The Everett massacre Part 19

"I made a mistake there," remarked Smith.

"I know you did," responded Vanderveer, "and I want the jury to know it."

The witness had picked out a photograph of John Downs and identified it as the defendant.

The prosecution then called S. A. Mann, who had been police judge in Spokane, Wash., from 1908 into 1911, and questioned him in regard to the Spokane Free Speech fight and the death of Chief of Police John Sullivan. Here attorney Fred Moore was on familiar ground, having acted for the I. W. W. during the time of that trouble. Moore developed the fact that there had been several thousand arrests with not a single instance of resistance or violence on the part of the I. W. W., not a weapon found on any of their persons, and no incendiary fires during the entire fight. He further confounded the prosecution by having Judge Mann admit that in the Spokane fight a prisoner arrested on a city charge was always lodged in the city jail and one arrested on a county charge was always placed in the county jail--a condition not at all observed in Everett.

Moore also brought out the facts of the death of Chief Sullivan so far as they are known. The witness admitted that Sullivan was charged with abuse of an adopted daughter of Mr. Elliott, a G. A. R. veteran; that desk officer N. V. Pitts charged Sullivan with having forced him to turn over certain Chinese bond money and the Chief resigned his position while under these charges; that the Spokane Press bitterly attacked Sullivan and was sued as a consequence, the Scripps-McRae paper being represented by the law firm of Robertson, Miller and Rosenhaupt, of which Judge Frank C. Robertson was the head; that the Chronicle and Spokesman-Review joined in the attack upon the Chief; and that when Sullivan was dying from a shot in the back the following conversation occurred between himself and the dying man: "I said to him 'John, who do you suppose did this?' He says, 'Judge F. C. Robertson and the Press are responsible for this.' I said, 'John, you don't mean that, you can't mean it?' He says, 'That is the way I feel.'"

Judge Ronald prevented the attorneys from going very deeply into the Spokane affair, saying:

"I am not going to wash Spokane linen here; we have some of our own to wash!"

C. R. Schweitzer, owner of a scab plumbing shop, aged 47, yet grey-haired, brazenly admitted having emptied a shotgun into the unarmed boys on the Verona. It was the missiles from the brand-new shotgun--probably furnished by Dave Oswald--that riddled the pilot house and wounded many of the men who fell to the deck when the Verona tilted. Schweitzer fired from a safe position behind the Klatawa slip.

Why the prosecution used him as a witness is a mystery.

W. A. Taro, Everett Fire Chief, testified regarding the few incendiary fires that had occurred in Everett during the year 1916, but failed to connect them with the I. W. W. in any way. D. Daniels, Everett police officer, testified to a phosphorous fire which did no damage and was in no way connected with the I. W. W.

Mrs. Jennie B. Ames, the only woman witness called by the prosecution, testified that Mrs. Frennette was on the inclined walk at the Great Northern Depot, at a point overlooking the dock, and was armed with a revolver at the time the Verona trouble was on. Police officer J. E.

Moline also swore to the same thing, but was badly tangled when confronted with his own evidence given at the preliminary hearing of Mrs. Frennette on December 6th, 1916.

Never was there a cad but who wished himself proclaimed as a gentleman; never a bedraggled and maudlin harlot but who wanted the world to know that she was a perfect lady. The last witness to be called by the prosecution was John Hogan--"Honest" John Hogan if prosecutor Lloyd Black was to be credited.

"Honest" John Hogan was a young red-headed regular deputy sheriff, who was a partic.i.p.ant in the outrage on the City Dock on November 5th.

"Honest" John Hogan claimed to have seen the defendant, Thomas Tracy, firing a revolver from one of the forward cabin windows. "Honest" John Hogan had the same difficulty as the other "identifying" witnesses when he also was asked to state whether it was possible to see a man firing from a cabin window when the stern of the boat was out and the witness in his specified position on the dock. "Honest" John Hogan was sure it was Tracy that he saw because the man had a week's growth of whiskers on his face.

And this ended the case for the prosecution.

As had been predicted there were hundreds of witnesses who were endorsed and not called, and almost without an exception those who testified were parties who had a very direct interest in seeing that a conviction was secured. But thru the clever work of the lawyers for the defense what was meant to have been a prosecution of the I. W. W. was turned into an extremely poor defense of the deputies and their program of "law and order." From the state's witnesses the defense had developed nearly the whole outline and many of the details of its side of the case.

When the state rested its case, Tracy leaned over to the defense lawyers and, with a smile on his face, said:

"I'd be willing to let the case go to the jury right now."

CHAPTER VII.

THE DEFENSE

The case for the defense opened on Monday morning of April 2nd when Vanderveer, directly facing the judge and witness chair from the position vacated by the prosecution counsel, moved for a directed verdict of not guilty on the ground that there had been an absolute failure of evidence upon the question of conspiracy, any conspiracy of which murder was either directly or indirectly an incident, and there was no evidence whatever to charge the defendant directly as a princ.i.p.al in causing the death of Jefferson Beard. The motion was denied and an exception taken to the ruling of the court.

Fred Moore made the opening statement for the defense. In his speech he briefly outlined the situation that had existed in Everett up to and including November 5th and explained to the jury the forces lined up against each other in Everett's industrial warfare. Not for an instant did the attention of the jury flag during the recital.

Herbert Mahler, secretary of the I. W. W. in Seattle during the series of outrages in Everett, was the first witness placed upon the stand.

Mahler told of the lumber workers' convention and the sending of organizer James Rowan to make a survey of the industrial situation in the lumber centers, Everett being the first point because of its proximity to Seattle and not by reason of any strikes that may have existed there. The methods of conducting the free speech fight, the avoidance of secrecy, the ardent desire for publicity of the methods of the lumber trust as well as the tactics of the I. W. W., were clearly explained.

Cooley cross-examined Mahler regarding the song book with reference to the advocacy and use of sabotage, asking the witness:

"How about throwing a pitchfork into a threshing machine? Would that be all right?"

"There are circ.u.mstances when it would be, I suppose," replied Mahler.

"If there was a farmer deputy who had been at Beverly Park, I think they certainly would have a right to destroy his threshing machine."

"You think that would justify it?" inquired Cooley.

"Yes," said the witness, "I think that if the man had abused his power as an officer and the person he abused had no other way of getting even with him and that justice was denied him in the courts, I fully believe that he would be. That would not hurt anybody; it would only hurt his pocketbook."

"Now what is this Joe Hill Memorial Edition?"

"Joe Hillstrom, known as Joe Hill, had written a number of songs in the I. W. W. Song Book and he was murdered in Utah and the song book was gotten out in memory of him," responded Mahler.

"He was executed after having been convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to death. And you say he was murdered?" said Cooley.

"Yes," said Mahler with emphasis. "Our contention has been that Hillstrom did not have a fair trial and we are quite capable of proving it. I may say that President Wilson interceded in his behalf and was promptly turned down by Governor Spry of Utah. Hillstrom was offered a commutation of sentence and he refused to take it. He wanted a retrial or an acquittal. When the President of the United States had interceded with the Governor of Utah, when various labor organizations asked that he be given a retrial, and a man's life is to be taken from him, and people all over the country ask for a retrial, that certainly should be granted to him."

James P. Thompson was placed upon the stand to explain the principles of the I. W. W. The courtroom was turned into a propaganda meeting during the examination of the witness. One of the first features was the reading and explanation of state's exhibit "K," the famous I. W. W.

preamble which has been referred to on various occasions as the most brutally scientific exposition of the cla.s.s struggle ever penned:

I. W. W. PREAMBLE

The working cla.s.s and the employing cla.s.s have nothing in common.

There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing cla.s.s, have all the good things of life.

Between these two cla.s.ses a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a cla.s.s, take possession of the earth and the machinery of production, and abolish the wage system.

We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever growing power of the employing cla.s.s. The trade unions foster a state of affairs which allow one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing cla.s.s to mislead the workers into the belief that the working cla.s.s have interests in common with their employers.

These conditions can be changed and the interests of the working cla.s.s upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries, if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.

Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system."

It is the historic mission of the working cla.s.s to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for the every day struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the sh.e.l.l of the old.

"Men in society represent economic categories," said Thompson. "By that I mean that in the world of shoes there are shoemakers, and in the world of boats there are seamen, and in this society there are economic categories called the employing cla.s.s and the working cla.s.s. Now, between them as employing cla.s.s and working cla.s.s there is nothing in common. Their interests are diametrically opposed as such. It is not the same thing as saying that human beings have nothing in common. The working cla.s.s and the employing cla.s.s have antagonistic interests, and the more one gets the less remains for the other.

"Labor produces all wealth," continued Thompson, "and the more the workers have to give up to anyone else the less remains for themselves.

The more they get in wages the less remains for the others in the form of profits. As long as labor produces for the other cla.s.s all the good things of life there will be no peace; we want the products of labor ourselves and let the other cla.s.s go to work also.

"The trades unions are unable to cope with the power of the employers because when one craft strikes the others remain at work and by so doing help the company to fill orders, and that is helping to break the strike. If a group of workers strike and win, other workers are encouraged to do likewise: if they strike and lose, other workers are discouraged and employers are encouraged to do some whipping on their own account.

"We believe in an industrial democracy; that the industry shall be owned by the people and operated on a co-operative plan instead of the wage plan; that there is no such thing as a fair day's pay; that we should have the full product of our labor in the co-operative system as distinguished from the wage system.

"Furthermore," went on the witness, as the jury leaned forward to catch his every word, "our ideas were suggested to us by conditions in modern industry, and it is the historical mission of the workers to organize, not only for the preliminary struggles, but to carry on production afterward."