The Trial a Farce – Lucy E. Parsons (1911)

From ‘The Agitator’, Vol.2, No.1, November 15, 1911, Home, Washington

On June 20, 1886, Oscar Neebe, Michael Schwab, Adolph Fischer, Samuel Fielden, George Engel, Louis Lingg and August Spies were arraigned in the Cook county court, charged with the murder of one Mathias J. Deagan, in the Haymarket Square on May 4, 1886, as per indictment of said grand jury, above quoted. In the afternoon of the same day (June 20) Albert R. Parsons surrendered himself to be tried with his comrades. On August 21, the jury brought in a verdict of death for seven, and a sentence of Neebe to State’s prison for 15 years. Gov. Ogelsby commuted the sentences of Schwab and Fielden to prison for life, and Gov. Altgeld released them all three six years later.

So that it is of our five comrades who sleep in the silent mound in this State we will speak.

What of the judge and jury who tried them and sent them to their untimely graves? Let the record of the court answer.

The constitution of the United States, and of the State of Illinois, both declare that any person charged with crime is entitled to be tried by an impartial jury. Now what of the jury which tried our comrades? Here is a sample: “James H. Walker said that he had formed an opinion on the question of the guilt or innocence of the defendants of the murder of Deagan, which opinion he still entertained and had expressed it to others. Asked as to whether this opinion would influence his verdict, he replied: ‘Well, I am willing to admit that my opinion would handicap my judgment, possibly. I feel that I could be governed by the testimony.’

” ‘Then you believe now that you could listen to the testimony and any other proof that might be introduced, and the charge of the court, and decide upon that alone, uninfluenced, unprejudiced and unbiased by the opinion you now have?’

” ‘No, I don’t say that’

” That is. what I asked you.’

“ ‘I said I would be handicapped.’

“He also said he had prejudices against Socialists, Anarchists and Communists. The court, interrupting, ‘but do you believe that you can fairly and impartially render a verdict in accordance with the law and the evidence in the case?’

” ‘I shall try to do it, sir.’

“The court, interrupting: ‘But do you believe that you can fairly and impartially make up your mind from the evidence, whether that evidence shows that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not?’

” ‘I think I could, but I should feel nevertheless that I was handicapped in my judgment, sir.’

“The court: ‘Well, that is a sufficient qualification for a juror in the case. Of course, the more a man feels that he is handicapped, the more he will be guarded against it’ ” — Court Record, pp. 361.

How could any other verdict have been rendered under such rulings? Why, the more one felt that he was handicapped by prejudiced the more “impartial” he was, according to Gary’s ruling.

Of the 12 jurors who tried the case nine admitted that they were prejudiced; had formed and expressed opinions, but they had to be accepted by the defense, because the court ruled that that fact did not disqualify them! Is it any wonder that such a jury should reach a verdict in three hours, sending seven men to the gallows and one to prison for fifteen years? Justice simply abdicates at the demand of capital.

This is the language of the bailiff who had charge of summoning talesmen: “I am managing this case and I know what I am about. Those fellows will hang, as certain as death. I am summoning such men as jurors that they will be compelled to challenge peremptorily, and when they have exhausted their peremptory challenges, they will have to take such a jury as is satisfactory to the State.” — Record pp. 392.

Here is a sample of the language, used by the judge, in the impaneling of the jury, when the defense objected to the method of examination adopted by the State. The court: “I know, or the court judicially, what are the objects of Communists, Socialists and Anarchists. You must presume that I know because it has been decided for a man to say that he is prejudiced against horse thieves is no ground for imputing to him any misconduct as a juror. Now you must assume that I know either that Anarchists, Socialists and Communists are worthy objects, or else I cannot say that a prejudice against them is wrong.” — pp. 400.

Here was a suggestion by the court that he knew, judicially (of course he did not, but he so stated it), what were the objects of Anarchists, Socialists and Communists, and then by way of illustrating that he did know, he mentioned prejudice against horse thieves. The expression of the court was exactly equivalent to saying: I know the purpose of Anarchists, Socialists and Communists— that they are as pernicious and unjustifiable as the vocation of horse thieves; and therefore a juror’s prejudice such that he could not render a fair verdict where one of them is involved, is not a disqualifying prejudice. But why dwell longer upon the records of this so-called trial? The whole 800 pages are black with the infamy of this conspiracy of capital, to silence those who dared expose its wrongs.

The foul deed was done! Our comrades sleep the sleep which knows no awakening, but the grand cause for which they died is not asleep nor dead; it is the live, inspiring issue of every land and clime where the ray of civilization has penetrated. It is the moving inspiration of our age, the only question worth struggling for, the question of how to lift humanity from poverty and despair. This question is the swelling tide of our age. It is useless for the ruling class to stand on the shore of discontent and attempt to force this tide back to its depths of poverty, for it swells up from the hearts of the people. And though they should erect gallows along all the highways and byways, build prisons and increase armies, the tide will continue to rise until it overwhelms them in a world-wide revolution. This is the lesson of history.

— Lucy E. Parsons