Life of Albert Parsons

<--Previous  Up  Next-->

Degan, he does not understand even now that general advice to large masses to do violence makes him responsible for the violence done by reason of that advice. * * * In short, he was more a misguided enthusiast than a criminal conscious of the horrible nature and effect of his teachings and of his responsibility therefore "

The State's attorney appended the foregoing letter, beginning as follows: "While endorsing and approving the foregoing statement by Judge Gary, I wish to add thereto the suggestion, * * * that Schwab's conduct during the trial, and when addressing the court before sentence, like Fielden's, was decorous, respectful to the law and commendable. * * * It is further my desire to say that I believe that Schwab was the pliant, weak tool of a stronger will and more designing persons, Schwab seems to be friendless."

If what Judge Gary says about Fielden is true; if Fielden has "a natural love of justice and in his private life was the honest, industrious and peaceable laboring man," then Fielden's testimony is entitled to credit, and when he says that he did not do the things the police charged him with doing, and that he never had or used a revolver in his life, it is probably true especially as he was corroborated by a number of creditable and disinterested witnesses.

Again, if Fielden did the things the police charged him with doing, if he fired on them as they swear, then he was not a mere misguided enthusiast. Who was to be held only for the consequences of his teachings; and if either Judge Gary or State's Attorney Grinnell had placed any reliance on the evidence of the police on this point, they would have written a different kind of a letter to the then executive.

In the fall of 1887, a number of the most prominent business men of Chicago met to consult whether or not to ask executive clemency for any of the condemned men. Mr. Grinnell was present and made a speech, in which, in referring to this evidence, he said that he had serious doubts whether Fielden had a revolver on that occasion, or whether indeed Fielden ever had one.

Yet, in arguing the case before the Supreme Court, the previous spring, much stress was placed by the State on the evidence relating to what Fielden did at the Haymarket meeting, and that court was misled into attaching great importance to it.

It is now clear that there is no case made out against Fielden for anything he did on that night, and. as heretofore shown, in order to hold him and the other defendants for the consequences and effect's of having given pernicious and criminal advice to large masses to commit violence, whether orally, in speeches, or in print, it must be shown that the person committing the violence had read or heard the advice: for, until he had heard or read it he did not receive it and if he never received the advice, it cannot be said that he acted on it.