ADDRESS OF ALBERT R. PARSONS.
the middle°of^ t0 teU U8 what ne wa8 going to Prove' and in
thing to us and tV 1 8B UP thi8 man Gilmer' a wholly unexPected
nected us with MathU^ th6 *?* UP°U Wbi°h hung the thread whi°h con"
was brought about Th^f?' * in8trumentality by which the verdict
anvthin And tl ? ate 8 atto«ey said he was not going to conceal
Now ?! h COnTled lhe Very thing that was material
us at the tri«l f,0-110^, 8 COnfe88ion tbat certain testimony was sprung upon
was Jvl!! ? mer matter' for ^stance, when no earthly opportunity
• been IIIni tJ T *' and Captain Schaa<*'s admission, that we would have
been nL m ^ h°U9and times °ver, if we had known this evidence and then
^permitted to contradict it and explain it; this confession, says Boston
fcRrinn thTm^ g UP°n thi8 famous proceeding, is equivalent to a con-
lesBion that we were innocent and that Captain Schaack knew we were inno-
wnnid hJo '\ , 8ame thiDg' that he knew that there was evidence that
1p« t k V|CqU1, U8 a thousand times over if we had been allowed to produce t; but he glories in the fact that he was too smart for us ; that by keep-
ng tins evidence eecret from us and the public he was enabled to bring us
mu , trap; a trap, your honor, a trap which he and one other man-I sup.
pose he refers to the State's attorney-had prepared for us, and thus secured
Now, if this is not a confession that Captain Schaack and one other man,
an accomplice, set themselves deliberately to work to procure the judicial
muroer of seven innocent men, men whom they declare themselves to be in-
n°p. me.n' known by him and his accomplice to be innocent, then what is
u fu-J' ll 1S nothing else- Schaack's confession that our evidence was
such that, if permitted to be introduced it would have acquitted us a thousand
times over, is equivalent to a confession that it is true, and that to procure our
conviction by the suppression of this evidence was to procure the judicial
murder of innocent men. And this work, says Captain Schaack, is to go on
until he has all the Anarchists in jail, hung, or driven out of the city.
\our honor, I would like to make a remark right here. What stronger
evidence can be required to prove the infamous character of what are called
our criminal courts? Evidently, the courts are criminal, whether the persons
they convict are criminal or not. Under such a condition of things as this,
manifestly, a trial can have no color of justice or reason or be anything else
than a conspiracy to convict a man, whether he be innocent or guilty, unless
he is permitted to know what it is that they propose to prove upon him. This
would be just, but justice and law are quite different things.
Now, as a part of this foul conspiracy the district attorney sprung his witness, Gilmer, upon us when it was too late for us to prove him to be a suborned, perjured liar, and the confession of this man Schaack is one that concerns the American people. They are bound to take notice of it. This trial,
your honor, is not simply the trial and condemnation of seven Anarchists, but
it is the trial of the government of the State of Illinois, as represented by the
gentlemen in this prosecution, and the government of the United States itself.
The oppressions of which we complain are such as the government of the
United States is responsible for, andisuch as many millions of* people, in fact,
nearly all the people in the United States, are crying out against. You need