Illinois vs. August Spies et al. trial transcript no. 1 Direct examination by Mr. Grinnell. Testified on behalf of the Prosecution, People of the State of Illinois. Line of questioning attempted by the State not allowed. Testified on various topics (page numbers provide a partial guide): items confiscated from the Arbeiter-Zeitung office or the defendants' homes (vol.N 288), meaning of "Ruhe" (vol.N 288), Spies, August (vol.N 288).
Testimony of Edmund Furthmann (fourth appearance) and the State Rests, 1886 Aug. 11.
Volume N, 288-289, 2 p.
Furthmann, Edmund.
Assistant State's Attorney.
Go to Next Witness | Return to Previous Witness | Return to Trial TOC | Return to the HADC Table of Contents
[Image, Volume N, Page 288]
EDMUND FURTHMAN,
re-called by the People, was examined by Mr. GRinnell, and testified as follows:
Q You have heard of a paper alluded to by Defendant Spies, on the witness stand as a sheet of paper, a direction on a sheet of paper about publishing the word Ruhe, in the letter box or Brief Kasten of the Arbeiter Zeitung---
A Yes sir.
Q Do you rmember the testimony of Officer Flynn, his testimony of the stuff that was taken from the desk of Spies in the editorial room---have you had possession of that all the time since.
MR. BLACK: I don't think this examonation should be allowed When we adjourned yesterday the statement was made by the State Attorney that they were through excepting that they might have two witness from the southern part of the country.
MR. GRINNELL: I want to say that the paper that has been referred to we never have seen, never had in our possession. We never found it. Spies said the reason he put this word in the newspaper, was because it came by letter to him, and was written on a piece of paper which he describes, about that size, asking him to insert it in the brief kasten of the Arbeiter Zeitung, prominently. I want to prove we never have seen it, and we have searched the office over, for everything connected with Ruhe, and the only thing we found are those in
evidence, and one other which is here.
THE COURT: That is negative proff---I don't think it admissible.
MR. FOSTER: It is ridiculous.
MR. GRINNELL: That is the proof sheet of the column.
MR. BLACK: I think that proof sheet is not competent, if competent at all it should be part of the original case---I don't know anything about it.
THE COURT: The only significance of the testimony of the defendants is, that he didn't know himself what it meant when he put it in, and this evidence does not touch that.
Whereupon the people rested their case. And the foregoing was all the testimony introduced at the trial of said case.