Illinois vs. August Spies et al. trial transcript no. 1.
Court discussion regarding a motion by the defense to have the charges against Oscar Neebe dismissed, 1886 July 31.
Volume L, 1-15, 25 p.
Illinois vs. August Spies et al. trial transcript no. 1.
Defense request to have the jury sent out of the courtroom to make a motion to the Court. Request denied by the court. The Defense made a motion to the court that a verdict of not guilty be found for Oscar Neebe as there was not sufficient evidence against him to sustain the charge of the indictment. Argument follows. Note that Salomon made his opening statements to the jury, text not included in the transcript.
MR. ZEISLER: Your Honor, we wish the jury to be sent from the court room for a while. We desire to present some motions that we do not wish them to hear.
THE COURT: I know it has been done in this city, but--
MR. ZEISLER: It is a motion which directs itself to your Honor.
THE COURT: The proceedings of every case in court are directed to the court.
MR. FOSTER: In so far as the motion it concerned.
THE COURT: There is no authority for it except that it has been done in this city, for sending the jury out.
MR. FOSTER: I never knew it was refused, provided that it was expected that a motion was to be made and argued, and that it might influence the jury.
THE COURT: It is the practice of the Scotch courts in Scotland, but it is never done in the English courts.
MR. ZEISLER: Your Honor will admit it is a practice which has prevailed here.
THE COURT: It has occasionally happened here, but I have never consented to it. I have sometimes said things to counsel on either side, not in the presence of the jury, because what I say to counsel of my own motion, is a different thing; but I have never sent a jury out because of any proceedings in the case.
MR. ZEISLER: I know the practice prevails in civil courts
I do not know how it is in criminal courts.
THE COURT: There is no precedent for it in common law courts. No precedent for it.
MR. ZEISLER: It is in your honor's discretion.
THE COURT: I think it is a vicious thing to do, that any of the proceedings during the cause should be by splitting up the court.
MR. ZEISLER: This is a motion with the granting of which your honor has to do.
THE COURT: I shall not send the jury out.
MR. BLACK: The motion which we desire to make is that you honor now instruct the jury, the State having rested, that they may find verdict of not guilty as to Oscar Neebe; and we desire to argue that motion.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. SALOMON: If your Honor please during all the weeks we have been here, the evidence brought in has tended mainly to establish what may be called a conspiracy, as if this were a conspiracy trial, and supposing these defendants to have conspired for a conspiracy. None of the evidence here, however, in any manner sufficiently identifies Mr. Neebe with any act, any overt act that was contemplated to be done or that had been done by these defendants. The only evidence offered here to show that Mr. Neebe has any connection
in any manner with anything that has been done or spoken of in this case, is that he distributed a circular on Monday night, the third of May--- that is, he gave one to Mr. Hein, a saloon keeper, and told him that it will be different sometime. The other evidence so far as it affects Mr. Neebe, and as I now remember it, is, that there was found a gun, a pistol, and a sword at Mr. Neebe's house, and that he was seen at a basket makers' picnic where they were organizing. Now, as we have stated before, what connection can that possibly, in any light, in any manner have to this jury even so much as an inference that he has been guilty of any improper act.
THE COURT: That depends upon your premises.
MR. SALOMON: I can recall now, and the counsel associated with me can recall nothing else. There is some evidence tending to show that he was a member of the International Workingmen's Association at a time, as the witness Heinemann testified, was also a member. But, if your Honor remembers, the witness Heineman also said that that group to which they both belonged had long since been dissolved.
THE COURT: If you want to argue the question to me, I suppose I ought to call your attention to other circumstances but I don't know that you want me to do it.
MR. SALOMON: I certainly wish your honor's directions if I omit to state anything.
MR. FOSTER: He was in charge of the Arbeiter Zeitung office
after Spies had been arrested.
THE COURT: There are other things. I wont repeat them however unless you want me to call your attention to the things that are in my mind, so you may argue the question to me.
MR. SALOMON: It is proper your honor should state that.
THE COURT: There is testimony from which the State will be permitted to urge upon this jury that he presided at meetings at which some of the speeches were made urging the killing of people.
MR. ZEISLER: There is no evidence, only in the Arbeiter Zeitung, which pretends to be reports of such meetings.
THE COURT: Is there not evidence in the case from which the State will be permitted to urge upon the jury that he without being an active man in the Arbeiter Zeitung, yet was interested in it, and it was published with his co-operation and consent.
MR. BLACK: No sir.
THE COURT: And that therefore what was contained in it received his assent.
MR. BLACK: He is not connected directly or indirectly with the management of that paper in any way whatever until after the act which forms the basis of the indictment.
THE COURT: What inference can they urge upon this jury from the testimony that when the officers went there after he was in charge and asked who was in charge, he replied that he supposed that in the absence of Spies and Schwab that he was in charge.
MR. BLACK: Simply that he might have some property interest in the association; not committed to its policy; but not by any possibility it seems to me can he be made to be guilty of what his associates in that paper may have done.
MR. SALOMON: He was there as a friendly act at the request of the parties. There is no evidence of any kind showing that he was interested in any other manner than a friend to take care of the property in their absence--- a mere watchman.
THE COURT: What is the inference is not for me. It is for the jury.
MR. SALOMON: That is very true, if there was any evidence if there was anything from which an inference could be made. Of course, we realize, that if there is any evidence which tends to show a connection, of course it is for the jury to say what that is.
THE COURT: I do not remember that any witness has stated Mr. Neebe's acting at any of the meetings in any character as a presiding officer.
MR. ZEISLER: Not a single one.
MR. INGHAM: He has been shown to be present at a number of meetings on the Lake front.
MR. ZEISLER: Not presiding at any one---simply as a listener. You know yourself that you ought to enter a nolle prosequi as to him, because there is not a scintilla of evidence against him.
MR. GRINNELL: Then you leave it to us, and don't bother the court any more.
THE COURT: Going over all the testimony to see if there is enough in it or not to determine, to draw any inference against him, would be a laborious task. I of course don't remember what has been testified to during these whole two weeks.
MR. SALOMON: What we claim, and what I wish to direct your Honor's attention to specially is, that there is no evidence, absolutely no evidence to show any connection whatever of him with what they may have contemplated. And if there is no evidence, there is no case here to go to the jury. If there is evidence, it is for the jury to come to a conclusion, whatever that may be; but without evidence, we say that Mr. Neebe should not go to this jury. That is essentially a matter for the court.
THE COURT: I disagree with you, Mr. Salomon.
MR. BLACK: The rule as laid down by the Supreme Court is
not quite as Mr. Salomon suggested. The latest authority is that it is the duty of the court to withdraw the case or any branch of the case at any time from the jury, when there is not sufficient evidence to prove, justify and sustain a verdict. The old doctrine of a scintilla of evidence is distinctly repudiated by the Supreme Court. They say that is not the doctrine of this state. That whenever at the close of a case presented by the plaintiff or State there is not a case as against any of the defendants or all the defendants which would justify a judgment, it is the duty of the court to instruct upon motion, to instruct the jury to find a verdict. That is the rule established by the Supreme Court of this State.
MR. ZEISLER: Perhaps your Honor will call upon the prosecuting attorneys to show what they believe to have proven against Mr. Neebe. Let them show whether they have evidence tending to show the connection of Mr. Neebe with the crime for which the other seven defendants are jointly with him indicted. I could easily show to you what the state has failed to show against Mr. Neebe, but I am utterly at a loss to tell your Honor what they have proven against him, because it amounts to nothing.
MR. FOSTER: I would suggest one idea to your Honor. That taking the testimony in this case from the beginning to the end it amounts to just this, so far as Mr. Neebe is
concerned, and it amounts to nothing more than this; That in the first place Mr. Neebe took up some revenge circulars which he received at the brewery, and brought them over to the saloon and scattered them over three or four tables.
MR. ZEISLER: He did not do that.
MR. FOSTER: Well, he gave them to a saloon keeper. I think perhaps the testimony is that they were seen on two or three tables. But to give the widest possible scope, and it is simply that he placed the circulars upon two or three tables, and he said: "Six men have been killed at McCormiKc8s to-day. Perhaps the time will come when it will turn the other way." That is all Neebe said, and that statement is all there is against Mr. Neebe except the fact that when the officers went there they found a single barrel shot gun and a revolver with one laod in one chamber, and empty in another, and an old rusty sword. I say that is the case against Oscar Neebe. There is not a scintilla of evidence to show that he belonged to any armed section or group, or that he ever belonged to any armed section or group; that he ever met or drilled or participated in any of the acts which they claim are revolutionary in their character. Not a thing more than might be charged against any of the reporters who came here and said that they attended the socialistic meetings. I say if Oscar Neebe is convicted in this case, he is convicted because he is a socialist, and
for no other reason under Heaven. I defy any man from the record in this case to show one solitary act of Oscar Neebe by which it could be inferred---not that it could be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, but from which an inference could be gathered that he in any way knew of what occurred at the haymarket meeting, knew what was to occur there or participated in it, or was there. It is not true. No such testimony as that has been introduced. He was not at the haymarket. There is no testimony that he knew there was to be a meeting at the haymarket--nothing of this kind. What then did he do? When he read the circular that six of the laboring men had been killed, he was excited, as any laboring man might be, and he said: "Perhaps the time will come when it wont go that way" or "It will go the other way"-meaning I presume perhaps when the police might be killed instead of the laboring men. It don't make any difference what he meant. That is what he said. And from what he said your Honor must infer what a proper construction of the meaning is. Yes, there is one other thing. There was a red flag found in his house. I am not permitted now to tell about the character of that red flag, because the witness was not interrogated in regard to the red flag; but I leave it just as the witness left it---a red flad was found in his house. What of it? Taking it altogether, we have this: that he distributed the circulars and said: "The time may come when it wont go that way"; that he had a red flag in
his house, a rusty shot gun, and a revolver. If that kind of testimony is to convict Oscar Neebe, I say there is no man that is safe in the City of Chicago, or anywhere else against a charge; and if Oscar Neebe or any of the defendants are convicted because they are socialists, then as I said before in this case it is time we know that fact and end this trial now.
MR. SALOMON: Even on a preliminary examination of your Honor was sitting as a magistrate to see whether there was probable cause or not to hold him I think your Honor would be bound to discharge him without more evidence than has been produced against him on this trial.
MR. ZEISLER: Your Honor has noticed from the investigations which the State has made for the last three months in order to find evidence against these defendants that if there would be any evidence against Mr. Oscar Neebe m it surely would have been dragged into this court. If during the last two or three years, he would have been guilty of a single act or utterance or anything whatever, they would have brought it before this jury. What is there against him? Nothing. He has not been at any of the conspiracy meetings which are in evidence. He was not in the conspiracy meeting on Sunday May 2nd; nor in the meeting at Greiff's hall on Monday night. He has not been present at the haymarket
meeting. Nothing has been shown, and I know the fact to be that he has not been there. He has not been shown to have belonged to any armed organization in this city or any other. The simple fact is that he is or was at one time a member of the International Workingmen's Association. There are three thousand of them probably in this city; and the object of the organization is to meet and discuss labor questions. It has not been shown that at a single meeting at which Mr. Neebe was present the use of dynamite or the killing of anybody was advocated. There were read some reports in the Arbeiter Zeitung of meetings, not of the International Working people's Association or any armed association, but of working men. He was there, and at one or two he presided as this paper shows. Is that eviendence that he was there. Of course it was the object of the State's Attorney in reading translations of these reports to bring it home to the jury that he was there. But that is illegitimate evidence as your Honor knows. It has not been shown by legitimate evidence that he was present at any of these meetings. What then is there against him? If your Honor holds that the act that he used to be a member of the International Workingmen's Association, connects him with the haymarket riot, or with the murder of the police there, then your Honor holds that every member of this association, and there may be three thousand in this city, ought to be
strung up for the haymarket meeting. Can that be common sense? Is that evidence from which your Honor holds that the State's Attorney can urge the jury to find a verdict of guilty against him? I do not believe it is. It seems to me it is your Honor's duty to instruct the jury to find a verdict of not guilty against Mr. Oscar Neebe at this stage of the proceedings.
THE COURT: I do not think I ought to interfere with the case at all. Whether he had anything to do with the dissemination of advice to commit murder is, I think, a debatable question which the jury ought to pass upon.
MR. BLACK: I expected that the representatives of the State might say something, but as your Honor saves them that trouble, you will excuse me if I reply briefly to the suggestion you have made.
THE COURT: I do not see any need of replying to the court. It is a matter you are to debate before the jury and not to me.
MR. BLACK: Does not that depend upon the question whether there is any evidence to debate it on?
THE COURT: Whether there is any evidence from which the jury are to come to a conclusion that he gave his countenance and assistance to the disemination of that sort of advice to the public, whether he did or not is a question which belongs to the jury to decide and not on me under all
MR. BLACK: Our position is this, and I do not see that it has been met by any suggestion on the part of your Honor, and it has not by any reference or suggestion on the part of the representatives of the State. That there is no evidence in this record upon which it can be legitimately argued that he had any participation in anything that is sought to be charged against these defendants. That is our position. If our position is correct, and if neither your Honor sitting where you do now nor the gentlemen upon the other side can put a finger upon a single item of evidence in this case tending to connect him with any of the things which your Honor has held competent to prove as against the defendants generally, then there is no case for argument to the jury in reference to Oscar Neebe.
THE COURT: Whether the Arbeiter Zeitung was published with his aid or not----
MR. BLACK: There is not a particle of testimony. I desire your Honor to call attention if you can, or the gentlemen on the other side to call attention to any evidence in this case that shows it was published with his aid..
THE COURT: There have been witnesses who said he was frequently seen there.
MR. BLACK: Granted. So was the reporter Wilkinson.
THE COURT: And that when Spies and Schwab were arrested and in custody, then he took charge of it.
MR. BLACK: Certainly, what does that prove?
THE COURT: It proves that he had some control.
MR. BLACK: After the fact. Suppose he took control after the fact---what then?
MR. ZEISLER: Has it been shown what the tendency of it was since the 4th of May?
THE COURT: Why he took control of it is a matter you must debate---whwthether he did at the request of Spies and Schwab, or took possession because he was next in command, or why he did it I shall not undertake to say.
MR. BLACK: Is not it incumbent upon the State to show that if that is a point of materiality. They have done nothing of that sort. They haven't introduced any evidence showing his connection with the paper. They have introduced this evidence; that after the riot of May 4th, on the morning of May 5th, after Spies had been arrested and after Schwab had been arresred, after the compositors of the whole establishment had been arrested, that Mr. Harrison the chief of the municipal government and certain of the detectives were in that building; and that one of detectives swore that he asked "who is in charge here?" Not "Who has been?" His reply is simply, "I suppose in the
absence of Mr. Spies and Mr. Schwab, they being loked up, that I have charge." There is not a particle of evidence that prior to that day he had any connection whatever with the publication of the paper.
THE COURT: There is evidence that he was frequenrly there.
MR. BLACK: Certainly; and so were the reporters there and so were numerous others up there. That is not evidence from which it can be legitimatel argued that they were responsible. This is not a case where fanciful constructions are to be indulged in or tolerated. It is not a case where imaginary possibilities are to be allowed. This is a case involving life and death possibly. It is a case in which the state is asking for a verdict of guilty against Oscar Neebe on the charge of murder, the murder of a certain man upon a certain occasion by certain means. Do they connect Mr. Neebe with that occasion. Do they connect him with that meeting or that man, or with the means? That is the question. Have they done it? Can they do it by simply showing, if they had shown that which they have not, that he was a stockholder in a paper in which there were certain publications which never mentioned the 4th of May, which never mentioned what took place there, and the publications of which terminated on the afternoon of the 4th of may, before the meeting which is an essential in view of the
fact that their whole testimony shows affirmatively that that meeting of the 4th of May was arranged for without reference to the Arbeiter Zeitung and not under its management. Your Honor forgets that the starting point of the state's case was that the meeting of the 4th of May was arranged for at a meeting held the 3rd of May; and the testimony they have introduced shows affirmatively that Mr. Neebe was not at that meeting on the 3rd of May; that he was not connected with the body assembled at that time; that he had no knowledge of it; no notice of it; no connection with it of any character or description. On the 4th of May the meeting is called. It is not shown by the state nor pretended to be shown that he had any knowledge of the calling of that meeting. It affirmatively appears so far as a negative can be made to appear that he was not at the meeting; that he spoke of it to no one; that he had no relationship or connection with it whatever. Now, this citizen, taken out of his home, who was quietly there on the night of the 4th of May, as the great body of this people were quiely at their homes, is called upon in this court, a court of justice, to answer to a charge of murder upon this flimsy pretext. Now, this is all there is of it; and I challenge your Honor's recolletion, and I charge the recollection of the gentlemen on the other side to correct me; and I challenge the record which is under their hand for a single material point beyond
that which I have stated as connected with Mr. Neebe. It may be argued that he was a friend of Mr. Spies. So were many others. It may be argued that he spoke with Mr. Spies frequently, so did many others, including these newspaper reporters who have been used as witnesses upon the stand. The fact that he was a friend of this man or of these men is not a matter from which it can be legitimately or properly argued, that he participated in the things which your Honor has allowed to be here proved. Your Honor has allowed to be proved that there were certain publications in the Arbeiter Zeitung. There is no evidence that he was connected with them, authorized them, sanctioned them, approved them, or disseminated them. There is no evidence that one dollar of his money ever went into that business or that establishment. There is no evidence that he was ever connected with its management, directly or indirectly. He was there from time to time. That was all. And that is the testimony of Mr. Gruenhuet, and Mr. Greunhuet was equally there; and there is not anything in that act which would justify a jury in finding Mr. Greunhuet guilty to the same extent. Mr. Greunhuet was there precisely as Mr. Neebe. The only testimony tending to connect Mr. Neebe is that he was presentat an eight hour agitation meeting---no more and no less.
Now, it is in evidence beyond that that Mr. Neebe
attended a basketmakers' picnic at which one of the witnesses were present. It is in evidence that he was present in the audience at one of the meetings referred to, a large meeting---that is all. As has been argued by my Brother Zeisler, the fact that it is stated in the paper that he presided or was called to preside, does not prove the fact. Your Honor is too familiar with the habits of journalism to believe that statement. Your Honor knows how often you will pick up the daily papers and find this, that a certain gentleman was present at a meeting as president or vice-president, when upon investigation it is found he was not there. It is not legitimate evidence to argue that he was there. But, suppose he had been. Does that make him responsible for the utterances of that meeting. There is not a word from his lips; there is not a syllable produced as eminating from him at any time in all these years. Can the state call attention to one particle of testimony that brings one word from the lips of Oscar Neebe favoring any of these matters which your Honor has permitted to be here investigated? Can they call attention to one stroke of the pen ever made by Oscar Neebe touching any of these matters that have been here produced? They sum up their attack upon him by producing a detective to swear that long after the occurrence of the 4th of May upon a search of his house in his absence, there was found a single barrel shot gun, a
revolver substantially empty, an old sword, and a red flag which is not in evidence. Now, that is all there is against Oscar Neebe. Fairly, fully and candidly stated, that is all there is. The record will be searched in vain for anything further. Your Honor may cudgel your memory in vain to find anything further. Would such a record justify a conviction? If not, your Honor is in duty bound to release this man of the peril in which he stands; in duty bound, not only as judge upon the bench, but under that higher obligation that each man owes to every other man--- the obligation to do as you would be done by. The Supreme Court of this State has laid down the rule in its latest utterances clearly and distinctly, that it is not sufficient that the defendant shall be called upon to respond because there may be a scintilla of evidence from which fancy might argue the possibility of crime. There must be legal evidence sufficient to justify the foreman and the tribunals of justice in rendering a verdict of guilty or a verdict against them. Now, if your Honor please, I have cudjeled my memory in vain to find anything against Oscar Neebe beyond that which I have mentioned. Suppose that he stood here alone the sole defendant. Suppose that these other seven were at large. Suppose that he alone of them all had been arrested and brought to this bar, and suppose that as against him this entire mass of testimony had been produced,
precisely as it stands,---would your Honor feel justified as a man and as a judge in requiring him to proceed to defend himself against this case? Against what could he defend himself? Is he to prove that the old shot gun was not there. That the revolver was not found; that the red flag was the blood in the eye of the detective? Or, is he to be called upon to prove when he bought his shot gun, why he had his revolver, from what source he gained his sword, and how it came that a red flag was in his house? Is there any thing in the testimony of Heine requiring explanation upon his part? On the evening of the third of May he is found in a saloon taking a glass of beer, where he pulls out of his pocket a circular which he himself reads. Apparently, as we judged from the testimony of the witness, it was a matter that he himself was investigating for the first time. He reads it over, and says as a result of his reading, it appears six men were killed at McCormick's, and makes the suggestion "It will not be that way always."
MR. GRINNELL: Quite a number of them. Mr. Heine says that he came in with them and distributed them.
MR. BLACK: Suppose he did. The revenge circular does not refer to the haymarket meeting.
MR. GRINNELL: Let us have the facts as they are in that particular at least.
THE COURT: If it depended upon prior knowledge and participation
in the haymarket meeting, the question would be quite different; but if there is a general advice to commit murder, the time and occasion not being foreseen, the adviser is guilty when it is committed.
MR. BLACK: We will come to that question. That question has no place in the present argument for the reason that there is not a particle of testimony showing any prior advice.
THE COURT: That depends upon whether he had any interest in the publication of the Arbeiter Zeitung.
MR. BLACK: Not at all. The law is well laid down that the publication of a paper by an organization, as the result of a policy deliberately adopted by that organization, can not be used as against any member of the organization, who has not shown himself personally to have participated in the conduct, and advised it. In other words---
THE COURT: Whether he did participate, concur, assent or encourage the publication of the Arbeiter Zeitung is a question for this jury upon the testimony that he was frequently there, and that so soon as Schwab and Spies were away, he took charge.
MR. BLACK: There is not any pretense in this record that the Arbeiter Zeitung was always sounding the same things. There are multitudes of those papers that have been in their possession and not a paragraph was taken from them, not a
sentence culled. They have gone back through a period of years and picked out certain papers in which they have found certain things. There is no evidence in this record that it can be pretended for a moment will connect Neebe with any one of those papers, with any one of those utterances, with any one of those statements. Now, how stands the case? He is not connected by any testimony here with any direction as to the general policy of the paper. But that would not be sufficient, if the general policy of the paper does not appear---only certain articles scattered through a long series of weeks and months have been introduced. Under your Honor's ruling they must go further than that before they can ask the life of a man. They must show that that man has been personally and intelligently connected with them and responsible for the language which tends to prove guilt. Is there any evidence that connects Oscar Neebe with any of those utterances, directly or indirectly? In all their search to which they have resorted they have not been able to find a man in ths City of Chicago that can come forward here and put in the mouth of Oscar Neebe one syllable in advocacy of these things. You can't hang a man for standing by in silence when a mere doctrine is being advocated, the result of which no man can with certainty foresee. The municipal authorities of the City of Chicago knew of these publications, and stood by in silence.
They are just as much chargeable with them as much as Oscar Neebe so far as the evidence in this record goes; and it would be an affront to common sense and justice to attempt to hold them under such circumstances, and such a showing. Here is a man, not even shown to be a stockholder in the paper, not shown to be interested in any shape or form. He is shown after this whole thing had culminated in the tragedy of the 4th of May, he is found looking after the property of his friends. Suppose it was his own property? Suppose in point of fact he was financially interested in the conduct of that paper. Is every man who is financially interested in a paper that is conducted by a stock company as the proof shows this paper was--- is he to be held responsible. Can the editor of the Inter Ocean be held responsible on a charge of murder, because shortly after these men were indicted, some crank sent them a letter which they published, which letter advised the atrocity of chopping these men into small pieces of meat. Such a suggestion is perfectly shocking. Yet that was published without comment in the Inter Ocean. It probably came under your Honor's observation. It deliberately proposed that these men without trial should be taken, and one after the other subjected to the process of being sliced by one of these dried beef slicers.
THE COURT: There is nothing of that kind in this case.
MR. BLACK: I am calling your attention to the article.
THE COURT: It is not a part of this case. If there is evidence in this case from which it is a fair conclusion that he was one of the parties in whose interest the Arbeiter Zeitung was published, and that the articles published in the Arbeiter Zeitung therefore were with his concurrence and consent---that is a question for the jury to determine.
MR. BLACK: Is there such evidence?
THE COURT: I think that is a question which I can't talk about very well without saying that which I ought not to say. I have told you in the beginning I didn't want to talk about it.
MR. BLACK: That is precisely why we wanted the jury to go out.
THE COURT: There is no regular proceeding of sending a jury out. It is not a regular proceeding in a court of justice. I don't send juries out. As to recapitulating all the evidence there is in the case, I don't want to do it.
MR. BLACK: I have just one thing further to say and then I am done; for I don't care to wrestle with the court. The whole testimony with reference to Neebe's possible participation in the publication of or responsibility for the publication at the Arbeiter Zeitung is, it will be conceded,
the testimony of Mr. Gruenhuet. Gruenhuet's testimony is simply that for a few weeks prior to the first of May, in connection with the consideration of the agitation of the eight hour movement---it had no other scope, no other purpose-- he several times met Mr. Neebe there. He don't testify he ever heard Neebe say a word. He don't testify what connection Neebe ever took. He don't testify that Neebe participated in any action that was taken there. He met him there. That is all.
THE COURT: All the things, everything in which his name has been mentioned, must be taken together. Then what is the proper inference is for the jury to say. I overrule the motion.
MR. BLACK: As a formal matter we desire to make a like motion on behalf of all and each of the defendants, except August Spies and Mr. Fischer.
(Mr. Salomon here made his opening statement to the jury.)
Whereupon court adjourned to ten o'clock A. M. August 2d, 1886.