The advocate and Topeka tribune., 1893-07-19

any connection Whatever between tn0 QeIenO"
ants and the man who did throw 1t. The trial
Judge in overruling the motion fora new hear
ing, and again, recently in magazine article,
uses this language:
The conviction has not gone on the ground that
they did not hare actually any personal pdrticipd-
ton in the particular act Which caused the death OF
DegdR bSt the cORpictiOR proceeds upon thegrOtRd
that they had generally, by speech and print, dd-
pSed large classes Ofthe people, not particular IN
diUidudlS bat large classes to commit murder, aid
had left the commission, the time and place and
lCheB to the individual lCN and lChin, or caprice
or tphQterer 10 mdy be- of each individual man iDhO
that OdUice IN pursuance Of that GdpiCe and tRtu-
eRced bg that Gdrice somebody not ka0tCR did
thrOIV the bomb that caused DegdR'S death. NOlU,
il this is not correct principle Of the ldt4, then
the defendants of course are entitled 10 nelO trial
This case is lpthOut precedent there is no example
in the lGlC books Of case Of this sort.
"The judge certainly told the truth when he
stated that this case was without q precedent,
and that no example could be found in the
law books to sustain the law as above laid
down. For, in all the centuries during which
government has been maintained among men,
and crime has been punished, no judge in o
civilized country had ever laid down such a
rule before. The petitioners claim that II was
laid down in this case simply because the
prosecution, not having discovered the real
criminal, would otherwise not have been able
to convict anybody; that this course was then
taken to appease the fury OF the public, and
that the judgment was allowed to stand for
the same reason. will not discuss this. But,
taking the law as above laid down, itwas nee
essary under 1t to prove, and that beyond q
reasonable doubt, that the person committing
the violent deed had at least heard or read
the advice given to the masses, for until he
either heard or read 1t he did not receive 1t,
and If he did not receive 1t he did not commit
the violent act in pursuance Of that advice,
and tits here that the case for the state fails.
With all his apparent eagerness to force con-
Viction in court and his efforts in defending
his course since the trial, the judge, speaking
on this point in his magazine article, makes
this statement: 1T is probably true that Ru-
dolph Schnaubelt threw the bOmb,' which
statement is mere surmise and is all that is
known about it, and Is certainly not sufficient
to convict eight men on. In fact, until the
state proves from whose hands the bomb came
1t Is impossible to show any connection be-
tween the man who threw 1t and these de-
PENDANTS.
1T is further shown that the mass OF matter
contained in the record and quoted at length
in the judges magazine article, showing the
use of seditious and incendiary language,
amounts to but little when its source is con-
sidered; the two papers in which articles ap-
peared at intervals during years were obscure
little sheets having scarcely any circulation,
and the articles themselves were written at
times Of great public excitement, when an
element In the community claimed TO have
been outraged; and the same Is true Of the
speeches made by the defendants and others;
the apparently seditiOus utterances were such
as are always heard when men imagine that
they have been wronged or are ad or
partially intoxicated; and the talk, a.
gantic anarchistic conspiracy Is not ben6ted
by the then chief of police, as will be shown
hereafter, and 1t Is not entitled to serious
notice, in view of the fact that, while Chicago
had nearly q million inhabitants, the meet
ings held on the lake front on Sundays during
the summer by these agitators rarely had
fifty people present, and most of these went
lEOm luoIo CulAOSlIJJ "HlAo OH0 lnoohh6s hoAu
indoors during the winter were still smaller.
The meetings held from time to time by the
masses of the laboring people must not be con-
founded with the meetings above named, al
though in times Of excitement and trouble
much violent talk was INDUCED in by fire.
sponsible parties, which was forgotten when
the excitement was over
"Again, 1t is shown here that the bomb was
in all probability thrown by some one seeking
personal revenge; that q course had been pur-
sued by the authorities which would nStur-
ally cause this; that for a number Of years
prior to the Hsymsrket affair there had been
labor troubles and in several cases number
IL 4.