Direct and re-direct examination by Mr. Grinnell. Cross-examination by Captain Black. Testified on behalf of the Prosecution, People of the State of Illinois. People's Exhibits 13 (vol.J 155) and 130 a&b (vol.J 156) introduced into evidence.

Reporter, Chicago Daily News, prior to Haymarket, interviewed Spies regarding bomb-making. Testified on various topics (page numbers provide a partial guide): Most, Johann (vol.J 150), weapons and explosives (vol.J 144), bombs (vol. J146), socialists and/or socialism (vol.J 178), plans for warfare against the police and/or capitalists (vol.J 147), call for workingmen to arm themselves (vol.J 142), the Arbeiter-Zeitung (vol.J 145), Thanksgiving 1885 Market Square meeting (vol.J 141), eight-hour movement (vol.J 162), International Workingmen's Association (vol.J 140), Spies, August (vol.J 140), Parsons, Albert (vol.J 140), Schwab, Michael (vol.J 140), Fielden, Samuel (vol.J 140), People's Exhibit 13 (vol.J 155), People's Exhibit 130 a&b (vol.J 156).

a witness for the People, having been duly sworn, was examined in chief by Mr. Grinnell, and testified as follows:

Q What is your name?

A Harry Wilkinson.

Q What is your business?

A Reporter of the Chicago Daily News.

Q How long have you been reporter for the Chicago Daily News?

A Since September last year.

Q Do you know the defendants, or any of them? Have you seen them before?

A I have seen four of them.

Q Name them?

A Mr. Spies, Mr. Schwab, Mr Parsons and Mr. Fielden.

Q How long have you known them by sight?

A I could not give the date, for the first time I saw them; it was in the North Side Turner Hall, at a meeting of the Workingmen's Association.

Q International Workingmen's Association?

A Yes, sir

Q Did you hear them speak at that meeting?

A Mr. Fielden spoke and Mr. Spies.

Q What did they say at those meetings? That is, give what you remember of their saying at those meetings.

Mr. FOSTER: Designate which ones.

Mr. GRINNELL: Take one at a time.

Mr. SALOMON: This is objected to, your Honor.

Mr. BLACK: And especially in behalf of the defendants

other than Spies and Fielden.

THE COURT: Yes, save your exceptions.

THE WITNESS: I could not quote either one of them at those times.

Mr. GRINNELL: Did you hear either of them speak on or about Thanksgiving of last year?

A On Thanksgiving day last year I heard Mr. Parsons speak on the Market Square.

Q Can you give me the purport or substance of what he said.

Mr. BLACK:: Perhaps you can give that literally.

A No, sir.

THE COURT: Tell as near as you can what he said that you remember?

A I cannot quote him at this time, except just to remember in a general way what was said.

Q Well, substantially, if you cannot remember the words.

Mr. GRINNELL: Give me the substance of the utterances there?

A It was an advocacy--

Mr. FOSTER: Oh, no--

Mr. GRINNELL: Give the purport of it. What was the substance of what he said?

A Well, I misunderstood the instructions.

Q They object to your use of the word "advocacy".

Q He advised the workingmen who were present -- and there were several hundred there -- to stand together and

to use force in securing their rights. He told them that they were slaves; that out of a possible earning of a certain sum of money that the percentage that they got was very small, too small; that it ought to be more of an even divide with the man who employed them.

Q Anything said by him at that meeting as to the means or manner of force to be used and against whom?

A I don't recollect of anything of the kind at that time.

Q Did you have any conversation with Mr. Spies in January last?

A I did. I had several conversations with Mr. Spies at that time.

Q Interviews?

A That would not be the proper name for the -- that is, technically it was not an interview.

Q You were working on the news at that time?

A Yes, sir.

Q How often did you see him?

A Probably half a dozen times.

Q You may look at the paper I show you (handing witness copy of the Daily News of January 13, 1886) See if you recognize that as having seen it before?

A Yes, sir.

Q When did you first see Mr. Spies in regard to this matter of which I show you the paper?

A It was a few days after the first of January of this year.

Q Now, Mr. Wilkinson, will you historically and seriatim

give the account of your conversation with Mr. Spies, from the beginning through?

Mr. ZEISLER: What is the date of that paper?

A January 13, that was.

Mr. GRINNELL: Published in the morning Daily News of January 14, 1886. You wrote up the result of your talk with Mr. Spies for that paper?

A Yes, sir.

Q was it all published?

A. No, sir.

Q What part? How much of it was cut out by your City Editor, if you know?

Q Mr. Wilkinson, will you go on, please, and give that in detail, what conversation you had with Mr. Spies.

A Do you want me to tell how it was.

THE COURT: Tell your conversation with him.

A I had a number of meetings with him in the course of an investigation into the probable cause for placing an explosive on Judge Lambert Tree's steps. The intention was to see, if possible--

THE COURT: No, sir, that is not proper. The question is what talk did you and he have. Now start there and go on and tell it?

A In that conversation I asked him a number of questions.

Mr. BLACK: I think I will ask the portion of the answer

to be stricken out that has already been given.

THE COURT: Oh, yes, all the peremptory remarks by a witness.

Mr. BLACK: Now you may go on with what occurred.

A Well, I inquired of him about that explosive, and one that was placed in the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad offices, and he emphatically denied that those machines were either made or placed by Socialists or Anarchists and proved it by showing me that they were entirely different in character from the ones in use by the Socialists.

Mr. GRINNELL: Did he at that time show you any bombs?

A He did. He showed me this (producing the so-called bomb) and I took it away with me.

Q What did he say with reference to that bomb?

A He said -- he described this to me as the Czar.

Q Go on.

A And went on to describe the wonderful destructive power of the Czar Bomb; said it was the same kind that had been used by the Nihilists in destroying the Czar, and that that was the reason this was so called. I hadn't been very long in Chicago and I thought it was a pretty tall story.

Mr. FOSTER: Never mind.

Mr. GRINNELL: Well, did you tell him that you thought it was a pretty tall story?

A I told him that I thought it was a pretty tall story and he became somewhat excited and produced this, and said that there were others larger

than that run by mechanical power, and exploded in that manner -- clock work bombs, and he gave me that in a small room just adjoining the counting room office of the paper of which he was editor. I asked him if they made those things at the Arbeiter Zeitung Office besides printing a newspaper and doing job work -- if that was any part of their business and he said not; that they were made by other persons and that there were several thousand of them in Chicago distributed, and that sometimes they were distributed through the Arbeiter Zeitung office; that those who could make bombs made more than they could use, and those who could not make them got them from those who could; that he had a few there for samples, and that was one of the samples. The whole matter was a personal assignment from Mr. Stone, and I asked Mr. Spies if I could take that over and show it to him, and I took it over there; I didn't bring it back.

Q Was anything said by him as to how force was to be administered, as to what body of men, or who they were going to have this force against?

Q Upon another occasion Mr. Spies--

Mr. BLACK: Tell us what that occasion was?

A Well, that was another one of these interviews following right along in those, between the first of January and the publication of that article. We went to dinner together Mr. Spies, Mr. Gruenhut and myself.

Mr. BLACK: Gruenhut?

A Gruenhut, Joe Gruenhut. And he told us there about the organization of their people% how they were organized and rather in a boastful manner, as I thought at the time, but I don't think so now.

Mr. BLACK: Never mind what you think now.

THE COURT: Strike that out.

THE WITNESS: Well, he described to me how they had gone out on excursions on nice summer mornings some miles out of the city and practised throwing these bombs; also the manner of exploding them; that they had demonstrated that the bombs made of compound metal were much better than the other kind -- I presume made of all lead or all metal. I think that was the understanding at that time, and that they went out there for the purpose of practicing throwing them, and that they had demonstrated that a fuse bomb, such as that, with a detonating cap inside, was by far the best, and at that time he told me about one attempt made in his presence where one of their machines had been exploded in the midst of a little grove, and that it had entirely demolished the scenery, blown down all the trees, four I think, in number, four or five.

Mr. FOSTER: What are you looking at? At the paper (referring to newspaper).

A. I want to keep this; that belongs to the files.

Mr. Grinnell. Go on.

A Well, he further described to

me some very tall and very strong men -- I see that when it got into print it had an interrogation point after the word "Swedes" -- an organization of Swedes -- because they were probably thought to be too peaceable to be engaged in it.

Q Never mind what was probable. Tell us what occurred

A O, that was my recollection -- he told me that they could throw a large sized bomb weighing five pounds, one hundred and fifty paces, and further went on to state how these bombs were to be used in the case of a conflict with the police or the militia. He didn't have a very good opinion of the fighting qualities of the militia, and stated so, that they probably would not stay to see a second or third one go off, and the idea was, as he explained, by taking some little toothpicks out of a vase on the table and laying them down and making a street intersection, showing that if the police or the militia were coming marching up a street that the throwers would receive them formed in the shape of the letter V in the mouth of the street just crossing the intersection, and that if the conflict should occur at any of the principal street intersections here in the city that there would be a few dynamiters -- that is not what he called them but some of these sections of organized men would be on top of the houses at the street intersections ready to throw bombs overboard and among the advancing troops or police. And he said that these matters had all been investigated, that the men were all thoroughly trained and organized;

that they understood street warfare and had made it an especial study, and that the means of access to the housetops at the corners of these street intersections was a matter of common information among their adherents, that they all knew how to get up there -- that is, all those who were entrusted with that work. I asked about their military captains, about their drilling and training, and he said that they didn't have any, that they had no leaders, that they were all instructed, one as well as another, and that when the great day came that each would know his duty and do it. Then after I had gotten nearly full of that sort of information, I began trying to find out when this would probably occur, and he did not fix the date precisely nor approximately at that time, but subsequently informed me that this conflict ---

Mr. BLACK: On what occasion?

A Another.

Q Another interview?

A Another one of those.

Q Before the publication?

A Yes, sir. That it would probably occur in the first conflict between the police and the militia; that if the men were to strike, be a universal strike for this eight hour law, eight hour system, that there would probably be a conflict of some sort brought about in some way.

Mr. GRINNELL: Between what forces?

A Well, my idea was that it was probably the militia.

Mr. BLACK: We don't care about your idea, we want simply what was said.

Mr. GRINNELL: Between what forces, Mr. Wilkinson?

A The First and Second Regiment of the Illinois National Guards and the Chicago Police, and the dynamiters on the other hand.

Q Was anything said as to the number of their organization in the City of Chicago at that time?

A He said that there were thousands of bombs in the hands of men who knew how and when to use them, who were not afraid to use them In trying to get at the probable number of them by questioning I understood him that there were probably eight or ten thousand

Q Did he give you a description of any other bombs than these? than the one that you have given us here?

A Yes, sir, he spoke of other bombs that they had experimented with, larger ones, as large as a cigar box, and that there were machines to be exploded by electricity, which would be placed under the street in case they decided to barricade any section of the city -- that they could be placed under the street; that certain numbers of their organization had in their possession a complete detail maps and plans of the underground system of the city and that these machines could be placed there and exploded by electricity with perfect safety to the ones handling them, but that they would either destroy everybody that was above them when

they went off or so tear up the street as to make it impassable.

Q Did you ask him any questions, or did he give you any information as to how they got their information in this making, manufacturing bombs, and the use of dynamite, or their street warfare?

A I don't recollect precisely about that, but he told me how they did make their dynamite and how much better it was than other dynamite.

Q Very well, describe that.

A He said that the ordinary dynamite of commerce was about a sixty per cent dynamite -- sixty or sixty six and that they made a finer quality by importing their own infusorial earth and mixing it themselves -- that they made a dynamite which they regarded as about a ninety per cent. quality.

Q Did you see any dynamite? Did he show you any?

A No, sir.

Q Did he give you any information about Herr Most's book, Science of Revolutionary Warfare?

A I think not.

Q Or haven't you got so far with the information as that yet?

A I think not. My conversation with him was limited to the preparation in Chicago, for a probable conflict here.

Q Did you have any conversation with him about what he expected to do with all this warfare of his? What did he expect the result to be?

A In a general way I understood

that the object was the bettering of the workingman's condition by the demolition of their oppressors. He spoke of a list of names that was somewhere, in a vague sort of a way, of prominent citizens here who might suddenly be blown up, one at a time or all at once. I don't particularly remember.

Q. What did you say if anything to him, about believing these yarns of his, this story of his?

A. Of course I affected not to believe it. That is the reason he was tantalized.

MR. BLACK: Never mind what he said.

The COURT: The question is what did you say?

A. I said I don't recollect my exact remarks, but I remember to have frequently said that I did not believe much in the story.

MR. GRINNELL: What was the respone to that?

A. He simply uttered renewed declarations. That is one of the responses there on your note paper.

Q. Where was that? What room of the Arbeiter Zeitung Office that you had, this conversation with him?

A. I talked to him in his own room, at his own desk, and that Mr. Schwab was there once or twice when I was in, a though I was not acquinted with him personally.

Q. Where was that desk in reference to that building?

A. It was the desk on the left hand side as you entered

the door from the top of the stairs.

Q. When you enter the door you have to turn around and face the street as you get off the top of the stairs?

A. No sir. That is in the counting room I have reference to now, an editorial room.

Q. The editorial room up stairs?

A. Yes sir.

Q. You had two flights of stairs?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And as you get to the top of the second flight you turn around and face west, face the front of the buildings?

A. No, my recollection is that you went straight back. That would be east, toward the lake, and that the light is admitted from the back windows of the building.

Q. Now where was the desk at which Spies sat, or you sat, in that room when you had that talk?

A. Mr. Spies sat at the desk upon which he did his writing, just at the left end, as you enter to go east.

Q. Where was Schwab?

A. Mr. Schwab and a younger man were sitting at another desk reading and clipping papers and so forth.

Q. How far away from you?

A. O, not many feet; it is not a large room.

Q. Now, how did you carry on your conversation--in an ordinary tone of voice?

A. Yes sir; well the conversations that I have chiefly detailed did not occur there, in that room. It was at a restaurant known as the Chicago Oyster House

and in a little detached room from the counting room downstairs where he kept those specimen bombs.

Q. That is that?

A. That one.

Q. These were in the detached room down stairs in the Arbeiter Zeitung office?

A. Yes sir: The partition does not reach to the ceiling

Q. Where did he get that bomb from?

A. From one of those little pigeon holes in that room.

Q. That was the room on which floor?

A. On the floor with the counting room.

Q. The counting room is on the second floor of the building?

A. In the front, yes.

Q. In the front. Then there is a little room partitioned off from that in which there were pigeon holes?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And it was in that room, in that little room, pigeon holes, from which he got this (indicating the bomb)?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Now, that I may have a clearer idea from what you have said--how did he describe this intersection?-- their holding any meeting near or at the intersection of streets at which the police or militia might march up?

MR. BLACK: He has not said anything about that: He said nothing about holding meetings near the intersection of streets. It is a leading question to suggest the subject

ject matter to the witness. He has talked about a march but not about meetings.

MR. GRINNELL: I understood him differently. How is that, Mr. Wilkinson?

A. I spoke about their barricading and fortifying the street corners in case they see fit to barricade any particular street in the city, and in speaking about that he mentioned this Market Square down here, what an easy thing it would be and how few men it would take.

Q. East Market Square?

A. No on the South Side, below our office a short distance.

Q. On the south side of the river?

A. Yes sir. That it would take a very few men to fortify that street against all the militia and police in Chicago by such means as I have already described, and that they would have the tunnel at their back for a convenient place of retreat for those who were not engaged in throwing shells, or for women and children who they might care to take there.

Q. Now, what, if anything, was said about meetings or warfare at intersections of streets?

A. Well, as I have said, they proposed to receive them with their line formed in the shape of a letter V, the open end of the letter V facing toward the street intersection. Then there were to be others to re-enforce them, as it were, on tops of the houses at those corners.

Q. Where was the point?

A. And under the street there

was to be placed a machine which would blow up the street or anybody that was in it.

Q. I wish you would look at that paper there (handing witness the Daily News of January 14) and that plan down to the bottom, where did you get that?

A. That is a plan which I drew from one that he made right on the table cloth as we sat at dinner together, except that he did not put in these little squares, but explained where these would be, to me, and laid toothpicks to make these lines.

Q. The letter V indicates----

A. Those dotted lines and the other dotted lines are to represent the dynamiters on top of houses.

Q. Well, these dotted lines in the street above the intersections?

A. That is between the street.

Q. This is the dynamiters on the street?

A. Yes sir. This is the approach of the police and militia. They were to be thrown from here (indicating)---as he explained that a bomb would not likely hurt the floor if it was exploded that distance of thirty spaces.

MR. GRINELL: We want to offer that little, plan in evidence. I cannot cut that paper. I offer this in evidence. (Plan from the Daily News of January 14th.)

Objected to; objection overruled and exception by defendant. (Same marked People's Exhibit 13 in volume of Exhibits hereto attached.)

(Counsel for People also offered the bomb in evidene here to fore identified by the witness. Objected to Objection overruled. Exception by defendants).

(Photograph of same marked "People's Ex. 130" contained in Vol. of Ex. here to attached).%

Q. You say that on the plat that was given to you, on the explanation of the plat was the letter V with the apex above the intersection of the streets?

A. Yes sir.

Q. The two ends of the letter V, or A down at either comer below, and the whole letter V is described as the position the dynamiters were to be above the intersections?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Is that right?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And below that still would be the marching of the police or the militia?

A. The letter V would be placed on the mouth of the street with the opening towards whatever direction from it the police or militia were coming, and in front of that formation of that line was to have been an infernal machine under the street, probably in a man-hole of the sewer, as I understood at the time. That is what I understood him to mean by the underground system of the city-- that is, tunnels and sewers and matters of that kind.

MR. SALOMON: We move, your honor, to exclude this testimony as irrelevamt and immaterial to the issue.

Q. You got Spies' leave to carry the bomb off and show it to Mr. Stone?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And you did so?

A. I did.

Q. Did you carry off the tooth picks and show them to Stone?

A. No sir.

Q. You thought that you could make drawings to illustrate that?

A. I did it any how.

Q. By the way Mr. Wilkinson, how old were you at the time of this interview?

A. A little less than a year of being as old as I am now.

Q. And how old are you now?

A. Twenty six.

Q. How old were you in the newspaper work at the time?

A. About four years.

Q. With what papers had you been connected?

A. Papers in Pittsburg and Chicago Daily News.

Q. How long had you been in Chicago?

A. I came here in September.

Q. Of last year?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And you had a special assignment for this work, as I understand?

A. Not with reference to this trial.

Q. No, but I mean with reference to this work that you did last January?

A. I believe you objected to my answering why I went to see Mr. Spies at all.

Q. Will you answer my question; you need not argue at all?

A. Yes sir. I was assigned by Mr. Stone personally.

Q. I say, you had a special assignment, did you?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And you advised Mr. Spies of that fact, did you?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Well, Spies knew that you were a newspaper reporter didn't he?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And of that extensively circulated and widely read paper, the Chicago News?

A. Yes sir.

Q. What was its circulation at that time, according to its official statistics?

A. About one hundred and sixty five thousand.

Q. How many conversations all told, did you have with Mr. Spies?

A. Perhaps half a dozen.

Q. Are you sure about that, or is that an estimate, like the circulation?

Q. Are you certain? That is the question.

THE COURT: How many times do you remember of talking with him?

A. I say about a half dozen, I think.

Mr. Black: About half a dozem is indefinite, can you tell us how many of these startling and important interviews you had?

THE COURT: That you need not answer in that shape.

If you remember exactly how many times you talked with him why, tell; If you did not, why, tell how many times you are certain.

A. I am certain of going to see him specifically. on that subject and met him by appointment four times, but I did meet him several times and that is the reason I said--

MR. BLACK) Now will you give us the date of a single one of those meetings?

A. It was between--

Q. That is not what I want. I want to know if you can give us the date of a single one of them?

A. No sir.

THE COURT: Q. Or the day of the month?

A. No sir.

MR. BLACK: Q. Can you give me the day of the week of a single one of them?

A. No.

Q. They all took place in January last, did they?

A. Yes sir.

Q. After the first of January and before this publication on the 14th of January?

A. Yes sir.

Q. How much of this subject matter which you have detailed here was gone over in the interview at the restaurant at which Joe Gruenhut was present?

A. All of them relating---

Q. To the street warfare?

A. Street warfare?

Q. The method of street warfare?

A. Yes sir.

and about the composition of the dynamite which they used and about going into the country with these plugs to practice the throwing of shells.

Q. That was all gone over?

A. Yes sir.

Q. In Gruenhut's presence?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Anybody else there?

A. No sir.

Q. How long a time was occupied in that interview?

A. Probably an hour.

Q. Was this Czar in your possession at that time?

A. I am not certain whether I got it the day before or the day after.

Q. Was it referred to in that conversation if you remember?

A. I think it was.

Q. So that the matter of the bombs was talked over in Gruenhut's presence also, was it?

A. Yes sir, about the composition of the metal and at the same time published an interview with Gruenhut in our paper.

Q. You have talked with him; you had an interview with him?

A. Yes sir.

Q. At the same time?

A. He fixed the date of this Haymarket Riot without calling it by that name.

MR. BLACK: I move, if your honor please, that that be stricken out and that this young man be instructed from the bench only to answer the questions put to him.

THE COURT: It is true that the question did not call

for the witness to tell anything that Gruenhut did say; but in the ordinary comversation between individuals, if you ask a question, if he had an interview with a particular person, his impulse is to tell you what that person said, and although that is not logical, it is not strictly regular, I do not think that it calls for any animadiversion on the witness, when the question is such that in ordinary conversation would call out the response which is made. But as it is not responsive and is not competent unless called for, and not competent unless both sides consent that it may come in, it must be stricken out.

MR. BLACK: Now, will your honor kindly suggest to the witness that the proper way in a court of justice is not to adopt the street practice, but to answer questions and stop.

THE COURT: If I could persuade both sides to use short words and short questions, then I could make the witness answer shortly.

MR. BLACK: Was my question a long one?

THE COURT: That particular question was not.

Mr. BlACK: Then what has your honor's statment to do with the case?

THE COURT: You want I should give him a general lesson, Now if you will put him questions in short phrase and in

short words, then I think you will get answers in short words.

MR. BLACK: (Q) Now, Mr. Wilkinson, did Joe Gruenhut say anything about the 1st of May, or any time in May?

A. Yes sir.

Q He did. What did he mention about May?

A. He said that the conflict to which Mr. Spies referred--

Q. Never mind. Now, did he say "To which Mr. Spies referred"?

A. Yes sir. This was--

Q. He used that expression?

A. I asked him.

Q. He used that expression, did he?

A. After we came away from the table I walked with Mr. Gruenhut and Mr. Spies said he had an appointment.

Q. My question is, did Joe Gruenhut use that expression, "The conflict to which Mr. Spies referred?"

A. I did not quote him as saying so yet.

Q. That is my question? Then he did not say that? Is that true?

A. I have not said that he did.

Q. You started to say what he did say, as the record will show? I ask you what Joe Gruenhut said about May?

A. He said that the Conflict to which our conversation referred at the table would occur probably on the 1st of May or within a few days thereafter, and that it might extend all over the country.

Q. That was what conflict--a general conflict between laborers and capitalists?

A. The conflict to which--

Q. A general conflict between the laborers and capitalist, is the question as you understand?

A. That is not what I understand.

Q. That is the question, as you understand it. It is the question put sir.

THE COURT: Well, you are asking him now to state what Gruenhut said, and he says that is not what he understands.

MR. BLACK: You did not understand him to refer to the general conflict between capitalists and laborers?

A. He did specially refer to the general conflict which might extend all over the country, as I have just said.

Q. Between whom?

A. Between the workingmen who were to strike for eight hours and their natural enemies, the police and militia.

Q. The police and militia?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Nothing said about capitalists?

A. Nothing that I recollect directly at that time.

Q. Nothing said about employers?

A. I think not.

Q. Anything said about the Haymarket at that time?

A. No sir.

Q. Was Haymarket mentioned at all by Joe Gruenhut or by anybody else?

A. There was only two of us there, and I said I think not.

Q. What did you mean then by saying a little while ago

on your own motion that Joe Gruenhut mentioned about the Haymarket meeting?

A. I said he came very nearly fixing the time for it.

Q. What did you mean by saying that he referred to the Haymarket Meeting when the Haymarket was not mentioned?

A. I don't understand what you want to know.

Q. You do not; all right, we will leave it here. You say there were about half a dozen conversations, and four that you remember of specially? Was anybody present at any other of the meetings than this meeting at which Gruenhut was present, and the interview at which Schwab was present?

A. Mr. Gruenhut went with me and introduced me to Mr. Spies, and he was there with me at his office one other time.

Q. Did you ever have an interview in which this territory was gone over with Mr. Spies, when there was not present either Joe Gruenhut or Mr. Schwab?

A. Well, in a general way I spoke to him about the matter, whatever portion of it did not seem exactly clear to me, each time I met him. But now I cannot recollect exactly what I said to him at those times when I met him and wasn't going to see him particularly for some purpose.

Q. Are you speaking now of mere incidental meetings?

A. On the sidewalk I met him, and at his own office, door, which I passed every day.

Q. Was there ever an interview which you had with him, by appointment or otherwise in which this general ground that you have detailed here upon the stand was gone over; at which there was not present either Mr. Schwab or Mr. Gruenhut, is my question, if so, when was that meeting and where was it?

A. Not any further than I have answered.

Q. Aside from the meetings at which they were present, you simply had incidental street meetings?

A. Yes sir.

Q. You took notes, I suppose, while the conversations were going on with Mr. Spies, didn't you?

A. I did not; I never do%

Q. Went home afterwards and wrote them up?

A. I don't know that I went home to do it.

Q. Well, where did you write them?

A. The first opportunity I would have.

Q. Do you remember any particular place where you wrote up any portion of these interviews, or where you wrote up any portion of this article that you say was subsequently published on the 14th of January in the Daily News?

A. I did make some notes in the Western Union office; I made some in the Health office; I made some in the Daily News office and some at my room on Lasalle Avenue.

Q. Spies was not at the Health office, was he?

A. I never saw him there.

Q. How long were you in preparing this article for publication?

A. In getting information and other?

Q. In all?

A. O, I guess a week.

Q. The first interview that you had with Spies when Gruenhut took you and introduced you, I suppose that was the first interview, was when Gruenhut introduced you?

A. It was.

Q. Was Gruenhut present during the whole of that interview?

A. I believe he was.

Q. And that was the occasion on which you went out to lunch with Mr. Spies, wasn't it?

A. I don't remember whether it was the first time or not.

Q. But Gruenhut was present when the lunch took place, wasn't he?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Did you have any wine at that lunch?

A. Yes sir.

Q. You did your writing after you drank the wine, didn't you?

A. I never drink wine.

Q. You didn't take any wine at that time?

A. I did not.

Q. Didn't take it at any place?

A. No sir.

Q. What time of night did you write up this article?

A. Did not write it up at all at one time.

Q. Well you wrote it mostly at night, didn't you?

A. Well, I think not.

Q. Can you tell me when or where you did write it?

A. I wrote a portion of it at my room. Then I finished it and wrote the Gruenhut interview in the Daily News Office.

Q. How many thousand bombs did Spies say they had?

A. As near as I could calculate, about nine thousand.

Q. And how many of these tall Swedes that could throw a five pound bomb, one hundred and fifty paces?

A. Not a hundred and fifty.

Q. But you said that?

A. I did not.

Q. That is in the record; one hundred and fifty paces?

A. Fifty I said.

Q. Did you mean fifty?

A. Yes sir.

Q. You mean fifty now?

A. Fifty.

Q. Well, how many of these tall Swedes that could throw a five pound bomb fifty paces?

A. My recollection is that it was a company referred to, without number.

Q. Without stating how many?

A. Yes sir, And I understood that there were five, I think--four or five only of that company, who could throw a five pound one--that is a large sized shell and fifty yards is a long distance to throw a shell.

Q. There were four or five men, however, that could do that, as you understood?

A. That is my recollection.

Q. Did you ask the names of those four or five men or

any of them?

A. O, no, I did several times ask for information of that kind and he told me then that he described to me the character of their organization and that they were known only to each other; that if there were three the first would know the second and the second the third, but not the third the first; that it was Nihilistic in its character and that they were known by other means and names.

Q. By the way, what was Mr. Spies condition while he was making these revalations to you as to sobriety?

A. He was sober.

Q. He was sober?

A. O yes.

Q. Seemed to understand what he was saying at the time?

A. O, yes sir.

Q. Were they made with a good deal of apparent ingenuousness, or were they made reluctantly and drawn out by the skill of the reporter's art?

A. well, that is difficult to answer in that way. If you put it different--

Q Well, let us see if I can put it so as to get it within your comprehension. Did he talk freely or did you have to pump him? I think that is a phrase, that as a reporter, you understand?

A. Both.

Q. Was the pumping process one of ease in this case?

A. Well, we don't buy wine for everybody to interview.

Q. You bought wine for him, did you?

A. He ordered it

and I paid for it.

Q. Any whisky used at that interview or any of them?

A. No sir.

Q. Or any beer?

A. My recolection is that we did have some beer, although I did not drink it.

Q. And so you stood the beer and wine, you would have us understand, for the purpose of getting this information?

A. The Daily News always does.

Q. The Daily News paid for it?

A. Yes sir.

Q. How many thousand of these grenadiers were there?

A. I did not say anything about grenadiers.

Q. Or, to use another term, how many thousand of these organized--what do you call them?

A. Dynamiters.

Q. Dynamiters, yes, for want of a better term. Were they called dynamiters in that interview?

A. No sir.

Q. What were they called?

A. They called them groups and such, companies and clubs and so forth%

Q. Companies and groups?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Well now, how many did they say there were in all of these companies and groups? How many did Spies say?

A. It was the number of bombs distributed that I referred to before. I don't think I said anything about ---

Q. How many bombs?

A. I approximated it at eight to ten thousand, perhaps, that they had.

Q. I am not calling for your approximation. I am

wanting to know what Spies said about it?

A. As near as I could determine by questioning him there was that many.

Q. Was the addition a mental process of his, or did you figure it up?

A. Between us we arrived at that conclusion.

Q. That there was from eight to ten thousand bombs distributed?

A. Yes sir.

Q. But you did not find out how many men there were in this armed conspiracy?

A. I took it for granted that there were as many men as there were bombs, or more.

Q. You did not think a man would want more than one of those things?

A. No sir.

Q. Well now, was that the reason that you concluded that there were eight or ten thousand men interested in it?

A. We did have some conversation as to the extent of these organizations, but I did not pay much attention to it, as it was no part of the question or matter that I had then in hand.

Q. Well, did Spies say anything to you about how many men there were, or were interested in this project, and that were drilling and getting ready?

A. I don't think I asked him; I don't recollect of that.

Q. If you did not ask did he say anything about it, is my question?

A. I remarked that I did not recollect of his saying.

Q. Don't remember of his saying anything about it?

But by the tine you got through with it you had reached the conclusion that there must be about eight or ten thousand of them, I understand, about as many as there were bombs?

A. I said I concluded that there were not probably less.

Q. Not less. Perhaps you thought it would take two or three men to a bomb?

A. I did not say what I thought.

Q. Do you remember whether or not there was any delay in the publication of your report--whether there was any delay on the part of the News in the publication of your report after you had prepared it?

A. Did you ask me if I had said so?

Q. No. I asked you if you remember whether there was?

A. O, there was.

Q. Well, how much of a delay, do you remember between the time you prepared the report and its publication?

A. Three or four days.

Q. Only?

A. Only.

Q. Well, how long after your last interview with Spies did you write it up or finish the writing up of this narrative?

A. Probably that night or the next day; not later.

Q. So that your last interview with Spies if I understand you, was not more than three or four days prior to this publication in the News?

A. It was not.

Q. Did you make any memorandum of the dates of these

interviews and so forth?

A. No sir. I don't know whether the assignment book at the office would show it or not, since I got the assignment from Mr. Stone, but otherwise I would not have kept anything.

Q. Now, Mr. Wilkinson, in the interview had at which Gruenhut was present, this whole matter of street warfare was gone over as I understand it?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Wasn't that conversation a conversation simply with reference to the science, the modern science of street warfare?

A. Not so far as I was concerned.

Q. Well, that is not the question.

A. That is what you asked me.

Q. Wasn't it spoken of so far as Mr. Spies was concerned as simply illustrating and detailing the modern science of street warfare?

A. He did not say so to me.

Q. Wasn't it so spoken of in the interview?

A. No sir.

Q. Did he in the course of that conversation speak of this street warfare as a thing that was for the immediate future of Chicago, or did he speak of it simply as in general terms?

A. He spoke of it as a preparation for some time not mentioned, when it would be necessary for the---

Q. Necessary where?

A. Here in Chicago.

Q. That was mentioned by him? was it?

A. He mentioned

the street intersections which I have spoken about.

Q. Did he name any streets?

A. The Market Square.

Q. He named the Market Square?

A. Yes sir, and the tunnel, the Washington Street Tunnel, I presume.

Q. So that so far as he disclosed any conspiracy to you there, it was a conspiracy with referemce to the location of Market Square and washington street tunnel, was it?

A. If it was a conspiracy at all, it must have been%

Q. You say that the talk was not a talk by way simply of illustrating the general science of street warfare, that part of it?

A. It was not.

Q. That part of it at which Mr. Gruenhut was present?

A. He was present during all of it.

Q. And that was not the character of the conversation, you say?

A. No sir.

Q. Did I understand you to say that upon any occasion you had heard Parsons declaim or speak.

A. I heard him make a speech on Thanksgiving day%

Q. And what do you say that parsons said on Thanksgiving Day? That is Thanksgiving Day last year was it?

A. Yes sir.

Q. What do you say that he said?

A. O, I could not pretend to remember excepting in a genersl way, as I have already detailed.

Q. Did you make any report of that speech?

A. My recollection is that we did not print a word of it.

Q. And that speech was made where?

A. Down in the Haymarket square.

Q. Can you give a general idea of what parsons said in that speech. I think you stated some thing about it in your direct examination?

A. O, he was telling the Workingmen how much they were oppressed, and how little of that which they created or produced really came to them, and that the remedy was within themselves and so forth.

Q. Well, now, it is the and so forth that I am specially after. This first portion of it is not very dangerous or very troublesome, but the and so forth is what I would like to get at? Can you tell what that and so forth was?

A. Well, I cannot give you much better idea of it than that, because I did not pay much attention. I saw it wasn't anything that I wanted.

Q. You were after something else than that?

A. Something to print.

Q. Something sensational--wasn't that so?

A. We don't run a sensational paper.

Q. Were you after something sensational?

A. No sir.

A. Were not after anything sensational when you wrote this matter up that you had from Spies either, were you?

A. If I had been it would have been treated differently than it has been.

Q. That is not the question?

A. Well no, I was not then%

Q. You were not?

A. No sir.

Q. You were after solid facts that time?

A. Information.

Q. Solid facts?

A. Yes sir.

Q. You believed you got them, didn't you? I am talking now about what your feeling about the matter was then?

A. Well, if you read the article you will find it qualified all the way through.

Q. Well, you did not believe it then did you? That is the fact about the matter? You thought he had been giving you, metaphorically speaking, a big stiff, and said so in your report of it, didn't you?

A. Well, it is in the report.

Q. Well, didn't you believe so at the time?

A. Well, I did not believe all he said.

Q. How much did you believe, Mr. Wilkinson--about how much of it?

A. About half of it.

Q. The minor half of it you thought might be true; the major half of it you thought was up in the air?

A. I don't know of any such thing as a major half.

Q. Well, major part. Thank you for the correction.

THE COURT: Well, it is a matter of utter indifference what the witness thought; what was said between the parties.

MR. BLACK: It is not a matter of entire indifference,

your Honor please, as to the impression made upon the witness at the time.

THE COURT: Oh yes. Of course the manner of the defendant whether that was earnest or joking, whether it was said in a way that he intended to be believed or not, is material. But whether the witness believed anything or not is immaterial.

MR. BLACK Do you remember whether or not, in writing your report you summed it up substantially with the suggestion that when dressed to cold facts it was like a scarecrow flapping in the corn fields.

A. I did not write that.

Q. That was edited, was it?

A. That was edited by some one who didn't believe them as much as I did.

Q. Didn't believe as much of it as you did?

A. Yes.

Q. How much of it did he believe, if you know? If you believed only half of it, how much did he believe?

A. If you are peculiar to explain that, I will tell you.

Q. I don't care for an explanation. How do you know how much of it he believed or whether he believed more of it or less of it than you did?

A. Why he said so.

Q. I don't care about what he said.

A. You asked me.

Q. Do you remember whether or not on the day following or directly after that publication, the News published an article from Mr. Spies denying the correctness of the statements

contained in your report?

A. We did publish a communication from Mr. Spies.

Q. Denying the correctness of your statements, didn't it?

A. I don't recollect exactly what he said. I do recollect this much.

THE COURT: Well, the communication will show for itself.

THE WITNESS;; Yes; that will show for itself what it was. I don't know what it was, now.

Mr. Black: Did you see the original of Spies letter sent to the News?

A. I think I helped to fix it up-- what they call "fix it up", you know%

Q. You helped to edit it?

A. Put a head line on it.

MR. FOSTER: Put a head on it?

A. Yes.

Q. MR. BLACK--Do you know what became of that original?

A. No sir; it was used as copy, though.

Q. And what is the general fate of copy in your office?

A. I don't know whether they sell it or not.

Q. It don't generally go back to the men who owned it if it is used, does it?

A. Not unless it is particularly requested.

Q. There was no particular request of that kind in this case, was there?

A. I didn't see it.

Q. Well, the fact is, isn't it, that the original was destroyed after being printed?

A. I never saw it afterwards.

Q. Now I will ask you to look at this paper which I now hand you (handing witness) which purports to be a copy of the Daily News, the Morning News of Saturday, January 16, 1886, on page 4, of the paper, and state whether or not you find in that the letter written by Mr. Spies?

A. I think that is the one (indicating). A

Q. That is the letter. By the way, who is Jo Gruenhut?

A Jo is a socialist.

Q. Who is he? I didn't ask you what he was?

A. He is a tenement house inspector in the health office of this city.

Q. How do you know he is a Socialist?

A He belongs to their organizations.

Q. How do you know?

A. Because I have gotten information from him concerning their meetings at which he was present.

Q. That is all the way you know, is it?

A. That is all.

Q. It is a more conclusion of yours, then, that you have sworn to positively here, as though it were a fact within your own personal knowledge, is it?

A. I have read long articles signed by Joseph Gruenhut.

Q. You are not answering my question. My question is if that is a conclusion of your to which you have testified?

A. It is not then,

Q. It is not a conclusion?

A. It is not a mere conclusion, as you put it.

Q. Well what else is it but a mere conclusion?

MR. INGHAM: He has told what his means of information is.

MR BLACK: He says he has read articles of Jo Gruenhut.

Q. In what?

A. The Literary Star. I believe that is the name of it--signed by him, advocating Socialism.

Q. Do you know what Socialism is?

A. I know what Jo Gruenhut thinks it is.

Q. I ask you if you know what it is?

A. Well, I have my doubts about that.

Q. Do you know who published the Literary Star?

A. I would not be positive that that is the correct name of it, although I have had numerous copies of it in my possession, nor I do not know who published it.

Counsel for defendsnta asks to have the paper, the Morning News of Saturday, January 16, 1886, identified by the witness as containing the letter of Spies, marked for identification, so that it may hereafter be introduced in evidence. The same is accordingly marked "A. M. G."

Q. You say there was a delay after you wrote your article before its publication. Will you state why?

Q. This letter that you have been shown is the one dated January 14, published January 16, purporting to be a reply by Spies to your article, or the one published in the News of January 14?

A. Yes sir.

Q. To which you have added suggestions below?

Mr. SALOMON--We object to what they have added.

THE COURT--What there is in the paper will appear if it ever goes in.

MR. GRINNELL--The shell has been offered in evidence, the Czar.

THE COURT--Yes sir.