The Great Anarchist Trial:

The Haymarket Speeches

As Delivered On The Evening Of The Throwing Of The Bomb, At Haymarket Square, Chicago, May 4, 1886,

By:

August Spies

and

Albert R. Parsons

---

1886

Published by the Chicago labor press association
Room 17, No, 76 and 78 Fifth Ave., Chicago

NOTE.

The Chicago Times of August 10 contained the following statements, among others, in regard to the great trial:

"The climax in the Anarchist trial was reached yesterday. Schwab, Spies and Parsons told their respective stories to the jury from the witness-chair, to a spell-bound audience of spectators, an amazed jury, and a surprised judge. * * * Parsons was composed and eloquent. * * * His brother, General W. H. Parsons, sat with eyes fixed upon him during the time he was upon the stand. As soon as Mr. August Spies retired Mr. Parsons took the stand, and in a quiet, deferential tone answered the questions put to him in a firm voice, not appearing to be in the least unnerved by his peculiar position. At length he was asked to give the substance of his Haymarket - speech, and he did so, and if the jury, the court, and the audience have been entertained since the trial began, they were entertained by the chief agitator of the Chicago Anarchists. He pulled out of his pocket a bundle of notes, and began at the jury in tones which betokened that the speaker was primed for the finest speech of his life. Luckily for him the witness-chair was a swinging one. He held his notes in his left hand, and, together with the swaying of his body, gesticulated with his right hand. From low, measured tones he went from eloquence to oratory, and from oratory to logic, and from logic to argument."

The Riot at McCormick's

THE SPEECH DELIVERED BY AUGUST SPIES' AT THE HAYMARKET, MAY 4, ON THE OCCASION OF THE BOMB-THROWING

FRIENDS-The speakers of the evening not having arrived I shall entertain you a-few minutes. I am told that a number of patrol wagons, carrying policemen, were sent to Desplaines street station, and I understand that the militia have been called under arms. There seems to prevail the opinion in certain quarters that this meeting has been called for the purpose of inaugurating a riot, hence these warlike preparations on the part of so-called "Law and Order." However, let me tell you at the beginning that this meeting has not been called for any such purpose. The object of this meeting is to explain the general situation of the Eight-Hour Movement, and to throw light upon various incidents in connection with it.

For more than twenty years have the wage workers of this country begged and prayed their masters, the factory lords, to reduce their burdens. It has been in vain. They have pointed out the fact that over a million of willing and strong hands were in a state of enforced idleness and starvation, that to help them to obtain employment it would not only be advisable, nay, it was necessary to reduce the hours of daily toil of those who were fortunate enough in having found a buyer for their 'muscles, their bones, and their brain. The masters of this earth have treated them with contempt, have condemned them to vagabondage whenever they insisted. The legislatures have been called upon, one petition has succeeded the other, but with no avail.

At last the condition of the disinherited producers has become unbearable. Seeing that neither "boss" nor law would concede anything to them, they have organized for the purpose of helping themselves -a wise and prudent resolution.

All over the land we behold vast armies of producers, no longer begging, but demanding that eight hours shall henceforth constitute a normal working day. And what say the extortionists to this? They demand their pound of flesh, like Shylock. They will not yield one iota. They have grown rich and powerful on your labor. They amass stupendous fortunes, while you, who bring them into existence, are suffering from want. In answer to your pleadings they ask for the bodies of your little children, to utilize them in their gold mints, to make dollars out of them! Look at the slaves of McCormick! When they tried to remonstrate with their master he simply called upon "the protectors of these free and glorious institutions" -- the police -- to silence them. And they did silence them.

You have no doubt heard of the, killing and wounding of a number of your brothers at McCormick's, yesterday. Mr. McCormick told a Times reporter that Spies was responsible for that massacre committed by the most noble Chicago police. I reply to this that McCormick is, an infamous liar. (Cries of "Hang him.") No, make no idle threats. There will be a time, and we are rapidly approaching it, when such men as McCormick will be hanged; there will be a time when monsters who destroy the lives and happiness of the citizens (for their own aggrandizement) will be dealt with like wild beasts. But that time has not yet come. When it has come you will no longer make threats, but you will go and "do it."

The capitalistic press, like the "respectable gentleman" McCormick, howls that the anarchists are responsible for the deeds of violence now committed all over this country. If that were true one would have to conclude that the country was full of anarchists, yet the same press informs us that the anarchists are very few in number. Were the "unlawful" acts in the Southwestern strike committed by anarchists? No, they were committed by Knights of Labor, men who never fail to declare, whenever there is an opportunity, that they are law and order abiding citizens. The attack upon McCormick's yesterday -- Was it made by anarchists? Let us see. I had been invited by the Central Labor Union to address a meeting of lumber yard laborers, on the Black road. I went out there yesterday at the appointed time, about three o'clock in the afternoon. There were at least 10,000 persons assembled. When I was introduced to address them a few Poles or Bohemians in the crowd cried out: "He's a socialist." These cries were followed by a general commotion and derision -- "We want no socialist; down with him." These and other exclamations I was treated to. Of course, I spoke anyway; the crowd became calm and quiet and fifteen minutes later, elected me unanimously a delegate to see their bosses. Nevertheless, you can see that these people are not socialists or anarchists, but "good, honest, law-abiding church-going Christians and citizens." Such were the persons who left the meeting, as I afterwards learned, to "make the scabs at McCormick's quit work." In my speech I never mentioned McCormick. Now you may judge for yourselves whether the anarchists were responsible for the bloodshed yesterday or not.

Who is responsible for these many "lawless" acts, you ask me? I have told you that they are generally committed by the most lawful and Christian citizens -- in other words, the people are by necessity driven to violence, they can't carry the burden heaped upon them any longer. They try to cast it off, and in so doing break the laws. The law says they must not cast it off, for such an act would alter, yea, revolutionize the existing order of society! These acts of violence are the natural outgrowth of the present industrial system, and everyone is responsible for them who supports and upholds that system.

What does it mean when the police of this city, on this evening, rattle along in their patrol wagons?

What does it mean when the militia stands warlike and ready for bloody work at our armories?

What are the gatling guns and cannons for?

Is this military display of barbarism arranged for your entertainment?

Ail these preparations, my friends, ARE made in your behalf!!

Your masters have perceived your discontent.

They do not like discontented slaves.

They want to make you contented at all hazards, and if you are stubborn they will force or kill you.

Look at the killing of your brothers at McCormick's yesterday. What did they do? The police tell you that they were a most dangerous crowd, armed to their teeth. The fact is, they, like ignorant children, indulged in the harmless sport of bombarding McCormick's slaughterhouse with stones. They paid the penalty of this folly with their blood.

The lesson I draw from this occurrence is, that working men must arm themselves for defense, so that they may be able to cope with the government hirelings of their masters.

I see Mr. Parsons has arrived. He is a much abler speaker in your tongue than I am, therefore I will conclude by introducing him.

---

The speech of Mr. Parsons, which follows, was re-delivered, on examination before the Court, on the 9th of August, 1886.

Rights and Wrongs of Labor.

CAPTAIN BLACK: Now, Mr. Parsons, going back to the meeting, retracing our steps for a moment -- will you tell us, please, what was the substance of your speech that night, as fully as you can remember?"

THE SPEECH.

---

"I have taken some notes of reference since then to refresh my memory. I recollect distinctly of mentioning all of these points, but could not recall them, seriatim unless I put them on paper, and that is the reason I have done so.

"When I was introduced I looked at the crowd and observed that it was quite a large crowd. I am familiar with public speaking and with crowds, and I should estimate there were three thousand men present, and I consider myself a judge of such matters. The street was packed from sidewalk to sidewalk, north and south of the wagon but especially south of the wagon, for a considerable distance. I faced the south. I first called the attention of those present to the

EVIDENCE OF DISCONTENT AMONG THE WORKING CLASSES.

not alone of Chicago, not alone of the United States, but of the civilized world, and I asked the question, if these evidences of disconnected as could be seen in strikes and lockouts and boycotts, were not indications that there was something radically wrong in the existing order things in our social affairs. I then alluded to the eight-hour movement and spoke of it as a movement designed to give steady employment the employed, work to the idle, and thereby bring comfort and change to the homes of the destitute and relieving the unrelieved and the toil of those who worked not alone ten hours,

BUT TWELVE, FOURTEEN AND SIXTEEN HOURS A DAY.

I said that the eight-hour movement was in the interests of civilization of prosperity, of the public welfare, and that it was demanded by every interest in the community, and that I was glad to see them assembly on that occasion to give their voice in favor of the adoption of eight-hour workday. I then referred again to the general condition of labor throughout the country. I spoke of my recent travels through the States of Pennsylvania and Ohio where I had met and addressed thousands and thousands of workingmen. I told of the Tuscarora Valley and of the Hocking Valley and of the Monongahela Valley among the miners of this country, where their

WAGES AVERAGED 24½ CENTS A DAY

I showed, of course, these were not wages they received while at work, but that the difficulty was they did not get the day's work, and consequently they had to sum up the totals and divide it. Throughout the year it amounted to 24½ cents a day. I asked if this was not a condition of affairs calculated to arouse the discontent of the people, and to make them clamor for redress and relief. I pointed to the fact that in the city of Pittsburgh a report was made by, I think, the Superintendent of Police of that city, stating that at the Bethel Home, a charitable institution in that city, from January I, 1884, to January I, 1885, there were 26,374 destitute men -- tramps -- American sovereigns -- who had applied for a night's lodging and a morsel of food at one establishment alone in the city of Pittsburgh. I referred, of course, to many other places and similar things, showing the general condition of labor in the country. I then spoke of the eight-hour movement -- that it was designed to bring relief to these men and to the country. I thought surely there was nothing in it to excite such hostility on the part of employers and on the part of monopoly and corporations against it, as was, witnessed in different parts of the country. I referred to the refusal of the corporations and monopolists to grant and concede this modest request of the working class, and their attempts to defeat it. I then referred to the fact that in the face of all these causes producing these effects, the monopolistic newspapers, in the interests of corporations, blamed such men as I -- blamed the so-called agitators, blamed the workingmen -- for these evidences or discontent, this turmoil and confusion, and so-called disorder. I called the attention of the crowd specifically to that fact -- that we were being blamed for this thing, when, on the contrary, it was evident to any fair-minded man that we were simply calling the attention of the people to this condition of things and seeking a redress for it. I impressed that upon the crowd specifically, and I remember that in response to that several gentlemen spoke up loudly and said: 'Well, we need a good many just such men as you to right these wrongs and to arouse the people.' I spoke of the

COMPULSORY IDLENESS AND STARVATION WAGES

and how these things drove the, workingmen to desperation -- drove them to commit acts for which they ought not to be held responsible that they were the creatures of circumstances, and that this condition of things was the fault, not of the workingmen, but of those who claimed the right to control and regulate the rights of the workingmen I pointed out the fact that monopoly, in its course in grinding down labor in this country and in refusing to concede anything to it -- refusing to make any concessions whatever -- that in persisting in course it was

CREATING REVOLUTIONISTS

and if there was a single revolutionist in America, monopoly and corporations were directly responsible for his existence. I specifically called attention to this fact, in order to defend myself from the charge constantly being made through the mouthpiece of monopoly -- the capitalistic press. I called attention in this connection to the Chicago Times and other newspapers. I called the attention of the working people that night to the strike of 1877, when the Chicago Times declared that hand-grenades ought to be thrown among the striking sailors who were then upon a strike on the river wharves in this city, in order to teach them a lesson, and that other strikers might be warn by their fate. I said that the Chicago Times was the first dynamiterin America and as the mouthpiece of monopoly and corporations it was the first to advocate the killing of people when they protested againsg wrong and oppression. I spoke of the Chicago Tribune, which that day advocated that when bread was given to the poor strychnine should be placed on it. I also called attention to Frank Leslie's Illustrated Paper, which declared in an editorial that the American toiler must be driven to his task either by the slave-driver's lash or the immediate prospect of want. I spoke of the New York Herald, and saying that lead should be given to any tramp who should come around. Whenever a workingman, thrown out of employment and forced to wander from place to place in search of work, away from family a home, asked for a crust of bread, the New York Herald advised them to whom he applied to fill him with lead instead of bread. I called attention to what Tom Scott, the railway monopolist, said during the strike of 1877, 'Give them the rifle diet, and see how they like kind of bread.' I referred to Jay Gould, when he said we would she have a monarchy in this country, and to a similar statement in the Indianapolis Journal. Then I referred to how monopoly was pui these threats into practice. They not only used these threats, but put them into practice, and I cited East St. Louis, where Jay Gould called for men and paid them $5 a day for firing upon harmless, innocent, unarmed workingmen, killing nine of them and one woman in cold-blooded murder. I referred to the Saginaw valley, where militia was used to put down strikes. I referred to Lemont, Ill., where defenseless and innocent citizens and their town were invaded by militia of the state of Illinois, and without any pretext men, women and children were fired upon and slaughtered in cold blood. I referred to the McCormick strike on the previous day; and denounced action of the police on that occasion as an outrage. I asked workingmen if these were not facts, and if monopolies and corporations were not responsible for them, and were they not driving people into this condition of things. And then I used some word some phrase in connection with the use of the military and the police and the Pinkerton thugs to shoot down workingmen, to drive them back into submission and starvation wages. I then referred to the Chicago Mail of Monday, to which my attention had been called on Tuesday afternoon. In an editorial it asserted Parsons and Spies incited the trouble at McCormick's factory the day before, and ought to be lynched and driven out of the city. But the truth is, I was at Cincinnati at that time. I called attention to the fact that the newspapers were wickedly exciting the people against the workingmen. I denied the newspaper charge that we were sneaks and cowards, and defied them to run us out of the city. I pointed to the fact that the

CAPITALISTIC PRESS

were the subsidized agents and organs of monopoly, and that held stocks and bonds in corporations and railroads, and that no could be elected an alderman of this city unless he had the sanction of some one of the corporations and monopolies of this city. Then I said, 'I am not here, fellow-workmen, for the purpose of inciting anybody, but to tell the truth, and to state the facts as they actually exist, though it should cost me my life doing so. I then referred to the Cincinnati demonstration, at which I was present the Sunday previous. I said that the organizations of workingmen in that city -- the trades unions and other organizations -- had a grand street parade and picnic. They sent for me to go down there and address them. It was an eight-hour demonstration. I attended on that occasion and spoke to them. I referred to the fact that they turned out in thousands and that they marched with Winchester rifles, two or three companies of them. I supposed there were about two hundred men at the head of the column, the Cincinnati Rifle Union. I said that at the head of the procession they bore the red flag --

THE RED FLAG OF LIBERTY, FRATERNITY, EQUALITY FOR LABOR,

pointed out that every other flag in the world repudiated the workingman, outlawed the workingman, and that he had no shield and no flag but the red one. I then referred to our country and to men saying that this was a movement of foreigners and so on in this country. I pointed out the fact that the desire for right and the thirst for liberty and for justice was not a foreign affair at all. It was one which concerned Americans as much as foreigners, and that patriotism was a humbug in this connection; that it was used to separate the people, to divide them and antagonize them against each other; that the Irish were separated, and their national feeling was kept alive as against an Englishman, in order that the exploiters and depredaters upon them might the more easily make them their victims and use them as their tools. I referred in that connection then to land monopoly, and I showed how the farms of this country were being driven into land tenures like that of Europe, and called attention to an article which appeared in the North American Review last December which I think was by an eminent statistician of this country, in which it is stated that in the little State of Connecticut alone there was three hundred and fifty million dollars of mortgages were held upon farms, west of the Aleghanies by capitalists living in the little state of Connecticut, demonstrating that Americans need not go abroad to find the evils of land monopoly. I stated that over 50 percent, perhaps two-thirds, of the farms in the state of Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan were under mortgage, and that landlorism was making it impossible for these men to pay for these farms, and that they were breaking them up, forcing them to become tenants, and instituting the European system in this country. I said that I did not regard that as a question of patriotism, nor a foreign question, but an American question concerning Americans. I referred to the banking monopoly of the country by which a few men are empowered to make money scarce in order that they may control the markets, run corners on the medium of exchange, and produce a panic in the country by making money scarce. They made the price of articles dear, and threw labor out of employment, and brought on bankruptcy. I said the monopoly owned labor and employed its armed hirelings to subject the people. In the light of these facts, and of your inalienable right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it behooves you, as you love your wives and children, and if you would not see them perish of want and hunger, yourselves killed or cut down like dogs in the streets -- Americans in the interest of your liberty and independence,

ARM! ARM YOURSELVES!

A voice then said to me, 'We are ready now'. Idid not understand what the gentleman said, but I made that reply, as has been testified to by many here. I called attention to the fact that the Constitution of the United States gave to the workingmen the right to keep and bear arms, but monopoly was seeking to deprive them of that right. I called attention to the fact that the Constitution of the United States gave us the right of free speech, of free press and of unmolested assembly, but that corporations and monopoly by its paid decisions in the courts, had trampled these rights under foot, or were attempting to do so. I called attention, that the government of the United States was in the hands of the money power, and that from this fact, the sway of this money power, that it was almost impossible for the poor man to get justice in a court of law; that

LAW WAS FOR SALE,

just like bread -- if you didn't have the money you couldn't get the bread. If you didn't have the money you couldn't get justice; that justice was almost beyond the reach of the poor, and that the poor were made poor and kept poor by the grinding processes of corporations and monoplies. I then called attention to socialism, and explained what it was. I told them Webster's definition of it; that it meant a more equitable arrangement of society, a more just and equitable arrangement of social affairs; that there was nothing in the word or in the purposes of socialism for any one to become alarmed at. On the contrary it should be hailed with delight by all, as it was designed to make all happy and prosperous. I then spoke in this connection of the wage system of industry. I showed that under the wage system of industry -- that the wage system was a despotism, inherently and necessarily so, because under it the wage worker is forced and compelled to work on such conditions and such terms as the employer of labor may see fit to dictate to him. This I defined to be slavery, hence I said they were wage slaves, and the wage system was what socialism proposed to displace. I then showed the power that the wage system gave to the employing class by the lock-out, by blacklist, and by discharge; that I had myself been black-listed by employers because I exercised my right as an American of free speech; because I saw fit to be a member of a labor organization, I had been deprived repeatedly of my bread by my employer for that reason. I then called attention to the United States census for 1880, and I showed that the returns made there statistically gotten up by a Republican administration, by the administration of the Republican party, showed that 85 cents from every dollar produced on the average went to the profit taking classes, and that 15 cents on the average was the sum received by the producing class for having produced the whole dollar. I said that this was wrong, and that in the face of such a condition of things we could expect nothing else but poverty and destitution, but want and misery. And I showed how under this arrangement that the workingmen of the United States were really doing

TEN HOURS WORK FOR TWO HOURS PAY;

and that it was said by the employers, "Well, you men want to work only eight hours -- "do you mean to say that we must pay you ten hours pay for "eight hours work." Let us answer to these men and say and prove to them by the statistics of the United States census that we are not receiving now but two hours pay for ten hours work, that that is what the wages of the country on the average represents. I referred to this condition of things. I spoke of corporations crowding the workingmen to the wall, and summed it up in some such words as these. 'Now, for years past the Associated Press manipulated by Jay Gould and his infamous minions has been

SOWING THE SEEDS OF REVOLUTION.'

These seeds are summarized about as follows:

To deprive labor of the ballot.

Second, to substitute a Monarchy for a Republic.

To rob labor and then make poverty a crime.

To deprive small farmers of their land, and then convert them into serfs to serve huge landlordism.

To teach labor that bread and water were all they needed.

To throw bombs into crowds of workingmen who refused to labor for starvation wages.

To take the ballot by force of arms from the majority if it was against the interests of corporation and capital.

To put strychnine upon the bread of the poor.

To hang laboring men to a lamp post by a mob in the absence of testimony to convict them.

To drive the people, the poor working classes into open mutiny against the laws in order to secure their punishment and conviction afterwards for it.

These threats and these diabolical teachings I said had been openly and boldly spoken by the great conspiracy, the solid Associated Press, and the monopolies of this country for years against the lives and liberties of the poor workingmen of America who are as sensitive to the wrongs imposed upon them, as though they themselves possessed millions. I said that this was the seed from which had sprung the labor movement, and it was as natural as cause and effect. [The working men present appeared to be very much interested. I never saw a more quiet, orderly, interested gathering of men -- and I have spoken to a great many in my life -- that was present on that occasion.] I called their attention to the fact that

LABOR PAID FOR EVERYTHING

paid all the expenses of the Government, of the police, of the army, of the Judges, of the Congressmen, of the Legislators, of everything -- labor paid it all. That I as a tenant -- and I used my own case as an illustration -- says I, "Now, the landlord "claims that he pays the taxes. What are the taxes? When "I pay him my rent I in fact pay the taxes. He claims that "he makes the repairs on the house and paints it up and all "those things. He doesn't do anything of the kind. He is "simply my agent, and looks after these things, and I as his "tenant pay for it all. And so it is with all tenants." Then I said that labor bears all the burdens, but derives none of the benefits of our present civilization. I referred to the fact that it was through these methods that the working people who produced all the wealth, were made poor and kept poor, and being poor they were ignorant, and that our school teachers had yet to learn the fact that the need of the people was more material comforts before it would become possible for them to be amenable to the influence of education; that ignorance was the result of poverty; that intemperance was produced by poverty, and for every man that was poor because he drank, I could show you twenty men who drank because they were poor. I said that this poverty, this discord, this commotion in the civilized world was the cause of disease, the cramming of people away into hovels and dens unfit for animals to live in was the cause of the death of the young, of old age coming upon the middle age; that it was the cause of crime; that poverty was at the root and at the bottom of war, of discord and of strife; and that this poverty was an

ARTIFICIAL AND UNNATURAL POVERTY

which socialism proposed to remedy. I was at this time of course as you understand making a speech for socialism. I was talking now as a socialist. I then spoke as a Trades Unionist. I am a member of my union and of the Knights of Labor. I said that these organizations differed somewhat with the socialists in that they hoped to receive and obtain redress within the present system, but that I did not believe that was possible; that the study of social affairs, of historical development, had taught me that the system itself was at fault, and that as long as the cause remained, the effect would be felt; but that every Trade Union, every assembly of the Knights of Labor, every organization of workingmen had for its ultimate aim, let its course be what it might, the emancipation of labor from economic dependence; and whether they saw it or not, events and the development of this existing system, the wage system, its growth would force and of necessity would drive these men into socialism as the only savior, the only means by which they could live; that they could exist in the end in no other way. I then said if I remember rightly that strikes were an attempt to right these wrongs on the part of Unions and the Knights of Labor; that I did not believe in strikes -- I didn't believe in them. I didn't believe that redress could be had by that method; that the power was in the hands of the employer to refuse; that if the men were on a strike, why the employer could meet the strike with a lock-out; could keep them out until they were so hungry that they would through their destitution be compelled to return and accept the terms of their employer. Therefore strikes must of necessity fail as a general thing. I then called attention to the scabs, and said that the Unionist made war upon the scabs. Says I, "Here is a distinction between socialism and trades Unions. The Unionist fights the scab. What is a scab? A man as a usual thing that has been out of employment, who is destitute and whose necessities drive him to go to work in some man's place who has employment, and of course he can only get the employment because he will take the work for less than the man who is employed is working for. He is at once denounced as scab by the Unionists, and war is made on him." Says I, "Gentlemen, socialism don't do this thing. They regard these man as the victims of a false system, and to be pitied. These scabs I might say could be compared to the fleas on the dog. The Unionist wants to kill the fleas, but the socialists would kill the dog, and that the dog is the wage system of wage slavery." I then pointed to the ballot -- how we were

SWINDLED AT THE BALLOT BOX

defrauded and cheated; how we were bulldozed, intimidated bribed and corrupted -- yes, corrupted by the very money that had been stolen from us. Men would come to us then afterwards when we were poor, and they would give to us bread money if we would vote their ticket, and that we often did it through necessity; and in this way through these intimidations, through bribery and corruption that the workingmen had but little to expect from the ballot. I then pointed out the fact that we had petitioned or had passed resolutions, and had done everything in our power to redress, but there had been no relief, and no response in fact. There was a rebuff upon every occasion. I then said to them, "Gentlemen,

SOCIALISM MEANS THE FREE ASSOCIATION OF THE PEOPLE

for the "purposes of production and consumption; in other words, "universal cooperation. This is the sum total of socialism, "and the solution of the present difficulties between capital "and labor." I then said that monopoly and corporations had formed a gigantic conspiracy against the poor classes, the working classes. I then called upon them to unite, to organize, to make every endeavor to obtain eight hours, that the eight hour movement meant a peaceful solution of the labor trouble; that if the employers of this country and all other countries would concede this demand, it meant peace, and if they refused this demand, it meant war, not by the working classes, not by laborers, but by monopolists and corporations upon the lives and upon the liberties and upon the happiness of the working classes. The Government I said in the hands of monopoly and corporation deprives the laborer of the labor product, of their right to live, and they are driving labor into open revolt. They are forcing the people to defend themselves, to protect and maintain their right to self-preservation; that the monopoly conspiracy originated in the great railroad strike of 1877; that they had since that time proposed to use force, and they have used force. Vanderbilt said, "the public be damned." The New York World and other papers said -- the New York World specifically I called attention to, said that the American workingman must make up his mind to be contented with the wages he received, and not expect to receive any more wages than his European brother, and be contented with the station in life to which it has pleased God to call him. I called attention to that. I then appealed to them to defend themselves, their rights, their liberties, to combine, to unite, for in union there was strength.

That, gentlemen, was about the substance of my hour's speech at the Haymarket.

Capt. Black: When you were referring in your speech to Jay Gould or to the Southwestern system, do you remember any interruption from the crowd, or any response connected with the name of Gould?

Answer. -- Yes. I omitted that. Someone said "Hang him." My response to that was, that this was not a conflict between individuals, but for a change of system, and that Socialism designed to remove the causes which produced the pauper and the millionaire, it did not aim at the life of individuals.