Evening star., 1886-11-24
THE CONDEMNED ANARCmusrs.
GroanAs sa which . New Trial IL Ash ed
Ay the prtaNaerx

CHICAGO, Nov. 24.-Thc brief and argument
which was yesterday laid before Justice scott
by Captain Black ana Mr.. Leonard SWEET OF
counsel for the condemned anarchists. com.
prises 100 pages. Attention In first called tc
the provision OF the Federal Constitution thai
an accused person shall have an impartial tury
The appellants claim that the Illinois statute oi
1874 must be construed IN conformity with the
constitutional provision that an accused person
snail have an impartial jury. They hold that
Judge Gary recoguiZed the statute alone. as
though IL were toe only provision I'm existence
In reference TO the right of trial by jury. The
appellants proceed 10 the examination OF the
talesmea and Jurors, striving Go show where
the law was violated. Grievous complaint In
MADE OF the conduct OF Henry L. Rice. the
special baild appointed TO summon talesmen.
de Is accused OF "most outrageous conduct"
On the subject of the instructions TO the Jury
the counsel Tor the defense say: 'sOur objections
TO the action OF the court In this behalf may b<
summarized "a follows:
First. In the instructions the court proceeded
upon the erroneous theory that the defendants
might oe convicted without the legal identiflca-
ton oi the principals, legal idence that they
advised or Knew OF the comm ission or proposed
eoininission OF the act by the principal. Second.
lnlhe most vital instructions In benaf OF the
state there was an omission of all reference In
the evidence. Under this instruction the jury
was permitted TO act on general Information
and general conclusions no matter from what
source, and were not required TO govern their
nndlngs oy the evidence. Third. Instructions
allowing the jury Ia oconsider whether the bomb
might not have been thrown under sudden
provocation caused by supposed unlawful at
have been reduced i'm degree WAS refused
Fourth. The court gave an instruction I'm which
ne undertook 10 summarize al the Instructions
I'm the case and this condensed ins truction was
fatally destructive. Fifth. The action of the
court In relation To instruction asked In behalf
OF Louis Lingg was grossly erroneous. sixth.
The instructions In reference To the form
OF verdict Was detective. i'm that AZ left
the jury no alternative but TO con-
vict OF murder or acQult. We insist
that under this instruction, Ia connection with
the refusal TO direct an acquittal OF Oscar Neebe,
planned. seventh. We insist that the instruc-
tions were erroneous, in view OF the indictmen mt
ana the evidence I'm the case"
The closing Arguments OF the states attorney
were improper, the defendants C, .unsel claim.
| In its statement oil matters not ia evidence and
its appeal 10 the prejudices aud passions OF the
| jury, IN its misstatement OF the issues and its
abuse of the defendants, ali having "A tendency
| to misead and prevent an impartial verdict.
Taking up the indictment, the defendants brief
recites i'm detail the facts brought on; at the
trial. with which the public II Iamillar. The
defense then refers 10 the speeches, conversa-
lions and publicatio0 OF the defendants, which
| il maintains. were, at the worst, nn OF predic-
tions of an impending conflict between laborers
and capitalists. The laboring men were urged
10 prepare themselves with guns and revolvers;
the Use OF dynamite was commended in the
warfare that was predicted. Ii Is claimed that
none OF the speeches ever counselled the initia-
tion of conflict by the working people, fixed a
| date, or designated a place for the bringing on
OF the contest The book OF Johann Most, in-
troduced in evidence, il is maintained, was
published several years ago. The testimony did
not show that either of the defendants
ever read the book, sold or gave it
| away. The defense claims that the theory
OF the state respecting the conspiracy 10
bring about a revolution could not have been
maintained except for the Introduction Of Herr
Mosts book. The minds OF the Jurymen were
infiamed by thSarecital Of the bloody theories
contained In lubbock which was read TO them.
For these theories, the brief declares, the de-
1endants were not responsible.
| In summing up the evidence the defense
says: "The tact Is, the evidence shows that
none Of these defendants knew that a bomb
was To be thrown by any one. IL presents an
Instance OF a meeting where some one, un-
known TO the public and 10 these defendants
threw the bomb and did the killing. and the
question Is whether the defendants are 10 be
convicted accessories to a crime they did
not know was TO be committed and I'm which
the really guilty party is as unknown TO them
AS TO the public. Upon this proof our position Is
That The state having failed TO prove VINO threw
the bomb by satisfactory evidence, and having
failed by any legal and creditable proofs TO con
meet the defendants with that act, there can bs
no legal judgment of guilt In the case because
OF the insuIhciency Of proof"