Chapter XI

SUPERSEDEAS GRANTED. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S DECISION
SUSTAINING THE ORIGINAL VERDICT. PARSONS' LETTER TO GOVERNOR
OGLESBY. LINGG DEFIANT. THEY REFUSE TO SIGN A PETITION ASKING
FOR EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY. THEIR IMPERTINENT LETTERS TO GOVERNOR
OGLESBY.

THE SUPERSEDEAS GRANTED.

There was no doubt from the beginning that the supersedeas asked for in behalf of the condemned anarchists would be granted. Capt. W. P. Black and Hon. Leonard Swett, who had been retained to present the petition and make the argument for a new trial, met Chief Justice Scott at Bloomington by appointment, Nov. 25, 1886, and he directed the writ of error to issue. The only thing of substance which Justice Scott said at the entering of the order was to call attention to the following language in Mooney vs. The People, CXI. Illinois, page 388--an opinion by the full court:

Recognizing to the fullest extent the rule of law that the
jury in their deliberations are judges of the facts and the
weight of the evidence in criminal cases, yet the law has
imposed on the court the solemn and responsible duty to see
to it that no injustice is done by hasty action, passion, or
prejudice, or from any other cause on the part of the jury.
This duty the court may not omit in any case.

It is almost needless to state that the anarchists were well pleased with their temporary reprieve, and opportunity to have their able counsel argue for a rehearing of their case. The arguments were finished March 18, 1887, before the Supreme Court at Ottawa, States Attorney Grinnell and Attorney General Hunt appearing for the State. The decision was rendered Wednesday, September 14, before the full bench of Supreme justices, being read by Judge Magruder, of Chicago. It will thus be seen that the Supreme Court gave the questions at issue full and ample consideration during a period of nearly six months. The courtroom was crowded by an expectant throng, and the announcement of the decision was foreshadowed by impressive solemnity. In a condensed review like this it would be manifestly impossible to give a decision comprising upwards of 60,000 words, and covering every point and detail of the case. It is sufficient to state that the decision was unanimous on the part of the justices. Even Justice Mulkey, who was thought to lean toward a new trial, declared that, after having fully examined the record and given the questions arising on it his very best thought, with an earnest and conscientious desire to faithfully discharge his whole duty, he was fully satisfied that the opinion reached vindicates the law and does complete justice between the people and the defendants, fully warranted by the law and evidence.

Chief Justice Sheldon made the following announcement:

"In this case the court orders that the sentence of the
Criminal Court of Cook county on the defendants in the
indictment of August Spies, Michael Schwab, Samuel Fielden,
Albert R. Parsons, Adolph Fischer, George Engel, and Louis
Lingg, be carried into effect by the sheriff of Cook county on
Friday, November 11 next, between the hours of 10 o'clock in
the forenoon and 4 o'clock in the afternoon of that day."

The formal order for the execution of the anarchists was received by Sheriff Matson, of Cook county, Monday, September 26. The guards inside and patrol outside the jail had been doubled upon receipt of the news that the Supreme Court had sustained the verdict. Monday night Oscar Neebe was quietly removed from the jail in a carriage and taken to Joliet by train by Deputy Sheriffs Gleason and Spear, Neebe being handcuffed securely to the latter officer. Neebe's companions and outside sympathizers did not know of his removal. Neebe said to a reporter of the _News_ that he had abandoned all hope. He said he would rather step upon the gallows with his companions than to go to prison; related what he had accomplished for employees of Chicago breweries and the grocery clerks, in getting their hours shortened; was unrepentant of his part in the conspiracy, and said: "What I have done I would do again, and the time will come when the blood of the martyrs about to be sacrificed will cry aloud for vengeance, and that cry will be heard, aye, and that, too, before many years elapse."

EFFORTS TO SAVE THE ANARCHISTS HAD FAILED.

Upon receipt of the news of the affirmation of the sentence by the Supreme Court, A. R. Parsons sent to the newspapers an appeal, "To the American People," in which he maintained his innocence; declared that his speeches were lawful; condemned the evidence of detectives; refused executive clemency, concluding in the words of Patrick Henry, "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."

A. R. Parsons's open letter to the American people in which he justifies his actions, maintains his innocence, and refuses executive clemency, ran as follows, under date of September 22, 1887:

"TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE--_Fellow Citizens_: As all the
world knows, I have been convicted and sentenced to die for
the crime of murder, the most heinous offense that can be
committed. Under the form of law two courts--viz: the Criminal
and Supreme courts of the State of Illinois--have sentenced
me to death as an accessory before the fact to the murder of
Officer Degan on May 4, 1886. Nevertheless, I am innocent of
the crime charged, and to a candid and unprejudiced world I
submit the proof:

PARSONS MAINTAINS HIS INNOCENCE.

"In the decision affirming the sentence of death upon me the
Supreme Court of the State of Illinois says: 'It is undisputed
that the bomb was thrown that caused the death of Degan. It
is conceded that no one of the defendants threw the bomb with
his own hands. Plaintiffs in error are charged with being
accessories before the fact.' If I did not throw the bomb
myself it becomes necessary to prove that I aided, encouraged,
and advised the person who did throw it. Is that fact proved?
The Supreme Court says it is. The record says it is not. I
appeal to the American people to judge between them.

"The Supreme Court quotes articles from the _Alarm_, the
paper edited by me, and from my speeches running back three
years before the Haymarket tragedy of May 4, 1886. Upon said
articles and speeches the court affirms my sentence of death
as an accessory. The court says, 'The articles in the _Alarm_
were most of them written by the defendant Parsons, and some
of them by the defendant Spies,' and then proceeds to quote
these articles. I refer to the record to prove that of all the
articles quoted only one was shown to have been written by me.
I wrote, of course, a great many articles for my paper, the
_Alarm_, but the record will show that only one of these many
quoted by the Supreme Court to prove my guilt as an accessory
was written by me. This article appeared in the _Alarm_
December 6, 1884, one year and a half before the Haymarket
meeting. As to Mr. Spies, the record will show that during the
three years I was editor of the _Alarm_ he did not write for
the paper half a dozen articles. For proof as to this I appeal
to the record.

"The _Alarm_ was a labor paper, and, as is well known, a labor
paper is conducted as a medium through which working people
can make known their grievances. The _Alarm_ was no exception
to this rule. I not only did not write 'most of the articles,'
but wrote comparatively few of them. This the record will also
show.

"In referring to my Haymarket speech the court says: 'To the
men then listening to him he had addressed the incendiary
appeals that had been appearing in the _Alarm_ for two years.
The court then quotes the incendiary article which I did
write, and which is as follows: 'One dynamite bomb properly
placed will destroy a regiment of soldiers, a weapon easily
made, and carried with perfect safety in the pockets of one's
clothing.'"

SIMPLY A QUOTATION FROM GENERAL SHERIDAN.

"The record will show by referring to the _Alarm_ that this
is a garbled extract taken from a statement made by Gen.
Philip Sheridan in his annual report to Congress. It was
simply a reiteration of General Sheridan's statement that
dynamite was easily made, perfectly safe to handle, and a
very destructive weapon of warfare. The article in full as
it appeared in the _Alarm_ is as follows: 'Dynamite--The
protection of the poor against the armies of the rich--in
submitting his annual report, November 10, 1884, Gen. Philip
Sheridan, commander of the United States army, says: "This
nation is growing so rapidly that there are signs of other
troubles, which I hope will not occur and which will probably
not come upon us if both capital and labor will only be
conservative. Still, it should be remembered, destructive
explosives are easily made, and that banks, United States
sub-treasuries, and large mercantile houses can be readily
demolished and the commerce of entire cities destroyed by an
infuriated people with means carried with perfect safety to
themselves in the pockets of their clothing."'

"The editorial comment upon the above as it appeared in the
_Alarm_ is as follows: 'A hint to the wise is sufficient'.
Of course General Sheridan is too modest to tell us that
himself and army will be powerless in the coming revolution
between the propertied and the propertyless classes. Only in
foreign wars can the usual weapons of warfare be used to any
advantage. One dynamite bomb properly placed will destroy a
regiment of soldiers; a weapon easily made and carried with
perfect safety in the pockets of one's clothing. The First
regiment may as well disband, for if it should ever level
its guns upon the working men of Chicago it can be totally
annihilated.

"Again the court says: 'He (Parsons) had said to them
(referring to the people assembled at the Haymarket)
Saturday, April 24, 1886, just ten days before May 4, in
the _Alarm_ that had appeared: "Working men, to arms! War
to the palace, peace to the cottage, and death to luxurious
idleness! The wage system is the only cause of the world's
misery. It is supported by the rich classes, and to destroy it
they must be either made work or die. One pound of dynamite
is better than a bushel of ballots! Make your demand for
eight hours with weapons in your hands to meet the capitalist
bloodhounds--police and militia--in the proper manner."'

"The record will show that this article was not written by me,
but was published as a news item. By referring to the columns
of the _Alarm_ the following comment appears, attached to the
above article, viz: 'The above hand bill was sent to us from
Indianapolis, Ind., having been posted all over that city last
week. Our correspondent says that the police tore them down
wherever they found them.'

"The court continuing, says: 'At the close of another article
in the same issue he said: "The social war has come, and
whoever is not with us is against us."' Assistant State's
Attorney Walker read this article to the jury, and at its
conclusion stated that it bore my initials and was my article.
It is a matter within the knowledge of every one present that
I interrupted him and called his attention to the fact that
the article did not bear my initials, and that I was not its
author. Mr. Walker corrected his mistake to the jury.

"Now these are the three articles quoted by the Supreme Court
as proof of my guilt as an accessory in a conspiracy to murder
Officer Degan. The record will prove what I say.

HIS SPEECHES WERE ALL RIGHT.

"Now as to my speeches--all of them, with one exception
purporting to be my utterances at the Haymarket, are given
from the excited imaginations and perverted memories of
newspaper reporters. Mr. English, who alone took shorthand
notes and swore to their correctness, reports me as saying.
'It is time to raise a note of warning. There is nothing in
the eight-hour movement to excite the capitalist. Don't you
know that the militia are under arms and a Gatling gun is
ready to mow you down? Was this Germany, or Russia, or Spain?
[A voice: "It looks like it."] Whenever you make a demand
for eight hours' pay or increase of pay the militia and the
deputy sheriffs and the Pinkerton men are called out and you
are shot and clubbed and murdered in the streets. I am not
here for the purpose of exciting anybody, but to speak out, to
tell the facts as they exist even though it shall cost me my
life before morning!' Mr. English continuing, said: 'There is
another part of it (the speech) right here. It behooves you,
as you love your wife and children, if you don't want to see
them perish with hunger, killed, or cut down like dogs on the
street--Americans, in the interest of your liberty and your
independence, to arms; arm yourselves!'

"This, be it remembered, is a garbled extract, and it is a
matter of record that Reporter English testified that he was
instructed by the proprietor of his paper to report only the
inflammatory portions of the speeches made at the meeting.

THE MAYOR HEARD THE SPEECH.

"Mayor Harrison, who was present and heard this speech,
testified before the jury that it was simply 'a violent and
political harangue' and did not call for his interference as
a peace officer. The speech delivered by me at the Haymarket,
and which I repeated before the jury is a matter of record
and undisputed, and I challenge any one to show therein that
I incited any one to acts of violence. The extract reported
by Mr. English, when taken in connection with what preceded
and what followed, cannot be construed by the wildest
imagination as incitement to violence. Extracts from three
other speeches alleged to have been delivered by me were made
more than one year prior to May 4, 1886, are given. Two of
these speeches were reported from the memory of the Pinkerton
detective Johnson. These are the speeches quoted by the court
as proof of my guilt as accessory to the murder of Degan.
Where, then, is the connection between these speeches and the
murder of Degan? I am bold to declare that such connection
is imperceptible to the eye of a fair and unprejudiced mind.
But the honorable body, the Supreme Court of Illinois, has
condemned me to death for speeches I never made, and for
articles I never wrote. In the affirmation of the death
sentence the court has 'assumed,' 'supposed,' 'guessed,'
'surmised,' and 'presumed' that I can and did 'so and so.'
This the record fully proves.

"The court says: 'Spies, Schwab, Parsons and Engel were
responsible for the articles written and published by them, as
above shown; Spies, Schwab, Fielden, Parsons and Engel were
responsible for the speeches made by them respectively, and
there is evidence in the same record tending to show that the
death of Degan occurred during the prosecution of a conspiracy
planned by the members of the international groups who read
these articles and heard these speeches.'

OBJECTS TO THE PINKERTON MEN.

"Now, I defy any one to show from the record the proof
that I wrote more than one of the many articles alleged to
have been written by me. Yet the Supreme Court says that I
wrote and am responsible for all of them. Again--concerning
the alleged speeches--they were reported by the Pinkerton
detective Johnson, who was, as the record shows, employed by
Lyman Gage, president of the First National Bank, as the agent
of the Citizens' Association, an organization composed of the
millionaire employers of Chicago.

"I submit to a candid world if this hired spy would not make
false reports to earn blood-money. Thus, it is for speeches
I did not make, and articles I did not write I am sentenced
to die, because the court 'assumes' that these articles
influenced some unknown and still unidentified person to throw
the bomb that killed Degan. Is this law? Is this justice?

"The Supreme Court, in affirming the sentence of death upon
me, proceeds to give further reasons, as follows: 'Two
circumstances are to be noted. First, it can hardly be said
that Parsons was absent from the Haymarket meeting when he
went to Zepf's Hall. It has already been stated that the
latter place was only a few steps north of the speakers' wagon
and in sight from it. We do not think that the defendant
Parsons could escape his share of the responsibility for
the explosions at the Haymarket because he stepped into a
neighboring saloon and looked at the explosion through a
window. While he was speaking men stood around him with arms
in their hands. Many of these were members of the armed
sections of the international groups. Among them were men who
belonged to the International Rifles, an armed organization in
which he himself was an officer, and with which he had been
drilling in preparation for the events then transpiring.'

"The records of the trial will show that not one of the
foregoing allegations is true. The facts are these: Zepf's
Hall is on the northeast corner of Lake and Desplaines
streets, just one block north of the speakers' wagon. The
court says 'it was only a few steps north of the speakers'
wagon.' The court says further that 'it can hardly be said
that Parsons was absent from the Haymarket meeting when he
was at Zepf's Hall.' If this is correct logic, then I was at
two different places a block apart at the same instant. Truly
the day of miracles has not yet passed. Again, the record
will show that I did not 'step into a neighboring saloon and
look at the explosion through a window.' It will show that
I went to Zepf's Hall, one block distant, and across Lake
street, accompanied by my wife and another lady, and my two
children (a girl of five and a boy of seven years of age),
they having sat upon a wagon about ten feet from the speakers'
wagon throughout my speech; that it looked like rain; that we
had started home and went into Zepf's Hall to wait for the
meeting to adjourn, and walked home in company with a lot of
friends who lived in that direction. Zepf's building is on
the corner and opens on the street with a triangular door six
feet wide. Myself and ladies and children were just inside the
door. Here, while waiting for our friends and looking toward
the meeting, I had a fair view of the explosion. All this the
record will show.

ABOUT THE BOMB.

"It would seem that, according to circumstances, a block is at
one time 'a few steps' or a 'few steps' is more than a block,
as the case may suit. The logical as well as the imaginative
faculties of the Supreme Court are further illustrated in
a most striking manner by the credence of the court to the
'yarn' of a 'reporter,' who testified that Spies had described
to him the 'Czar' bomb, and the men who were to use them as
follows. 'He spoke of a body of tall, strong men in their
organization who could throw bombs weighing five pounds 150
paces. He stated that the bombs in question were to be used in
case of conflict with the police or the militia.'

"The court gives this sort of testimony as proof of the
existence of a conspiracy to murder Degan. Wonderful
credulity. To throw a five-pound bomb 150 paces or yards is to
throw it 450 feet or a quarter of a mile.

"Gulliver, in his travels among the Brobdingnag race, tells
us of the giants he met, and we have also heard of the giants
of Patagonia. But we did not know until now that they were
mere Lilliputians as compared with the 'anarchist Swedes' of
Chicago.

"The court proceeds to say, 'While he (Parsons) was speaking,
men stood around him with arms in their hands.' The record
as quoted by the court shows that only one man flourished
a pistol, not a number of men. Again, the court says,
'Most of the men were members of the armed sections of the
"International groups,"' thus making it appear that many of
these men (when there was only one who was even alleged to
have exhibited a pistol) were armed.

"The court says: 'Among them were men who belonged to the
"International Rifles," an armed organization in which he
himself was an officer, and in which he had been drilling in
preparation for the events then transpiring.'

"Now I Challenge the Supreme Court or any other honorable
gentleman to prove from the record that there ever existed
such an organization as the armed section of the American
group, known as the 'International Rifles.' It cannot be done.
The record shows that some members of the American group did
organize the 'International Rifles,' which never met but
four or five times; was never armed with rifles or any other
weapons, and was disbanded nearly a year before the 4th of
May, 1886.

"The Pinkerton man Johnson says that dynamite bombs were
exhibited 'in the presence of the "International Rifles."' It
will take corroborative testimony before the American people
will credit the statements of such a man engaged for such a
purpose; and it is well known that Supreme courts have decided
that the testimony of detectives should be taken with great
caution.

HE APPEALS TO THE PEOPLE.

"I appeal to the American people, to their love of justice
and fair play. I submit that the record does not show my guilt
of the crime of murder, but on the contrary it proves my
innocence.

"Against me in this trial all the rules of law and evidence
have been reversed in that I have been held as guilty until I
proved my innocence. I have been tried ostensibly for murder,
but in reality for anarchy. I have been proved guilty of
being an anarchist and condemned to die for that reason. The
State's attorney said in his statement before the court and
jury in the beginning of the trial: 'These defendants were
picked out and indicted by the grand jury. They are no more
guilty than the thousands who follow them. They are picked
out because they are leaders. Convict them and our society is
safe,' and in their last appeal to the jury the prosecution
said: 'Anarchy is on trial. Hang these eight men and save our
institutions. These are the leaders. Make examples of them.'
This is a matter of record.

A WORD FOR HIS COMRADES.

"So far as I have had time to examine the records I find the
same fabrication and perversion of testimony against all my
comrades as exists against myself. I therefore again appeal to
to the American people to avert the crime of judicial murder.
And this appeal I have faith will not be in vain.

"My ancestors partook of all the hardships incident to the
establishment of this Republic. They fought, bled, and some
of them died that the Declaration of Independence might live
and the American flag might wave in triumph over those who
claim the 'divine right of kings to rule.' Shall the flag now,
after a century's triumph, trail in the mire of oppression
and protect the perpetration of outrages and oppressions that
would put the older despotisms of Europe to shame?

"Knowing myself innocent of crime I came forward and gave
myself up for trial. I felt that it was my duty to take my
chances with the rest of my comrades. I sought a fair and
impartial trial before a jury of my peers, and knew that
before any fair-minded jury I could with little difficulty be
cleared. I preferred to be tried and take the chances of an
acquittal with my friends to being hunted as a felon. Have I
had a fair trial?

PARSONS REFUSES EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY.

"The lovers of justice and fair play are assiduously engaged
in an effort to thwart the consummation of judicial murder by
a commutation of sentence to prison. I speak for myself alone
when I say that for this I thank them and appreciate their
efforts. But I am an innocent man. I have violated no law;
I have committed no offense against any one's rights. I am
simply the victim of the malice of those whose anger has been
aroused by the growth, strength and independence of the labor
organizations of America. I am a sacrifice to those who say:
'These men may be innocent. No matter. They are anarchists. We
must hang them anyway.'

"My counsel informs me that every effort will be made to
take this case before the highest tribunal in the land, and
that there is strong hope of a hearing there. But I am also
reliably informed that from three to five years will elapse
before the Supreme Court of the United States can hear and
adjudge the case.

"Since surrendering myself to the authorities, I have been
locked up in close confinement twenty-one hours out of every
twenty-four for six days, and from Saturday afternoon till
Monday morning (thirty-eight hours) each week in a noisome
cell, without a ray of sunlight or a breath of pure air. To
be compelled to bear this for five or even three years would
be to suffer a lingering death, and it is only a matter of
serious consideration with me whether I ought to accept the
verdict as it stands rather than die by inches under such
conditions. I am prepared to die. I am ready, if needs be, to
lay down my life for my rights and the rights of my fellow
men. But I object to being killed on false and unproved
accusations. Therefore I cannot countenance or accept the
efforts of those who would endeavor to procure a commutation
of my sentence to an imprisonment in the penitentiary. Neither
do I approve of any further appeals to the courts of law.
I believe them to be all alike--agency of the privileged
classes to perpetuate their power, to oppress and plunder the
toiling masses. As between capital and its legal rights, and
labor and its legal rights, the courts of law must side with
the capitalistic class. To appeal to them is in vain. It is
the appeal of the wage slave to his capitalistic master for
liberty. The answer is curses, blows, imprisonment, and death.

"If I had never been an anarchist before, my experience with
courts and the laws of the governing class would make an
anarchist of me now. What is anarchy? It is a state of society
without any central or governing power. Upon this subject the
court, in its affirmation of the death sentence, defines the
object of the International Working Peoples' Association as
follows:

"'It is designed to bring about a social revolution. Social
revolution means the destruction of the right of private
ownership of property, or of the right of the individual to
own property. It means of the bringing about of a state of
society in which all property should be held in common.'

HE REFERS TO THE SCRIPTURES.

"If this definition is right, then it is very similar to that
advocated by Jesus Christ, for proof of which I refer to the
fourth and fifth chapters of the Acts of the Apostles; also
Matthew xxi., 10 to 14, and Mark xi., 15 to 19.

"No, I am not guilty. I have not been proved guilty. I leave
it to you to decide from the record itself as to my guilt
or innocence. I cannot, therefore, accept a commutation to
imprisonment. I appeal--not for mercy, but for justice. As
for me, the utterance of Patrick Henry is so apropos that I
cannot do better than let him speak:

"'Is life so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at
the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I
know not what course others may take, but, as for me, give me
liberty or give me death.'"

A. R. PARSONS,
"Prison Cell 29, Chicago, Ill., Sept. 21, 1887."

THE CASE BEFORE THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

The anarchists were not lacking in funds to secure every chance of reprieve or commutation, as contributions had poured into their coffers swelling the sum total over $50,000. Every opportunity was accorded to the condemned men to place their case in as favorable a light as possible before the Federal Court. But the flagrant and far-reaching character of their crime gave little hope to the unbiased that the judges composing that honorable body would interfere. Following our readers will find Attorney Grinnell's argument before the United States Supreme Court. Also General Butler's defense for the impenitent yet doomed men.

GRINNELL'S ARGUMENT BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Mr. Grinnell, addressing the court, said that it had not been his intention to take part in the oral argument, and that he came here primarily for the purpose of assisting Mr. Hunt by means of his familiarity with the record in this case. He thought that by the presentation of the law and the facts yesterday it was clearly shown that there was no federal question involved, and that the court was without jurisdiction to grant the writ of error. The assignments of error in the lower court, and the parts of the record relating to the jurors Denker and Sanford had been printed and were in the court's hands. In all the twenty-eight assignments of error there was no reference directly or indirectly to the constitution of the United States or any of its amendments. There were some things, he said, which were here generally conceded, and one of them was that the constitution itself confers no rights which need be here considered. It is simply a limitation of the rights of the legislative power in dealing with the rights of citizens.

THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION.

The constitution of the State of Illinois contains almost all the provisions which are embraced in the constitution of the United States. This court had settled, he believed, the question of jurisdiction as far as the first ten amendments are concerned, and also, he thought, under the fourteenth amendment. The only clause of the latter which could figure here was that "no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Whatever affects liberty and life is made by this clause to affect also property. If the court has jurisdiction of this case under this provision of the amendment then every State question relating to property, such as special assessments, the condemnation of property, etc., might be brought to this court for review.

The Chief Justice--"Because they take property without valuation by a jury."

Mr. Grinnell--"Yes, your honor, in some cases they do, especially in the matter of drainage, where the proceedings may be before a justice of the peace."

PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES.

Mr. Grinnell said he thought it to be conceded that a State Legislature had a right to prescribe how many peremptory challenges should be allowed in the formation of a jury. The common law of Illinois had been radically changed in this respect, and both prosecution and defendant now stood on an equal footing. Each defendant was entitled to twenty peremptory challenges, and as the eight defendants in this case acted in concert and were all consulted, each of them had practically 160 peremptory challenges. The State had a like number. The defendants exhausted all of their 160 peremptory challenges before a jury was obtained and the State availed itself of its privilege to the extent of fifty-two challenges. He maintained, however, that no federal question would be involved even if the State allowed only one peremptory challenge to one side and 160 to the other. It was the State's right. In this case there were 931 men called into the jury box and examined in order to obtain twelve jurors.

JURORS SANFORD AND DENKER.

No objection was raised to any one of the twelve jurors with the single exception of Sanford. Denker was challenged for cause after a brief examination; the challenge was overruled and the defense accepted, but they then proceeded with a further and more elaborate examination of him, and it is shown by the record that after this second examination they desired to keep him, that they did keep him, and that they did make no further exception. When Denker was taken the defense had left 142 peremptory challenges and they could have used one of these challenges to get rid of him if they had been very desirous of so doing. They had forty-three peremptory challenges left after eleven jurors had been sworn. These forty-three challenges they frittered away frivolously for the purpose of taking some possible advantage. Their peremptory challenges were then exhausted, and they had to either take a juror or show cause why he should be rejected.

The examination of Sanford, the last juror, clearly demonstrated, Mr. Grinnell said, that the defense were more ready to take him than the State was. Not a single juror was put upon the defense to exhaust their peremptory challenges. Whenever a man said that he had talked with a witness or any one who was present at the Haymarket meeting, or that he had attended the coroner's inquest he was rejected for cause.

EULOGIZING THE JURY.

Speaking of the jury as a whole, Mr. Grinnell said: "I wish and am constrained to pay one tribute to that jury. It exemplified American citizenship in this country more than any jury that was ever looked upon. It embraced all walks of life. Three of them earned their living by manual work. They came from all parts of the country and one of them was born on foreign soil. They were not a class jury. They were honest citizens with the solemn duty devolving upon them of determining what should be done with those men. No judge could look in the faces of that jury without saying: 'They are intelligent; they represent American citizenship; they are fit to be trusted with the rights of freemen under our constitution.' There was not a capitalist on that jury. They were all common-place small dealers and intelligent men."

Mr. Grinnell said he would challenge any one to show that a single member of that jury was not a competent juror, not only under the jury law of Illinois, but under the common law. "Congress," he said, "had recognized the right of States to make their own jury laws."