Workmen's advocate., 1888-12-15

iHfueHcc rhich the lmcricuR ltSuqc 0f lgnctiHg had m thc culture Qf aaurchiStjc tdcftcS was not once considered during the whole trial, and presented as an ex- teuuatiOn.
 The State of Illinois should in nc case have punished the alleged or real intel lectual mstlgators or accessories with death as long as lynching parties-act- ing on the same principle as did the bomb thrower of the 4th of May-remain un- molested
 To determine, then, what interest the antl.anarchist workingmen have in the tragedy of the 1lth of November. we must, of course, disavow anarchism. but recommend its sacrifices to the faithful memory of the people, because they acted in good faith, believing they were hastening the emancipation of the working class,
 Certain it is that those five men had not suffered death if they had not been idbOr dVtutOrS, You all know how little human life Is valued in America Year after year hundreds of persons are shot down for a careless word-the thought less expression ''li4r --withOut result ing i'll sentence of death. And these five men, whose connection with the bomb thrower was never proved, were done to death as an act of revenge for the prominent part they played in the class conflict of the workers.
 The bOlUgeOiSo pardons more than a bomb; otheIN ise Jefferson Davis and | other VenOmous arch rebels who have the lives of hundreds of thousands upon upon heir consciences, would not he alive to-day But for labor ogitdtorS, for people who dispute the right of the rich to enjoy wrongfuIly gotten wealth, there is no thought of pardon with the ruling class.
 The antianarchist workingmen were | reconciled to tue sacrifices to the ruling class the moment their danger became l apparent, :. C., as soon as the trial pro- | ceedlngs showed that .lu tice was led astray through subOrned witnesses for | the State.
 And not only was justice mOcked by the acceptance of the testimony of trait ors, of terrorized and paid eX-amarchists, such as Waller and Selliger, as well as of 1 detectives who were hired to join the military organizations of the anarchists and tempt them to transgressions.
 As circumstances existed after tue acts of the first trial there was little to hope for for the accused by opposing the sen- tenCe upon the plea of nuIity.
 Complaint has been made that the Su- preme Court did reverse the decision. But while it may be admitted that the Supreme Court found it satisfactory to be able to sustain the sentence, the in dlcatonS by no means show that it was | possible to reverse the sentence.
 The Supreme Court of the United States is bound by certain rules; it can not without ceremony reverse deci- sion because a lower court has com mitted errors of form; but the aggrieved must show that those errors materially influenced the judgment, and that if those errors had been avoided the sen tenCe might have been another
 openly confess that when had read and studied the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 1 said to my self: If you had been in the position of the Supreme Court, you would have been puzzled what to do with the writ of error." For the declarations of invalid ity of the celebrated counsel, Gen. But Ter, General Pryor and the Hon. Tucker were totally unfounded. Even if the Supreme Court were inclined to be friendly toward the prisoners it could not have granted the writ of error, for the lawyers brought no argument for ward which would compel the judges to grant writ of error.
 (IO De cOatinued)