The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-01-06
REPUTATION OF RAPPAPORT
More Witnesses Testify that He Is Com
monty Regarded as an Anarchist.
He Goes on the Stand Again-A Law Break
ing Liquor-Sellsr Escapes Trial Through
Defects in the Affidavits Against Him.

Very slow progress was made in the Kappa
port-sentinel libel suit before Squire Feibleman
yesterday afternoon. At least half of the three
hours during which the case was up was occu-
pied by the attorneys in discussing legal techni-
callties. The courtroom was again crowded TO
its utmost capacity
The testimony was continued by the submits
sion OF evidence in behalf Of the defense to show
that Rappaport bears the reputation of an Anar.
cnist The first witness was Captain Colbert, Of
the Metropolitan police force. He said that the
plaintiff had for ten years or more been looked
upon as an Anarchist By tie members Of the po-
lice force. The witness also recalled that when
he was in Chicago short time after the trial OF
the Anarchists he heard Rappaports visit to the
courthouse described by the police of that city,
and they designated him as the Indianapolis An
archist
Sergeant John Lowe had also heard Kappa
port spoken Of as an Anarchist He detailed
the conduct OF those present at the social
istic meeting held at Mozart Hall last winter,
when bottles were thrown at the police. Mr.
RaDpaport. he said. was understood to be tho
leader OF the meeting, still he personally treated
the police very gentlemanIy.
NJ I. Stokes, the reporter who wrote the &C.
count of tho Turner Hall meeting, was on the
witness-stand nearly all afternoon. He told
how he got the information contained in the
alleged libelous article. He was detailed, he
said, to look after the meeting but could not
find 1t in the afternoon. He went to Working
mems Hall. where it was advertised
to be held, but found no one there.
After supper he met Ed Gould, secretary
OF the district assembly, K. Of L., who said he
was not at the meeting, but that he understood
Rappaport had made a sensational speech that
would make good reading if it could be had.
Next the witness saw Mr.. Jennings, another
Knight of Labor, who had heard Mrs. Patterson's
speech, but did not remain to hear Rappaport.
mat night, at the meeting of the Anti-poverty
society, the witness wasi troduced to Mr.. Steiff
AZ gentleman who had heard Rappaport's
speech, and from him was obtained the sub
stance OF what was published in the Sentinel of
Inc following morning. Mr.. Stokes said he had
no Ill feeling toward Mr.. Rappaport, and wrote
the report simply as a matter of news. He was
subjected to very rigid cross-examination by
dence as fret submitted Mr.. Rappaport desired
to know why the witness regarded MIN as al
Anarchist and the reply was that the witness
had talked with the leading Anarchists in Gin
cinnati. and they all talked just Mr. Kappa
port did.
What did ever say to ven that agreed with
Tn. On. sentiments of Cincinnati Anarchists" asked
Mr. Rappaport
You told me that you didn't believe in
PRESIDENT or the United States. and the Cncin-
nati Anarchists told me the same" was the re-
ply.
An effort was made by Mr.. Rappaport to prove
by the witness that all the 'slies1 as he called
them, about the Indianapolis so-called Anarch-
ISIS nao originated from gentlemen connected
WIN the German Telegraph. but Mr.. Stokes said
anat ne had never obtained anything from the
Telegraph attaches
Scott c. Bone, city editor of the Sentinel tes-
tiIied that he wrote the headlines over the
aAeged hoelons article; that he wrote them in
accordance with the article. and without malice.
w: .. Craig. proprietor OF the Sentinel. testi-
heo tnat ne did not see the alleged libelous ac-
count until it was published the next morning,
ana bad no malice in disqualification.
with Mr. Crags evidence the testimony for
the defense closed, and Mr. Rappaport again took
the stand as the first witness for rebuttaL He had
a oandle OF papers and file of manuscript. and
announced that ne desired to read extracts
from his paper during the last tw, years show
ing that he was not Anarchist, but bitterly
opposed their methods. BY way of introduction
on the social question. He said he had never
written one word indorsiug anarchy, and
claimed that the extracts from his paper read
oy the defense the day before misrepresented
his position, because they were not read in con-
nection with other articles he had published
on the same subject. He also argued
a President Of the United States was no proof
he was Anarchist Time, he said changed
the order of things, and if he believed q better
form of government could be adopted than the
one now existing, it was why he
should be called Anarchist. Tho men who
framed the Constitution, he said, were not infal-
lible, and any citizen had the right to differ
from them. He then read number of editori-
ais from his paper, in which he deprecated the
course taken by the Chicago Anarchists, but
sympathized with them after they had been ar
rested. In several of his editorials he said I'VE
neither defend the Anarchists their meth
ods but they deserved justice ard have not
got it."
The trial will be resumed this afternoon.
There is considerable rebuttal testimony to be
submitted, and the argument will probably not
be reached until tomorrow.