The Rise and Fall of Anarchy in America. George N. McLean

The Rise and Fall of Anarchy in America - George N. McLean


Скачать книгу
was wounded in eleven places. Officers Krueger and Wessler testified to having seen Fielden shoot at the police with a revolver.

      Gustave Lehman, one of the conspirators, gave a detailed account of various meetings; the afternoon of May 4 he was at Lingg’s house where men with cloths over their faces were making dynamite bombs; Huebner was cutting fuse; Lingg gave witness a small hand-satchel with two bombs, fuse, caps, and a can of dynamite; at 3 o’clock in the morning, after the Haymarket explosion, he got out of bed and carried this material back to Ogden’s grove and hid it, where it was found by Officer Hoffman; money to buy dynamite was raised at a dance of the Carpenters’ Union, at Florus’ Hall, 71 West Lake street. Lingg took this money and bought dynamite; Lingg taught them how to make bombs. M. H. Williamson and Clarence P. Dresser, reporters, had heard Fielden, Parsons and Spies counsel violence; the latter at the Arbeiter Zeitung office had advised that the new Board of Trade be blown up on the night of its opening. George Munn and Herman Pudewa, printers, worked on the “Revenge” circular in the Arbeiter Zeitung office; Richard Reichel, office-boy, got the “copy” for it from Spies.

      The most sensational evidence of the trial, as showing the inside workings of the armed sections of the socialists, and at the same time the most damaging as indicative of their motives and designs, was that of Detective Andrew C. Johnson, of the Pinkerton agency, an entirely disinterested person who was detailed in December, 1884, by his agency, which had been employed by the First National Bank to furnish details of the secret meetings which it was known were being held by revolutionary plotters at various places throughout the city. Johnson is a Scandinavian, thin-faced and sandy-haired, born in Copenhagen, and thirty-five years of age. He told his story in a calm, collected, business-like manner. Mr. Grinnell asked:

      “Do you know any of the defendants?” Witness—“I do.”

      “Name them.”—“Parsons, Fielden, Spies, Schwab and Lingg.”

      “Were you at any time connected with any group of the International Workingmen’s Association?”—“I was.”

      “What group?”—“The American group.”

      “Were you a member of any armed section of the socialists of this city?”—“Yes, sir.”

      “When did you begin attendance at their meetings?”—“The first meeting I attended was the 22d of February 1885, at Baum’s pavilion. The last meeting I attended was the 24th of January of this year.”

      “At whose instance did you go to their meetings?”—“At the instance of my agency.”

      “Did you from time to time make reports of what you heard and saw at their meetings?”—“I did.”

      Mr. Grinnell passed over to witness a bundle of papers and asked: “Have you in your hand a report of the meeting of the 22d of February, 1885?”—“Yes, sir.”

      “Were any of the defendants present at that meeting?”—“Yes, sir; Parsons was present.”

      “Refer to your memoranda and tell me what was said by Parsons at that meeting.”—Objected to; overruled.—“Parsons stated that the reason the meeting had been called in that locality was so as to give the many merchant princes who resided there an opportunity to attend and see what the Communists had to say about the distribution of wealth. He said: ‘I want you all to unite together and throw off the yoke. We need no president, no congressmen, no police, no militia, and no judges. They are all leeches, sucking the blood of the poor, who have to support them all by their labor. I say to you, rise one and all, and let us exterminate them all. Woe to the police or to the military whom they send against us.’ ”

      “That was where?”—“At Baum’s pavilion, corner of Cottage Grove avenue and Twenty-second street.”

      “Have you a report of any other of the defendants speaking at that meeting?”—“No, sir.”

      “What is the next memorandum that you have?”—“The next meeting was March 1. That night I became a member. I went to Thielen, who was at the time acting as treasurer and secretary for the association, and gave him my name and signified my willingness to join the association. He entered my name in a book and handed me a red card with my name on and a number.”

      “When and where was that?”—“That was March 1, 1885, at GriefsGreif’s hall, No. 54 West Lake street, in this city.”

      “Have you what was said and done at that meeting?”—“I have a report of it here.”

      “Who spoke?”—“Parsons, Fielden, Spies, and others.”

      “Any other of the defendants?”—“No sir.”

      “State what Fielden said, and then what Parsons said.”—“A lecture was given by a man named Bailey on the subject of socialism and christianity, and the question arose as to whether christianity ought to be introduced in their meetings.”

      “What did Fielden, Spies and Parsons say there?”—“Fielden said that he thought this matter ought not to be introduced into their meetings. Parsons said, ‘I am of the same opinion,’ and Spies also said that it ought not to be introduced.”

      “Now state the next meeting.”—“The next meeting was March 4, at the same place.”

      “Who were present?”—“Parsons, Fielden and Spies were present, and spoke.”

      “When was the memorandum made that you have of that meeting?”—“The same day, immediately after the termination of the meeting. Parsons said: ‘We are sorely in need of funds to publish the Alarm. As many of you as are able ought to give as much as you can, because our paper is our most powerful weapon, and it is only through the paper that we can hope to reach the masses.’ During his lecture he introduced christianity. Spies stood up and said: ‘We don’t want any christianity here in our meetings at all. We have told you so before.’ Fielden made no speech.”

      “When was the next meeting?”—“March 22.”

      “Were any speeches made by any of the defendants there?”—“Yes, sir, Spies spoke. Previously a man named Bishop introduced a resolution of sympathy for a girl named Sorell. Bishop stated that the girl had been assaulted by her master. She had applied for a warrant, which had been refused her on account of the high social standing of her master. Spies said: ‘What is the use of passing resolutions? We must act, and revenge the girl. Here is a fine opportunity for some of our young men to go and shoot Wight.’ That was the man who had assaulted the girl.”

      “Do your reports contain references to speeches made by others?”—“They do.”

      “You are only picking out speeches made by the defendants?”—“That is all.”

      “When was the next meeting?”—“March 29, 1885, at Grief’sGreif’s hall. The defendant, Fielden, spoke at that meeting. He said: ‘A few explosions in the city of Chicago would help the cause considerably. There is the new Board of Trade, a roost of thieves and robbers. We ought to commence by blowing that up.’ ”

      “Were other speeches made at that meeting?”—“There were, but no others made by the defendants.”

      “When was the next meeting?”—“April 1, at Greif’s hall. Spies, Fielden and Parsons were present at the meeting. Spies made a lengthy speech on this occasion. His speech was in regard to acts of cruelty committed by the police in Chicago; he spoke of the number of arrests made, and the number of convictions in proportion. He also referred to the case of the girl who preferred a charge of assault against police-sergeant Patton, of the West Chicago avenue station.”

      “Who else spoke there?”—“Fielden. Spies had said before that he had advised the girl to get a pistol and go and shoot the policeman. Fielden stood up and said; ‘That is what she ought to do.’ ”

      “What was the next meeting?”—“April 8, 1885, at Greif’s hall. Parsons made a lengthy speech. He referred frequently in his address to the strike at the McCormick harvester


Скачать книгу