Democratic Sentinel, Volume 10, Number 29, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 20 August 1886 — LEGAL ORATORY. [ARTICLE]

LEGAL ORATORY.

Lawyers’ Arguments and Pleas in the Case of the Chicago Anarchists. Able Speeches of Messrs. Ingham and Foster for the Prosecution and tho Defense. [CHICAGO CORRESPONDENCE,] The celebrated anarchists' trial continues to draw its slow length along. The taking of testimony was closed nearly a week ago, the floodgates of legal oratory were immediately opened, and ever since have continued to pour forth in a ceaseless stream into the ears of the }>atient “twelve men, good and true.” Mr. Frank Walker, Assistant State’s Attorney, marie the opening speech for the prosecution. He had abundant material to build bis argument upon, and he made good use of it. Having made a comprehensive statement as to the law in the case, and having quoted freely to sustain the claim that when a number of persons agree to commit murder, or advise othors to do so, the time aud place not being definitely determined on, the advisers or conspirators are guilty of the offense when committed equally with the principal, Mr. Walker proceeded to show from the writings and speeches of the principal defendants that they had organized a conspiracy of murder in this city, and that they counseled and preached the overthrow of thj existing social system by force. He pointed out with great effect that the defense had made no effort to disprove this charge of general conspiracy as laid down in the opening speech of the State's Attorney. On tho contrary, Mr. Salomon’s opening speech for tho defense was a virtual piea of guilty on this general charge. Coming from the general to the specific charge, Mr. Walker held that there was abundance of uncoutradicted testimony, some of which was supplied by the defendants’ witnesses, to prove an organized conspiracy for the murder of the police the night of the 4th of May. The evidence of tho State was not only not contradicted by the defense, but was, in fact, corroborated by some of tho witnseses examined in behalf of the prisoners' and by the arch-conspirator himself. Hpios' explanation of the publication of the warning of “Kuhe" Mr. Walker showed to be of the flimsiest character. The attompt of Spies to shift the blame on Fischer and Kau was denounced as traitorous aud cowardly. Parsons, Fiolden, and Lingg wore not forgotten, The appeals of Parsons to the workingmen to arm themselves, and Fiolden’s exclamation that “the skirmish lines have met,” and his exhortation to stab the law, to throttle the law, to kill it, were skillfully utilized in support of Mr. Walner’s position. In conclusion Mr. Walker said: “The most cruel thing in this whole case is the violent and unjustifiable attack made on the police by the defense. They attempted to prove that Capt. Bonfleld and his officers wore guilty of a most horrible design upon the lives of innocent men. I should have thought that the blood of those seven dead would have cried out against the accusation. The men who stood on that fatal night as firm as a rock, who never trembled, and who exhibited as much sublime courage as the pages of history ever showed, are traducod by socialists and anarchists. It is even charged that they fired first. Did they? Ask Barrett and Bholiun and Mueller and Hansen. Ask all those wounded heroes. Gentlemen, it is for you to decide. You stand now for the first time between anarchy and law. The foundation stone of the Kepublic has been attacked, and it is for you to say whether that Kepublic shall stand. The police did their duty at the Haymarket. They shed their blood for the low, and in their martyrdom anarchy was buried forever. ” Mr. Walker spoke for a day and a half, and was followed by Mr. Zeisler for tho defense, who consumed about an equal amount of time. He contended that the Haymarket meeting was a peaceable assemblage with which the police had no legal right to interfere, and denounced the police as a set of cowardly knaves and liars. He then pleaded for the more “energetic utterances” of Spies, Parsons, and Fielden, that their hearers were often of that class of laboring men who were ignorant because the amount of time required to earn bread for themselves and their families left them none in which to gain knowledge. In order to have the desired effect upon such an audience ordinary language would not suffice, and it was necessary to use emphatic figures of speech. Mr. Zeißler contended that the best testimony for the Stato had been purchased, that the witnesses committed rank perjury, and were not to bo believed . Mr. Ingham, for the prosecution, followed Mr. Zeisler, His speech was a masterpiece of oratory. Point by point he set forth tho damaging evidence against the prisoners, raising up the facts and acts of criminality out of the log of sophistry in which Mr. Zeisler had striven to envelop them, and exhibiting them in their block and rugged nakedness outlined against the light of truth, and reason, and order, and civilization, and common sense as tho peaks of a mighty mountain are outlined against a clear Bky. Dwelling first on the evidence as a whole, he Bhowed that each proven fact was not as a link In a chain of guilt, but as the strand of a cable which spanned tho whole tide of criminality. The defendants had sought the destruction of the law, but that law was strong enough to secure the punishment of those who sought to throttle it. Mr. Ingham then proceeded with an analysis of the general conspiracy, tracing its history, and ingeniously weaving into his narrative every important fact of the testimony. He dwelt on the fact that in the so-called “American group” there were not more than a score of Americans, and more than half of these were women and cranks .while the only dangerous members were Parsons and Fielden. The bulk of the anarchists were the offscourings of Continental Europe, who, though not yet citizens of this country—many of them, as in the case of Lingg, not being residents here for more than a twelvemonth —sought to subvert social order and establish the rule of a miserable handful of foreign anarchists by means of dynamite instead of the rule of the majority, Mr. Ingham traced the development of the Haymarket conspiracy, its careful planning, the utilization of the labor difficulties by Spies, the summoning of the armed sections to prepare for tho attack, the careful selection of the place for slaughter, the incitements to violence by Spies and his confederates Parsons and Fielden, and the subordinate but important parts which Engel, Lingg, Fischer and Schwab played in arranging the plan of attack and in providing the materials therefor. The arrangement and grouping of facts were admirable. Mr. Foster, of counsel for the defense, followed Mr. Ingham, and made an able, eloquent, and ingenious plea for his clients. He not only ignored the defense sought to be set up by Messrs. Salomon and Zeisler In their speeches, but repudiat id their methods and their theories. He did not do it abruptly, but he did it effectively. He did not make any effort to defend socialism, communism, or anarchy. On the contrary, he declared that socialism was dangerous, communism pernicious, and anarchy damnable. As an American citizen he deplored the vicious teachings of Spies, Parsons. Fielden, and Schwab. He deplored that they did not value their privileges as citizens, and that they did not put their talents to hotter use. The passages of his able speech in which he referred to these matters were the most eloquent and impressive of his whole discourse. Mr. Foster showed by his arguments that his policy was to limit the investigation of the jury to the evidence bearing directly on the charge made in the indictment. ' With a keen appreciation of the feelings of the American people not shown by any of his associates he knew that it would be worse than useless to try to excuse the incendiary harangues and editorials of his clients. He aimed to convince the jury that though Spies and his fellow-defendants had advocated the use of dynamite bombs, had given instructions as to their manufacture, had advocated the overthrow of the existing social system by force, all of which was outrageous and inexcusable, they were not on trial for those teachings and those plottings, but for a specific crime—the murder of Mathias J. Degan. It should be shown, Mr. Foster argued with great ingenuity, that the prisoners had conspired to throw the bomb which killed Degan, and that it was thrown in pursuance of their conspiracy by a confederate. Having thus narrowed the issue to the specific crime, Mr. Foster maintained that all the evidence about inflammatory speeches and bomb-manutacture was beside the question, though the court had not so held it. This was a bold defense to make, hut it was the only tenable one, and was moat adroitly maintained by Mr. Foster. His ingenious plea evidently had a marked effect upon the jury. 1 ft