Crawford avalanche. (Grayling, Mich.) 1879-19??, 1886-10-14
JUDGE GARY's DECISION.
Reasons for Refusing to Grant the An
archists "a New Trial.

archists "A New Trial.
The Court began by saying that the case was
so voluminous that it impossible, within
reasonable limits, to give synopsis. He did
not understand that either upon the trial or the
argument on the motion had the defense at
tempted to deny that the defendants, except
Neebe, were combined for some purpose. The
object Of that combination had been debated by
the counsel. 1t was important to know what
that fact was, whether 1t was merely to encour-
age the workingmen to resist unlawful attacks,
or whether it was something else. There was
no better way than to read what they had
spoken and written as co the object of the COM
bination while tho events were occurring. He
would therefore read from the files of the Alarm
and Arbette1-Z ZeitunD what the defendants them
selves have said beginning as far back as Jan.
The court then read at length from the files of
the papers in question, choosing such articles
as would throw the clearest light upon the pur-
poses of the defendants. He then said
%The papers and speeches furnish an answer
to the argument of the counsel, that what they
proposed was simply that they should arm
themselves, so as to resist any unlawful at
tacks which the police or the militia might
make upon them.
@Now, there can be no claim that this was q
lawful object. There can be no claim but that
the force which would extend in the car
rying ont OF that object to taking human life is
murder. It is impossible to argue that any set
OF men have right to dictate to other men
whether they shall work or not for particular
individual, and IL they choose to work In def
ance OF that dictation to drive them of by force
and if the police undertake to prevent the use
of that force then they have tho right to kill the
police. 1t is impossible to contend for any such
principle as that.
He reviewed at length the connection of Neebe
with the conspiracy, and clearly showed that he
was associated generally with it in encouraging
the movement which had for its object the de-
struction of the Government.
Upon the question whether the defendants or
any of them did anticipate or expect the throw
ing of the bomb, he said that it was a question
not necessary to consider, because the instruc-
tions to the jury did not go upon that ground,
but upon the ground that they had generally by
speech and print advised large class to COM
NIT murder, and had left the occasion, time,
and place to the individual WILL whm, and
caprice Of the individuals SO advised, and that
in consequence Of that advice and in pursuance
of it and influenced by it somebody not known
did throw the bomb. The crime was nothing
less than murder, and manslaughter was not to
be considered. II verdicts We're to be set aside
for the cause urged, it was q sure way to bring
about anarchy, since there would be no way to
b court UIUsBuUv suy ymgs--t rnInk That no
case Of such magnitude could DO tried with less
in the way of irreguarity OF proceeding in the
trial than in this case, and the motion must be
overruled."
prisoners at the bar" spoke Judge Gary
"for the FIRST time during these painful and pro-
tractel proceedings it is my duty to speak
to you, and call upon you individually
and separately now to ask whether you have
ANYTHING to say why sentence should not be
passed upon you according to the verdict OF the
jury. will first call upon Mr. Neebe."