Saturday, April 30, 2011

Business Starting 10000 Pesos

The Chicago Martyrs: Message from the Governor of Illinois freeing Fielden, and Schwab Neebe

REMOVED FROM PORTAL OACA

The November 11, 2011 will mark 124 years of crime within the U.S. plutocracy, based on a legal monstrosity, which led to the gallows Martyrs of Chicago, public visibility events that occurred in the city of Lagos on the night of May 4, 1886. When January 1, 1893 John Peter Altgeld began his duties as governor of Illinois, he promised himself thoroughly study these events and review the process.
The result was the now little-known text, message then we will transcribe, honoring his memory and the Martyrs of Chicago, with the purpose to make it available to the younger generation.

was translated immediately into our language and published in pamphlet form in Brooklyn (New York) in 1893 by Editions Awakening. Twenty-nine years later (1922) was reprinted by the weekly supplement of La Protesta de Buenos Aires (No. 43). In 1969 the article reappears in the official organ of the Federation Obrera Regional Uruguaya "Solidarity" (No 280).

In 1971 the letter was reprinted in booklet and distributed through the streets of Melbourne during the demonstration on May Day, by the Editorial Ravachol grouping together with the CNT - FAI - FIJL in exile in Australia.

Social Studies Cultural Group of Melbourne, Australia.
from exile May 1, 2011
On the night of May 4, 1886, solemnized a public meeting in Haymarket Square in Chicago, from 800 to 1,000 people from nearly all the working class, were present. Shocks had occurred, caused by the desire to enter the work 8 hours, producing clashes with police, one of which several workers were killed, and the purpose of this meeting was to protest against the brutality of that accused the police.

The meeting was peaceful and she attended the mayor, who remained until the crowd began to disperse, retiring later. As soon as Captain John Bonfield, Police Department, knew that the Mayor had left, went in haste with a detachment of police to the place of the meeting, in order to disperse the few who still remained, and at times approaching the police, an unknown person threw a bomb that exploded and injured many and killed several police officers, among whom was a certain Mathias Degan. Several people were arrested, and after some time, the indictment was presented against Augustus Spies, Albert R. Parsons, Louis Lingg, Michael Schwab, Samuel Fielden, George Engel, Adolph Fischer and Oscar Neebe for the murder of Mathias Degan. The prosecutor could not discover who had thrown the bomb or prosecute in the courts of justice the guilty party, and inasmuch as some of the defendants had not been to the Haymarket meeting and had not had to do with it, it was necessary to adopt the theory that the defendants were guilty of murder because, as intended, had on several previous occasions and printed words uttered seditious and inflammatory, which advised the killing of policemen practically, Pinkerton agents and others who played the same position, and therefore, they weighed on the responsibility for the murder of Mathias Degan. Great excitement reigned in the audience, and after a prolonged process, all processed were convicted; Oscar Neebe was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and everyone else hanging. He took the case to the Supreme Court upheld that decision in the fall of 1887. Lingg committed suicide soon after. Sentence was commuted Fielden and Schwab to prison for life. Parsons, Fischer, Engel and Spies were hanged. Now the petitioners ask Neebe freedom, Fielden and Schwab.

The main rationale underlying the many thousands of traders, bankers, judges, lawyers and other prominent citizens of Chicago, by letters, petitions and other channels, have applied for executive clemency is that, conceding that prisoners guilty, and have been punished enough, but there are a number of people who have more carefully examined the case and, being more familiar with the documents and facts that show the documents filed, have very different fundamentals. They assert:

First. That the jury trying the case was chosen and trained with the expressed intention to condemn the accused.

Segundo. Which the law expounded by the Supreme Court, both before and after this case, the jurors, by the mouth itself, were incompetent, and the process, therefore, was not legal. Third. That proved not guilty to guilty of the crime specified in the indictment. Room. What about one of the defendants, Neebe, the State Attorney stated that there was no room to stand trial, despite which he has been imprisoned for all these years. Quinto. That the judge who presided over the case, either by bias against the accused or being determined to win applause from some kind of community could not be granted or granted freedom to the prisoners on trial grounds since they are guilty of the crime were alleged in the report, having no place in this case the executive action, for no punishment that can enforce the law to those guilty of such offense, may be considered too severe.

As to the question of whether prisoners have suffered enough punishment or not, I will simply say that if the defendants had been tried fairly, nothing would have to defend the government. We must protect the lives and property, maintain harmony and order, it must prevent the assassination, and whether the defendants had been guilty of this crime if committed by themselves or advise others to commit it, the executive should not have intervened . The soil of our country does not belong to the culture of the disorder. Although not entirely free of injustice, our institutions are far better than the man has devised, and must, therefore, the duty to preserve them.

JURY FORMATION

In the case files we see that the jury in this case, was not formed in the usual way, instead of taking a number of names from an urn that contained many hundreds, in order to obtain an impartial jury and not give the advantage to any the parties, the presiding judge appointed one Henry P. Ryce, special constable, in order to cite to serve as the jurors that the same individuals Ryce chose. While this practice has been sanctioned in cases that did not seem to hurt either party, the fact remains that serious danger, because the sheriff is of absolute power to pick a jury favorable to one or another part. State attorney says that Ryce was appointed by motion counsel. Although this has favored the appointment of someone, we see on the other hand, in the cars, the following: "Mr. Grinnell suggested that Mr. Ryce as a special constable, and said Ryce was accepted and appointed." But it does not matter who proposed Ryce, if chosen by the jury was not impartial. Ryce ground that "boasted in selecting the jury, to handle the case, that the execution by hanging of those people was certain as death, he was quoting the accused individuals would have to exhaust all peremptory challenge, and when this happens people have to accept that the prosecutor wanted. " It appears from the record of the proceedings that the defendants were obliged to exhaust all his peremptory challenges peremptory jury to accept all the men who had expressed bias against them. On page 134 of the first volume of cars, know that when they had already achieved two thirds of the jurors, the defense attorney called the court's attention to the fact that Ryce was just predisposed to call men, as evidenced interrogation, which was restricting, in addition to tuition, as dependents, traders, manufacturers, etc. Counsel then proposed to cease such proceedings and that the judge ordered that citase Ryce the jurors from among the mass of people, ie the general community and no tutorials; but the judge ignored.

As further evidence of improper conduct of the sheriff Ryce, referring to the affidavit of Otis S. Please. Mr. Favor is one of the most respected dealers in Chicago, he was one of those cited by Ryce to serve on the jury, but such was his bias against defendants who had to exonerate him, and failed to submit affidavit some prior to sentencing because the State Attorney had begged him not to, even though he was willing to go to court to testify what he knew if the court so desired, and naturally assumed it would send search. But after the Court ruling Supreme, and when they would be hanged some of the defendants, their eagerness to cooperate with justice, made him submit his written statement. It swears that he knows very well Henry F. Ryce, Cook County, Illinois, Sheriff hoc summon jurors for the case against Spies and others, occurred in the summer of 1886. That it was cited by the Ryce, but challenged and excused for bias. That conversation with Ryce when exercising their special functions, Ryce said in the presence of others: "I am handling this case and what I do. The execution of these individuals on the gallows is sure as death.'m Quoting men that the defense will have to challenge to exhaust their time and challenges. So men have to accept that the prosecutor wants. "He also says that the deponent has not been very willing to testify on this matter because it has no sympathy with anarchy and has relationships with the defendants, being neither communist nor socialist, nor anarchist but as a citizen interested in the proper administration of justice. He also says that its relations with Ryce were then, and they were before, the most cordial and even intimate, and not encourage any ill will against anyone in making this statement. He added that in early October 1886, while discussing the question of a retrial before Judge Gary, and when, as he had learned, was requested Gary judge's permission to examine the witness in open court on this point, the deponent, at the request of the Attorney Grinnell, Mr. Ingham and Ryce said, in the presence of several people, including some police officers, where the deponent repeated the above, and said it would declare whether he was called as a witness, but had refused to make a sworn statement to that effect, and in that place and time requested and urged the witness to persist in their refusal. This statement is dated November 7, 1887 and it is attested by the notary Julius Stern. As far as you can see, no one connected with the State Attorney's office has denied claims Mr. Favor on what took place in that office, but these statements were made in November 1887.

As the sheriff Ryce, seems to have made a sworn statement that denies the jury by Mr. Favor, but, unfortunately for him, giving him the car is entirely unfavorable, since it is clear that cited only men of the kind mentioned by Mr. Favor. According to the present, 981 individuals were examined and the majority were employers or men referred to the sheriff by their employers. Here are some samples of the responses of nearly all the jurors.

REVIEW OF JURORS

William Neil, manufacturer, was discussed extensively, said he had read and heard about the Haymarket incident and that he believed enough of what he had read and heard to form an opinion on the guilt of the accused, a view still held, he had expressed that view, and then added "It would be necessary that the evidence was very strong to eradicate the impression that exists in my mind. I think my current opinion based on what I've read and heard, would accompany me through the process, and would affect the determination of my verdict ". It was rejected by the defendants to find biased, but the judge did say that he thought he could give an impartial verdict, any it was the evidence submitted and the disqualification was overturned. Mr. HF Chaudler dedicated to business stationery, along with Mr. Skeen, Stuart & Co., said: "My boss told me the sheriff to call me to serve the jury." He said after he read and talked about the Haymarket incident, and formed and frequently expressed his opinion about the guilt of the accused, and he believed what he had read and heard. He was asked: Q. Is it your opinion decide on the guilt of the accused? C. Is a decided opinion, yes sir.

P. "The question of guilt or innocence is already well settled in your mind? C. Yes, sir.

P. Would it be hard to change his mind?

C. It may be difficult. I can not say. Do not know if it would be difficult or not.

MESSAGE OF THE GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS, ordered the release of Samuel Fielden, OSCAR AND MICHAEL SCHWAB Neeb

was challenged for being biased, then the judge took care of him and discussed extensively, asking that he believed could judge the case impartially. The disqualification was overturned. Then it was the tumor Mr FL Wilson, who said: "I am a manufacturer. I'm biased and I have formed and expressed my opinion, this opinion would affect the determination the verdict. "was also rejected, but the judge considered,

Q. Do you have self-awareness of some desire to be present in this case and that evidence of proof that any of these men are guilty? C. I think I have.

even closer by the judge said the only feeling entertained against the defendants was based on accepting as a given thing that I'd read was usually true, "he believed that the position of the jury, which had read and heard about the case would increase or decrease the effect of the evidence for or against the accused. "narrowed further by the judge finally said "I have the hope that the culprit is discovered or punished, but not necessarily what these men."

finally was asked:

P. Are you aware of any other wish on the subject outside the truth is discovered?

C. I will not be.

The reacusación was then canceled.

Mr. HN Smith, the hardware industry, said among other things he was biased and that he harbored a decided opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused, who had expressed this view and still kept it, stating candidly that he feared it inclined to listen more attentively the testimony that was consistent with its opinion, and not the opposite, that some of the policemen injured were his friends. You made these questions:

P. Does this mean that with great pleasure that you would strengthen that view, and it would hurt or hurt him much did it lose? C. Yes, sir.

P. Under these circumstances, do you wear to an impartial verdict?

C. I could not.

P. Do you think that they would be biased?

C. I think so because I have very bitter feelings.

P. And his disposition, "in any way influence the formation of an opinion or determination of a verdict? C. I think so.

was challenged by bias. Neatly questioned by the judge, he did say that he thought he could judge the case impartially, according to evidence presented in court. So the challenge was overturned.

Mr. James H. Walker, who owns a clothing store, said he had formed and expressed an opinion on the guilt of the accused, which was biased and its bias will cohibiría. P. Considering all the prejudices and opinions that you have, if the evidence was equally balanced, you decide "one way or another conformity with those prejudices and opinions? C. If the evidence was equally balanced, retain my current view. P. Assuming your current view is that the defendants are guilty, do you think your current view might be justified if the condemned? C. I presume so.

P. That is, do you think if, that is their current belief, is not it? C. Yes, sir. It was challenged by

be biased. The judge then examined at length, finally asking:

P. Do you think you can sit here to determine impartially, according to the evidence, if such evidence

proof that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not?

C. I think if I could, but I should be somewhat restrained in my opinion, sir.

Then the judge in the presence of jurors who had not yet been reviewed said

Well, this is a quality enough on a jury, of course, the more self-conscious a man is, the more it will safeguard against .

Mr. HL Anderson was discussed at length and said he had formed and expressed an opinion, still cherished, and that he was biased, but could dismiss their concerns and to judge from the evidence impartially. Question again said some of the policemen injured were his friends, and had spoken with them. He had formed his unconditional opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused, believed deeply rooted opinion, remain firmly convinced that these defendants, or some of them were guilty. Was challenged by his bias, but the challenge was dismissed.

Mr. MD Flavin, engaged in the business of marble, said he had read and talked about the Haymarket incident and had spoken and expressed opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused, a view which still had and was very strong, moreover, one officer was killed in Haymarket relative, though distant, but this relationship was that his feelings were perhaps different from those that have been under other circumstances, resulting in his mind a very strong opinion about the guilt of the accused, and had told others that he believed what he had read and heard about it. Was challenged by bias, and then said, in answer to a question from the prosecutor, who thought he could give an impartial verdict, and the challenge was dismissed.

Mr. Rush Harrison
department Silk Keith & Co. Edison house, was discussed extensively, said he had a deeply held conviction on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Replied

C. Would considerable weight in my mind if I were a jury. This is a view has taken deep roots and great preponderance of evidence needed to eradicate it, it would be, again, require a preponderance of evidence to dispel the view that I have today. My feelings are those of all other good citizens. I feel that these men are guilty, do not know which of them have formed this opinion by what we read in the newspapers. As these our feelings, it would take a very positive evidence to make me believe that these men are not guilty, that's what I mean. Would rest entirely on the testimony.

P. But you say that require positive evidence of his innocence for you to declare innocent.

C. Yes, I would need very strong evidence.

P. So if that strong evidence does not appear, your mood is inclined to condemn? R. Certainly.

was then disqualified for being biased, and the judge proceeded to question him, asking finally say that he thought he could judge the case fairly, in accordance only with the evidence, then the challenge was dismissed.

These interviews are examples of what happened in the jury, and show conclusively that the sheriff served the threat Ryce referred to by Mr. Favor under oath. Almost all jurors called said they had read and discussed the matter, expressing an opinion, they kept on the guilt or innocence of the defendants, who were biased against them, that this provision was deeply entrenched and that the evidence would be necessary uproot. Many said they had been drawn to the sheriff by their employers. Many stated frankly that he believed convicted prisoners, and condemn them unless their views were countered by strong evidence and almost all after these statements were audited by the judge and have to say that they would judge the case fairly, accordance with the evidence presented in the court, and once brought to this point, were declared competent to serve as jurors, and prisoners were forced to exhaust their peremptory challenges against men who had declared in open court and be predisposed to believe in the guilt of the accused.

The twelve jurors that the defendants were eventually forced to accept after exhausting all peremptory challenges, had the same general character as the others, and some of them said with all candor that his disposition was such that they could not judge the case impartiality, as each of them to be considered by the judge was finally induced to say he believed he could judge the case impartially on the evidence presented in compliance the court.

It is therefore all this, considering the facts that have emerged after the trial, as is the case and the answers of jurors in that document, which clearly demonstrates that, although defense counsel consented it, the truth is that Ryce was appointed on the advice of counsel for the State, and that the above cited Ryce indeed a biased jury that he believed would condemn the hanging of the accused, and also drew attention to the judge before completing the jury, to the fact that he was quoting Ryce only those kinds of men, who asked the judge to remedy this, but the judge ignored, allowing to Ryce to continue and forcing the prisoners to be brought before such judges.

While there is no evidence that there was collusion between the prosecutor and the judge, clearly shows that after the ruling, and while it was pending the motion for a new trial was made in the court's charge that the jury had been made illegally, and the prosecutor got Mr. Please not to make written statement on this point, and then the judge refused to take it into account, however having been informed that Mr. Please do not make the affidavit writing, but was willing to testify orally in court if the judge so chose.

these facts are enough to justify executive action, especially when you consider that the affidavit of Mr. Favor was not in the Supreme Court when I was considering the case.

SUPREME COURT DECISION ON COMPETITION JURORS

The second assertion of the petitioners also seemed invincible. In the case against Soughlin, known as the Cronin case, and recently decided, the Supreme Court, in a remarkable and comprehensive summary of the legislation on the subject, says among other things:

"With substantial uniformity have held this and other courts that, when clearly shows that there in the minds of the jury when called to take their place, a fixed and positive opinion on the merits of the case or the guilt or innocence of the accused, his statement that, notwithstanding such opinion, can give an impartial verdict according to law and evidence, little or no tendency to establish his impartiality. A jury has declared under oath to have a fixed and positive opinion on the guilt or innocence can not, in fact, be impartial. "Whatever the charges against the defendants, they were entitled to a fair trial and no more serious danger to our institutions to see our courts to be guided and pulled by the public outcry, and when the judge presiding over this case ruled that a relative of one of the dead was a competent jury, and that their relationship made him feel so under other circumstances would not feel, and when, on several occasions, the judge ruling that candidly stated that they believed they had convicted the defendants and would need a great preponderance of evidence to believe otherwise were competent as jurors simply because they were induced under the skillful manipulation of the judge, stating that they believed they could judge the case fairly in compliance with the evidence when such a thing happening can not be said that the procedures have not the slightest shadow of impartiality. Is it

GUILT OF THE EVIDENCE?


The State of Illinois has ever discovered who threw the bomb that killed the policemen and the evidence shows no connection between the defendants and the man's courage. The presiding judge, in dismissing the motion for a rehearing of the case, and recently in an article in a magazine, said:

"The adverse ruling has not been reasoned that they had any real involvement in any particular act which caused the death of Degan, but is in fact the defendants, verbally, or through the media, advised large classes of people, not to individuals, but large classes, that killed, leaving the performance, date and place of crime, caprice and individual will of each listener with the Council, and that as a result of that advice, in obedience to that advice , some unknown person threw the bomb that killed Degan.

Now if this is not a correct principle of law, then the defendants, of course, must be processed again. This case is unprecedented, there is an example in the books of a case like this. "

the judge had reason to say that this case was unprecedented, and could not be found in books one instance in which support such exposure of the law. Because since the government has been holding and punishing crime, never, in any century, there has been a judge or civilized country that such a law has been exposed. The petitioners claim that this interpretation was the law, because, not having discovered the real culprit, not have been otherwise condemn anyone, that this was done to calm public outrage, and that for the same reason allowed to stay up the fault. Not discuss this. But even accepting such a statement of the law, was necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person who committed the violent act had heard or read, at least, the advice, because if you did not hear or read it can not say who received it, and if it was of course he did not commit the violent act in obedience to that advice, and that's where the opinion of the State of Illinois is crumbling, despite the zeal he showed in the achievement of the verdict sentence, the judge in the aforementioned article says when discussing this point:

"It's true, probably, Rodolfo Schwab dropped the bomb, which is nothing more than conjecture and certainly not enough to convict eight men. Indeed, while the State of Illinois who did not try out the pump, it is impossible to see any connection between the man who will cast and these defendants. "

It is also see that all matter contained in the records and widely cited by the judge in his article, to demonstrate the use of seditious and inflammatory language, is of little significance when considering the source from where, the two newspapers which appeared for years at intervals of some items, were dark leaves that had little traffic, and the same articles were written in times of great public excitement, when a certain element of the community claimed to have been the victim of an outrage, and the same can be said of speeches defendants and others, the language, apparently seditious, was the one who always hear when people imagine aggrieved, or excited or drunk in part, and as for the much vaunted and anarchist giant conspiracy, or the same as the then police chief believes in it, as we shall see later, and not worthy of serious attention, given the fact that taking Chicago then about one million inhabitants, the meetings that take place on the shores of the lake during the summer, called by these agitators, concurred only about fifty people, while they were still held indoors smaller. Not to be confused with the meetings held from time to time masses of working people, with those spoken of above, but in times of excitement always hear many violent words spoken by irresponsible people, and forgotten after the excitement ends.

It is also see that this bomb was thrown, in all probability, for any person willing to make a personal vendetta, that the prior conduct of the authorities did not expect another result, which years before had Haymarket Event labor disturbances which occurred in several cases, a number of employees was entirely innocent, were killed in cold blood by Pinkerton detectives, without justice punish the murderers. The evidence in the summary of the forensic shows that at least two cases, shot and killing fleeing men, not having, therefore, time to shoot, that Chicago had been several strikes in the police not only stood on the opposite side of the strikers, but without any authorization, invaded and dispersed peaceful assembly, and in many cases brutally bludgeoned harmless men. Reference is made to the judge's opinion in Mc Allister for Assemblers Association against Brennan and others. Among other things, Judge McAllister says that "society, while holding a gathering of 200 or 300 individuals, mostly officers cabinetmakers, but some owners or representatives of these, in order to confer peacefully and being unarmed all the contenders, and sitting back at the entrance, with very few people on stage, a force of fifteen or twenty policemen suddenly entered the room, holding each officer a club in one hand and a revolver in the other , and without stopping to examine the nature of the meeting and shouting out!, started beating people and even got to shoot some shots. A young man was shot in the head, killing him. But this is not all. When the attendants rushed to escape the room, they found more police stationed on either side of the stairs to the street, who received beatings paths passing, with all the violence apparently practicable under the circumstances. ", Mr. Jacob Beresdorf, furniture maker and gave employment to 200 men, had been invited to the meeting and was telling that to enter the same an old man slumped at his feet brutally beaten by police.

These general facts were established by an overwhelming mass of evidence. It is not necessary to go into details.

The main political rights of citizens in our country, based on popular will regularized by law, is the right of suffrage, which are auxiliary two rights over almost equal importance.

1 .- The right to freedom of speech and press.

2 .- The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult on the common good.

These rights are the fundamental principles of our country and are guaranteed by our constitution. Section 17, Article 2. of the Charter of Rights states: "The people have the right to assemble peaceably for consultation on the common good, to make known their views to their representatives and seek redress to their problems." The jurists consider these rights as inalienable and inherent to each individual. So far the decision of Judge McAllister. However, it has proven not to be ignored any of the McAllister judge's decision, that the meetings were invaded and dispersed peaceful and harmless people beaten, that in 1885 there was a strike in the manufacture of agricultural machinery Mc Cormick because of a reduction of wages, and some Pinkerton detectives, to go there , were greeted with general derision by a group of people who were on the street, shooting them for that reason the crowd and fatally wounding several people who had not taken part in any disturbance, that four of the Pinkerton agents were accused of this murder by the grand jury, but that the prosecutor apparently did not take any interest in the case and extended several times to exhaust the witnesses, resulting finally escaped the murderers to justice, that after this there was a street railway strike in the West Division, and that some police officers led by Captain John Bonfield committed brutalities never seen before, that even small merchants who were at the doors of their businesses and had no interest whatsoever in the strikes, were brutally beaten, thrown unceremoniously into trucks by police and detained without any charges brought against them, even to the proper seat in the book entries, that a petition signed by over a thousand prominent citizens of West Madison Street and its vicinity was sent to Mayor and the City Council to dismiss is to Bonfield, which could not be achieved because the political influence of Bonfield was great. It should be noted that the charge of brutality does not cover every cop in Chicago. There are many officers working, honest and conscientious fulfilling his duty quietly, in a humane manner and complete.

In proof of all this are several documents including a letter from the directors of a corporation, the Society of Gas Lighting for People, which is one of the maas men that used in Chicago, and in which it is noted that on November 21, 1885, the treatment of certain workers of the corporation received Captain of the hosts of Bonfield, and by his orders during the strike of street railway on West Division, was inhumane. Also presented letters from different people, exposing the barbaric and unjust treatment they received from Bonfield and his hosts during the year 1885, without cause, provocation or justification.

On May 4, 1893, Captain Schaack writes Mr. G E. Detroiler, editor of "Rights of Labor" (The Rights of Labor), saying that when the street railway strike in the West Division, he was a police lieutenant and saw Bonfield needlessly abusing many men, and that in afternoon of April 13, 1885, Bonfield gave him the following words: "If some of you, the self-righteous and merciful had freely used their truncheons in the morning, no need to use the lead this afternoon." "I did not understand written answer Schaack the need for the clubs, and that if he used the opportunity to lead, my subordinates could also give and receive. Add that in my opinion, the occurrence was brutal and unfair." Is also seen repeatedly that it was intended to punish criminals with "uniform", but in vain, that working people always found the prison doors wide open to receive it, and the courts almost closed to them in the spring of 1886 there were more shocks in the factory workers Mc Cormick, that under the leadership of Captain Bonfield, the brutalities of the previous year were redoubled, that the police committed murder without provocation and without any make the slightest investigation.

However, while there are men who quietly submit to be beaten and watch quietly kill his brothers, also have to resist such treatment and make room in his chest to feelings of hatred that they are seeking revenge, and events that preceded the Haymarket tragedy indicate that the bomb was thrown by someone, that far from following the advice of anyone attempting to just create a personal revenge for having been beaten, and that Captain Bonfield is the man who is actually guilty of the murder of police officers. We show how the character of the Haymarket meeting is consistent with this view of the case, that the evidence proves that there were over 800 or 1000 persons present, and it was a peaceful meeting, the Mayor of the city was present and saw nothing extraordinary and remained until the crowd began to disperse, having almost finished the meeting that if the police had been absent twenty minutes, nobody had been there, but as soon as he learned that Bonfield Mayor had retired, could not resist the temptation to beat a few people, and went there with a detachment of police to disperse the meeting, and police were present when the bomb was thrown by an unknown person, and several innocent and faithful official, who did nothing but obey an order from his superior unjustified, were killed, all of these facts tend to show the likelihood that the bomb was thrown as a result of a conspiracy by the defendants for murder, if the prosecutor's theory was correct many bombs had been thrown over, and have thrown a single show that was an act of personal vengeance. Is see also, that much of the evidence presented in the process was nothing more than pure invention, that the zeal of some prominent police officials, was not only to terrorize innocent men, locked in a cell and threatened with torture if refused to swear what they proposed, but even offered money and employment to those which do this. Project also deliberately fictitious conspiracies formed to take the "glory" to have discovered. In support of this is mentioned in several documents, including an interview with Captain Ebersold, published in the "Daily News" (Daily News) in Chicago, May 10, 1889. Ebersold was police chief in Chicago when the events of Haymarket. Among other things, says: "After we destroy the anarchist society, Schaack wanted to send agents to organize new societies right away. I wanted to have the thing in boiling to retain their prominence in public. I opposed."

This is important, because it throws a flood of light on the whole situation and destroys much of the force in the testimony. I will say simply

to complete the consideration of this aspect of the case, the facts tend to prove that the bomb was thrown by a person determined to make a personal vendetta, and that the prosecutor never has discovered who threw it, and the evidence does not prove absolutely that the man who threw it has read or heard a word of the accused, by implication, there is no evidence that he acted on the advice of one of them. And if they acted in obedience to that advice, then there was no place to prosecute those accused, even accepting the way of interpreting the law of Judge Gary.

FIELD and SCHWAB

In the process, a number of secret policemen and members of the police force that the defendant swore Fielden, in the Haymarket meeting, broke into death threats, urging his listeners to fulfilled his duty as he would meet his, in the same time when the police arrived and a police officer swears that Fielden drew a revolver and fired at the police while standing on the wagon from where I spoke to the public, before throwing the bomb, while others said they first got out of wagon and was shot while standing beside a wheel. On the other hand, was tested in a number of witnesses, facts and circumstances, that this evidence had to be absolutely false. A number of journalists who were witnesses for the State of Illinois, said they had been standing near Fielden, much closer than the police and heard what was said and seen what was done, they had been sent there for that purpose and that Fielden did such a threat, nor used any gun. Others who were nearby, and even in the same cart, swear the same. Fielden himself swears he did such a threat, and also that he never had or used gun in his life. But the same judge and the same prosecutor Gary Grinnell come to dispel any doubt about it. On November 8, 1887, when it was pending before the Governor the issue of commutation of sentence, Judge Gary wrote a long letter in which talking about Fielden said: "There are private temperament and a love of this man to justice and an impatience with the undeserved sufferings ... In his private life was a worker industrious, honest and peaceful. Addressing the court before sentencing, was respectful and decent. His language and behavior have since been irreproachable. Since there is no evidence that he knew some preparation to commit the specific act of throwing the bomb that killed Degan, I can not understand that the general advice to the masses of the people inciting them to violence make him responsible for the violence committed under this advice ... In a word, has been rather a fan lost a criminal aware of the terrible consequences of their teachings and their responsibility. "The prosecutor, in a letter that serves as an appendix to the judge said that Schwab's behavior during the process such as Fielden was dignified, respectful and praiseworthy. Adds that in his opinion Schwab was a docile instrument in the hands of another person, and Schwab seemed to have no friends. If the judge Gary Fielden says is true, then Fielden's testimony is credible, and when Fielden says he did things that the police charged, probably telling the truth, especially if we take into account is corroborated by other disinterested and reliable witness. In the fall of 1887, a number of prominent men in Chicago met to see whether or not to apply for executive clemency. Mr. Grinnell was present and delivered a speech that had serious doubts that Fielden had a gun on that occasion, or that would never have had.

However, in arguing the case before the Supreme Court last spring, the State of Illinois placed great emphasis on the evidence relating to what Field did in the Haymarket meeting, stirring up and asking the Court to attach great importance to such evidence.

Clearly, then, that has not proven anything against Fielden, as has been shown to sustain a conviction, as well as others, who had involvement in the consequences of the pernicious effects of oral teachings or printed by the propagator, we must prove that the person who committed violence had read or heard these teachings, because while not read or hear can not be said that he had received, and not having them received, can not be said to have obeyed.

THE FISCAL AND THE INNOCENCE OF Neeb

At the conclusion of the evidence of the State of Illinois, the Honorable Carter H. Harrison, the then Mayor of Chicago, and Mr. FS Winston, the corporation counsel of Chicago, had a conversation with the prosecutor about the evidence Grinnell against Neebe, whose conversaciónn according to Mr. Harrison and Mr. Winston, the prosecutor said he did not think had any case against Neebe, and wanted to declare there was no place to prosecute, but that his colleagues had deterred for fear that such a step would influence the jury in favor of defendants.

Mr. Harrison in a letter says, among other things, that was present in Court concluded the case of the State of Illinois. Neebe's attorney, proposed stand in freedom, since there was no evidence against him. He said the effect: "The prosecutor Grinnell, Mr. Winston and I were talking animatedly as he presented the proposal. Mr. Grinnell said we did not think there was enough evidence to convict Neebe. Then I advised him that as a State Representative Illinois, declared to be no place to retain Neebe, and if I remember correctly, I think he was seriously considering doing so, but should consult with their colleagues, decided against it for fear that such a step would have a detrimental effect for other cases. "Mr. Winston says following to the letter from Mr. Harrison:

"March 21, 1890. I agree with what Mr. Harrison said, never thought I had enough evidence to convict Neebe, and I said so during the process. FS Winston. "In January 1890, Mr. Grinnell wrote a letter to Governor Fifer deny having said what they said Mr. Harrison and Mr. Winston, adding that he believed to Neebe guilty, that Mr. Harrison suggested that is exonerated Neebe, and that it had not surprised that Mr. Harrison had suggested the same about the others, and what he said then Mr. Harrison was in substance that he feared that the jury believed the testimony presented Neebe case was sufficient to convict, but that the jury rested determine that. "

However, if what they say Mr. Harrison and Winston is true, then Mr. Grinnell should not be allowed to be sent Neebe to the penitentiary and if, moreover, we assume that both Mr. Harrison and Mr. Winston are wrong, and that Mr. Grinnell said no more than what he now says, then the case must have seemed too weak. If with a jury biased from the outset, a judge, narrowing it to condemn, in the midst of almost irresistible fury with which he conducted the process, he feared that the jury consider the evidence sufficient to convict Neebe, then very weak indeed it must have seemed the testimony.

When presented the motion to declare there is no place to hold Neebe, counsel for the defendants requested that the jury be allowed to withdraw as he argued the motion, but the judge did not allow it to retain the jury where he could listen to everything the judge said, and when he started the argument on the motion by defense counsel, the judge did not wait to hear the prosecutor, but immediately started arguing with defense counsel, so that twenty-five pages of the cars are filled with a conference or duel of words between the judge and defense counsel, the judge permitted in the presence the jury, making insinuations about the inferences that the jury could draw from the fact that Neebe possessed certain actions of a newspaper called Arbeiter Zeitung (Worker's Daily) and had been in which was printed, but did not take part in its direction until after Haymarket Event, appearing that the Arbeiter Zeitung had published articles very seditious, with which, however, had nothing Neebe see. Several observations were heard from the lips of the judge, seriously affecting the entire case and was prejudicial to the accused, and then alluding to Neebe, said: "If you had something to do or not to the dissemination of the board of murder, is In my opinion, a debatable issue, the jury must determine. "

Finally, the motion was dismissed. Now if one takes into account the anxiety of the judge to convict Neebe very weak it must have seemed the evidence against him when he confessed above, it was debatable whether, if the evidence tended to prove guilt or not, then that evidence should not have anything conclusive, and this being well, the verdict should not remain standing, because the law requires that a man is proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before you can convict in criminal cases. I have examined all the evidence against Neebe carefully, and have not found even a shadow of justification to convict him.

Some of the other defendants appeared guilty of having used seditious language, but even this can be attributed to Neebe.

PREPARATION OR SUBMISSION OF JUDGE

is also said quite bitterly that the records of this case show that the judge went with malicious ferocity, which required eight men to be tried together, that reinstated to the witnesses the State of Illinois, defense counsel confined to the specific points touched by the State of Illinois, which allowed, on the contrary, the prosecutor, when questioned defense witnesses, which came into all sorts of issues entirely foreign to the issues which mainly examined witnesses, and also that all judgments the protracted process were favorable to the State of Illinois and, moreover, sheet after sheet of the file contains suggestive remarks of the judge, after hearing the jury, and with the clear intention of the jury to think what he wanted, that these speeches, the same court proceeding, they were more harmful The same speeches of the prosecutor, that he often received the court summons, that the article published recently by the judge, although it was written six years after the trial, is still saturated with poison, they just pretend to review the case, included in its article a letter written by a woman driven at a newspaper, after completion of the process, and that had nothing to do with the case, just to create concern against women, as against the dead against the living, and not satisfied with this, in the same article attacks in a way suggestive of one of the defense lawyers, not by any act of his during the process, but because more one year after the trial, after having been hanged some of the defendants, he ventured to express a few misconceptions he said, but generous in the graves of the victims. It is alleged that such ferocity or submission to the public outcry has no parallel in history, that the same Mr. Jeffries in England, was content to hang his victims, not vilify them after death.

These charges are personal, and although it appears justified by the records and documents I have before me is not my intention to discuss this issue any longer the case. I am convinced that the duty clearly asks me to intervene in this case, for the reasons already stated, and I therefore grant absolute freedom to Samuel Fielden, Michael Schwab and Oscar Neebe today June 26, 1893.

Governor John Peter Altgeld Iillinois

Interview With Og Mudbone

demonstration in commemoration of the companion Patricia Heras Salio

The blows hurt less than the sad news of the death of Patri, prey 4F assembly is removed the life on 22 April.

And it hits not lacking in concentration that took place on April 28 in Zaragoza, in memory of the deceased partner, expression of anger, which triggered an absurd violence by the National Police, who arrived to pay twice, injuring several people.

The concentration was beginning to 19hs with approximately 200 individuals who were increasing in number to 300. At first silent, then with cries of rage as "Patricia is dead you killed", or remember Rodrigo Lanza, imprisoned in Barcelona, \u200b\u200bas Alex and John, who are still in prison after five turbulent years of proceedings, indictments rigging and allegations of torture and ill-treatment.

Initially the participants were advancing its position from the stairs where concentrations are usually held in Pza Spain to the very edge of the sidewalk, so, post, trying to become event.

Barely had advanced a few feet cutting the traffic in the square and P º Independencia was the first police assault that ended with people rolling on the floor and blunt injuries to demonstrators.

The two signs that accompanied the movement were seized by police, but so far have heard nothing from them.

After the first charge attendees, far from flinching, raged in their cries against the police and remember Patricia, cornered between the sidewalk and a line of riot police, who came to join the 35 troops and five vans in the square, after going more shots and wear the dress in full riot gear with helmets and batons in hand.

Then came a new charge, also absolutely free, which produced hits again, exchanging insults and shouting continued support and Patricia Rodrigues. Although it failed to disband the group, which continued to cry and, after a new grouping, left in protest, but without signs, cutting through several narrow streets of the city center until the Barrio de la Madalena, escorted at all times several vans of riot police, who came to be placed in various streets in the opposite direction.

The demo Pza ended in the Magdalene, to read the statement and a minute of silence in memory of Patricia.

For a while there was police presence in the neighborhood madaleniense although there were no arrests or identifications to be known.



More information: http://4f.noblezabaturra.org/

What Could A Infection Under My Bottom Lip Be?

the Mutiny! No. 19 (Publication of the Anarchist Black Cross of Buenos Aires)

[DOWNLOAD A4 - A3 DOWNLOAD ]

In this issue:

  • Tomorrow will be too late (by John Ready Vega)
  • Running away from oblivion, part
  • organizational informality and its prison policy
  • Trial
  • military, ridiculous, sad and miserable
  • Comrades on Hunger Strike in Chile
  • Fukuyima, random thoughts on Japan
  • The great socialist motherland latin american
  • brigades and other stories on

Caravan Fit Queen Matress

From 19 May, Jean Marc Rouillan in semi-liberty would


The Paris Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the Prosecutor against Jean-Marc Day release of its entry into agreeing Rouillan scheme. Will come to work daily Agone editorial in Marseille with an electronic bracelet to monitor his movements start, but the weekends will have to pass integers in jail, and may not speak of why he was convicted. After a year and be eligible for parole.

As teammate Georges Cipriani, the enforcement of punishment court had agreed in mid-March her probation, but prosecutors objected and, at one year without being held in semi hearing appeal, was returned to jail full time. That hearing took place last April 28 and is expected to publish of the decision by the next May 3.

Udresses.com Experience

Greece: Police Grigoropoulos Alexis murderer is beaten again

April 27. Today by afternoon in a chance encounter of prisoners from the wings D and E of the prison in Domokos, Damiano Bolano partner for the second time met face to face with the police Korkoneas (Grigoropoulos Alexis's murderer). The rest is more or less predictable. And although this time Korkoneas had with him a friend and companion was faced with both managed to make it run with the shattered face.

What Does It Mean If My Hemoglobin Is Low

Mexico: free companion Abraham Ramírez Vázquez


Friends, with an emotional excitement and joy that goes beyond the breast, so we inform you that our partner brief Abrham Vásquez Ramírez has emerged since been released. After 6 years with three months of being jailed today we can say that it was the State that released it was the people and all people and organizations who achieved national and international solidarity with freedom of Abraham.
On Saturday April 30, the companion will be linked by telephone to the Anarchist Congress to acknowledge the solidarity.

nothing else at the moment, we promise that tomorrow night we will be extending the good news
.
FREEDOM FOR ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS!
DOWN THE WALLS OF PRISON!
LAND AND FREEDOM LIVE!

Garage Lease Agreement

Bingo Solidario

San Francisco Earthquake Amp

UNGODLINESS METALPUNKERS


SATURDAY APRIL 30
TURTLE ISLAND from meliattack)
EXPOSURE DIY (photography, illustration, COMICS, COLLAGES)







LAUNCH OF "THE MANSA LOT"!

FAIR / FOOD / BEVERAGES