The Chicago Anarchists

James G. Maguire

[A letter reprinted from The Standard, Vol. II, No. 20, Saturday, 19 November, 1887]

My Dear Friend: I regret that the pressure of my engagements has made it impossible to send you the result of my examination of the record in the anarchists' cases.

I first read the very able speeches of the condemned men, and felt my sympathies aroused by them. I next read Mr. Blair's brief in their behalf, afterward the attorney general's brief, and finally the opinion of the supreme court of Illinois. My conclusion is that the condemned anarchists are all guilty of willful, deliberate, premeditated murder. It would be impossible, in the scope of a letter , to review the case; nor could any such review so clearly or fully present the evidence or show the relation and connection of its various parts, or the legal effect of the whole, as does the masterly opinion of the supreme court of Illinois, to which I must again commend you.

Briefly, however, the evidence shows that for two years Parsons and Spies, with the occasional assistance of Schwab and Fielden, had been publicly advocating the murder of policemen and others by the use of dynamite bombs and firearms. These things are shown, not by the reports of hostile or indifferent newspapers, but by the files of their own papers, and very conclusive circumstances connected with them. But it is not necessary to discuss these circumstances, for the facts in this connection are not denied. It further appears conclusively that all of the defendants were connected with and assisted in the organization, training and instruction of groups of men for the avowed purpose of enabling them to act in concert in the murder of Chicago policemen and others by the use of dynamite bombs and firearms.

It appears, also, that for several months the defendants, Parsons, Spies, Fielden, Schwab, Engel and others had been advising and threatening the commencement on or about May 1, 1886, of a violent revolution, involving, and, indeed, expressly including the use of dynamite in the killing of the policemen of Chicago and others. It further appears that Lingg, who was the special bomb maker of the "armed groups," had perfected a peculiarly efficient and deadly bomb by an unusual combination of metals in the shell, providing for the brittleness necessary to cause the bomb to break into effective missiles, and providing at the same time for the elasticity necessary for other purposes. The armed groups, as I have said, were formed and drilled and instructed for the express purpose of killing, by means of such bombs, members of a particular class of people in Chicago-namely, policemen.

That constituted a complete conspiracy to commit murder without any of the special arrangements of May 3, and it made every person who was a party to those purposes, not only morally but legally guilty, of any murder that might be committed by any member in execution of the general plan. This is the rule, not only under "the conspiracy laws of Illinois," but under the laws of every civilized state and nation in the world. It is a mistake to suppose that there is anything peculiar in the laws of Illinois in this respect.

The guilt of the defendants does not depend upon their having been present at, or absent from, the meeting of the evening of May 3. The conspiracy to murder policemen was not formed at that meeting- it was already in existence, and the conspirators who met that night simply agreed upon a more specific plan of committing the murders for which they were all banded together.

But the evidence shows that the defendants all knew of the specific plan of May 3, all acquiesced in it, and all aided in its execution. The evidence shows conclusively that Lingg made the bomb that was exploded at the Haymarket. This is proved by a great many independent circumstances, which, taken together, constitute a doubly complete chain of evidence establishing this fact.

The analysis of the fragment of shell taken from the mangled body of Deegan, and its agreement with the analysis of the "improved" shell confessedly made by Lingg, and with the metals from which Lingg had been manufacturing shells in the house of Seliger; the fitting of the iron nut found in the body of Hahn to the threads of the bolts in the other bombs made by Lingg; the fact that those bolts had been purchased by Seliger, at Lingg's request, on the very day of the murder; the fact that Lingg had been engaged during the entire day of the murder, with Seliger and four of the men who attended the secret meeting of the night of May 3, in making dynamite bombs, and that Lingg and Seliger carried the bombs thus made to the rendezvous at 58 Clybourne avenue, and distributed them to members of the armed groups who were in waiting only an hour before the explosion; all show conclusively that Lingg made the fatal bomb for the purpose for which it was used, and the same circumstances also show beyond any reasonable doubt that it was thrown by one of the conspirators to whom it was delivered by Lingg.

But these are not the only circumstances nor the only important circumstances indicating that the bomb was thrown by one of the conspirators. They (the armed groups) bad previously agreed upon a signal word, by the publication of which all members of the armed groups should know that the time for their work of murder had arrived, and which should summon them to their places of rendezvous for action. This signal was the German word "Ruhe," and it was duly published (simultaneously with the famous and inflammatory "revenge circular") in the Arbiter-zeitung by August Spies (the notice and circular being in his handwriting and the signal word being trebly under-scored by him) on the morning of the murder. Further, it was agreed to as part of the detail plan of May 3 that as soon as a bomb should be thrown by a conspirator the other conspirators present should immediately open fire with their pistols on the police before the latter would have time to recover from their fright and discomfiture. This was exactly the course pursued at the Haymarket meeting. For the other circumstances I must again refer you to the supreme courts opinion. It does not matter who threw the bomb, if it appears beyond a reasonable doubt, from the evidence, that it was thrown by some one of the conspirators.

If four or five men should enter into a conspiracy to murder a certain man, or a certain family, or a certain body of men, and the conspirators being without lead, should melt up some spoons and make bullets for their purpose out of the white metal, in a mold having a peculiar flaw in it (I have an indistinct recollection of a case very similar to this), and if the conspirators, going to hunt up their victim, should find him in a crowd, and shortly after their arrival he should be shot and killed, and the fatal bullet, upon being extracted, should prove to be of white metal and to bear the mark of the peculiar flaw in the mold, could there be any doubt about the guilt of the conspirators if, on account of the darkness, the man who did the shooting could not be identified? Certainly not.

The analogy between the case above supposed and the case of the anarchists is very complete, and the failure of the authorities to prove that Schnaubelt threw the bomb is equally unimportant. It is not within the scope of human credulity to believe that that bomb was thrown by any person other than one of the conspirators to whom it was delivered for the purpose of being thrown among the police less than an hour before. The statement now being circulated that these men were tried for being anarchists, and that they were convicted for having expressed their opinions upon that question, is absolutely false. Any man may freely advocate the abolition of government, or commit any like folly, without any interference on the part of the representatives of the law, and no man has ever been molested for so doing. Mr. Tucker of Boston has been for many years advocating anarchy in his paper, Liberty, and no person has ever interfered with him. There is a great difference between advocating anarchy as a measure of social reform and the infernal work of organizing gangs of murderers to bring about anarchy by murdering public officers.

This latter course was pursued by the condemned men, and the gibbet is their natural reward.

You call attention to some striking circumstances which, considered apart from the other testimony, would seem to be inconsistent with the guilt of the anarchists, but their force fades away in the light of the facts as they appeared at the trial.

You say that four of the condemned men proved an alibi. Yes, but the evidence shows that they were stationed in other parts of the city on errands of murder like to that which drew the others to the Haymarket . Under the detail plan of May 3, men were to take positions near to the police stations, and upon signals or notices from the Haymarket meeting to throw bombs into the stations and shoot the escaping policemen before they could recover from the confusion caused by the explosion of the bombs.

If the five conspirators of whom I have spoken had planned the murder of a family, and four of them had remained at the doors to kill the terrified victims if they should try to escape, or to kill any one who might come to their assistance, while the fifth went into the house, on murder bent, those outside would be as guilty of the murders committed inside as the one would be who plied the knife. So if they separated in order to find their victims, and one should find and slay him, all would be guilty.

If one hired the others to commit the murder, and, having done so, he should go to a distant place to await the crime, his guilt would be none the less if they should kill the victim.

So it is in all conspiracies-each conspirator is an agent of and for all the rest in the contemplated crime, and all are equally guilty of the crime when it is consummated.

You call attention to the fact that these men were advocating the eight hour movement, but the evidence shows that they had no sympathy with the eight hour movement, and had repeatedly declared it of no account except as a means of creating confusion and ill feeling between the workingmen and the wealthy classes, and thus aid their forcible revolution and gain recruits to their scheme of plunder and murder from the ranks of the workingmen. (See evidence as cited by the attorney general and by the supreme court.)

You say truly that the Haymarket bomb "killed the eight hour movement."

Yes. Just as bombs and dynamiters will kill every labor movement with which they are permitted to have the slightest connection.

You speak of the singular circumstance that some of the alleged conspirators were not personally acquainted with others. This would be extraordinary in an ordinary conspiracy, but these were trained professionals, and among their printed instructions was one to the effect that the leaders, in selecting men for such work, should select some who were not known to the others. (See evidence.)

You call attention to the f act that Parsons brought his wife and children to the Haymarket meeting, as tending to show that he did not expect trouble there. The evidence shows, notwithstanding this, that he did expect trouble, and it seems probable that his wife, who is a woman of great physical courage, brought the children there for the very purpose of using the fact of their presence to shield their father, as the fact was afterward used. Besides, the instructions of which I speak suggest all sorts of cunning devices to ward suspicion from the "revolutionists."

This view is made more probable by the fact that, at a time when none of the outside spectators were expecting any trouble, Mr. Parsons removed his family to a place of safety, in Zepf's saloon, and there, from a convenient window, he waited and watched for the commencement of the "revolution."

You are right in claiming that little credit should be given to newspaper reports of the utterances of men in times of public excitement, but you are mistaken in supposing that the murderous advice and planning of these men were confined to times of public excitement or depended for proof upon general newspaper reports.

They did these things in cold blood, in times of perfect peace as well as in times of excitement, and their utterances are proved by their own papers. There can be no serious objection to that kind of proof under any circumstances.

This summary of the case is very incomplete, but must close. I am entirely satisfied that the condemned men are all guilty; that they were fairly tried and justly convicted, and that if the death penalty should be inflicted upon any one, these men deserve it.

But I am opposed to capital punishment. I believe that it brutalizes all who are either directly or indirectly parties to it, and that it lends sanction to murder.

The anticipation of the horrible tragedy to be enacted by society in Chicago on the 11th of November shocks the finer moral sense of civilization, and the act itself will tend to degrade our moral standard to the level of that adopted by the men whose lives are to be taken.

There are many other reasons why these men, notwithstanding their guilt, should not be hanged, but it is not necessary, nor would it be interesting to review them.

I have given my views thus at length because I know that you have no more sympathy for men who deliberately engage in murderous conspiracies than I have, and as you have asked my intercession on their behalf I am doubly anxious to see that you are not yourself drawn into a false position by your noble and womanly sympathies.

I am also desirous of satisfying you that I am not shrinking from any duty in refusing to come to the rescue of the condemned men. With sincere regards, I remain very truly yours.

P. S.-These men, with the aid of their friends, are now seeking to represent that they are martyrs to the cause of labor, but they are no more the representatives of any cause of labor than was Guiteau a representative of "stalwart republicanism." The American working men do not believe in murder as a means of social reform, and these men are merely martyrs to the cause of murder.