Publication information
view printer-friendly version
Source: New Jersey Law Journal
Source type: journal
Document type: editorial
Document title: none
Author(s): anonymous
Date of publication: October 1901
Volume number: 24
Issue number: 10
Pagination: 675-76

[untitled]. New Jersey Law Journal Oct. 1901 v24n10: pp. 675-76.
full text
David A. Depue (public statements); McKinley assassination (government response); anarchism (government response); anarchism (dealing with).
Named persons
John F. Cosgrove; David A. Depue; Charles Glori; William McKinley; Johann Most; Lucy E. Parsons.



     Almost immediately after the assassination of President McKinley the Essex County Grand Jury met at Newark and Chief Justice Depue charged them in reference to the calamity which had overwhelmed the nation. His words are so apt that, coming as they did from the Chief Justice of the state, they must have carried with them an impressive weight. He said: “The calamity brought upon the people of this country by the attempted murder of the President admonishes all who are connected with the enforcement of the law of the necessity of inflexibly maintaining the reign of the law. This deplorable act was not the act of a madman or of one having a fancied grievance against the intended victim. It was the outcome of the principles of a class of people who are hostile to established government, and whose hostility is carried into effect by the assassination of the head of the government. People of this class have made themselves conspicuous in this state. It is admitted and proclaimed by members of one group that the murder of the King of Italy was planned in this state and an emissary sent abroad to carry that purpose into effect. Since the murderous assault upon the President one of the members of that group has said that the name of William McKinley had been under consideration by them. If a conspiracy formed in this state, having for its object the murder of any one in another state or country, so far executed in our state as that the parties in complicity leave the state for the purpose of carrying it into effect, be not indictable under our law, [675][676] the law on that subject ought promptly to be changed by the most drastic legislation. There are undoubtedly anarchists in this city, and not a few of them. They have held no public meetings for the propagation of their principles recently. About ten years ago Lucy Parsons came to this city to address a public meeting of anarchists. The moment she began to speak Captain Cosgrove and Detective Glori took her into custody, put her into a patrol wagon and had her taken to the Fourth Precinct station house, where she was locked up over night. The next morning she was told to leave the city, and she did so at once. One or two anarchists in the crowd assaulted Detective Glori, and for this were indicted and served a term of imprisonment. Herr Most was coerced at one time into making a harmless address at a meeting of this sort. These occurrences were some time ago, and since that time there has been no open advocacy of these pernicious doctrines, but I am informed that these people are accustomed to congregate in certain saloons for the purpose of conference and to advocate their peculiar doctrines. A saloon or place in which such illegal practices are tolerated to such an extent as to be in a legal sense habitual is unlawful, and the keeper of the saloon or place is amenable to indictment for keeping a disorderly house. The course of procedure in this city indicates that there is law in existence, if put into force, to prevent public dissemination of these pernicious doctrines. I respectfully ask this grand jury that, with the assistance of the officers of this court, they will make thorough investigation of this subject to the end that, if such places exist, an indictment may be found. A precedent of that character will answer salutary purposes.”



top of page