Page:The Chicago Martyrs (1899).pdf/162

 154 boy who must have glory or his heart would be broken, wanted none of that policy. Now, here is something the public does not know. After we got the Anarchist societies broken up, Schaack wanted to send out men to again organize new societies right away. You see what this would do. He wanted to keep the thing boiling—keep himself prominent before the public. Well, I sat down on that; I didn't believe in such work, and of course Schaack didn't like it.

"After I heard all that, I began to think there was, perhaps, not so much to all this Anarchist business as they claimed, and I believe I was right. Schaack thinks he knew all about those Anarchists. Why, I knew more at that time than he knows today about them. I was following them closely. As soon as Schaack began to get some notoriety, however, he was spoiled."

This is a most important statement, when a chief of police, who has been watching the Anarchists closely, says that he was convinced that there was not so much in all their Anarchist business as was claimed, and that a police captain wanted to send out men to have other conspiracies formed, in order to get the credit of discovering them, and keep the public excited; it throws a flood of light on the whole situation and destroys the force of much of the testimony introduced at the trial.

For, if there has been any such extensive conspiracy as the prosecution claims, the police would have soon discovered it. No chief of police could discover a determination on the part of an individual, or even a number of separate individuals, to have personal revenge for having been maltreated, nor could any chief discover a determination by any such individual to kill the next policeman who might assault him. Consequently, the fact that the police did not discover any conspiracy before the Haymarket affair, shows almost conclusively that no such extensive combination could have existed.

As further bearing on the question of creating evidence, reference is made to the following affidavits:

Jacob Mikolanda, being first duly sworn, on oath, states that he took no part in the so-called May troubles of 1886; that on or about the 8th day of May, 1886, two police officers without a warrant, or without assigning any reason therefor, took this affiant from a saloon, where he was conducting himself peacefully, and obliged him to accompany them to his house; that the same officers entered his house without a search warrant, and ransacked the same, not even permitting the baby's crib, with its sleeping occupant, to escape their unlawful and fruitless search; that about a month after this occurrence, this affiant was summoned by Officer Peceny to accompany him to the police station, as Lieutenant Shepard wished to speak to me; that there, without a warrant, affiant was thrown into jail; that he was thereupon shown some photographs, and asked if he knew the persons, and on answering to the affirmative as to some of the pictures, he was again thrown into prison; that he was then transferred from one station to another for several days; that he was importuned by a police captain and assistant State's attorney to turn State's witness, being promised therefor money, the good will and protection of the police, their political influence in securing a position and his