Testimony of August Spies (August 9, 1886)

August Spies

AUGUST SPIES, one of the defendants, called and affirmed on behalf of the defendants was examined in chief by Mr. Black and testified as follows:

Q Will you give your full name to the jury?

A August, Vincent, Theodore Spies.

Q Where were you born?

A I was born in Friedewaldt, Province, Hesse Nassau, Germany.

Q What is your present age?

A I will be 31 in December.

Q When did you come to this country?

A 1872.

Q Is your father living or dead?

A My father is dead.

Q Since when?

A He died in 1871.

Q Your father then died prior to your coming to this country?

A He did.

Q Your mother is living?

A My mother is living.

Q Your brother Henry has been a witness upon the stand?

A Yes sir.

Q You have also other brothers and a sister living here in Chicago?

A I have.

Q What was your business or profession May 4th, 1886?

A Editor of the Arbeiter Zeitung--one of the editors of the Arbeiter Zeitung rather.

Q How long have you occupied that position?

A For six or seven years, I think, six years, a little over six years

Q Since then, about 1879 or 1880?

A Since 1880.

Q Prior to 1880 what was your business?

A I have been principally engaged while in this country in the furniture business.

Q Up to the time you took hold of the editorial work?

A Yes sir.

Q Are you a member also of the Socialistic Publishing Company?

A I am a member of the Socialistic Publishing Society, yes sir.

Q That is a society organized under the laws of the State of Illinois?

A Organized under the laws of the State of Illinois.

Q And by that society state whether or not the Arbeiter Zeitung was published?

A It was.

Q Did you occupy any position or office in the Socialistic Publishing Society?

A I did not.

Q In your position as editor, what relationship did you occupy if any to the Socialistic Publishing Company--were you employed by it?

A I was an employee of that company, of that society.

Q I will ask you in a general way whether or not there was any control exercised by the Socialistic Publishing Company over the general policy of the Arbeiter Zeitung which was published by that company?

A Yes sir.

Q And you as editor employed by them for that work were subject to their control as to the general policy of the paper?

A Exactly.

Q What compensation were you paid as editor?

A I receive eighteen dollars a week.

Q For how long a period of time had that been your compensation?

A Well, since I worked for the company.

Q Had you any other in dependent source of revenue and income than that?

Objected to.

A I did not. Oh, excuse me you objected.

MR. BLACK: It is objected to and perhaps it is not very material. Do you want to move the exclusion of the answer?


MR. BLACK: On the afternoon of May 3rd, 1886 were you at a meeting at the Black road so-called?

A I was.

Q Will you state in your own way just how you came to go to that meeting, that is to say what occurred which caused you to go to that meeting?

A I was told by a delegate or two, I don't remember exactly whether there was one or whether there were two, that they wanted me, that is the lumber shovers' union wanted me to address them on the corner of 22nd or 20th and Blue Island Avenue on the afternoon of May 3rd. I was very busy at the time and I declined at first. There being no other speakers I went out. When I came out there was a crowd of six to seven thousand people assembled on a large square, or on the prairie rather.

Q Just a moment. Where was it that these delegates communicated to you or that you learned of the desire that you should attend there as a speaker?

A They first invited me at a meeting of the Central Labor Union at 54 West Lake Street which I attended in the capacity of a reporter.

Q Reporter of what paper?

A Of the Arbeiter Zeitung.

Q Upon what date was that?

A That was on the 2nd of May on Sunday in the evening.

Q Prior to that time had you heard anything of a proposed meeting on the Black Road near McCormick's?

A No, nothing.

Q That was the first information you had on the subject?

A That was the first information I received of the meeting.

Q Was anything said at that time with reference to that meeting or the holding of that meeting in that locality as to McCormick's employes having any relationship to the meeting, or having any reference to the McCormick business?

A No, I didn't know that that was in the immediate neighborhood or anywhere around McCormick's when I heard of the meeting

Q Prior to that time had you ever been out in the immediate locality of the McCormick's works?

A Yes sir, I had.

Q You may state, what occurred on the afternoon of the 3d of May at that meeting?

A When, I came out, when I arrived at the meeting it must have been a little after three o'clock. I cannot state exactly with any accuracy the time I arrived there. There were then speaking several men from a car. They were very poor speakers, and small crowds of those assembled detached themselves to the side and talked together They were speaking Bohemian or Polish--I didn't understand them. I went up to the car from where they spoke, and not knowing anybody there, Balthazar Rau was with me--he was acquainted, and he introduced me to the president of the meeting, to the chairman of the meeting.

Q Do you remember who that was?

A Well, no. The gentleman has testified here but I don't know his name and I asked him if I was to speak there. He replied yes. Then I waited for about ten minutes. Reports came in from the bosses from the various owners, different owners of the lumber yards as to the demand put forth by the union.

Q What demands do you refer to? That is to say, what was said there as to the demands that were under consideration or being reported upon?

Objected to as immaterial.

THE COURT: That is part of what occurred.

MR. GRINNELL: Do you mean a report of the committee, of a communication made privately?

MR. BLACK: I don't suppose there was any such thing as a private communication to him, I suppose it is part of the res justae.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: The reports were made public of course in the meeting. A committee had been appointed at the previous meeting, and this committee was reporting to this large mass meeting.

Q Upon what subject were the reports made there, that is to say what were the demands that they made?

A The demands were a shortening of the daily hours of toil from ten to eight hours, and fixed the sum of 22 cents if I am not mistaken for an hour.

Q An hour for the labor?

A Yes sir.

Q The making of the reports occupied about how long a time?

A They were then reporting when I came and finished their reports after I had been there about ten minutes.

Q You may proceed now.

A They then elected a committee to wait upon the bosses and to ask them what concessions they would make if any. After this had been done, I was introduced to address the meeting and I did. I spoke for about fifteen minutes, fifteen or twenty minutes. I may include here that having spoken two or three times for almost every day for the preceding two or three weeks, I was almost pros-trated, I didn't make a very forcible speech there, nor did I jump around as one of the witnesses testified on this stand, but I spoke very calmly, and told the people, who were according to my best judgment not of a very high intellectual grade, told them in as calm a voice as I possibly could to stand together and not deviate from their demands, but to enforce them at all hazards. I told them that unless they would stand together, one boss after the other would defeat them--that is to say, that to-day one boss would take a number of men who had left the union and employ them to work, and would go on and the next day others would be discouraged by this fact, by seeing that some of their brethren had gone back to work, they would go back &c., and their ends would be defeated. They would not accomplish any of their demands. That is in substance what I told them. While I was speaking I heard somebody in the rear, probably a hundred feet away from me, cry out in a foreign language--in a language that I didn't understand--I can't say whether it was Bohemian or Polish, or what--he cried out something. After the meeting I was told that this man had called upon them to follow him up to McCormick's. According to my best judgment about two hundred persons detached themselves from the main body--in fact they were not in the main body, but they were standing a little away, a little ways apart from the main body. They went away. I didn't know what they were going to do and where they were going to until probably five minutes after this I heard firing, and about that time I stopped speaking and I turned around and asked where that firing came from, the pistol shots, and was told that some men had gone up there to stone McCormick's scabs, and that the police had attacked them and fired upon them. Well, of course this seemed very credible to me. I didn't doubt that at all. I stopped there and was elected a member of that committee to visit the bosses. I stopped there probably another five or six minutes when two patrol wagons came up in great haste on the Black Road, so-called, driving towards McCormick's, which were immediately followed by about 75 policemen, who walked by foot, and then other patrol wagons came. Well, I jumped from the car and went up to McCormick's. They were shooting all the while. I thought it must be quite a battle. I don't know whether the gentlemen are acquainted with the locality or not, but in front of McCormick's factory there are railroad tracks and upon these railroad tracks were standing a number of freight cars. The people were running away and hiding behind these freight cars as much as they could to keep out of the range of the pistol firing, of the fusilade; and when I came up there on this prairie right in front of McCormick's, the police--the fight was going on behind the cars, and I was on this side. I saw a policemen run after the people who were flying, who were fleeing, who were running away, and firing at them. Well, as a matter of course my blood was boiling, and I think in that moment I could have done almost anything, seeing men, women and children fired upon, people who were not armed fired upon by policemen.

Q And who were running?

A Yes, running away. My blood was boiling. Then at that minute a young Irishman came running from behind the cars, and I suppose he knew me or had seen me at the meeting down there. He said--you will excuse the language--he said: "What kind of a hell God damned business is this? What kind of union is that. What people are these that will let these men be shot down here like dogs?" I said: "Have you been there?" He said: "Yes, I just come from there. We have carried two men away who are dead, and there are a number of others lying on the ground who will most likely die." I asked him, "How many do you think have been wounded? He said, "Well, there must be at least twenty or twenty-five must have been shot who run away or were carried away by their friends or relatives." I of course couldn't do anything there. I went back to where the meeting had been, which was about three blocks away, and the people were leaving there--they were going home, unconcerned, indifferent, I said to some of them that such and such things were going on at McCormick's, and they were concerned and indifferent, and went home, and I took a car and went down town. May I proceed?

Q How soon after that was it you wrote the editorial which appeared in the Arbeiter Zeitung of the next day giving the description which you gave of that scene and your actions?

A I wrote that editorial in the evening.

Q That evening?

A It is not an editorial. It is simply a report.

Q I should have said a report instead of an editorial.

A It is a local report.

Q You wrote the revenge circular so-called?

A I did. I will say here I didn't write the word "Revenge" but I wrote the rest of the circular.

Q When was that written?

A Immediately after I came to the office. I suppose I will have to give an explanation--

Q I will ask you whether or not at the time you wrote that circular, you read the report published the next day, whether or not you believed the statement that six of the workingmen had been killed that afternoon at McCormick's?

A Yes, I believed that, and this belief was corroborated by the five o'clock news which stated that five---

MR. GRINNELL: Never mind what that stated.

MR. BLACK: Q You saw that report in the five o'clock news before writing this circular?

A I saw the report in the five o'clock news. I had written two there at first, and changed the two to six.

Q When you wrote the circular you wrote, two had been killed?

A Yes sir.

Q Then you saw the News, and in view of the statement made in the News you changed the two to six?

A Yes sir.

Q Based upon the information contained in the five o'clock News that day?

A Yes sir.

Q What do you know personally as to how the word Revenge came to be introduced in that circular at the head of it?

A I can give no explanation of that at all only what has been testified to.

Q Do you know personally anything about it?

A I do not.

Q Only what you have heard here from the witness stand?

A Only what I have heard here, yes.

Q Do you know how many copies of that circular were printed and distributed?

A I believe twenty-five hundred printed, but I don't believe there were more than half of these circulated.

Q That were distributed?

A For I saw quite a lot in the office of the Arbeiter Zeitung on the morning I was arrested.

Q How soon was that circular written after your return from what you had witnessed at McCormick's?

A Immediately

Q I will ask you whether or not at that time you were still laboring under the excitement of the scene and the hour?

A Well--

MR. GRINNELL: Yes or no to that.

THE WITNESS: I suppose I shall have to explain that--

MR. BLACK: The question is yes or no. Were you still, laboring under the excitement of the hour?

A I was, certainly.

Q What was your state of mind at that time, Mr. Spies? You may state briefly by way of explanation.

A I was very indignant. I was excited. I knew positively by the experiences that I have had in the past that this butchery of the people out there was done for the express purpose of defeating the eight hour movement in this city, that all large stricks, wherever they have taken place--

THE COURT: That is not admissible, but however if it is not objected to, I suppose it may go in.

THE WITNESS: May I proceed?

MR. BLACK: As the court has interposed an objection, we will stop there.

THE COURT: If you go on with the history of former transactions, of course it opens the door to a large class of testimony.

MR. BLACK: I don't care to do that. I prefer the matter shall be confined, and only want him to state what his condition of mind was.

THE COURT: Up to this time there has been but two occasions put in evidence--the McCormick and the haymarket; but if this witness goes into the history of any former transactions, then it openes the door to a very large number.

MR. BLACK: We don't care to do that.

THE COURT: Then what you have said on that subject may be withdrawn.

MR. BLACK: Yes, it may be stricken out whatever he said as to prior matters.

Q Where were you, Mr.Spies, on the 4th of May, 1886?

A At what time?

Q You were in the City of Chicago during the entire day?

A I was in the city of Chicago.

Q Were you performing your duties as one of the editors? of the Arbeiter Zeitung?

A Yes, I was.

MR. GRINNELL: Let him explain what he was doing.

THE WITNESS: I was at my regular functions.

Q On the evening of May 4th, you attended the hay market meeting?

A I did.

Q Were you asked by anybody to speak at that meeting?

A I was.

Q When did you learn that a meeting was to be held at the hay market on the evening of May 4th?

A At about nine o'clock, a little before nine in the forenoon.

Q What, if any part did you take towards calling that meeting?

A I had no part in it whatever.

Q You were simply advised about nine o'clock that there was to be a meeting that night?

A Yes sir, I was invited to address a meeting on haymarket that evening--that is all I knew of it.

Q That is the first you heard of that proposed meeting?

A That was the first I heard of it.

Q At what hour did you reach the haymarket?

A Well, I believe about twenty minutes after eight, twenty or twenty-five minutes after eight--it was twenty minutes after eight when I was on the corner of Desplaines and Lake street and then I went down to the haymarket--so I suppose it was about twenty or twenty-five minutes after eight.

Q Do you remember whether during the course of that day you saw the announcement of that meeting as it appeared in the Arbeiter Zeitung?

A Yes sir, I put it in myself at the request of the man who invited me to speak.

Q The Arbeiter Xeitung appears at what hour in the day regularly?

A The Arbeiter Zeitung appears at two o'clock in the afternoon.

Q It is an afternoon daily paper?

A Yes sir, it is an afternoon daily paper.

Q And was on May 4th, 1886?

A And was at that time.

Q After you were invited to attend that meeting, which you say was the first you heard of it and about nine o'clock on the morning of May 4th--did you see any circulars or were you informed of any circulars with reference to that meeting or calling of that merting?

A Yes sir.

Q When did you see the circular calling the meeting?

A About eleven o'clock a circular was handed to me to be inserted in the Arbeiter Zeitung, and I looked it over and saw that it was the same meeting where I had been invited to speak.

Q Will you look at these two circulars and state whether it was one of those two shown you at that time and which one?

A It was this circular (Indicating).

Q This is the circular containing the line "Workingmen arm yourselves and appear in full force?

A Yes sir.

Q That line was in the circular when it was brought to you, was it?

A It was.

Q Will you state what you did, if anything with reference to the circular?

A May I state what I told the person?

Q State briefly what occurred?

A I told the man that if that was the meeting which I had been invited to address--

MR. GRINNELL: That is stating what you said. He asked you to state what you did?

A It is very difficult to state that without--

MR. BLACK: Saying is sometimes doing. This is stating what he said to the man in effect.

THE WITNESS: I said to the man "Is this is the meeting which I have been invited to address, I shall certainly not speak there." He asked me why, and I told him that that line that it was on account of that line. He said that the circulars had not been distributed, and I told him if that was the case and he would alter the circular, take out that line, then it would be all right; and Mr. Fischer was called down I believe at that time, and he sent a man back to the printing office and as much as I know had the line changed.

Q The line was taken out?

A Well, so far as I know I struck out the line before I handed it to the compositors to put in the Arbeiter Zeitung.

Q Do you know of any of the circulars being distributed with that line after that time?

A My knowledge is, as far as my knowledge goes, there had none of those circulars been distributed at all.

Q I will ask you if you know of a large package of them being brought from the printing office to the Arbeiter Zeitung office directly after the order to change the line was given?

A That I don't know.

Q You didn't see that personally?

A I can't swear to that, no sir.

Q Do you remember who the party was that brought in that circular, and took it back with the line stricken out?

A The man has been on the--

Q Greunberg?

A Greunberg or Gruenbog-I don't know which I have seen the man. I know him but I don't know his name.

Q There was but one occurrence of that kind that day that you know of?

A That is all.

Q And he was the only party?

A Yes.

Q It was on that occasion Fischer was called down and by agreement the line was stricken out?

A Yes sir.

Q Now coming again to the haymarket meeting--at what hour did you go there?

A I left home about after half past seven o'clock I think and walked down with my brother Henry arriving at the haymarket about twenty or twenty-five minutes after eight. I would add here that I had understood by the invitation that my speech at the haymarket should be German, and knowing that the English speeches would be made first I did not go in time to reach there at the opening of the meeting, but came there later.

Q What did you find as to the condition of the crowd and as to whether there was any meeting in progress when you got there?

A Well, there was no meeting in progress. Simply crowds were standing around the corners here and there talking together, conversing.

Q What did you do?

A Well, I called them together. After having looked around for a speakers' stand, for a wagon or box or something--we generally have very primitive platforms.

Q Platforms?

A Platforms, yes sir--I saw this wagon on Desplaines Street and being right near the corner I thought it was a good place to choose, and I told the people that the meeting would take place there.

Q Was there any light upon that wagon or not?

A No sir.

Q What was the light provided there, that is the artificial light in the neighborhood of that wagon?

A Well, early in the meeting I think it was a bright sky and it was not very dark. I can't tell whether the lamp was burning there at the alley or not, but I think it was--my impression is that it was.

Q You know the fact that there was a street lamp at the corner of the alley there, a little removed from the wagon?

A Yes sir.

Q Your memory is that that was burning?

A Yes sir.

Q Was there any other lamp burning in the immediate vicinity, that is, within fifteen or twenty feet of the wagon, to your knowledge?

A That I couldn't say.

Q I will ask you whether or not you found the wagon just where you used it?

A Yes sir.

Q Do you know who had left it there or who had caused it to be left there or placed there?

A No sir.

Q It was an ordinary truck wagon?

A It was not an ordinary truck wagon. It was an odd kind, a sort of wagon you don't find every day. It was a half truck, and half express wagon, the trucks with the box on.

Q But with the upright stakes?

A No, there was no stakes on it--I don't know that there was.

Q Your recollection is it was a low-sided express wagon?

A Yes sir, a large long express wagon.

Q Had it apparently been used--did it give evidence of being an old wagon or a new one?

A It was in the evening. I couldn't tell that. I think it was an ordinarily used wagon. It must have been used on the day, because there were other wagons standing there.

Q Was that selection made by yourself or was it made upon consultation with others?

A I believe I had a consultation with my brother as to the advisibility of chosing, taking that place.

Q That was your brother Henry?

A Yes sir.

Q The one that has been on the witness stand?

A Yes sir.

Q Was he with you during the whole evening?

A He was with me during the entire evening.

Q After selecting the wagon, I understand you called the crowd together there--how did you do that if you remember?

A First I went to the crowds who were standing there.

Q Standing around on the haymarket?

A Yes sir, and told them that they should go there to that wagon, that the meeting would be held there.

Q After the audience got together, what did you first say, if you remember?

A After the audience got together somebody suggested it would be a good thing to draw the wagon into the Haymarket. I replied that I didn't consider that advisable; that in the first place the cars would make a good deal of noise; and in the second place it might interfere with the street traffic. Then I asked if Mr.Parsons was present. I thought he had been invited to address the meeting, and the fact is I was not on the Arrangement Committee. I came there, seeing no meeting, and seeing this crowd, I took the initiative and called them together, and tried to open the meeting. The meeting had been very poorly arranged. I could see that when I came there, and I thought with poor hands. I asked for Parsons, and Parsons wasn't there. Then one of the editors of the Arbeiter Zeitung, one Schrader, stopped up to the wagon and said "Parsons is "speaking up on the corner of Halsted and Randolph Street. "I just saw him there." I told him to go and call him. He left but stayed quite a while, and I left the wagon myself, and in the company of my brother Henry and one Lechner and Schnaubelt whom I had just met at that time, went up the street to find Parsons.

Q Was Schwab with you on that wagon at that time?

A No, I didn't see Schwab.

Q Was Schwab with you any time that evening?

A He was not. I asked for him, and his brother-in-law told me he had left for Deering, and told me I had been wanted at Deering's, but not being there Schwab had gone.

Q What direction did you take from the wagon?

A Well, the wagon was standing at the east side of the street, probably--

Q A little north of the alley?

A probably 50 or 60 feet or more--I can't tell exactly--from the corner of Randolph and Desplaines streets. I cut right in an oblique way from the corner and went up the street.

Q You moved south-westerly from the wagon?

A South-westerly, yes sir.

Q Did you go to the mouth of Crane's alley at that time?

A I must state here that I didn't know that there was an alley there at all.

Q Then you didn't go into it?

A No sir.

Q Did you go with Schwab into the mouth of the alley after asking for Parsons before you made a speech?

A That could not very well be possible, no sir.

Q I will ask you whether in the mouth of that alley at that time after having asked for Parsons, and before you made your speech, you entered with Schwab standing near the mouth of the alley upon the north side of it adjoining Crane's building had a conversation with Schwab, in which you refeerred to pistols and police, and in which Schwab asked for you asked "Will one be enough", or "Hadn't we better go and "get more," or anything of that kind?

A No sir.

Q Did any conversation of that kind occur between yourself and Schwab or yourself and any one else at that place or any other place?

A I could not very well have conversed with Schwab when he was not there.

Q Did any other conversation occur between you and Schwab or between you and any one else there that night?

A No sir, I was not in the alley at all. I didn't know there was an alley there until later.

Q You say you moved in a south-westerly direction obliquely across the street to the corner of the Haymarket?

A Yes sir.

Q From there what direction did you take?

A From there I in company with those I mentioned went up Randolph Street to Union, and I believe we went pretty near to Halsted Street, but seeing no one there, only a few people standing there, probably twenty or twenty-five, and those were scattered, ---I saw there was no meeting there, didn't see Parsons, and then we returned. It was geting late, and I thought in the meantimem Parsons might have arrived at the meeting. So we ret rned, and no speaker being there and then I went on the wagon and addressed the meeting.

Q On which side of Randolph Street did you walk on that occasion when you were walking westerly and when you returned and came back easterly to the corner of Desplaines

A On the north side.

Q You think you went a little beyond Union street toward Halsted?

A Yes sir.

Q You didn't go to Halsted street, however?

A I don't think we went right up to Halsted. My impression is we did not. My memory is not very good as to such details.

Q After crossing Union street or about the corner of Union, did you meet or have any conversation with Schwab?

A No.

Q Did you at the crossing of Union street or about the corner of Union have a conversation with Schwab in which Schwab said in effect "Now, if they come we are ready for "them", and in which you replied in effect "I don't think "they will come. I think they are afraid", or anything of that kind?

A No sir.

Q Did you have any such conversation with Schwab or with anybody else at the crossing of Union street that night?

A I don't remember exactly what we were speaking about, but I am positive that I did not say anything of the kind; and then again I was speaking in German. We were conversing in German.

Q You and Schnaubelt as you walked along there were conversing in German?

A In German.

Q Then I understand you to say you had no conversation with anybody?

A Had no such conversation. It is simply riduculous.

Q How long have you know Schnaubelt?

A Schnaubelt, I have known for probably two years.

Q How is Schnaubelt as to speaking English?

A He can't speak any English at all. He has not been in this country more than two years, I think.

Q Did you ever have an English conversation with Schnaubelt in your life?

A No.

Q Did you ever know anybody else to carry on a conversation with Schnaubelt in English in your life?

A I don't know. Somebody may have attempted it.

Q Did you know it?

A I don't know it.

Q Do you remember how Schnaubelt was dressed that evening, that is as to the color of his clothing?

A He wore a gray suit, a light gray suit.

Q A light gray suit that evening?

A Yes sir.

Q Now, on returning to the wagon as you have described, what course did you take from the corner of the Haymarket, that is to say, from the north west corner of Desplaines and Randolph tp the wagon?

A I went right straight to the wagon about probably in the same way I went over, the same direction--I went in a mprtjeaster;u direction.

Q Practically going b ck the same route you had departed from the wagon?

A Yes sir, I should judge so.

Q I will ask you whether on your return or any time during that evening you walked with Schwab from the north west corner of Randolph and Desplaines street which would be the northeast cprmer of the Haymarket square, substantially, angling a little to the north, across Desplaines street to the center of the sidewalk some 15 south of Crane Brothers' alley, and at that point met Schnaubelt?

A No, I had not been on that sidewalk south of the wagon at all.

Q Not at all during the entire evening?

A Not in the entire evening.

Q Did you at about the place indicated or anywhre else that evening, namely, about 12 or 15 feet south of Crane Brothers' alley, on the east sidewalk, of Desplaines street, take anything out of your pocket, or otherwise, and give it to Schnaubelt or anybody else at that location?

A I was not in that locality. And I cannot have taken anything out of my pocket and given it to anybody.

Q You heard the testimony of the witness Thompson on the stand?

A I did.

Q In which he described how you got off the wagon with Schwab, went to the mouth of the alley, had there a conversation with him in the alley, in which you used the words "pistols" and "police", and in which one of you said "Will one be enough", or "Had I better go and get more", and you then came out of the mouth of the alley walking down the east sidewalk for a distance and then going west on Randolph street to Halsted street and then back to Union, at which point Schwab asked you, he said to you, "Now, if they come "we are ready for them", and you replied you didn't think they would come, that they would be a fraid, or something to that effect, that from there you walked eaasterly to the corner of Desplaines and Randolph, and from there angling a little to the north across the street to the center of the sidewalk about 15 feet south of the alley where you met a man whom he recognized from the photograph as being Schnaubelt, and where you gave to Schnaubelt something or other, he couldn't tell what. I will ask you whether or not there is any truth in that statement or any portion of it?

A There is no truth in that statement at all, and th t gentleman told a different story to the coroner's jury.

MR. INGHAM: That is not responsive and it is not true.

THE COURT: The latter part is not admissible. Strike out the latter part.

MR. BLACK: Q When you returned to the wagon and commenced your speech, do you remember what you said and about how long you spoke, Mr. Spies?

A I spoke about 15, or about 20 minutes.

Q What did you say that you now recall?

A Well, I began by stating that I had heard a large number of patrol wagons had gone on to Desplaines street station, and that great preparations had been made for a possible out break; that the militia had been called under arms, and that I would state at the beginning that this meeting had not been called for any purpose to incite a riot, but that it had been simply called to dwell upon the situation of the eight hour strike, the eight hour movement, and upon the attrocities of the police of the preceding day.

Q Referring to the McCormick matter?

A Yes sir. Then I gave a short synopsis of what had taken place out at McCormick's, and the part I took, and I referred to the item in one of the morning papers of this city in which Mr. McCormick said as much that Spies was responsible for that affair at McCormick's; that I had incited the people to commit violence, etc., and I told these people that such misrepresentations were made in order to degrade--

Q Discredited?

A Discredit the men who took an active part in the movement. I told them that such outbreaks as had occurred at McCormick's, as had occurred in East Louis, as had occurred in Philadelphia, Cleveland and other places, were the logic result of historic development; that these outbreaks were not the work of a bond of conspirators--they were not the work of a few anarchists or socialists; but that they were the unconscious struggle of a class striving, fighting and battling for emancipation; and that such outbreaks might be expected at any minute; and that they were not the arbitrary work of individuals or men, but that they were the logical result of historical development of society. I then told them, pointed to the fact that these people that committed violence had never been socialists or Anarchists, but that in most instances they had been up to that time the most lawful citizens, good Christians, and that they were the exemplary so-called honest workmen of which the capitalistic press speaks when speaking on the other hand, contrasting with them the anarchists. I spoke of the eight hour movement in general. I said that for twenty years--

Q Wait a moment. Do you remember in that connection or about that connection you referred, to the audience you addressed the previous evening, as to their character, as to their being church people or Christian people?

A Yes, I did. I told them that although the papers had stated violence had been committed by anarchists, as far as I had seen of that meeting, and experience of the meeting, it had been composed almost exclusively of humble church-going good Christians, and not by any means atheistic or materialistic or anarchists.

Q Now, you may proceed with what you were saying in reference to the eight hour movement?

A I told the people that for the past twenty years, the toilers, the wage workers, had asked their employers for a reduction of the hours of labor. I told them that there were, according to the statement of the secretary of the National Bureau of Labor Statistics, about two million of strong, physically strong men out of employment. I further told them that the technical development in production, with the machines, etc., the productive capacity had so immensely increased, that by any rational organization of society, all that society required could be produced in a few hours, and that the working of men ten hours a day in such mechanical way as at present was simply another method of murdering them. After having stated that, thought every student of social affairs and social phenomena admitted the fact, that society was under the present, under the over-work condition conditions of over-work, retrograding almost, and that the masses were sinking into degradation, demoralization, etc. all on account of the excessive work; that notwithstanding all this their demands had been refused, had not been granted. I proceeded to say that they had asked the Legislators, but the legislators had different interests than those at stake in this question; that they did not so much care about the welfare of society or of any class of society, but that they were looking out for their own interests, and that at least the workingmen had conceived consciously or unconsciously to take the he matter in their own hands; that the question was an economic question; that it was not a political question; that the State Legislature nor Congress could not do anything in the premises, that the workingmen could only achieve a normal days work of eight hours or less by their own efforts, by self help. I believe when I had gone so far somebody told me that Mr. Parsons had arrived, and turning around I saw Parsons, and I broke off. I was not in a state of mind to address a meeting, anyway. I was fatigued, worn out.

Q In what language did you speak?

A I spoke in English.

Q You made no speech in German that night at the Haymarket?

A I did not.

Q After introducing Parsons where did you go or what did you do?

A I stood on the wagon.

Q Did you listen to Parsons' speech?

A I did.

Q Now, Mr. Spies, about what was the size of the crowd if you can judge, that you were addressing at the Haymarket that night?

A When I stopped and Parsons began, I believe there were pretty nearly two thousand people there, if not more.

Q Was it a compact crowd, gathered closely about the wagon, or was it scattered around the sidewalks somewhat, as well as upon the street?

A Oh, no, it was an ordinarlly packed crowd. Of course the people who wanted to listen to what was said, would crowd to the wagon as a matter of course and others would stand on the opposite sidewalk, but I didn't see any very packed crowd exactly.

Q In what direction were you facing from the wagon as you spoke?

A I was facing I believe southwesterly, southwesterly direction.

Q I will ask you whether or not the bulk of the audience while you were speaking stood a round the wagon south and southwesterly and towards the Haymarket?

A Yes sir.

Q And whether or not the bulk of the crowd came from the Haymarket square and about there?

A Yes sir.

Q How long did Parsons speak?

A Parsons spoke about forty five minutes. He may have spoken an hour. I think it was shortly before 10 o'clock when he stopped.

Q After Parsons closed what did you then do, if anything?

A I had been requested by several persons to speak German, to make a German speech, but it was too late. Parsons had spoken longer than I had expected he would speak, and I didn't feel much like speaking. I invited or asked Mr. Fielden to address them for a few minutes, and then adjourn, say a few words in conclusion and then adjourn.

Q Did you introduce Fielden to the audience at the close of Parsons speech?

A I did, yes sir.

Q After Fielden commenced speaking, where did you go, or what did you do?

A I staid on the wagon.

Q How long did you remain there?

A I remained on the wagon until the command was given by Captain Ward to disperse.

Q Now, briefly tell me what you remember of Parsons speech that night?

A Parsons quoted statistics, stating that the eight hour movement was a still hunt--or rather, that while the producer received in the form of wages 15 per cent of the product, the employer, the parasitical classes, as we call them, those who do not produce, take 85 per cent. of the product. He said that the eight hour movement was a still hunt for the 85 cents; that the wage workers thought they were entitled if not to all the produced, at least to a little more than they were getting. He said that the fact of this system of spoliation or this spoliation system was producing such men as Gould, while producing on one hand a millionaire, it on the other hand produced the beggar, the pauper and the tramp. He proceeded in this strain, and then made some allusion to the military arrangements that had been made, and said that the workingmen were paying these people to keep them in a state of subjection; if they wanted more, if they asked for more the bosses would simply call out these servants, armed servants, and prevent them from accomplishing anything--something to that effect. Well,he made a pretty good speech.

Q Do you remember in that speech any referenceto the southwestern strike or to Gould by name?

A Yes sir,there was reference.

Q Do you remember any response f om the crowd to that ref rence to Gould?

A Somebody cried out I think, "Hang "Jay Gould" or something like that.

Q What did Parsons say to that, if you remember?

A Well, as stated here quite frequently, he said that it would not do to hang Jay Gould, it would be of no avail to fight individuals; they were simply the product of the system, as well as on the other hand the wage worker; that it was not an individual fight that we were making; that it was the system; and that theonly curative would be the overthrow of the system that produced such men as Gould and do away with millionaires and paupers and tramps, and make happy people all around.

Q Do you remember anything else that specially impressed you that night that was stated by Parsons, or have you stated all that you now recall specially?

A It has been quite awhile, and I have listened to so many speeeches of freind Parsons, that I might get mixed up. I don't remember just now that he has said any more than what I have stated. Of course he said more, but I don't remember it.

Q What do you remember of Fielden's speech?

A Well, Fielden didn't say much. He made a short speech, and I don't remember.

Q You don't recall about Fielden's speech?

A No sir.

Q Do you remember his reference to the system of laws as now administered, or to the name of Foran?

A Oh, yes, he spoke of Foran. He said Foran, a member of Congress, elected by the workingmen, had stated on one occasion, I believe at a session of Congress, that the Legislatures could not do anything for the workingmen; that it was useless to attempt to alter and better the conditions of the workingmen by legislative enactments that reforms would take place only when the people would make up their mind that they would have them, and not before. He then said "If it is true what this man Foran says, if it is true that we cannot gain anything through legislative enactments. "why then elect men to Legislature, why then pay them "$5,000 a year to stay there and amuse themselves in their "own particular way." I think that is about what he said.

Q Were you on the wagon when the police came up and came to a halt, and when the order was given to disperse the meeting?

A I was.

Q Will you state, please what you heard or observed with reference to the coming of the police upon the ground, and to the order for the dispersal of the meeting?

A Well, I didn't see the police until they formed in columns on the corner of Desplaines and Randolph Street. Somebody behind me, I think said, "The police are coming." I couldn't understand that. I didn't think even then when I saw them--I didn't think they were marching towards the meeting, or that they had anything--

Q At that time what was the size of themeeting as compared with what it had been before that time?

A It was almost as well as adjourned. There were but few people there. There were not two hundred persons on the spot.

Q At that time had anything been said at the meeting with reference to an adjournment, or proposed adjournment?

A Yes, previous to that, about vive minutes previous to that a dark cloud came moving from the north, and the cloud was so threatening that the people ran away, most of them ran away, and some people suggested that an adjournment be taken over to Zepf's hall for a continuation of the meeting.

Q Did you notice whether any considerable number of people at that time and upon that suggestion of adjournment to Zepf's hall, did in fact leave the ground?

A Yes, I think that more than two thirds of the attendants on that meeting left at the time when that cloud came.

Q When the police came upon the ground how near to the wagon did they come to a halt?

A They made a halt about three feet from the wagon, south of the wagon, I think three or four feet--I would not be certain as to the exact distance. It was very close.

Q You say you heard the command for the dispersal of the meeting given by some officer. What officer was that given by, if you know?

A Captain Ward.

Q What did you hear?

A Well, he walked up to the wagon. Fielden was standing in front of me--that is, in the rear of the wagon. I was standing in the middle of the wagon,and I think he had a long cane, if not a cane he had a club.

Q That is the officer?

A Yes, he held something in his hand, and he said, "In the name of the people of the "State of Illinois I command you to disperse." And Fielden said "Why, Captain, this is a peaceable meeting." And he repeated, I think, that command, and then turned around to his men, and while I didn't understand what he said to then, I thought he said something to the effect "Charge upon the "crowd"--something to that effect.

Q Did you hear that part of the remark which has been testified to: "I call upon you and you to assist."?

A I didn't hear that. He may have said that, and I may have misunderstood him, but my impression is that he turned around to his men and made some remark like that, charge upon them, or "Disperse them". I wouldn't be sure as to that. Well, my brother, and one Lechner, and several others that I didn't know stood at the side of the wagon; and they reached out their hands and helped me off the wagon; I felt very indignant over the coming of the police, and my intention was to ask them what right they had to break up that meeting, but it was certainly very foolish thing for me to do that, and I left the wagon.

Q You got down off the wagon?

A Yes sir, I jumped down from the wagon. When I reached the sidewalk I heard a terrible detonation, and I thought that the authorities of the city had brought a cannon there to scare away the people from the street. I didn't think they would shoot upon the people, nor did I think in the least at that time of a bomb. That is singular, but I never thought of a bomb having been exploded.

Q Do you remember whether anything was said between yourself and brother Henry in reference to the cause of that detonation?

A Yes sir, He asked me, "What is this, "what is this", and I made some reply, to the effect I believe that I thought it was a Gatling gun or cannon, something like that.

Q Where did you then go?

A I was pushed along. There was a throng of people rushing up and I was carried right along with them. I don't know that I run particularly. I was just carried away almost.

Q Where did you wind up?

A I went into Zepf's hall. The firing began immediately, that is to say, I should say was simultaneous with the explosion. I knew that the police were shooting, but I didn't think they were shooting upon the crowd. I didn't know what had occurred at all. I thought they were shooting over the heads of the persons running away to seare them away, until the crowd had somewhat scattered, and I saw the flashes of glancing bullets on the sidewalk, and then I knew there was very little fun in it.

Q Did you see any firing from the crowd upon the police?

A No, I didn't think they could very well have done that.

Q Did you hear as you stood upon the wagon, either by Fielden or anybody else in this vicinity, any such exclamation as this, "Here come the bloodhounds; men, you do your duty "and I'll do mine", or anything of that kind?

A Fielden didn't use any such language. I was standing right there.

Q Did you hear anything of that sort said by anybody?

A No Sir.

Q Did Fielden draw from his pocket a revolver and fire upon the police or in their direction from the wagon?

A Fielden left the wagon, and could not have drawn a revolver if he wanted to between the explosion of the bomb and the time he left the wagon.

Q Did he do it or not?

A No sir.

Q Did you directly before the explosion of the bomb, after the advance of the police upon the meeting, leave your position upon the wagon, go to the mouth of the alley, passing into it a little distance, strike a match and light a bomb an the hands of Rudolph Schnaubelt?

A I did not.

Q Did you see Rudolph Schnaubelt there in the mouth of the alley then or at any time during that evening with a bomb?

A I saw Schnaubelt?

MR. GRINNELL: Answer the question, yes or no.


MR. BLACK: Did you at about the time indicated, or at any other time during that evening after you first commenced speaking, or any time during that evening, go into the mouth of that alley and join there Fischer and Schnaubelt, and strike a match for any purpose?

A No sir.

Q You heard the testimony of the witness Gilmer?

A I have.

Q About what size man was Schnaubelt?

A Schnaubelt was about six foot three, I should judge, a very tall man.

Q A large frame and a large body?

A Yes sir.

Q What is the usual language in which you carry on conversation with Schwab?

Objected to; objection sustained. Counselfor defendants then and there excepted to the ruling of the Court.

Q Do you remember the witness Wilkinson, a reporter of the Daily News who testified to certain interviews had with you or alleged to have been had with you in January, 1886?

A Yes sir.

Q Did you have any interviews with him about January, 1886?

A I think that was about the time when we had a conversation---I don't know as it was an interview, He made an interview out of it.

Q Do you remember whether you had more than one, or two of such interviews?

A Well, the young man was up to the office several times, I think, but I only had one interview with him as far as I remember.

Q Do you remember at that time showing him a spherical bomb-shell?

A Yes sir.

Q What was the occasion of that interview as stated by the young man to you, if any?

A He was introduced to me by Joe Gruenhut. Joe Gruenhut told me that they wanted to have an article for the News. Well, I never liked to have much to do with reporters.

MR. GRINNELL: State what you did.

THE WITNESS: Very well, I shall. He inquired, I believe, as to the report of some paper that the Anarchists had placed an infernal machine at the door or front of the house of Lambert Tree, and I told him that my opinion was that the Pinkertons were carrying on this sort of business to advertise themselves in the first place, and in the second place to force their business, to force people to engage them, etc. "Well", he said, "Have you ever seen any bombs or have you "got any bombs", or something to that effect. I told him yes. I have had at the office for probably three years four shells, that is such instruments as that there (pointing).  Two of them were left there by a man once who wanted to find out if that was a good construction, I think. I was not at the time they were left there; and the other two were brought to me one day by a man who came I think from Cleveland, or New York, and was going to New Zealand from here, and he left those with me. I did use to show them to reporters when they came, and I got this-I believe that is the one--I got that and showed it to him. And he asked me if he could take it along and show it to Mr. Stone. I told him he could, and he took it along, and I never asked him for it. I didn't care for it. That was, I believe, at noon. I was in a hurry. I wanted to go to dinner about one o'clock, a little after one, and in the evening he came round with Joe Gruenhut and invited met to dine with him. I had to attend a theatrical performance at the North Side Turner Hall on that evening, and had just about half an hour's time to spend. We went into a restaurant and talked about the infernal machine--I think it was an infernal machine, placed a few days prior to this occasion into an office or somewhere near the office of the Burlington and Quincy Railroad, and about this infernal machine placed in front of the house of Lambert Tree. We talked about this, and I gave this explanation which I have already given. We spoke of the rifles that had shortly before been held on the Lake Front, and we talked about the armed organization of Socialists of which there was at that time so much said in the papers. One paper would publish an item today that there was so many thousand wild-eyed socialists in the city ready to slaughter and murder everybody in town, and the next day another paper would say there were not so many, but only so many, and the next day another paper would say there were still more, etc., etc., sensational reports of papers. We talked about these reports, and I told him that it was a public, that it was an open secret that some three thousand socialists in the city of Chicago were armed. I told him that the arming of these people, that is not only the Socialists, but meaning the workingmen in general began right after 1877, the strike of 1877 when the police attacked the workingmen at their meeting, killed some and wounded others; that ever since that time the working people had been busy arming; that they were of the opinion that if they would enjoy the rights of the Constitution, they should be prepared to defend them too if necessary; and that it was a known fact, an open secret these men had paraded the street, as many as fifteen hundred strong at a time, and had been marching through the streets with their rifles that it was not anything new and I couldn't see why they talked so much about it. And I told him that of course I thought that they were still arming, they were now arming, and I wished that every workingman was well armed. And he wanted to know, I believe, the meeting places of the various societies, but I couldn't tell him. I didn't know them, but I told him that he could find them in the announcement column of the Arbeiter Zeitung if he wanted to know them. I think he did. Then we were speaking generally upon modern warfare. He was of the opinion that the militia and the police, well organized and equipped as they were, could defeat any attempt on the part of the populace to bring about anything by force very easily, or to quell a riot very easily; and I told him that I was not of that opinion. I told him that the views the Bourgeoise took of their military and police, etc., was exactly the same view that the nobility took some centuries ago as to their own armament, and that gunpowder had come to the relief of the oppressed masses, had done away with the aristocracy very quickly and rapidly; that the iron armor of the nobility was penetrated by a leaden bullet just as easily as the blouse of the farmer or peasant; that gunpowder had an equalizing, leveling tendency, and that just so it was with dynamite at this age; that dynamite was a child of the same parent; that dynamite was a leveler; that it would eventually break down the aristocracy of this age, and realize, make democracy, the principles of democracy, a reality and actuality which they were not. I told him that it would be a very easy thing to do, had even been attempted by such men as General Sheridan and others to play havoc, with an organized body or military or police by the use of dynamite. Well, it was in a kind of disputing dialog that this was carried on. And he asked me if I anticipated any trouble. I told him I did. He asked me if we, the Anarchists and Socialists, were going to make a revolution---and I have heard the opinion expressed often. Of course I was making fun of it, and told him that revolutions were not made by individuals or conspirators, but that they were simply the logic of events resting in the conditions, and not in the arbitrary will of men. I left him I believe then with Gruenhut, and he was still conversing with Gruenhut when I left him.

Q Do you remember the toothpick illustration of which he spoke in that talk?

A. Yes Sir.

Q. What is your recollection about the toothpicks?

A The diagram of what I tried to demonstrate to him is in one of the numbers of the alarm that has been put in evidence here. I illustrated to him. I said, ""I am not much "of a warrior. I am not a military man, but I have read a "good deal on the subject", and particularly this article in the Alarm I referred to. I said that if, for instance, a military body would march up a street, they would have men on each one of the sidewalks protecting and guarding the main body from possible onslaught from the house-tops, possible shooting, firing or throwing of bombs, or such as that from the house-tops. Now, if an oblique line on each side of the crossing were formed by revolutionists or by civilians, by men not belonging to the military, to the privileged military bodies, that if these two lines would form an oblique line at the crossing, they could then attack with fire arms or use of dynamite very successfully combat the on-marching militia and police. And I used for illustration, if I am not mistaken, Market Square. I said, "Now, see what an easy "thing it is for a mob as you call it, for civilians to fight organized military bodies. There is a system of cannon- "ization in large cities. Now, supposing they would lay a "mine somewhere, supposing they expected an attack, and would "place a mine somewhere, and by the use of a powder and dynamite could blow up the whole regiments very easily." What the witness said in regard to the tunnel and such as that I don't remember. I don't think I said that, but I think I may have given the talk a little color. I knew he wanted a sensational article.

Q You knew it was for publication in the News?

A Yes sir, and I think I may have colored it a little, but there was no reference to Chicago in particular or any fighting on our part. The topic of the conversation, the subject, the substance of it was, that a fight, a struggle was inevitable, and that it might take place in the near future, and what might and could be done in such an event

Q. A general discussion in other words of the possibilities of street warfare, under modern science?

A. Yes.

Q. You wrote the word ruhe for insertion in the Arbeiter Zeitung on the 4th of May?

A. I believe I did, yes.

Q. How did that happen?

A. It happened just the same as any other announcement that would come in.

Q. Do you remember where you got that from, the request to, put it in?

A. I received a batch of announcements from the office.

MR. GRINNELL: Answer the question that is asked you,

MR BLACK: He is answering the question. The question is---do you remember about as to how it came in?

A. Yes, I remember.

Q. Now, state how?

A. May I state how?

Q. Yes sir.

A. I received a batch of announcements from a number of labor organizations and societies about 11 O'clock, or a little after 11, in my editorial room, and I went over them. I do remember how this one reads. It was a piece of paper, not quite that size (indicating). It said, "Mr. Editor, please insert (in German) in the Brief Kasten or "letter box the word "ruhe in prominent letters." I was in the habit-

MR. GRINNELL: Never mind that.

MR. BLACK: Brief Kasten as has already been explained by one of the witnesses was a space in your paper devoted to making gratuitously any announcement in connection with labor organizations that were requested?

A. Yes, Let me explain. There is an announcement column of meetings, and as to brief kasten, now a word, a single word or something like that would be lost sight of under the announcements, nobody would see it. On such occasions people generally ask to have that inserted under the head of brief kasten or letter box.

Q. Well, what did you do upon receiving that request?

A. I just took the piece of paper and marked on it "brief kasten" referred to.

Q. You wrote the manuscript that is in evidence here?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that the manuscript (showing witness manuscript)?

A. I think that is the manuscript.

Q. That is in your hand-writing?

A. Yes, I should think it was.

Q. At the time you wrote word and sent it up to be put in the paper, did you know of any import attached to, it of any character,, and if so, what?

A. None whatever. I didn't even stop and reflect as to what it meant.

Q. You simply sent it up to the compositor's room?

A. Yes sir.

Q. When was your attention next called to that word?

A. Well, it may have been a little after three o'clock in the afternoon.

Q. How was it then called to your attention?

A. One of the employes of the Arbeiter Zeitung, an agent, advertising agent, Balthazar Rau---his name has been frequently mentioned in connection with the Arbeiter Zeitung---came and asked me if the word "ruhe" was in the Arbeiter Zeitung, I think. I did not at that time even know I had forgotten, and I took the copy, and I said, "Yes". He asked me if I knew what that meant. I told him no, I did not. He said the armed sections held a meeting last night, and they have resolved to put in that word, that it means as much as the armed sections should keep themselves in readiness, prepare themselves, that in case the police should precipitate a riot, that they should come to the assistance of the attacked. I asked him where he heard it. He said it was a rumor, and I sent up for Fisher who had invited me to speak at that meeting in the evening, and Fischer came down and I asked him in regard to that. He said Oh, it was just a harmless signal. I asked him if it had any reference to the meeting on the Haymarket. He said none whatever. He said that it was merely a signal for the boys, for those who were armed to keep their powder dry, in case they might be called upon in the next days; to fight. I told Rau it was a very silly thing, that such nonsense should be stopped, or at least I did't think there was much rational sense in that, and asked him if he knew how that could be undone, how it could be managed so that that would be stopped, and he said he knew some persons who had something to say in the armed organizations and I told him to go and tell them that the word was put in by mistake, and he did.

MR. INGHAM: Q. How do you know he did?

A. He returned to me about five o'clock.

MR. BLACK: You can't tell what he did after that--he did return at five o'clock.

A. He returned at five O'clock.

Q. He went away on your suggestion?

A. Yes sir.

MR GRINNELL: Q.Who was this, Rau or Fischer that went away?

A. It was Rau.

Q. Were you a member of any armed section?

A.I was not. I have not been for six years.

Q. MR. Spies what do you know at any time about dynamite or cartridges or caps or fuse in the Arbeiter Zeitung? building?

A. I had two giant powder cartridges in my desk for two years, including a roll of fuse and caps, detonation caps--I have had them in my desk for two years.

Q. I will ask you what you did with them there at any time?

A. Originally I bought them to experiment with, but I never had occasion to go out--my time was occupied so much I had read a good deal about dynamite and I wanted to get acquainted with it. I left it, and then I used to show it to reporters. The reporters used to bother me a good deal, and they were always up for a sensation and when they came to the office I would show them these giant cartridges. They were very harmless. They have been introduced in evidence as they were, and then of course they would go away and write up some big sensational article.

Q. I will ask you whether or not those are the same cartridges referred to by certain witnesses for the State as having been shown on the evening of the Board of Trade demonstration?

A. They were the very same. Let me add here, one of them will yet show a little cavity, a little hole in which I that evening put one of these caps to show the reporter how terrible a thing it was--- in fact, if that cartridge as it is were exploded in a free place it would not do any harm at all. It would just give a strong sound, a detonation, but it would not hurt anybody. It might throw one on the floor, the explosion of the air, but it would not otherwise hurt a person. So I say that one of these cartridges will show that hole in which I that evening placed that cap.

Q. That is, if it is in the same condition it was the last time you saw it?

A. If it is in the same condition.

Q. Do you know anything about this package of alleged dynamite exhibited here in Court, and which is claimed to have been found on a shelf in a closet in the Arbeiter Zeitung building?

A. Absolutely nothing.

Q. Did you ever see that before it was produced here in Court?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Do you know anything about its alleged presence in that building?

A. No, I do not.

Q There is a claim there was a revolver found in the editorial room under a wash-stand--do you know anything about that?

A. There is no wash-stand in the editorial room. The wash stand in the editorial room is a stationary one.

Q. Do you know anything about that revolver which is claimed to have been found in the Arbeiter Zeitung office?

A. I do not, but then it is very likely it may have been found there. I don't know.

Q. Did you have any revolver there?

A. Did I have one in the editorial room?

Q. Yes,

A. I always carried a revolver, but that wasn't mine. I had a very good revolver.

Q. That wasn't yours?

A. No sir.

Q. You don't know anything about it?

A. I do not.

Q. You say you were in the habit of carrying a revolver?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Was there anything that occasioned the taking up of that habit by you?

A. Yes sir, I was out late at night, and I always considered it a very good thing to be in a position to defend myself.

Q. Did you have that pistol with you the night of the haymarket?

A. Well, strangely I did not. It was too heavy for me, and while I took it along first I left it with Mr. Frank Steuber, ex-alderman Steuber--I guess it is there now.

Q. So you didn't have any revolver with you that night?

A. No sir.

Q. Have you ever seen that revolver since you left it with Steuber?

A. No sir.

Q. You were arrested when?

A. I was arrested on the following morning on Wednesday morning at about half past eight O'clock I think.

Q. What time Wednesday morning did you come down to the Arbeiter Zeitung office?

A. Regularly a little after seven O'clock.

Q. You had been in the office about how long before you were arrested?

A. I had been--I was not in the office at all. I was in the editorial room and had begun writing. I had been there about half an hour when a man who afterwards told me he was an officer came into the room and inquired for Schwab, Mr. Schwab and told Schwab that somebody wanted to see him over at the police headquarters, and Schwab asked me if he might go. I told him yes, and then this man, this officer, and I think his name is Mr. James Bonfield, asked me if my name was Spies. I told him that was my name. He said the police Superintendent Ebersold would like to see me and have some talk with me on the affair of the previous night, and I asked him if that could not be delayed until after the issue of the paper. I was very busy at the time. He said no, he would rather have me come along then, and I unsuspectingly, did go along with him over to the station, and when we came over there we were attacked in the most brutal manner, in a manner that is almost beyond belief or description.

MR. GRINNELL: Q. Tell us who it was?

A. Police Supt. Ebersold and his associates there.

MR. INGHAM: Name his associates?

A. I don't know their names never cared to know them.

MR. BLACK: Q. What was said and what was done there at police headquarters?

A. I came in there. I thought the police superintendent would ask me in regard to it but he did not say anything of the kind. He said "You dirty Dutch" --you must excuse it --- sons of bitches, you dirty hounds, you rascals, we will choke you, we'll kill you." And then they jumped upon us and tore us from one end to the other. I never said anything. They searched us and went through our pockets, took my money and everything I had,   everything--lead pencil, and even the hankerchief. They "wouldn't return the hankerchief to me until after I had been "in the cell two days, and some of the things I never got back, but that is neither here nor there. They finally concluded that they would put us in a cell and at that moment Police Supt. Ebersold in a very quiet way said "Well, boys, let's be cool" after having treated us to all the abuse they were capable of.

Q. I will ask you whether you remember during the assault upon you by MR. Ebersold, Mr. James Bonfield interfered and "suggested Mr. Ebersold that that was not the proper way nor the proper place?

A. I think he did. Mr. James Bonfield acted in a rather gentlemanly way, considering all things.

Q. Now then, have you ever been at liberty since then?

A. I have not.

Q. You have been continuously confined from then until now?

A. I have been continuously confined from then until now.

Q. Do you remember an interview with a gentleman representing himself as a reporter of the Daily News, Mr. Knox, on the evening or night of May 5th in your cell at the Central station?

A. There was crowds of people in the prison that evening who tried to drag us into a conversation. I don't know anybody in particular whom I spoke to there-probably I did.

Recess to 2 o'clock.

Aug. 9th.
2 o'clock P. M.
Court reassembled.

Direct Examination resumed by Mr. Black.

Q. Mr. Spies, on the night of May 4th, after you had jumped from the wagon, at the time when the bomb exploded, you say just as you got down, and your brother Henry was there what became of Henry, if you know?

A. I jumped down, and as I reached I think it was the sidewalk or may have been the street, I don't know exactly--I think it was the sidewalk, the explosion took place. I heard the detonation. And he said "What is that" I said "That must be a cannon" or I may have said "That is a Gatling gun" or "It must be a Gatling gun." And then I lost sight of him. There was a throng and I was carried away and I didn't see him any more.

Q. When did you see him next after that?

A. I saw him about half past eleven O'clock.

Q. Where?

A. At his house.

Q. What was his physical condition at the time you saw him at his house at about half past eleven o'clock that night?

A. Well, he was wounded.

Q. I will ask you whether or not that was the first you knew of the wound he had received was when you met him there?

A. I heard it when I went home--I heard it and went right up to his house.

Q. You went up there to see him?

A. Yes sir.


Q. Mr. Spies, how long have you lived in this country?

A. I have lived in this Country fourteen years.

Q. How old were you when you came here?

A. About seventen

Q. How much of that time have you spent in Chicago?

A. Most of it.

Q. How much of it?

A. About thirteen years.

Q. Continuously?

A. No, I have been away from here.

Q. How much of that time have you been editor of the Arbeiter Zeitung?

A. For the last six years.

Q. During that time were you editor in chief?

A. Well, yes there is in fact no editor in chief there. It is a kind of autonomous editorial arrangement, but I was looked upon as the editor in chief.

Q. What do you mean by an autonomous editorial arrangement?

A. Each one for himself.

Q. Every one wrote what he pleased?

A. That is, in the editorial department, yes.

Q. Whether you looked at them or not the editorials went in?

A. Yes.

Q. Didn't you have the oversight of the editorials-- weren't you the man that was responsible for the editorials?

A. I never assumed any responsibility.

Q. Were not you the man that was responsible to the company for the management of the paper?

A. I never was made responsible.

Q. What was your salary?

A. Eighteen dollars a week.

Q. What was Schwab's salary?

A. Eighteen dollars.

Q. The same as yours?

A. Yes.

Q. Were your positions co-ordinate?

A. Almost, yes sir.

Q. Were they co-ordinate or were they not?

A. They were.

Q. He had as much authority there as you did?

A. Yes.

Q. He had as much to say about the management of the paper or control of the paper?

A. No sir, he didn't have anything to say in regard to the management.

Q. Who did have to say in regard to the management of the paper?

A. That was left with the Board of Trustees.

Q. Didn't the editors have anything to say about it?

A. Very little.

Q. Did the trustees look over your editorials before they were inserted?

A. They did not.

Q. Did anybody?

A. No.

Q. Who inserted the contributed articles--who looked over these before they were published?

A. They were looked over sometimes by me, sometimes by one of the reporters, and sometimes by another of the editors, just as the case might be.

Q. By what other editor?

A. Schwab and Schroeder.

Q. Was Schroeder one of the editors?

A. Yes sir.

Q. How long was he editor?

A. He has been with the Arbeiter Zeitung about four months.

Q. You were in the habit of reading the Arbeiter Zeitung?

A. Yes sir--not always.

Q. You knew what it contained?

A. I would not say that, no, I could not read the entire paper from beginning to end every day.

Q. You glanced over it, didn't you?

A. Yes, I would glance over it.

Q. So as to keep a sort of oversight over it?

A. Yes sir

Q. And see what it contained?

A. Yes sir.

Q. What position did Fischer hold there?

A. He was a compositor.

Q. Merely a compositor?

A. Merely a compositor.

Q. In the printing department?

A. Yes sir.

Q. He had nothing to do with the editorials?

A. Nothing whatever.

Q. Or with the management of the paper?

A. Nothing whatever.

Q. Merely a workman in the composing room?

A. That is all

Q. How long had he been employed there?

A. I don't know.

Q. How long have you known him?

A. I think about two years probably.

Q. Was he employed there for two years?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Did you have anything to do with the Alarm?

A. Well no unless, I believe for two or three weeks I edited the Alarm.

MR. Parsons was absent from the city.

Q. Was money ever sent to you for the Alarm?

Objected to.

MR. INGHAM: I think you have gone pretty fully into this matter.

Mr. BLACK: I don't think I have touched the Alarm.

MR. GRINNELL: You made the examination of this man as broad as it could be.

Mr. BLACK: I didn't make it broad enough to take in that Alarm for I never mentioned the Alarm from the beginning to end of his examination.

THE COURT: It is admissable to show what he in consequence of his position on the newspaper there did.

MR. BLACK: I have no objections to that.

THE COURT: If among other things by his position there in connection with the Arbeiter Zeitung it followed that he had anything to do with the Alarm, I will allow that.

MR. BLACK: There is no evidence on that subject.

THE COURT: That is what they want to ask him about,

MR. BLACK: Our position is that we have not attempted to contradict any portion of the State's case touching the Alarm so far as relates to this witness, and therefore they have no right to go into it for the purpose of strengthening or supplementing their case under pretense of cross examination.

THE COURT: If upon the examination it is shown that he was the editor of the Arbeiter Zeitung and published it under the direction and control of other persons, they may show what connection he had--they may cross examine as to what connection he had with the business enterprises that the Arbeiter Zeitung had anything to do with. It has been testified that the press work for the Alarm was done, as I think it was testified, the bills were made out to the Arbeiter Zeitung either paid in currency or by individuals checks by this witness.

Mr. BLACK: We don't deny it..

THE COURT: The question is now as to whether the cross examination can include everything that relates to his position in the Arbeiter Zeitung.

MR. BLACK: We are not objecting to that. We are objecting to what he may or would have done in reference to the Alarm.

THE COURT: The Alarm was published from the same building, another room I believe--another room as testified here was called the office of the Alarm, and the press work for it paid for by the Arbeiter Zeitung or paid for by this witness. I think they have a right to know everything he did in connection with the different enterprises.

Mr. BLACK: We note an exception.

Mr. INGHAM: Did you ever receive any money for the Alarm Objected to for reasons already stated.

Objection overruled. Exception by defendants.

A. I may have, yes sir.

Q. Did you or did you not?

A. Well, the money was generally sent in Post money orders, no doubt a great many of these money orders have been addressed to me, made payable to me.

Q. Do you know as a matter of fact whether you received any money for the Alarm or not?

A. No doubt I have.

Q. You mean then you have?

A. I have.

Q. Did you ever pay out any money for the Alarm?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Did you pay for the printing of the Alarm?

A. Yes sir.

Q. How long did you control or manage it during the absence of Mr. Parsons?

A. During the absence of Mr. Parsons--I can't tell, probably, four, probably five weeks.

Q. Did you ever write articles for the Alarm, contributions.

A. I have occasionally.

Q. About how often?

A. Whenever they were in need of manuscript.

Q. How did you sign your articles?

A. I don't know that I signed them particularly.

Q. Did you ever sign them with the letters "A S."?

A. Well, I may--I don't know.

Q. Don't you know you did?

A. I don't recollect just at this minute. I have written a good many articles. Signed some and didn't sign others.

Q. Some you did not?

Objected to all this class of matter, overruled and exception.

Q. How many bombs did you have in the office of the Arbeiter Zeitung?

A. I think there were four of these shells that looked like that (indicating), and I think two others.

They were iron cast, and given to me by a person I believe his name was Schwape or Schwoep, who left for New Zealand

Q. Which did you get first, these or the iron ones?

A.I had the iron ones first.

Q. From whom did you receive the iron ones?

A.I told you

Q. What was the name?

A. I think the name is Schwape or Sweet--something like that.

Q. Can you spell it?

A. No, I don't remember it.

Q. Where did he come from?

A. He came from Cleveland if I am not mistaken.

Q. Do you know what his business was in Cleveland?

A. I think the man was a shoemaker. I have only seen him once. He passed through Chicago and came up and talked with me.

Q. When was that?

A. I suppose it is about, may be three years.

Q. How did he come to leave these bombs with you?

A. I suppose he thought --

Q. (Interrupting) No matter what you thought. What was said or done?

A. He came up to the office and asked me if my name was Spies. I told him yes as far as I can remember and he asked me if I had seen any of the bombs that they were making, or they had, or something like that.

Q. Any of the bombs that who were making or that who had

A. That they had.

Q. Whom did he mean by "they"?

A. I don't know who he had reference to.

Q. Didn't he tell you who he meant by them?

A. He didn't He spoke of people in Cleveland with whom he had associated:

Q. Did he tell you who those people were?

A. I didn't ask him.

Q. Or the class of people?

A. I didn't ask him.

Q. Didn't you know who they were?

A. I did not.

Q. Didn't you know who they were?

A. No sir.

Q. He simply came up and asked you if you had seen any of those bombs they were making?

A. Yes sir.

Q. What did you say?

A. I told him I had not.

Q. What was the conversation you had there?

A. I can't recollect a conversation that I had with a man three years ago, when I would have twelve or fifteen conversations every day.

Q. Did you have twelve or fifteen conversations every day with men about bombs about that time?

A. No sir.

Q. This was a little out of the way of your regular conversations?

A. Yes, that was out of the order.

Q. Can you give any of the rest of the conversation that took place at that time?

A. No sir, if I remember plainly, clearly, I had very little time--I never did have much time, and I got rid of him just as soon as he would leave.

Q. Can you give any of the rest of the conversation except that?

A.I cannot. I didn't even say that was exactly the conversation between myself and him.

Q. How did he come to give you the bombs?

A. He left them there. He said he would not take them along.

Q. Did he have any more with him at that time?

A. I did'nt ask him.

Q. Were those bombs, bombs that exploded with a cap, or were they bombs that exploded by percussion?

A. They exploded by percussion, I think.

Q. Heavier on one side than they were on the other, were they not?

A. Yes sir.

Q. So that wehn they were thrown the cap would always come down?

A. I think so.

Q. They were made of iron?

A. Yes sir.

Q. That was how long ago?

A. About three years ago.

Q. How long did you have those in the office of the Arbeiter Zeitung?

A. I think they were there on the 4th of May.

Q. That man went to New Zealand?

A. He went to New Zealand; that is, he said he was going to New Zealand.

Q. You never saw him before or after that?

A. Never saw him before or after that.

Q. He came there and told you his name and said he was from Cleveland?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And asked you if you wanted to see any of the bombs they had been making?

A. Something to that effect.

Q. He left you these two iron bombs?

A. Yes sir, he left them.

Q. Both of them were percussion bombs?

A. Yes sir, I am not sure of that. I must say I never paid very much attention to them. I just had them there and took them and put them aside. I have shown them to a good many persons who came there, reporters and others.

Q. When did you get these two bombs? these czar bombs?

A. I never got these czar bombs. That is another invention of that reporter. I never said anything of the kind. These bombs were left one day, I believe with the book-keeper or with the office boy, I don't remember. When I came back from dinner, they were laying there on my desk, and I asked who had brought them there, and they said a man had been there to inquire whether these were bombs of a good construction, and the man never called for them, and I told the reporter too by the way.

Q. When was it the man left the bombs there, and inquired as to whether they were bombs of a good construction or not?

A. I think that is about a year and a half or two years ago.

Q. As long ago as that?

A. Yes sir.

Q. How long did you have them there in the office?

A. Ever since.

Q. What became of the other ones?

A. I suppose that was at the office at the time.

Q. Can you tell what became of the two iron bombs and the other czar bombs?

A. I cannot. I have not seen them for some time, but I thought they were at the office.

Q. Was the other bomb that was left at your office similar to this?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Did it have a detonating cap?

A. Yes sir.

Q. To be exploded in that way?

A. Yes, I suppose so.

Q. When was it you got the dynamite?

A. I got it about two years ago.

Q. From whom did you get it?

A. From the Aetna Powder Company.

Q. How much did you get?

A. Two of these bars.

Q. Why did you get that dynamite?

A. I got that dynamite to experiment with in the first place--that was my intention.

Q. Did you ever experiment with it?

A. I did not.

Q. Why did you want to experiment with it?

A. Oh, I thought --

Q. What object did you have in experimenting with the dynamite?

Objected to by defendant's counsel. Objection overruled. To which ruling of the court counsel for defendants then there excepted.

A. I had read a good deal about dynamite? I thought it would be a good thing to get acquainted with the use of it.

Q. Why would it be a good thing to get acquainted with the use of it?

A. Well, for general reasons.

Q. Could not you get acquainted with it enough for the use of your purposes by reading?

Defendant's counsel objected to the question as immaterial. The court overruled the objection; to which ruling of the court counsel for defendants then and there excepted.

A. I wanted to experiment with dynamite just the same as I would take a revolver and go out and practice with a revolver.

Q. Was that the only reason you had?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Just merely from curiosity?

A. No, I cannot say it was merely curiosity. I don't want to say that exactly.

Q. Then what was it, if it was not merely curiosity?

A. I think I have explained sufficiently.

Q. Can you give any further explanation than you have given?

A. No, I don't see as I could.

Q. Why did you get the caps and the fuse?

A. Simply because I would need them to experiment with.

Q. Did you ever experiment with them?

A. I did not.

Q. Did you know of experiments being made with dynamite?

Objected to.

THE COURT: If he was present, it would be competent.

Mr. BLACK: We asked nothing upon that subject.

Mr. INGHAM: Q. Were you ever present at any time when experiments were made with dynamite.

Objected to. Objection overruled and exception.

A. No, I guess not.

Q. Do you know whether you were or not?

A. I was not to the best of my recollection.

Q. Weren't you at Sheffield when experiments were made there with dynamite?

A. No sir.

Q. Were you ever at any place when experiments were being made with dynamite?

Objected to as not proper cross examination.

THE COURT: I suppose that question has been answered.

Mr. BLACK: It has been answered three times within five minutes.

Mr. INGHAM: Q. Was dynamite ever distributed through the Arbeiter Zeitung office?

A. Through the Arbeiter Zeitung office dynamite?

Q. Yes sir.

A. No sir, we have not kept a store for the distribution of explosives.

Q. Were bombs ever distributed through the Arbeiter Zeitung office?

A. No sir.

Q. Didn't you tell Wilkinson the reporter that they were?

Objected to.

A. I did not.

Q. Were you a member of the bureau of information?

A. I was.

Q. What was your address while you were a member of that bureau?

A. Well, letters were generally addressed to 107 5th Ave.

Q. How long were you a member of the bureau of information?

A. I think for three years.

Q. What years were those?

A. The last three years.

Q. Were you a member of the bureau of information up to the time of your arrest?

A. Yes sir.

Q. How long have you been a socialist?

A. That is very hard to say. Socialism is the result of process of intellectual activity. My thoughts may have been going that way when I was a child, but I have considered myself a socialist for about ten or eleven years.

Q. How long have you considered yourself an anarchist?

A. I have considered myself an anarchist for about eight years.

Q. Ever since you have been editor of the Zeitung at any rate?

A. Before that.

Q. Were you a member of any group of the International?

A. If I am not mistaken I was a member of the American group--I don't know.

Q. You know?

A. I had a card once.

Q. When did you have a card in the American?

A. I got the card at the time when the American group was organized I cannot say whether I was a good standing member for the last year or so.

Q. Were you in the habit of making speeches at the meetings of the American Group?

THE COURT: Has there been anything in the examination in chief about that?

Mr. INGHAM: He asked him if he was a member of any group.

Mr. FOSTER: We asked him if he was a member of any armed section.

THE COURT: You asked whether he was a member of any armed section or any armed force, and he said he had not been for the last six years.

THE WITNESS: For six years I said.

Mr. INGHAM: Certainly the examination in chief has been broad enough to permit us to go into anything relating to his connection with the co-defendants.

Mr. BLACK:: We do not think so unless the gentleman can say that this matter comes within some subject touched upon in the direct examination, it seems to me it should be excluded.

Mr. GRINNELL: It seems to me that everything relating to the defendants can be gone into, directly or indirectly.

MR. BLACK: I do not object to their bringing out the fact of his being a member of the American Group, although I think I might have objected to that, but having gone on and asked whether he made speeches to the American group, that is totally foreign to the direct examination. We asked him as to speeches made at McCormick's, on the black road, and about his speeches on the night previous.

THE COURT: I rather think that this comes within the same rule that I laid down. If I remember rightly on the direct examination you had him testify that he had been editor of the Arbeiter Zeitung for the last six years, and that he published it, and that whatever he did was under the general direction of the publishing society. Now, if you go into apart of the occupations in which a man was engaged or that length of time then are they not entitled to go into the residue?

Mr. BLACK: It seems to me not in a case like this, where as part of the original case, they went into the subject matter. They went into the matter of the speeches made by Mr. Spies on various occasions. We have not in our view of the case thought it was necessary or desirable to go into that at all. We have left it precisely where the State left it. In examining this defendant we have simply asked him as to his speeches at the black road and on the night of May 4th, and we have asked him in a general way as to his relations to the Arbeiter Zeitung, the nature of his employment. We did not ask him at all as to whether they ordered him to put in this editorial or leave out that, or attempt to control or direct his editorial action--it was simply as to the general policy of the paper. Now, how can that lay the proper foundation to ask him first: "Were you a member of any group?" and then: "What group did you ever make speeches in?" Have we asked anything about any speeches that he made in any group?

THE COURT: No. Whether it is proper cross examination or not, don't depend at all upon what side of the case the witness is examined on. The cross examination of a witness depends entirely upon the direct examination, and the relation of the witness. Now here, you have given in a very brief, general way, in the examination in chief, what the general business and course of life of this defendant was for six years. I think that opens the door to them to find out what other occupations he has had which has taken any considerable portion of his time. The question is now whether upon that examination in chief as to the general course of life of the witness for the last six years, as editor of this paper, whether they are entitled on the cross examination to show that a considerable portion of that time was occupied with other things than the mere editing of a paper. There is another aspect of it. The Arbeiter Zeitung has some of it been put in evidence. You have had the witness state that the policy and general direction of the paper was controlled by the trustees or committee. Now, whether its course, the course of the paper was in accordance with his individual inclination or opposed to it is a matter therefore which they have a right to do.

Mr. BLACK: Let them ask him that question. That is the short cut to get at that.

THE COURT: On cross examination it is not the course with any one to leave the summing up with the witness.

Mr. INGHAM: One of the charges in this case is that this defendant was a party to a conspiracy.

MR. FOSTER: You don't charge that.

MR. INGHAM: We charge he was a party to a conspiracy which end in murder.

MR. BLACK: There is no charge of that character in this indictment.

THE COURT: I think you can go into what he has done.

Defendant's counsel then and there excepted to the ruling of the Court.

(The question objected to was repeated in the following form:)

MR. INGHAM: Q. Did you address meetings of the American group?

A. I delivered two or three lectures there, yes sir.

Q. About how long ago?

A. Oh, I couldn't tell.

Q. Have you addressed meetings on the Lake front?

Objected to. Objection overruled. Exception by counsel for defendants.

A. Occasionally.

Q. About how often?

A. I couldn't say.

Q. Have you addressed socialistic or anarchistic meetings at other places in this City?

A. I have addressed workingmen's meetings. They were never composed solely of anarchists or socialists.

Q. Have you addressed meetings composed chiefly of anarchists or socialists?

A. That I cannot tell.

Q. Have you not addressed meetings frequently at different places in this city whose object was the agitation of principle of socialism and anarchy?

A. I have.

Q. About how often?

A. Oh, very often.

Q. Have you not addressed meetings at different places throughout the country in the interests of socialism?

A. I have.

Q. And anarchism?

A. I have.

Q. Can you tell how much of your time was occupied in that?

A. In the city or outside of the city?

Q. Do you know of Fischer ever having addressed any meetings?

A. You didn't answer my question, in the city or outside?

Q. Out of the city?

A. I haven't been out many times.

Q. About how many times during the year would you get out of the city on those tours?

A. Probably I would receive invitations very often but could not go out--about twice a year perhaps.

Q. Didn't you go oftener than twice a year?

A. I don't think I ever have.

Q. At different places out of the City?

A. I don't think I have been out oftener than twice a year.

Q. Did you have anything to do with the handling of dynamite, or distribution of dynamite or bombs except the dynamite about which you have testified?

A. I have answered that I never handled dynamite outside of this.

Q. Did you ever have anything to do with the distribution of dynamite?

A. No sir.

Q. Do you know Herr Most?

A. I do.

Q. How long have you known him?

Objected to. Objection ovverruled. Exception by counsel for defendants.

A. I guess three years.

Q. Look at the letter which I now show you?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Who is that from?

A. That is from--

Q. Most?

A. Herr Most.

THE COURT: I think I must have been mistaken in saying that Fricke testified that the composition of the work of the Alarm was done in the Arbeiter Zeitung. Office. He says at one place it was at 107 5th Ave; in the Arbeiter Zeitung building, and I guess it is not stated where the type was set up.

Mr. INGHAM: Q. When did you receive that letter?

A. I think I will read this. (Witness read letter)

Q. Did you answer that?

A. I can't remember. I do not know.

Q. How long have you been in correspondence with Most?

Objected to as not proper cross examination.

Q. In whose hand writing is that postal card (showing witness postal card)?

Objected to any inquiry regarding the postal card.

THE COURT: The witness in his examination in chief testified that he frequently addressed labor organizations, whether that was in the interest of the laborer, or whether it was a stepping stone towards a course to overturn society-whether he was in good faith endeavoring to shorten the hours, of labor or whether the real object was beyond is admissable.

Mr. BLACK: On cross examination he has stated that he frequently addressed labor organizations. He said about the 4th of May he had been frequently addressing labor organizations, the result of which was he was very much excited and for that reason he did not propose to make a long speech.

THE COURT: But there was more than that if I remember. He said there was a difficulty about remembering what he said because he had made so many speeches, and the same thing as to Parsons--that there was a difficulty in determining as to what was said on a particular occasion, because there was so many.

Mr. SALOMON: That was as to remembering what Parsons said on the night of May 4th.

THE COURT: Not Parsons himself, but what he himself said.

Mr. ZEISLER: He never said that.

THE COURT: At any rate in his examination in chief in some form it did appear that he had been making a great many speeches, to labor organizations.

Mr. BLACK: These letters are letters that go back to 1884


MR. GRINNELL: The comtext of the letter would show that it was 1884.

Mr. BLACK: There is no doubt about it being 1884.

THE COURT: Yes, I think the examination as to those papers is admissable.

Defendant's counsel then and there excepted to the ruling of the court.

(The question was read to the witness as follows:)

Q. In whose handwriting is that postal card?

THE COURT: What has been done about the postal card?

Mr. INGHAM: Nothing.

THE COURT: Has he been asked whether he received it?


THE WITNESS: It is Most's handwriting.

Mr. INGHAM: Q. Did you receive it?

A. I suppose I did. I see my address on it.

Q. Don't you know whether you did or not?

A. I do not.

Q. Don't you remember having read it?

A. I do not.

Q. Do you remember this letter?

A. I don't remember at this date, no.

Q. You can't remember now whether you ever read it or not, Don't you know you got this letter?

A. I do not. I suppose I did. It is addressed to me I see.

Q. Will you swear that you have no recollection of having received that letter?

Objected to.

A. I suppose I did receive that letter.

Q. Don't you know you received it?

A. It seems to me I did.

Q. Don't you know you did, Mr. Spies? Can't you tell from reading the contents over that you read it before?

A. No, I can't tell from that.

Q. Read the request that it made to you, and state whether you can't tell whether you received that letter?

Objected to.

THE COURT: By looking at the contents he can see whether it refreshes his memory.

THE WITNESS: I don't remember the contents of that letter.

Mr. INGHAM: I didn't ask you if you remembered the contents. Don't you remember receiving that letter and read it.

A. Most likely -- undoubtedly I have received and read it, but I don't recollect at this date the contents of it or anything relating to it.

Q. That was not the question about the contents of it. Read the letter over.

A. I have read it.

Q. Do you remember whether you answered it or not?

A. I don't know whether I did or not.

Q. How long have you carried on correspondence with Most?

A. I never carried on any correspondence with Most.

Q. How lately have you written to him?

Objected to. Objection sustained.

Q. Do you remember whether you answered the postal card or not?

A. No sir.

Q. Do you remember whether you ever said anything or wrote anything to Most in regard to the inquiries made of you in this letter?

A. I do not.

Q. Do you remember whether you ever gave him the directions where to ship the material mentioned in the letter or not?

A. I do not. I know positively I did not give him the directions. There may have been a letter addressed in my care which I may have sent to him, but I know absolutely nothing outside of that.

Q. What do you mean by the words or the phrase "The social Revolution" Which occurs frequently in your writings in the Arbeiter Zeitung?

Objected to.

THE COURT: You will have to put in the articles first and call attention to it.

Mr. INGHAM: It occurs frequently.

Mr. BLACK: We do not object to his asking the question as to the general significance of it.

THE WITNESS: The social revolution is the evolutionary process or changes which take place in society which change one system to another.

Q. You meant, did you not a change from a system of wages to some other system?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Doing away with the wage system?

A. Exactly, in this particular application I did.

Q. A change entirely of the present relations between labor and capital?

A. Yes sir.

Q. The doing away with private property or private capital?

A. That is a question that we might have a discussion on.

Q. Isn't that what you meant by it---the doing away with private capital?

A. The doing away with the spoliation of labor, making the worker the owner of his own product. That is what I mean by the abolition of the wage system.

Q. What time were you invited to go to the Haymarket meeting first?

A. At nine o'clock on Tuesday.

Q. Who invited you at that time?

A. Mr. Fischer invited me.

Q. Was that the time you said you would not go if the phrase "workingmen appear in full arms" was issued in the circular, or contained in the circular?

A. No sir.

Q. When was it you said that?

MR. BLACK: You havn't got anywhere near the phrase. The phrase should be "workingmen, arm yourselves and appear in full force."

MR. INGHAM: Q. When was it that you objected to that appearing in the circular?

A. It was about as much as, as far as I can remember, 11 o'clock. It may have been shortly before eleven.

Q. Why did you object to that phrase?

A. Because I thought it was ridiculous to put a phrase like that in a circular. It would prevent people from attending the meeting in the first place, and in the second place, I didn't think it was a proper thing to do.

Q. Why was it not proper in your opinion?

A. For various reasons.

Q. What were the reasons?

A. One of the reasons I have already stated. Another reason is that there was at the time some excitement at least, even though it was not very great, and a call for arms like that might not have been just the thing at the time.

Q. Why not?

A. It may have caused trouble.

Q. Trouble between whom?

A. It might have caused trouble between the police and the attendants of that meeting.

Q. You wanted it stricken out so as to prevent trouble between the police and the people at the meeting---that was one of the reasons?

A. I didn't anticipate anything of the kind, but I thought it was not a proper thing to do. The main reason, the principal reason I had was, that it would simply keep people away from the Haymarket.

Q. That was your main reason?

A. That was my principal reason.

Q. Is not that the only reason?

A. I have stated it is not the only reason.

Q. You wrote the revenge circular?

A. I did.

Q. Everything except the word "revenge"?

A. Yes sir:

Q. Workingmen to arms" you wrote?

A. I did, yes sir.

Q. Did you think that was proper when you wrote it?

A. When I wrote it I thought it was proper, yes. I don't think so now.

Q. Why did you write that circular?

A. I wanted to arouse the working people not to submit to such a brutal treatment.

Q. What did you want to accomplish by it---what did you expect the working people to do?

A. I wanted them not to attend the meetings under such circumstances unless they could resist themselves.

Q. Did you say anything here about their not attending meetings?

A. I didn't say anything of the kind.

Q. Then what did you expect to accomplish when you wrote that circular?

A. I wanted to arouse that mass of working people who are stupid and are ignorant, and who will run and be shot down as they had at McCormick's on the previous day. I wanted to warn them to go into a conflict with the police like that.

Q. You wanted to warn them to do what---what did you want them to do?

A. A. What did I want them to do?

Q. Yes sir, what did you expect by this circular to incite them to do?

A. I didn't want them to do anything in particular. I wanted them to be conscious of the condition that they were in.

Q. Did you want them to do anything?

A. I did not.

Q. Why did you appeal to them then to arm themselves?

A. That is a phrase probably an extravagance.

Q. Didn't you intend that they should arm themselves?

A. I did.

Q. You published that circular for the purpose of arousing the workingmen of this city so they should arm themselves in order to resist the police, if the police should appear against them?

A. I have called upon the workingmen for years and years, and before me others had done the same thing to arm themselves, and they have a right, under the Constitution, to arm themselves, and it would be well for them if they were all armed.

Q. You called on them to arm themselves for the purpose of resisting the lawfully constituted authorities of this city and county in case they should meet with opposition from them did you not?

Objected to; objection withdrawn.

A. No sir, I did not.

Q. You did call on them to arm themselves so as to resist the police?

A. The unlawful attacks of the police or any other organization.

Q. You did call on them to arm themselves to resist the police, in case the police should interfere with them?

Objected to.

MR. BLACK: The circular speaks for itself.

MR. INGHAM: Q. Have you not urged the workingmen of this county time and time and time again in your speeches, and in your editorials, to, arm themselves in order to bring about a social revolution?

A. I have not.

Q. You are positive of that?

A. I am positive of that.

Q. Have you not published articles in your paper time and time again calling upon the workingmen to arm themselves with every means known to modern science in order to bring about the social revolution when the time comes?

A. You must separate your questions so I can answer them.

Q. Have you not, done that in your published speeches?

A. Done what?

Q. Called upon workingmen to arm themselves?

A. Stop there and I will answer you?

Q. In order that they might bring about a social revolution?

A. Well, I will have to explain. I have called upon the workingmen to arm themselves, to resist any unconstitutional and unlawful demands of any organization, whether that be police, militia or any other.

Q. Have you not called on them to arm themselves in order to over-throw the lawful authority of the country?

A. I have not.

Q. And in order to change it into a socialistic system?

THE COURT: That question is not competent. I don't say whether in print or orally.

MR. INGHAM: Q. Look at the first editorial in the issue of April 21st 1886 of the Arbeiter Zeitung. Were you the editor of the paper at the time that was published (shows witness paper)?

A. I had not written that article.

Q. Who did write it?

A. I don'T know.

Q. Were you the editor of the paper at the time it was published?

A. Yes.

MR. BLACK: You mean you were one of the editors?

A. I was one of the editors, yes sir.

MR. INGHAM: We offer the letter in evidence, the letter referred to as Most's letter.

MR. FOSTER: There is no evidence that he ever answered the letter--no evidence that he subscribed to the contents of it.

THE COURT: I think there are multitudes of examples of the admission of such evidence as that in similar cases.

MR. FOSTER: Upon what ground or upon what rules of evidence. I will put a strong case---one of course that is only important by reason of analogy. Suppose your Honor

should be indicted for being a conspirator, or an assistant in a burglary, and upon the trial it should be shown that you had received letters that bore directly upon the offense, but there was no testimony whatever that you had ever answered the letters or that you had ever had any communication or anything of the kind, could your Honor hold that the letters were admissible?

THE COURT: Where a particular crime is charged, and there is correspondence found in the possession of the defendant, having no relation to that crime, the mere fact of the posession of the correspondence is admissible. How much consequence is to be attached to it depends upon a variety of circumstances to be determined by the party trying the case.

MR. FOSTER: I would like to see a case somewhere.

MR. GRINNELL: Use a little reason and sense on the admissibility of this letter. It appears that this letter is in the writing of Johann Most. The testimony in proof here is that he is the editor of a paper called the Freiheit. Translations from the Freheit are in the Alarm. Also in the Arbeiter Zeitung. It also appears in truth that Johann Most is the editor or writer of a book called the "Science of "modern warfare, or revolutionary war." It appears this letter is in the hand writing of Most.

MR. FOSTER: It does not pertain to the issue we are trying. Suppose Herr Most wrote you a letter.

MR. GRINNELL: He won't do that.

THE WITNESS: You don't produce the letters in evidence that Mr. Furthman wrote me.

MR. FOSTER: Never mind.

THE COURT: "Letters and papers found in the custody of a person indicted for high treason may be read on his trial to prove any overt action of rebellion, though not themselves any part of the overt act on which the Crown intends to reply. Letters which have never been in the possession of the defendant cannot be admissible in evidence against him."

MR. BLACK: There is no evidence in this case that the letter was found in his possession.

THE COURT: He says he received it.

MR. SALOMON: If your Honor please, before finally passing upon the question, we would like to have an opportunity to look up the law and see whether this letter should be admitted.

THE COURT: There isn't any doubt about it. Letters addressed to a person and received by him and not destroyed are admissible if they relate to the subject matter that is under investigation. How much weight is to be attached to them depends on a great variety of circumstances. Read your translation.

Defendant's counsel then and there excepted to the ruling of the Court.

Haymarket Trial Homepage