The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-08-02
YESTERDAYS SECOND EDITION.
THE following items of news appeared in our
Second Edition of Sunday:l


/ In Defense of the Anarchists
| CHICAGO. Aug. L-At the conclusion of the
testimony for the prosecution. Attorney Salo-
Jmon rose and opened the case for the
defense. First he complimented tho jury
| on its patient endurance of its trying
! position. and asked that each member give the
| same close attention to the evidence produced by
! the defense they had TO all that had been
presented by the State He asked the jury to
decide whether the States attorney had fulfilled
his promise in the opening of the case for the
| State. The States attorney had said that he
would produce in court testimony proving who
| threw the bomb. Had this been done2 Mr.
| Solomon claimed it had not Proceeding to the
charges against the prisoners, Mr.. Solomon said
they were not charged with anarchy or social
| ism, but, shown by the Indictment, the charge
was the murder of Matthias j. Degan The law.
the attorney said did not provide any
clause which declared or could be con-
strued to declare that the defendants. had
committed murder Mr. Solomon read from the
statutes to show that the evidence brought
against these defendants did not prove that they
were accessories to murder. He then read from
several authorities to show what constituted the
offense of conspiracy. If the State had case
at all, it was on the charge of murder or con-
spiracy. and upon no other. He would read, he
said, from the Reports as to the nature of the
evidence necessary to convict OF murder or con-
spiracy. II with read these" said Attorney Sal
ONION, ''for the information of the Jury, and for
the judge as we'll" Continuing. Mr.. Solomon
said that the defendants could be held for con-
spracy II 1t was proven that the meeting in
which they took part was called for the purpose
of killing the police. s'These defendants" he
said. ARE not murderers, or thieves. burglars.
They are not criminals, but are possessed of
feelings of broad humanity. They have not
desired to appropriate the goods OF Marshall
Field to their own nse but all they have done
has been In support of . principle which is the
eradication of social wrong They have not
advocated assassination recourse To arms on
account of personal feelings against any man on
earth; but all their efforts have been put forth
with the single object in view OF lettering the
condition of their fellow men," The defendants,
the attorney declared, had right to preach
their doctrines and make converts. IL the peo-
pie wanted socialism anarchy they would
have it. The law could not put down socialism
any more than it could suppress Republicanism
and destroy Democracy. 'You fought in the
Rebellion" said Mr.. Solomon, ITO put down
slavery. so that one man should not own an
other; these defendants believe that there are
white slaves, and therefore, pQtforth their efforts
toward their liberation. If they use dynamite,
they use it for that end only. We do not desire
to 60 into the evidence presented here, because
we do not believe it proves anything. We ex-
pect fully to prove that none of these men have
done murder or have consplred to do murder
We expect to prove that these men assembled at
the Haymarket on the night OF tine 4th of May
to exercise the right of free speech; to hold
peaceable meeting for the purpose of discussing
the interests of laboring men. We do not be-
lieve that any of the defendants present once
thought of the possibility of such a thing as a
bomb being thrown at that meeting. But we
see the action of the police an incredible ami
mus. We see in them a devilish design, fiend-
ish design, an intention to destroy every life on
that market. We expect to show you that Mr..
Fielden fired no shot at that meeting, and that
he had not then, and never had, a revolver.
We expect to show yon that the
witness, Gilmer is constitutional
and a professional liar; we do not
believe that in the minds of the jury the testi-
mony of sworn witness is necessary to estab-
lsh the fact that GIlmer's testimony is absolute
ly valueless We expect to prove that on the
night of the Haymarket meeting Mr. Schwab did
that he left the meeting some time before the
explosion occurred. We expect to show that
Parsons and Fischer left the meeting early, and
were seated in Zepfs Hall, perhaps drinking
glass of beer, when the bomb exploded. We
shall prove that Neebe was at home. and expect
to show that he had no knowledge
of the meeting You are familiar with
the movements of Lngg. The evil
dence in no way connects him with the throwing
of the bomb, and if he made bombs he did no
more than he had perfect right to do. and
there is no law prohibiting his having dynamite
in his house if he choose. We expect to show
that none of these defendants fired shots at the
Haymarket meeting, and that the first shots
fred by the police"
Mr.. Solomon concluded by reasserting his be-
lief in the absolute lack of evidence connecting
the prisoners with the offenses charged against
them, and asked the jury that their verdict be
one of acquittal
At the conclusion of Mr.. Salomons address
the court adjourned