The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-06-27
PARD0NED THE ANARCHISTS.
sCHWAB, FIELDEN, AND NEEBE WALK
OUT or JOLIEE

They Should Never Have Brcn Put In
State Pri.on-Ue Censurcs tho Conduct
OF the Trial, end Says Judge Gary
Was Ferocious Against tho Prisoners.
CHICAGO. June 2G-Gov. Altgeld to-day par-
doned Michael Schwah. Samuel Fiedcn and
Oscar Neebe. tho Anarchists who wore serving
life sentences Mt Joliet for participation in the
Haymarket riot on May 4. 1886. The Gov
ernor takes tho ground that these men did not
have n fair trial and that the Court was preju-
diced. He scores Judge Gary. States Attorney
Grinnell. and Chief OF Police BUnileld severely.
Practically ever since the bomb was exploded
In Desplaines street on the night Of May 4.
1888, the three men pardoned to-day have
been in prison. With tho exception CT Par
sons. who gave him self UP to death by return
ing during tho trial. all tho men finally con-
victcd Of conspiring were apprehendcd within
a short time after the riot The details Of the
trial are too well remembered to demand re-
counting.
-'spies. Tieden. Parsons. Fischer. I.ingg,
Schwab, and Engel were sentenced to death.
and Ncehc, whom many thought innocent. to
fifteen years in the pcntentiary. The case
was carried UP, and fought with great desper
alton in the Supreme Court OF tho State by the
prisoners. but the Court finally adjudged tho
verdict correct In law. and the sentence Of the
Court was carried out in respect OF Spies Par
sons. Fischer. Engel. and Neebe. Louis Lingg
killed himself with q Illuminating cap in the
Jail on the day preceding that set for the
hanging.
A determined attem ut to secure commuta-
ton OF sentence was made before the execu-
ton. It was Joined in by many. especially in
behalf OF Parsons, who was well known and
popular, and it might have been granted II
that wild fellow had consented to recant in
his fifth. But he refused to do SO. and
Gov. Oglesby was obdurate in refusing
to grant a Communication to any who did
not weaken. Spies. worn as his friends say by
long confinement. consented to admit his error.
but Oglesby. considering him the leader.
would give him no mercy. Fielden and
Schwab made terms. end their sentence was
cut down to life imprisonmens. Spies. Parsons.
Fischer. and Engel were hanged from the
same gibbet. in the north corridor Of the JAIL
on Now II, 1887. They were buried on Now
ID in Waldheim Cemetery. where yesterday
monument to their memery was unveiled
Tho others wero quickly taken to Joliet peni-
Tertiary.
toward the release OF tho prisoners. AS it
grew it was Joined by many men, OF .rromi-
men in the beginning and believed that they
had been convicted on q narrow construction
OF the law and with an Inadequate opportunity
The majority Of sigperss., however. were m en-
who had been originally bitter in their denun-
archy had been practically crushed BY the
hanglngs. they thought no good could come
Gov. Altgeld's statement of the case covers
twelve columns o. newspaper print He re-
the .Haymarket bomb throwing. and the con.
viction OF tina men. Parsons. Fischer. Engel
and Spies being hanged. Lingg committing
Fielien and Schvab for life after having their
death sentences committed. Tine Governor
tive clemency base their appeal on these asser-
tion e.. r,..., u,,,, .u,., ~, anna
was packed jury selected to convict
"Second-That according to the law as laid
down by the Snpremie C3VEt both prior rio to and
petent jurors. and the trial was therefore not
Third That the defendants were not
proven to be guilty OF the crime charged In the
:" Fourth as to the defendant, Neeve.
the evidence that there was no case against
him. and yet he has been kept In prison all
." Fiith-That the trial Judge was either
wa so tn w the appause
certain class in the community that he could
not and did not grant q iair trial"
in order Covering the first he criticises the
quotes literally from the record to show that
Incompetent men wers accepted; He says:
Whe no sSso is g between the
that after the virdict, and while the motion for
q new trial was pending; charge was filed in
and that the attorney for the State got Mr..
Favor to refuse to make an affidavit bearing on
and theh cen @ amy sEq notice %S
of 1t unless the affidavit was obtained. al
though it was informed that Mr.. Favor would
into court and make full statement if the
Court desired him to do SO.
These facts alone would call for EXECUTIVE
Interference especially as Mr.. Favor's affidavit
was not before the Supreme Court at the time
The second point, according to tho Govern
or. is equally conclusive, and he quotes a re-
cent decision OF the Supreme Court to sustain
himself. and concludes in the following attack
No matter what the defendants were
charged with. they were entitled to fair trial.
our Institutions than to have ting courts Of
Justice run wd S or give ths way to
in this case, ruled that q relative Of one
OF tho men who were killed was,a competent
Juror and this after the man ma en6hdi6dy
his relationship caused him to feel, more
strongly than no otherwise might; and when
canddly declared that they believed the do
PENDANTS to be guilty nat t ms was "a q
deep tOnvlctlOD, anu WouIu lHIiueuce tneir
verdict, and that 1t would require
strong evidence to convince them that
the ieiendants were innocent: when in all
these instances tho trial Judge ruled that
these men were competent Jurors simply be-
couse they had. under his adro!t, manlpula-
ton. been led to say that they believed they
could try the case fairly on the evidence. then
the proceedings lost all semblance OF lair
As to tho third claim. tho Governor says:
Tho state has never discovered who It was
that threw the bomb which killed the police
men. and the evidence docs not show any con;
nection whatever between the defendants and
the man who did throw it."
Then he quotes Judge Garys recent article
In the lrnipV Magazine. deduces from that
article that the defendants were certainly not
proven guilty, and closes with these words:
will simply say. in conclusion. on this
branch Of the case. that the facts tend To show
that the bomb was thrown MS an act OF personal
revenge. and that the prosecution has never
discovered who threw it and the evidence ut
terly fails to show that the man who did throw
II ever, heard or read word coming FROM the
defendants: consequently IL fails to show that
he acted on any advice gwen ly
them and II he did not net on or hear any adj
vice coming from tho defendants. either In
speeches or through the press then there was
no case against them, even under the law as
laid down by judge Gary