法庭自辩辞（1886年10月9日）

Cross Examination by MR. GRINNELL.

Q: Where were you born?

A: The city of Montgomery, the State of Alabama.

Q: You have been in Chicago thirteen years?

A: Yes sir.

Q: What has been your business in Chicago since you came here?

A: Well, for about eight or nine years I was a printer, worked at the printing trade.

Q: Worked at the case?

A: Yes.

Q: Setting type?

A: Yes sir.

Q: That is the first eight or nine years of your residence here?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Later than that, for the last four or five years, what have you been doing?

A: Well, four or five years ago myself and wife started a little business.

Q: How long did you continue to conduct that?

A: I believe it was about a year -- a year and a half probably.

Q: Over on West Indiana Street.

A: No, it was on Larrabee Street.

Q: Then what business did you employ yourself about?

A: That was in the suit business on Larrabee Street.

Q: What other business did you follow later?

A: Later than that for possibly a year and a half, myself and wife made ladies wrappers and suits, and I went out soliciting orders, and I went to restaurants, hotels, laundries and set places and sold these suits for a living.

Q: For the last two or three years what have you been doing?

A: For the last two years I believe I have been editor of the Alarm.

Q: When did you start the editorship, or when was the Alarm started?

A: In October, 1884.

Q: And continued ever since?

A: Yes sir.

Q: It is a semi-monthly paper?

A: It was weekly for about a year.

Q: And then twice a month?

A: Then it was twice a month.

Q: When did you write down or jot down the memorandum you have made of your utterances on the night of May 4th?

A: As they have occurred to me.

Q: From time to time as the trial proceeded?

A: Just as they occurred to me, and in looking over Mr. English's reports, and the newspapers and otherwise.

Q: You have picked it up from the newspapers?

A: Some of it off course.

Q: And from the Tribune?

A: It refreshed my memory somewhat.

Q: You told that crowd that night that the Chicago Times had advocated the throwing of hand grenades to strikers?

A: Yes.

Q: And you told them that the Chicago Tribune had advocated the use of strychnine for tramps?

A: Yes.

Q: You told them that Scott of Pennsylvania had advocated similar measures for striking workmen?

A: Yes sir, the use of the rifle diet.

Q: Did you tell them that, did you also in that connection give them advice that they should retaliate by use of the same means and weapons?

A: I---

Q: Did you tell them that they should retaliate. Did you in that connection in substance tell your audience that they should retaliate with similar means, with similar weapons?

A: I told them they should defend themselves against such things, protect themselves.

Q: How?

A: Anyway they could.

Q: By arming?

A: If necessary.

Q: By the use of dynamite?

A: If necessary, but I didn't mention dynamite at that meeting.

Q: Not at that meeting -- you have mentioned it at other meetings?

A: Possibly.

Q: You are an advocate of dynamite as a defensive weapon for the use of the workingman?

Objected to; objection sustained.

Q: You said nothing about dynamite that night?

A: No sir.

Q: Did you say anything about bombs that night?

A: Not a thing.

Q: You did say to that audience that the capitalists were in the habit of throwing bombs among strikers -- that is the police or the men who work for the capitalists?

A: I said that the Chicago Times was the original dynamiter in the interest of monopoly in this country, and of throwing bombs.

Q: Then did you speak of dynamite?

A: No sir.

Q: You have just used the word? You stated the Chicago Times was defending the use of dynamite?

A: No sir it was called hand grenades.

Q: You didn't use the word dynamite?

A: No sir.

Q: Did you say anything to the audience whatever about the use of bombs?

A: No sir.

Q: Either as a defensive means or something to use against them?

A: No sir.

Q: You did not use that word?

A: No sir.

Q: You told them that night that the present social system must be changed?

A: Yes, in the interest of humanity.

Q: That was in the interest of humanity -- in the interest of laboring men?

A: Including Vanderbilt too.

Q: In the interest of humanity you told them the social system must be changed?

A: Certainly.

Q: Did you explain to them how that should be changed, or what you meant by being chananged, how it could be brought about, how the social change should be brought about?

A: No sir, because I didn't know myself.

Q: Didn't you tell that audience that the only means or manner of bringing about a social change was by force -- the existing order of things must be disposed of by force?

A: I think I told the audience that the existing order of things was founded upon and maintained by force, and I think I said that the action of the monopolists and corporations, and congregated and concentrated wealth of the country would drive the people into the use of force before they could obtain redress. I might have stated it -- I am not sure.

Q: You did advise them -- you told them that night that the ballot would do them no good?

A: No, I didn't say that.

Q: Did you tell them that night that the ballot was useless for them, the majority was against them, and it was in the hands of capitalists?

A: No sir, the workingmen are vastly in the majority. I didn't say the majority was against them at all.

Q: Didn't you say that night that the only means and way they could obtain their rights, or the benefits that you thought they ought to have, was by force, by overturning the existing order of things?

A: No sir, I did not.

Q: You said nothing of that kind?

A: No sir, I did not.

Q: What did you mean by the expression "to arms, to arms?"

A: I said in my remarks here --

Q: Don't repeat what you said in your remarks. Tell us what you meant by the words, "To arms," if you did not mean to overthrow the existing order of things by force?

A: I said in view of the St. Louis trouble, and the use of the military and the police upon strikers and upon workingmen etc., that if they would not see their children perishing with hunger, and their wives in misery and want, and themselves cut down like dogs in the street, that they should assert their rights as American citizens to arm themselves, and protect themselves if necessary against oppression and wrong and such things as these.

Q: How many strikers were there there that night?

A: Of course I couldn't tell whether there were any strikers or not.

Q: Wasn't that crowd composed almost entirely of socialists -- those immediately around the wagon -- those you knew were socialists?

A: It was not. There were very few socialists there.

Q: You are a socialist?

A: I am.

Q: Are you an Anarchist?

A: I am as I understand it.

Q: The Alarm expressed your understanding of Anarchy, doesn't it?

Objected to.

Q: Do the articles written by yourself and signed by your initials express your idea of Anarchy?

Objected to as not proper cross examination.

Objection sustained.

MR. GRINNELL: That is all.

Whereupon Court adjourned to 10 o'clock, August 10th, 1886.