REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE THE Railroad Riots IN JULY, 1877. (continued 29)

"But even if the workingmen should fail—even if so-called law and order should beat them down in blood—why, that would be better than starving. We would, at least, have our revenge on the men who have coined our sweat and muscles into millions for themselves, while they think that dip is good enough butter for us, and do not care whether our families get a living or not. We would inflict more loss on them than the last ten per cent. reduction would net them gain in ten years, and if we died in this cause, we would only end lives of degradation and misery. Civilization! You say we should endanger civilization, if we succeeded in enforcing our demands by violence! Well, what has civilization done for us? Better the times of the Conestoga wagon, when everybody lived fat, than these railroad times, when labor goes around begging. Better than both, perhaps, the time when every man had his own farm, or lived by his brow; they had enough to eat then, and did not have to work so hard as we do now. What care we for civilization that is grinding us down, down, down to starvation and nakedness by one ten per cent. reduction after another, and one doubling up of crews after another, until the workingman shall be the white slave of his employer, and work for his board, if he gets even that."

It is well that the community should know something of the ideas that are circulating among the strikers and their friends at this time; the hates, and hopes, and aspirations, and half formed plans that animate the more impassioned leaders of them, and therefore we give the above, which is a faithful re-production of what a representative workingman said on the subject this morning. It will be seen, that he is really a communist, and there is no doubt that communistic ideas have widely spread, even among the most respectable, and most thoughtful classes of American workingmen. There is no gainsaying either, that the picture this man draws of the hardship which the present business depression has subjected labor to in many cases is not exaggerated, and it is true, that the sympathy of nearly the entire community, is with the railroad strikers in the present case, who are called to endure still another turn of the screw, which is cutting down their wages to the danger limit. Nor is it wonderful, that these men, contrasting their hard lives with the luxury and extravagance with which certain railroad men live, and the brutal disregard to their sufferings, which one of them is alleged to have shown, should be goaded to revengeful and bitter thoughts, and even desperate talk.

But when all these allowances are made, it still remains to be said, that threats of violence, of war, of communism, are worse than folly on the part of strikers or the workingmen general. Of one thing there is no doubt, and that is, that resort to violence will not accomplish its object. Widely spread as is the sympathy with the strikers, it is a fallacy to suppose that lawful force will not be found to put down unlawful force. There never yet was a case in this country, where mob violence triumphed in the end, however apparently righteous the cause in which it was invoked, and there never will be such a case, until the American people loses its strong instinct for the preservation, at all hazards, of the established law and order. The people will turn out and enforce the law, so soon as they really think that the law is in serious danger, and there will be no war, nor even a serious insurrection, but all will yield to the majesty of established authority. And then the violent will see that they have accomplished nothing, and that their vengeance has mainly re-acted upon themselves. It will be a long time, before, in this free country, the communists can achieve even such a temporary success, put down speedily as it was, in fire and blood, as the Paris communes of 1871.

We are glad, therefore, to see that these enthusiastic, extravagant, and bitter ideas are being met in the counsels of the workingmen themselves, with solid arguments for moderation, and the use of pacific means only. If the employés of the Pennsylvania railroad can prove, by simply abstaining from work, that the railroad cut down their wages too low, and cannot properly fill their places with other men, everybody will be very glad. If that would show that labor is worth more than was supposed, and the price of labor is the measure of the prosperity of the whole community. But if they attempt to force the railroad to accede to their demands, and prevent any person else from working, they will only make their friends everywhere sorry for them, and insure for themselves a certainty of discharge from their positions in the end.

[Leader, July 21.]

No Violence.

One point that the inbred lawlessness of southern blood had something to do with the greater recklessness of the strikers on the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, as compared with the conduct of the men in similar circumstances on northern roads, was dreadfully illustrated at Baltimore, yesterday. No sooner was the militia called out to go to Cumberland, than the street crowds assaulted them with stones; and no sooner were they thus assaulted than the militia opened fire with ball cartridge right into the midst of people, dealing destruction around. Contrast now the conduct of both parties here, where an equally determined strike is in progress. The strikers carefully protect the property of the different railroads that center here. In stopping the trains they merely "entreat" the engineers to step down and out, though of course the entreaty is equivalent to command. Everything is done decently and in order, and rumors about the burning of the round-house are baseless and apparently malevolent. All violence is discountenanced; even the communistic speeches of certain hot-heads, who have gone out to incite the men, have been coolly received, and the imputation that they are a mob in act of riot is indignantly denied. Towards the militia, the strikers preserve a dignified and manly attitude. They know that the soldiers had to turn out when ordered, and they entertain no hard feelings to any of them, except, possibly, toward one or two of the officers, whom they believe to have been officious about trying to get the Governor to order out their division. They mingle with the soldiers in perfect good humor, though without abating a jot of their determination. And this is not only the feeling among the strikers, but among all the people whom, though they almost universally sympathize with the strikers, admit that the soldier boys are but doing their duty, and never dream of making that unpleasant duty more difficult by assaulting them with stones. On the other hand, the soldiers are equally determined to get through this matter without shedding blood, if possible. They recognize in the strikers men whom, if they do take an attitude in opposition to authority, are, nevertheless, hard-working, honest, and well-meaning citizens, who only resort to their present procedure from what they conceive a desperate necessity. They are men who are anxious to work for a living, but see, as they have, that living taken away from them, and who are making a desperate effort to prevent the reduction, which they believe will make paupers of them. There is no doubt at all that the soldiers will endure insult, and even stone-throwing, before they will shed blood.

But we do not believe that either insult or violence will be offered them. The strikers will confine themselves to the exclusive and more effectual plan of a passive and what may be called distributive resistance. If a large body of troops are stationed here, trains will be allowed to go out, but will be stopped at some other point, at Altoona, or Philadelphia, or Harrisburg, where the soldiers are not. In this way they can and probably will carry on a warfare that will break no bones and shed no blood, but will yet be very difficult to subdue.

We are proud of both our workingmen and our soldiers that have thus far got along with no bloodshed, and with no casualty except one black eye and one swollen nose. We hope profoundly that the whole matter will be settled, one way or the other, without any more violence, and it will and can be, too, if our law-abiding people will sustain the reputation they have thus far merited.

[Leader, July 22.]

A Fatal Rashness.

A Philadelphia regiment which came here in the name of law and order has been swift to shed blood. Not two hours in our city, and before a hostile shot was fired at them, they have stained our hill-sides with the blood of ten or twelve men and children. Most of them were spectators, drawn by an unfortunate and innocent curiosity to their deaths. The wailing of women and children, the deep cursing of outraged men, and the outspoken indignation of an entire community, swell the chorus of condemnation against the officer or officers of the First regiment of Pennsylvania militia, who assumed the fearful responsibility of that hasty command to fire. We desire not to be unjust to the strangers. The strong current of public feeling should not prevent us from upholding them in their terrible deed, if the facts sustain them. Even now we will say that their side of the story may, perhaps, somewhat modify public opinion, when it is known. As appears elsewhere, the Leader tried to obtain their version of the affair officially, but in vain. Those officers who were seen going along the line striking up the rifles of their troops with their swords and otherwise endeavored to stop the effusion of blood, deserve as much credit as that officer who was seen waving his sword and encouraging the men to keep on with the butchery deserves censure.

But making all possible allowance for the Philadelphians, it does still appear that they acted rashly, importunately, deplorably. The crowd hissed them, but that was no reason for shooting. They hooted and jeered them, but all crowds do that, and true soldiers are not disquieted by such demonstrations. Men on the crossing caught hold of their bayonets, and half jocosely expostulated with the soldiers. That was reason for clearing a passage with a quiet forward movement with the bayonet, which would have been effective without hurting anybody. It was still no reason for firing—the hurling of a few stones from the hillside, which seems to have been the provocation that caused the massacre—but neither was that for men who came here to enforce order, it is true, but should have made up to endure much before shedding the blood of honest workingmen, who, even, if wrong were only misguided and had thus far conducted themselves with wonderful calmness and respect for order—neither was sufficient reason for beginning a fire of musketry upon the people, and change, what was before but a peaceful though earnest conflict between the railroad men and their employers, into a scene of battle, murder, and sudden death.

The railroad officials do not seem to be responsible for the massacre. They appear to have evoked a power that they could not control, and so dazed and shocked at the consequences. Mr. Pitcairn's expression, "God only knows what will come of it," well shows this. Mr. Thaw, early in the day, expresses himself as willing and anxious that anything, everything, should be yielded up to the men rather than that blood should be shed. But it was too late. The collision was then inevitable, and it came.

What the end will be cannot now be known. At this writing the air is filled with rumors of fire and war. The troops of the State are concentrating here from all sides to the support of the Philadelphians, now cooped up, apparently terror-stricken, in the fire-threatened railroad round-house, and surrounded by an ever-increasing mass of armed citizens. It is possible that further bloodshed may be averted. The very free vent given to the excitement to-night, in arming and marching about with banners and guns may explain it, and give time for sober second thought to assert itself. The reasonable speeches at the Southside meeting, show that the best spirits among our workingmen are laboring to prevent riot and disorder. Time works for peace. But it is useless to disguise that the situation is very grave and growing graver, and that the men who were swift to shed blood will have the heaviest responsibility to answer for.

[Leader, July 23.]

Law and Order.

The citizens of Pittsburgh are rising to-day to defend themselves from the threatened revolt against law and property. This is a ringing answer to the tones that already come from other cities, that Pittsburgh is honored in the manhood and public spirit to put down mob law. The people are responding to the mayor's call by thousands. Let not enlistments slacken, however. Now is the time to display such a force that resistance will be seen to be in vain, and effusion of blood prevented. We are proud to say that the Nineteenth and Fourteenth regiments of militia are redeeming themselves from the fault that they committed on Saturday, and are now mustering strength and will. By night this issuing would be and will be decided, and we hope by Harrisburg and Allegheny efforts alone.

By Senator Yutzy:

Q. Who was your reporter that reported the occurrences of the riot during Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday?

A. Well, we have a corps of about five or six regular men, and during these three or four days, we employed a great many others. We gave page after page of matter about, and it would not have been possible for one or two or three or four to get it up. I can give you the names of a number of them. The man whom we had stationed close to the round-house during Saturday night, was named Mr. George Vickers. He is now, I think, on the Philadelphia Times. Mr. John Haslet and Mr. William Clark, and a number of others. Mr. Henry Myer was assisting us some.

Q. Had you more than one edition on that Sunday of the riot?

A. Yes. Had three editions.

Q. They are all on file, are they?

A. Think they are, ain't they?

Q. Will you please examine this article, and say whether you are author of it. [Indicating article of July 20, headed "Let them Go."]

A. Yes, sir.

The article referred to is as follows:

[Leader, July 22.]

Let Them Go.

To the workingmen of Pittsburgh: In the name of the whole people of Pittsburgh we make an appeal for peace. There has been bloodshed enough—far more than enough. The workingmen have triumphed over the soldiers who rashly opened fire upon them, and there is now nothing more to fight for. Now is the time to show they deserve victory by proving themselves good citizens, refusing to prolong a slaughter that is a mere useless butchery. The Philadelphia militia, however rash, however boastful, are yet men who thought they were obeying the call of duty. There were undoubtedly roughs among their number, who gave an evil character to the regiment; but there are many good men among them, who simply obeyed orders; even when they fired their pieces they obeyed orders. Now that their point has been gained, we beseech our people not to sully their victory with the further shooting down of these men, who only seek to escape. To continue to hunt them down in their retreat on the north side, whither it is said they have gone, is to stain the green fields of our suburbs this bright Sunday morning with useless effusion of blood. To do this would only be to cause a revulsion of feeling, and the sympathy which to this point has been altogether with the strikers and their friends, and we confidentially appeal to them, that having gained everything they fought for, they now exert themselves as nobly to prevent excited outsiders from taking advantage of their triumph to shoot men, when they only want to get away.

Since writing the above it appears that the bulk of Philadelphia have got away from Sharpsburg, and are scattered in clouds through the hills. It is believed that they will now escape in safety, though it is possible that some of them may be yet followed up and shot down. It is a matter of thankfulness that they have escaped, the victory is complete, and that a great final massacre has been avoided. Let us now decently and solemnly mourn our dead, and mourn in calmness and order.

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. Have you any knowledge of the causes leading to this strike?

A. I have no special knowledge, no, sir, except what common rumor, and what was published about the matter. It originated out of the organization of the Trainmen's Union, precipitated in Maryland, and the particular special cause here, as I understood it, was the double-header grievance on the Pennsylvania railroad.

Q. Have you any knowledge as to the necessity of calling the military to this place?

A. You mean Philadelphia military?

Q. Yes; I mean the military. I will say in explanation that in our resolution we are required to inquire into the necessity of calling out, and the conduct of the troops; and as a public man you would be apt to know, and able to give an expression of opinion that would be of value?

A. I could only give my judgment about it, I suppose, not being in the service.

Q. That judgment could be expressed as a citizen, and would be formed from facts, I suppose, coming to your knowledge?

A. It seemed to me at the time that the military need not have been called so soon. I was under the impression at the time, strongly, that the mayor, with policemen, might have quieted the trouble—and, perhaps, would have done so if the military had not been brought so promptly on the scene—and it seemed to me, also, that bringing Philadelphia troops from a city that Pittsburgh has always felt a kind of rivalry toward, was calculated, perhaps, to inflame feeling here rather than to allay it. I remember there were rumors that Saturday evening—whether authenticated or not, I do not know—that the Philadelphia men had said that Pittsburgh troops had failed here, and they would clean out the rioters. I don't know whether they said it or not; but if they did not say it, it shows just as well the feeling of jealousy with which their presence was regarded, and they asserted that feeling during that whole Saturday night, that in attacking those Philadelphia troops they were cleaning out Philadelphia men. They had come here to interfere in what might have been settled by local authorities, and from that point of view it seemed to me injudicious.

Q. Do you believe that the local authorities could have preserved order, and finally quieted the strike, without any loss of property?

A. I believe that they could have preserved order until the Governor would return, and I think that his presence would have prevented any outbreak. The fact that the Governor's proclamation calling out troops was gravely doubted here—everybody knew he was out of the State a long distance—had, perhaps, a good deal to do with the disorderly feeling. I do not believe that the local authorities could have eventually put down the riot; but I think they could have preserved order here, and kept things in tolerable order until the Governor himself had arrived here. I think if Governor Hartranft had been here on that evening, the collision could have been avoided.

By Senator Yutzy:

Q. I see, in this editorial you speak of, the "sympathy being with the strikers and their friends?"

A. There is no doubt that the sympathy of the people here was strongly with the strikers, before any act of violence was committed.

Q. Before the burning of the property?

A. Yes, sir; and the idea spread, after the collision had taken place, that it was all owing to reckless firing, without orders, which kept the sympathy with the strikers until the actual destruction of property commenced.

Q. In your opinion, was the sympathy of the citizens, and people generally here in the city, with the strikers when they made the assault on the troops in the round-house and driving them out of the city?

A. No, sir; I don't think that. I think the mass of our citizens then were not expressing sympathy with anybody—just paralyzed.

Q. Here is one expression: "The workingmen have triumphed over the soldiers, who rashly opened fire upon them, and there is now nothing more to fight for." Did the people, in your opinion, justify these men, called workingmen, in driving out the troops and triumphing over them?

A. I don't think they did. No, sir; that is not the spirit of that article, either, which is an appeal for the cessation of any further hostilities. At that time, of course, it was said that it was the workingmen entirely that was fighting—the railroad men—and they were in sympathy with them, the railroad strikers and their friends.

Q. There is another sentence: "Now is the time to show they deserve victory, by proving themselves good citizens, and refusing to prolong a slaughter that is mere useless butchery."

A. That is to show that they had deserved the victory they had got, by not using it any further.

Q. The expression is not used to justify them so much as to allay further bloodshed?

A. Yes; that is the whole spirit of it. When that article was written, it was supposed that General Brinton's troops were fleeing out into the country. A large mob was pursuing them, shooting them down in every direction, and nobody knew where the pursuit had stopped, perhaps not until they were all exterminated. We could not get at their side of the story, but it was supposed that they were even more demoralized than perhaps they were. That article was written for the express purpose of trying to stop pursuit, to try to allay the excitement.

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. You had no intention of contributing any to the excitement by any inflammatory article?

A. If I had I certainly would not have asked leave to let them go.

Q. Did you have any reporter with the troops as they retired from the round-house and went out Penn street?

A. We had no reporter at any time with the troops. You could not get any man to them. We had a reporter right in sight of the round-house. He saw the retreat, and followed out some distance towards Lawrenceville—towards the arsenal. That was Mr. George Vickers, the man I spoke of before. I, myself, was out there early in the morning, to look at the situation at the round-house. There was still some firing then.

Q. Did you indicate all the editorials you wrote during the riot on that subject in these papers?

A. I think I have indicated them all.

James W. Breen, sworn:

By Senator Yutzy:

Q. You have no regular file of your Globe?

A. No, sir; not bound. I gave the sergeant-at-arms two copies.

By Mr. Reyburn:

Q. What is your occupation?

A. Journalist.

Q. You reside in Pittsburgh?

A. Yes, sir. Thirteenth ward.

Q. Did you reside in Pittsburgh at the time of the riots, in July last?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that a copy of your paper for that date? [Indicating.]

A. That is a copy of the extra. The regular edition—I couldn't get a copy for the file. It ran out early in the day. That has all that pertains to the riot in it.

Q. Is this article written by you? [Indicating extra, July 22, article headed "First Blood."]

A. You mean the entire article?

Q. More particularly that following the heading?

A. My impression is that it was; but it was made up in detail at different times and by different parties.

Q. Would you call that an editorial?

A. It is a local introduction. The only editorial that was in the paper during the riot is in that issue of the paper for the following Sunday, July 29—that is the only editorial that was in the paper.

Q. These head lines are also yours?

A. Yes; I make the head lines.

The article referred to is as follows:

[Sunday Globe Extra, July 22.]

First Blood.

Seventeen Citizens Shot in Cold Blood by the Roughs of Philadelphia.

The Lexington of the Labor Conflict at Hand.

The City in the Hands of the Strikers.

Armed Bands Patrolling the Streets.

The Civil and Military Authorities Powerless.

Bitter Denunciations of Sheriff Fife, General Pearson, and the Pennsylvania Railroad Authorities.

Threats that the Philadelphia Soldiers will not be Allowed to go Home Alive.

The Fourteenth and Nineteenth Regiments Disbanded and Refuse to Fight, and Many Give their Arms to the Strikers.

The Philadelphia Troops Penned in the Round-House and Surrounded by 20,000 Strikers.

The Slaughter of the Innocents.

Miles of Blazing Cars.

The Strikers Hold the Fort and the Freight.

[Cut of man brandishing a bowie knife.]

Now that the strikers' contest has reached its crisis, and the military and civil are powerless to preserve order, and the blood of innocent men and children, shot down by Philadelphia roughs, cries aloud for atonement, it may not be amiss to place the responsibility for this awful condition of things where it belongs. The strikers have manifested, all along, an unwonted forbearance. There was no overt act of violence. The civil process had not been legally exhausted or properly invoked, and Sheriff Fife's misstatements and lying bulletins, and General Pearson's indiscreet bravado, only added fuel to what was already an overmastering flame. In a city where nearly every man is a worker, and where the mercantile community was bitterly hostile to an odious corporation, which had ground its life blood out by discrimination, the folly of bringing a few thousand Philadelphia troops to overawe the one hundred thousand workingmen of the city ought to have been apparent to the dullest observer. The little junta of railroad officials who wrote out the Governor's proclamation at the Union Depot hotel, and their indiscreet buncombe in disregarding Mr. Thaw's advice and cultivating an unnecessary issue with the strikers, and the culminating bloody blunder, which sent thirteen innocent victims to their graves, all show how such martinets as Cassatt, Scott, Gardiner, &c., fail to comprehend the situation. With bands of five and ten thousand men patrolling the streets, the rumors and gun-works sacked, the booming of cannon, and the sharp crack of the strikers' muskets in front of the city hall, the threats of vengeance against the military and the railroad authorities, and the murder of the innocents, all this is directly attributable to the blunder of the sheriff and the indiscreet bluster of the military and railroad authorities, who imagined, because they had a few troops at their back, that they could defy the lightning. The feeling against the Philadelphia soldiery, which seemed to have acted with unseemly precipitancy, was very bitter, and threats were made that they will not be allowed to go home alive. Every law-abiding citizen must deplore extremes, but in a contest like the present, so long as labor, without violence, merely asserted its right to live, it was entitled to the sympathy of every worker in the hive of human industry, and the cowardice and imbecility of the railroad sharks, who sought to overawe all this community by imported bummers, met its proper rebuke. Contrast, in all this crisis, between the mock heroics of the Pennsylvania railroad squad, with its plotting and counter-plotting, and the clear-headed attitude of the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, who wisely remained passive until the storm spent itself, shows the difference between the statesmanship of Garrett and the poppy-cock of Scott. As the case stands, every one of the military should be arrested and tried for murder, and their abettors taught a lesson not likely to be soon forgotten.

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. What reason had you for saying that "seventeen citizens shot in cold blood by the roughs of Philadelphia?"

A. From the information that they fired on the populace without orders, and without justification, so far as the information went at that time—it was received to that effect—that they had not fired on the mob, who were in front of them obstructing the track, but fired on the unarmed populace on the hill side.

Q. What do you mean by Philadelphia roughs?

A. That was the expression used, that parties fired on the people without orders, and acting as roughs—firing recklessly, and without orders, and on people who were not firing on them.

Q. Did your information at that time lead you to suppose that there had been no attack made by the mob?

A. Yes, sir.

By Senator Yutzy:

Q. Did you depend upon your reporters for the information upon which you wrote?

A. Yes; largely. To some extent on such information as we could get outside.

Q. Were you on the ground where the firing took place, on Twenty-eight street, at the time?

A. No, sir; at no time on the ground. I had a reporter sent to Torrens station early in the evening. The idea at that time was that that would be the vital point; there was where the trouble was going to be. Colonel Guthrie was there with the Grays, and it was supposed to be the real point. It turned out afterwards that the trouble was down at the round-house. I got my information from sundry sources.

Q. Had you a reporter there?

A. No, sir; I had no reporter, but I had parties who were out there and gave me information that was supposed to be intelligent. At the time, they thought that the trouble would be at Torrens station, and I sent parties there, and there was no trouble there. There was no news from that point. The reporter was detained there until very late in the night.

By Senator Yutzy:

Q. This heading here of threats that the Philadelphia soldiers will not be allowed to go home alive—where did you get that information from—that there was such threats?

A. Those threats were made very freely on the street.

Q. You heard them yourself?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know any of the parties that made those threats?

A. Oh, yes. I couldn't say. I must have met a thousand people. The streets were blocked with people. I couldn't name anybody specifically.

By Mr. Means:

Q. You say you met a thousand people making threats?

A. No; I say I must have met a thousand people on the street—not a thousand making threats.

By Senator Yutzy:

Q. Here is another expression: "The Fourteenth and Nineteenth regiments disband, and refuse to fight, and many give their arms to the strikers." Was that the case?

A. That was the information at that time.

Q. Was it verified after further investigation?

A. I think it was pretty well ascertained afterwards that a portion of the military threw down their arms. I think that was developed afterwards.

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. In this article, you say that there was no overt act of violence. What do you mean by that?

A. There was no overt act of violence committed by the mob at the time it was written. I didn't consider that an overt act of violence to be standing on the railroad track—that refers to a physical effort.

Q. Do you mean, that the mob had a right to stand on the railroad track and take possession of the railroad track, and refuse to allow traffic?

A. No, sir; it was written from this standpoint: that the military, instead of removing the mob who were in front of them, and who were obstructing traffic, fired on the populace on the hill side who were unarmed and spectators, and were not parties to the conflict.

By Mr. Means:

Q. I suppose you mean that there were no demonstrations to destroy either life or property?

A. Yes, sir.

By Senator Yutzy:

Q. Had you gone to any trouble to ascertain the truth of the facts as they really occurred before the fire by the mob, before you wrote this article?

A. We sent reporters to the point where we supposed the trouble would be, and when we couldn't get reporters, I got other parties to go to the point, and got them to report the facts—used every proper effort to get at the truth of the matter. It was a hard matter to get reporters that night, it being Saturday night, and the daily reporters being all off and at home, it was very difficult to get them. I had to improvise by getting parties outside to give the news, the best way I could—outside of the regular reporters.

Q. When you wrote this article, you were fully of the opinion and believed that the mob had not shown any violence towards the troops?

A. Yes; that was my information at the time of writing that article.

Q. Did you get your information from one of these reporters?

A. No; the reporters didn't report until long after midnight. I got that information on the street. Some of the reporters sent out, found it difficult to get back at all in consequence of obstructions to travel—street cars stopped, and difficulty in getting in.

Q. You say here, the civil process had not been legally exhausted or properly invoked. "Sheriff Fife's misstatements and lying bulletins, and General Pearson's indiscreet bravado, only added to the fuel to what was already an overmastering flame." What do you mean by that—the civil process had not been exhausted?

A. I understood information was made before the mayor first, and that instead of the parties being arrested, that arrangements were being made for the arrest of the leaders of the riot peacefully and without bloodshed, and by that means the backbone of the outbreak would have been broken. Instead of that, the warrants were taken up to court, and bench-warrants were given, and then they attempted to arrest them by the aid of the military, and the military failed. So far as regards Fife, the information was at that time that he had not exhausted his process. Had not called a posse comitatus, and hadn't taken sufficient number to go out there and indite a proclamation such as he had indicted, or such as was written for him. My information was, that it was written by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company officials.

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. What information led you to believe that this proclamation had been written by the Pennsylvania railroad officials?

A. I heard it in a number of instances—I cannot exactly recall from whom—that the telegram had been written by somebody for the sheriff. It came in the usual course of news. I forget now from whom, and I think it was repeated in most of the papers at the time. The impression was that the sheriff had not exhausted his powers before calling on the military, and that the matter had been taken out of the hands of the mayor, and given into the hands of the military with undue precipitancy.

Q. Do you know that the mayor had been called upon to furnish a police force, for the protection of the railroad?

A. Yes; that was the information. I know that the police force was depleted to at least one third of its original force, and it was very difficult to get policemen to go in for a day, or a few hours, at the risk of being shot or killed for one day's pay. There was great reluctance on the part of policemen to go in on that plea.

Q. You say "the little junta of railroad officials, who wrote out the Governor's proclamation, at the Union Depot hotel." What reason had you for writing that? Had you any reason to suppose, or did you know that this proclamation had been written by the railroad officials?

A. I didn't see them write it; but the information was, at that time, that the proclamation was written in the Union depot. It turned out afterwards, it was written by the Governor's private secretary, Mr. Farr, I believe. That was not the information at that time. It was known, however, that it was not the Governor's proclamation, and it was the common opinion that it was written by Pennsylvania railroad officials.

Q. You mean common rumor?

A. Yes; in the excitement of the time, it was very difficult to get accurate information. Officials couldn't be found at their positions, and it was very difficult to get people to go—had to take it just as you could.

Q. Is it not characteristic of newspaper men to gather up all the information that they can, even if it is flying reports on the street, and give as near the truth of the matter as you can? Is that not characteristic of newspaper men?

A. Yes; so far as could be gathered.

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. You don't mean to say that newspaper men—an editor—will sit down and write an article on nothing but common street rumor, without taking proper steps to verify these facts, and see whether what they allege is true?

A. You cannot judicially prove everything before it goes in a newspaper, and the sources of information were stopped. It was impossible to see any railroad officials—most of them had left town.

Q. On Saturday?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was not Mr. Cassatt and other railroad officials at the Union depot through Saturday afternoon and evening?

A. I think not, sir; if they were, they were penned up, and not get-at-able.

Q. Couldn't you get at General Latta, and wasn't he there?

A. I don't know whether he was there. You speak about street information when that information coincides and comes from many quarters and many sources, it was reasonably something to pass upon.

By Senator Yutzy:

Q. That article was written before the burning took place, I suppose?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I believe you have identified this paper, and this editorial, entitled "Military Mob?" Did you write that?

A. Yes, sir.

By Mr. Means:

Q. Mr. Breen, in your opinion, was the sympathy of the citizens of Pittsburgh with the strikers, when they first struck and quit work?

A. Very strongly with the strikers, but not with the mob.

Q. I am speaking of the strikers—of the railroad employés?

A. Yes, sir; very emphatically; both on the part of the business community and the other portion.

Q. Do you know of any business men in the city of Pittsburgh that made any proposition to the strikers in the way of support, furnishing them provisions, or taking care of them while they were not employed on the road?

A. There was some talk of that kind at the time, that Mr. Jenkins and Mr. King had proposed to furnish something or other.

Q. I don't wish to be personal in this matter; I just wish to know of any parties that proposed to these strikers to give them support?

A. I know as in the case of this other knowledge, that it could not be judicially proved at that time as a fact, but it was common rumor and talk that certain gentlemen had proposed to give provisions to aid the strikers.

Q. Do you know, of your own knowledge?

A. No, sir.

Q. But it was common rumor that the citizens of Pittsburgh were in sympathy with the strikers?

A. With the strikers, yes, sir; I don't know that there was any doubt of that.

Q. You don't know, then, any particular man or Pittsburgh parties who offered aid and comfort?

A. No, sir; I heard parties' names mentioned, but as they afterwards disclaimed it, I suppose there was nothing in it.

Q. Have you any knowledge of the causes leading to the strike?

A. Double-headers, and the issue between the Trainmen's Union and the Pennsylvania railroad. That was the primary cause, as I understood it.

By Mr. Means:

Q. These parties that reported to you information from which this article was written, were they railroad men or were they citizens of Pittsburgh?

A. Citizens of Pittsburgh.

Q. From their reports then to you, you wrote this article?

A. Yes; from the aggregate reports this article was written.

Q. Were these business men, or were they laboring men, or what were they?

A. I couldn't exactly classify them. I think they represented all classes. I think the entire sympathy of the community, mercantile and otherwise, was with the strikers up to the time of news of violence.

Q. During the destruction of railroad property, was there any demonstration on the part of the citizens to subdue this riot, or did they begin to realize their situation after it came to the destruction of individual property?

A. I think they sympathized fully with the strikers up to the point of burning and pillaging, and after that began there was a re-action in public sentiment.

Q. Was that so far as the railroad company was concerned, or had they come down to private property?

A. I don't exactly understand your question.

Q. Just what I want to know is this: Did the citizens of Pittsburgh think that the strikers were doing right, as long as they were destroying railroad property?

A. Well, I don't think they thought that exactly, but they didn't make any attempt to stay the conflagration or the fire.

Q. As soon as it came down to individual property, then what?

A. Then, I think, even before there was an effort made to get up a citizen's committee, and I think it was a failure; and I think only four responded to go out and assist in that.

Q. When it came down to individual property, then what?

A. Then, of course, there were more active efforts made by the authorities, and by parties living in the neighborhood.

Q. Did they seem to be general or just local?

A. No, sir; it did not seem to be general.

Q. Just local?

A. Just local.

Q. And then, if a fire was in the Sixth ward, the people of the Sixth ward or the Eighth or the Tenth or the Twentieth ward, or wherever it was, they would want to stop it, but the adjoining ward did not appear to take any part?

A. The fire was at Grant and Washington street, immediately in the neighborhood of the depot, and, of course, they used every effort possible, but I do not know, outside of the official departments, that anybody from any other quarter of the city was endeavoring to quell it—the firemen and police department, of course, were there, so far as I can learn, but they were comparatively powerless, on account of the size of the mob, and the area of territory they covered. I wish to make a remark here concerning the expression, "shooting down innocent citizens." That remark was intended to apply, and does apply, from reading the context, to parties on the hill side who were mere spectators, and not active rioters in any sense. If the military had cleared the track, and used proper force in clearing the track, I think they would have been justified, but they didn't even shoot the mob in front of them. They didn't fire into that crowd, but fired into an innocent crowd on the hill side, some of whom were in no sense rioters, and some of whom lived on the hill side. There was a small boy next door to me, was fired at and shot in his lung, who was taking some clothes to his brother, who was in the Fourteenth regiment; a boy about ten years of age, and he was nearly dead for several months. He finally got over it. This class of people here referred to, who were shot at on the hill side, were not rioters or participants in the riot.

Q. You say they were fired at. Were they not hit accidentally?

A. The information at that time, and, I think, the testimony since, showed that they were fired at an angle with the hillside. The hill ran up there rather abruptly, and the volley took effect there where these people were looking down. I remember a few hours before that, parties had said that would be a good place to see the trouble. The appraiser of the port, here, Mr. Chandler, sent his boy there, that day, and says, "Don't you go down on the track, but go on the hillside; you will be out of harm's way." It turned out afterwards that was the very place to be in harm's way.

Q. You speak about trouble. What trouble was there anticipated? Was it anticipated that the mob on the railroad tracks would resist the military, and bring on a collision?

A. There was certain trouble anticipated—there was a conflict anticipated of some kind. Either the mob or the soldiers would have to give way, and it was not known which. Trouble was apprehended.

Q. Was there trouble talked of—rumors in the street that there would be a resistance to the soldiers?

A. No, sir; I didn't think there was any talk of resistance. There was talk of trouble. The rioters seemed to be taking the ground that they had a right to stop there, so long as they did not interfere with the trains, and the military undertook to clear the track; and do not think if the military had cleared the mob who had actively obstructed them, that the trouble would not have been so great as it was. Firing into these people who were on the hillside, and not participating in the riot, I think, considerably aggravated the trouble, from my observation.

Q. You were not there when the firing took place?

A. No, sir.

Q. Do you know that the mob did not fire—that, at least, the soldiers did not fire on the mob in front of them?

A. That was the information, and I believe that was the fact, that they fired on the hill-side, and not on the strikers.

Q. How many people were killed and wounded upon the hill-side?

A. I think there is a list there that was tolerably accurate at the time. I cannot vouch for its absolute accuracy. You refer to the number killed on the hill-side?

Q. Yes.

A. I could not tell that. This boy, there mentioned, was shot on the hill-side, and I heard of a number of others. I cannot exactly re-call them. That list merely embraces the total number.

By Senator Yutzy:

Q. Were these editorials, with the head-lines, intended to mollify and quiet the mob?

A. They were intended to represent the exact condition of affairs as we understood it at that time.

Q. Regardless of what effect it would have on the mob?

A. It is an exact reflex of the condition of affairs at the time. In the articles below, and in different other parts of the paper, any resort to physical violence was deprecated, further than the act of striking.

Q. In your estimation, did your editorial give a representation of the general sentiment of the citizens here as a reflex of the sentiment of the people?

A. I think it was, as far as I could learn.

Q. At that time?

A. Yes, sir.

Eugene O'Neal, sworn:

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. Where do you live?

A. Pittsburgh.

Q. What is your occupation?

A. Connected with Pittsburgh Dispatch.

Q. Are your files here?

A. I sent a file up by your sergeant-at-arms.

Q. Just state what knowledge you have of the occurrences?

A. My knowledge of the occurrences is confined first to the strike and calling out of the military. I was there on the Thursday, Friday, and part of Saturday preceding this bloodshed. I was then called away upon business to Buffalo, and all that I know of the strike reporters brought of the suspension of work of the railroad hands, and I saw a crowd collected around the tracks. I was on the ground on Friday night. I also noticed in some degree manifestations of public feeling in regard to the strike and calling out of the troops. That came from personal knowledge. The entire knowledge I had was derived from reports.

Q. There is an editorial in your issue of the 21st July, entitled "Fruits of a Hasty Step." Did you write that article?

A. Yes, sir.

[The following is the article referred to:]

[Dispatch, July 21.]

Fruits of a Hasty Step.

There was a general feeling in the community yesterday that the sudden and unlooked for ordering out of the troops to adjust the railroad difficulty was not the wisest course that might have been pursued. The actions of the strikers, while in some instances reprehensible, could scarcely be held by any construction to amount to a continuous riot, as there was only one case of violence, (in which the offender, McCall, was promptly arrested by the police,) and while there was a very general trespassing upon the company's road, there was certainly no destruction of property. It was hoped that with a cooling night intervening to both the officers and the men calmly thinking the situation over, an amicable arrangement might be effected, and the inconvenience to the public ended; but the precipitate calling for troops dispelled that possibility, and made the affair assume a really very serious aspect.

One point that must have been lost sight of by the sheriff in his excitement (and perhaps by the company's representatives too) was, that the engineers and firemen, while not themselves striking, were naturally in sympathy with their late associates, and that the stoppage of the trains was done rather upon solicitation than compulsion.

But the question arises whether, conceding there was a riot within the legal acceptation of the term, the usual remedies were exhausted before calling for troops. So far as appears, a small squad of the mayor's police was sufficient to quell the only fight that occurred. It was then supposed that peace was reigning, until sometime after midnight, when Sheriff Fife addressed a party of the strikers advising them to go home, and when a more irreverent person in the crowd replied that he (the mayor) might migrate to a hot climate. This simple circumstance seems to have been the last straw. It was, of course, a very wrong remark to the sheriff who (without waiting, so far as is evidenced, to summon a posse comitatus) hastened off to the telegraph office and apprised the Governor, at lightning speed, that the red planet of war had risen on the banks of the Allegheny. And then flashed back telegrams to the major general in local command, and the major general emitted general order number one, (it must have scared the readers of yesterday morning's Dispatch as it burst upon them with double-leaded significance from our advertising columns,) and troops were hurried out of bed, and amid a great rushing to and fro in hot haste, and sleepy eyes looked sad farewells to other eyes that winked, and mouths that yawned again, the regiments were put in marching order for the battle-field which lay from the Union depot along Snyder's hollow to the East Liberty stock-yards.

There was a sort of general feeling through the community yesterday that there was a good deal of farce about this, that so solemn a matter as calling out the military, spreading broad-cast over the continent the notion that Pittsburgh was on the verge of a civil war, ought not to have been resolved upon before at least all the ordinary police resources were exhausted. It also had the effect of creating an active sympathy for the strikers with many, who before had none. And besides, it incensed the men themselves, made them less open to argument and persuasion, and in so far as it did this, it tended to prolong the strike, and consequently disturb the business interests of the city; and worse yet, it drew hundreds of angry outsiders to the scene and mixed them in the controversy. We do not believe, as some are inclined to fear, that this affair will—ill-advised though it may have been—will occasion a general bitter feeling between labor and capital. The best proof is to be found in the expressions upon the street yesterday, which were not those of labor against capital or capital against labor; but almost unanimously, one of mortification at the eagerness and haste with which the solemn and expensive course of proclaiming a community in a state of insurrection was decided upon. It was hoped all around that the difference between the railroads and the hands would adjust itself inside of forty-eight hours at the furthest, if left to take its course; when or how it will be settled now remains to be seen; but at the best, there will be bitter feeling, and it is to be feared acts from time to time that under moral suasion and under peaceful treatment would not have been thought of. Two hours of calm, candid talk and fair treatment between the officers of the roads and the employés would have done more toward a permanent pacification than a regiment of military. Who would answer for the consequences, supposing that on the head of the hasty turn out of the military blood had been shed yesterday? The law is great and its majesty powerful when administered with cautious solemnity and decorum, but never should it be stripped of its grave and most serious surroundings. To abate one jot or one tittle of them, is to inflame the passions of the multitude, and make them to forget their paramount duty of obedience to the law, and to precipitate the very evils sought to be avoided. It is scarcely necessary to add to aught which has been written, that on the question of the attitude of the strikers or violence by them or obstruction thrown by them in the way of the company, there can be no two opinions among calm people. Yesterday we said, as we believed firmly and as gathered from their conversations, the reasons that led them to quit work. For quitting work, they are certainly not censurable; in fact, considering the lowness of their wages, if by this method alone they could improve their condition, sympathy would attend their effort; but, of course, they have no right to violently interfere with the roads, if the roads can get other men to fill their places. On this point, no two intelligent and unheated persons think of disputing. There is, however, as explained by them, a considerable difference of opinion between the community and the authorities as to the wisdom of trying to knock this principle into the heads of the strikers with the butt end of a gun, instead of exhausting first peaceful methods. Brute force is bad all around, and even threats of it are not always the best or quickest remedy for evils.

Q. Have you any knowledge of the causes leading to the strike?

A. I have no personal knowledge. I had, however, some knowledge of the causes which had been gathered for some months before, and which were familiar in people's mouths about the time—the reduction of wages and the bitter feeling that existed between the employés and officers of the roads. I heard of these things as leading to the strikes. I was very familiar with the reports that Tradesmen's Unions had been formed for the purpose of carrying them out.

Q. For the purpose of carrying out the strike, do you mean?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How did you obtain that information?

A. I obtained it by personal information—partly among railroad men, partly among citizens, and from our reporters.

Q. Did you have any knowledge leading you to suppose that this strike would take place before the 19th?

A. No; the strike had taken place before my attention was directed to it. Of course the information had come from other sections of the country that it had already taken place there.

Q. From your knowledge and information, was there any necessity for calling out the troops?

A. Not the slightest, sir, according to the best of my judgment and belief, at the time they were called.

Q. I believe you were not here after the troops arrived?

A. I was here after they arrived, but not here on the night of the bloodshed.

Q. You say there was no necessity for calling the troops here?

A. None that I could see.

Q. You mean by that that the civil authorities were able to cope with the mob, or with the strikers?

A. I think the civil authorities could have successfully coped with any disorder if it had not been for the introduction of the troops and their want of discipline. I think that the troops helped more than any other cause, so far as my judgment has been able to reach. Their want of discipline, their want of coolness, and subsequently their demoralization, running away, was the prime cause which led the mob, and brought out the bad elements in it, and gave them to suppose they were masters of the field.

By Mr. Means:

Q. You mean to say that there was a demonstration of that kind before the Philadelphia troops arrived?

A. Of which kind?

Q. Of the mob going out to destroy property?

A. It had assumed that which in popular parlance, is termed a mob.

Q. Was there any demonstration of that kind?

A. There was a demonstration to the extent of numbers of citizens assembling at the different points along the road, drawn by curiosity. The first demonstration I saw, was a demonstration of people who went out of curiosity to see the troops.

Q. That was your Pittsburgh troops?

A. Pittsburgh, yes, sir. So far as I could see, there was no disposition to violence, in any shape, manner or form, at that time.

By Mr. Means:

Q. After the arrival of the Philadelphia troops, did it excite the people of the city of Pittsburgh or the mob, to more violence than before they arrived?

A. There had been no act of violence, to my knowledge, in the sense of physical violence. There was no violence, save in so far as the presence of these men as trespassers might be considered violence, and the action of the strikers in their dealings with the engineers towards stopping the cars, so far as that might be considered violence. I do not speak of that. But there was no violence up to Saturday morning, that I heard of, save in the case of the assault upon the railroad officer at the time, which seemed to be an assault and battery, and the party, I think, was arrested, and brought to the station-house.

Q. After the arrival of the Philadelphia troops, was it then demonstrated that the citizens of Pittsburgh or the mob, was determined to clean out the Philadelphia troops?

A. I was not in the city after the conflict occurred, but suppose that of course. I could only judge as you judge, from what you read, that the shedding of blood aroused the feeling of animosity, and as to the feeling among the citizens, I do not think there was any disposition among the citizens of Pittsburgh, to the encouragement of arson or bloodshed—that is, among the respectable and larger portion of the community. After the militia, which was supposed to be able to take charge of the situation had fled, then I have no doubt that the mob took control.

Q. Did you see any demonstrations made to clean out the Philadelphia troops?

A. Not the slightest. The troops arrived here the morning I left. I had arranged for a trip to New York, and I went to Buffalo, and the troops had arrived, and there was a bitter feeling among the people in regard to calling out the Philadelphia troops. There had been mention of that feeling about calling out the Pittsburgh troops, and a great many people thought it was unnecessary, as the civil authorities had been able to cope with disorder for ten years, and would be able to do it on this occasion, and I think the people thought the military force was being used as a police force for the railroad. I think they felt aggravated about it; but there was no evidence of disposition to resist, or tendency towards bloodshed, so far as my observation went, or so far as any reports we heard would lead me to believe.

J. M. Carson, sworn:

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. What is your name?

A. Joseph M.

Q. Where do you reside, sir?

A. Pittsburgh.

Q. What is you occupation?

A. Journalist.

Q. Was that your occupation in July last, at the time of the riots?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Will you be kind enough to state any information that you have in regard to the causes leading to the riot?

A. I have none to give of personal knowledge. I was not out of the office that day from three o'clock until the next morning or the next day at one or two. I only know it from reporters that had been out at the scene of the difficulty. I only know it from hearsay, and I do not suppose that is evidence. I am prepared to answer to the queries in regard to the paper. There is an editorial in there. I desire to state that that is mine.

Q. That is in the Critic of July 22?

A. I desire that to be part of my evidence.

Q. "Military Blunder—Uncalled-for Bloodshed."

A. Yes, sir.

[Critic, July 22.]

Military Blunder—Uncalled-for Bloodshed.

Even at the moment of this writing, it is not difficult to perceive that a fearful blunder has been committed by the Governor and his ill-timed military advisers. It is impossible for us to conceive that the action of the railroad strikers, taking the worst view of either side of the case, justified the calling out of the military.

Time should have been allowed for a respectful parley between parties; time for the railroad company to properly consider the grievances complained of in the respectful petition of the strikers, and time for the railroad employés to act in response. There is tyranny in this country worse than anything ever known in Russia, and it is time we should get at the gist of it.

Strikes are common occurrences, but it appears that it is only when the "great monopoly," the hated company, which discriminates against the interests of Pittsburgh and western Pennsylvania, is subjected to one of these strikes, that the military are ordered out, and that, too, without a moment's consideration, us though the Pennsylvania railroad was more important than the peace and order and the lives of half the citizens of this State.

There is no use disguising the matter. The people of this city sympathize with the strikers. They are incensed beyond measure, with the cold, corrupt legislation which has fostered the colder and more corrupt organization known as the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. But we cannot disguise the legal technicalities which appear to brace up that company as against the people. All that we say and care to know is, that a fearful blunder was made by the constituted authorities, who from the Governor down to General Pearson and Sheriff Fife, appeared to be only the willing tools of the giant oppressor.

We hold that the reckless haste of General Pearson and Governor Hartranft makes them the prime ringleaders of what promises to be the bloodiest riot with which the Commonwealth has ever been visited. The insane policy of calling Philadelphia troops to this city to quell a domestic quarrel is reprehensible beyond degree.

Hartranft and Pearson have only added fuel to the flames, that may not be satisfied till the lives of hundreds of militia and citizens are sacrificed. But while we counsel peace, it is only the duty of journalists to fix the blame where it belongs, and therefore we arraign before the board of public opinion General Pearson, Sheriff Fife, Thomas Scott, and Governor Hartranft, and their aiders and abettors for the murder of our fellow-citizens, who were slaughtered by the Philadelphia militia.

Whether the officer commanding was drunk or crazy when he ordered the Philadelphia soldiers to fire into our own Nineteenth regiment, whereby one member was killed, it is a matter that should engage the minds of a military court. But such recklessness and mismanagement is only part and parcel of the great blunder of which we complain.

The railroad magnates claim and protest their inability to carry on their business with profit without the much vexed reduction. All the employés can say is, we must starve at these wages. Now, granting that on one side or the other there must be suffering, which, is it equable, should suffer? But the concession can only be made for the sake of casuistic argument. The railroads affirm that they cannot meet expenses without curtailing salaries to the extent that has caused this present trouble. Let us take the case of the Pennsylvania Company. In this instance, we could show some other method of escaping the difficulty. Look at this:

J. N. McCullough, $ 12,000 per annum.

William Thaw, 10,000 per annum.

Thomas D. Messier, 10,000 per annum.

John Scott, (solicitor,) 10,000 per annum.

H. H. Houston, (in no recognized position,) 10,000 per annum.

Contrast this with the ninety cents of the poor brakeman. But then, what is the poor laboring man? Let the following real occurrence tell:

Baby Food for Laboring Men.

While circulating among the strikers at the outer depot, the reporter found a few of the men willing enough to tell their grievances. One said: "When Vice President Cassatt and General Manager Frank Thomson were at the Altoona shop, Cassatt remonstrated with Thomson against any further reduction. 'Why,' said Cassatt, 'the men cannot buy butter for their bread.' 'Butter,' said Thomson, 'what do they want with butter, let them make dip.' The reduction was made," continued the complaining striker, and whether the men have been living on dip or not, it is very evident from the belligerent feeling displayed here to-day, that they can fight on dip. "Yes," continued the man, in a cold, bitter tone, which showed plainly how deeply, how plainly, the cold-hearted insult…. "Mr. Frank Thomson drives his tandem team and draws his big salary, whilst we must do double work at half pay."

The officials can build palaces, the laborer can rent a hovel. The one can roll along in the bustling splendor of a four-in-hand, the other cannot hide the burnt and frost-bitten foot. These railroad authorities can afford salaries that will secure the costliest luxuries and sustain an apish aristocracy, that cannot extend the salary to meet the commonest necessaries of life, to the beggared, starving, crushed laborer and his family. All these magnates will talk of the impossibility of running business without further curtailing the wages of the poor laborer. Arrogant impudence! Unbearable tyranny! Why, it has come to this, that labor is servitude! That a poor man must delude himself to satisfaction at the thought of starving, and respectfully take a pittance called wages. The millions must stand off and die smilingly, and look pleasurably at the outstretched arms of a few like Tom Scott grasping, robbing, paralyzing, crushing our industries, even our lives. Capital has raised itself on the ruins of labor.

The laboring class cannot, will not stand this longer. The war cry has been raised, and has gone far and wide. It will not confine itself to the narrow, nor even long stretch of the railroads. Labor will assert itself. It must have its equality, and that it will, sooner or later, amicably, it is desirable, forcibly, if necessary. Certainly rebellion against lawful authority is never lawful, but the principle that freed our nation from tyranny will free labor from domestic aggression.

The witness: The first page there was our reporters. The head-lines I do not know anything about. I went to bed that morning at half-past four, and those head-lines were put in after.

Q. That is, on the first page, and starts out with "Bread or Blood?"

A. Yes, sir; but the reports themselves I believe to be correct, and I believe as fair a statement as has been made of the occurrences. I regret this; but I believe they are as fair a statement as could be had. I know they were truthful—there was no object in misrepresenting them, and the exasperating state of troubled feeling, after shooting down and killing twenty-two citizens of Pittsburgh—men and women—would have induced any community to have felt the same way as we did.

Q. Who is responsible for these head-lines starting out with "Bread or Blood?"

A. Legally, I am responsible; morally, I am not, but legally I am. I do not shirk any responsibility.

Q. What I mean by that question is, who wrote these head-lines?

A. I did not. I would rather the committee would not press the question as to who did it. It is not material to the issue anyhow. It was done by a young man in my employ at that time, after I had gone to bed. I did not know anything about it. For every line in that paper I am responsible, except these—for everything excepting the head-lines I am responsible for, and nobody else, and I am legally responsible for them. I do not seek to evade any responsibility.

Q. When I ask the question as to the responsibility, I do not mean legal responsibility?

A. I was the real editor. I do not object to the head-lines. They adequately represented popular sentiment at that time. If it was twenty-two citizens of Philadelphia shot down by Pittsburgh troops, I think there would be a feeling of that kind evinced by the Philadelphia papers. That is my judgment.

Q. One part of the head-lines says, "The worthy strikers arm themselves, and assemble thousands strong to compel their rights?"

A. I did not say so. I simply said I was legally responsible, and not morally. I did not write them, but I say this: that if twenty-two Philadelphians had been shot down without orders, as the evidence before your committee proves, that the Philadelphia papers would have had just such head-lines. It is very well now, four or five months after the occurrence, and when we can calmly and coolly review the facts, to say that that is incendiary and improper. That is all right. I agree with you. I agree now that it was perhaps to that extent, but you, as a Philadelphian, if our Pittsburgh troops had gone down there and shot you Philadelphians, you certainly would have felt as I did when that was written. I did not write it, but I do not shirk any responsibility for it.

Q. Do you mean that that expresses the feeling at that time?

A. I believe that it adequately and fully represented that feeling. That is my candid, conscientious conviction.

Q. At the time of the occurrence?

A. Yes, I did. It is no idle thing to come out here and shoot down twenty-two people that were innocent. If they had been rioters or strikers, if they had had any part or lot in this thing and had shot them down, they would have been right. I would not have blamed you. I do not blame the committee, of course, but I do say this: it was no more and no less than murder to shoot down these people as they were shot down. I think that is the fullest and best account of the riot that appeared in any Pittsburgh paper.

By Mr. Means:

Q. Mr. Carson, do you say and do you think, in your opinion—had the press time to deliberate—do you believe they would have written so sarcastic an article as that?

A. There is no paper in the city of Pittsburgh, published on the eventful Sunday morning of that day, that would not have put some such article as that in their paper.

Q. Understand me right. Had the press had time to deliberate, would they have cast these articles broadcast to the world?

A. No, sir; they would not, but that Sunday morning—Monday morning there was a change. I understand you——

Q. This was done, Mr. Carson, on the spur of the moment?

A. It was done when we knew—when we had four reporters out there, when they were bringing in the intelligence of the murder, as we deemed it then, and as the grand jury has since, by their presentment presented, and when they were shot down without orders, we wrote those head-lines. I did not, but I am responsible. That is why we did it.

Q. You say you wrote the balance of the article?

A. No; four reporters did. The head-lines—I am responsible for every line that appears there but the head-line. And that editorial, I dictated that. That is entirely my own, and every word of it—I stand over it to-day, after months have elapsed. The head-lines—I did not know of it until the next morning.

Q. You say in this editorial, "It is impossible for us to conceive that the action of the railroad strikers, taking the worst view of their side of the case, justified the calling out of the military"—what do you mean by that?

A. I mean their action was passive—was not aggressive. They simply were there. They refused to work, and I furthermore believe, that had there been any conciliation, or attempt at conciliation, used by Scott or their pampered officials, that it could have been arranged. That is my candid belief.

By Mr. Means:

Q. Suppose that the railroad officials had agreed to comply with the request of the strikers—is that what you mean?

A. I do not mean that. I mean if there was any attempt made, but there was not any. They assumed the attitude of tyrants—were overbearing, were tyrannical, and they were abusive.

Q. What reason have you to believe, Mr. Carson, that the strikers would have gone to work had the railroad officials not raised their wages?

A. I can only say in reply to that, I believe they could have been conciliated, and there could have been an adjustment of troubles, and more than that I cannot say. I believe it could have been managed.

Q. Without the increase of wages?

A. I do. I believe even that.

Q. You believe, then, that the strikers would have conceded to the ten per cent. being taken off?

A. Yes, I do. But you treat a workingman as a dog, and he will be very apt, like a worm, to turn. It was not so much the reduction as it was they wanted to crush out all the manhood in him, and trample him into the dust. They treated them with no consideration at all. They treated them as just so much machinery. I do not want to interject a speech into my evidence, but if you want a speech I can give it to you on that question.

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. Had the strikers—had the men sent a committee to the railroad officials?

A. Yes—and how was the committee received.

Q. How?

A. I do not know. If you want me to tell you how I was told they were received, I will tell you; I do not know of my own knowledge.

Q. You must have some grounds for forming an opinion.

A. I will give you that now. They were received with the utmost haughtiness. They were dismissed with a wave of the hand. They said, "We will make no terms, no concessions with you. Go back to your wages—go to work—then we will talk to you. We will have nothing at all to do with you." Now that was the way they were received.

Q. Were they not told that if they would retire from the company's property, and allow the company to enjoy its property and its rights, that they would receive them?

A. No, sir, never heard of it; no, sir. Not the most sanguine man that knows anything about the Pennsylvania railroad officials in western Pennsylvania would ever say such a thing either. I make that a part of my testimony.

By Mr. Means:

Q. Do you pretend to say that the——

A. I pretend to say that the railroad officials in western Pennsylvania, on the part of the Pennsylvania railroad, are tyrants, and serfs in Russia have better lives to lead than employés on the Pennsylvania railroad. There is no serfdom in Russia—if the reporter will make that correction. Slavery has been abolished in America, and has been abolished in Russia, but there is a modified form of it on the Pennsylvania——

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. What do you mean when you say that the "hated company discriminates against the interests of Pittsburgh and western Pennsylvania?"

A. Do you want me to talk on that subject? I can talk for five hours. I say they have systematically discriminated against Pittsburgh, and they have ruined it—that is what they have done. They will carry freight from Pittsburgh—they have systematically discriminated against Pittsburgh to the extent of twenty-five per cent., and when Colonel Scott was here, he said he was horrified. He had not dreamed there was such discrimination. He could not believe it possible; and James Parke, junior, who was one of our most eminent citizens, a Christian gentleman, too, he said it was true. Why, said he, I could not believe it possible. We know it's possible—we know it has ruined Pennsylvania; and the only thing that is going to help us is a competing road, and that, thank God, we will have in the course of three or four months.

Q. Let me ask you, what do you mean by discriminating?

A. it means that they will carry freight from Chicago to Philadelphia cheaper than they will carry from Chicago to Pittsburgh; that they will carry cheaper from Chicago to Albany than they will carry it to Pittsburgh; that Pittsburgh merchants can take goods to Boston, and take them to San Francisco a great deal cheaper—paying the freight to Boston and back—a great deal cheaper than they can ship them direct to San Francisco. There were three thousand tons shipped by Wilson, Walker & Co., to Boston, and from Boston to San Francisco, paying the freight to Boston and back. That is what made trouble in this community. They have been systematically oppressing Pittsburgh. There is no manufacturer unless he has got drawbacks and rebates.

By Mr. Means:

Q. This trouble might just as well have fallen on some other portion of the State as it did on Pittsburgh, would it not?

Q. It could have, and I think would, had we not anticipated the whole trouble here. There was not a community in the State of Pennsylvania, which would have sympathized to the extent that we did. I will answer why: we would have sympathized because we have been systematically oppressed for the last fifteen years. We have been practically ruined.

Q. This thing was as likely to occur at Harrisburg or Scranton or Reading, as it was at Pittsburgh, but, unfortunately, Pittsburgh was the place.

A. We bore the blunt of it. We were the first to receive it, and it found the community in full sympathy with the strikers, because of their sufferings. You systematically oppress a people, and revolution is not only right, but it is a duty.

Q. You say the community—did your merchants give aid and abet in this strike?

A. They did not. They were in sympathy with the strikers; but I was up on Sunday, there at the Union depot, and I saw the people. Saw that they were burning, and all that kind of thing. I did not see a single Pittsburgher. They were all strange faces, and not a face there that was familiar to me, and I am thoroughly familiar with Pittsburgh. They were tramps gathered from all parts of the Union.

Q. That is not the question I asked you. The question I asked you was this: if the merchants of the city of Pittsburgh sympathized with the strikers?

A. They did.

Q. Sympathized with the mob in their violence?

A. No, sir. I went up to the Union depot on Sunday, between one and three o'clock in the afternoon. I saw that mob, and there was not a single Pittsburgh face in it. They were all strangers—tramps, and the strikers had gone away.

Q. No strikers among them.

A. No; I did not see any.

By Senator Yutzy:

Q. Was there any sympathy expressed by the good portions of the citizens of this city after the burning and destruction of property had commenced?

A. On the contrary, the utmost detestation of the ravages of the mob. They sympathized with the strikers in their demand for higher wages. Ninety cents is not much for a man to live on, and I would like to see you gentlemen try to live on it.

Q. Was there any expression of sympathy on the part of citizens with the mob that attacked the troops in the round-house before the burning took place?

A. I rather imagine that the feeling of the community was that the men who had murdered——

Q. I want you to answer the question, whether there was an expression and sentiment to that effect.

A. No; no organized expression.

Q. Was there any individual expression?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Of good citizens?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Justifying the attack upon the troops in the round-house?

A. No; not justifying the attack on the troops in the round-house?

Q. Or in their retreat from the round-house?

A. No; but there was a feeling that it was no more than retributive justice—there was no urging that to be done.

Q. There seems to be an article in the nature of an advertisement, commencing, "Attention Citizens," &c.

A. I cannot tell you about that. That is an advertisement. I did not see that, and I do not know who put it in, even.

By Mr. Means:

Q. That part you claim that you are not responsible for?

A. I do not know anything about an advertisement. A man pays for it and he gets them in.

By Senator Yutzy:

Q. Was that paid for?

A. I presume so. I am not business manager. I am responsible for whatever is written there. I assume that responsibility wholly.

Q. Do you know of any articles that were published in your paper that were calculated to arouse and inflame the people that were paid for for insertion?

A. No, sir; I did not.

By Mr. Means:

Q. Have you got any idea who wrote that article, if you were paid for it?

A. I do not know who wrote it. I do not know anything about that.

Q. In writing an article—supposing I was even competent to write an article for your paper, and would wish to suppress my name, would not you require to have my name, so that if you were come back upon you could get it?

A. In regard to that, that is not an article, it is an advertisement.

Q. It might come under that head. I think it would keep you very busy to make that out an advertisement. I do not claim to be a newspaper man, but it would keep me pretty busy to make that out?

A. It was paid for, or it would not have been in, because I have assumed the responsibility for everything that was in there, but I do not assume for that, because I do not know anything about it.

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. That was paid for as an advertisement?

A. I have no doubt that our business manager could give you proper information. I am willing to assume any responsibility. I do not shirk that, but that is a matter that is not in my line. That is a business advertisement.

By Mr. Means:

Q. I am not a newspaper man, but, I suppose, if I should write an article for your paper, you would require the name?

A. Look at the position it occupies; it is put among the advertisements, I believe.

Senator Reyburn: No, sir.

Mr. Means: No, sir; it would hardly bear that construction.

By Senator Yutzy:

Q. Is not the editor of a paper responsible for anything that is published in his paper, whether it is an advertisement or anything else?

A. He is.

Q. And therefore you are responsible, as editor of that paper, for that advertisement?

A. I am.

Q. Now, give us the name of the man that had that advertisement put in?

A. I cannot.

Q. Can you give us any party that can give us the name?

A. Our business manager probably could.

Q. Who is he?

A. E. G. Minnemeyer.

W. F. Aull, sworn:

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. Where do you reside?

A. Pittsburgh.

Q. Were you a member of the National Guard of the State of Pennsylvania in July last?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What position did you hold?

A. Captain of the Eighteenth regiment.

Q. Did you receive an order from General Latta, ordering General Brinton to take a certain route after leaving the round-house, in case he was driven from the round-house?

A. I received an order from General Latta, after they had left the round-house, to deliver to General Brinton, with instructions to deliver to him at the arsenal. It was then supposed he was located at the arsenal.

Q. Did you deliver that order to General Brinton?

A. No, sir.

Q. Can you give the substance of the order?

A. Yes, sir. On Sunday morning, we were lying at Torrens station. Communication had been cut off, both by telegraph and couriers. We had no communication with General Latta at all, and Colonel Guthrie requested me to go to the Union depot, and endeavor, if possible, to obtain an interview with General Latta, and ask him what orders he had to issue for our regiment. I went to the Union depot, and, on my way there, I passed the Philadelphia troops just coming out of the round-house. I went to the Union depot and reported to General Latta that the troops were out of the round-house, and on their way out Penn avenue—I do not know where. He waited a few moments, and a messenger came in, stating that they had left the round-house, and had gone to the arsenal. Another one came in in a few moments, saying that they were quartered in the arsenal. General Latta, after deliberating for a few moments over the matter, and consulting one or two parties there, requested me to remain a few moments until he would write an order. I did not know what the substance of the order was at all, and, after I had started, he told me to take that order to General Brinton at the arsenal, and, as soon as I left the Union depot, I read the order, which was instructing General Brinton to proceed by way of Penn avenue to East Liberty, and join Colonel Guthrie. I went immediately to the arsenal, and I found that they were not quartered there at all. I made inquiry and was told they had gone on out Butler street. I drove on up Butler street as rapidly as possible, and when I got to Sharpsburg, or two miles beyond there, they told me they were stationed two miles ahead of me, on the other side of the river. There was a gentleman remarked there that they were striking for Butler county. I deliberated a few moments whether I would follow them, or report first to the regiment, and consult Colonel Guthrie. I finally concluded I would go to my regiment, at East Liberty, and, if Colonel Guthrie thought it advisable, after consulting him, I would go across the river, and deliver the order to General Brinton. Upon handing the order to Colonel Guthrie, he instructed me to take command of the regiment, and he would go to town and see General Latta in person, which he did. I never saw the order from that time until this. A day or two afterwards, however, I received a telegram from General Latta, requesting me, for the first time, to report what action I had taken in the matter, and I reported to him by letter, which is published in the Adjutant General's report, I see.

Q. Did you read the order to Colonel Norris, or did he see the order, to your knowledge?

A. Yes; I showed him the order at the arsenal. He overtook me at the arsenal coming up a different route, and started for East Liberty. I hailed him, and told him he was on the wrong road. I told him I had an order here, producing it, I think. I think I told him I had an order for General Brinton, and I was going on to overtake him, and he turned immediately and went on ahead of me. I went back to my buggy and he went on ahead of me, and I did not overtake him. He understood, however, what was in the order. I believe he read the order before it left General Latta, at the Union depot.

Q. Who was responsible for the delivery of that order, handed you by General Latta for General Brinton?

A. Who was responsible for its delivery?

Q. For its delivery or its non-delivery?

A. My instructions were to deliver the order to General Brinton in the arsenal. When I found he was not in the arsenal, and my instructions being to report back to my regiment, I considered my first duty, after I found he had gone away outside of my route, was to report to my colonel and see what he would do. He then advised me to remain where I was, and said he would go with the order to General Latta, which he did. He took the order, put it in his pocket, and left the regiment on Sunday about eleven o'clock, I think, and went in and had an interview with General Latta.

Q. You were at Torrens station?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You know nothing of the movement of the troops during Saturday night and Sunday morning?

A. I received an order on Sunday morning, at two o'clock, to join Colonel somebody, from Wall station, and move to Twenty-eighth street. We went to Torrens station, and received ammunition sent there for them, and waited there until the next morning, and they never put in an appearance.

August Ammon, sworn:

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. Where do you reside?

A. City of Pittsburgh.

Q. What is your occupation?

A. I am insurance agent.

Q. Are you the father of Robert Ammon, known as Bob Ammon during the troubles in July?

A. Yes; I am.

Q. Have you any knowledge of the occurrences during that time in Allegheny City?

A. I have, somewhat. I felt, of course, it was natural that I should feel an interest, seeing that my son was concerned there.

Q. Were you in Allegheny City at the time?

A. No, sir.

Q. Have you any personal knowledge of any of the occurrences over there?

A. Not of the occurrences. My aims were directed to inspire Robert as much as possible—to prevent destruction of property. I sent messages and communications to him frequently, almost hourly.

Q. To that effect?

A. Yes, sir.

By Senator Yutzy:

Q. Your son Robert testified in Philadelphia that he had some communications with some parties that were concerned in the railroad, either the officials of the railroad company and the civil authorities of Allegheny City—have you any of these communications—the originals?

A. Yes, sir; Robert handed them to me in the jail of Allegheny City, and I turned them over to his lawyer. I would have brought them up this morning, but Mr. Miller was sick. I did not go to see them until this afternoon. I have those that I deemed the most important here.

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. In whose handwriting are they?

A. I do not know.

Q. Do you know your son's handwriting?

A. Yes. They were dispatches which he received there.

Q. Just select them in their order?

A. Now here is the first one I present here. I have read them over so often that I am familiar with them, and if you will permit I will read them.

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. Read that one [indicating?]

A. This dispatch is directed to Allegheny City, at the outer depot, where Robert had his station, reads as follows:

"Operator, do anything to save property, and if engines and freight can be moved out of the city and men enough to do it, and the strikers will permit, run them west on north track far enough to be safe from any damage from Pittsburgh men. Give copy to Ammon. G. S. G."

If you desire an explanation of these, those initials signify "George S. Griscom," whose duty it was to send them. A gentleman by the name of W. A. Routson occupied his place.

Q. What position?

A. The position of Mr. Griscom, during his absence.

Q. What is Mr. Griscom's position?

A. He is a railroad official. Kind of assistant superintendent, Mr. Layng is general superintendent, and those gentlemen are next to him.

By Senator Yutzy:

Q. That was not signed by Griscom?

A. Not that. Routson signed these dispatches. I got that information from Robert. There is something on the other side. The operator who signs "K," says, "Ammon wants to know if you want the sixty-eight armed men."

Q. Signed by the operator?

A. Signed by the operator who signs himself "K." The answer of "G. S. G.," "Yes; if he is in good faith to defend the company's property." If it is in order, I might give you a little explanation.

Q. Certainly.

A. On Sabbath morning early, I guess, as early as five o'clock—I live on the south side—I got up, and I got my horse and buggy, and I put Robert's mother in with a younger son of mine, and asked them to drive over. I read in the Chronicle that Bob was among the strikers, and I supposed Bob was in the oil regions at the time; I did not know that he was in Allegheny. I sent Mrs. Ammon over with the request to Robert, that if he thought he would be involved in the strike he had better get in the buggy with his mother and come to Birmingham, and stay until the trouble was over, and I gave the little fellow, who was in the buggy some money to pay his fare in the street car. She informed me that Bob would willingly have complied with my request, but that he could not leave. There was a very great many tramps there, and he and the strikers had to get arms to keep these men away from robbing the cars, and for this reason he could not follow my advice, and go to Birmingham.