Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1886-11-25
THE ANARCHISTS.
Judge Garry's Alleged Errors-Brief of
New Arg ument by the Defendants
Counsei-The Jadse's Instructions to
the Jury Criticised-A Long Review
of ali the Evidence in the Case.
CHICAGO Nor d

Oh Ill the EVldence 1C the Case.
CHICAGO, Nov. "a.
The brief of the argument which wa. yes.
terday laid before Justice Scott by Capt
/ Black and Mr.. Leonard SWEET counsel for
The anarchists, comprised $50 pages. 1t va.
I proposed within the last few days and is now
offered as a complete resume of the alleged
errors of Judge Garry. The counsel estee M
1t sufhclently full to answer the purpose in
view.
Attention is first called to the provision OF
the federal constitution that the accused per
son shall have an impartial jury The ap-
! pellants claim that the Illinois statue of 1884
must be construed IN conformity with the
/ constitutional provision, that the accused
shall have an impartial JURY. They hold that
Judge Garry recognized the statue alone as
though It was the only provision in existence
IN reference to the right of trial by jury.
The appellants proceed TO the examination
of the talismen and jurors, striving to show
where the law was violated. The matter is
discussed at great length. The examination
of several talismen has been given as we'll
as that of accepted jurors Grievous
complaint is made of the conduct Of Henry
l. Rice. the special bailif appointed to sum
mon the talismen. 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 20 peremptory
| challenges against all the defendants After
the State had exercised 20 such challenges
the defence objected to each succeeding one
to the number of over so in all.
On the subject of instructions to the jury
the counsel for the defence say: Our objec-
tions to the action of the court in this behalf
may be summarized as follows:
One-In The instructions the court proceed
ed upon the erroneous theory that the defend
ants might be convicted without the legal
Identification of the principals, or legal evil
! dence that they advised or knew of the COM
mission, or proposed commission, of the act
by the principal;
Two-In the most inevitable instructions
in behalf of the State was an omission in ref
erence to the evidence; the jury was permit
ted to act on general Information, no matter
from what source, and were not required to
govern their findings by the evidence;
Three-lnstructions allowing the jury to
consider whether the bomb had not been
thrown under sudden provocation caused by
supposed unlawful attacks of the police.
whereby crime might have been reduced in
degree, were refused;
Four-The court gave instructions in which
he undertook to summarize all the instruc-
tions in the case, and this condensed instruc-
ton was fatally defective;
Fifth-The action of the court in relation
to the instruction asked in behalf of Lang e
was grossly erroneous.
Sixth-The instructions in reference to the
form OF verdict was defective iu that it left
the jury no alternative but to convict of mur-
der or acquit. We insist that only under
this instruction in connection with the refus-
al to direct an acquttal of Oscar Nebe can
tine verdict against that defendant be ex
planned.
Seventh-We insist that the instructions
were erroneous in view of the indictment and
evidence in the case.
| The closing argument of the States attor-
ney was improper, the defendants counsel
claim, in the statement of matters not in the
evidence, in its appeal to the prejudice and
passions of the jury, in its misstatement of
issues and in its abuse of the defendants. all
having tendency to mislead and prevent an
impartial verdict
Taking up the indictment and the evidence
the defendants brief recites in classified de-
tail the facts brought out at the trial with
which the public is familiar.
The defense then refers to the speeches,
conversations and publication of defendants,
which, it maintains, were at worst full of pre-
dictlons of impending conflict between labor
ers and capitalists. The laboring men were
urged to prepare themselves with guns and
revolvers. The use of dynamite was com
mended in warfare. 1t is claimed that none
of the speeches ever counselled conflict of
working people, fixed date or designated q
place for a conflict. The book of Johann
Most, introduced in the evidence, it is main
tanned, was published several years ago. The
testimony did not show that either of the de-
PENDANTS ever read the book, sold or gave it
away.
| The defense claims that the theory of the
State respecting conspiracy to bring about
| revolution could not be maintained, except
for the introduction of Most's book. The
minds of the jury were inflaned by the reci-
| tai of bloody theories contained in the book,
which ~as read to them for these theories
The brief declares that the defendants ere
not responsible for producing before the jury
the flags and notices carried in public pro
cessons in Chicago. 1t is also claimed that
they tended to prejudce the case of the de
| PENDANTS. The same assertion is made res
pecting the introduction of weapons and ex.
| plosives.
! The testimony of NJ. M. Thompson and
! Harry l.. Gilmore, the only witnesses by
whom the State attempted directly to impli-
cate the defendants with the throwing of the
bomb, is considered at length. 1t is claimed
that the testimony of Schwab and others re-
futed Thompson's and Gilmore's stories.
In summing up the evidence the defence
says: The fact is evident that none OF
these defendants knew that the bomb was
to be thrown by one. We present the in.
stance of the me eting where some one un.
known to the public and the defendants threw
a bomb and did the killing, and the question
is whether the defendants are to be con, icted
as accessories to the crime they did not know
was to be committed. The real guilty party
is much unknown to them as to the public
Upon this proof our position is that, the
State having failed to prove who threw thu
bomb by satisfactory evidence, and having
failed by any legal proofs to connect the de
PENDANTS with the act, there can be no lega
judgment of guilty in the case because of the
insu ffieiency nf tha 0raof ~