💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › august-spies-address-of-august-spies.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:36:24. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Address of August Spies
Author: August Spies
Date: 1885
Language: en
Topics: Haymarket, speech, trial
Source: Retrieved on March 19, 2012 from http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Address_of_August_Spies
Notes: After the Haymarket Riot, August Spies was arrested for alleged (yet never proven) involvement in the bombing at the event. Spies gave this address during his trial on October 7, 1885, which ended with him being sentenced to death. Before he died, Spies said “There will be a time when our silence will be more powerful than the voices you strangle today.”

August Spies

Address of August Spies

Your Honor: In addressing this court I speak as the representative of

one class to the representative of another. I will begin with the words

uttered five hundred years ago on a similar occasion, by the Venetian

Doge Faheri, who addressing the court, said:

“MY DEFENSE IS YOUR ACCUSATION.”

The causes of my alleged crime your history!” I have been indicted on

the charge of murder, as an accomplice or accessory. Upon this

indictment I have been convicted. There was no evidence produced by the

State to show or even indicate that I had any knowledge of the man who

threw the bomb, or that I myself had anything to do with the throwing of

the missile, unless, of course, you weight the testimony of the

accomplices of the State’s Attorney and Bonfield,[1] the testimony of

Thompson and Gilmer,

BY THE PRICE THEY WERE PAID FOR IT.

If there was no evidence to show that I was legally responsible for the

deed, then my conviction and the execution of the sentence is nothing

less than willful, malicious, and deliberate murder, as foul a murder as

may be found in the annals of religious, political, or any other sort of

persecution. There have been many judicial murders committed where the

representatives of the State were acting in good faith, believing their

victims to be guilty of the charge accused of. In this case the

representatives of the state cannot shield themselves with a similar

excuse. For they themselves have fabricated most of the testimony which

was used as a pretense to convict us; to convict us by a jury picked out

to convict! Before this court, and before the public, which is supposed

to be the State, I charge the State’s Attorney and Bonfield with the

heinous

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER.

I will state a little incident which may throw light upon this charge.

On the evening on which the Praetorian Guards of the Citizen’s

Association, the Bankers’ Association, the Association of the Board of

Trade men, and the railroad princes, attacked the meeting of workingmen

on the Haymarket, with murderous intent—on that evening, about 8

o’clock, I met a young man, Legner by name, who is a member of the

Aurora Turn-Verein. He accompanied me, and never left me on that evening

until I jumped from the wagon, a few seconds before the explosion

occurred. He knew that I had not seen Schwab on that evening. He knew

that I had no such conversation with anybody as Mr. Marshal Field’s

protege, Thompson, testified to. He knew that I did not jump from the

wagon to strike the match and hand it to the man who threw the bomb. He

is not a Socialist. Why did we not bring him on the stand? Because the

honorable representatives of the State, Grinnell [2] and Bonfield,

SPIRITED HIM AWAY.

These honorable gentlemen knew everything about Legner. They knew that

his testimony would prove the perjury of Thompson and Gilmer beyond any

reasonable doubt. Legner’s name was on the list of witnesses for the

State. He was not called, however, for obvious reasons. Aye, he stated

to a number of friends that he had been offered $500 if he would leave

the city, and threatened with direful things if he remained here and

appeared as a witness for the defense. He replied that he could neither

be bought nor bulldozed to serve such a damnable and dastardly plot.

When we wanted Legner, he could not be found; Mr. Grinnell said—

AND MR. GRINNELL IS AN HONORABLE MAN! [3]

that he had himself been searching for the young man, but had not been

able to find him. About three weeks later I learned that the very same

young man had been kidnapped and taken to Buffalo, N.Y. by two of the

illustrious guardians of “Law and Order,” two Chicago detectives. Let

Mr. Grinnell, let the Citizens’ Association, his employer, let them

answer for this! And let the public sit in judgment upon the would—be

assassins.

No, I repeat, the prosecution has not established our legal guilt.

Notwithstanding the purchased and perjured testimony of some, and

notwithstanding the originality (sarcastically) of the proceedings of

this trial. And as long as this has not been done, and you pronounce

upon us the sentence of

AN APPOINTED VIGILANCE COMMITTEE,

acting as a jury, I say, you, the alleged representatives and high

priests of “Law and Order,” are the real and only law breakers,

AND IN THIS CASE OF THE EXTENT OF MURDER.

It is well that the people know this. And when I speak of the people I

don’t mean the few co-conspirators of Grinnell, the noble patricians who

thrive upon the misery of the multitudes. These drones may constitute

the State, they may control the State, they may have their Grinnells,

their Bonfields, their hirelings! No, when I speak of the people I speak

of the great mass of human bees, the working people, who unfortunately

are not yet conscious of the rascalities that are perpetrated in the

“name of the people,”—in their name.

The contemplated murder of eight men, whose only crime is that they have

DARED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH,

may open the eyes of these suffering millions; may wake them up. Indeed,

I have noticed that our conviction has worked miracles in this direction

already. The class that clamors for our lives, the good, devout

Christians, have attempted in every way, through their newspapers and

otherwise, to conceal the true and only issue in this case. By simply

designating the defendants as “Anarchists,” and picturing them as a

newly discovered tribe or species of cannibals, and by inventing

shocking and horrifying stories of dark conspiracies said to be planned

by them—these good Christians zealously sought to keep the naked fact

from the working people and other righteous parties, namely: That on the

evening of May 4, 200 armed men, under the command of a notorious

ruffian,

ATTACKED A MEETING OF PEACEABLE CITIZENS.

With what intention? With the intention of murdering them, or as many of

them as they could. I refer to the testimony given by two of our

witnesses. The wage-workers of this city began to object to being

fleeced too much—they began to say some very true things, but they were

highly disagreeable to their patrician class; they put forth—well, some

very modest demands. They thought eight hours hard toil a day for

scarcely two hours’ pay was enough.

THIS LAWLESS RABBLE HAD TO BE SILENCED!

The only way to silence them was to frighten them, and murder those whom

they looked up to as their “leaders.” Yes, these foreign dogs had to be

taught a lesson, so that they might never again interfere with the

high-handed exploitation of their benevolent and Christian masters.

Bonfield, the man who would bring a blush of shame to the managers of

the Bartholomew night—Bonfield, the illustrious gentleman with a visage

that would have done excellent service to Doré in portraying Dante’s

fiends of hell—Bonfield was the man best fitted to consummate the

CONSPIRACY OF THE CITIZENS’ ASSOCIATION,

of our patricians. If I had thrown that bomb, or had caused it to be

thrown, or had known of it, I would not hesitate a moment to state so.

It is true a number of lives were lost—many were wounded. But hundreds

of lives were saved! But for that bomb, there would have been a hundred

widows and hundreds of orphans where now there are few. These facts have

been carefully suppressed, and we were accused and convicted of

conspiracy by the real conspirators and their agents. This, your honor,

is one reason why sentence should not be passed by a court of justice—if

that name has any significance at all.

“But,” says the State, “you have published articles on the manufacture

of dynamite and bombs.” Show me a daily paper in this city that has not

published similar articles! I remember very distinctly a long article in

the Chicago Tribune of February 23, 1885. The paper contained a

description and drawings of different kinds of infernal machines and

bombs. I remember this one especially, because I bought the paper on a

railroad train, and had ample time to read it. But since that time the

Times has often published similar articles on the subject, and some of

the dynamite articles found in the Arbeiter-Zeitung were translated

articles from the Times, written by Generals Molineux and Fitzjohn

Porter, in which the use of dynamite bombs

AGAINST STRIKING WORKMEN

is advocated as the most effective weapon against them. May I learn why

the editors of these papers have not been indicted and convicted for

murder? Is it because they have advocated the use of this destructive

agent only against the common rabble? I seek information. Why was Mr.

Stone of the News not made a defendant in this case? In his possession

was found a bomb. Besides that Mr. Stone published an article in January

which gave full information regarding the manufacture of bombs. Upon

this information any man could prepare a bomb ready for use at the

expense of

NOT MORE THAN TEN CENTS.

The News probably has ten times the circulation of the Arbeiter-Zeitung.

Is it not likely that the bomb used on May 4^(th) was one made after the

News’ pattern? As long as these men are not charged with murder and

convicted. I insist, your honor, that such discrimination in favor of

capital is incompatible with justice, and sentence should therefore not

be passed.

Grinnell’s main argument against the defendants was “they were

foreigners. They are not citizens.” I cannot speak for others. I will

only speak for myself. I have been a resident of the State fully as long

as Grinnell, and probably have been as good a citizen—at least, I should

not wish to be compared with him.

Grinnell has incessantly appealed to the patriotism of the jury. To that

I reply in the language of Johnson, the English literateur, “patriotism

is the

LAST RESORT OF A SCOUNDREL.”

My efforts in behalf of the disinherited and disfranchised millions, my

agitation in this direction, the popularization of economic teachings—in

short, the education of the wage-workers, is declared “a conspiracy

against society.” The word “society” is here wisely substituted for “the

state” as represented by the patricians of today. It has always been the

opinion of the ruling classes that

THE PEOPLE MUST BE KEPT IN IGNORANCE,

for they lose their servility, their modesty and their obedience to the

powers that be, a their intelligence increases. The education of a black

slave a quarter of a century ago was a criminal offense. Why? Because

the intelligent slave would throw off his shackles at whatever cost. Why

is the education of the working people of today looked upon by a certain

class as an offense against the State? For the same reason! The State,

however, wisely avoided this point in the prosecution of this case. From

their testimony one is forced to conclude that we had, in our speeches

and publications, preached nothing else but destruction and dynamite.

The court has this morning stated that there is no ease in history like

this. I have noticed, during this trial, that the gentlemen of the legal

profession are not well versed in history. In all historical cases of

this kind truth had to be perverted by the priests of the established

power that was nearing its end.

What have we said in our speeches and publications?

We have interpreted to the people their conditions and relations in

society. We have explained to them the different social phenomena and

the social laws and circumstances under which they occur. We have, by

way of scientific investigation, incontrovertibly proved and brought to

their knowledge that the

SYSTEM OF WAGES IS THE ROOT

of the present social iniquities—iniquities so monstrous that they cry

to Heaven. We have further said that the wage system, as a specific form

of social development, would, by the necessity of logic, have to make

room for higher forms of civilization; that the wage system must

prepared the way and furnish the foundation for a social system of

co-operation—that is, Socialism. That whether this or that theory, this

or that scheme regarding future arrangements were accepted was not a

matter of choice, but one of historical necessity, and that to us the

tendency of progress seemed to be Anarchism—that is, a free society of

sovereigns in which the liberty and economic equality of all would

furnish an unshakable equilibrium as a foundation and condition of

natural order.

It is not likely that the honorable Bonfield and Grinnell can conceive

of a social order not held intact by the policeman’s club and pistol,

nor of a free society without prisons, gallows, and State’s attorneys.

In such a society they probably

FAIL TO FIND A PLACE FOR THEMSELVES.

And this is the reason why Anarchism is such a “pernicious and damnable

doctrine?”

Grinnell has intimated to us that Anarchism was on trial. The theory of

anarchism belongs to the realm of speculative philosophy. There was not

a syllable said about Anarchism at the Haymarket meeting. At that

meeting the very popular theme of reducing the hours of toil was

discussed. But, “Anarchism is on trial!” foams Mr. Grinnell. If that is

the case, your honor, very well; you may sentence me, for I am an

Anarchist. I believe with Buckle, with Paine, Jefferson, Emerson, and

Spencer, and many other great thinkers of this century, that the state

of castes and classes—the state where one class dominates over and lives

upon the labor of another class, and calls this order—yes; I believe

that this barbaric form of social organization, with its legalized

plunder and murder, is doomed to die, and make room for a free society,

voluntary association, or universal brotherhood, if you like. You may

pronounce the sentence upon me, honorable judge, but let the world know

that in A.D. 1886, in the State of Illinois, eight men were sentenced to

death,

BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED IN A BETTER FUTURE;

because they had not lost their faith in the ultimate victory of liberty

and justice! “You have taught the destruction of society and

civilization,” says the tool and agent of the Bankers’ and Citizens’

Association, Grinnell. That man has yet to learn what civilization is.

It is the old, old argument against human progress. Read the history of

Greece, of Rome; read that of Venice; look over the dark pages of the

church, and follow the thorny path of science. “No change! No Change!

You would destroy society and civilization!” has been the cry of the

ruling classes. They are so comfortably situated under the prevailing

system that they naturally abhor and fear even the slightest change.

Their privileges are as dear to them as life itself, and every change

threatened these privileges. But civilization is a ladder whose steps

are monuments of such changes! Without these social changes—all brought

about against the will and the force of the ruling classes—there would

be no civilization. As to the destruction of society which we have been

accused of seeking, sounds this not like one of Aesop’s fables—like the

cunning of the fox? We, who have jeopardized our lives to save society

from the fiend—the fiend who has gripped her by the throat; who sucks

her life-blood, who devours her children—we, who would heal her bleeding

wounds, who would free her from the fetters you have wrought around her;

from the misery you have brought upon her—we her enemies!!

Honorable Judge, the

DEMONS OF HELL WILL JOIN IN THE LAUGHTER

this irony provokes!

We have preached dynamite. Yes, we have predicted from the lessons

history teaches, that the ruling classes of today would no more listen

to the voice of reason than their predecessors; that they would attempt

by brute force to stay the wheel of progress. Is it a lie, or was it the

truth we told? Are not already the large industries of this once free

country conducted under the surveillance of the police, the detectives,

the military, and the sheriffs—and is this return to militancy not

developing from day to day? American sovereigns—think of it—working

LIKE THE GALLY CONVICTS

under military guards! We have predicted this, and predict that soon

these conditions will grow unbearable. What then? The mandate of the

feudal lords of our time is slavery, starvation, and death! This has

been their programme for the past years. We have said to the toilers,

that science has penetrated the mystery of nature—that from Jove’s head

once more

HAS SPRUNG A MINERVA—DYNAMITE!

If this declaration is synonymous with murder, why not charge those with

the crime to whom we owe the invention? To charge us with an attempt to

overthrow the present system on or about May 4^(th) by force, and then

establish Anarchy, is too absurd a statement, I think, even for a

political office-holder to make. If Grinnell believed that we attempted

such a thing, why did he not have Dr. Bluthardt make an inquiry as to

our sanity? Only mad men could have planned such a brilliant scheme, and

mad people cannot be indicted or convicted of murder. If there had

existed anything like a conspiracy or a pre-arrangement, does your honor

believe that events would not have taken a different course than they

did on that evening and later? This “conspiracy” nonsense is based upon

an oration I delivered on the anniversary of Washington’s birthday at

Grand Rapids, Mich., more than a year and a half ago. I had been invited

by the Knights of Labor for that purpose. I dwelt upon the fact that our

country was far from being what the great revolutionists of last century

had intended it to be. I said that those men if they lived today would

clean the Augean stables with iron brooms, and that they, too, would

undoubtedly be characterized as “wild Socialists.” It is not unlikely

that I said

WASHINGTON WOULD HAVE BEEN HANGED

for treason if the revolution had failed. Grinnell made this

“sacrilegious remark” his main arrow against me. Why? Because he

intended to inveigh the know-nothing spirit against me. Why? But who

will deny they correctness of the statement? That I should have compared

myself with Washington, is a base lie. But if I had, would that be

murder? I may have told that individual who appeared here as a witness

that the workingmen should procure arms, as force would in all

probability be the ultimate ratio; and that in Chicago there were so and

so many armed, but I certainly did not say that we proposed to

“inaugurate the social revolution.” And let me say here: Revolutions are

no more made than earthquakes and cyclones. Revolutions are the effect

of certain causes and conditions. I have made social philosophy a

specific study for more than ten years, and I could not have given vent

to such nonsense! I do believe, however, that the revolution is near at

hand—in fact, it is upon us. But is the physician responsible for the

death of the patient because he foretold that death? If anyone is to be

blamed for the coming revolution it is the ruling class who steadily

refused to make concessions as reforms became necessary; who maintain

that they can call a halt to progress, and dictate a stand-still to the

eternal forces, of which they themselves are but the whimsical creation.

The position generally taken in this case is that we are morally

responsible for the police riot on May 4^(th). Four or five years ago I

sat in this very court room as a witness. The working men had been

trying to obtain redress in a lawful manner. They had voted, and among

others, had elected their Aldermanic, candidate from the Fourteenth

Ward. But the street car company did not like that man. And two of the

three election judges of one precinct, knowing this, took the ballot box

to their home and “corrected” the election returns, so as to cheat the

constituents of the elected candidate of their rightful representative,

and give the representation to

THE BENEVOLENT STREET CAR MONOPOLY.

The workingmen spent $1,500 in the prosecution of the perpetrators of

this crime. The proof against them was so overwhelming that they

confessed to having falsified the returns and forged the official

documents. Judge Gardner, who was presiding in this court, acquitted

them, stating that “that act had apparently not been prompted by

criminal intent.” I will make no comment. But when we approach the field

of moral responsibility, it has an immense scope! Every man who has in

the past assisted in thwarting the efforts of those seeking reform is

responsible for the existence of the revolutionists in this city today!

Those, however, who have sought to bring about reforms must be exempted

from the responsibility—and to these I belong.

If the verdict is based upon the assumption of moral responsibility,

your honor, I give this as a reason why sentence should not be passed.

If the opinion of the court given this morning is good law, then there

is no person in this country who could not lawfully be hanged. I vouch

that, upon the very laws you have read, there is no person in this

courtroom now who could not be “fairly, impartially and lawfully”

hanged! Fouché, Napoleon’s right bower, once said to his master: “Give

me a line that any one man has ever written, and I will bring him to the

scaffold.” And this court has done essentially the same. Upon that law

every person in this country can be indicted for conspiracy, and, as the

case may be, for murder. Every member of a trade union, Knight of Labor,

or any other labor organization, can than be convicted of conspiracy,

and in cases of violence, for which they may not be responsible at all,

of murder, as we have been. This precedent once established, and you

force the masses who are now agitating in a peaceable way into open

rebellion! You thereby shut off the last safety valve—and the blood

which will be shed, the blood of the innocent—it will come upon your

heads!

“Seven policemen have died,” said Grinnell, suggestively winking at the

jury. You want a life for a life, and have convicted an equal number of

men, of whom it cannot be truthfully said that they had anything

whatsoever to do with the killing of Bonfield’s victims. The very same

principle of jurisprudence we find among various savage tribes. Injuries

among them are equalized, so to speak. The Chinooks and the Arabs, for

instance, would demand the life of an enemy for every death that they

had suffered at their enemy’s hands. They were not particular in regard

to the persons, just so long as they had a life for a life. This

principle also prevails today among the natives of the Sandwich Islands.

If we are to be hanged on this principle than let us know it, and let

the world know what a

CIVILIZED AND CHRISTIAN COUNTRY,

it is which the Goulds, the Vanderbilts, the Stanfords, the Fields,

Armours, [4] and other local money hamsters have come to the rescue of

liberty and justice!

Grinnell has repeatedly stated that our country is an enlightened

country, (Sarcastically.) The verdict fully corroborates the assertion!

The verdict against us is

THE ANATHEMA OF THE WEALTHY CLASSES

over their despoiled victims—the vast army of wage workers and farmers.

If your honor would not have these people believe this; if you would not

have them believe that we have once more arrived at the Spartan Senate,

the Athenian Areopagus, the Venetian Council of Ten, etc., then sentence

should not be pronounced. But, if you think that by hanging us, you can

stamp out the labor movement—the movement from which the downtrodden

millions, the millions who toil and live in want and misery—the wage

slaves—except salvation—if this is your opinion, then hang us! Here we

will tread upon a spark, but there, and there, and behind you and in

front of you, and everywhere, flames will blaze up. It is a subterranean

fire. you cannot put it out.

THE GROUND IS ON FIRE

upon which you stand. You can’t understand it. You don’t believe in

magical arts, as your grandfathers did, who burned witches at the stake,

but you do believe in conspiracies; you believe that all these

occurrences of late are the work of conspirators! You resemble the child

that is looking for his picture behind the mirror. What you see, and

what you try to grasp is nothing but the deceptive reflex of the stings

of your bad conscience. You want to “stamp out the conspirators”—the

“agitators?” Ah, stamp out every factory lord who has grown wealthy upon

the unpaid labor of his employees. Stamp out every landlord who has

amassed fortunes from the rent of overburdened workingmen and farmers.

stamp out every machine that is revolutionizing industry and

agriculture, that intensifies the production, ruins the producer, that

increases the national wealth, while the creator of all these things

stands amidst them, tantalized with hunger! Stamp out the railroads, the

telegraph, the telephone, steam and yourselves—for

EVERYTHING BREATHES THE REVOLUTIONARY SPIRIT.

You, gentlemen, are the revolutionists! You rebel against the effects of

social conditions which have tossed you, by the fair hand of Fortune,

into a magnificent paradise. Without inquiring, you imagine that no one

else has a right in that place. You insist that you are the chosen ones,

the sole proprietors. The forces that tossed you into the paradise, the

industrial forces, are still at work. They are growing more active and

intense from day to day. Their tendency is to elevate all mankind to the

same level, to have all humanity

SHARE IN THE PARADISE YOU NOW MONOPOLIZE.

You, in your blindness, think you can stop the tidal wave of

civilization and human emancipation by placing a few policemen, a few

gatling guns, and some regiments of militia on the shore—you think you

can frighten the rising waves back into the unfathomable depths, whence

they have arisen, by erecting a few gallows in the perspective. You, who

oppose the natural course of things, you are the real revolutionists.

You and you alone are the conspirators and destructionists!

Said the court yesterday, in referring to the Board of Trade

demonstration: “These men started out with the express purpose of

sacking the Board of Trade building.” While I can’t see what sense there

would have been in such an undertaking, and while I know that the said

demonstration was arranged simply as a means of propaganda against the

system that legalizes the respectable business carried on there, I will

assume that the three thousand workingmen who marched in that procession

really intended to sack the building. In this case they would have

differed from the respectable Board of Trade men only in this—that they

sought to recover property in an unlawful way, while the others

SACK THE ENTIRE COUNTRY

lawfully and unlawfully—this being their highly respectable profession.

This court of “justice and equity” proclaims the principle that when two

persons do the same thing, it is not the same thing. I thank the court

for this confession. It contains all that we have taught and which we

are to be hanged, in a nut shell! Theft is a respectable profession when

practiced by the privileged class. It is a felony when resorted to in

self preservation by the other class. Rapine and pillage are the order

of a certain class of gentlemen who find this mode of earning a

livelihood easier and preferable to honest labor—this is the kind of

order we have attempted, and are now trying, and will try as long as we

live to do away with. Look upon the economic battle fields! Behold the

carnage and plunder of the Christian patricians! Accompany me to the

quarters of the wealth-creators in this city. Go with me to the

half-starved miners of Hocking Valley. Look at the pariahs in the

Monongahela Valley, and many other mining districts in this country, or

pass along the railroads of that great and most orderly and law-abiding

citizen, Jay Gould. And then tell me whether this order has in it any

moral principle for which it should be preserved. I say that the

PRESERVATION OF SUCH AN ORDER IS CRIMINAL—

is murderous. It means the preservation of the systematic destruction of

children and women in factories. It means the preservation of enforced

idleness of large armies of men, and their degradation. It means the

preservation of intemperance, and sexual as well as intellectual

prostitution. It means the preservation of misery, want, and servility

on one hand, and the dangerous accumulation of spoils, idleness,

voluptuousness and tyranny on the other. It means the

PRESERVATION OF VICE IN EVERY FORM.

And last but not least, it means the preservation of the class struggle,

of strikes, riots and bloodshed. That is your “order,” gentlemen; Yes,

and it is worthy of you to be the champions of such an order. You are

eminently fitted for that role. You have my compliments!

Grinnell spoke of Victor Hugo. I need not repeat myself what he said,

but will answer him in the language of one of our German philosophers:

“Our Bourgeoisie erects monuments in honor of the memory of the

classics. If they had read them they would burn them!” Why, amongst the

articles read here from the Arbeiter-Zeitung, put in evidence by the

State, by which they intend to convince the jury of the dangerous

character of the accused anarchists, is an extract from Goethe’s Faust,

(“Laws and class privileges are transmitted like an hereditary

disease.”) And Mr. Ingham in his speech told the Christian jurors that

our comrades, the Paris communists, had in 1871, dethroned God, the

Almighty, and had put up in his place a low prostitute. The effect was

marvelous! The

GOOD CHRISTIANS WERE SHOCKED.

I wish your honor would inform the learned gentlemen that the episode

related occurred in Paris nearly a century ago, and that the

sacrilegious perpetrators were the contemporaries of the founders of the

Republic—and among them was Thomas Paine. [5] Nor was the woman a

prostitute, but a good citoyenne de Paris, who served on that occasion

simply as an allegory of the goddess of reason.

Referring to Most’s letter, read here, Mr. Ingham said: “They,” meaning

Most and myself, “They might have destroyed thousands of innocent lives

in the Hocking Valley with that dynamite.” I have said all I know about

the letter on the witness stand, but will add that two years ago I went

through the Hocking Valley as a correspondent. While there I saw

hundreds of lives in the process of slow destruction, gradual

destruction. There was no dynamite, nor were they Anarchists who did

that diabolical work. It was the work of a party of

HIGHLY RESPECTABLE MONOPOLISTS,

law-abiding citizens, if you please. It is needless to say the murderers

were never indicted. The press had little to say, and the State of Ohio

assisted them. What a terror it would have created if the victims of

this diabolical plot had resented and blown some of those respectable

cut-throats to atoms. When, in East St. Louis, Jay Gould’s hirelings,

“the men of grit,” shot down in cold blood and killed six inoffensive

workingmen and women, there was little said, and the grand jury refused

to indict the gentlemen. It was the same way in Chicago, Milwaukee, and

other places. A Chicago furniture manufacturer shot down and seriously

wounded two striking workingmen last spring. He was held over to the

grand jury. The grand jury

REFUSED TO INDICT THE GENTLEMAN.

But when, on one occasion, a workingman in self defense resisted the

murderous attempt of the police and threw a bomb, and for once blood

flowed on the other side, then a terrific howl went up from the land:

“Conspiracy has attacked vested rights!” And eight victims are demanded

for it. There has been much said about the public sentiment. There has

been much said about the public clamor. Why, it is a fact, that no

citizen dared express another opinion than that prescribed by the

authorities of the State, for if one had done otherwise, he would have

been locked up; he might have been sent to the gallows to swing, as they

will have the pleasure of doing with us, if the decree of our “honorable

court” is consummated.

“These men,” Grinnell said repeatedly, “have no principles; they are

common murderers, assassins, robbers,” etc. I admit that our aspirations

and objects are

INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO UNPRINCIPLED RUFFIANS,

but surely for this we are not to be blamed. The assertion, if I mistake

not, was based on the ground that we sough to destroy property. Whether

this perversion of facts was intentional, I know not. but in

justification of our doctrines I will say that the assertion is an

infamous falsehood. Articles have been read here from the

Arbeiter-Zeitung and Alarm to show the dangerous characters of the

defendants. the files of the Arbeiter-Zeitung and Alarm have been

searched for the past years. Those articles which generally commented

upon some atrocity committed by the authorities upon striking workingmen

were picked out and read to you. Other articles were not read to the

court. Other articles were not what was wanted. The State’s Attorney

upon those articles (who well know that he tells a falsehood when he

says it), asserts that “these men have no principle.”

A few weeks before I was arrested and charged with the crime for which I

have been convicted, I was invited by the clergymen of the

Congregational Church to lecture upon

THE SUBJECT OF SOCIALISM,

and debate with them. This took place at the Grand Pacific Hotel. And so

that it cannot be said that after I have been convicted I have put

together some principles to justify my action, I will read what I said

then— Capt. Black: “Give the date of the paper.” Mr. Spies: “January 9,

1886.” Capt. Black: “What paper, the Alarm?” Mr. Spies: “The Alarm.”

When I was asked upon that occasion what Socialism was, I said this: [6]

“Socialism is simply a resume of the phenomena of the social life of the

past and present traced to their fundamental causes, and brought into

logical connection with one another. It rests upon the established fact

that the economic conditions and institutions of a people form the

ground work of all their social conditions, of their ideas—aye, even of

their religion, and further, that all changes of economic conditions,

every step in advance, arises from the struggles between the dominating

and dominated class in different ages. You, gentlemen, cannot place

yourselves at this standpoint of speculative science; your profession

demands that you occupy the opposite position, that which professes

acquaintance with things as they actually exist, but which presumes a

thorough understanding of matters which to ordinary mortals are entirely

incomprehensible. it is for this reason that you cannot become

Socialists (cries of “Oh! oh!”). lest you should be unable to exactly

grasp my meaning, however, I will now state the matter a little more

plainly. It cannot be unknown to you that in the course of this century

there have appeared an infinite number of inventions and discoveries,

which have brought about great, aye, astonishing changes in the

production of the necessities and comforts of life. The work of machines

has, to a great extent, replaced that of men.

“Machinery involves a great accumulation of power, and always a greater

division of labor in consequence.

“The advantages resulting from this centralization of production were of

such a nature as to cause its still further extension, and from this

concentration of the means of labor and of the operations of laborers,

while the old system of distribution was (and is) retained, arose those

improper conditions which ails society today.

“The means of production thus came into the hands of an ever decreasing

number, while the actual producers, through the introduction of

machinery, deprived of the opportunity to toil, and being at the same

time disinherited of the bounties of nature, were consigned to

pauperism, vagabondage—the so-called crime and prostitution—all these

evils which you gentlemen would like to exorcise with your little

prayer-book.

“The Socialists award your efforts a jocular rather than a serious

attention—[symptoms of uneasiness]—otherwise, pray let us know how much

you have accomplished so far by your moral lecturing towards

ameliorating the condition of those wretched beings who through bitter

want have been driven to crime and desperation? [Here several gentlemen

sprang to their feet, exclaiming, ‘We have done a great deal in some

directions!’] Aye, in some cases you have perhaps given a few alms; but

what influence has this, if I may ask, had upon societary conditions, or

in affecting any change in the same? Nothing; absolutely nothing. You

may as well admit it, gentlemen, for you cannot point me out a single

instance.

“Very well. Those proletarians doomed to misery and hunger through the

labor-saving of our centralized production, whose number in this country

we estimate at about a million and a half, is it likely that they and

the thousands who are daily joining their ranks, and the millions who

are toiling for a miserable pittance, will suffer peacefully and with

Christian resignation their destruction at the hand of their thievish

and murderous, albeit very Christian wage-masters? They will defend

themselves. It will come to a fight.

“The necessity of common ownership in the means of toil will be

realized, and the era of socialism, of universal co-operation begins.

The dispossessing of the usurping classes—the socialization of these

possessions—and the universal co-operation of toil, not for speculative

purposes, but for the satisfaction of the demands which we make upon

life; in short co-operative labor for the purpose of continuing life and

of enjoying it—this in general outlines, is Socialism. This is not,

however, as you might suppose, a mere “beautifully conceived plan,” the

realization of which would be well worth striving for if it could only

be brought about. No; this socialization of the means of production, of

the machinery of commerce, of the land and earth, etc., is not only

something desirable, but has become an imperative necessity there we

always find that the next step was the doing away with that necessity by

the supplying of the logical want.

“Our large factories and mines, and the machinery of exchange and

transportation, apart from every other consideration, have become too

vast for private control. Individuals can no longer monopolize them.

“Everywhere, wherever we cast our eyes, we find forced upon our

attention the unnatural and injurious effects of unregulated private

production. We see how one man, or a number of men, have not only

brought into the embrace of their private ownership a few inventions in

technical lines, but have also confiscated for their exclusive advantage

all natural powers, such as water, steam, and electricity. Every fresh

invention, every discovery belongs to them. The world exists for them

only. That they destroy their fellow-beings right and left they little

care. That, by their machinery, they even work the bodies of little

children into gold pieces they hold to be an especially good work and a

genuine Christian act. They murder, as we have said, little children and

women by hard labor, while they let strong men go hungry for lack of

work.

“People ask themselves how such things are possible, and the answer is

that the competitive system is the cause of it. The though of a

co-operative, social, rational, and well-regulated system of management

irresistibly impresses the observer. The advantages of such a system are

of such a convincing kind, so patent to observation—and where could they

be any other way out of it? According to physical laws a body always

moves itself, consciously or unconsciously, along the line of least

resistance. So does a society as a whole. The path to co-operative labor

and distribution is leveled by the concentration of the means of labor

under the private capitalistic system. We are already moving right in

that track. We cannot retreat even if we would. The force of

circumstances drives us on to Socialism.

“‘And now, Mr. S., won’t you tell us how you are going to carry out the

expropriation of the possessing classes?’ asked Rev. Dr. Scudder.

“‘The answer is in the thing itself. The key is furnished by the storms

raging through the industrial life of the present. You see how

penuriously the owners of the factories, of the mines, cling to their

privileges, and will not yield the breadth of an inch. On the other

hand, you see the half-starved proletarians driven to the verge of

violence.’

“‘So your remedy would be violence?’

“‘Remedy? Well, I should like it better if it could be done without

violence, but you, gentlemen, and the class you represent, take care

that it cannot be accomplished otherwise. Let us suppose that the

workingmen of today go to their employers, and say to them: ‘Listen!

Your administration of affairs don’t suit us any more; it leads to

disastrous consequences. While one part of us are worked to death, the

others, out of employment, are starved to death; little children are

ground to death in the factories, while strong, vigorous men remain

idle; the masses live in misery while a small class of respectables

enjoy luxury and wealth; all this is the result of your

maladministration, which will bring misfortune even to yourselves; step

down and out now; let us have your property, which is nothing but unpaid

labor; we shall take this thing in our hands now; we shall administrate

matters satisfactorily, and regulate the institutions of society;

voluntarily we shall pay you a life-long pension. Now, do you think the

‘bosses’ would accept this proposition? You certainly don’t believe it.

Therefore force will have to decide—or do you know of any other way?’

“So you are organizing a revolution?”

“It was shortly before my arrest, and I answered: “Such things are hard

to organize. A revolution is a sudden upwelling—a convulsion of the

fevered masses of society.

“We are preparing society for that, and insist upon it that workingmen

should arm themselves and keep ready for the struggle. The better they

are armed the easier will the battle be, and the less the bloodshed.

“‘What would be the order of things in the new society?’

“‘I must declined to answer this question, as it is, till now, a mere

matter of speculation. the organization of labor on a co-operative basic

offers no difficulties. The large establishments of today might be used

as patterns. Those who will have to solve these questions will

expediently do it, instead of working according to our prescriptions (if

we should make anything of the kind); they will be directed by the

circumstances and conditions of the time, and these are beyond our

horizon. About this you needn’t trouble yourselves.

“‘But, friend, don’t you think that about a week after the division, the

provident will have all, while the spendthrift will have nothing?’

“‘The question is out of order,’ interfered the Chairman; ‘there was not

said anything about division.’

“Prof. Wilcox: ‘Don’t you think the introduction of Socialism will

destroy all individuality?’

“‘How can anything be destroyed which does not exist? In our times there

is no individuality; that only can be developed under Socialism, when

mankind will be independent economically. Where do you meet today with

real individuality? Look at yourselves, gentlemen! You don’t dare to

give utterance to any subjective opinion which might not suit the

feelings of your bread-givers and customers. You are hypocrites [murmurs

and indignation]; every business man is a hypocrite. Everywhere is

mockery, servility, lie and fraud. And the laborers! There you feign

anxiety about their individuality; about the individuality of a class

that has been degraded to machines—used each day for ten or twelve hours

as appendages of the lifeless machines! About their individuality you

are anxious!’”

Does that sound as though I had at that time, as has been imputed to me,

organized a revolution—a so-called social revolution, which was to occur

on or about the 1^(st) of May to establish anarchy in place of our

present “ideal order?” I guess not.

So socialism does not mean the destruction of society. Socialism is a

constructive and not a destructive science. While capitalism

expropriates the masses for the benefit of the privileged class; while

capitalism is that school of economics which teaches how one can live

upon the labor (i.e., property) of the other; Socialism teaches how all

may possess property, and further teaches that every man must work

honestly for his own living, and not be playing the “respectable board

of trade man,” or any other highly (?) respectable business man or

banker, such as appeared here as talesmen in the jurors’ box, with the

fixed opinion that we ought to be hanged. Indeed, I believe they have

that opinion! Socialism, in short, seeks to establish

A UNIVERSAL SYSTEM OF CO-OPERATION

and to render accessible to each and every member of the human family

the achievements and benefits of civilization, which, under capitalism,

are being monopolized by a privileged class and employed, not as they

should be, for the common good of all, but for the brutish gratification

of an avaricious class. Under capitalism the great inventions of the

past, far from being a blessing for mankind, have been turned into a

curse! Under Socialism the prophecy of the Greek poet, Antiporas, would

be fulfilled, who, at the invention of the first water-mill, exclaimed:

“This is the emancipator of male and female slaves”; and likewise the

prediction of Aristotle, who said: “When, at some future age, every

tool, upon command or by predestination, will perform its work as the

artworks of Daedalus did, which moved by themselves, or like the three

feet of Hephaestus, which went to their sacred work instinctively, when

thus the weaver shuttles will weave by themselves, then we shall

NO LONGER REQUIRE MASTERS AND SLAVES.”

Socialism says this time has come, and can you deny it? You say: “Oh,

these heathens, what did they know?” True! They knew nothing of

political economy: they knew nothing of Christendom. They failed to

conceive how nicely these man-emancipating machines could be employed to

lengthen the hours of toil and to intensify the burdens of the slaves.

These heathens, yes, they excused the slavery of one on the ground that

thereby another would be afforded the opportunity of human development.

But to preach the slavery of the masses in order that a few rude and

arrogant parvenues might become “eminent manufacturers,” “extensive

packing-house owners,” or “influential shoe-black dealers,” to do this

they lacked that specific Christian organ.

Socialism teaches that the machines, the means of transportation and

communication are the result of the combined efforts of society, past

and present, and that they are therefore rightfully the indivisible

property of society, just the same as the soil and the mines and all

natural gifts should be. this declaration implies that those who have

appropriated this wealth wrongfully, though lawfully, shall be

expropriated by society. The expropriation of the masses by the

monopolists has reached such a degree that the expropriation of the

expropriateurs has become an imperative necessity, an act of social

self-preservation.

SOCIETY WILL RECLAIM ITS OWN,

even though you erect a gibbet on every street corner. And Anarchism,

this terrible “ism,” deduces that under a co-operative organization of

society, under economic equality and individual independence, the

“State”—the political State—will pass into barbaric antiquity. And we

will be where all are free, where there are no longer masters and

servants, where intellect stands for brute force, there will no longer

be any use for the policemen and militia to preserve the so-called

“peace and order”—the order that the Russian General speaks of when he

telegraphed to the Czar after he had massacred half of Warsaw, “Peace

reigns in Warsaw.”

Anarchism does not mean bloodshed; does not mean robbery, arson, etc.

These monstrosities are, on the contrary, the characteristic features of

capitalism. Anarchism means peace and tranquillity to all. Anarchism, or

socialism, means the reorganization of society upon scientific

principles and the abolition of causes which produce vice and crime.

Capitalism first produces these social diseases and then seeks to cure

them by punishment.

The court has had a great deal to say about the incendiary character of

the articles read from the Arbeiter-Zeitung. Let me read to you an

editorial which appeared in the Fond du Lac Commonwealth, in October,

1886, a Republican paper. If I am not mistaken the court is Republican,

too.

“To arms, Republicans! Work in every town in Wisconsin for men not

afraid of firearms, blood or dead bodies, to preserve peace [that is the

‘peace’ I have been speaking of ] and quiet; avoid a conflict of parties

to prevent the administration of public affairs from falling into the

hands of such obnoxious men as James G. Jenkins. Every Republican in

Wisconsin should go armed to the polls on next election day. The

grain-stacks, houses and barns of active Democrats should be burned;

their children burned and wives outraged, that they may understand that

the Republican party is the one which is bound to rule, and the one

which they should vote for, to keep their vile carcasses away from the

polls. If they still persist in going to the polls, and persist in

voting for Jenkins, meet them on the road, in the bush, on the hill, or

anywhere, and shoot every one of these base cowards and agitators. If

they are too strong in any locality, and succeed in putting their

opposition votes into the ballot box, break open the box and tear in

shred their discord-breathing ballots. Burn them. This is the time for

effective work. Yellow fever will not catch among Morrison Democrats; so

we must use less noisy and more effective means. The agitators must be

put down, and whoever opposes us does so at his peril. Republicans, be

at the polls in accordance with the above directions, and don’t stop for

a little blood. That which make the solid South will make a solid

North.”

What does your honor say to these utterances of a “law and order”

organ—a Republican organ? How does the Arbeiter-Zeitung compare with

this?

The book of Johann Most, which was introduced in court, I have never

read, and I admit that passages were read here that are repulsive—that

must be repulsive to any person who has a heart. But I call your

attention to the fact that these passages have been translated from a

publication of Andrieux, the ex-prefect of police, in Paris, by an

exponent of your order! Have the representatives of your order ever

stopped at the sacrifice of human blood? Never!

It has been charged that we (the eight here) constituted a conspiracy. I

would reply to that that my friend Ling I had seen but twice at meetings

of the Central Labor Union, where I went as a reporter; had seen him but

twice before I was arrested. Never spoke to him. Engle I have not been

on speaking terms with for at least a year. And Fischer, my lieutenant,

used to go round and

MAKE SPEECHES AGAINST ME.

So much for that.

You honor has said this morning, “we must learn their objects from what

they have said and written,” and in pursuance thereof the court has read

a number of articles.

Now, if I had as much power as the court, and were a law-abiding

citizen, I would certainly have the court indicted for some remarks made

during this trial. I will say that if I had not been an anarchist at the

beginning of this trial I would be one now. I quote the exact language

of the court on one occasion. “It does not necessarily follow that all

laws are foolish and bad because a good many of them are so.” That is

treason, sir! if we are to believe the court and the State’s Attorney.

But, aside from that, I cannot see how we shall distinguish the good

from the bad laws. Am I to judge of that? No; I am not. But if I disobey

a bad law, and am brought before a bad judge, I undoubtedly would be

convicted.

In regard to a report in the Arbeiter-Zeitung, also read this morning,

the report of the Board of Trade demonstration, I would say—and this is

the only defense, the only word I have to say in my own defense, is,

that I did not know of that article until I saw it in the paper, and the

man who wrote it, wrote it rather as a reply to some slurs in the

morning papers. He was discharged. The language used in that article

would never have been tolerated if I had seen it.

Now, if we cannot be directly implicated with this affair, connected

with the throwing of the bomb, where is the law that says, “that these

men shall be picked out to suffer? Show me that law if you have it! If

the position of the court is correct, then half of this city—half of the

population of this city—ought to be hanged, because they are responsible

the same as we are for that act on May 4^(th). And if not half of the

population of Chicago is hanged, then show me the law that says, “Eight

men shall be picked out and hanged as scapegoats!” You have no good law.

Your decision, your verdict, our conviction is nothing but an arbitrary

will of this lawless court. It is true there is no precedent in

jurisprudence in this case! It is true we have called upon the people to

arm themselves. It is true that we have told them time and again that

the great day of change was coming. It was not our desire to have

bloodshed. We are not beasts. We would not be socialists if we were

beasts. It is because of our sensitiveness that we have gone into this

movement for the emancipation of the oppressed and suffering. It is true

we have called upon the people to arm and

PREPARE FOR THE STORMY TIMES BEFORE US.

This seems to be the ground upon which the verdict is to be sustained.

“BUT WHEN A LONG TRAIN OF ABUSES AND USURPATIONS PURSUING INVARIABLY THE

SAME OBJECT EVINCES A DESIGN TO REDUCE THE PEOPLE UNDER ABSOLUTE

DESPOTISM, IT IS THEIR RIGHT, IT IS THEIR DUTY, TO THROW OFF SUCH

GOVERNMENT AND PROVIDE NEW GUARDS FOR THEIR FUTURE SAFETY.” This is a

quotation from the “Declaration of Independence.” Have we broken any

laws by showing to the people how these abuses, that have occurred for

the last twenty years, are invariably pursuing one object, viz: to

establish an oligarchy in this country as strong and powerful and

monstrous as never before has existed in any country? I can well

understand why that man Grinnell did not urge upon the grand jury to

charge us with treason. I can well understand it. You cannot try and

convict a man for treason

WHO HAS UPHELD THE CONSTITUTION

against those who try to trample it under their feet. It would not have

been as easy a job to do that, Mr. Grinnell, as to charge “these men”

with murder.

Now, these are my ideas. They constitute a part of myself. I cannot

divest myself of the, nor would I, if I could. And if you think that you

can crush out these ideas that are gaining ground more and more every

day, if you think you can crush them out by sending us to the gallows—if

you would once more have a people suffer the penalty of death because

they dared to tell the truth—and I defy you to show us where we have

told a lie—I say, if death is the penalty for proclaiming truth, then I

will proudly and defiantly pay the costly price! Truth crucified in

Socrates, in Christ, in Giordano Bruno, in Huss, Galileo still

lives—they and others whose number is legion have preceded us on this

path. We are ready to follow!

[1] Bonfield was the Chicago chief of police.

[2] Grinnell was the State’s Attorney and prosecutor.

[3] This is paraphrased from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.

[4] These were the names of various wealthy industrialists during the

Gilded Age.

[5] Spies is referring to the French Revolution and the American

Revolution.

[6] Spies is quoting from his own writings in the following quotes.