Rifles, they never had any arms?
A: No sir.
Q: You never had any arms or exercised with any?
A: No sir.
Q: Now, Mr. Fielden, you say that the shots were puring in thick and fast after the explosion of the bomb?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Where did these shots come from?
A: They came from the street.
Q: With reference to the position of the police on the street where did they come from?
A: I should judge they came from the police.
Q: At any time when you were getting off from the wagon, was there, to your knowledge, an explosion of firearms from the wagon?
A: No; I didn't hear the explosion of anything I can remember of before the explosion of the bomb.
Q: As you were rushing down the sidewalk did you hear an explosion of any arms among the citizens who had attended the meeting?
A: No sir.
Q: You heard the witness Johnson testify?
A: Yes sir.
Q: You know Johnson?
A: Yes sir, I have seen him.
Q: You remember of his testifying with reference to a conversation had with you at the Twelfth street Turner Hall?
A: Yes sir, I have heard him testify with reference to that conversation.
Q: What was that particular conversation that he testified in regard to, Mr. Fielden?
A: I don't remember now what it was that he did testify to but I think he testified something to my advocacy of dynamite, and I believe he testified now that it had occurred down in the saloon after I had done speaking, in the presence of a man named Boyd.
Q: That was it and his notes stated at the same time that he hadn't time to talk with you at that time? Did you have any conversation with him down there in the presence of Boyd and the Twelfth street Turner Hall?
A: I did not, Mr. Boyd was not in the city of Chicago at that time. His son had told me-
Q: What was it you were going to say?
A: His son told me-----
A: Boyd and his son were both members of the American Group I missed the boy's father and I asked him at one time where his father was.
Q: Did you at any time, whether at the Twelfth street Turner Hall on the occasion that he referred to, or at any other time, have the conversation which he stated he had in regard to you and the dynamite?
A: I did not, I knew that he was a detective long before that, and I would not be fool enough to go and advocate anything of that kind, if I was a dynamiter, to him.
Q: As a matter of fact, Mr. Fielden, your doors have always been open to membership?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Ten cents was the admission and no questions asked?
A: It was not necessary to have ten cents. I was financial secretary and treasurer for a long time, and I always, in speaking and calling upon persons to join the organization, told them if they had no money they could join, but the fee was set at ten cents per months, so as to cover the expenses of paying for hall rent and advertising.
Q: You say that on the fourth, if I remember correctly, you were hauling stone?
A: On the fourth I took a load of sawed stone from Rodenscratz & Ernshaw's dock out to Waldheim Cemetary, which is the other side of Oak Park, and it is a day's work.
Q: What time did you return home that evening?
A: I returned home about half past five.
Q: It was after you returned home that you bought the paper?
A: I bought the paper on the sidewalk just before I went into the house.
Q: And then it was, If I understand, that you first ascertained of the meeting that was called for at number 107 Fifth Avenue?
A: Yes sir, the American Group Business meeting.
Q: Where had you been the day before?
A: Well, I had worked three quarters of a day that day. At the beginning of May business was not so brisk because most of the building was stopped. Of course in hauling stones to buildings the space given to depositing our loads soon became clogged up, and sometimes a man would be at a building and would be informed not to bring any more until they began to work again. Consequently the work was not brisk. I only worked three quarters of a day on Saturday, which was the first day of May, and three quarters of a day on Monday.
Q: Commencing with the day previous to the fourth which was on Monday, what were you doing on that day?
A: In the morning I took a load of stone, which was roof coping up to Division street.
Q: Where did you get that stone?
A: At Bodenschatz & Ernshaw's stone dock, Harrison street and the river.
Q: What did you do the rest of the day?
A: In the afternoon I took two loads of ashler from that dock to Deekman Bros. at the corner of Sixteenth and Jefferson, near the old Burlington tracks, Burlington freight house.
Q: Did that constiture a days work?
A: No sir, my wife only got three quarters of a day for that day.
Q: Whom were you working for at that time?
A: I was working for Bodenschatz & Ernshaw. I worked for them three or four years.
Q: Did you own your own team?
A: Yes sir.
Q: You were working with a stone team, a span of horses and wagon, and your own services?
A: Yes sir.
Q: That is, they hired you, your team and wagon?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you were working by the day?
A: Yes sir.
Q: What were you doing on Saturday, the first day of May?
A: Saturday the first load I hauled was to the new building going up at the corner of Lake street and that little street which runs diagonally over from Randolph street, just on the east side of Union Park. At the sharp corner there they were putting up a lot of new buildings and I hauled a load of dimension stone there for the basement, in the morning. That was a quarter of a day's work. When I got back I got a load for forty-six and Woodlawn Avenue, in Hyde Park.
That is all that I did that day.
Q: So your business has been that of teamster?
A: Yes sir. that has been my business for the last six years. I have owned my own team for that time and previous to that I worked for different firms around town.
Q: How many years of that six have you been engaged for that stone firm?
A: This would be the second consecutive year. The year previous to that I worked for Heldemeyer & Boldenwick. The year before that I worked for Bodenschatz and Ernshaw and two years before that I worked for Boyer & Corneau.
Q: When you were arrested, Mr. Fielden?
A: As near as I can remember I was arrested at home about 10 o'clock on the morning of the 5th of May.
Q: Were you ever arrested before?
A: No sir, I never was arrested in my life.
Q: Where were you taken upon being arrested?
A: I was taken to the Central Station.
Q: By whom?
A: I don't know the names of the officers with the exception of one of them who testified here, I think----Slayton---and four more.
Q: Were they police officers or detectives?
A: Detectives. all in citizens clothes.
Q: Have you been constantly under arrest ever since?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Have you ever had any examination, preliminary or otherwise?
A: I had no examination except that I was brought before the corner's jury on the evening of the Fifth of May.
MR. INGHAM: That is the only examination anybody ever has for murder.
MR. FOSTER: Q Before the corner's jury?
A: Yes sir.
Q: On the fifth day of May?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Is that all the examination you have had?
A: Yes sir. That is all the examination I have had.
Adjourned to 10 A. M. August 7th 1886.
August 7th, 10 o'clock A. M.
Court met pursuant to adjournment.
Direct Examination resumed by Mr. Foster.
Q: Do you know Mr. James Bonfield, the detective?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Did you hear his testimony in this case?
A: Yes sir.
Q: I will ask you if you related to Mr. Bonfield the direction or course that you went after getting off the wagon that night?
A: I did not. I never spoke to him. I didn't know him as James Bonfield at all until after I had been in court some weeks.
Q: I will ask you if you stated to Mr. Bonfield or anybody else immediately after your arrest at the station or at any other time or any other place that you escaped through Crane's alley that night?
A: I did not.
Q: In the conversation with the reporter, with Knox, or any of these parties, was there a statement of that character made on the night of May 5th, or at any other time, or at any place whatever, that you went through Crane's alley that night?
A: After the corner's inquest there was some three or four reporters came down there and they asked me to give a short account of myself and of the occurrence. I did so, and I told them that I went around the corner. Whether I stated to them that I went around on the corner of Randolph s reet I don't know, but I never said to anyone that I went through the alley---because I never did.
CROSS EXAMINATION by Mr. Ingham.
Q: You say you were born in England?
A: Yes sir.
Q: How old were you when you came to America?
A: I was 21
Q: Did you have any business while you were in England?
A: I went to work in a cotton mill at eight years of age. I worked in the same mill until I left that mill and come to the United States.
Q: Did you have any profession, any calling while you were in England?
A: Going in as a boy, I worked all the way up until I became a weaver, was a weaver before I left the mill, and when I left it I was what is called a binder, that is winding the warps on the beams.
Q: You came to this country at 21?
A: 21, yes sir.
Q: How long have you lived in Chicago?
A: Well, I come to Chicago, in 1869, and it has been my principal home since.
Q: You say you have been here how long?
A: I came here in 1869 in August, and it has been my principal place of residence since.
Q: How long have you been a socialist?
A: I joined the socialistic organization in July 1884.
Q: What organization was that?
A: The International Working People's Association.
Q: What department of it, or branch of it?
A: The American Group.
Q: How long have you been a anarchist?
A: Well, I suppose I was an Anarchist soon after I joined that, as soon as I began to study it.
Q: You passed from socialism into Anarchism?
A: Yes sir.
Q: How long have you been a resolutionist?
A: Well, in the sense of evolutionary revolution. I have been that I suppose some years----I can't tell exactly how many.
Q: How long have you been of the belief that the existing order of things should be overthrown by force?
A: I don't know that I have ever been positively on the belief or am yet. I have always been of the belief and am yet that the existing order of things will have to be overthrown either by one method or the other.
Q: Either peaceably or by force?
Q: If it cannot be accomplished by the ballot then it must be done by force?
A: It is the necessary order of things that is my opinion.
Q: If you cannot convert the majority of the people of this country to your belief, then the minority must overturn the majority by force.
THE COURT: The examination must be confined to what is said and done. What he has said and done is the legitimate subject.
MR. INGHAM: How long have you preached anarchy?
Mr. Foster. That assumes he has preached anarchy. It is immaterial and not proper cross examination.
MR. INGHAM: Q How long were you a member of the American Group.
A: Before my arrest I was a member about a year and ten months.
Q: Who were membersof that Group while you were a member so far as you can recollect?
A: When I had the books as the financial secretary there was some thing like 175 members that was a year----no, that was last November when I became the treasurer and financial secretary----since that time I don't know how many members have been added to the list.
Q: The Group was composed of both men and women?
A. Men & women, yes sir..
Q. What proportion were men, & what proportion, women?
A: Well, I don't know how many/. The largest number was men, was probably some fifteen or twenty ladies belonged to it.
Q: You called it the American Group because it was the Group in which the English language was used, did you not?
Q: It was not confined to persons who were born in America?
A: No sir.
Q: But open to any one who spoke the English language?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Was there any other English speaking group in this City that you know of?
Objected to as immaterial and not proper cross examination.
THE COURT: I think this particular question is not specific anough. It is simply as to his knowledge of any other English speaking group. Whether he himself had any connection or association with such group or not, whether there was any other English speaking group which he had ever met with, or any of the members with which he had any association, would be a different question.
MR. INGHAM: Did you ever meet with any other English speaking group in this city or county.?
MR. BLACK: We object to all testimony which does not come within the rule of cross examination, that is to say which does not relate to the examination, does not relate to the subject matter of the direct examination.
THE COURT: The only difference is in the application of the rule. I think that rule does allow a complete examination as to his own conduct.
MR. BLACK: We except to the ruling of the court.
MR. INGHAM: Q Did you ever attend any meeting of any English speaking group other then the American Group in this city or county.
Objected to for reasons already stated. Objection overruled to which ruling of the court defendants' counsel then and there excepted.
A: Well, we have tried to found English speaking groups. We tried to found one a year ago last winter on West Indiana street. I think we only held two meetings, and then we abandoned it.
Q: Any other more than that that you ever attended?
A: I don't remember any now.
Q: You for the last two or three years have been making speeches have you not, socialistic and anarchistic speeches?
A: Well, I have been making labor speeches. They were not always socialistic and not always anarchistic.
Q: But you have made socialistic and anarchistic speeches during the last two or three years?
A: Well, that I understand to be---sometimes I have touched upon socialism and anarchy, and sometimes my speeches might have been delivered from an ordinary trade union stand point--whether any socialism or anarchism was in them.
Q: Where did you make these speeches?
A: I have made speeches on the lake front, most of my speeches I think. No, not most of them, I have made a great many on the lake front some on the market square, some at 54 West Randolph, and some at West 12th street Turner Hall.
Q: 54 West Randolph?
A: West Lake.
A: Greiff's, and some at 106 East Randolph
Q: What days of the week did you speak on the Lake front?
Q: Sunday afternoon?
A: Sunday afternoon.
Q: How many times have you spoken on the Lake front on Sunday afternoons.?
Objected to as immaterial, overruled, and exception.
A: I think twenty times.
Q: How many times have you spoken at Geiff's Hall?
A: Well, I think I have taken part in discussions there---I don't consider that so much as a speech as taking part in discussion, if you call those speeches, I may have spoken there thirty times.
Q: How many times on the marketsquare?
A: On the east side or south side, I have spoken, I think I have spoken there some four or five times.
Q: Did you make a speech there on the night of the opening of the Board of Trade?
Objected to; Objection overruled. Exception by defendants.
Q: You were a stockholder in the Alarm?
A: I have two dollars worth of stock in it I believe.
Q: You were as much a stockholder as any one else, were you not.
Q: But you did have two dollars worth of stock in it? (No Response.)
Q: Did you have anything to do with the management of the Alarm?
THE COURT: That is admissible.
Defendants then and there excepted to the ruling of the court.
THE WITNESS: Well, I was part of the committee that met to see what we should do about it when it began to get in deep water and some one proposed that my name should be put on the paper as being the recipient of communications as to the management of it. I never received any complaints as to the management of it at all. Sometimes I would receive fifty cents, sometimes a dollar from people who contributed through me or subscribed through me---in that way, and complaints as to not receiving the paper--that is all I had to do with managing the paper.
Q: How long were you connected with it in that way?
A: My name was on there up to the time of its suspension.
Q: For how long?
A: I think it was a little less than a year.
Q: Did you read the Alarm?
Objected to by defendants' counsel as immaterial The court overruled the objection to which ruling of the court defendants' counsel then and there excepted.
A: I read it sometimes, and sometimes I didn't.
Q: About how often did you read it?
Objected to by defendants' counsel as immaterial. The court overruled the objection, to which ruling of the court counsel for defendants then and there excepted.
A: I can't tell you, because in fact I had not as much time to read anything as I would like to have had---my time being taken up so much with my work, having to rise early in the morning and consequently to go to bed at night at a reasonable time, and sometimes taking up so much of my time at speaking and when I had a night to myself of course I went to bed in rather early season.
Q: Didn't you read this paper to keep track of the socialistic history as it was being made?
Objected to his motive. Objection overruled. Exception by defendants.
A: I think if you look over the Alarm, you will see that a person could hardly keep track of the socialistic movement by the Alarm itself, to read it for that purpose would not be hardly good judgment.
Q: Have you read the Alarm enough to know that?
A: What I have read in it---I have not read every issue. I have read portions. I think possibly there are some issues I have not read at all. There are others that I have read portions of, but not all of them.
Q: Did you ever read any portions of the alarm containing the translations from the Freuheit?
A: I think I read one issue. I don't know whether I read it through or not. and a portion of another, but I didn't read those articles., continuously, and I don't believe I read two of those articles from the Freiheit.
Q: Did you see other articles from the Freiheit in the Alarm?
A: I may have done so I can't tell now.
Q: Do you remember when that was?
A: I don't know. I can approximate it. I think it was about a year ago if I am not mistaken.
Q: Do you remember to have read any articles signed Lizius?
A: I think I have.
Q: About how long ago was that if you remember?
A: I can't tell---perhaps it is a year ago.
MR. BLACK: I move that the last question and answer be stricken out. The state has introduced one article from the Alarm signed Lixius, I believe one, possible two.
MR. INGHAM: Strike it out.
Q: What time did you get to the Arbeiter Zeitung office on the night of the 4th of May?
A: I think I got there about ten minutes to eight.
Q: Why did you go there?
A: I went there because of the advertisement I saw in the Daily News.
Q: When did you see that advertisement?
A: I think it was about half past six.
Q: You got there about eight you say?
A: A little before eight.
Q: How many were at that meeting?
A: I should think there was about a dozen there when I got in.
Q: How many members of the American group did you know at that meeting that might?
A: I think during the night there was possibly twelve or fifteen of the American group.
Q: Can you name them? name those who were present?
A: Well, there was Mr. & Mrs. Parsons. There was Mr. and Mrs. Timmons. There was I think Joh Walters and I think there was Brown and Snyder.
Q: Who is John Walters?
A: He is a member of the American Group.
Q: Did you say Walters or Waldo?
A: I think his name is Walters. I think he was there--I am not certain about him being there, but my impression is he was there., but I am not sure about it, I would not swear that he was. and there was Mrs. Holmes and Snyder and Brown--I mentioned them before I believe. I can't remember all of them now.
Q: Was Mr. Ducy there?
A: Well, that I cannot be positive about.
Q: You staid there how long?
A: I think we staid there until nearly nine o'clock. Perhaps ten minutes before nine.
Q: Then where did you go?
A: Then we went to the Haymarket
Q: How did you come to go to the Haymarket?
A: Mr. Rau came over from the Haymarket and said Spies was there, and no one else to speak, and there was a large meeting there.
Q: Mr. Rau you mean?
A: Yes, Mr. Rau.
Q: Balthazar Rau?
A: Balthazar Rau, yes.
Q: Then you went?
A: Then I went.
Q: Who went with you?
A: Well, I think there was some four or five of us went together---I don't know whether Brown went with us or went before us, but I know that Rau and Mr. Parsons, myself and Snyder went about together--it might be two groups of them one party walking ahead of the other.
Q: Do you remember whether Schwab was at the Zeitung office that night?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Did he leave the meeting before you, or at the same time with you?
A: He left the meeting before us.
Q: Did Parsons leave at the same time or before?
A: Well, Parsons walked up Washington street with me from the corner.
Q: Did you have an appointment to speak at any place that evening?
A: I had promised on Saturday night at Greiffs hall a man who had been to my house before and asked me to speak at a meeting for the Central Labor Union. I promised him to speak at either 368 or 378 West 12th street that night.
Q: What sort of meeting was it to be as you understood it?
A: I didn't ask him.
Q: A labor meeting?
A: Yes, I understood it because he was engaged in labor work.
Q: After you got to the Haymarket and on the Wagon who were present on the wagon with you?
A: I only remember Mr. Parsons, Mr. Spies and Mr. Snyder---I don't remember any one else. I know that there were some people who were strangers to me. There was a boy about 16 years of age came upon the wagon, and he rather crowded me to one side, and I told him he might as well stand down, that he could hear as well down below. There were some strangers on there I think but those are the only ones I can remember.
Q: Those are the only ones you can remember?
Q: How long did you speak?
A: I spoke about twenty minutes.
Q: You said you were not anxious to speak?
A: I was not.
Q: You spoke because Mr. Spies requested you to?
Q: And not from any desire of your own?
A: No Mr. Parsons spoke longer than I thought he would, and at that time I thought it was late enough to close anyway, but Spies said I might make a short speech.
Q: Did you use this language inn your speech "There are premon,itions of danger. All know it. The press say the anarchists will sneak away. We are not going to."
A: I don't know whether I did or not. I don't know whether---I have no desire to deny that I did use that language, but here of course I think I ought to be allowed in justice to myself to make an explanation of what I meant if I used it.
Q: That is the very reason I asked it so you could make an explanation of what you meant.
MR. BLACK: If he used it.
THE WITNESS: If I used it and I don't know whether I did or not.
MR. FOSTER: Go on with your explanation.
MR. INGHAM: Q If you don't know whether you used it or not how can you tell what you meant by it?
A: Because if I had had an idea in my mind at any time which would be expressed in that language, I know for what reason I would have that idea, what reasons would give me that idea, and I think that I must have expressed there if I used that language.
Q: Now, I read "If we continue to be robbed it will not be long before we will be murdered. There is no security for the working classes under the present social system. A few individuals control the means of living and hold the working man in a vice. Everybody doesn't know that. Those who know it are tired of it, and soon the others will get tired of it too. They are determined to end it and will end it, and there is no power in the land that can prevent them. Congressman Foran said the laborer could get nothing from legislation. He also said that the laborers could get some relief from their present condition when the rich man there are dissatisfied workingmen---that that would solve the labor trouble. Do you remember whether you used that language or not?
A: I think substantially I used that language as you have read it last.
Q: Do you remember whether you used the whole of the language I read to you or not?
A: I cannot tell exactly every word after being locked up for three months to come here ans ask me if I said every word just in the connection and in that place---I can't remember it.
Q: I don't know whether you are democrats or republicans, but whichever you are, you worship at the shrine of rebellion. John Brown, Jefferson, Washington, Patrick Henry and Hopkins said to the people "The law is your enemy" Did you use that language?
A: I did not say that they said "the law is your enemy."
Q: You did not,?
A: No sir.
Q: "We are rebels against it" Did you use that language?
A: Rebels against what?
Q: "We are rebels against it"?
A: If I used that language, and I possibly did, I referred to the present social system.
Q: "The law is only framed for those who are your enslavers, (A voice: That is true.) Men in their blind rage attacked McCormick's factories and were shot down in cold blood by the law of the City of Chicago in the protection of property. Those men were going to do some damage to a certain person's interest who was a large property owner and therefore the law came to his defense, and when McCarmick undertook to do some injury to the interests of those who had no property, the law also came to his defense, but not to the workingman's defense, when he, McCormick, attacked him and his living. There is the difference." Did you use that language?
A: Substantially I think.
Q: "The law makes no distinctions. A million men own all the property of this country. The law is of no use to the other fifty four million. You have nothing more to do with the law except to lay hands on it and throttle it until it makes its last kick." Did you use that language?
A: I think so.
Q: "It has turned your brethern out on the wayside and degraded them until they have lost the last vestige of humanity, and become mere things and animals. Keep your eye upon it, throttle it, kill it, stab it." Did you use that language?
A: I think so.
Q: "Do everything you can to wound it and impede its progress. If you do not, it is a life and death struggle between you and it and it will kill you." Did you use that language?
A: Well, with a little explanation I think I did.
Q: Is the explanation as to what the language means or as to your recollection of having said it?
A: The explanation as to what the language means, and possible I may have said it.
Q: "Remember if you ever do anything for yourselves, prepare to do it for yourselves. Don't turn over your business to anybody else." Did you make use of that language?
A: I think I did.
Q: "No man deserves anything unless he is man enough to make an effort to lift himself from oppression."
Q: Then the storm came and interruption. Then you said "you know the people were very tired and you would not talk very long; you said that?
A: Yes. I don't know whether I said I was tired or not. I think what I said about not talking very long was in response to a proposition to adjourn to Zepf's hall.
Q: Did you then say the socialists are not going to declare war, but I tell you war has been declared on us, and I ask you to get hold of anything that will help to resist the onslaught of the enemy and the usurper?
A: I don't remember saying that.
Q: "The skirmish lines have met. People have been shot. Men women and children have not been spared by the ruthless milions of private capital," Do you remember that?
A: I think so.
Q: "It has no mercy". Do you remember that?
A: I think so.
Q: "So ought you"---do you remember that?
A: Now, I don't know whether I rmember "It had no mercy, so ought you". There is not much sense in it. I don't think I should use it in that way.
Q: Will you swear you did not?
A: "It had no mercy---so ought you" I can't remember it, and I will not father it.
Q: "You are called upon to defend yourselves, your lives your future. What matters it whether you kill yourselves with work to get a little relief or die on the battle-field resisting the enemy." Did you make use of that langusge?
A: At that time I was speaking of the--that is a report which has been garbled. There are some expressions.
Q: We might rise to a question of veracity.
A: That is a report which has been garbled and it has not given the connections; and I can make a very inflammatory speech out of a lawyer's speech before any judge by garbling his speech, and taking a word here and there.
Q: I am reading it to you exactly as it was testified to in court by the reporter?
A: He testified also that he only gave the inflammatory words.
MR. INGHAM: The jury heard what he said.
MR. BLACK: He didn't pretend he got the whole of it.
Mr. English distinctly stated he didn't get the whole of it.
MR. INGHAM: We will see what Mr. English said.
Q: Do you remember whether you used that language or not: "What matter it whether you kill yourselves with work to get a relief or die on the battle field resisting the enemy".
A: I don't think I used it in that way.
Q: "What is the difference. Any animal however loathsome will resist when stepped upon. Are men less than snails and worms. I have some resistance in me, I know that you have. You have been robbed. And you will be starved into a worse condition." Did you use that language?
A: I think I used that language, but you haven't got the sense of it at all in quoting it in that way, and I don't accept that as my speech at all.
Q: In what connection did you use this language: "The socialists are not going to declare war, but I tell you war has been declared on us and I ask you to get hold of anything that will help resist the onslaugh of the enemy and the usurpe The skirmish lines have met. People have been shot, men women and children have not been spared by the ruthless minions of private capital. It had no mercy so ought you. You are called upon to defend yourselves, your lives, your future. What matters it whether you kill yourselves with work to get a little relief or die on the battlefield resisting the enemy?
MR. INGHAM: I will not insist on it if it is objected to.
MR. FOSTER: If you say that you are ashamed of it, let it appear in the record.
MR. INGHAM: I am not ashamed of it. I offer to give this man an opportunity to explain before the jury his language. You object to it. I am not ashamed of the offer to give this man that opportunity.
MR. FOSTER: You know that your offer is not fair. You know that it is not right. You know that it is not admissible.
MR. INGHAM: We will leave it to the jury if it is fair or not.
MR. FOSTER: You know you have incorporated in the question things which this witness says he didn't say.
MR. INGHAM: There is not a word incorporated in the question which was not testified to by Mr. English.
MR. FOSTER: I am not speaking about Mr. English.
THE COURT: There was something said a few moments ago about explanations which I understood both sides were proposing to have him make.
MR. FOSTER: But incorporated in this question is the remark that Mr. Fielden said he didn't make because there is no sense in it--he couldn't have made such a remark as that.
THE COURT: The three words, "so ought you" he thinks don't come in and make connection. If they were used at all it is an eliptical phrase.
MR. INGHAM: Q Look at the article in the February 21st number of the Alarm headed "Dynamite" signed T. Lizius. Did you ever see that article, Feb. 21st, 1885?
A: 1885 I don't remember ever having seen it.
Q: Where were you standing when you were shot or where were you?
A: I was not standing.
Q: I changed the question.
A: I was either running or beginning to walk, and I think it was just before I came to those boxes which have been testified to.
Q: Look at the article which I now show you, in the issue of June 27th, 1885, the Alarm, headed "Dynamite"? Instructions regarding its use and operations." Address A. S. S. Alarm 5th Ave. Chicago." Did you ever see that article.?
MR. SALOMON: I presume our general objection applied to this
THE WITNESS: I don't remember now that I have.
THE COURT: I don't know how that will be. If you wish to have a special exception, I suppose the record ought to contain it now.
MR. FOSTER: Are we to object to every question asked? We objected to the articles in regard to the articles in the Alarm and the court admits them. Does the court require us to stand up here and make continual objections?
THE COURT: I suppose there is no reason why if you agree to it there cannot be inserted in the record an exception to each question, but unless it is by agreement upon both sides it cannot be done.
MR. FOSTER: That has been the understanding all through this trial that when we object to the general line of testimony, that that general objection extends to it all.
MR. GRINNELL: We won't have any trouble about it.
MR. FOSTER: I will ask you whether or not that is the understanding in this case.
MR. INGHAM: About every question that has been asked has been objected to.
MR. BLACK: Not all of it.
THE COURT: A general exception as to all cross examination of this witness except as to the specific things he was asked about in chief would cover it.
MR. BLACK: That has been made, overruled and excepted to.
MR. SALOMON: Our objection applied to such matters as have not been inquired into on direct examination.
MR. INGHAM: The minute you raise that question in the first instance it covers everything on that line. If you object to any question in regard to the Alarm, of course every question comes under that objection.
Q: After you were shot, where did you go?
A: I went down Randolph street, went south to Randolph and DesPlaines, down Randolph to Clinton. I walked south on Clinton I think until I changed my mind about going home then, and thought I would go down past the Arbeiter Zeitung office on a car; and then I think I turned over on Jackson street to Canal, and I am positive, very distinct of catching a car just as it was making a very rapid race up the grade over the viaduct, and as I jumped on the driver was somewhat angry at my jumping on the forward platform there as it was going so fast.
Q: Why did you change your mind about going home?
A: Well, the mind of man is susceptible to incidents over which he hasn't altogether any control.
Q: I asked you why you changed your mind?
A: I can't tell you why. Impressions sometimes come on a person's mind which he cannot explain why they come there.
Q: You started with the intention of going home?
A: I think when I turned the corner, turning south, that I had that impression in my mind as well as I can remember now.
Q: Did you start with the intention of going home?
A: I think I thought at one time that I would go home.
Q: Where did you live at that time?
A: Where I live now.
Q: Where is that?
A: Clinton and Polk.
Q: Instead of going home however you went down town?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Did you go to the Zeitung office?
A: I rode past there on a car.
Q: Did you walk past there?
A: No sir.
Q: Was there any reason for staying on the car, not walking?
A: No, I didn't wish to be arrested that night.
Q: You said something in your direct examination about being known by reporters?
A: I am known by a great deal of them.
Q: For that reason you did not walk near the Arbeiter Zeitung office but rode on the car?
A: I rode on the car.
Q: You stated something about detectives after you got back on the west side?
A: I saw a crowd near Zepf's Hall around that corner, and I thought possibly there would be lots of detectives there, and I certainly didn't wish to be arrested that night.
Q: You thought you would be arrested?
A: Of course after the trouble I did. It was only natural to suppose I would.
Q: You were speaking after the police came up?
A: Yes sir.
Q: You considered there was nothing inflammatory in your speech, nothing incendiary?
A: No, I didn't think there was.
Q: Just an ordinary speech according to your impression?
A: Of course different persons have different ways of looking at a speech. Some persons would call one speech inflammatory which another would consider very mild.
Q: At any rate you didn't consider it inflammatory or indendiary?
A: I didn't incite anybody to do anything If I had been allowed an explanation I would have shown you I did not incite anybody to do any overt act to anybody or anything. I spoke generally, from a general stand point.
Q: That is a sort of general principle speech, and when you said they should resist you meant generally the people should resist?
A: I meant resist the present social system which degraded them and turned them out of employment, and gave them no opportunity to get a living.
Q: In your opinion you hadn't made an incendiary speech at that time?
A: No sir.
Q: Somebody threw a bomb and you didn't know who it was nor anything about it?
A: I did not know, I don't know now.
Q: You didn't at that time?
A: I did not.
Q: And yet you were afraid you would be arrested?
A: Well, I have read some reports of criminal proceedings and I know that they arrest everybody in order to find out who is responsible. I knew that at that time. I thought that I, being one of the participants in the meeting that I should at least be arrested for some time at least; that when I spoke, when I testified before the corner's jury I had a different opinion of the police from what I have now. Knowing my innocence, I made that statement, and I thought that when they had examined into the truth of that statement that I should be released but I found out my mistake.
Q: The police didn't indict you, did they?
A: I don't know who indicted me.
Q: Don't you know that the police had no power to discharge you after you were bound over bybthe corner's inquest?
MR. INGHAM: That is all.
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Foster.
Q: I will ask you whether the meeting that you were asked to speak at on the night of the 4th of May and which you say on Sunday you had promised to speak at, was a meeting of the sugar refiners?
A: I have often been to meetings, and when I get into the hall, I would ask them right there, where I had been invited to go, and they would tell me what they meeting was for, I would make a general labor speech, showing the general condition of labor--would be right in the hall. I have been on the platform of meetings and not known what the organization was for that met there, and at that time I didn't ask the ma what it was, but I think I have learned since, that it was.
Q: Sugar refiners' meeting?
A: Yes, I think that it is.
Q: You were going to make some explanation in regard to the words which the reporter has testified to you made use of at the Haymarket with regard to the premonitions of danger. You stated that if you were permitted to make an explanation, that you would tell just the idea conveyed, or if the words were used, the idea that prompted them. Now, you make any explanation which youndesire to?
A: I meant at that time when I made that remark, if I did make it, that there was so many men striking, and from my knowledge of other strikes where trouble had occurred, that there was a possible outlook that some trouble would originate between the strikers any their employers, and that perhaps the authorities in endeavoring to preserve the peace, before this trouble was ended, as there was such a number striking for to eight hour movement, and knowing that men, all men are not very cool and some men become aggravated, their condition may have a good deal to do with it, and they perform acts sometimes which the officers of the law in their capacity as officers officers of the law are compelled to interfere with. That is the general idea that I had.
Q: That is what you had reference to by premonitions of danger?
A: Yes sir.
Q: You had no reference to the presence of dynamite at that meeting?
A: No, I was speaking of the general labor question and the issue that was up for settlement during the eight hour movement.
Q: Then passed to that portion of the report which has been read to you by Mr. Ingham in which you were asked as to what you said about Hopkins, Jefferson and Washington and other public persons stating that the law is your enemy. you said you didn't use those words but you could explain what you said on that subject. Will you now explain?
A: I didn't say that they said "The law was their enemy". I have recently read the history of the United States by George Bancroft, and I know that they were not in any sense the enemies of law, in the sense that anarchists are supposed to be. And I referred in speaking of John Brown, Jefferson, Hopkins, Patrick Henry, I referred that we occupied in relation to the present social system which had outlived its day, and no longer provided security for the masses; that we occupied just about the portion that three men occupied with the further government and dictation of Great Britain over the colonies; that they repeatedly appealed to Great Britain to settle the differences in regard to the port duties, and the stamp tax, and so on, and to settle it peaceably, but when it could not be settled peaceably they could not any longer, they could not submit to it, and they were compelled by necessity to resort to something else, and it was always the case that the element of tyarany was always the inciter of strife, and as it was in that case so it would be in this
Q: And it was in that connection and in that idea that you made that expression?
A: With that idea, and I have repeatedly in public meetings said that it was not a very cheerful outlook, that in my opinion there would strife result, was compelled to look at it in that way.
Q: I am not asking you what you stated in other meetings.
A: That was the substance of what I had repeated before many times.
MR. FOSTER: I ask that it be stricken out so much as has reference to either meeting then that of the 4th of May.
THE COURT: Well.
MR. FOSTER: You have been read what has been said upon throttling the law, killing it and stabbing it---these adjectives that are piled up here--state the explanation you said you desired to make in regard to that?
A: Well, it was just the explanation that a republican orator might make when he was denouncing the democratic party, perhaps trying to get rid of the democratic party. He might say that he would kill the democratic party or "We will kill it", or "We will throttle it" or "Defeat it"---that is just about what it was. It was an adjective that any speaker in rushing along might throw in without think much of what the full import of thw word might be.
Q: You also were read a portion of the reporter's notes with regard to snails and worms and said there was a want of connection there. What was your words in reference to the snails and worms or the idea as you now remember you wished to be conveyed?
A: Well, The idea that I intended to convey at that time was that when they were thrown out of work through no fault of their own, and it being a fact that it had been proven and asserted on the floor of the House of Representatives that over a million of men are now out of employ men through no fault of their own; that these men...
MR. FOSTER: I ask that it be stricken out so much as has reference to other meetings than that of the 4th. of May.
THE COURT: Well.
Q You have been read what has been said upon throttling the law, killing it and stabbing it--- these adjectives that are piled up here--- state the explanation you said you desired to make in regard to that?
A: Well, it was just the explanation a that a republican orator might make when he was denouncing the democratic party, perhaps trying to get rid of the democratic party He might say that he would kill the democratic party or "We will kill it", or "we will throttle it" or "Defeat it"-- that is just about what it was. It was an adjective that any speaker in rushing along might throw in without think much of what the full import of the word might be.
Q: You also were read a protion of the reporters notes with regard to snails and worms and said there was a want of connection there. What was your words in reference to the snails and worms or the idea as you now remember you wished to be conveyed?
A: Well, the idea that I intended to convey at that time was that when they were thrown out of work through no fault of their own, and it being a fact that it had been proven and asserted on the floor of the House of Represenratives that over a million of men are now out of employment through no fault of their own; that these men being driven from post to pillar and become degraded and loath-some and people look upon them with contempt, and yet it is really no fault of their own, they had no hand or part in producing the condition of things which turned them out of employment, and leads up to their abject condition.
Q: You were asked with reference as to whether or not your language was incendiary and as to what you said or did with reference to inciting violence-- what have you to say in explanation if anything upon that branch of your examination?
A: My remarks that night were intended in my own mind on that night to call the peoples attention to resisting not by force-- I had'nt such an idea in my mind that night--- to resist the present social system so that they would be enabled to live, that by the introduction of labor saving machinery, and the subdivision of labor, less men were continually needed, and more productions were produced, and the over production did not give them a chance to work by these schemes of incre asing the rapidity of production, and that by their organizing together they might become partakers in the benefits of civilized production, and more advantageous production and quicker production.
Q: You had no idea of any immediate action or any immediate violence at that meeting?
A: I had not the slightest idea.
Q: No idea of the presence of any dynamite bombs or anything of that kind?
A: No, and I did'nt know and no one conveyed any information to me as to there being a superior number of police at that station. I did'nt know anything of the kind until after the meeting that there had been that number there or a larger number than usual.