The Haymarket Story and judge Joseph E. Gary
by
Curtis F. Hamilton
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Arts
in the
Department of History
YOUNGSTOWN STATE UNIVERSITY
(August, 2000)
The Haymarket Story andJudge Joseph E. Gary
Curtis F. Hamilton
I hereby release this thesis to the public. I understand this thesis will be housed at
the Circulation Desk of the University Ubrary and will be available for public access.
I also authorize the University and other individuals to make copies of this thesis as
needed for scholarly research.
Signature: (!i 9,JtJ?
Curtis F. Hamilton, Student
?~J ;2N7J
Date
Approvals:
~.~ ~~ 'l I~Uy4=~)c~)
Martha Pallante, Thesis Advisor -------. " Date
Thomas Leary, Committ
? A JGUsiJ.,aci)
Date
ABSTRACT
On May 4, 1886 a group of anarchists organized a meeting
at Haymarket Square in Chicago, Illinois to protest police
shootings of strikers the day before. As Samuel Fielden was
concluding his speech, Chicago Police Officers arrived and
ordered the anarchists to end the meeting. As Fielden
stepped down from the speakers stand a bomb was hurled into
the ranks of officers and a riot ensued in which several
police officers and civilians were killed. Although the
bombthrower was never identified, eight anarchists were put
on trial and found guilty of the murder of Chicago Police
Officer Mathias J. Degan.
Given their political views it would have been difficult
for them to receive a fair trial anywhere in the United
States. The media convicted them in print long before the
trial began and inflamed the passions and prejudices of the
public. Even the American court system was conservative and
reflected the views of the press and public. Yet, Judge
Joseph E. Gary was especially prejudicial throughout the
trial. This study has investigated the objectivity in the
trial of the eight anarchists with and emphasis on the role
of trial Judge Joseph E. Gary. The question, "What rulings
did Judge Joseph E. Gary make during the trial that
contributed to the guilty verdicts and harsh sentences passed
upon the eight anarchists?", has been answered.
iii
On May 4, 1886 the labor movement in the United States
was dealt a major blow when the Haymarket Square Riot rocked
not only the city of Chicago, but the entire country. The
effects of this riot were far-reaching. It spelled the
downfall of the largest and most successful labor union of
the day, the Knights of Labor, which lost membership as one
of the men blamed for the riot was a member of the union.
Indeed, union membership in general declined following the
Haymarket riot. What was, perhaps, the most disturbing
effect of the Haymarket Square Riot, however, was the gross
lack of respect for the First and Forth Amendment rights of
those accused of instigating the riot. The accused, as well
as others, had their bodies and homes searched without
warrant or concern for any of their civil rights. The public
also displayed this lack of tolerance immediately following
the bombing, which was fueled by a hypocritical press that
refused to acknowledge that the accused should have enjoyed
the same freedoms enjoyed by these mainstream newspapers.
Undoubtedly the most serious injustice associated with this
incident was the lack of objectivity and overall justice
given to the eight defendants in the trial that followed the
Haymarket riot.
The following year, in 1887, the state of Illinois put
1
eight men on trial for the murder of Chicago police officer
Mathias J. Degan, the only law officer killed exclusively by
bomb fragments. That these eight men were anarchists,
socialists, labor leaders or all of the above should have had
nothing to do with their guilt or innocence.' These facts
about the background of the accused, however, proved to be of
paramount importance and were the basis for their conviction.
Legal procedure dictated then, as it does now, that facts not
directly related to the case at hand be excluded from
testimony. Yet, for the eight Chicago anarchists speeches
and newspaper articles only remotely associated with the May
forth incident were allowed in the courtroom. Ultimately, a
packed jury convicted August Spies, Albert R. Parsons, Louis
Lingg, Adolph Fischer, George Engel, Oscar Neebe, Samuel
Fielden, and Michael Schwab of the murder of Degan on the
basis of their political views.
Little or nothing could have been done in 1886 about the
passions and prejudices harbored deep in the public's minds,
homes, and private lives. Perhaps even less could have been
done to curb or correct the sad manner in which the press
attacked the anarchists for exercising the same freedom of
speech and press it enjoyed. However, it was then, as it is
now, the responsibility of the justice system to guarantee
that these passions and prejudices do not carryover into the
courtroom. When all else fails, it is the responsibility of
1 During the trial the prosecution described the defendants as anarchists, socialists, and
communists without specifying the difference between the three terms.
2
the trial judge to take all reasonable measures to ensure
that the accused in any trial receive a fair and unbiased
trial by a jury of their peers.
The purpose of this work is to give readers an
introduction to the events that led to the Haymarket Square
Riot, the gross lack of tolerance for the rights of the
accused following the riot, and an examination of the trial
of the eight anarchists in 1887. The focus of this
examination will be the courtroom behavior of trial Judge
Joseph Easton Gary, specifically his decisions regarding jury
selection, his bias in favor of the prosecutions during
arguments, and his charge to the jury before deliberations.
The main point to be examined here is the objectivity or lack
thereof displayed by trial Judge Joseph E. Gary in the
Haymarket trial of 1887.
In order to get a well-rounded and detailed view of the
May forth incident at Haymarket Square, several secondary
sources have been consulted.2 The main primary source is A
Concise History of the Great Trial of the Chicago Anarchists
in 1886 by Dyer D. Lum. 3 Lum was present at the trial and
and in his book gave a chronological description of the trial
and the testimony and evidence presented by both the
prosecution and the defense. Several other primary sources
2 Paul Avrich, The Haymarket Tragedy (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press,
1984).
Henry David, The History of the Haymarket Affair: A Study in the American Social-Revolutionary
and Labor Movements (New York: Russell and Russell, 1936).
3 Dyer D. Lum, A Concise History of the Great Trial of the Chicago Anarchists in 1886 (Chicago,
Illinois: Socialistic Publishing Company, 1887) reprinted in Fogelson and Rubenstein, Mass
Violence in America (New York: Arno Press and the New York Times, 1969).
3
have been consulted to cross-reference and supplement A
Concise History, including Michael Schaack's Anarchy and
Anarchists, Sigmund Zeisler's Reminiscences of the Anarchist
Case, The Famous Speeches of the Eight Chicago Anarchists in
Court, and The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs. 4
Prior to understanding the tensions that existed in
Chicago during the days and months leading up to May of 1886,
one must first look at the development of and the
relationship between two key groups of the 1880s, the
International Working People's Association and the push for
an eight hour workday.' Socialist leaders created the
I.W.P.A. out of several socialistic splinter groups during a
conference held in Pittsburgh in October of 1883, which was a
radical leftist group that called for the overthrow of the
capitalist system and included all eight of the defendants as
members. The objectives of the association can by
summarized by a partial listing of what was called the
"Pittsburgh Manifestou :
First: Destruction of the existing class rule, by all
means, i.e., by energetic, relentless, revolutionary and
international action.
Second: Establishment of a free society based upon co 
operative organization of production..
"Michael J. Schaack, Anarchy and Anarchists (Chicago, Illinois: F. J. Schulte, 1889) reprinted in
Grob, Billington, Glazer and Horowitz. Anti-Movements in America (New York: Arno Press and The
New York Times, 1977)
Sigmund Zeisler, Reminiscences of the Anarchist Case. (Chicago, Illinois: Chicago Literary Club,
1927)
Lucy E. Parsons, The Famous Speeches of the Eight Chicago Anarchists in Court (Chicago,
Illinois: Socialistic Printing Company, 1887) reprinted in Fogelson and Rubenstein, Mass
Violence in America (New York: Arno Press and the New York Times, 1969).
The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs ed. Philip S. Foner (New York: Humanities Press.
1969)
5 Hereafter the International Working People's Association will be referred to as the I.W.PA
4
Third: Free exchange of equivalent products by and
between the productive organizations without commerce
and profit-mongery.'
The writers of the "Pittsburgh Manifesto" intentionally
modeled their charge after Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto.
This similarity threatened business owners, capitalists, and
especially law enforcement agencies. It was also, however,
far too extreme to attract the widespread support of most
labor groups.
Regardless, the enrollment of the I.W.P.A. expanded
between its creation in Pittsburgh and the Haymarket bombing.
Membership rose from about two thousand in late 1883 to about
five thousand in early 1886. Groups existed in fifty cities
nationwide, concentrated, however, in Midwestern cities such
as Chicago.? Two things led to this substantial increase in
the membership of such a radical organization. First, the
economy of the united States fell into a harsh depression
from 1883 into 1886. These hard times proved to be the
impetus for increased enrollment in virtually all labor
groups from the moderate Knights of Labor to far more radical
groups such as the I.W.P.A. In addition, given the limited
success that was achieved by moderate labor unions such as
the Knights of Labor, frustration set in for some members
leading them to look to more radical groups such as the
LW.P.A.
In addition, the I.W.P.A. did not attempt to remain an
6 Avrich, 75.
7 Ibid., 83.
5
underground organization hiding in fear of the authorities.
The association actively promoted the acquisition of new
members by hosting rallys, picnics, and, especially,
pamphletering and advertising in numerous newspapers printed
in several languages throughout the country. In Chicago,
August Spies edited the Arbeiter-Zeitung, printed in German,
while Albert Parsons edited The Alarm, an anarchist newspaper
printed in English. Their inflammatory editorials which
attempted to recruit new anarchists proved to be of much use
for the prosecution during the trial. Spies and Parsons were
perhaps the two foremost leaders of anarchism in Chicago.
Due to their active and public role in leading the charge of
anarchism, they were the focus of much attention during the
months preceding the Haymarket explosion.
The second development to focus on in order to
understand the cause of the May forth bombing was the
development of the movement for an eight-hour workday.
Although the demand for an eight-hour day was not new to the
labor movement, it was revived with vigor during the
depression-filled years between 1883 and 1886 where, in
Chicago alone, 34,000 men lost their jobs." The Chicago
anarchists and the I.W.P.A., in general, had nothing to do
with the inception of this movement. In fact, the I.W.P.A.
initially ignored, and even condemned, those who sought such
a petty goal such as an eight-hour workday. The association
disregarded this goal because it believed that an eight-hour
8 Avrich, 79.
6
workday was little more than a compromise with an enemy that
promulgated the economic system it wanted to abolish.
Regardless of the lack of support from the I.W.P.A. the
eight-hour movement attracted a great following. However,
due to the support it developed, and the I.W.P.A.'s desire
not to be left out of a potentially controversial and
volatile movement, the association chose to back the eight 
hour movement prior to the beginning of 1886. The I.W.P.A.
decided that the eight-hour movement could be a stepping 
stone towards revolution, so it encouraged workers to join
the movement, and at the same time, to arm themselves and
prepare for the impending revolution.
The leaders of the eight-hour movement set May 1, 1886
as the date that an eight-hour workday would go into effect
nationwide. If business leaders and capitalists refused to
acknowledge this date, massive strikes and demonstrations
would support the plight of the worker. With the vocal
anarchists behind the already controversial eight-hour
movement, the stage was set for Haymarket as the first of May
arrived.9
As April turned into May, workers, anarchists, and the
authorities readied for the possibility of an explosive
development. As expected, management and capitalists
nationwide refused to accept the demand of an eight-hour day,
and on May 1, 1886, a Saturday, 40,000 workers walked off the
9 Avrich, 79-98.
7
job in Chicago, as well as another 300,000 nationwide. 1o The
first two days of May passed, however, without incident, due
to the fact that it was a weekend. Conflict began, however,
on Monday, May 3, 1886.
McCormick's Harvester Works Company was the site of
previous labor troubles and this would be no exception.
Owner Cyrus H. McCormick Jr. was a staunch enemy of labor
unions and the labor movement in general. He was quick to
fire those who worked to unionize his factory workers and had
no problem placing them on a blacklist to be circulated
around Chicago. When the first of May arrived, he
immediately hired scab workers to replace the workers who had
walked off the job. On the following Monday, the striking
picketers awaited the scabs when the whistle blew to end the
workday. In addition to the picketers, this whistle
attracted the attendance of nearly two hundred more men who
had been listening to a nearby labor address delivered by
August Spies. As the scabs attempted to leave the factory,
the picketers pushed them back into the building, assailing
them with a barrage of stones and bricks. The police soon
arrived, and Spies who was able to witness the ensuing
battle. In their rage the strikers turned their stones and
bricks on the police who responded with clubs and then
pistols, firing into the crowd of strikers. At least two
strikers were killed, with many others injured.ll
10 Avrich, 75.
11 Ibid., 188-189.
8
After witnessing this melee, Spies hurried from the
confrontation at McCormick's to his office at the Arbeiter-
Zeitung where he drafted what would become known as the
"Revenge Circular".12 He printed one version in English and
another more inflammatory version in German. Regardless of
who inserted the word "revenge", the circular was a volatile
document. 13 The circular called for workingmen to arm
themselves and retaliate against the brutal actions of the
police at McCormick's. Spies also printed, and Adolph
Fischer distributed, thousands of leaflets calling for a
massive protest meeting at Haymarket Square on May 4 at 7:30
P.M. to protest and discuss the actions of the police at
MCCormick's.14
Given the tone of the "Revenge Circular" and the general
mood of the city, the police prepared to intervene should
trouble erupt at the Haymarket. Haymarket Square was a
location where Randolph Street widened between Desplaines and
Halsted Streets.15 It held approximately 20,000 people.
Spies put Fischer in charge of securing good speakers that
the leaflets promised. Spies himself agreed to speak and
Fischer worked furiously at the last moment to have Albert R.
Parsons and Samuel Fielden on hand as well.
The forth of May arrived with much anticipation for
12 It should be noted that it was Hermann Pudewa who inserted the word "revenge" into the
document. When Spies became aware of this, he immediately deleted the word "revenge",
believing that it would instigate conflict. However, many of the circulars had already been
distributed and the document took its name.
13 See Appendix A.
14 See Appendix B.
15 See Appendix C.
9
August Spies and his anarchist associates. The crowd, as
well as its speakers were, however, late. Spies arrived at
approximately 8:00 P.M., only to find the meeting had not yet
begun and only a disappointing two or three thousand in
attendance. 1 He where Parsons was and was told that he was
addressing another meeting a few blocks away. Spies sent
fellow anarchist Balthasar Rau to find his colleague and then
began the meeting by addressing the crowd from an empty wagon
which served as a speakers' stand.'!
Ironically, Spies began his speech by insisting that the
meeting had not been called to instigate a riot. Speaking in
English as opposed to his usual German, he said:
There seems to prevail the opinion in certain quarters
that this meeting has been called for the purpose of
inaugurating a riot, hence these warlike preparations on
the part of so-called law and order. This meeting has
not been called for any such purpose. The object of
this meeting is to explain the general situation of the
eight-hour movement and to throw light upon various
incidents in connection with it.18
The "warlike preparations" referred to the large contingent
of police officers located just south of the Haymarket at the
Desplaines Street Police Station. Chicago Mayor Carter H.
Harrison also took precautionary measures as he decided the
surest manner in which to keep track of the meeting's
proceedings was to be in attendance himself. Harrison made
no attempt to be inconspicuous throughout the meeting. A
16 Avrich, 201.
17 See Appendix C.
16 Lum, 35.38.
10
large man at over six feet and two hundred twenty pounds, he
mingled amongst the crowd constantly lighting and relighting
his cigar in order to attract more attention to himself.
At approximately 9:00 P.M. Balthasar Rau returned to the
Haymarket with Parsons and Fielden. Spies quickly brought
his address to a close and introduced Albert Parsons. His
speech, which lasted for close to an hour, was surprisingly
mild given the tense mood following the massive strike and
killings at McCormicks the previous day. His speech included
comments on his travels through Ohio and Pennsylvania to
deliver similar speeches and statistics regarding the plight
of the workingman. On one occasion, when he mentioned Jay
Gould, cries of "Hang him! Hang Him!/1 came from the crowd.
Parsons replied, /IKill Jay Gould, and like a jack-in-the-box
another or a hundred others like him will come up in his
place under the existing social conditions./1 He drew his
address to a close by reminding his audience that the answer
lay in socialism and, " ...the free association of the people
for the purposes of production and consumption. /119 This speech
was not nearly as inflammatory as one would think an
anarchist leader would deliver, given the tensions of the
day. Indeed, even Mayor Harrison remarked that he heard
nothing particularly inflammatory in Parsons's or any of the
other speeches he heard. Said Harrison, "There was no
suggestion made by either of the speakers for the immediate
use of force or violence toward any person that night; if
19 Avrich, 202-203.
11
there had been I should have dispersed them at once. "CO
As Parsons concluded his speech, Mayor Harrison slowly
made his way out of the crowd and left the meeting. From the
Haymarket he proceeded to the Desplaines Street Police
Station to speak with Inspector John Bonfield who had
assembled a force of police officers and reserves in case the
Haymarket meeting got out of control. The mayor informed
Bonfield that he had been at the meeting and found it to be
under control and felt that it was unlikely any trouble would
result. The inspector concurred, as he had been receiving
regular reports from agents sent to check on the meeting.
Although Harrison told his inspector it was safe to dismiss
his officers, Bonfield persuaded him to allow him to keep
them at the ready until the meeting had concluded. Leaving
it at that, Mayor Harrison retired to his horne for the
evening.
Parsons finished speaking at approximately 10:00 P.M.
and introduced Samuel Fielden as the final speaker. Shortly
after Fielden took the stand, the weather turned menacing.
Dark clouds rolled in from across Lake Michigan and the wind
grew stronger. Albert Parsons suggested that the meeting
should move to Zepf's Hall about a block away. Someone in
the crowd quickly pointed out that Zepf's was already in use
as the weather continued to worsen. Given the situation, and
the quickly diminishing crowd, Samuel Fielden announced he
would be brief and finish within a few minutes. His short
20 Lum, 111-112.
12
speech, however, would prove far more controversial and
damaging than either of the far longer speeches that preceded
his.
His rhetoric was, initially, similar to that of his two
predecessors. He spoke of how poorly the workingman was
being treated, that the rich controlled all means of
production, and argued that the ballot box and legislation
would never remedy the plight of workers. He then turned his
tongue on the police for their attacks on the strikers at
McCormick's the day before:
You have nothing more to do with the law except to lay
hands on it and throttle it until it makes its last
kick. It turns your brothers out on the wayside and has
degraded them until they have lost the last vestige of
humanity, and they are mere things and animals. Keep
your eye upon it, throttle it, kill it, stab it, do
everything you can to wound it, to impede its progress.21
With these words spoken, some of Inspector Bonfield's agents
hurried from the Haymarket to Desplaines Street Station to
inform Bonfield of the inflammatory language. The alarmed
inspector wasted no time. He called his officers out of the
station, formed them into skirmish lines, and marched them at
double-time across Randolph Street and into the midst of the
meeting.
When the police arrived, they found a greatly diminished
crowd that was already on the verge of breaking up due to bad
weather. "The meeting had been a more than ordinarily
peaceable one and had been getting smaller...there was not
21 Lum, 93-94.
13
more than two or three hundred...when the police arrived. ,,22
The police were under the command of Inspector John Bonfield
and Captain William Ward. Ward called out to an amazed
Samuel Fielden, "In the name of the people of the state of
Illinois, I command this meeting immediately and peaceably to
disperse. ,,23 "We are peaceable.", responded Fielden.24
After Captain Ward repeated his command Fielden stepped down
from the wagon along with Spies and others.
The speeches were now finished, but this evening would
not be remembered for the words that were spoken, but for the
dynamite bomb that was hurled into the ranks of police at the
very moment Samuel Fielden and August Spies stepped down from
the speakers' wagon. The bomb exploded with a tremendous
force and shook the entire Haymarket. It sounded like
artillery, many of those left in the crowd fell to the ground
from sheer instinct and some from the concussion caused by
the explosion itself. After a brief moment the police who
were still standing drew their weapons and began firing
indiscriminately into the crowd. Fielden was struck in the
knee by a bullet. August Spies, who initially mistook the
sound of the explosion for a police artillery attack, found a
revolver stuck in his back by a would-be assassin. His
brother Henry pulled the assailant's arm away just as the gun
fired. Spies barely escaped this attempted murder.
Albert Parsons, luckier than the others, had left the
22 Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs, 158.
23 David, 204.
24 Ibid.
14
Haymarket minutes earlier and heard the mayhem from a block
or two away. The police firing lasted only a few short
minutes, but surely seemed a lifetime for those caught in the
onslaught.
Mayor Harrison had scarcely returned home when he heard
shots being fired. He quickly redressed himself and hurried
back to see what had transpired during his absence. As he
approached the Haymarket it must have looked like a
battlefield. Bodies were strewn over the square and the
shrieks of those crying for help pierced the ears of those
left unharmed.
Once the dead and dying were attended to it was
determined that the police suffered sixty-seven casualties.
Of those, seven succumbed to their wounds and died within six
weeks. Included in this count were Officers Michael Sheehan,
John Barrett, George Muller, Nils Hanson, Thomas Redden,
Timothy Flavin, and Mathias J. Degan. 25
The paramount question, "How and from where were these
wounds inflicted?" was still left to be answered.
As historian Paul Avrich pointed out:
Sixty-seven casualties was a heavy toll. In most
instances, however, they had not been inflicted by the
bomb ...All or nearly all of the policemen who had
suffered bullet wounds had been shot by their fellow
officers and not by civilians in the crowd."2fi
Avrich argued that when one looks into the medical reports,
police casualty lists, newspaper accounts, and testimony at
25 Avrich, 208.
26 Ibid.
15
the subsequent trial, it becomes apparent that at least three
officers (Mueller, Barrett, and Sheehan) had simply been shot
to death. The others, with the exception of Degan, died from
a combination of bullet wounds and injuries inflicted by bomb
fragments.
While undoubtedly members of the crowd were armed,
medical reports sustained that those officers who did suffer
from bullet wounds were shot by their own men and not by
others lurking in the crowd. "Reliable witnesses testified
that all the pistol flashes came from the center of the
street, where the police were standing, and none from the
crowd. ,,27 Avrich also pointed out that there was a telegraph
pole riddled with bullets that came from the spot where the
police were standing. Mysteriously, the city removed the
pole the next day with no one quite sure of its whereabouts.28
One can conclude that it was the police who opened fire
and it was the police who caused the largest part of the
death and injury. The reasons for the deaths of the seven
police officers were adequately established with the
exception of Officer Degan. When the bomb exploded, Degan
was hit with a large piece of shrapnel that caused him to
bleed to death shortly after the riot. Of the seven officers
felled at the Haymarket, medical personnel could only
establish that Degan was killed exclusively by bomb
27 Avrich, 209.
28 Ibid, 208-209.
16
fragments.-9 Since Degan was the only officer to die as a
direct result of the bomb, his death was the only one the
anarchists were charged with.
In addition to the injured police officers, many
civilians also were killed or injured at Haymarket Square.
The number of civilians killed was never established by
officials, although Captain Michael J. Schaack said he felt
the number of civilians killed or wounded was,"...in excess
of that on the side of the police.,,30 The response of the
police was panic and outrage when the bomb exploded.
Lieutenant James Bowler instructed his men to, "Fire and kill
all you can. ,,31 In addition, Avrich reports that witnesses
claimed they saw Inspector Bonfield empty one revolver wildly
into the crowd, then take another gun from a fallen officer
and resume his firing. 32
This brings up the question of blame for the entire
incident. The question of the likelihood of a conspiracy
that included the eight defendants will be discussed later,
for now the question of general blame for the violence that
occurred will be addressed. The majority of responsibility
undoubtedly lay with the unidentified bombthrower. This
29 Although the report was that Mathias J. Degan was killed exclusively by bomb fragments, Paul
Avrich points out that one medical examiner reported that Degan also suffered from bullet
wounds. This is obviously troubling to Avrich as he questions how Degan could have suffered
bullet wounds if he was immediately struck down by fragments from the bomb. Regardless, it was
reported that Degan's death was caused exclusively by the bomb and the search began for the
man's murderer.
30 Schaack, 155.
31 George McLean, Rise and Fall of Anarchy in America (Chicago: R. G. Badoux and Company,
1888), 18.
32 Avrich, 209.
17
person made the conscious decision to throw a dynamite bomb.
The weapon was then brought to the meeting to be used for
just that purpose. The perpetrator then made the conscious
decision to light the fuse on the bomb and heave it into the
ranks of police.
However, under exactly what circumstances did the
bombthrower intend to use his deadly weapon? One would
assume that had the police not arrived on the evening of May
forth, the bombthrower would not have thrown his explosive
into the rapidly decreasing number of people attending the
meeting. Given this assumption, one must question whether or
not it was necessary for Inspector Bonfield to send in his
officers to break up this meeting. Indeed, the vast majority
of opinions and testimony point to a peaceful meeting that
would have concluded on its own had the police not appeared
at the Haymarket.
Certainly, some blame for the incident must also lay
with Inspector John Bonfield. He organized the contingent of
police at the Desplaines Street Station and even after Mayor
Harrison told him the Haymarket meeting was peaceful, he
hurried his officers into the square to break up the meeting.
Indeed, some responsibility lies with the Inspector. As
obvious a choice as Inspector Bonfield appears, several of
the actual defendants viewed him as a mere patsy or
scapegoat. Their conclusion was that higher authorities
instructed him to strike a blow against the workingman.
18
Several of the anarchists argued a conspiracy theory of their
own: that the capitalist businessmen and police were working
together and waiting for an opportunity to present itself at
the Haymarket. According to this theory, the throwing of the
bomb simply enhanced the effectiveness of the their plan as
anarchists and labor unions could conveniently be blamed for
the deaths at the meeting. Albert Parsons argued that
Bonfield only, ". ..obeyed what he knew to be the express
desire of his masters, the money kings, who want to suppress
free speech, free press, and the right of workingmen to
assemble to discuss their grievances. ,,33 Although Parsons and
several of his colleagues believed Bonfield was instructed to
break up the meeting to strike a blow at the labor movement,
no evidence to these ends was ever produced.
It is certain that without police presence, the
bombthrower would not have had a target at which to throw his
bomb. Inspector John Bonfield made the decision to send his
officers to the quickly ending meeting. Had the crowd
actually reached the point where it was necessary for the
police demand that it end at once? By virtually all accounts
the meeting was peaceable and in the process of breaking up
on its own. Perhaps the most noteworthy statement of the
meeting's composure was that of Mayor Carter H. Harrison.
Chicago's mayor had a reputation as a honorable and fair
civil servant. He was very popular.34 Harrison testified that
33 Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs, 51-52. Statements such as this are echoed
throughout the several autobiographies of the anarchists.
34 Avrich, 211.
19
he arrived at the Haymarket before the meeting began and
stayed until between 10:00 and 10:15 P.M. When asked as to
the tone of the speeches said, "With the exception of an
earlier part of Mr. Spies address ...it was such that I
remarked to Captain Bonfield that it was tame. nJ5 He went on
to explain under oath that he heard no ".. . suggestion
made ...toward the immediate use of force or violence toward
any person,n and that when he left the meeting it appeared
that Samuel Fielden was preparing to close his speech. 36
Although the anarchists had no worse enemy following the
riot, even some newspaper accounts pointed to inappropriate
police action and especially to Inspector John Bonfield.
Perhaps most striking is that it was an unknown police
official who remarked, "There was a blunder on the part of
the man who commanded the police on the night of the
Haymarket murders, or this fearful slaughter would not have
occurred. Bonfield made the blunder, and he is held
responsible for its effects by every man injured there.n37
35 Lum, 30
3e Ibid.
37 Chicago Tribune, June 27, 1886.
20
~. ~e Press, Tbe Police, and Tbe
Prosecution Prepare Their Cases
News of what had happened at the Haymarket immediately
provoked panic and hysteria in Chicago as well as throughout
the nation. The nation's largest newspaper, The New York
Times, quickly passed judgment on the anarchists as its front
page referred to, "Anarchy's Red Hand" striking in Chicago. 1
Chicagoans were terrified that the Haymarket bomb was only
the first of many that the horrible anarchists planned to
throw. Rumors that the anarchists had planted bombs
elsewhere and planned to overthrow the law engulfed the city.
A fear of subversion, and radicalism, in general swept
through the population without regard for class, status, or
social position. Businessmen and workers alike condemned the
anarchists for what had happened and began demanding justice.
Individuals who had been suspicious of anarchists erupted
with fury and demanded revenge. The cry for arrests came
from all circles of society. According to Avrich, "Both
press and pulpit, the leading molders of pUblic opinion,
fanned the terror aroused by the explosion. Clergymen in
Sunday sermons ...condemned the evils of anarchism, and
exhorted their parishioners to combat subversion with every
1 New York Times, May 5,1886.
21
means at their command. fI"
To worsen things for the anarchists all but Parsons were
immigrants, and spoke only broken English. Few natural born
Americans could identify with them. The public's fear and
hysteria led to a demand for a quick apprehension of the
culprit or culprits. This fear and hysteria was at least
partially caused, and certainly fueled by, a frenzied and
one-sided press that sent out the call for revenge the day
after the explosion. Local newspapers in Chicago lost no
time in passing judgment. News accounts of the riot were so
tainted it became impossible to distinguish fact from fiction
and reports from editorials. The Chicago Times, on May 6,
1886, described anarchists and especially those present at
Haymarket Square as, ".. . arch counselors of riot, pillage,
incendiarism and murder. fl3 While the Times accused the
anarchists of the crime, The Chicago Tribune attacked what it
saw as excessive liberties given the anarchists in the past.
It argued that the anarchists' seditious speeches had enjoyed
the "sunshine of toleration" which had made them "emboldened
to strike at society, law, order and government. fl4
The condemnations were not limited to printed words
only. Just over a week after the bombing, Harper's Weekly
ran a double-page illustration of a fiendish-looking Samuel
Fielden presiding over a crazed group of workers firing
directly into defenseless police officers precisely as the
2 Avrich, 216.
3 Chicago Times. May 6, 1886.
4 Chicago Tribune. May 6, 1886.
22
bomb exploded. 5 Never mind that Fielden had complied with
Captain Ward's request to step down from the wagon and that
the police fired first. Perhaps the Chicago Inter Ocean
summarized the overall view newspapers around the country
would take when it printed the following excerpt the day
after the bomb exploded.
The anarchists of Chicago inaugurated in earnest last
night the reign of lawlessness which they have
threatened and endeavored to incite for years. They
threw a bomb into the midst of a line of 200 police
officers, and it exploded with fearful effect, mowing
down men like cattle. Almost before the missile of
death had exploded the anarchists directed a murderous
fire from revolvers upon the police as if their action
were prearranged, and as the latter were hemmed in on
every side--ambuscaded--the effect of the fire upon the
ranks of the officers was fearful ...The collision
between the police and the anarchists was brought about
by the leaders endeavoring to incite a large mass 
meeting to riot and bloodshed. 6
This was the information given to the public during the
days and weeks following the Haymarket riot. The press,
calling for sacrificial lambs, sent out a cry to the public
and the police. Novelist Robert Herrick commented, "From
what the papers said you might think there was an anarchist
or two skulking in every alley in Chicago with a basket of
bombs under his arm."7 It was in this atmosphere that the
search for those responsible for the bombing began. Both the
press and the public demanded that someone (my emphasis) must
be brought to justice.
5 Harper's Weekly, May 15 1886.
e Chicago Inter Ocean, May 5, 1886.
7 Robert Herrick, Memoirs of an American Citizen (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1905), p.
66.
23
The search for the actual bombthrower proved to be
fruitless. That the police never found the actual man who
committed the crime proved to be of little consequence in the
long run, however. The search for anyone (my emphasis)
connected with the bombing began the next day. Historian,
Henry David, wrote, "For what it (The Chicago Police
Department) lacked in intelligence and skill it attempted to
compensate for by a raging fury of activity."B Only the
slightest suspicion was necessary for one to not only be
questioned by police, but to be searched, interrogated, and
likely, to spend some time in jail. Julius S. Grinnell, Cook
County State's Attorney, told the police, "Make the raids
first and look up the law afterward."9 In time over fifty
anarchist union halls and meeting places were raided, most
without warrants. In addition, over two hundred individuals
were taken to Chicago police stations for questioning and
interrogations. Many of which were rumored to be exceedingly
violent and outside the law. 10
The leader of the police raids following the incident
was Captain Michael J. Schaack, an officer known more for his
energy for self-promotion and love of the spotlight than for
his desire for justice.l1 He ordered raids against halls and
households, demanding that even the slightest material
discovered be paraded in the press with his name in tribute.
a David, 221.
g Chicago Times, May 6. 1886.
10 Chicago Tribune, May 6-7, 1886.
11 David, 221.223.
24
Even after the hysteria began to subside, Schaack attempted
to revive it by fabricating evidence and information. He did
this so vigorously that his superior officer had to intervene
to stop him. Police Chief Frederick Ebersold commented:
Captain Schaack wanted to keep things stirring. He
wanted bombs to be found here, there, all around,
everywhere. After we got the anarchist societies broken
up, Schaack wanted to send out men to organize new
societies right away...He wanted to keep the thing
boiling, keep himself prominent before the
public...After I heard all that, I began to think there
was perhaps not so much to all this anarchist business
as they claimed, and I believe I was right.12
The day after the bombing, the first arrests were made.
August Spies, Adolph Fischer, and Michael Schwab went to work
at the offices of the Arbeiter-Zeitung as they did every day.
On May fifth, however, they were met by police officers who
searched them without warrant, arrested them, took them to
the Central Police Station, and held them without charge.
The police were under the direction of James Bonfield,
brother of Inspector John Bonfield. After taking August
Spies into custody he commented, "I took Spies's keys out of
his pocket, everything I found, little slips of paper etc. I
literally went through him. I had no warrant for anything of
that kind."u
Of all those who were formally indicted and put on
trial, none had less evidence against him than Oscar Neebe.
Not present at the Haymarket the night before, and only an
12 Chicago Daily News, May 10, 1889.
13 Lum, p. 29.
25
informal acquaintance with Spies, Fielden, and Schwab, on the
morning of the fifth he went to the offices of the Arbeiter-
Zeitung without any knowledge of what had happened at the
Haymarket. His intention was simply to purchase a copy of
the newspaper. Initially, the police only questioned him,
then left. Later that day, they returned with orders to shut
down the newspaper, search the entire premises (without
warrant of course), and arrest everyone there. Unfortunately
for Oscar Neebe, he returned to the office to enquire as to
what had happened the night before at the Haymarket. The
phrase "at the wrong place, at the wrong time" has never
known a more appropriate usage.
If Neebe was at the wrong place, then Samuel Fielden,
the speaker at the Haymarket when the police arrived, truly
believed it did not matter where he was when the police carne
calling. He simply stayed at horne and waited for them. He
was arrested on the morning of May sixth. He, and his horne,
were both searched without warrant. The police then held him
at the station without informing him of any charges. When
officers told Police Chief Ebersold that Fielden had been
wounded at the Haymarket he pointed to the man's head and
remarked "Damn your soul, it ought to have gone here. ,,14
Later in the day Fielden asked if his bullet wound could be
redressed and an officer remarked, "We ought to put
strychnine in it.,,15
14 Famous Speeches of the Eight Chicago Anarchists in Court, 59.
15 Ibid., 60.
26
George Engel, like some of his fellow defendants, was
not even in attendance at the Haymarket; moreover, he had a
solid alibi. During the Haymarket meeting, Engel had been at
home playing cards with several friends when another friend,
Gottfried Waller, burst in and informed them of what had
happened, arguing they should go to the Haymarket and do
something. Engel, as surprised as anyone, actually responded
that this was a stupid thing for someone to do and tried to
calm his friend. 16 On May sixth, however, the police took him
into custody, as well as what would become an important piece
of evidence for the prosecution in the trial. Found in
Engel's basement was a "portable furnace made of galvanized
iron" for the purpose of making bombs. 17 Engel attempted to
explain the presence of this device by telling the story of
an unknown stranger who left it with his wife and said he
would be back for it in a few days. The man never returned.
As unlikely as the story was, experts later testified that
the device had never been used.
The only defendant that offered the police any
resistance to arrest was Louis Lingg, the youngest of the men
to stand trial. A true radical, Lingg did nothing before,
during, or after the trial to help his cause in any way. A
self-proclaimed bombmaker, Lingg did not attend the Haymarket
meeting, but spent May forth making bombs with his house mate
William Selinger. On the sixth the police went to their home
16 Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs, 97.
17 Chicago Times. May 7,1886.
27
and arrested Selinger. Lingg was not there and upon
searching the contents of his room they found a gun, bomb,
and many incriminating anarchist papers. The young anarchist
had gone into hiding at the residence of another friend.
Unfortunately for him, the police learned of his whereabouts
and sent an officer to take him into custody. The officer
gained access to the home by telling the woman who answered
the door that he was a friend of Lingg's who needed to see
him. The woman sent him right to Lingg's room where a
struggle between the two men took place.,d Upon hearing the
fight, another police officer hurried in to help Schuettler
subdue Lingg.
Newspapers sang the praises of the police for the series
of arrests that included dozens more than the eight that
would eventually stand trial. Meanwhile, the police, the
State's Attorney, and the coroner were also working
diligently behind the scenes. The coroner quickly found that
Officer Degan had died of wounds caused by bomb fragments,
and on the fifth of May the coroner's jury held an inquest
and charged all the prisoners in custody at that time with
his murder.:9 The obvious problem, however, was that the
bombthrower had not been identified. This was a problem that
Julius Grinnell, the State's Attorney in charge of the
prosecution, would argue away during the trial with the help
of Judge Joseph Gary.
18 Lingg was a quite a large strong man, hence, expecting a possible confrontation, the police
were led by Hermann Schuettler, an officer known as physical intimidator.
,g Chicago Tribune, May 6, 1886.
28
Perhaps one of the most pondered questions circulating
Chicago in the weeks following the Haymarket riot was who
would defend the hated anarchists. "It was disturbingly
apparent from the outset that it would involve a thankless
and difficult task."20 Win the case, and live the rest of
one's life as the unscrupulous lawyer who had the anarchist
enemies of law and order set free to pillage Chicago once
again. Lose the case, and forever be known as the desperate
defense attorney eternally associated with anarchy and
radicalism.
To make matters worse, the defendants had virtually no
money for legal fees. Ernst Schmidt, an acquaintance of
several of the defendants, took charge of organizing a
Defense Committee to raise money for legal counsel. Without
the backing of any big businessmen, who obviously favored the
prosecution, the committee relied on small monetary
donations, mostly from individuals and labor unions.
Eventually, a total sum of approximately $40,000 was
collected by the committee to pay what Sigmund Zeisler called
very "moderate fees" for a case of the magnitude of the
Haymarket Trial.21
Perhaps the only groups of citizens willing to rally
behind the anarchists were members of the working class and
Chicago labor unions. Indeed, the anarchists called for the
Haymarket meeting to protest the May third killings and the
20 David, 227.
21 Zeisler, Reminiscences of the Anarchist Case, 18.
29
general mistreatment of the working class. With this in mind
the Central Labor Union of Chicago retained its attorney
Moses Solomon, as well as his legal assistant Sigmund Zeisler
to represent the eight defendants. However, both men,
although legally qualified, were too young and inexperienced
to take on a case of this publicity and magnitude. Given
their inexperience, both agreed to seek out an older and more
experienced attorney to head up the defense team. This, in
itself, was a formidable task. Time and again, Solomon and
Zeisler were turned down by leading Chicago defense
attorneys. Finally, they convinced William Perkins Black, a
forty-four year old corporate attorney known as much for his
heroics as a Captain in the Civil War as his keen legal
mind. 22
When Black initially asked his wife's opinion on taking
the case, Hortensia Black replied, "Are you willing to
sacrifice all life's prospects to serve justice? Will you
lay down all life's ambition rather than sacrifice these
eight men ?,,23 After much consideration Black concluded, much
to his wife's dismay no doubt, "1 must take it. I can do no
otherwise, God helping me. A great wrong has been done. I
must do all I can to right it.,,24 Before he accepted, he
asked for a few days to secure an assistant who had worked
more cases involving the defense of men accused of serious
22 Due to his well?known status as a Civil War veteran, William Perkins Black was known throughout
Chicago as Captain Black. He will be referred to as such in this work.
2S Hortensia M. Black, "Capt. William P. Black," Social Science, October 12,1887. in Avrich, 251.
24 Zeisler, 18.
30
crimes. Black convinced William A. Foster, a defense
attorney recently arrived in Chicago from Iowa, to assist
Solomon, Zeisler and him in the case.
Captain Black, who headed the defense, and William
Foster joined Moses Solomon and Sigmund Zeisler on the
defense team in the midst of the Grand Jury hearing. The
hearing was held in the courtroom of Judge John G. Rogers,
who remarked to the courtroom that, "Anarchism should be
suppressed! ,,25 Although Solomon and Zeisler argued that the
members of the Grand Jury were biased against the accused,
Judge Rogers paid them no attention, and on May 25 a total of
thirty-one men were indicted for charges ranging from the
murder of Officer Mathias J. Degan to disturbing the peace.
Only ten of the thirty-one were indicted for murder: August
Spies, Michael Schwab, Albert R. Parsons, Louis Lingg, George
Engel, Samuel Fielden, Adolph Fischer, Oscar Neebe, William
Selinger, and Rudolph Schnaubelt. Of the ten men, however,
two had fled the city and had not yet been located by the
police, while another turned state's evidence. Rudolph
Schnaubelt, considered by some to be the bombthrower, was
never found. 26 William Selinger, formerly the house mate of
Louis Lingg, turned state's evidence, and greatly damaged
what chance they had for an acquittal. Albert R. Parsons,
the only American-born anarchist, was nowhere to be found and
25 Lum, 48.
26 It is believed that Schnaubelt fled the country and eventually lived out his life in Argentina when
he learned that the police were looking for him. Although many people believed then, as well as
now, that he was, indeed, the bombthrower, no proof has ever been offered. However, his quick
departure of the United States certainly does not help his case.
31
was indicted by the grand jury in absentia.
The police had not seen nor heard from Albert Parsons
since the night of the Haymarket explosion. The day after
the bombing, he had been persuaded by his wife Lucy and other
friends that he should leave town for his own safety.
Parsons initially went and lived with a socialist friend,
William Holmes, in Geneva, Wisconsin. It was there that he
began to learn of the hysteria sweeping the city of Chicago
and that he was a wanted man. As the police dragnet began to
look outside Chicago for the fugitive, Parsons realized that
staying with a known socialist such as Holmes was dangerous
so he moved once again. This time he moved to Waukesha,
Wisconsin to stay with another friend, Daniel Hoan, whose
name did not circulate among the ranks of known socialists.
As the trial approached, Parsons sent a letter to Captain
Black via his wife Lucy in which he inquired as to whether it
would aid his fellow anarchists' chances of an acquittal if
he voluntarily turned himself in. He informed Black that if
he deemed the surrender advantageous, he was prepared to corne
to Chicago and sit with the others.n
What a gesture! Had Parsons chosen, he could have
remained in Wisconsin and followed the court proceedings in
the newspaper and from letters from his wife and other
friends. If apprehended at a later date, his chances of
acquittal would surely have been better than his comrades in
27 Lucy Parsons, Life of Albert R. Parsons (Chicago: Socialistic Publishing Company, 1903), 169 
171.
32
a separate trial after the hysteria of Chicago had subsided.
Or, if Parsons had chosen, he could have quietly and simply
contacted Lucy, left the country as Rudolph Schnaubelt had,
and lived out the rest of his life in anonymity.:;
On May 22, 1886 Lucy Parsons delivered her husband's
letter to Captain Black. His immediate response was
excitement, as he exclaimed to Lucy that Albert's surrender
would immensely aid his case and the probability of an
acquittal for the defendants. However, after further
consideration, Black curbed his initial excitement and
solemnly began to look at all the possible consequences of
Parsons's surrender. Black conveyed these sentiments to
Parsons in a return letter:
I tried to set before him fully the danger which
confronted him in the event of his return, and the
possibility of awful consequences, but in which I
expressed the personal belief that we could
satisfactorily establish his innocence, and therefore
could secure his acquittal; that I believed the effect
of his return and presence in the trial could not but be
advantageous to his co-defendants. But I told him in
effect that the responsibility of advising his return
was one that I could not and would not take--I could
only lay the case fully before him, and leave it to him
to determine what action he would take.29
After Black sent this letter he met with his co-counsel. The
other lawyers on the team were split in their opinions of the
incredible risk Parsons would have to undertake. They
pondered whether or not Parsons's life was worth the
28 Avrich, 238-239.
29 Life ofAlbert R. Parsons, 172.
33
increased chance for an acquittal? All finally agreed that
Parsons had been given honest advice by Black and that the
ultimate decision rested with him. Parsons said, "I could
see that the ruling class were wild with rage and fear
against labor organizations. Ample means were offered to me
to carry me safely to distant parts of the earth."30 Yet,
Parsons chose to return to Chicago to stand trial with his
fellow anarchists. "Parsons's decision to return displayed
courage and unselfishness of a high order. "3: Although he
would comment differently as the trial progressed, Parsons
seemed confident that his innocence and lack of any knowledge
of the bombing or bombthrower would appear evident in the
trial. He remarked:
Knowing myself innocent of crime, I came forward and
gave myself up for trial. I felt that it was my duty to
take my chances with the rest of my comrades. I sought
a fair and impartial trial before a jury of my peers,
and knew that before any fair-minded jury I could with
little difficulty be cleared.32
In that final statement, however, lay Parsons's mistake.
Indeed, any fair-minded jury or in any fair courtroom he and
the seven others on trial perhaps may have been acquitted.
How was Parsons to know that not only would he face a biased
and impassioned jury, but also a trial judge that would grant
the prosecution incredibly wide latitude in the trial.
On June 19, 1886 Parsons had a letter delivered to
30 Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs, 49.
31 Avrich, 256.
32 Albert R. Parsons, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis as Defined by Some of its
Apostles ed. Lucy Parsons. (Chicago: Mrs. A. R. Parsons, 1887), 183-184.
34
Captain Black informing him that he would meet him on the
twenty-first of May at the Michigan Street entrance to the
Chicago Criminal Court building._'3 In a separate arrangement
Parsons had his friend Daniel Hoan inform the other
defendants of his arrival for trial.
When Parsons arrived at the courthouse, Black greeted
him and they walked up the steps and into the building. As
they entered the courtroom of Judge Joseph Easton Gary,
several people in the crowd recognized Parsons and a stir
circulated the room. The commotion soon caused State's
Attorney Julius Grinnell to leap out of his chair and shout
to Judge Gary, nYour honor, I see Albert Parsons in the
courtroom...l move that he be placed in the custody of the
sheriff." To this outcry, Parsons responded to the court, nr
present myself for trial with my comrades, your honor. ,,34
Parsons entered a plea of not guilty and Judge Gary ordered
him to take a seat with the other seven defendants. After
dramatically bowing to the crowd of reporters present and
exchanging greetings with his fellow anarchists, Parsons was
seated and prepared himself for trial.
33 June 21, 1886 was the day that jury selection was scheduled to begin. The trial ran from June
21 until the final verdict was rendered on August 20, 1886.
34 Zeisler, 22.
35
~' Judqe Gary and Jury Selection
The Chicago newspapers, as well as those throughout the
country, had already convicted the anarchists in print. One
could not have lived in Chicago and not read or heard about
the ensuing trial. Given this attitude against the
anarchists in the summer of 1886, perhaps it would have been
impossible to secure a completely impartial jury. Even
before the Haymarket riot the American public had a general
disgust towards immigrants and radicals in particular.1 Then,
after May 4, local and national newspapers told the public
that the anarchists' threats had finally come true, and for
Chicagoans, in their own back yard. Word spread throughout
the city like a fire out of control. The role of the
fiendish anarchists was exaggerated time and again to the
point where it was impossible to fill a jury pool that was
not tainted from man to man. Given this state of affairs, it
would take a monumental effort by a judge of the highest
morals and abilities to give the anarchists a chance for
justice. Instead, the defense got the opposite: Judge
Joseph Easton Gary.
The trial was undoubtedly one of the grossest travesties
of justice the American judicial system has ever seen. Judge
1 Seven of the eight defendants were foreign born with the only exception being Parsons.
36
Gary had a reputation for being a firm, but fair, judge.
Prior to the trial, even Defense Attorney Sigmund Zeisler
thought Gary, " ...learned, wise and upright...a very able,
keen lawyer and a fine judge."2 However, no one would have
known this from the manner in which he ran his courtroom in
the summer of 1886. For some unknown reason, he departed
from his former judicious ways. Judge Gary's bias dominated
the courtroom from the jury selection through the trial to
his charge to the jury prior to deliberations. Every motion
and objection by the prosecution was upheld, while the
defense encountered the opposite. Gary treated the
prosecution as if they were on some noble crusade, while he
acted uninterested in the defense arguments. He went so far
as to make snide comments to the defense which served no
purpose but to further taint what was already a biased jury.
He allowed the prosecution to admit into evidence articles
which did not pertain to the case and were intended to do
little more than inflame the emotions of the jury. The
defense was restricted in its testimony and questioning to
exact matters that pertained only to the specific subject
being discussed.
In contrast, the prosecution enjoyed an argumentative
latitude that allowed it to delve into issues that only
marginally pertained to the case. Finally, Judge Gary
allowed friends, many of whom were his lady friends, to join
him behind the bench to watch what he apparently considered
2 Zeisler, 19.
37
the festivities of an entertaining trial. Years later when
reflecting upon the trial, Gary himself grudgingly admitted
he should not have allowed his area, " ...to be filled with
spectators, mostly ladies."3 Too little, too late aptly
describes this comment, made in 1893, six years after four of
the eight anarchists had been hanged and three others had
spent six years in prison.
Judge Gary wasted no time in establishing his bias in
the case of The People of the State of Illinois vs. August
Spies et al. On the first day of the trial Defense Attorney
William Foster moved that each of the defendants be allowed a
separate trial. This was a fair request as even State's
Attorney Julius S. Grinnell later admitted that the amount
evidence and responsibility for the crime differed greatly
from one defendant to another. Gary quickly and refused the
motion. This allowed the prosecution to easily associate
Louis Lingg's bornbmaking with the other seven defendants.
In addition, the inflammatory writing of August Spies could
be associated with Oscar Neebe who had never written a
published article in his life.
After ruling against separate trials, Judge Gary ordered
that jury selection begin immediately. This proved to be one
of the most difficult and frustrating portions of the trial
for both the defense and the prosecution. Although the
Illinois State Supreme Court would clarify its definition of
3 Joseph E. Gary, "The Chicago Anarchists of 1886: The Crime, and the Trial, and the
Punishment," in The Century Magazine, April 1893, p. 805.
38
a competent juror in 1893, Judge Gary's bias against the
defendants was obvious." It took a full twenty-one days in
which 981 potential jurors were interviewed until a twelve
member panel could be produced. s Gary's bias was apparent in
two ways during the lengthy proceeding. First, he refused to
dismiss blatantly biased potential jurors when the defense
challenged them for cause. Illinois statute dictated that
each of the eight defendants be allowed twenty peremptory
challenges, giving the defense a total of 160.6 When Judge
Gary approved potential jurors who openly stated that they
had already formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of
the defendants, this forced the defense team to deplete its
peremptory challenges at an alarmingly high rate. Once their
peremptory challenges were exhausted, the defense would be at
the mercy of jurors virtually handpicked by the prosecution.
Second, Judge Gary used an unheard of method for jury
selection. Normally, potential jurors were selected by a
random drawing. However, in this case the names of potential
jurors were handpicked by bailiff Henry Ryce. In a manner
strikingly similar to a presidential appointment, Ryce was
nominated by State's Attorney Grinnell and confirmed by Judge
Gary. Six years later Illinois Governor John Peter Altgeld
4 For information on how the State Supreme Court clarified the definition of a competent juror,
see pp. 93-94.
5 David, 238.
6 Aperemptory challenge is the method by which the defense or prosecution can remove a
potential juror from the jury pool for whatever reason it chooses. or for no reason at all. However,
if it feels that a potential juror is biased or for some other good reason unfit for service the
defense or prosecution will first challenge the juror for cause. If the judge in the case agrees that
there is good cause for that person not to serve on the jury, the judge then removes the potential
juror himself, thus saving the defense or prosecution a peremptory challenge.
39
noted, " ...Ryce was summoning only prejudiced men, as shown
by their examinations, further: That he was confining
himself to particular classes, i.e. clerks, merchants,
manufacturers, etc.u7 After the trial was concluded, Otis
Favor, who was interviewed as a potential juror, filed an
affidavit in which he testified that Ryce commented to him
during the trial, "1 am managing this case and know what I am
about. These fellows are going to be hanged as certain as
death. I am calling such men as the prosecution wants. u8 When
one examines the questioning of the potential jurors in the
case, the startling bias of both Judge Gary and bailiff Ryce
is evident as the following record shows.
When potential juror H. F. Chandler came into the
courtroom for his interview, his bias was obvious from the
start. He testified that he had a strong prejudice against
anarchists, socialists, and communists. When the defense
asked if this prejudice would influence his ability to
impartially try the case, Judge Gary overruled the question.
Chandler also went on to reveal that he had read accounts of
what had happened at the Haymarket, that he believed what he
had read, and that he had already formed an opinion as to the
guilt or innocence of the accused. The defense team pressed
Chandler further, and asked, "Is that a decided opinion as to
the guilt or innocence?U9 To this he responded, "It is a
7 John Peter Attgetd, Reasons for Pardoning Neebe, Fielden and Schwab (Chicago: 1893),7.
a Ibid., 8.
9 Lum. 53.
40
decided opinion; yes, sir.u1o The defense went on to question
whether or not it would be hard for Chandler to change his
opinion. He responded, "It might be hard; I can't say. I
don't know whether it would be hard or not. u11 Plainly,
Chandler had a strong bias against the defendants and he
should have been dismissed from the jury by Gary. However,
when the defense challenged Chandler for cause because he had
already formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the
accused, Judge Gary responded:
It don't seem to me that it makes any difference in the
competency of a juror whether he has simply formed an
opinion, or expressed an opinion which he has formed. I
don't see how it makes a particle of difference in state
of mind. 12
This statement, although typical for Judge Gary in this
trial, went against virtually the legal precedent of the day.
Even other judges and legal minds found this disturbing.
Judge Samuel McConnell, a contemporary of Judge Gary in the
Chicago courts, remarked that Gary's decisions during jury
selection on challenges for cause were extremely rigid.
McConnell wrote that the business of pronouncing fit for
service potential jurors who had already formed an opinion as
to the guilt or innocence of the accused, "...went against
human experience. u13 Regardless, Gary's decision stood, which
forced the defense team to waste a peremptory challenge to
10 Lum, 53.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid., 53-54.
13 Samuel McConnell, "The Chicago Bomb Case: Personal Recollections of an American
Tragedy" Harper's Magazine (May 1934), 733.
41
keep Chandler off the jury.
In another juror examination, James H. Walker explained
that he was prejudiced against socialists, anarchists, and
communists and that he had already formed an opinion as to
the guilt or innocence of the defendants. When pressed
further, the following occurred between Walker and the
prosecution. Walker was asked whether or not his feelings
towards socialists, anarchists, and communists and his
preconceived opinion would influence his verdict. His reply
was, "Well, I am willing to admit that my opinion would
handicap my judgment, possibly. I feel that I could be
governed by the testimony. "II The prosecution then eagerly
retorted, "Then your belief is you could listen to the
testimony and other proof that might be introduced...and
decide upon that alone, uninfluenced and unbiased by the
opinion that you now have. "15 Walker immediately replied, "No,
I don't say that."16 He went to explain that, "I said I would
be handicapped."n This type of exchange continued as the
prosecution continued pressing Walker to say that he would
not be handicapped by his prejudices and preconceived
opinion. This badgering had its intended effect. Walker
finally admitted that his judgment would only be a "little
handicapped". Judge Gary interjected, "Well, that is a
sufficient qualification for a juror in the case. Of course,
14 Lum, 57.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
42
the more a man feels that he is handicapped, the more he will
be guarded against it.uIB After viewing first-hand Judge
Gary's glaring bias against him and the other defendants,
Albert Parsons slipped defense attorney Zeisler a note that
said, "In taking a change of venue from Judge Rogers to Lord
Jeffreys19, did not the defendants jump from the frying pan
into the fire?U20
Perhaps prospective juror George N. Porter explained his
bias in a more blunt manner than any of the others. Porter
had already admitted that he was prejudiced against
socialists, anarchists, and communists. He told the court
that he had already formed an opinion as to the guilt or
innocence of the accused. During a furious exchange with the
prosecution Porter blurted out, "I believe what I have read
in the papers--believe that the parties are quilty. u21 Was
this grounds to dismiss the potential juror for cause? Not
in Judge Gary's court. In spite of the defense's efforts to
have this potential juror removed for cause, Judge Gary
pronounced him pronounced fit for service. Again, the
defense had to waste another peremptory challenge.
In addition to these blatantly biased rulings, Gary
refused a challenge for cause against a potential juror who
was related to one of the dead police officers and outwardly
said he was biased. Gary also found no reason that a man who
18 Lum, 57-59.
19 Lord Jeffreys was the so-called "hanging judge" under kings Charles II and James It of England.
20 Zeisler, 24.
21 Lum, 55.
43
was friends with several top police officials should not
serve on the jury. He also had no problem with a man who
admitted that his bias was based upon information provided to
him by police officers.2"
When Judge Gary pronounced men such as these fit for
service on the jury, he forced the defense to use its
peremptory challenges at an alarmingly rapid rate. Given
these circumstances, the defense had to pragmatically accept
what appeared to be the least biased jurors. Sigmund Zeisler
explained:
We realized it was idle to make the effort to get a
truly impartial jury. Therefore, when, what happened
rarely enough, there came a man who, though admittedly
prejudiced, showed some degree of fairness and candor,
we reluctantly accepted him after unsuccessfully
challenging for cause and saved a peremptory challenge.23
The jury was sworn in on July 15, 1886. Although less
biased and objectionable than those listed above, it was far
from a impartial group and was far from a jury of the peers
of the anarchists. All twelve of the jurors were middle
class. None of them had expressed empathy for the cause of
the labor movement or the eight hour workday. None were
industrial workers and only one was not born in America.
Although better than those removed by peremptory challenges
in jury examination, these were still men, "whose sympathies
and interests range them on the side of capital and
22 David, 34.
23 Zeisler, 25.
44
privilege. ,,24
Only two of the twelve men who decided the fate of the
anarchists displayed no prejudice against the defendants.
Scott G. Randall, a twenty-three year old salesman for J. C.
Vaughan and Company, said nothing during his questioning that
led the defense to suspect prejudice or bias.25 Also, Frank S.
Osborne, the thirty-nine year old jury foreman, said nothing
objectionable during his examination.
The other ten men who decided the fate of the
anarchists, however, were all in some way tainted against the
defendants. James H. Cole was a fifty-three year old
railroad contractor. During his examination he admitted that
he was prejudiced against socialists, anarchists, and
communists. 26
John B. Greiner was twenty-five years of age and a
stenographer in the freight department of the Chicago and
Northwestern Railroad. Under questioning he testified that
he already had formed an opinion as to the guilt of some of
the defendants. He testified, "It is evident that the
defendants are connected with it (The Haymarket bombing) from
their being here, as far as that is concerned.,,27
Alanson H. Reed was a forty-nine year old owner of his
own music business called Reed's Temple of Music. In his
testimony he asserted that he too had already formed an
24 Liberty, September 18, 1886.
25 Lum, 60.
25 Ibid., 60.
27 Ibid., 62.63.
45
opinion as to the guilt or innocence of at least some of the
the accused based upon both newspaper articles and what he
had heard from others. During questioning he also alluded to
his prejudice against socialists, anarchists, and communists
that he had derived from what he had read and heard about the
May forth bombing. 28
James H. Brayton, like most of the other jurors admitted
that he had developed an opinion on the guilt or innocence of
the defendants from newspaper articles. He was a principal
at Webster Schools and was forty years old. He went so far
as to tell the court that he had, at one time, taken some
interest in socialism. He apparently did not find it
appealing as he testified that his interest had led him to
develop a prejudice against socialists, anarchists, and
communists.29
Charles A. Ludwig was a twenty-seven year old book-
keeper in the wood-mantel shop of C. L. Page and Company.
During questioning he also admitted to having a prejudice
against socialists, anarchists, and communists. 30
Andrew Hamilton, the owner of a hardware store,
expressed no prejudice against socialists, anarchists, or
communists and said nothing of having formed a preconceived
opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants.
However, in questioning he admitted that he had once said,
" ...somebody ought to be made an example of...and if it
28 Lum, 62.
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid., 62.
46
should be proved that the defendants were the men whose names
he saw in the papers ...they should be made examples of.,,31
Much to the dismay of the defense, the names of all eight of
the defendants had, indeed, appeared in virtually every
Chicago newspaper.
Charles B. Todd was forty-seven years old and employed
as a salesman in the Putnam Clothing House. He said that he
had read newspaper accounts of the Haymarket bombing and that
he too had formed and opinion as to the guilt or innocence of
the accused and had talked freely with others about his
opinion.32
Howard T. Sanford, twenty-four, was the son of a lawyer
who worked as the compiler of the Superior Court reports in
New York. For several years he was employed as a petroleum
broker and at the time of the trial he was a voucher clerk in
the auditor's office of the Chicago and Northwestern
Railroad. During examination he remarked that he had a
prejudice against socialists, anarchists, and communists. He
also admitted that he had read about the Haymarket bombing
and had already formed an opinion as to the guilt or
innocence of the defendants. However, Sanford was the last
juror examined and the defense had exhausted all of its
peremptory challenges. Consequently, after Judge Gary
overruled the challenge for cause, the prosecution accepted
him and Judge Gary swore him in as a competent juror.33
31 Lum, 62.
32 Ibid., 61.
33 Ibid., 64.
47
Prior to, and during the trial, the remaining two jurors
seemed as biased as the previous ten. This, however, all
changed after the trial had concluded and previously unknown
information began to surface. Theodore E. Denker, twenty-
seven, was a shipping clerk for H. H. King and Company and,
like many of the other jurors, admitted that he had read
about and heard people talk about the Haymarket bombing and
those allegedly responsible. Like the others, he further
admitted that he had already formed an opinion as to the
guilt or innocence of the defendants and that it was still
his opinion at the time of jury selection. In cross
examination he also admitted that he believed his
preconceived opinion would prevent him from rendering an
impartial verdict. The defense immediately challenged him
for cause, which Judge Gary over-ruled. Indeed, nothing here
seems terribly dissimilar from the testimony delivered by the
other jurors. However, after the jury delivered its verdict
and the sentences were passed down, the defense filed a
motion for a new trial. Included as support for a retrial
were affidavits filed by Thomas J. Morgan34 and Thomas S.
Morgan who stated that before the trial began, Denker,
referring to August Spies and the other defendants, told them
that, "He and the whole damned crowd ought to be hung! ,,35 Of
course, Theodore Denker denied making the remark although it
is indisputedly consistent with the preconceived opinion that
34 Dyer Lum points out that Thomas J. Morgan was a well-known "antagonist of Anarchy and
Anarchists".
35 Lum, 60-61.
48
he admitted to having and expressing to others. The
defense's motion for a new trial was declined by Judge Gary
who dismissed their claim that Theodore Denker, given the two
affidavits, was biased against the defendants. 36
The final juror was George W. Adams, twenty-seven, a
commercial agent for George W. Pitkin and Company. When
questioned by the prosecution, Adams claimed that he had not
formed any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the
defendants. Then, during questioning by the defense, he
reversed himself and said he had formed an opinion, but that
it was not a strong one. However, just as in the case of
juror Denker, during its motion for a new trial the defense
presented an affidavit to the contrary. Michael Cull signed
an affidavit in which he stated that shortly after the
Haymarket incident he was speaking with George Adams and
several other people. Cull remarked that, "The police had no
right to interfere with the meeting; that if they, the
police, had let the meeting alone they would have gone home
in a short while.,,37 To this statement, Adams interjected
that the police should have shot them all down and that
defendants had no rights in this country.38 He went on to
remark, "...if I was on the jury I would hang all the damned
buggars! ,,39 Conveniently, Adams got his wish.
These were the twelve men who decided the fate of the
36 Lum. 60.
37 Ibid., 63.
36 This is an obvious reference to the fact that so many of the defendants were foreign-born.
39 Lum, 63.
49
anarchists accused of the murder of Officer Mathias Degan.
With the exception of Randall and Osborne, the entire group
was prejudiced against the defendants before the testimony
ever began. The defense team had a monumental task before
them. They had to convince at least one juror that their
clients were not guilty. Captain Black and his associates
soon found out, however, that their biggest obstacle would
not be the evidence, but Judge Gary.
50
IV. Grinnell Presents Three Theories o~
11le Crime
The twelve jurors were sworn in and seated in the jury
box on July 15, 1887. State's Attorney Julius S. Grinnell, a
rising star in Illinois state politics, had the opportunity
to attain heroic status if he could put an end to anarchy and
radicalism in Chicago by convicting the defendants. In
court, Grinnell went after the anarchists without regard for
justice and more, perhaps, for the advancement of his own
reputation and career. The State's Attorney changed his
prosecutorial argument twice during the trial, he admitted
into evidence exhibits that had nothing to do with the
charge, and brought obviously perjured testimony into the
courtroom. This prompted defendant Samuel Fielden to comment
that it was sad how attorneys such as Grinnell, " ...care
little as to whether their suit is right or in the interest
of justice and truth, so long as they can gain their case and
make a reputation for themselves."l None of this, however,
could have been accomplished without the assistance of Judge
Gary, which Grinnell had from the outset of the trial
Despite Gary's aid, State's Attorney Grinnell still had
the problem of proving that the defendants were responsible
1 The Famous Speeches of the Chicago Anarchists in Court, 60.
51
for the murder of Officer Mathias J. Degan. Even he
conceded that none of the eight on trial physically threw the
bomb. Grinnell left nothing to chance. He argued three
theories to the jury in order to convict the defendants. If
the first theory proved deficient, he simply changed to the
second. If it did not seem to be plausible, then Grinnell
went to the third. These changes in theory would have never
been possible without Judge Gary's consent. Grinnell's first
theory was that several of the defendants actually aided the
bombthrower in heaving his deadly weapon. When he could not
prove this, he argued that there was a general conspiracy to
overthrow the Chicago government hatched by several of the
defendants. When this too proved deficient, Grinnell argued
that the defendants' speeches and newspaper articles had
influenced someone (my emphasis) to throw the Haymarket bomb.
State's Attorney Grinnell began the trial by attempting
to prove that several of the defendants actually had a hand
in hurling the bomb at the Haymarket. The obvious problem
with this theory was the actual bombthrower was not one of
the defendants. Someone had thrown the bomb, yet he was not
on trial. The state therefore charged the anarchists as
accomplices to a murder in which the actual perpetrator was
unknown. To prove that some of the defendants worked with
the bombthrower, Grinnell began by setting the scene on the
night of May forth and explaining why the police were needed
on the night in question. The prosecution then produced two
witnesses who testified that they saw some of the defendants
with the unknown and unidentified bombthrower at Haymarket
Square.
Grinnell began his opening statement by arguing that the
defendants had done all within their power at the Haymarket
meeting to incite the crowd to violence and lure the police
into their trap. He argued that far more than the mere eight
men on trial should answer for the death of Officer Degan.
Inspector Bonfield was portrayed as the hero. "In breaking
up the meeting Inspector Bonfield did the wisest thing he
could have done ....The action was the wisest thing ever done
in this city.u2 When the police ordered the crowd to
disperse, as noted earlier, Samuel Fielden responded from the
speakers' wagon, "We are peaceableu . Grinnell contended:
At this remark, as though it was some secret signal, a
man who had before been on the wagon, taking a bomb from
his pocket, lit the fuse and threw it into the ranks of
the police. Fielden...opened fire and kept it up for
several minutes."
In order to prove that at least some of the defendants
conspired with the actual bombthrower Grinnell put two
witnesses on the stand who claimed to have first-hand
knowledge that Fielden's remark was a signal.
First called to the stand to substantiate this theory
was Malvern M. Thompson. He testified that he saw August
Spies step upon the speakers' wagon and call for Albert
Parsons who had not yet arrived. From the speakers wagon,
2 Lum, 67.
3 Ibid.. 67.68.
53
according to Thompson, Spies stepped down and he and Michael
Schwab walked to the alley at Crane Brothers, near where the
witness was standing.~ He then testified that he heard the
two anarchists talking about "pistolsU and "policeu and that
when he stepped closer he overheard Spies say, "Do you think
one is enough, or hadn't we better go and get more?U5 At this
point, the witness testified that Spies and Schwab walked
around the Haymarket area so he followed them. As the two
anarchists returned to the alley, Schwab allegedly said,
"Now, if they come we will give it to them. u6 At this point,
Thompson claimed a third man met with them who he said was
not in the courtroom, but when shown a picture, identified
the man as Rudolph Schnaubelt. The three men then
" ...bunched together...in a huddle and there was something
passed between Spies and the third man. u7
This certainly appeared to be quite damaging evidence
against the accused and, had there been a shred of truth to
it, would have fit Grinnell's theory that some of the
defendants actually worked with the bombthrower at the
Haymarket. However, during cross-examination Captain William
Black showed the implausibility of such a story. First, the
defense provided several reliable witnesses that stated
Michael Schwab was only at the Haymarket for a few minutes
and left before the meeting even started.8
4 See Appendix C.
Slum, 95.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Avrich. 269.
54
Second, Thompson
insisted, "The conversation between Spies and Schwab was in
English.", and when questioned, he admitted, "I do not
understand German."9 This proved to be quite a problem for
the prosecution as the defense quickly pointed out that
Schwab, born in Germany, spoke only broken English and that
when he and Spies did converse it was always in German.
Unbelievably, Thompson had testified that he instinctively
followed two strange Germans around Haymarket Square,
listening to them casually discuss a conspiracy to lure the
police into a trap and use pistols and explosives against
them."o Yet, the witness simply stood by and watched all this
happen. This story appeared unbelievable and its lack of
credibility led, in part, to the first change in the
prosecution's strategy.
The prosecution also called Harry L. Gilmer was to the
stand to associate several of the defendants with the
bombthrower. His testimony, had it proved believable, would
have sealed the case against Spies and several of the other
defendants. It is worth noting at length:
I was standing in the alley...Somebody in front of me,
on the edge of the sidewalk, said, 'Here comes the
police.' There was a sort of rush to see the police
come up. There was a man who came from the wagon down
to the parties that were standing on the south side of
the alley; he lit a match and touched it off, something
or another. The fuse commenced to fizzle, and he gave
it a couple of steps forward and tossed it over into the
street. I knew the man by sight who threw the fizzling
thing into the street. I have seen him several times at
meetings at one place and another in the city. I do not
9 Lum, 96.
10 Ibid.
55
know his name. He was a man abouL five feet ten inches
high; somewhat full-chested, and had a light sandy
beard, not very long; he was full-faced; his eyes
somewhat back in his head; judging from his appearance
he would probably weigh 180 pounds ...This here is the
man who threw the bomb out of the alley.'" There were
four or five standing together in the group. This here
is the man who carne from the wagon towards the group.12
That man over there was one of the parties.1314
Gilmer witnessed everything that happened at the Haymarket!
He watched Spies step down from the wagon, watched him walk
over to Fischer and Schnaubelt, and watched Spies light the
fuse of the bomb that Schnaubelt threw. He watched all this
happen, and yet, never cried out at the Haymarket to warn the
police or anyone else. He did, however, admit that he had,
" ...received some money two or three times from Detective
Bonfield. ,,15 On this topic, in spite of its obvious
relevance to Gilmer's credibility, Judge Gary overruled any
further questions pertaining to his receiving money from the
authorities. The witness's testimony was further impeached
in cross examination when Captain Black produced ten
witnesses, several of whom were large property owners and no
friends of anarchy, who testified that Gilmer was a habitual
liar and should not be believed under oath.
The defense also proved several errors in Gilmer's
story. Four other witnesses testified that Fischer was at
Zepf's Hall including the man he was sitting with at the time
11 At this point Gilmer pointed to picture of Rudolph Schnaubelt that the prosecution had
produced.
12 Gilmer pointed to August Spies, seated in the courtroom.
13 Gilmer pointed to Adolph Fischer, also seated in the courtroom.
14 Lum, 99.
15 Ibid., 98.
56
of the explosion. The combined testimony of policemen,
reporters, and witnesses established that Spies was on the
speakers' wagon when the bomb exploded and that it was not
thrown from the alley, where Gilmer testified, but fifteen to
twenty feet south of the alley entrance. Finally, Rudolph
Schnaubelt was known to be six feet two or three inches tall,
while Gilmer identified him as five feet ten.:" Like Malvern
Thompson's testimony, Gilmer was soundly contradicted and
refuted by the defense in cross examination. Dyer Lum, who
attended the trial and was the first to publish the
testimony, aptly commented, ". ..so completely and
overwhelmingly was Gilmer impeached, contradicted and
discredited that the State did not ask a single instruction
to the jury, based upon the belief by them that Schnaubelt
threw the bomb.,,17
Indeed, with the exception of the questionable testimony
of Malvern Thompson and Henry Gilmer, the theory that
Schnaubelt threw the bomb with the help of Spies, Fielden,
Schwab, and Fischer was not supported by any additional
evidence. In fact, in the course of prosecutorial
questioning and cross examination it was established that
only Spies and Fielden were even at the Haymarket when the
bomb exploded, and both of them were in plain view on the
speakers' wagon. Fischer and Parsons were at Zepf's Hall,
Engel and Neebe were at home, and Lingg and Schwab were at
16 Lum, 98-99. Avrich,269-271.
17 Lum, 99.
57
other meetings miles away. In fact, Engel, Neebe, and Lingg
were never at the Haymarket the entire day. Given this
evidence, argued Captain Black, how could any of the
defendants be found guilty of the murder of Officer Degan?
It was at this point that State's Attorney Grinnell
moved to his second theory, that a conspiracy had been
plotted the night before the bombing by the defendants at
Grief's Hall. Judge Gary, of course, did not oppose this
change in the prosecution's strategy. The main testimony
used by Grinnell to support this theory was supplied by
Gottfried Waller, Bernhard Schrade, and William Selinger.
These three anarchists had all turned states' evidence in
order to avoid prosecution.
Grinnell argued that after the shootings at McCormick's
on the third, several of the defendants met at Grief's Hall
to plan a conspiracy. "Fischer was there; Lingg was there;
Engel was there ... (Lingg) was the bomb-maker of the
Anarchists, and we have found and traced to him at least
twenty-two of these infernal machines. uIB Grinnell used Waller
and Schrade to establish that Fischer and Engel were at
Grief's Hall on the third and that there was talk of getting
back at the police.19 Selinger, who was not present at Grief's
on the third, was Lingg's house mate and his testimony was
18 Schaack. 403.
19 Despite Grinnell's accusation that Louis Lingg was at Grief's on the third. he most certainly was
not. Both Waller and Schrade testified that. amongst the defendants. only Fischer and Engel
were present. Only police captain Michael Schaack claimed that Lingg was present. Lingg himself
testified that the was drinking beer at Zepf's Hall and this was corroborated by several other
witnesses.
58
used to establish Lingg as a radical bombmaker and connect
him with the Haymarket bomb. All three informers admitted to
being paid some money by the police at one time or another
and after the trial William Selinger and Godfried Waller and
their families were sent back to Germany at police expense.CD
Godfried Waller chaired the meeting at Grief's Hall and
testified, "there were about seventy or eighty men. Of the
defendants there were only present Engel and Fischer.u21 The
only damaging testimony given by Waller included statements,
" ...there had been discussion as to why police stations
should be attacked if the police proved the aggressors."22 ,
and, "...if strikers were attacked we should strike down the
police however we best could, with bombs or whatever would be
at our disposition. ,,23 However, in cross-examination Waller
stated that, "Nothing was said with reference to any action
to be taken by us at the Haymarket ...we did not think the
police would come to the Haymarket; for this reason no
preparations were made for meeting a police attack there. "24
Bernard Schrade's testimony was quite similar to
Waller's. "The discussion was, that if the police made an
attack upon workingmen we would help the workingmen to resist
it, and if the firemen helped, we would cut the hose.,,25
Schrade made this comment in general, with no reference to
20 Avrich, 274.
21 Lum, 68.
22 Ibid., 69.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid., 70.
25 Ibid., 72.
59
the Haymarket meeting. In cross-examination he stated,
"Nothing was said about dynamite or bombs at any of the
meetings. Nothing was said about a meeting at any particular
night to throw bombs. It was not agreed to throw bombs at
the Haymarket. ,,26 Thus, Schrade actually aided the defense by
testifying that there was no mention at Griefs Hall of
throwing a bomb at the police on May forth or any other time.
Finally, William Selinger took the stand. Had he not
turned state's evidence, he would have been sitting with the
defendants on trial for the murder of Officer Degan.- He did
not attend the May third meeting at Grief's, but corroborated
that Louis Lingg was a bombmaker. He testified that on May
forth, the day of the Haymarket bombing, he, Lingg and three
other men spent the day making bombs. He testified that
Lingg, ". ..kept urging him to more diligence.,,2B "There were
thirty, or forty or fifty bombs made that afternoon, which
Lingg declared were going to be good fodder for the
capitalists and the police, when they came to protect the
capitalists.,,29 He further stated that later that day he and
Lingg were walking past the Larrabee Street Police Station
when Lingg commented, "...it might be a beautiful thing if we
would walk over and throw one or two bombs into the
station."JO However, like Waller and Schrade, under cross-
26 Lum, 72.
27 Godfried Waller and Bernard Schrade also turned state's evidence, but were not indicted for the
murder of Degan. Both 01 them had turned state's evidence to receive immunity from a lesser
charge.
26 Lum, 79
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid.
60
examination Selinger stated that, ".. . nothing was said about
when they wanted the bombs completed or ready. 1131 Lingg never
said anything to him abouL any specific time bombs were to be
thrown and at no time did they discuss the Haymarket meeting
in association with bombthrowing.
The testimony of the prosecution's witnesses who turned
state's evidence backfired on them under cross-examination.
All three testified that they had never heard of any specific
plan to attack the police at the Haymarket, indeed, Waller
testified that at the meeting at Grief's they never expected
the police to come to the Haymarket. If there actually was a
conspiracy to attack the police in the near future, the May
forth bombing had nothing to do with it. Selinger's
testimony regarding Lingg's bombmaking in no way connected
any of Lingg's bombs to the one thrown at the Haymarket.
Explosives experts, brought in by the prosecution, only
stated that the bomb fragments from the Haymarket were
similar (my emphasis) to the ones Lingg was in the habit of
making. Further, the prosecution was forced to concede that
there was a difference in the thickness of their shells.32
During the entire trial no evidence was ever presented
that showed that any of the defendants had any knowledge that
a bomb was to be thrown at the Haymarket, let alone that any
of them had been involved in a conspiracy to engineer it.
Nor was any evidence presented to suggest that any of the
31 Lum, 79.
32 Avrich, 273.
61
defendants presenL at Lhe Ha~warket tried to lure the police
into a trap by arousing the crowd to riot. Indeed, even
Mayor Harrison described the nature of the speeches at the
Haymarket to be, "tame. 1f33 Spies, Parsons, and Fielden had,
for years, been delivering speeches and writing articles
calling for the overthrow of capitalism and had done nothing
differently during the days and weeks leading up to the
Haymarket meeting to suggest that the revolution should begin
on that day.
However, the inflammatory speeches and articles
delivered by several of the anarchists proved to be the most
useful weapons for the prosecution. After failing to prove
that any of the anarchists had a hand in the throwing of the
bomb or they conspired to attack the police at the Haymarket,
the prosecution turned to its final theory. Grinnell argued
that the bombthrower, whoever it was, was somehow influenced
to throw his deadly weapon by the writings and/or speeches,
of the defendants. To accomplish this, the prosecution
introduced into evidence anything that could link the
anarchists to radicalism, or more importantly, to infuriate
the emotions of the jury. It quickly became obvious that the
prosecution had another objective in mind. In addition to
attempting to prove that the bombthrower was influenced by
the anarchists, the prosecution was putting anarchism itself
on trial.
Here is yet another point in the trial where any
33 Lum, 30.
62
impartial justice-seeking judge would have put a stop to the
direction in which the prosecution was taking the trial.
Judge Gary did the opposite. He not only allowed the
prosecution to put the defendants on trial for simply being
anarchists, but over the objections of the defense, he
allowed Grinnell and his partners to bring into the courtroom
evidence that was not connected to the murder of Officer
Degan. To the charge of being radical anarchists who
advocated the violent overthrow of the government, the
defendants were, indeed, guilty. They had, for years,
written articles, held rallies, and made speeches arguing
against capitalism and for the violent overthrow of the
existing system. The defense knew this, and feared that, if
cornered, Grinnell would make this argument the cornerstone
of his case. Grinnell had planted the seed for this argument
early in the trial when he stated that the future of anarchy
was on trial. Opening for the defense, Moses Solomon
rebutted:
Mr. Grinnell said...that this is the trial of anarchy
and of socialism. We have steadily refused...that any
man on this jury will be willing to convict any of these
defendants either because he may be an anarchist or a
socialist.34
Solomon continued to try to focus the jury on what the
defendants were actually on trial for. He held up a copy of
the indictment and emphasized to the jury that, " ...they are
not charged with anarchy; they are not charged with
34 Lum, 103.
63
socialism...The charge here is shown by this indictment.
This is the accusation. ,,2S Unfortunately, given the jury's
bias, Solomon was, perhaps, speaking to deaf ears.
Still, to prove that the defendants' writings or
speeches influenced the bombthrower, the prosecution had to
prove that the man who threw the bomb had been exposed to the
teachings of the anarchists. Since he was never identified,
let alone apprehended, this was impossible. Yet, this was
the argument the prosecution resorted to. The reason for
this argument was obvious. By arguing that the bombthrower
was influenced by the speeches and writings of the
defendants, Grinnell had to expose the jury to these speeches
and writings. This argument was his way to introduce into
evidence items that would inflame the prejudices and passions
of an already biased jury.
Grinnell began by introducing articles from anarchist
newspapers The Alarm, and The Arbeiter-Zeitung, The IWPA
Platform, excerpts from speeches delivered by the defendants,
the "Revenge Circular", and other pieces of evidence that
did, indeed, prove that the defendants were radical
anarchists who advocated the overthrow of the government.
None of this, however, linked any of the defendants to the
murder of Officer Degan. Nor could it be proved that the
bombthrower had been exposed to any of it.
For example, the March 19, 1886 edition of the Arbeiter 
Zeitung was presented verbatim to the jury. As Grinnell
35 Lum. 104.
64
began to read it, the defense furiously objected since this
newspaper did not have any relevance to the murder of Officer
Degan. The objection was brushed aside by Judge Gary and
Grinnell continued reading, "If we do not soon bestir
ourselves for a bloody revolution we cannot leave anything to
our children but poverty and slavery. Therefore prepare
yourselves in all quietness for the revolution. u36
The April 18, 1885 edition of The Alarm contained this
disturbing article. "Assassination will remove evil from the
face of the earth...Assassination properly applied is wise,
just, humane and brave. For freedom, all things are just.U37
Although quite offensive and incriminating, it could not be
proved that the Haymarket bomber had read it. The purpose of
this article was obvious. It was meant not so much to
incriminate the accused, but to offend and disturb the jury.
In addition to the volumes of newspaper articles
introduced by the prosecution, they also produced witnesses
to testify as to the content of speeches delivered by the
defendants. Lawrence Hardy testified that on March 12, 1886
during a meeting of ex-employees from the McCormick's
Harvester Works Company, Samuel Fielden made these remarks:
We are told that we must attain our ends and aims by
obeying law and order. Damn law and order! We have
obeyed law and order long enough. The time has come for
you, men, to strangle the law, or the law will strangle
you. What you should do is organize and march up the
Black road and take possession of McCormick's factory;
36 George Hunt and Julius S. Grinnell, Brief on the Facts for the Defendants in Error (Chicago:
Barnard and Gunthorp, 1887) 43.
37Hunt and Grinnell, 28.
65
it belongs to you; not him. You made it; he did not. 38
Again, although this proved that Samuel Fielden was, indeed,
a radical who preached violence and, in this case, an attack
on a former employer, it says nothing of the bombthrower.
Nobody knows whether or not the bombthrower ever heard this
speech or if he had heard of Samuel Fielden.
The prosecution presented to the jury both the English
and German versions of the "Revenge Circularfl and the Meeting
Handbill distributed around the city the day of the Haymarket
meeting. Indeed, both called for "Workingmen, to Arms fl and
to "Appear in Full Force"j9 It seemed quite possible that
the bombthrower did read at least one of the handouts. The
unknown assailant had to have gained knowledge of the time
and place of the meeting somehow. Yet, how was one to deduce
that it inspired him to bring an explosive device to the
meeting and hurl it into the police that he certainly had no
idea would be there? The prosecution argued that these two
handouts heightened the anger of the strikers and prepared
them to attack the police. Yet, when one compares the
content of the two handouts to the content of newspaper
articles and speeches the anarchists had given for years, one
finds little or no difference. The two handouts were in
complete consistency with their past doctrines. All of these
items Judge Gary admitted into evidence even though none
could be directly linked to Degan's death.
38 Hunt and Grinnell, 49-50.
39 See Appendices A and B.
66
Perhaps most appalling was the physical evidence that
Gary allowed the prosecution to put on display. After
refusing an obviously proper objection, he allowed Grinnell
and his associates to lay before the jury blood stained and
shredded uniforms of officers wounded (my emphasis) at the
Haymarket. What did these uniforms have to do with the
murder of Degan? His uniform was never produced and the
holes in these were not from bomb shrapnel, but from bullets.
These uniforms had nothing to do with the case at hand and
were, "...a disgusting and vulgar appeal to the passions and
fears ...", of the jury.40 The state also introduced several
metal cans, gas pipes boxes and other miscellaneous fragments
of explosive material which had been detonated during police
experiments to show the jury the force of dynamite bombs.
The last of those introduced, ". ..were four tin cans, found
four weeks after the Haymarket meeting and, from their very
construction, altogether different from the bomb used on the
night of May 4. "41
Judge Gary also allowed the prosecution to bring into
his courtroom the blasting furnace found at Engel's home.
Even the prosecution admitted it had never been used. Its
purpose was so that Grinnell could have Inspector John
Bonfield testify that it could be used to melt metal in order
to construct an explosive device. Never mind that it had
never been used for that or any other purpose. Dyer Lum
40 Lum, 172.
41 Ibid.
67
corrunented, "Its introduction but served to insinuate into the
minds of the jurors that they actually saw before them an
anarchist's blast furnace!U4< Finally, as if putting on a
parade, the prosecution waived anarchist flags and banners in
front of the jury. Not one of these banners was at the
Haymarket and most had been confiscated without warrant from
the office of the Arbeiter-Zeitung where they had hung
harmlessly for only the paper's workers to see.13
Once Judge Gary overruled the defense's objections, the
defendants' attorneys could do little more than remind, time
and time again, that much of the evidence produced by the
prosecution had no direct relevance to the charge at hand,
the murder of Officer Degan. The defense made no effort to
deny any of the inflarrunatory speeches or newspaper articles.
They stressed to the jury that all of these utterances,
regardless of how disturbing they were, were well within the
Constitutional rights of the accused men as well as all other
Americans. Moreover, it was never proved that the bornbthrower
had heard an anarchist speech or read an anarchist newspaper.
Indeed, it was just as possible, perhaps more so, that the
bornbthrower had his own agenda, completely separate from the
anarchist cause, and driven to attack the police for some
unknown reason. During the months of testimony in the summer
of 1886 the prosecution was never able to prove that the
bornbthrower had any connection to, or had heard of, any of
42 Lum. 172.
43 Ibid.
68
the defendants or their beliefs. Haymarket riot historian
Paul Avrich commented:
The mere general advice to commit revolutionary or
violent acts, without evidence connecting that advice
with the bombthrower, was insufficient to warrant the
conviction of any of the defendants as accessories; and
since the bombthrower had not been apprehended, it was
impossible to determine his motive...44
After the prosecution and defense rested, however, Judge Gary
made the question of the bombthrower's motive and identity an
irrelevant point.
44 Avrich, 277.
69
V, Judge Gary's Grand Finale
All that remained before jury deliberations were the
instructions of Judge Joseph Gary. If one failed to see his
glaring bias during jury selection, his discretion in
determining the validity of objections, or the latitude he
allowed the prosecution in its arguments, one could scarcely
miss his stunning bias in his instructions to the jury.
Judge Gary focused the jury with words that all but sealed
the fate of the defendants. He explained to the twelve men
who held the fate of the eight anarchists in their hands that
if the defendants:
...by print or speech advised, or encouraged the
commission of murder, without designating time, place or
occasion at which it should be done, and in pursuance
of, and induced by such advice and encouragement, murder
was committed, then all of such conspirators are guilty
of such murder, whether the person who perpetrated such
murder can be identified or not. 1
That the jury was already tainted with pre1udice was
apparently not enough for Judge Gary. Judge Gary told the
jury that if person "A" advocates in a general manner the
breaking of a law and then person "B" breaks this law, then
person "A" can be held criminally responsible for person
"B"'s actions. With this charge Judge Gary practically told
1 Avrich, 277.
70
the jury to deliver a guilty verdict.
These instructions were like none any jury before or
since has received. "Gary, with these words, presented a
new, unheard-of-charge to the jury.U2 Even he knew of the
originality behind it. Well after the trial was over, Gary
attempted to defend his words when he argued that the case
itself was so unique that he needed to handle it in a unique
manner and that if he had, " ...strained the law a bit, he was
to be commended, not criticized.uJ Certainly, State's
Attorney Grinnell and his associates agreed with this
statement. In what was already a trial stacked in their
favor, Gary's charge to the jury was, as Haymarket historian
Paul Avrich put it, " ...everything the prosecution could have
hoped for. u4
The jury left the courtroom for its deliberations after
lunch on August 19, 1886. The jurors had an immense task
ahead of them. The twelve men had to sift carefully through
over two months of testimony delivered by dozens of witnesses
and then cross-examined by the opposition's attorneys. They
then had to separate each bit of evidence as to which
defendants it applied to and which ones it did not. One
would have thought this would certainly be a lengthy and
tiresome task. Not the case for Judge Gary's jury.
Three hours after the jury left the courtroom, the
2 Avrich, 277.
3 Joseph E. Gary, 'The Chicago Anarchists: The Crime, and the Trial, and the Punishment" The
Century Magazine (April, 1893) , 809.
4 Avrich, 278.
71
foreman, Frank Osborne, sent word to Judge Gary that they had
reached a verdict. The next morning a crowd gathered around
the Cook County Courthouse to await the decision and the
sentences which, according to Illinois statute, the jury was
also to determine. Promptly at 10:00 A.M. foreman Osborne
told Judge Gary that the jury had reached a decision and
handed the decision to the court clerk who read the decision
outloud:
We, the jury, find the defendants August Spies, Michael
Schwab, Samuel Fielden, Albert R. Parsons, Adolph
Fischer, George Engel, and Louis Lingg guilty of murder
in manner and form as charged in the indictment, and fix
the penalty at death. We find the defendant Oscar Neebe
guilty of murder in manner and form as charged in the
indictment and fix the penalty at imprisonment in the
penitentiary for fifteen years.5
The fact that the jury deliberated for only three hours over
testimony that lasted for two months was certainly a bad omen
for the defense. However, the defense never expected the
death penalty for seven of the eight defendants. Not even
the prosecution expected this punishment. In his closing
argument, Grinnell conceded that there were gradations as to
the guilt of the accused and there should be gradations to
their punishments. He explained, "Spies, Fischer, Lingg,
Engel, Fielden, Parsons, Schwab, Neebe, in my opinion, based
on the proof, is the order of the punishments. u6 There was
even evidence that Grinnell said at the close of evidence
that there was no case against Neebe and that if he did not
5 Avrich, 279.
6 Schaack, 577.
72
feel it would damage his entire case he would dismiss the
charges against him. The prosecution, however, made no
complaints and readied itself for the congratulations that
poured in.
The verdict was greeted with approval in Chicago as well
as the nation as a whole. "The Scaffold Waits ...Seven
Dangling Nooses for the Dynamite Fiends", wrote the Chicago
Tribune." Not a single newspaper initially criticized the
decision. The verdict was treated by the press as if it was
the definition of justice. Editorials congratulated Julius
Grinnell and the rest of the prosecution for a job well done.
Thanks also went out to the twelve members of the jury for
their service to society. During his discharge of the jury,
Judge Gary thanked them for their service and told them that,
"You ...deserve some recognition of the service you have
performed beside the meager compensation you are to receive.,,9
And so it was. The city of Chicago did, indeed, feel
indebted to the twelve men who had crushed anarchy. "I beg
to suggest the propriety of starting a subscription for the
purpose of raising at least $1,000 for the benefit of each
jury man." wrote the Editor of the Chicago Tribune on August
20. 10
The prosecution graciously accepted its thanks. The
twelve good men from the jury were hailed as heroes. But
7 For information on this statement see pp. 95-96.
8 Chicago Tribune. August 21. 1886.
gLum, 188.
10 Chicago Tribune. August 20. 1886.
73
what of Judge Gary? lr the prosecution and the jury deserved
credit for the verdict, surely Gary deserved at least as
much. After all, he allowed the prosecution to virtually
hand pick the jury. He also allowed the prosecution to jump
from theory to theory during the trial. None of this could
have been accomplished had Joseph Gary not allowed it.
Their beliefs were radical, their suggestions indeed
dangerous, but the Chicago anarchists were entitled to
receive a fair trial. One can hardly fault State's Attorney
Grinnell for doing all he could to secure the convictions.
Indeed, it was his job. As for the jury, that these
impassioned men even sat in the jury box was Judge Gary's
doing. His job in the case was to impartially try the case
and guarantee the defendants a fair trial even with the
inflamed public opinion against them.
The defendants and their counsel undoubtedly made their
most costly error before the trial even began. The decision
to ask for a change of venue from Judge Rogers courtroom to
Judge Gary's can best be described as sadly ironic. Albert
Parsons was indeed correct when he described the move as a
jump, "from the frying pan into the fire".l1 Gary's bias
appeared even before the trial began. One would have to
search the dockets of the criminal courts to find a case that
more certainly deserved separate trials for the defendants.
Yet, Judge Gary turned down this request as if it were
preposterous. As mentioned before, even the prosecution
11 Zeisler, 24.
74
acknowledged that there were gradations as to the guilt of
each defendant. Had separate trials been granted, only the
evidence that pertained to a specific defendant could have
been used against him. With all eight tried together,
evidence against one easily became evidence against all.
Perhaps at no time during the trial was Gary's bias more
obvious than during jury selection. The defense's total of
160 peremptory challenges were far from sufficient due to
Judge Gary's refusal to remove any prospective jurors for
cause. Perhaps no number would have been enough. Although
potential jurors fit to try the case were virtually
nonexistent, it was Gary's responsibility to dismiss for
cause exactly these men. But he did not and the defense was
forced to exhaust its peremptory challenges at a rate that
left itself at the mercy of the prosecution. Black and his
associates had to accept jurors who, although biased against
the defendants appeared of better quality than the others.
Still, the twelve men who decided the case were far from
impartial. Only two, Osborne and Randall, said nothing that
should have disqualified them during questioning. Jurors
Cole and Ludwig stated that they were prejudiced against
socialists, anarchists, and communists, while jurors Denker,
Todd, Brayton, Reed, Greiner, and Adams admitted that they
had already formed an opinion regarding the case. Juror
Stanford was prejudiced against socialists, anarchists, and
communists and already had an opinion as to the guilt or
innocence of the defendants, while juror Hamilton felt that
someone should be made an example of for what happened at the
Haymarket.
Gary's bias never wavered as the prosecution and defense
began their cases. He gave the prosecution near full control
of the issues to be explored during questioning. The defense
was handcuffed and only allowed to argue points that directly
related to the topic being covered. Conversely, the
prosecution was allowed to wander from argument to argument
and make evidence against one defendant appear to apply to
all of them. When the defense objected, it was quickly
overruled.
Astonishingly, Gary allowed State's Attorney Grinnell to
jump from one theory of the crime to a second and then to a
third. Initially, Grinnell argued that several of the
defendants actually aided the bombthrower in his deadly task.
When this theory proved insufficient, Gary allowed the
State's Attorney to change his theory and argue that several
of the defendants conspired the night before the Haymarket
riot at Grief's Hall to attack the police on the forth of
May. After the defense provided evidence challenging the
second theory, the judge allowed Grinnell to introduce yet
another theory of the crime; that the defendants had
influenced through their speeches and writings the unknown
bombthrower to commit this crime. To show how radical and
dangerous the defendants were, the prosecution produced
inflammatory documents, speech excerpts, bloody police
uniforms, anarchist flags, and even an unused blasting
furnace. The defense immediately realized that the purpose
of these items was to inflame the passions of the jurors
against the anarchists and to put anarchy itself on trail.
Yet, all of its objections to these items were overruled.
Still, the prosecution never produced any evidence that the
bombthrower had heard an anarchist speech or read an
anarchists newspaper. Therefore, it was impossible to deduce
that the anarchists had the least bit of influence on him
whatsoever. Thus, Grinnell's third theory was also
deficient.
Gary himself changed all this with his instructions to
the jury in which he practically argued the prosecution's
case. In his charge Gary said that if the defendants
encouraged murder and never said when or where it was to take
place, then they were responsible if it happened even if the
actual perpetrator was never apprehended. These novel
instructions to the jury were an exact (my emphasis)
description of what had happened at the Haymarket. Perhaps
not in so many words, but Judge Gary virtually told the jury
to convict all eight defendants. For the defendants, Gary
represented everything they despised and had fought against
all their lives. For the prosecution, he was an invaluable
ally and, was indeed, everything the prosecution could have
hoped for.
77
VI , Conclusion
Although the Chicago Tribune was quick to write, "The
Scaffold Waits ...Seven Dangling Nooses for the Dynamite
Fiends", the ultimate fate of the Chicago anarchists was far
from over the day trial ended. There were still appeals to
higher courts and the possibility of commutation or even
pardon. After the verdict was announced, all eight of the
defendants were taken to the Cook County jail to await the
scaffold or, in Oscar Neebe's case, a prison assignment to
serve his fifteen year sentence. The hangings of the seven
men sentenced to death were set for December 3, 1886 which
left precious little time for Defense Council William Black
to remedy the unjust convictions. His first move was to
appeal t y the Illinois Supreme Court for a hearing for a writ
of error and an immediate stay of execution. The State
Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal and granted the stay
of execution pending the outcome of the hearing.
Black and State's Attorney Julius Grinnell appeared in
front of the state's highest court in March of 1887. Black's
arguments centered on Judge Gary's "grave, persistent and
inexcusable errors" that plagued the trial from jury
selection to his unheard-of charge to the jury.' Grinnell's
1 Hunt and Grinnell, 1.
78
argument simply rested upon the opposite view that Judge Gary
had handled the case accordingly and that the jury had indeed
handed down a just verdict. An agonizing six months lapsed
before the Illinois Supreme Court handed down its decision.
Finally, on September 14, 1887 the Illinois Supreme
Court announced its unanimous decision. Supreme Court
Justice John Mulkey wrote:
I do not wish to be understood as holding that the
record is free from error, for I do not think it is, I
am nevertheless of the opinion that none of the errors
complained of are of so serious a character as to
require a reversal of the judgment.2
The highest court in the state upheld the verdict of the
lower court. Given all the evidence of how Judge Gary ran
his courtroom in the summer of 1886, how could the highest
court in the state of Illinois not overturn the convictions?
Inherently, one of two things had to have happened.
Perhaps, due to its enormous caseload the Supreme Court did
not fully grasp the biased actions of Judge Joseph Gary and
therefore did not have a clear picture of what truly happened
during the trial. Or, perhaps, the high court had also been
caught up in the "Red Scare" and had simply turned a deaf ear
to justice and upheld the verdict in order to send a message
to radicals throughout Illinois. Most likely, the answer was
a combination of both.
Certainly, each justice on the high court could not have
read over the literally thousands of pages testimony and
2 Avrich, 334.
79
argument from the trial. It seems obvious that a brief
overview of only the most blatant errors in the case would
prompt one to seriously question the verdict. However,
State's Attorney Grinnell was a savvy and effective lawyer
and, as he did in the original trial, he was able to make
serious errors appear minor. The ease at which this was
accomplished was, undoubtedly, aided by the conservative
nature of the courts in the late Nineteenth Century.: The
justices were human and products of their time. They served
in a time in which the American court system in general sided
with business, not labor, and were undoubtedly affected by
the wave of anti-anarchy passion that swept the nation after
Haymarket. This, in no way, mitigates the responsibility of
Judge Gary! Had the justices seen Gary's actions firsthand
even their conservative leanings may not have been enough to
allow the verdict to be upheld.
Along with turning down the defense's appeal, the state
Supreme Court reset the date for the seven hangings to
November 11, 1887. The final chance for appeal carne on
October 27 when the defense team appeared before the United
States Supreme Court with another appeal for a writ of error.
However, the highest court in the land quickly ruled on
November 2 that it had no jurisdiction in the case because no
federal issue was involved. However, as Haymarket historian
Paul Avrich pointed out, " ...during the arrests and trial,
3 For more information on the conservative nature of the American court system in the Nineteenth
Century see Arnold Paul's Conservative Crisis and the Rule of Law: Attitudes of Bar and Bench,
1887-1895. (New York: Harper and Rowe, 1960)
80
fundamental constitutional rights had been violated,
including freedom of speech and assembly, protection from
illegal search and seizure, and due process of law. u4 With
only nine days before the execution date the anarchists
appeared to be at the end of their rope. Only an official
pardon or commutation of sentence from the governor could
save them.
The ultimate fate of the seven men condemned to death
rested with Illinois Governor Richard J. Oglesby. Shortly
after the verdict had been announced an Amnesty Association
was formed by liberal sympathizers throughout Chicago and the
United States. The trial and verdict had obviously inflamed
many influential members of the public. Included in the
ranks of the Amnesty Association were names such as Henry D.
Lloyd, Samuel Gompers, and even Judge Samuel McConnell, son-
in-law of Judge Rogers who had presided over the grand jury
that indicted the anarchists. The association had been
working since the verdict was announced over a year earlier
collecting signatures for an amnesty petition to be presented
to Governor Oglesby. "Oglesby was swamped with
petitions...They came from every part of the country...ln
less than a week more than 40,000 signatures were collected. us
The list included men such as William C. Goudy (head of the
Chicago Bar Association), Stephen S. Gregory (future
president of the American Bar Association), and even Lyman
4 Avrich, 335.
5 Ibid.. 338.
81
Trumbull, former Illinois Supreme Court Justice. When Samuel
McConnell of the Amnesty Association requested Trumbull's
signature, the former justice replied, "I will sign. Those
men did not have a fair trial."" With men such as these
voicing their opinions on the lack of justice in Judge Gary's
courtroom, Governor Oglesby would certainly have to consider
reducing the sentences to at least life in prison.
Before the governor could consider a commutation of
sentence, Illinois state law required the condemned to submit
a formal letter of request. This, in itself, proved to be a
difficult task, as the anarchists were proud and stubborn
men. Only Fielden, Schwab, and Spies agreed to submit the
request. The views of Lingg, Parsons, Fischer, and Engel
can, perhaps, be best summarized by the response of Louis
Lingg who wrote directly to Governor Oglesby. "I demand
either liberty or death. If you are really a servant of the
people, according to the constitution, then you will, by
virtue of your office, unconditionally release me.,,7 The
possibility of a pardon from Governor Oglesby was slim.
Indeed, even the majority of the petitions asked for only a
commutation of sentence.
On November 6, 1887, however, the entire situation
changed. August Spies recanted his request for a reduced
sentence, deciding to face the hangman with his four
comrades. Four days later, a loud explosion was heard from
6 Avrich, 339. Lyman Trumbull is, perhaps, most famous for being Abraham Lincoln's former law
partner.
7 McLean, 215.
82
within Louis Lingg's cell. He had slipped a small dynamite
cartridge into his mouth and detonated it. When the guards
arrived, they saw Lingg bleeding badly, his jaw and bottom
parts of his face blown off. After clinging to life for
several hours, he finally died, one day before Spies,
Parsons, Fischer, and Engel. Then, only a few hours after
the suicide of Louis Lingg, Governor Oglesby informed the
defense team that he was going to commute the sentences of
Samuel Fielden and Michael Schwab to life in prison. This
left four men, August Spies, Albert Parsons, Adolph Fischer,
and George Engel, to face the scaffold.
The setting for the executions was the Cook County Jail
and the designated time was Noon on November 11, 1887. All
four men requested time to address the small audience of
approximately 170 people, made up of reporters, doctors,
government officials, family members, and the jury members
from the trial." The request was denied. Shortly before
Noon, Cook County Sheriff Canute Matson and several of his
deputies led the four men out of their cells and up the steps
to the scaffold. Their feet were bound and white caps placed
over their heads. Although their request to speak had been
denied the four condemned men did not miss their final
opportunity to, at least briefly, address an audience.
From inside his white hood, August Spies cried out, "The
time will come when our silence will be more powerful than
the voices you strangle today!" Adolph Fischer followed,
8 Avrich. 392.
83
shouting, "Hurrah for anarchy!" George Engel echoed, "Hurrah
for anarchy! This is the happiest day of my life!" Then
Albert Parsons attempted to begin what appeared to be a
speech. "Will I be allowed to speak? Oh, men of America. Let
me speak. Sheriff Matson, let the voice of the people be
heard! 0 ...."9 He never finished. In mid-sentence the trap
doors beneath their feet dropped.
After about seven minutes of struggling and twitching
the four Haymarket martyrs were pronounced dead at 12:06 P.M.
November 11, 1887. Later that day, deputies led Oscar
Neebe, Samuel Fielden, and Michael Schwab onto a train bound
for Joliet State Penitentiary where they would serve their
sentences. For many Chicagoans, and Americans in general,
justice had been served: indeed, the prevailing view was that
anarchy had finally been taught a lesson.
As the years past and the three surviving anarchists
served their time at the state facility, the emotions that
surrounded the bombing, the trial, and the hangings began to
subside. As cooler heads prevailed, many began to see that
fear and passion had run rampant during the entire Haymarket
affair. Many of these people questioned whether or not the
trial had been a fair one. These subtle changes in the
overall perception of what had happened in the summer of 1886
aided the Amnesty Association in their work to free the three
imprisoned men. Although the Amnesty Association began
9 Chicago Tribune, November 12.1887.
10 Avrich, 393.
84
working for the pardon of the three surviving anarchists
immediately after the execution of Spies, Parsons, Fischer,
and Engel, its progress was meager. After all, the only way
to free Neebe, Schwab, and Fielden was to obtain an official
pardon from Governor Oglesby, and he had only reluctantly
commuted the sentences of Fielden and Schwab. The situation
with Oglesby and his successor Joseph Fifer was much the
same. The Amnesty Association again made their arguments for
a pardon, but the new governor had no interest in their
cause.
The situation changed in 1892 when the voters of
Illinois sent to Springfield a new governor in John Peter
Altgeld. He was a man known for his honesty and integrity,
"...a genuine humanitarian, who despised injustice and
recoiled at seeing the law made into a tool of the rich
against the poor. nll Altgeld's victory gave new life to the
hopes of the Amnesty Association as he was considered far
more liberal than either of his two predecessors. Born in
Germany in 1847, his parents brought him to the United States
at only three months old. He served in the Union Army during
the Civil War and then finished his law degree and began a
practice in Chicago. It was in 1886, ironically the same
year as the Haymarket bombing and trial, that he decided to
run for the Superior Court of Cook County. In the election
he carried the day and took office on December 1, 1886, only
a few months after the trial was complete. As November 11,
11 Avrich, 417.
85
1887 approached, "Nearly every other Chicagoan of liberal
tendencies was moved to voice protests publicly in one way or
another against the hangings. ,,:~ However, John Peter Altgeld,
far more liberal than most, said nothing in public regarding
the fate of the anarchists. Perhaps this was a shrewd
political move. During the campaign against Fifer in 1892,
although the Republicans ridiculed him for being ,"too
liberal", and ,"a foreigner", the issue of a pardon for the
anarchists never arose." However, when Altgeld became
governor in January of 1893, the Amnesty Association appealed
to him almost immediately.
Pushing Altgeld hard on behalf of the Amnesty
Association was a young Clarence Darrow, who would grow to
become one of most famous legal minds of his age. Like
Governor Oglesby in 1887, Altgeld was besieged by stacks of
petitions and letters begging for the release of the three
imprisoned anarchists immediately after inauguration. Yet,
during the early months of his tenure as governor he only
promised that he would look into the case. He requested all
the files and the trial transcript, but the months passed
without any mention of his decision nor any action. After
several fruitless visits to Springfield, Darrow convinced
Samuel McConnell to try to persuade the governor to take
action on the matter. McConnell was a close friend of John
Altgeld and also a fellow judge. The meeting was intense and
12 Harry Barnard, Eagle Forgotten: The Life of John Peter Altgeld. (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill,
1938),115.
13 Ibid., 157-159.
86
the dialogue reflected Altgeld's stress over his monumental
decision. McConnell argued to the governor:
Fielden and Schwab were wrongfully convicted and ought
to be pardoned the same time Neebe is. I am afraid it
will end your political career, but still I cannot help
but urge you to pardon all three of the men, and I hope
you will do SO.14
The usually mild mannered governor, obviously perturbed by
McConnell's insinuation that he might let his political
ambitions affect his decision, snapped back at his old
friend, "By God! If I decide that they are innocent, I will
pardon them if I never hold office another daylU15 Both men
were indeed correct in thinking that a pardon could greatly
hurt Altgeld's career. Many of his opponents had already
labeled him a liberal foreigner. A pardon of the foreign-
born anarchists would do nothing but strengthen this
accusation. Certainly, a pardon of these enemies of
capitalism would destroy any good relations the governor had
with the business community. Yet, after reading the trial
transcript and pouring over the volumes of files and
affidavits associated with the case, Altgeld put his
conscience above his political future.
On Monday, June 26, 1893 Governor Altgeld called for his
Secretary of State William Hinrichsen to place his signature
upon the pardons he had drawn up for Oscar Neebe, Samuel
Fielden, and Michael Schwab. When the secretary questioned
14 Barnard, 186.
15 Ibid.
87
whether it was the right thing for Altgeld to do, the
governor interrupted him, slammed his fist down upon his desk
and shouted, "It is right!Ul6 Hinrichsen affixed his
signature to the official papers and they were sent off to
Joliet State Penitentiary.
The news of the pardons hit the papers across the
country the next day. Regardless of the opinion a person
held, the most common question was simple. Why? No law
required that the governor answer that question. Yet,
Altgeld did not shrink from a full explanation of why he had
freed the imprisoned men. Along with his unconditional
pardon, he released a public statement titled Reasons For
Pardoning Fielden, Neebe, and Schwab. 17
In it he explained exactly what the title suggested.
John Peter Altgeld's biographer, Harry Barnard, described it
as, " ...the calmest, clearest, most incisive and most factual
dissertation of all the hundreds of tracts, legal
discussions, magazine articles and books ever composed on
that stirring case. u18 Altgeld began his explanation with a
short recapitulation of what happened on the night of May 4,
1886, and then went on to explain that he had received
thousands of letters and petitions that urged executive
clemency. He explained that some of these letters and
petitions argued simply that, assuming the men were guilty,
16 Avrich, 421.
17 John Peter Altgeld, Reasons For Pardoning Fielden, Neebe and Schwab (Springfield, Illinois:
1893).
16 Barnard, 216.
88
they had suffered enough. However, according to Altgeld, many
argued that upon close examination of the record the men
should be released for a different reasons. 1o He listed:
First--That the jury which tried the case was a
packed jury selected to convict.
Second--That according to the law as laid down by
the supreme court, both prior to and again since the
trial of this case, the jurors, according to their own
answers, were not competent jurors and the trial was
therefore not a legal trial.
Third--That the defendants were not proven to be
guilty of the crime charged in the indictment.
Fourth--That as to the defendant Neebe, the state's
attorney had declared at the close of the evidence that
there was no case against him, and yet he has been kept
in prison all these years.
Fifth--That the trial judge was either so
prejudiced against the defendants, or else so determined
to win the applause of a certain class in the community
that he could not and did not grant a fair trial.20
The governor explained that if Fielden, Neebe, and Schwab had
received a fair trial and were, indeed, guilty of the crime
they were indicted for, " ...then there ought to be no
executive interference, for no punishment under our laws
could then be too severe. H21 This being said, he made
perfectly clear that he was not pardoning them simply because
they had been punished enough. He pardoned them because he
agreed with the five points made by many of those who
petitioned him regarding a packed jury, in an unfair trial,
19 Altgeld, 4-5.
20 Ibid., 5.
21 Ibid., 5.
89
that convicted innocent men. He then went on to comment on
why he agreed with the five points previously listed.
In his first section, titled Was the Jury Packed?,
Governor Altgeld examined the manner in which the jury was
selected. He focused on the odd manner in which Judge Gary
allowed potential jurors to be selected. As mentioned
before, instead of randomly selecting the names of potential
jurors, Judge Gary appointed bailiff Henry L. Ryce to select
at his discretion. It became painfully obvious to the
defense that, " ...Ryce was summoning only prejudiced men, as
shown by their examinations, further: That he was confining
himself to particular classes, i.e. clerks, merchants,
manufacturers, etc.,,22 Of course, when the defense objected to
this method of jury selection, Judge Gary paid them no
attention and the empaneling of the jury continued in this
manner. The governor also pointed out the amazing affidavit
of Otis S. Favor, former member of the jury pool. Favor
testified that Ryce told him during jury selection at the
courthouse:
I am managing this case, and know what I am about. I am
calling such men as the defendants will have to
challenge peremptorily and waste their time and
challenges. Then they will have to take such men as the
prosecution wants. 23
Governor Altgeld then examined the questioning of both
22 Altgeld, 7.
23 Ibid., 8.
90
potential jurors and the twelve who actually tried the case.24
He pointed out how virtually every man questioned, including
those who tried the case, indicated that they had already
formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the
accused. Yet, Judge Gary pronounced them all fit for service
on the jury. Altgeld plainly stated that this was an unheard
of legal precedent and, "These facts alone would call for
executive interference.,,25
Altgeld did not stop there. He went on in section II,
Recent Decision of the Supreme Court as to Competency of
Jurors, to point out that even if those jurors were fit to
try the case in 1886, which he plainly did not believe, the
State Supreme Court had cleared up its definition of a
competent juror. In January 1893 the Illinois Supreme Court
ruled in the People vs. Coughlin that a potential juror who
had read about a crime and formed an opinion as to the guilt
or innocence of the defendant(s) was not fit for service on
the jury.
Where it is once clearly shown that there exists in the
mind of the juror..? a fixed and positive opinion as to
the merits of the case, or as to the guilt or innocence
of the defendant he is called to try, his statement that
notwithstanding such opinion he can render a fair and
impartial verdict according to the law and evidence, has
little, if any, tendency to establish his impartiality.
This is so because a juror who has sworn to have in his
mind a fixed and positive opinion as to the guilt or
innocence of the accused is not impartial, as a matter
24 For actual documentation on the questioning 01 potential jurors as well as those who tried the
case, see Chapter III. Governor Altgeld's documentation was much the same as included in this
document.
25 Altgeld, 29.
91
of fact.::E
Even Justice Benjamin D. Magruder, who had written the
decision that upheld the conviction of the eight anarchists,
admitted that if the court was correct in the People vs.
Coughlin then it was wrong when it upheld the convictions in
the Haymarket trial.27 At this point in Reasons for Pardoning
Fielden, Neebe, and Schwab it is obvious that Governor
Altgeld felt the jury was packed to convict and that, given
the recent supreme court decision, the highest court in the
state agreed. He could have stopped there and his
explanation would have been sufficient. But the governor had
much more to say.
In his third chapter, Does the Proof Show Guilt?,
Governor Altgeld began by attacking Judge Gary's charge to
the jury before their deliberations.28 Altgeld criticized,
"...in all the centuries during which government has been
maintained among men, and crime has been punished, no judge
in a civilized country has ever laid down such a rule
before. ,,29 He went on to point out that even if Gary's rule
were valid, "...it was necessary under it to prove...that the
person committing the violent deed had at least heard or read
the advice given to the masses ...it is here the case for the
state fails."JO In this section the governor took issue with
the conviction on two levels. First, that Gary's charge to
26 Altgeld, 30.
27 Avrich, 418.
28 See pages 70-71 of this document.
29 Altgeld, 36.
30 Ibid., 37.
92
the jury prior to its deliberations was a case of the jUdge
making the law as he saw fit. Second, even with Gary's
ruling, the prosecution still never proved the guilt of the
eight defendants.
Governor Altgeld's final two chapters were extremely
brief. In Chapter IV, State's Attorney on Neebe's Innocence,
he focused on a letter sent to former Governor Fifer in 1889
by Chicago Mayor Carter Harrison and F. S. Winston, then
corporation counsel for Chicago. In the letter both Harrison
and Winston informed the governor of a conversation with
State's Attorney Julius S. Grinnell during the trial:
Mr. Grinnell stated to us that he did not think there
was sufficient testimony to convict Neebe. I (Mayor
Harrison) thereupon earnestly advised him, as the
representative of the state, to dismiss the case as to
Neebe, and if I remember rightly he was seriously
thinking of doing so, but on consultation with his
assistants and on their advice he determined not to do
so lest it would have an injurious effect on the case as
against the other prisoners.31
It should come as no surprise that Grinnell denied ever
making such a remark. Yet, when one examines the evidence,
or lack thereof, it is certainly believable that Grinnell, or
anyone else, could make such a statement.
Altgeld's final chapter, Prejudice or Subserviency of
Judge, was made up of a list of attacks levied on Judge Gary
by those who believed the anarchists to be innocent.
It is further charged with much bitterness by those who
speak for the prisoners that the record of the case
31 Altgeld, 59.
93
shows that the judge conducted the trial with malicious
ferocity and forced eight men to be tried together; that
in cross-examining the state's witnesses he confined
counsel for the defense to the specific points touched
on by the state, while in the cross-examination of the
defendants' witnesses he permitted the state's attorney
to go into all manner of subjects entirely foreign to
the matters on which the witnesses were examined in
chief; also that every ruling throughout the long trial
on any contested point was in favor of the state, and
further, that page after page of the record contains
insinuating remarks of the judge, made in the hearing of
the jury, and with the evident intent of bringing the
jury to his way of thinking; that these speeches, coming
from the court, were much more damaging than any
speeches from the state's attorney could possibly
have been; that the state's attorney often took his cue
from the judge's remarks ...32
Governor Altgeld claimed that this list reflected the views
held by those who spoke on behalf of the anarchists. Yet, he
made his agreement with the list clear as he finished by
indicating that the accusations, " ...seem to be sustained by
the record of the trial and the papers before me and tend to
show that the trial was not fair. ,,33
Following these final comments regarding the lack of
justice in the summer of 1886 Governor Altgeld wrote the
words that finally brought the Haymarket trial to an end.
"I, therefore, grant an absolute pardon to Samuel Fielden,
Oscar Neebe and Michael Schwab this 26th day of June 1893.,,34
The pardon came as an incredible shock to the vast majority
of the country. Perhaps most amazed were the three
anarchists themselves. All three were simply going about
32 Altgeld, 62.
33 Ibid., 63.
34 Ibid.
94
their daily chores at Joliet State Penitentiary when
Altgeld's officials arrived with the pardon papers. Their
joy and gratitude was reflected in a letter sent to the
governor by Michael Schwab:
Your Excellency have given us back wife and children
home and liberty. You did this after having carefully
considered the facts which could be known. Having
weighed evidence against evidence you pursued the course
dictated by your conscience, regardless of the torrent
of abuse which you knew would by the consequence of your
courage. This was a deed of a brave heart, and it will
live as such in history...Some people prophesy all kinds
of disaster which they say will follow in the wake of
our liberation. To disprove their baseless assertions
shall be one of the aims of our life.35
Michael Schwab made two rather prophetic remarks in his
letter of gratitude. First, he promised on behalf of all
three men that one of their "aims" in freedom was to prove
wrong the many people who said their pardon would lead to a
spread of anarchy and general "disaster".36 This was a
promise that all three men kept. They returned to their
families, stayed out of the spotlight and lived their lives
away quietly. Schwab also prophesied a "torrent of abuse"
that Governor Altgeld would receive after granting the
controversial pardons. 37 He was right. The backlash began
with the newspapers and quickly spread throughout society.
Certainly, Governor Altgeld could find comfort in knowing
that he believed he had done the right thing. Yet, the storm
of protest ran rampant and did not completely subside until
35 Barnard, 237.
38 Ibid.
37 Ibid.
95
Altgeld was defeated in his bid for reelection in 1896. But
this is another story.
96
Appendix A
RIIVIII_elll!
W k' t A "1Tor Ingmen, 0 rms ...
YOlD' muceN .eat out their bloodhound. - the police -; they k1Uecl abr: of 7OlIJ'
brotheN at JlI[cCorm1cka thia af,.rAooa. 'l'b.ey kU'ed the poor wretch..~_ ~.
Uk, you. had the oourage to diaobe,. the .uprem.. wUI of your b_. They IdII84
them. be_u.ae they dared ..k for the .horC8a1l1 of the houra of toll. Tney killed til. 
to KO"," yOll, '???"r.." Am6ricun <?1~izenliJ~?. tbat you tn....1; be ..tia1leel IlDll
cJateaded with wbacever your bo.... cOlldeaoend to allow you. or you wU1 get IdJled J
You bave for yellN eaduraQ the mo.t abJec, hum1l1atlona; you han for yea"
adered unmeuurable ln1qultle.; you have worked youNe1fto death; you have end1D'ecl
the p.ng. of..ant and hunger; your CtlUciren you have .aor1flced to the faotory-Iol'da 
111 Kort: You have been miserable and obedient alave aU the.. year.: WhyP To.att.a17
the tnaaUable greed, to All the 001l"eN o!.!our l-.y tLlev1lltr maaterP When you uktil. 
now to Ie_ayour burden, he ..ada h1a bloodhound. outto Koot you, kin you!
U you ar, men, 1fyou an the'0.'ofyourcrancl .tre.;who have Keel their blood to ~
you, th.n youwill r1ae 1" your m1trht, Heraul??, and de.troy the hideoua monater ChU
_katodHcroyyoU. To armawecall yon, toarmal
Your Brothers.
Reprinted from Avrich
97
Appendix e
Attention Workingmen!
~ _. . - - - -- _..
?_-- --O~:llLA.or - -~'!'-----MASS-MEETING
TO-l'iIGHT, at 7.30 o'clock,
HAYMARKET, RandolDh St, Bot. llosDlainBs and Halstad.
Good Speakers will be present to denounce the latest
atrocious act of the police. the shooting of our
fellow-workmen ye8terday afternoon.
Workingmen Ann Yourselves and Appear in Full Force!
TBE EXECUTIVE COlDll'l*l'EE.
~rfJtnno, ~ rfieitet!
Q)~o8emlaffen-merfmnmIung
_.... .Qeute Bbtllb, :8 Ul}r, auf bem
~tumarft ~Qnbo(~fJ,~trQfte, itoi"eben..
u~ , ~ee~lllinej,. u. ~Qlfteb,~t~ ?
. . artSute 9lebner toerben ben neuefien
~~urlenftreidJ ber \Jotiaei,
'inbem iie geitern ~ta~mittag unfete ~tiiber erfd}ofJ, geifJeln.
"'-~dtittr, fittuaffnct ~lldJ nnb rrfdJeint maffcnfJaft!
1'4j (!~t(utitJI6omite.
Reprinted from Avrich
98
THE HAYMARKET
Appendix C
The Haymarket and Vicinityo
I_I~I_I 6 I~I_I ~
cr; LAKE STREET ~
~ '--@IIUJ8,...--------, ~
UJ EAGLE - STREET .~ cr; UJ
~ I 1
5
1 1',:0 LJ~ ~ '-------I
U,J RANDOLPH STREET
U,J r--------,
I I r~----, ~ !'~
~ I I I 13 s
:;:; WASHlNGTON STREETD I I I I
QI I L,__I 1,-----,
Map by LIsa T D.1VIS A Crane Brothers Factorv
B Desplames Street Station
C Zepl's Hall
o Greif's Hall
? Speakers' Wagon
? Where the Bomb Was Thrown
x Where the Bomb Exploded
Reprinted from Avrich
99
Annotated Bibliography
primary Sources;
Altgeld, John Peter. Reasons for Pardoning Fielden, Neebe and Schwab. Springfield,
Illinois, 1893. John Peter Altgeld was elected Governor of Illinois in 1892 and
pardoned the surviving anarchists the following year. He was, himself, a
criminal judge in Chicago prior to being elected governor and closely followed
the trial as it progressed and was convinced that the eight defendants were not
given a fair trial.
Chicago Daily News, 4 May 1886-22 August 1886.
Chicago Inter Ocean, 4 May 1886-22 August 1886.
Chicago Times, 4 May 1886-22 August 1886.
Chicago Tribune, 4 May 1886-22 August 1886.
Foner, Philip S. ed The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs. New York:
Humanities Press, 1969.
Gary, Joseph E., "The Chicago Anarchists of 1886: The Crime, and the Trial, and the
Punishment," in The Century Magazine, April 1893, 805.
Harpers Weekly, 4 May 1886-22 August 1886.
Hunt, George and Grinnell, Julius S. Brief on the Facts for the Defendants in Error.
Chicago: Barnard and Gunthrop, 1887. George Hunt and Julius Grinnell were
the prosecuting attorneys in the anarchist trial. This work is the brief prepared for the
Illinois Supreme Court for the appeal.
Liberty, 4 May 1886-22 August 1886.
Lum, Dyer D. A Concise History ofthe Great Trial of the Chicago Anarchists in 1886.
Chicago: Socialistic Publishing Company, 1887. reprinted in Fogelson and
Rubenstein. Mass Violence in America. New York: Arno Press and the New
York Times, 1969. Dyer Lum was asked by the defendants to keep a detailed
record of the trial proceedings so that the only record available would not be one
published by the state. Lum condensed the proceedings into a detailed 198 page
monograph.
McLean, George N. The Rise and Fall ofAnarchy in America. Chicago: A. G. Badoux
and Company, 18888.
Parsons, Albert A. Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis as Defined bySome
of Its Apostles, ed. Lucy E. Parsons. Chicago: Mrs. A. R. Parsons, 1887. Albert
R. Parsons was one of the defendants who was widely known as a fine writer
and a powerful speaker. In this work he summarized the philosophy of
anarchism.
Parsons, Lucy E. The Famous Speeches of the Eight Chicago Anarchists in Court.
Chicago: Socialistic Publishing Company, 1886. reprinted in Fogelson and
Rubenstein. Mass Violence in America. New York: Arno Press and the New
York Times, 1969.
Parsons, Lucy. Ufe of Albert R. Parsons. Chicago: Socialistic Publishing Company,
1903.
Schaack, Michael J. Anarchyand Anarchists. Chicago: F. J. Schulte, 1889. reprinted
in Grob, Billington, Glazer, and Horowitz. Anti-Movements in America. New York:
Arno Press and the New York Times, 1977. Michael J. Schaack was the Captain of
Police who lead the search for the bombthrower and anyone associated with the riot.
In this long monograph he detailed the events that lead up to the bombing, the
search for culprits, and the trial itself.
Zeisler, Sigmund. Reminiscences ofthe Anarchist Case. Chicago:
Chicago Uterary Club, 1927. Sigmund Zeisler was one of the defense
attorneys for the anarchists. In this book he looked back upon the trial and how
it was handled by the defense, the prosecution, and the judge.
Secondary Sources:
Avrich, Paul. The Haymarket Tragedy. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1984.
Barnard, Harry. Eagle Forgotten: The Ufe ofJohn Peter Altgeld. Indianapolis:
Babbs-Merrill, 1938.
David, Henry. The History of the Haymarket Affair: A Study in the American Social 
Revolutionary and Labor Movements. New York: Russell and Russell, 1936.
Paul, Arnold M. Conservative Crisis and the Rule of Law: Attitudes of Bar and Bench,
1887-1895. New York: Harper and Rowe, 1960.