The Portland daily press., 1886-11-25
THE CHICAGO ANARCHISTS.
on What Grounds Their Counsel Ask
for a New Trial.

CHICAGO. Nov. 24-The brief and argument
which was yesterday laid before Justice Scott by
Captain Black and Mr.. Leonard SWEET OF the
counsel of the Anarchists comprises $50 pages. IL
was prepared within the last four day andiis not
offered as a complete resume of the alleged error
of Judge Gary The attorneys and counsel, how
ever esteem it sufficiently full to answer the pur-
pose in view. Attention Is first called to the pro-
vision of the federal constitution that the accused
person shall have an impartial jury. They hold
that Judge Gary recognized the statute alone as
though 1t was the only provision in existence in
reference to the right of trial by jury. The ap-
pellants proceed to the examination OF the tales
men and jurors, striving TO show where the law
was violated. The matter Is discussed at great
length, the examination OF several rejected tales
men being given as well as that Of the accepted
jurors
Grievous complaint is made Of Henry e. Rice
the special bailih appointed 10 summon talesmen
He Is accused OF the most outrageous conduct
The appellants renew the claim made by them at
the time OF the trial that the State should have
been allowed only twenty peremptory challenges
against all the defendants. After the State had
exercised twenty peremptory challenges, the de-
Tense objected to each succeeding one TO the num-
Der OF nfty In ALL On the subject Of the instruc-
tons 20 the jury the counsel for the defense say
Our objections to the action Of the court in this
behalf may be summarized as follows: First, in
the Instructions the court proceeded upon the err
roneous theory that the defendants might be con-
cpals or legal evidence that they advised or knew
OF the commission or proposed commission of the
crimes by the principal Second, in the most vital
Instructions in behalf of the State there was am
omission Of all refe, ence 10 the evidence under
this instruction. The jury was permitted to act
source and were not redulred to govern their find
ings by evidence.
Third, the Instructions allowing the jury to con-
slider whether the bomb might not have been
thrown under sudden proy0cation caused by sup
posed unlawful attacks OF the police whereby
crime might have been reduced In degree, was
refused Fourth, the court gave Instructions Ia
which he undertook to summarize all the instruc-
tlons in the case and this condensed instruction
was fatally defective. Fifth, the act ON of the
court in relation to the instructions asked in be-
half OF Louis Lingg was grossly erroneous Sixth,
the Instructions In reference to the form f the
verdlct was defective In that II left no alternative
but to convict Of murder or acquit We insist
that only under his instruction In connection with
the refusal 70 direct an aequittal Of Oscar Noble
that the instructions were erroneous In view OF
the indictment and evidence in the case.
The closing arguments of the states attorney
were improper, defendants' counsel claim in its
statement OF matters not in evidence, In its appeal
10 the preJudiees and passions OF the jury In its
defendants, all having tendency to mslead and
prevent an impartial verdict. Taking up the in
dictment and the evidence, the defendants brief
recites In classified details the facts brought out
at the trial with which the public Is familiar The
defense then refers TO the speeches, conversation
and publication of the defendants which il main
tans were at the worst full of predictions OF an
impending conflict between labor and capital
Lab0ring men were urged to prepare themselves
with guns and revolvers; the use Of dynamite was
commended in the warfare that was predicted. 1t
is claim. d that none OF the speeches ever coun-
selled the Initiation Of the conflict by working peO
pie, liked date or designated place for the
bringing on the contest. The book Of johann
Most. introduced In evidence, 1t is maintained was
-ssphlished several years ago. The testimony did
not show mar q me exer read
claimed that the theory of the State respecting
the conspiracy 10 bring about revolution could
not be maintained, except for the introduction OF
Herr Mosps book. The minds of the jurymen
were infamed by the article of bloody theories
contained in the book which was read to them.
For these theories the brief declares the defend
ants were not responsible. Producing before the
jury flags ard notices carried In public process
sions In Chicago, it Is claimed tended to prejudice
the case of the defendants. The same assertion
is made respecting the introduction of explosives
and weapons.
The testimony Of NJ. NJ Thompson and Harry
L. Gilmer, the only witnesses by whom the State
attempted directly to implicate the defendants
with the throwing of the bombs, is considered at
length 1t Is claimed that the testimony of Spies,
Sehwab and others, refuted Thompson and Gill
mers stories. In summing up the evidence the
defence says: The fact is, the evidence shows
Was TO be thrown by any one. IL presents an in
stance of meeting where some one unknown to
the public, and TO the defendants, threw bomb
and did the killing, and the question is whether
to crime they know was to be committed, and In
which the really guilty party Is as unknown TO
them as to the public. Upon this proof our posi-
tion is that the State failed to prove who threw
the bomb by satisfactory evidence, and having
failed by any legal and creditable proofs of con-
nection of the defendants with that act there can
be no legal judgment of guilty in the case because
Of the insufaciency of the proof.