The Labor enquirer., 1886-11-20

and which have been referred to b
Foran.
Now, policemen generally are not me-
of great intellectual caliber. They ar,
not men who ought in any civilize
community to be made the censors Q
speech or of the press. If on tbs
night had used language which conf
reasonably have been interpreted as be
ing incendiary, the fact that every wit
ness on both sides of this case has testi
fed that the meeting was getting NOR
peaceful during the delivery of m
speech, that shows that the meeting die
not understand it as melting to riot, an,
it had no such effect upon that meeting
Now, when Harrison left Mr.. Bonfeld
it is claimed by both of them that Har
rison said to Bonheld, Il guess there il
no danger. There will be no trou BILE.
And Bonheld says, well, l will keel
the police here and see if there will b.
any trouble"
The testimony as to the character ot
the meeting shows that it became more
quiet during the delivery of Fielden'l
speech. Where was the danger then
that justified the marching of 200 armed
police upon it1 III had said somethins
that should not have been said that wa!
an Indictment to riot, there was no ne
cessity of these policemen. provoking a
riot that night, because there was no in.
dicatlon that there was going ID be
trouble. 1t has never been claimed bv
the prosecution that we had anything to
do with what they had heard as to the
possible blowing up Of the freight-houss
They could have let the meeting dis
perse peaceably, of its own volition, and
they could have come to my house and
arrested me for that incendiary Ian.
guage, if it had been such. There was
no necessity of provoking collision
that night, because the meeting has
been proven overwhelmingly to have
been peaceable meeting to the close,
and l claim that the language, reasona-
bly, interpreted, was not necessarily in
cendiarv. A newspaper of this city is
discussing the coal monopoly, as it is
that is iucendiary Ian
guage. The constitution Of the United
States has never clearly defined what
incendiarY language is. that l know Of.
If it had 1 should have informed mvself
of what it was, and tried to keep myself
within the bounds.
A recess was taken until 2 o'clock.
Upon the reconveninQ of the court in
the afternoon Mr.. Fielden continued his
speech.
Your honor, when we adjourned for
dinner I was speaking to you about my
version of the meaning of the language
used at the haymarket on May 4. l was
speaking 10 you about the character OF
that meeting and the uniustidabIe in
terruption of it. l was trying to point
out to YOU and show you bv the evil
dence that it was a peaceable meeting ;
that there was no indication in the de-
meanor of the crowd of desire to COM
NIT any act which would lay them liable
to arrest and punishment. l was giving
you my version of the sentence, "Throt-
tie the law" I told you that it was a
deduction based upon an assumption.
and IN nv opinion was a logical dednc-
ton, that if laws are enacted for the
community, which cannot benefit one
class in that community, it ia the inter-
eat of that class that the laws should be
abolished and the law-making machi mes
I ought to know myself
what l meant.
Your honor has put An Interpretation
on the expression, throttle the law
that it meant to kill the police because
they were the servants of the law and
that throttling the law could not mean
what said in its literal sense, 1t being
an intangible thing to do. Now, in the
light of the principles that have been
sworn to on this stan bv witnesses fol
the state, I say in the definition which
Parsons gave of the intentions aud OBJ
jects of the Socialists in addressing the
meeting at haymarket, it was not the
intention of that organization to take
any mans life that 1t was merely the
system that made such men possible
that we are aiming at. When we con
slider thatIthis has been proven by wit
nesses on both sides that that was the
object of the organization to which Mr.
Parsons and 1 belonged, will not the
words, throttle the law" bear another
Interpretation aud more plausi Bile one
The law is an institution, the policemen
are a necessary part Of it. 1t is the do
ing away with the institution, not the
policemen-and I defy anyone to prove
that, on fair Interpretation Of the Ian
guage used that night, thee was any
thing in that speech-you will bear IN
mind said men IN Their bind rage at
tackled McCormick's, and the police shot
them down" Now. certainly man who
charges a class OF people with doln'
something "in their blind rage" cannot
be said to approve oftheir acts; canno'
be said to be encouraging that blindness
But the very fact that I said "in theil
blind rage" shows that did not ap