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

lCds not so much tB all this anarchist business as
lcas claimed, and that police captain 1Oanted to
send Out men 10 hare other CORspirdcies formed IN
order 10 get the credit Of discovering them and keep
the public ezctted, Hthrows a food of light on the
1ChOle situation and destroys the force of much of
the testimony Introduced at the trial
WHY NO EXTENSIVE CONSPIRACY EXISTED,
"For IL there has been any such extensive
conspiracy as the prosecution claims thepo-
lice would soon have discovered it. No chief
of police could discover determination on
the part of an individual, or even of number
of separate individuals, to have personal re-
yenge for having been maltreated, nor could
any chief discover q determination by any
such individual to kill the next policeman
who might assault him. Consequently, the
fact that the police did not discover any con-
spiracy before the Haymarket affair shows
almost conclusively that no such extensive
combination could have existed.
"As further bearing on the question of Gre
ating evidence, reference is made to the fol-
lowing affidavits;
STATE OF ILLINOIS, 90
COUNTY OF Cook. 3D.
Jacob Mikolanda, being first duly sworn. on
oath states that he took no part in the so-Called
Nav troubles of 1886; that on or about the Sth
day of May, 1886, two police officers, without
warrant or without assigning any reasons
therefor, took this affiant from q saloon, where
he was conducting himself peacefully, and
obliged him to accompany them to his house
that the same officers entered his house with
out O search warrant and ransacked the same,
not even permitting the babys crib with its
sleeping occupant to escape their unlawful
and fruitless search that in about month
-,
moned by Ofhcer PerCeny to accompany him
to the police station, as Lieutenant Shepard
wished to speak to him; that there without a
warrant this affiant was thrown into jail; that
he was thereupOn shown some photographs
and asked IL he knew the persons, and on
answering in the affirmative as to some of the
Dictures he was again thrown into prison (;
that he was then transferred from one station
to another for several days; that he was i'm
portuned by q police captain and assistant
States attorney to turn states witness, being
promised therefor money, the good will and
protection of the police, their political tntlu-
ence in securing position, and his entire
freedom that on answering that he knew
nothing to which he could testify he was
thrown back into jail; that his preliminary
hearing was repeatedly continued for want of
prosecution, each continuance obliging this
affiant to remain longer in jail that eventually
this afiiant was dismissed for want OF prose-
cution, JACOB MIKOLANDA.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th
day of April, A. d., 1898.
CHARLES B. PAvICEK, Notary Public.
STATE OF ILLINOIS, 90
COUNTY OF Cook. '0'
Vaclav Djmek, being first duly sworn, on
oath states that he knows OF no cause for his
arrest on the 7th day Of May, A. D., 1885, that
he took no part in the troubles OF the preced-
ing days; that without warrant for his ar
rest, or without search warrant 1or MS prem
ises, the police entered his house on the night
of the 7th day Of May, 1885, that on being re-
0uested to show by what authority they en-
tered, the police heaped abuse upon this atlant
and his wife; that the police then proceeded
to ransack the house, reused this atlantis lit
tie children out of bed, pulled the same to
pieces, carried away this atlantis papers and
pillow slips, because the same were RED; tnaC
on the way to the police station, though this
Afiant offered no resistance whatever and
went at the command of the officer peaceably,
this affant was choked, covered with reVoly-
ers and otherwise inhumanly treated by the
police officers that for many days this afilant
was Jailed and refused a preliminary hearing;
| that during said time he was threatened, and
promised immunity by the police II he would
| turn states witness that the police clerk and
officer Johnson repeatedly promised this
affiant his freedom and considerable money II
he would turn states witness; that on his
Iprotestations that he knew nothing to which
| he could testify, this affiant was abused and
! ill-treated; that while he was jailed, this
affiant was kicked, dubbed, beaten and
/ scratched, had curses and abuses heaped upon
him and was threatened with hanging by the
police; that this atlantis wife was abused by
the police when she sought permission to see
this affiant NACLAV DJnEk,
Subscribed and sworn to before me this l4th
day of April, A. D., 1898.
| CHARLES B. PAvLICEK, Notary Public.
GOVERNORS CONCLUSIONS IN SUBSTANCE.
al will simply say in conclusion on this
branch Of the case that the facts tend to show
that the bomb was thrown as an act OF per
sonal revenge, and that the prosecution has
never discovered who threw it, and the evi
dence utterly fails to show that the man wht
did throw it ever heard or read aword coming
from the defendants; consequently it fails tt
show that he acted on any advice given b!
Il 4 Enaa or o. q d