It is also complained that we ask that some arrangements be made in relation to passing Brotherhood men on the "Q" trains. We make no demand in this regard. Our purpose in making this request was to get some uniform rule put in force on this road, the same as prevails on other roads. We have no right to demand this. We did not demand it; our desire was, while we were negotiating, to get this question, now unsettled, so determined that the conductors would hereafter know precisely what to do, and thus be able to avoid conflicts.
On the Pan Handle road the freight engineer who runs from Indianapolis to Bradford, a distance of 105 miles, receives $4.25 for the trip; his fireman receives $2.15.
On the "Q" road the round trip run from Galesburg to Peoria is 105 miles, for which the engineer receives $3.60 and the fireman $2.10.
From Quincy to Colchester the round trip is 107 miles. The "Q" road pays its engineer for that trip $3.75, and its fireman $2.15.
For runs of 100 miles on the Union Pacific road the engineer on passenger trains receives $3.85. The "Q" road is a competitor of the Union Pacific, and for a long distance travels over parallel lines throughcountry of precisely the same character. Yet we have only asked $3.50 per 100 miles for a passenger engineer on the "Q" road.
SUBMITTING THE PROPOSITIONS.
The requests of the men were met with indifference at the hands of the Burlington officials. Not the slightest encouragement was given to the Committees. They were given to understand, substantially, that no concessions on the part of the company need be expected. The abominable system of classification, the chief source of complaint, would be continued, and the protests of the men, however emphatic or unanimous, would not prevail.
FURTHER EFFORTS TO SECURE JUSTICE.
The Committees having exhausted every expedient to effect an amicable adjustment, appealed to their Grand Executive Officers to come to the rescue. Grand Chief Arthur and Grand Master Sargent responded to the call. The Joint Committee was convened by the Grand Officers, and a careful analysis of the grievances was made. Having satisfied themselves that the demands of the men were reasonable and just, the Grand Officers, accompanied by the Joint Committee, called upon the officials of the C., B. & Q. system. A protracted interview followed, which resulted practically in a failure, as the officials declined to accede to a single proposition of the Committee, notwithstanding numerous modifications were made in the interest of harmony. The interview ended abruptly upon the declaration of GeneralManager Stone, that he would not accede to any part of the proposition bearing upon classification. In this, he was emphatic and uncompromising. This ended the conference so far as General Manager Stone was concerned, and the Committee respectfully withdrew.
STILL FURTHER EFFORTS IN THE INTEREST OF HARMONY AND JUSTICE.
Grand Chief Arthur and Grand Master Sargent, realizing that the difficulty had assumed a most serious phase, decided, upon consultation, to make a final effort to avert what now seemed inevitable—a strike. A telegraphic dispatch was transmitted to President Perkins, at Boston, appealing to him to do justice by his men and avert the impending strike. His answer was evasive, indefinite, showing an utter indifference as to what the result might be.
NEARING THE CRISIS.
Having now been cut off from every avenue leading to an honorable adjustment of grievances, having exhausted every reasonable expedient to prevent trouble, the Committee, with the sanction of the Grand Officers, decided that the engineers and firemen should withdraw in a body from the service of the company, at 4 o'clock, on Monday morning, February 27, unless some disposition was shown to remedy the grievances of the men. On Sunday, February 26, the day previous to the inauguration of the strike, Chairmen Hoge and Murphy called upon General Manager Stone, and informed him of the action of the Committee, again appealing to him torender justice to the men. The General Manager arbitrarily declined to make any concessions, or to give the Committee any satisfaction, and here the matter ended with the final conference, with the strike inevitable and its consequences in full view.
THE STRIKE.
On Monday morning, the 27th instant, at 4 o'clock, the strike began, all engineers and firemen on the entire system withdrawing from the service of the company. All trains on the road at that hour were taken to their terminal points. The men had exhibited throughout, patience, prudence and forbearance, and the strike at once became monumental of an infamous policy on the part of a rich and powerful corporation to rob its trusted employes of money earned, that it might increase its profits, and with equal distinctness does the strike record the fact that a great body of workingmen sought by every honorable means to secure their rights, preferring to suffer than to be longer degraded.
THE PRESS.
No sooner was the strike inaugurated than the press began to manipulate public opinion. The most sensational reports were concocted and published throughout the length and breadth of the land; and while at the inception of the strike there seemed to be a disposition to treat the men fairly, it was not long be fore a change of sentiment pervaded the utterances of the press, and fair-dealing and honest criticism gave place to the grossest misrepresentations, with theevident purpose of arousing public opinion against the strikers, thereby making them the victims of the corporation they were struggling against, and of which it was the subsidized agent and representative.
When the switchmen joined the engineers and firemen, March 23, for a short time there was a change in the tone of the press reports. They evidently feared a repetition of the lawlessness of the strikes of 1877, but when they found that the switchmen, too, were a law-abiding class of men, they again acknowledged allegiance to the corporation. Reporters were sent to the meetings of the strikers, who, believing that they would be fairly dealt with, had appointed a Press Committee. In almost every instance the papers failed to print the matter as given to the reporters, and in many cases did print exactly the reverse. This Press Committee, composed of conservative men, soon learned that the reporters went directly from them to the Burlington officials, where the interviews were inspected and put in proper shape to answer the purposes of the company. An effort was then made by the Press Committee to get their communications directly to the papers, without the use of the reporters. In a short time this also failed. Chiefs Arthur and Sargent and Chairmen Hoge and Murphy, at the Grand Pacific Hotel, had a similar experience. It was impossible to get proper representation of the facts printed. March 26 one paper accepted and printed a communication from the Press Committee, but from that time onnothing was printed verbatim. The article referred to is herewith given:
"As the Burlington Bureau of Information has ceased to give out facts, but are drawing on advertising material, we wish to state the causes of their trouble with the switchmen. They have not struck, but have left the service of that company. 'Self-preservation is the first law of nature.' This is the reason in a nutshell. For the past week every switch engine in the house has been out. Three have gone in again disabled, and less than half of the regular work has been done. As long as the company were satisfied to let the men take time to insure safety there was no trouble. But as the cars accumulated in the yards, they considered it necessary to push the men beyond the point of safety, against their protests, and the 'strike' or stoppage was the result. A few of the engineers and firemen are locomotive men, but the majority are not, and all are ignorant of our signals and methods of work. In switching cars there should be no one in the cab but the engineer and fireman, and both should be watching the movements and signals of the switchmen. As it is now, the fireman stands in the gangway, while his seat is occupied by two or three Pinkerton men. No signal can be seen from that side of the engine. The engineer keeps his window closed, to shut out the taunts of passers-by, and the switchmen are left to take their chances. As long as he was allowed to pull pins with the train at a stand-still, and make couplings with the engine attached, he could do the work with reasonablesafety, but this is not the manner of handling cars on our western roads, and would not have been tolerated one month ago. Aside from pulling pins and coupling cars, there is the continual danger of collisions, as at Hawthorne, last Thursday night, when switch engine 176 was run through by a road engine and train, whose engineer did not see stop signals nor the headlight ahead of him on a straight track. The tracks in and about Chicago are cut up with railroad crossings, semaphores, connections and the interlocking switch systems. These new engineers know nothing about them, and are continually running through and under them, to the imminent danger of themselves, switchmen and opposing trains. These varied sources of danger to life and limb are so great that the men are undoubtedly justified in leaving the service of that company."
THE FIRST BOYCOTT.
From a circular issued in June, by the Brotherhood of Engineers the following is taken:
"Shortly after the inauguration of the strike, reports were received at headquarters to the effect that certain lines of railway, parallel to the C., B. & Q., were hauling the cars and handling the traffic of that company. These reports created decidedly bitter feeling on the part of the striking employes, and ultimated in the convening of the chairmen of the Grievance Committees of the several systems complained of. At this meeting, which took place at Chicago, on March 5, it was agreed that the engineers and firemenemployed on said systems should serve notice on their respective officials, through the proper committees, that while they were willing to perform all their legitimate duties, they would decline thenceforth to haul C., B. & Q. cars, or transact any of the business properly devolving upon that company, as by so doing, they would virtually be taking the positions vacated by their striking brethren, and by that means contribute to their defeat, while at the same time they would be giving aid and comfort to the corporation against which they were struggling for their rights.
THE QUESTION OF LAW INTRODUCED.
"Out of this action of the Committees arose a series of the most threatening complications, which it may be well to explain at this point. It should be understood, in the first place, that there is upon the statute books of Illinois a law which provides that any officer, chairman or leader of a labor organization, association or combination, who advises or causes a body of employes to withdraw their services from any company or corporation, thereby crippling the business or interfering with the operations of the said company or corporation, shall be deemed guilty of conspiracy, and shall be fined or imprisoned in proportion to the extent of the injury caused. It will be observed that the provisions of this law were exceedingly embarrassing to the Grand Officers; and upon taking legal advice they found, to their discomfiture, that they were even then occupying untenable ground and exposing themselves to the liability of being prosecuted under theconspiracy act referred to. Not only this, but it soon became apparent that the action taken by the Committee on March 5 did not meet with the unanimous approval of the engineers and firemen employed on the several systems there represented. On the contrary, the engineers and firemen on some of the lines positively refused to be bound by the agreement, and openly avowed their intention to perform any and all duties that might be required of them, including the handling of C., B. & Q. business.
WANT OF UNITY AND HARMONY.
"The lack of unanimity at this particular juncture proved fatal to any good results that might have followed concert of action in carrying out the instructions of the Committee. Division, discontent and disorder soon began to appear. There was a total lack of harmony in the spirit and purpose of the men, and those who were disposed to act in good faith and refuse to handle C., B. & Q. traffic simply laid themselves liable to dismissal from the service of the company, without assurance or hope of protection or support from the men employed on the same system.
STRIKE ON THE SANTA FE.
"Under this condition of affairs occurred the noted strike on the Santa Fe system, which was precipitated on March 16, on account of the alleged aid given the C., B. & Q. by that company in hauling its cars and transacting its business. Upon a more careful investigation of the matter, it was found that there was no adequate cause for the strike—that it grew out of amisapprehension of the facts in the case, and on March 18, after being out two days, the men returned to work in a body, the road resumed operations, and the same satisfactory relations between the company and the men which had hitherto prevailed, were restored.
THE SWITCHMEN.
"From the very inception of the strike, the members of the Switchmen's Mutual Aid Association evinced a profound interest in the struggle and freely tendered their sympathy and support to the strikers. They realized that the contest was for the maintenance of a common cause, and that the employes in every department of the railway service were interested in the result. The Grand Master, J. L. Monaghan, prompted by a desire to protect the interests of his men, as well as to extend a helping hand to his co-laborers, came to the front nobly, and with the aid of the members of his Order, took a decided stand in favor of the strikers. The switchmen realized that their interests were largely at stake, that a victory for the strikers meant a victory for them, andvice versa, and, with this feeling, they left the service of the company in a body, preferring to sacrifice their situations rather than serve in the employ of a company that refused to do common justice to its employes. Candor compels the admission, that we are indebted to the switchmen for aid freely given in the hour of our direst necessity. They acted the part of manly men, and are entitled to the thanks and gratitude of the Brotherhoods."
Equal candor on the part of those who signed the above circular would compel the admission that the switchmen have not yet received that which was so freely promised them during the early days of March and on the night of March 22,—namely, federation.
From the 1st of March until the 22d, Mr. Monaghan was in frequent consultation with Chiefs Arthur and Sargent. It was evident that the switchmen in remaining at work with the new engineers were doing the cause an incalculable injury, and efforts were made to overcome this new difficulty.
FEDERATION.
The switchmen and the brakemen were willing and anxious to unite with the Brotherhood. They did not wish the company to be victorious through aid given by them, and they were equally unwilling to give aid to the Brotherhood in this struggle and receive what many had received in the past, only injury. In this condition of affairs an arrangement was made whereby, in future troubles, the two Brotherhoods and the Association of Switchmen were to stand faithfully by each other. It was at this time the universal opinion among the switchmen, engineers and firemen that some such plan should be devised, and the Constitutions changed accordingly, and this feeling was concurred in by the officers of the three organizations. The legal counsel was called into the conference and a plan formulated for future action, which was to be subject to theAnnual Convention of each organization. True to the promises given by Grand Master Sargent, the Convention of Firemen did, in September, 1888, put forward a most comprehensive plan of federation, which was adopted by the Convention of Switchmen in the same month, and which apparently died at the Convention of Engineers in October.
Whatever the action since taken, the switchmen were then perfectly satisfied—particularly so, as at the union meeting held in Chicago on the night of March 22, prominent members of the two Brotherhoods from all parts of the United States gave their unqualified approval to the action of their officers, and, furthermore, pledged the honor of the Brotherhoods that the obligation would be faithfully met and promptly carried out. More solemn or binding obligations were never entered into by men. The switchmen were promised, and written pledges given by the officers of the Brotherhoods, that the same financial assistance given to the engineers engaged in the strike should also be given to them, as long as an engineer received a dollar, the switchmen should receive a like amount.
SWITCHMEN ENTER THE STRIKE.
On the morning of March 23 the switchmen, with the consent of Grand Master Monaghan, left the service of the Burlington Company in Chicago, not one single man remaining behind. Out of seventeen yardmasters, eleven went with the switchmen. Two of these, however, remained out but a few days, and then returnedto the service of the company. Of the switchmen, but one returned.
ALONG THE LINE.
Messengers were immediately dispatched over the system to notify the switchmen what action had at last been decided upon, and these, with few exceptions, took the same course as was taken by their Chicago brethren. At Aurora, Galesburg, Burlington, Ottumwa, Creston, Plattsmouth, Omaha, Lincoln, Kansas City, St. Joe, Beardstown, and all points where switch engines are employed, the men, with few exceptions, made the sacrifice required of them, and did it freely. At Quincy the men also went out; but on an offer of the agent to increase their pay, all but five returned to work. It is gratifying to the rest of the men to know that this promise was never fulfilled to the Quincy switchmen.
BRAKEMEN.
The brakemen did not go out in this movement, as was expected by the switchmen. Written pledges were offered them by the Brotherhoods, similar to those accepted by the Switchmen. Mr. Wilkinson did not feel like assuming the responsibility of calling his men out on the strength of these pledges.The constitution gave him no such authority and he did not feel like taking the responsibility of doing an unconstitutional act.The feeling among those actually engaged in the strike is friendly toward the Brotherhood of Brakemen. They know that these men were not opposed to them, although they remained in the service of the Company.
The brakemen did not go out in this movement, as was expected by the switchmen. Written pledges were offered them by the Brotherhoods, similar to those accepted by the Switchmen. Mr. Wilkinson did not feel like assuming the responsibility of calling his men out on the strength of these pledges.
The constitution gave him no such authority and he did not feel like taking the responsibility of doing an unconstitutional act.
The feeling among those actually engaged in the strike is friendly toward the Brotherhood of Brakemen. They know that these men were not opposed to them, although they remained in the service of the Company.
SECOND BOYCOTT.
Immediately after the switchmen left the service of the C., B. & Q. corporation, a meeting of yard engineers, firemen and switchmen was held at Chicago,at which it was agreed that no C., B. & Q. cars should be handled from and after that time. Upon the taking effect of this agreement, it became apparent that the yardmen would not receive the support of many of the road men in carrying out its provisions; in fact, it was currently reported, and not denied, that upon certain lines the road men had decided to handle the business of the C., B. & Q., in the event of the yard men declining to do so. This division in the policy of the men created the most intense dissatisfaction, and gave rise to deep indignation. The men who declined to handle C., B. & Q. cars were given to understand that dismissal would be the penalty if they persisted in carrying out that policy. Other men were ready to perform their duties. To adhere to the agreement meant the sacrifice of their situations. A number of them had already been dismissed. Demoralization and dismay, the fruit of discord and disunion, were beginning to take root.
ON THE C., M. & ST. P. RAILWAY
this agreement was more faithfully carried out. When the yard engineers refused to handle "Q" cars they were at once joined by the switchmen and yardmasters (including the General Yardmaster). Switch-tenders, road engineers and firemen, brakemen, and most of the conductors were entirely in accord with them. The result was a general closing down of business on the road. The men were discharged, and fully one-third of the entire force of the road laid off.The company evidently intended to clear the decks for a great battle.
It has been repeatedly claimed, that if the other roads centering in Chicago had made the prompt action of the C., M. & St. P. men general, the boycott, with all that the term implies would have been on to the fullest extent.
A NEW DEPARTURE
was demanded to avert the gravest complications, which seemed inevitable. A meeting was called, and counsel was taken from those who were in position to map out a new and better line of action. This meeting was addressed by the Grand Master of the Switchmen's Association, the Grand Master of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, General Manager Jeffery of the Illinois Central, and others. The situation was clearly defined, the peril of continuing in a hopeless crusade against C., B. & Q. cars was vividly outlined, and, as a result of the meeting, traffic was resumed upon the several railways the following morning, and all those who had been dismissed for refusing to handle C., B. & Q. cars were reinstated in their former positions. Much unjust criticism has been passed upon this action, and yet we feel confident that if the situation and surrounding conditions had been half understood, it would have met with universal approval.
It must be remembered that unity of action had not been secured, and there was no authority in the Brotherhood to enforce it, even if the chief so-willed, which he evidently did not. Under thecircumstances, to continue the boycott against "Q" cars was to destroy or divide the Brotherhood; the men were not yet educated up to the point of making so great a sacrifice, or at least what they considered a sacrifice.
And yet, if this unity of action had been attained, if not one Brotherhood man in the United States had taken another's place who refused to handle "Q" cars, where was the power to defeat them? Such a power does not exist! Not even in the General Government.
KNIGHTS OF LABOR.
At the very outset of the strike it was claimed by the Burlington management that Knights of Labor stood ready to supplant the Brotherhoods upon their lines. This has been proven to be a misrepresentation to a very great extent. It was true, however, that there was considerable feeling existing between the Knights of Labor and the Brotherhood of Engineers, growing out of the strike of 1873 and the Reading strike. In the strike of "'73" many of the Knights of Labor, or those who are now Knights, took the places vacated by Brotherhood men on the Pennsylvania lines. In the Reading strike of the Knights, members of the Brotherhood, in turn, supplanted them.
At the commencement of the "Q" strike, individual members of the Knights of Labor took it upon themselves to retaliate upon the Brotherhood, at least it was called retaliation, but the object was apparently to secure better jobs.
There is positive proof that these measures ofretaliation were not, in either case authorized by the heads of the organizations. The Burlington Company sought to make capital for themselves out of this old trouble, and did everything in their power to widen the breach.
During the months of January and February, the agents of the company thoroughly canvassed the labor districts of the East, searching out every dissatisfied Knight and every unprincipled character, who could by any possible means be induced to put the finishing touches to his disgrace. Among this horde were some few hitherto respectable workmen, who were induced by brilliant promises to drop their respectability and disgrace themselves by joining such a band and for such a cause. Retaliation was their excuse, but a thinner disguise never clothed a scoundrel. Had the Switchmen's Mutual Aid Association ever done them a wrong? And yet, more of these so-called Knights are switching cars to-day than are handling the throttle and scoop.
For a time these men were actually thought to be Knights of Labor in good standing, and coming West with the full sanction of their Order. Ample proof, however, exists that they were but the riffraff of the Order. It is but justice to the Knights of Labor to say that these fellows were a class who acknowledged allegiance to no particular Order, and recognized no authority. Many of them belonged to suspended Assemblies, or were expelled from the K. of L. as well as from the B. of L. E. for dissolute habits and other causes.
T. V. POWDERLY.
On February 29, Grand Master Workman Powderly, issued a noted letter to his Order, calling upon them to stand back and keep hands off in this strike. The following extract from the letter demonstrates the fact that Mr. Powderly's attitude was consistent with justice and right. "Let the past be forgotten in this strike; no matter how bitter you may feel toward these men, remember that they have not yet stepped out of the rut of selfishness, and it is best to teach them what manhood means by keeping your hands off the C., B. & Q. strike. The spectacle presented by men of labor who belong to different organizations rushing at each other's throats whenever a strike takes place, must be a gratifying thing to the employers of labor. It must indeed give satisfaction to the corporations to know that neither Knights of Labor nor Brotherhood men dare in future ask for better treatment, with any assurance of receiving it. It must be a consoling thought to the monopolist to know that his power is not half so dangerous to the labor organizations as the possibility that another labor organization will espouse his cause through revenge. Labor will forever be bound hand and foot at the feet of capital as long as one workingman can be pitted against another.
"No strike should be entered into until the court of last resort has been reached; until the last effort consistent with manhood has been made; until the heads of the opposing forces on both sides have been consulted, and their verdict given; until the last bridge has beenburned between them; then, if it was determined that the last thing possible had been done to avert trouble, every detachment of labor's army—horse, foot and artillery—should be wheeled into line to defend the rights of men in the breach. Knights of Labor, from Maine to California, stand back! Keep your hands off! Let the law of retaliation be disregarded, and let the men of the "Q" road win this strike if they can!"
That all of these men did not stand back is not the fault of this organization. Bad men exist in every Order, and probably always will. The "Q" retain many of them, but it is no disgrace to the Knights of Labor. They are men who have not the principles of Knighthood in their hearts.
About the middle of April a committee of Brotherhood men went East to confer with Grand Master Workman Powderly. The result of that meeting was that all Knights of Labor who still acknowledged allegiance to that Order should be called off from all lines operated by the Burlington Company where they had taken the places of strikers. The general result of this order was not very satisfactory. As before stated, they were a class of men who recognized no authority from any labor organization.
The following circular of a later date gives the true standing of the Knights of Labor on this question:
Office of State Master Workman, }Beatrice, Neb., June 21, 1888. }AN APPEAL.I have given thorough and conscientious examination into the troubles existing between the striking Brotherhood of Engineers, Firemen and Switchmen and the Chicago,Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company. The justice of their cause against this corporation appeals to my judgment and my sympathies. It should arouse every Knight of Labor in the State, and place him to the front in defense of their cause and in placing opprobrium upon the Burlington monopoly. The Order should take a distinctive and pronounced stand for these men, who are simply battling for justice, and no more. What is the purpose of the C., B. & Q. people in this struggle with the Brotherhood? It is to stamp organized labor with defeat, and millions of dollars are behind them to accomplish this result. Should they succeed, every laborer and producer will sink lower in the scale of manhood and deeper into the degradation of slavery. It is the purpose of the C., B. & Q. to fasten perpetual manacles upon them, from which there can be no escape but in death. It means slavery for all who toil, more appalling and horrible than the slavery of the South, the fetters of which were broken by war.I urge, therefore, upon every knight in the State to boycott this road that is the enemy of labor. Do not ride in its cars. Drive your stock to some competing line, and do not sell your grain where it will be shipped by them. Let the boycott be absolute and complete so far as your patronage goes. Have nothing to do with those who are in business and employ this road in any capacity. Spend your dollars with those who are the friends of organized labor. Persuade your friends to adopt the same course.There is only one debt that the Knights of Labor owe to the C., B. & Q. road, and that is the infamy of their eternal hate. Its hand has forever been raised against us. Whenever its employes have come to our ranks, that was sufficient ground for their discharge from its service. Its power, its wealth, its secret detective service and all the means at its command have been aimed at our destruction. Do not stop to consider that there have been differences in the past between the Knights of Labor and the Brotherhoods. It is not the time to argue which organization has been in the wrong. The past is a dead thing; let us give our thoughts to the future and the living present.The question is, are we going to help this corporation to destroy labor organizations, or are we going to present a solid front, a phalanx of determined men, who will say to theBrotherhoods, "We will stand by you till you conquer in this fight, and all the power of our membership and assemblies will be directed to help you win."This is my theory of true knighthood, and I want to see it placed in successful practice in the present grave emergency.Let us do more than this. Let us make certain the defeat of this corporation as a lasting memorial that will bear a lesson to all corporations so long as time shall be.Fraternally,M. D. Hubbard, S. M. W.
Office of State Master Workman, }Beatrice, Neb., June 21, 1888. }
AN APPEAL.
I have given thorough and conscientious examination into the troubles existing between the striking Brotherhood of Engineers, Firemen and Switchmen and the Chicago,Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company. The justice of their cause against this corporation appeals to my judgment and my sympathies. It should arouse every Knight of Labor in the State, and place him to the front in defense of their cause and in placing opprobrium upon the Burlington monopoly. The Order should take a distinctive and pronounced stand for these men, who are simply battling for justice, and no more. What is the purpose of the C., B. & Q. people in this struggle with the Brotherhood? It is to stamp organized labor with defeat, and millions of dollars are behind them to accomplish this result. Should they succeed, every laborer and producer will sink lower in the scale of manhood and deeper into the degradation of slavery. It is the purpose of the C., B. & Q. to fasten perpetual manacles upon them, from which there can be no escape but in death. It means slavery for all who toil, more appalling and horrible than the slavery of the South, the fetters of which were broken by war.
I urge, therefore, upon every knight in the State to boycott this road that is the enemy of labor. Do not ride in its cars. Drive your stock to some competing line, and do not sell your grain where it will be shipped by them. Let the boycott be absolute and complete so far as your patronage goes. Have nothing to do with those who are in business and employ this road in any capacity. Spend your dollars with those who are the friends of organized labor. Persuade your friends to adopt the same course.
There is only one debt that the Knights of Labor owe to the C., B. & Q. road, and that is the infamy of their eternal hate. Its hand has forever been raised against us. Whenever its employes have come to our ranks, that was sufficient ground for their discharge from its service. Its power, its wealth, its secret detective service and all the means at its command have been aimed at our destruction. Do not stop to consider that there have been differences in the past between the Knights of Labor and the Brotherhoods. It is not the time to argue which organization has been in the wrong. The past is a dead thing; let us give our thoughts to the future and the living present.
The question is, are we going to help this corporation to destroy labor organizations, or are we going to present a solid front, a phalanx of determined men, who will say to theBrotherhoods, "We will stand by you till you conquer in this fight, and all the power of our membership and assemblies will be directed to help you win."
This is my theory of true knighthood, and I want to see it placed in successful practice in the present grave emergency.
Let us do more than this. Let us make certain the defeat of this corporation as a lasting memorial that will bear a lesson to all corporations so long as time shall be.
Fraternally,
M. D. Hubbard, S. M. W.
STATE RAILWAY COMMISSION.
This book would be incomplete did it not give an extract of the testimony taken before the State Board of Warehouse and Railway Commissioners on the 3d, 4th and 5th days of April, 1888. This testimony grew out of the charges made before the Board by the citizens of Aurora. We are indebted to theSunday Worldof April 15 for the matter herein contained, which was not published or referred to by any other Chicago paper, and was suppressed by the Board.
Citizens of Auroravs.The C., B. & Q. Railway Company:Testimony taken before the Board of Warehouse and Railway Commissioners of Illinois, on the 3d, 4th and 5th days of April, A. D. 1888:Present: Alexander Sullivan, Esq., on behalf of the citizens of Aurora; Chester A. Dawes, Esq., on behalf of the C., B. & Q. Railway Company.Franklin L. Bliss, a witness called on behalf of the complainants, having been duly sworn, was examined in chief by Mr. Sullivan, and testified as follows:Q. What is your name? A. Franklin L. Bliss.Where do you live? Rock Island, Illinois.What is your occupation? Locomotive engineer.In what company's employ are you? Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul.How long have you been a locomotive engineer? Over twenty-three years.Were you the engineer on the train on the Milwaukee road with which a Quincy train collided on February 27? I was.State to the Board, as briefly as you can, the circumstances; what you did at that crossing; what it was your duty to do as to stopping and giving signals, and whether or not you performed your duty, and then state the occurrence of the accident? When I was within half a mile of this crossing I gave a long signal for the crossing; I brought the train to a full stop within 400 feet of the railroad crossing; then I stepped over and looked on the left side of the engine, and could see no train or hear no train on the left; on the right there was no train I could see; then I gave two whistles and started my train for the crossing; when I got the engine onto the crossing (the cab was about on the crossing) I looked to the left and saw a train coming down the Burlington track right at me.Commissioner Marsh: Just after you got on the crossing? A. Yes; the cab of the engine was about on the crossing when I saw.Commissioner Rinaker: Was there anything to hinder you seeing that train before you got onto the crossing?Commissioner Marsh: Any obstruction in the way? A. Well there is a cut on the east. I should think the mouth of the cut was some 900 feet from the crossing on the Burlington road.Mr. Sullivan: When you looked before you started your engine was there anything between you and that crossing—was the engine in sight? A. No, sir.Q. Describe the grade on the Quincy road between that cut and where the collision occurred at the crossing; is it smooth? It is down-grade to the crossing.From the mouth of the cut? Yes, sir.To the crossing? Yes, sir.Did that engine, after it came out of that cut, stop before it reached the crossing and collided with your train? A. No, sir.It did not? No, sir. I gave two short whistles before I started the train, after making the stop.You came to a full stop? I came to a full stop; yes, sir.Commissioner Rogers: What crossing do you have reference to—the crossing at Aurora? A. This crossing isjust about two miles and a quarter south of Fulton Junction, on the Milwaukee road.Q. Where the C., B. & Q. crosses? A. Yes, sir.Commissioner Rinaker: How near to the crossing were you when you stopped? Within 400 feet; the cylinder of my engine was just about opposite the stopping board.Q. Go on and describe the accident. You were describing what you did, the signals you gave; go on and finish that. A. That was all the signals I did give.Two sharp whistles? Yes; then I started the train. I didn't see the train till the engine got on the crossing, just about the cab. The "Q" engine struck my tender just about midway of the back truck.Mr. Sullivan: What damage, if you know, was done to your train, and to the other, and what injuries to persons?Commissioner Rinaker: The back truck of your engine or tender? A. Of the tender—it throwed my tender or the tank down into the ditch; took the back truck with it, and throwed the mail car also down the bank; wrecked the mail car, too; also the "Q" engine went off the track, and run along; the engine and baggage car kind of went over, nearly onto one side; went into the ground and stopped.Q. Was yours a passenger train? A. Yes, sir.Was the other the "Q"? Yes, sir.Both passenger trains? Yes, sir.Who, if anyone, was hurt on your train? There was a route agent by the name of Wilhelm; I don't know exactly what his name was.Where does he live, do you know? Rock Island, I think. An express messenger by the name of Morrison.Do you know where he lived? I do not.Who else? A mail agent by the name of Brown.Do you know whether or not anyone was hurt on their train—the Quincy train? The roadmaster, engineer and conductor of the train.That was all that was injured? That was all that was injured.Do you know their names? I do not.F. L. Bliss, being recalled, was examined by Mr. Sullivan, and testified as follows:Q. At what rate of speed did you pull out after you leftthat 400-foot board—between that and the crossing? A. I pulled out slow; it would not average over about six or eight miles an hour, anyway.Were you trying to make up for your lost time? No, sir.Why? We have an order not to make up any time from Fulton Junction to three miles west of Albany. There was an order on the board, and has been there.So that you were not trying to make up time, and were not running at an extraordinary rate of speed? Not running any faster than though we had been right on time.And you think the time you were running between that 400 feet and the crossing was about six to eight miles? I don't think when we was on the crossing—I don't think it was over eight miles an hour, anyway—six or eight.Mr. Dawes: You rely on your fireman, don't you, to look out for his side? A. No, sir.Who do you rely on? I hardly ever go over the crossing without looking myself; still, he tells me, but I think it is safer to look myself.You looked on your side? I did.Did you look out on the other side? I did.Where did you look out last? Before I started.Before you started from the 400-foot post? Yes, sir.Did you look out after that at all? Not after I started on the train until I got on the crossing.The fireman was shoveling in coal, wasn't he—firing up? Yes, sir.Did you look out of your side of the cab after you left the 400-foot station, down the Burlington track? Yes, sir; I looked on my side.How long has that 400-foot post been there, do you know? The 400-foot on our track?Yes. It has been there ever since I have run down there. I have been running about fourteen years on that run. I don't know how much longer it has been there.Mr. Sullivan: That is all. The people that have been injured we could not get.Mr. Dawes: We will admit people were injured. The engineer we shall call was injured more than anybody else.D. W. Rhodes, a witness called on behalf of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, being first dulysworn, was examined in chief by Mr. Dawes, and testified as follows:Q. What is your full name? A. D. W. Rhodes.What is your business? Superintendent of motive power on the C., B. & Q. road.Are the engineers responsible to you? Through my assistants they are directly responsible to me.But they are immediate employes of your department? They are immediate employes of my department.Of which you are the head? Yes, sir.Do you know Mr. Pearce? Yes, sir.What is his business now, and what was it on the 19th day of March? Mr. Pearce is assistant engineer of tests in our laboratory at Aurora.Is he an engineer in the employ of the Burlington road now? He is not a locomotive engineer.Was he ever, at any time, an engineer in the employ of the Burlington road? He was never examined as an engineer for the Burlington road.You say he was not? No, sir; he was not.Where was he sent? He was sent on this Clinton run, from Mendota to Clinton.Do you know about what time that run is made? No, I do not.Was anybody sent with him? He had a pilot; the roadmaster was his pilot.The roadmaster of that section or division? Yes, sir. I am not very clear about what Mr. Pearce's crew was. I had to take an engine out myself that morning, and I was not at Aurora.Mr. Sullivan: Do you know anything about it at all, except from hearsay? Do you know from your own knowledge who was on the train? A. From being present, no.Mr. Sullivan: This testimony on that subject should be stricken out. The witness: May I make one correction? I said I took an engine out myself that morning; I fired an engine out that morning.Cross-examination by Mr. Sullivan:Q. Did Mr. Pearce ever run a locomotive engine before? A. Mr. Pearce had handled a locomotive engine; yes, sir.The question was, did he ever run a locomotive enginebefore? Please answer that? I am not able to say whether he did or not.Are you in the habit, when exercising your best judgment to select engineers, to put a man on the road to run a locomotive engine when you don't know whether he has ever run one before or not? In a case like this, where our trains were——In any case? We do so; I would do so again.Where the lives of the public and the property of the public are in peril, you will take a man without knowing whether he ever ran an engine before or not, and put him in charge of an engine? No, sir; Mr. Pearce's education and training justified me in believing that he could handle that train properly.Do you believe any technical education in the shops, without practical experience, fits a man to be placed in charge of an engine to which is attached a passenger train? Properly guided by a pilot and conductor on the engine, I say so, decidedly.You would do so at any time? If there had been no strike, you would select a man of that experience, would you? I would only do that under the circumstances as we were.Only under emergencies? Yes, sir.You would not say generally it is a wise thing for a railroad to do; would you? I would say under circumstances such as we were left in there it was a wise thing for us to do.I ask you generally? If I had time to make a thorough examination of a man I certainly would do it.William H. Pearce, a witness called on behalf of the C., B. & Q. railroad company, being first duly sworn, was examined in chief by Mr. Dawes, and testified as follows:Q. What is your name? A. William H. Pearce.What is your business? Assistant engineer of tests in the C., B. & Q.State under what circumstances you took this engine on the 27th day of February last? Upon learning of the strike, I, with several other young men, signed a letter to Mr. Rhodes offering to go out in any position which they should deem it advisable. I was detailed by the Master Mechanic to go to Mendota and take that train to Fulton, with the understanding that I was to have a pilot; we struck the train; we had aspilot the roadmaster. We left Mendota five minutes late, and we were about six minutes late when I first see the St. Paul train.How far was that out of Mendota, do you remember? It was somewhere about in the neighborhood of sixty miles.You had lost a minute in sixty miles, had you? Lost a minute in running sixty miles.Who were with you on the engine beside the roadmaster? When we started out of Mendota there was only Mr. Chapin, the civil engineer of the Chicago Division, and the roadmaster, Mr. Seegers, and a machinist who came from the Aurora shop. After leaving Garden Plain, which is the last stop before arriving at the crossing, the conductor also came on the engine.Were you familiar with that division, had you ever run over it before? No, I never knew it; I never run over it at all.Now state, Mr. Pearce, how this accident occurred. We were going along, I should judge, about forty-five miles an hour. I will preface it by saying that the roadmaster was very careful all the way coming up, and I had no reason whatsoever to fear any lack of duty in warning me of any such place; we were going about forty-five miles an hour, and I had to look out for my water; it was getting a little dark; we were going west; of course it cast a shadow and I could not see the water glass; after losing a little time that way I tried my gauge cocks; when I got through with that I looked up and I saw this St. Paul train; that is the first intimation I had of the crossing.What did you do then? I shut off and put on the brakes.Right off, did you? Yes, sir.You struck this train as described? I struck a train; yes.Did you do everything in your power to prevent that accident? Yes, sir; I don't see how I could do anything more.Commissioner Rinaker: Tell exactly what you did do? A. I shut off and put the air on.How far were you from the train, in your judgment, when you did that? I should say in the neighborhood of 600feet when I saw it, and I would say right here about the speed, that that speed, down grade, would require about a thousand feet to stop; it has been proved by the Burlington tests.Mr. Dawes: What became of you, do you know? A. I only know that from hearsay. I know I was knocked off the engine and they got me up; I was leaning against the drivers, they told me, laying up against the drivers; the engine jumped the track, I understand; I don't know; I didn't remember anything until the next morning.Is your sight good—your eyesight? Yes; I think my sight is normal, with my glasses.You can see at a distance, can you, as well as ordinary individuals? I think so.In reference to your hearing? Well, I am hard of hearing in a room, but I am not hard of hearing on an engine.Had you received any warning before coming to this crossing, as far as you remember of it? No.It is fair to say that the roadmaster says he warned you; I say that in justification of him. He says he did.You did not hear any notice; that is what you swear, isn't it? I did not hear him.Are you, in your own judgment, from your education and experience, both in study and on the road, capable of running a locomotive engine? On such a train as that, yes; it is a branch road, and there are comparatively few trains; I would not care about going on a main line.Cross-examination by Mr. Sullivan: Who was the pilot who was furnished you? A Mr. Seegers, the roadmaster.Can you not hear without putting your hand up? I don't wish to be offensive, but I want, as a matter of fact, to find out. Not in that tone. I can hear, yes; but I can hear better by putting it up, as anyone could reasonably argue; probably you can yourself. It is not necessary to do that where there is any noise or confusion going on.Could you have heard a notice to stop, or a notice that there was a crossing, if Seegers had given it to you? I would have heard as well as any other person.Then you would have heard him if he gave such an order or gave such information? You are very well aware of the fact you have to speak more or less loud on an engine to anyone.Did anyone speak more or less loud to you as to notify you that there was a crossing there, and that you should stop 400 feet from it? No.Did you notice the crossing board on the Quincy road? I did not.There is a board 400 feet from that crossing, four or five feet in height?Mr. Dawes: Who says there is a board there?Mr. Sullivan: I will show there is by another witness.Mr. Dawes: There may be, but I have not heard anybody say so yet.Mr. Sullivan: How long would it have taken you to bring that train to a full stop, running at the rate of forty-five miles an hour? When I say how long, I mean in distance; at what space from that crossing should you have attempted to bring it to a full stop in order to stop it? A. If I knew the crossing?How long would it take a train to stop? It would take in the neighborhood of 1,000 feet.You could not have stopped it at the rate of speed you were running if you had noticed it at the 400 feet distance? No, sir.When you got out of the cut was any information given to you that it was necessary to stop there? I received no information. The first intimation I had was the sight of the train.Mr. Sullivan: Was there an engineer on the cab with you at the time? Yes, sir.Wasn't that engineer who was on the cab at that time held responsible for it? He was.When you were held responsible for it you never in your life run an engine that length before, did you? No, sir.If you had been working at the engine-house, and there was no such emergency as this, would you have considered yourself competent to do it? Not on a road in which I was entirely unfamiliar.You were entirely unfamiliar with this, were you not? I was entirely unfamiliar.Did you shut off steam before you saw the Milwaukee train? No, sir.How far was it from you when you did shut off the steam? Fifty or sixty feet.Did you reverse the engine? No, sir, I did not. With a well designed driver-brake there is no benefit in reversing the engine.Did you bring the lever down in front? No, sir.Did you drop the reverse lever forward when you shut off? I don't remember that particularly.When you put the air on, did you use all that was indicated on your gauge? I naturally should do so.Did you? No, I slapped the air around, put the handle full around; I didn't stop to see what was indicated on the gauge.Did you use any sand? No.Were quite excited at the time? I suppose I naturally was.You lost your head in fact; isn't that the fact now? No, because it is still on my shoulders.You might as well have been without a head; you lost your judgment, didn't you? I don't see that any judgment would come in after having shut the steam off and put the air on.Couldn't you have used sand? I did not.You could have used it if you had thought of it? No, sir; because I didn't see any benefit; as long as the drivers don't slip it is all right.Do you know that sand will help to stop a train quicker? No, sir, I don't know it.Do you swear it will not? No, sir, because I have never made any experiment in that.Then you know nothing about it? You don't know whether it would help or not? I have only my judgment, which is formed after quite an elaborate series of experiments on the brakes.John F. Laughlin was examined in chief by Mr. Sullivan, and testified:Q. What is your name? A. John Francis Laughlin.Where do you live? At 818 Washtenaw avenue.What is your business? Switchman, in charge of switch engine.For what road are you working? Chicago, Burlington & Quincy; I was at one time, until I quit.Were you employed on the 23d of March for that road? Yes, sir.Why did you quit? Because I did not see fit to work with incompetent engineers.What were you engaged at on the evening of March 23d, and where were you employed? March 23d I did not do much. I only took one train to the Stock Yards and came back. This accident I have reference to happened March 22d, I believe, at 10:30 p. m.What were you doing on the evening of the 22d, and where were you employed? On the evening of the 22d of March I had fifty cars shoving into the new yard at Hawthorne, which is about three miles and a half, as near as I can judge, from Western avenue. We stopped to give me a chance to raise the semaphore for the protection of trains coming east, and also set the switches going into the new yard. I got up and gave the signal to go ahead, and as I did a crash came.What character of train was it that run into yours—a freight? A freight train.What was the condition of the track, so far as obstructions were concerned, between your train and the train which collided with you? There was no obstruction whatever; there was a clear view four miles or three miles and a half; something like that.What time in the evening was it? About half-past ten.Had you a headlight on your engine? Yes, sir.Had you a light on the other end of your train? No, sir; only my own lamp.You were at that end? And a red light; yes, sir.You had a red light, as well? Yes, sir.Do you know the number of the engine which collided with yours? Yes, sir; 310.What was the number of yours? 176.Was engine 310 flagged? I presume it was, according to my helpers' statement.Your helpers are here, are they? Yes, sir.You had enough helpers to give the necessary flagging? I believe I had; I had two.To how many of these new men did you give signals who were unable to answer or failed to answer the signals? I should say three or four.Did you have any conversation with any of them in relation to the signals? No, sir; well, I had a conversation with one; I gave him a signal and he says, "I don't understand that signal."Was that signal which you gave him and which he said he did not understand the usual signal given by railroad men? Yes, sir.The same signal which has been used on the road all the time you have been in its employ? Yes, sir.When was that, about what time? That was a couple or three nights before I left.Commissioner Marsh: State what conversation between you and him there was at the time he told you he did not understand that signal? I merely gave him a signal to back up. He says, "Partner, I don't understand that signal." I merely says to him, "What kind do you understand—steamboat signals?" He says, "No, stationary engines."William G. Frisbie was examined by Mr. Sullivan and testified:Q. Were you on the train to which engine 176 was attached? A. I belonged to that crew.At Hawthorne, March 22. I belonged to that crew? Yes, sir.Did you flag 310 that night? I did.State to the Commissioners how far you went from your own engine, 176, to flag 310, the one which collided with it? I can tell you perhaps better by car lengths; I can make a guess at the number of feet. I did not measure it exactly. I should think it was in the neighborhood of 1,500 feet to 2,000 feet that I was back of where our engine stood. I found the train was not coming to a stop, and kept going back myself as long as it was possible, giving them all the swing that it was proper and right to stop him. He paid not the slightest attention to my signal; never even whistled for brakes until after his train passed me.Did you start back as soon as your train stopped to flag? Yes, sir.You went as far as you could? Yes, sir.Re-direct examination by Mr. Sullivan:Q. Did you ever, in all your experience, know a casewhere an engineer was flagged on a clear track, as in this case, and disobeyed a signal and run into another train? No, sir.Stewart W. Hadlock, examined in chief by Mr. Sullivan, testified as follows:Q. What is your name? A. Stewart W. Hadlock.Where do you reside? At Aurora.What is your business? Engineer.How long have you been an engineer? Nineteen years.In what company's employ were you recently? C., B. & Q.How long were you in the employ of that company? Twenty-three years.As engineer and fireman? Engineer and fireman both.Do you know Hose De Witt? I do.Do you know in whose employ he now is? He is in the employ of the C., B. & Q.In what capacity? Passenger engineer.Hector H. Hall was examined in chief by Mr. Sullivan, and testified:Q. What is your name? A. Hector H. Hall.Where do you live? At Pullman.What is your occupation? Engineer.What company are you working for? Pullman Company.Do you know Hose De Witt? Yes, sir.How long have you known him? About eight years.Is he a sober man? No, sir.What is his general reputation for sobriety? He is an habitual drunkard.Is that the reputation in the neighborhood where he lives? Yes, sir.Have you ever heard it discussed? His wife has been around to all the saloons forbidding them to sell him anything.Why? Because he was an habitual drunkard.When did you see him last? I think it was last Thanksgiving day.What condition was he in then? He was very drunk.Did you ever see him sober? Well, no, sir; very seldom. I have once or twice, probably; as a general thing he was under the influence of liquor.John B. Clark, examined in chief by Mr. Sullivan, testified:Q. State your name? A. John B. Clark.Where do you live? Aurora.What is your business? I was a locomotive engineer.How long were you engaged in that capacity? Ten years, probably.For what company were you employed? Chicago, Burlington & Quincy.Did you serve on any committee for that road while you were in its employ? I was on the local examining board for the Chicago division.Do you know Hose De Witt? I do.How long have you known him? About fourteen years, I think.Do you know he was discharged from this company because of his connection with a wreck at Naperville? I do.Do you know what his reputation for sobriety is and has been during all the time of your acquaintance? He was always a hard drinker, when he fired and run here both.Have you known him since he was in the employ of the company; have you seen him since? I have seen him on my way through Plano; he worked at Plano for the Plano Manufacturing Company, and I see him there about in the neighborhood of a year ago; he struck me for a ride to Chicago.Mr. Dawes: I object to any specific instance of drunkenness a year ago.Mr. Sullivan: Was he drunk or sober? A. He was not sober.Did you ever see him sober? I don't think I did; not what I should call dead sober.You have known him eight years? I have known him fourteen years.Why did you refuse to give him a ride when he applied to you? Well, it was against the rules; and then he was too full of whisky to be a safe man to have around there.You haven't seen him since, then? I have not, except since he came back to work for the C., B. & Q.Acting as engineer? Yes, sir.Passenger or freight? Passenger.On what road? On the C., B. & Q., on the main line?Mr. Dawes, cross-examining: Did you regard that as a proper method of determining the qualifications of engineers? A. Yes, sir; it is well enough.Is this (handing witness a paper) an accurate copy of the protest of the Brotherhood? I will direct your attention to Article 22. I don't represent the Brotherhood; I am here as a witness.I will ask you whether you know as a matter of fact, Mr. Clark, whether Article 22 is a copy of a grievance presented by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers to the Burlington road? I did not present it.I understand you did not; you know, do you not?Mr. Sullivan: I object to all this as immaterial.Commissioner Rinaker: I do not regard that as cross-examination at present. Is that offered for the purpose of showing that the rule itself was not regarded as a proper one?Mr. Dawes: I want to ask this witness what his opinion is of this particular grievance.Mr. Sullivan: How often have you seen him in eight years? A. He laid around Aurora two or three years before he got a job any place.He lived around Aurora two or three years after he was discharged? Yes, sir.When he hung around Aurora for two or three years did you see him regularly? He hung around a variety saloon that used to be there in Aurora.Commissioner Rinaker: How often do you mean we shall understand you are stating you have seen this man drunk in the last eight or ten years?Commissioner Rogers: When was it he wanted to come up with you on the engine? A. As near as I can remember it was in the neighborhood of a year ago.Commissioner Rinaker: How many times have you seen him drunk? A. He was drunk at that time.How many more times? Between the seven years before that? Well, I would not want to say how many times; but at the time he was hanging around Aurora he was off and on. He would go away and hunt for a job and come back, go away and come back; that is the way he was.Was he drunk when you would see him around this variety show? Yes, we very seldom seen him sober.Mr. Sullivan: Prior to this controversy between the railroad and its employes could such a man as De Witt receiveemployment as an engineer; would you have employed such a man?(Objected to by Mr. Dawes.)Q. Would they employ a man who had been dismissed as being responsible for a wreck, as this man was?(Objected to by Mr. Dawes.)Commissioner Rinaker: Do you know why he was discharged? A. He was discharged for having a collision about half a mile east of Naperville station.You know that from your own knowledge? Yes; I was mixed up a little bit in it myself. I came near getting into trouble with it myself.Hector H. Hall being recalled, was examined by Commissioner Rogers, and testified as follows:Q. How long is it since this notice was given by De Witt's wife to the saloon-keepers not to give him liquor? A. I think it was on Thanksgiving day, or the day after.That is last year? Yes, sir.That was on Thanksgiving day? Thanksgiving day or the day after; I am not positive which.J. A. Murray, locomotive engineer of thirteen years' service, residing at Rock Island, testified that Frank Hamilton, Frank Horn, Joseph Roach, J. Logston, Harry Zimmerman and William Patterson, running engines on the C., B. & Q. R. R., were brakemen, conductors and baggagemen, respectively; that he was acquainted with them all for eight to ten years, and that they were inexperienced as engineers or firemen.Frank Hamilton, witness on behalf of the C., B. & Q. Railroad Company, testified:Q. Give your name in full? A. Frank Hamilton.What is your business? Formerly conductor until the 10th of last month; now I am running an engine.Conductor on the C., B. & Q.? Yes, sir; St. Louis division.How long have you been a railroad man? For the C., B. & Q. Company, running a train since November, 1880, with the exception of five months, up until the 10th of last month.Have you been examined as to the manipulation of an engine? To a certain extent.By whom? Mr. Wallace.Is Mr. Wallace here? Mr. Wallace is here.Cross-examination by Mr. Sullivan:Q. You never got any technical instruction as to the running of an engine in your life, did you? A. Explain that word, please.You never got any instruction in the shop from those who manufacture engines and are familiar with their detail? No, sir.You don't understand the meaning of the word technical yourself? I do; yes, sir.Why do you want me to explain it? Because I wanted to understand.Witness testified that he had been handling engines off and on ever since he had been on the road.Q. What you mean is you jumped on; would go on when the regular engineer in charge was there? A. Yes, sir.And the fireman in charge was there? I run the engine a certain distance.You were allowed to handle it in their presence, just as many others are allowed? Yes, sir.Do you mean to tell this Commission, on your oath, that in that way you acquired sufficient knowledge to make you a competent engineer? That is the way, from what I understand, to learn to be an engineer. The way they all get to be engineers.You say you were examined to some extent. Were you not examined as thoroughly as all other men were examined? I don't know how other men were examined.How did you come to say you were examined to some extent? What do you mean by that? I mean to the extent that I was able to answer the questions.You were only examined to that extent you were able to answer, and you were not examined as to those you were not able to answer? I don't know if there were any questions I was not to answer or not; I answered all the questions.You used that expression, you were examined to some extent. I want to know what you mean by that? I answered all the questions that were asked me.Do you mean to say that all questions were asked you which are equally asked applicants for employment as engineers? I do not.Was anyone else examined at the same time you were? There was not.Who was present when you were being examined? Anyone but the Board? No; there was not.No one but the Board of Examiners? No.Where were you examined? The principal place was in the building where the general officers are.Were you examined more than once? I was instructed another time.I asked you about examinations? No, sir, not on an engine.How long did your examination take? I could not tell that.How many questions were you asked? I could not say; I did not count them.Have you no idea without counting them? I answered more questions—I asked and answered more questions than was asked me.You examined yourself, practically, did you? The Board was there to hear it.The Board was there to hear you examine yourself—asking questions and answering them? Those I did not thoroughly understand were questions I asked, and then I answered my way, and if I was not right, then I was instructed.And upon that instruction which you got at that time you were employed as an engineer on the road? Oh, no; this is since.How long after that was it before you were put in charge of an engine, since you got this instruction? I took an engine on the 10th of last month, and I run up to yesterday.When was your examination? To-day.You were examined to-day? Yes, sir.Was this the first examination that took place? This is the first.You were not examined before you were put in charge of an engine? No, sir.You were put in charge of an engine without an examination at all? Without any examination.You were this morning examined, and prepared for being examined here; is that it? No, sir; I don't know as I was prepared at all. I asked questions, and they were answeredto me. If I could explain them in the language that was used in regard to the management of engines.And that is the first time you have been examined by anybody representing this road as an engineer? Examined on an engine.Did you ever draw pay as an engineer or as a fireman at any time in the employ of this or any other railroad company in the United States before this? As an engineer or fireman?As an engineer or fireman? I did not.Did you ever perform the duties of an engineer or fireman at any time in your life before this date, on any road? That is, to draw pay for it?To draw pay for it, and perform its duties regularly? No, sir.Did you ever put a wick in a headlight? I did.When? The other day.Not until that? That is the first one, but I have frequently saw it done.How old are you? I was thirty-four years old on the 16th day of last January.Can you tell what the notches in the quadrant are for? Yes, sir.Please do so? They are to govern the working of an engine.State in what respect they govern the working of an engine? They start from the center and work both ways; the forward and back motions drop the engine down forward and you give her the full stroke. If you put her back to a less stroke and increase the speed.What do you mean by the stroke? The stroke of the piston that travels in the cylinder.What is the stroke of your engine? I don't know.Has an engine more or less stroke when it is hooked down or hooked up? It has the same stroke, but it receives steam through the ports to a less stroke.In what condition? Both ways; either working in the forward or back motion.What do you refer to when you speak of receiving more steam? Can you explain that? To a certain extent, yes.To that certain extent please explain it? As the engineis working you drop her down and give her full stroke and she is receiving steam at full stroke; as you cut her back she receives steam to a less portion as you cut her back, and then start to travel the other way—the valve it is.Do you know anything about the points of cut-off of a valve on an engine? No, sir.You never got any instruction on that subject? No, sir.You were not examined on it this morning, were you? No, sir.
Citizens of Auroravs.The C., B. & Q. Railway Company:
Testimony taken before the Board of Warehouse and Railway Commissioners of Illinois, on the 3d, 4th and 5th days of April, A. D. 1888:
Present: Alexander Sullivan, Esq., on behalf of the citizens of Aurora; Chester A. Dawes, Esq., on behalf of the C., B. & Q. Railway Company.
Franklin L. Bliss, a witness called on behalf of the complainants, having been duly sworn, was examined in chief by Mr. Sullivan, and testified as follows:
Q. What is your name? A. Franklin L. Bliss.
Where do you live? Rock Island, Illinois.
What is your occupation? Locomotive engineer.
In what company's employ are you? Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul.
How long have you been a locomotive engineer? Over twenty-three years.
Were you the engineer on the train on the Milwaukee road with which a Quincy train collided on February 27? I was.
State to the Board, as briefly as you can, the circumstances; what you did at that crossing; what it was your duty to do as to stopping and giving signals, and whether or not you performed your duty, and then state the occurrence of the accident? When I was within half a mile of this crossing I gave a long signal for the crossing; I brought the train to a full stop within 400 feet of the railroad crossing; then I stepped over and looked on the left side of the engine, and could see no train or hear no train on the left; on the right there was no train I could see; then I gave two whistles and started my train for the crossing; when I got the engine onto the crossing (the cab was about on the crossing) I looked to the left and saw a train coming down the Burlington track right at me.
Commissioner Marsh: Just after you got on the crossing? A. Yes; the cab of the engine was about on the crossing when I saw.
Commissioner Rinaker: Was there anything to hinder you seeing that train before you got onto the crossing?
Commissioner Marsh: Any obstruction in the way? A. Well there is a cut on the east. I should think the mouth of the cut was some 900 feet from the crossing on the Burlington road.
Mr. Sullivan: When you looked before you started your engine was there anything between you and that crossing—was the engine in sight? A. No, sir.
Q. Describe the grade on the Quincy road between that cut and where the collision occurred at the crossing; is it smooth? It is down-grade to the crossing.
From the mouth of the cut? Yes, sir.
To the crossing? Yes, sir.
Did that engine, after it came out of that cut, stop before it reached the crossing and collided with your train? A. No, sir.
It did not? No, sir. I gave two short whistles before I started the train, after making the stop.
You came to a full stop? I came to a full stop; yes, sir.
Commissioner Rogers: What crossing do you have reference to—the crossing at Aurora? A. This crossing isjust about two miles and a quarter south of Fulton Junction, on the Milwaukee road.
Q. Where the C., B. & Q. crosses? A. Yes, sir.
Commissioner Rinaker: How near to the crossing were you when you stopped? Within 400 feet; the cylinder of my engine was just about opposite the stopping board.
Q. Go on and describe the accident. You were describing what you did, the signals you gave; go on and finish that. A. That was all the signals I did give.
Two sharp whistles? Yes; then I started the train. I didn't see the train till the engine got on the crossing, just about the cab. The "Q" engine struck my tender just about midway of the back truck.
Mr. Sullivan: What damage, if you know, was done to your train, and to the other, and what injuries to persons?
Commissioner Rinaker: The back truck of your engine or tender? A. Of the tender—it throwed my tender or the tank down into the ditch; took the back truck with it, and throwed the mail car also down the bank; wrecked the mail car, too; also the "Q" engine went off the track, and run along; the engine and baggage car kind of went over, nearly onto one side; went into the ground and stopped.
Q. Was yours a passenger train? A. Yes, sir.
Was the other the "Q"? Yes, sir.
Both passenger trains? Yes, sir.
Who, if anyone, was hurt on your train? There was a route agent by the name of Wilhelm; I don't know exactly what his name was.
Where does he live, do you know? Rock Island, I think. An express messenger by the name of Morrison.
Do you know where he lived? I do not.
Who else? A mail agent by the name of Brown.
Do you know whether or not anyone was hurt on their train—the Quincy train? The roadmaster, engineer and conductor of the train.
That was all that was injured? That was all that was injured.
Do you know their names? I do not.
F. L. Bliss, being recalled, was examined by Mr. Sullivan, and testified as follows:
Q. At what rate of speed did you pull out after you leftthat 400-foot board—between that and the crossing? A. I pulled out slow; it would not average over about six or eight miles an hour, anyway.
Were you trying to make up for your lost time? No, sir.
Why? We have an order not to make up any time from Fulton Junction to three miles west of Albany. There was an order on the board, and has been there.
So that you were not trying to make up time, and were not running at an extraordinary rate of speed? Not running any faster than though we had been right on time.
And you think the time you were running between that 400 feet and the crossing was about six to eight miles? I don't think when we was on the crossing—I don't think it was over eight miles an hour, anyway—six or eight.
Mr. Dawes: You rely on your fireman, don't you, to look out for his side? A. No, sir.
Who do you rely on? I hardly ever go over the crossing without looking myself; still, he tells me, but I think it is safer to look myself.
You looked on your side? I did.
Did you look out on the other side? I did.
Where did you look out last? Before I started.
Before you started from the 400-foot post? Yes, sir.
Did you look out after that at all? Not after I started on the train until I got on the crossing.
The fireman was shoveling in coal, wasn't he—firing up? Yes, sir.
Did you look out of your side of the cab after you left the 400-foot station, down the Burlington track? Yes, sir; I looked on my side.
How long has that 400-foot post been there, do you know? The 400-foot on our track?
Yes. It has been there ever since I have run down there. I have been running about fourteen years on that run. I don't know how much longer it has been there.
Mr. Sullivan: That is all. The people that have been injured we could not get.
Mr. Dawes: We will admit people were injured. The engineer we shall call was injured more than anybody else.
D. W. Rhodes, a witness called on behalf of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, being first dulysworn, was examined in chief by Mr. Dawes, and testified as follows:
Q. What is your full name? A. D. W. Rhodes.
What is your business? Superintendent of motive power on the C., B. & Q. road.
Are the engineers responsible to you? Through my assistants they are directly responsible to me.
But they are immediate employes of your department? They are immediate employes of my department.
Of which you are the head? Yes, sir.
Do you know Mr. Pearce? Yes, sir.
What is his business now, and what was it on the 19th day of March? Mr. Pearce is assistant engineer of tests in our laboratory at Aurora.
Is he an engineer in the employ of the Burlington road now? He is not a locomotive engineer.
Was he ever, at any time, an engineer in the employ of the Burlington road? He was never examined as an engineer for the Burlington road.
You say he was not? No, sir; he was not.
Where was he sent? He was sent on this Clinton run, from Mendota to Clinton.
Do you know about what time that run is made? No, I do not.
Was anybody sent with him? He had a pilot; the roadmaster was his pilot.
The roadmaster of that section or division? Yes, sir. I am not very clear about what Mr. Pearce's crew was. I had to take an engine out myself that morning, and I was not at Aurora.
Mr. Sullivan: Do you know anything about it at all, except from hearsay? Do you know from your own knowledge who was on the train? A. From being present, no.
Mr. Sullivan: This testimony on that subject should be stricken out. The witness: May I make one correction? I said I took an engine out myself that morning; I fired an engine out that morning.
Cross-examination by Mr. Sullivan:
Q. Did Mr. Pearce ever run a locomotive engine before? A. Mr. Pearce had handled a locomotive engine; yes, sir.
The question was, did he ever run a locomotive enginebefore? Please answer that? I am not able to say whether he did or not.
Are you in the habit, when exercising your best judgment to select engineers, to put a man on the road to run a locomotive engine when you don't know whether he has ever run one before or not? In a case like this, where our trains were——
In any case? We do so; I would do so again.
Where the lives of the public and the property of the public are in peril, you will take a man without knowing whether he ever ran an engine before or not, and put him in charge of an engine? No, sir; Mr. Pearce's education and training justified me in believing that he could handle that train properly.
Do you believe any technical education in the shops, without practical experience, fits a man to be placed in charge of an engine to which is attached a passenger train? Properly guided by a pilot and conductor on the engine, I say so, decidedly.
You would do so at any time? If there had been no strike, you would select a man of that experience, would you? I would only do that under the circumstances as we were.
Only under emergencies? Yes, sir.
You would not say generally it is a wise thing for a railroad to do; would you? I would say under circumstances such as we were left in there it was a wise thing for us to do.
I ask you generally? If I had time to make a thorough examination of a man I certainly would do it.
William H. Pearce, a witness called on behalf of the C., B. & Q. railroad company, being first duly sworn, was examined in chief by Mr. Dawes, and testified as follows:
Q. What is your name? A. William H. Pearce.
What is your business? Assistant engineer of tests in the C., B. & Q.
State under what circumstances you took this engine on the 27th day of February last? Upon learning of the strike, I, with several other young men, signed a letter to Mr. Rhodes offering to go out in any position which they should deem it advisable. I was detailed by the Master Mechanic to go to Mendota and take that train to Fulton, with the understanding that I was to have a pilot; we struck the train; we had aspilot the roadmaster. We left Mendota five minutes late, and we were about six minutes late when I first see the St. Paul train.
How far was that out of Mendota, do you remember? It was somewhere about in the neighborhood of sixty miles.
You had lost a minute in sixty miles, had you? Lost a minute in running sixty miles.
Who were with you on the engine beside the roadmaster? When we started out of Mendota there was only Mr. Chapin, the civil engineer of the Chicago Division, and the roadmaster, Mr. Seegers, and a machinist who came from the Aurora shop. After leaving Garden Plain, which is the last stop before arriving at the crossing, the conductor also came on the engine.
Were you familiar with that division, had you ever run over it before? No, I never knew it; I never run over it at all.
Now state, Mr. Pearce, how this accident occurred. We were going along, I should judge, about forty-five miles an hour. I will preface it by saying that the roadmaster was very careful all the way coming up, and I had no reason whatsoever to fear any lack of duty in warning me of any such place; we were going about forty-five miles an hour, and I had to look out for my water; it was getting a little dark; we were going west; of course it cast a shadow and I could not see the water glass; after losing a little time that way I tried my gauge cocks; when I got through with that I looked up and I saw this St. Paul train; that is the first intimation I had of the crossing.
What did you do then? I shut off and put on the brakes.
Right off, did you? Yes, sir.
You struck this train as described? I struck a train; yes.
Did you do everything in your power to prevent that accident? Yes, sir; I don't see how I could do anything more.
Commissioner Rinaker: Tell exactly what you did do? A. I shut off and put the air on.
How far were you from the train, in your judgment, when you did that? I should say in the neighborhood of 600feet when I saw it, and I would say right here about the speed, that that speed, down grade, would require about a thousand feet to stop; it has been proved by the Burlington tests.
Mr. Dawes: What became of you, do you know? A. I only know that from hearsay. I know I was knocked off the engine and they got me up; I was leaning against the drivers, they told me, laying up against the drivers; the engine jumped the track, I understand; I don't know; I didn't remember anything until the next morning.
Is your sight good—your eyesight? Yes; I think my sight is normal, with my glasses.
You can see at a distance, can you, as well as ordinary individuals? I think so.
In reference to your hearing? Well, I am hard of hearing in a room, but I am not hard of hearing on an engine.
Had you received any warning before coming to this crossing, as far as you remember of it? No.
It is fair to say that the roadmaster says he warned you; I say that in justification of him. He says he did.
You did not hear any notice; that is what you swear, isn't it? I did not hear him.
Are you, in your own judgment, from your education and experience, both in study and on the road, capable of running a locomotive engine? On such a train as that, yes; it is a branch road, and there are comparatively few trains; I would not care about going on a main line.
Cross-examination by Mr. Sullivan: Who was the pilot who was furnished you? A Mr. Seegers, the roadmaster.
Can you not hear without putting your hand up? I don't wish to be offensive, but I want, as a matter of fact, to find out. Not in that tone. I can hear, yes; but I can hear better by putting it up, as anyone could reasonably argue; probably you can yourself. It is not necessary to do that where there is any noise or confusion going on.
Could you have heard a notice to stop, or a notice that there was a crossing, if Seegers had given it to you? I would have heard as well as any other person.
Then you would have heard him if he gave such an order or gave such information? You are very well aware of the fact you have to speak more or less loud on an engine to anyone.
Did anyone speak more or less loud to you as to notify you that there was a crossing there, and that you should stop 400 feet from it? No.
Did you notice the crossing board on the Quincy road? I did not.
There is a board 400 feet from that crossing, four or five feet in height?
Mr. Dawes: Who says there is a board there?
Mr. Sullivan: I will show there is by another witness.
Mr. Dawes: There may be, but I have not heard anybody say so yet.
Mr. Sullivan: How long would it have taken you to bring that train to a full stop, running at the rate of forty-five miles an hour? When I say how long, I mean in distance; at what space from that crossing should you have attempted to bring it to a full stop in order to stop it? A. If I knew the crossing?
How long would it take a train to stop? It would take in the neighborhood of 1,000 feet.
You could not have stopped it at the rate of speed you were running if you had noticed it at the 400 feet distance? No, sir.
When you got out of the cut was any information given to you that it was necessary to stop there? I received no information. The first intimation I had was the sight of the train.
Mr. Sullivan: Was there an engineer on the cab with you at the time? Yes, sir.
Wasn't that engineer who was on the cab at that time held responsible for it? He was.
When you were held responsible for it you never in your life run an engine that length before, did you? No, sir.
If you had been working at the engine-house, and there was no such emergency as this, would you have considered yourself competent to do it? Not on a road in which I was entirely unfamiliar.
You were entirely unfamiliar with this, were you not? I was entirely unfamiliar.
Did you shut off steam before you saw the Milwaukee train? No, sir.
How far was it from you when you did shut off the steam? Fifty or sixty feet.
Did you reverse the engine? No, sir, I did not. With a well designed driver-brake there is no benefit in reversing the engine.
Did you bring the lever down in front? No, sir.
Did you drop the reverse lever forward when you shut off? I don't remember that particularly.
When you put the air on, did you use all that was indicated on your gauge? I naturally should do so.
Did you? No, I slapped the air around, put the handle full around; I didn't stop to see what was indicated on the gauge.
Did you use any sand? No.
Were quite excited at the time? I suppose I naturally was.
You lost your head in fact; isn't that the fact now? No, because it is still on my shoulders.
You might as well have been without a head; you lost your judgment, didn't you? I don't see that any judgment would come in after having shut the steam off and put the air on.
Couldn't you have used sand? I did not.
You could have used it if you had thought of it? No, sir; because I didn't see any benefit; as long as the drivers don't slip it is all right.
Do you know that sand will help to stop a train quicker? No, sir, I don't know it.
Do you swear it will not? No, sir, because I have never made any experiment in that.
Then you know nothing about it? You don't know whether it would help or not? I have only my judgment, which is formed after quite an elaborate series of experiments on the brakes.
John F. Laughlin was examined in chief by Mr. Sullivan, and testified:
Q. What is your name? A. John Francis Laughlin.
Where do you live? At 818 Washtenaw avenue.
What is your business? Switchman, in charge of switch engine.
For what road are you working? Chicago, Burlington & Quincy; I was at one time, until I quit.
Were you employed on the 23d of March for that road? Yes, sir.
Why did you quit? Because I did not see fit to work with incompetent engineers.
What were you engaged at on the evening of March 23d, and where were you employed? March 23d I did not do much. I only took one train to the Stock Yards and came back. This accident I have reference to happened March 22d, I believe, at 10:30 p. m.
What were you doing on the evening of the 22d, and where were you employed? On the evening of the 22d of March I had fifty cars shoving into the new yard at Hawthorne, which is about three miles and a half, as near as I can judge, from Western avenue. We stopped to give me a chance to raise the semaphore for the protection of trains coming east, and also set the switches going into the new yard. I got up and gave the signal to go ahead, and as I did a crash came.
What character of train was it that run into yours—a freight? A freight train.
What was the condition of the track, so far as obstructions were concerned, between your train and the train which collided with you? There was no obstruction whatever; there was a clear view four miles or three miles and a half; something like that.
What time in the evening was it? About half-past ten.
Had you a headlight on your engine? Yes, sir.
Had you a light on the other end of your train? No, sir; only my own lamp.
You were at that end? And a red light; yes, sir.
You had a red light, as well? Yes, sir.
Do you know the number of the engine which collided with yours? Yes, sir; 310.
What was the number of yours? 176.
Was engine 310 flagged? I presume it was, according to my helpers' statement.
Your helpers are here, are they? Yes, sir.
You had enough helpers to give the necessary flagging? I believe I had; I had two.
To how many of these new men did you give signals who were unable to answer or failed to answer the signals? I should say three or four.
Did you have any conversation with any of them in relation to the signals? No, sir; well, I had a conversation with one; I gave him a signal and he says, "I don't understand that signal."
Was that signal which you gave him and which he said he did not understand the usual signal given by railroad men? Yes, sir.
The same signal which has been used on the road all the time you have been in its employ? Yes, sir.
When was that, about what time? That was a couple or three nights before I left.
Commissioner Marsh: State what conversation between you and him there was at the time he told you he did not understand that signal? I merely gave him a signal to back up. He says, "Partner, I don't understand that signal." I merely says to him, "What kind do you understand—steamboat signals?" He says, "No, stationary engines."
William G. Frisbie was examined by Mr. Sullivan and testified:
Q. Were you on the train to which engine 176 was attached? A. I belonged to that crew.
At Hawthorne, March 22. I belonged to that crew? Yes, sir.
Did you flag 310 that night? I did.
State to the Commissioners how far you went from your own engine, 176, to flag 310, the one which collided with it? I can tell you perhaps better by car lengths; I can make a guess at the number of feet. I did not measure it exactly. I should think it was in the neighborhood of 1,500 feet to 2,000 feet that I was back of where our engine stood. I found the train was not coming to a stop, and kept going back myself as long as it was possible, giving them all the swing that it was proper and right to stop him. He paid not the slightest attention to my signal; never even whistled for brakes until after his train passed me.
Did you start back as soon as your train stopped to flag? Yes, sir.
You went as far as you could? Yes, sir.
Re-direct examination by Mr. Sullivan:
Q. Did you ever, in all your experience, know a casewhere an engineer was flagged on a clear track, as in this case, and disobeyed a signal and run into another train? No, sir.
Stewart W. Hadlock, examined in chief by Mr. Sullivan, testified as follows:
Q. What is your name? A. Stewart W. Hadlock.
Where do you reside? At Aurora.
What is your business? Engineer.
How long have you been an engineer? Nineteen years.
In what company's employ were you recently? C., B. & Q.
How long were you in the employ of that company? Twenty-three years.
As engineer and fireman? Engineer and fireman both.
Do you know Hose De Witt? I do.
Do you know in whose employ he now is? He is in the employ of the C., B. & Q.
In what capacity? Passenger engineer.
Hector H. Hall was examined in chief by Mr. Sullivan, and testified:
Q. What is your name? A. Hector H. Hall.
Where do you live? At Pullman.
What is your occupation? Engineer.
What company are you working for? Pullman Company.
Do you know Hose De Witt? Yes, sir.
How long have you known him? About eight years.
Is he a sober man? No, sir.
What is his general reputation for sobriety? He is an habitual drunkard.
Is that the reputation in the neighborhood where he lives? Yes, sir.
Have you ever heard it discussed? His wife has been around to all the saloons forbidding them to sell him anything.
Why? Because he was an habitual drunkard.
When did you see him last? I think it was last Thanksgiving day.
What condition was he in then? He was very drunk.
Did you ever see him sober? Well, no, sir; very seldom. I have once or twice, probably; as a general thing he was under the influence of liquor.
John B. Clark, examined in chief by Mr. Sullivan, testified:
Q. State your name? A. John B. Clark.
Where do you live? Aurora.
What is your business? I was a locomotive engineer.
How long were you engaged in that capacity? Ten years, probably.
For what company were you employed? Chicago, Burlington & Quincy.
Did you serve on any committee for that road while you were in its employ? I was on the local examining board for the Chicago division.
Do you know Hose De Witt? I do.
How long have you known him? About fourteen years, I think.
Do you know he was discharged from this company because of his connection with a wreck at Naperville? I do.
Do you know what his reputation for sobriety is and has been during all the time of your acquaintance? He was always a hard drinker, when he fired and run here both.
Have you known him since he was in the employ of the company; have you seen him since? I have seen him on my way through Plano; he worked at Plano for the Plano Manufacturing Company, and I see him there about in the neighborhood of a year ago; he struck me for a ride to Chicago.
Mr. Dawes: I object to any specific instance of drunkenness a year ago.
Mr. Sullivan: Was he drunk or sober? A. He was not sober.
Did you ever see him sober? I don't think I did; not what I should call dead sober.
You have known him eight years? I have known him fourteen years.
Why did you refuse to give him a ride when he applied to you? Well, it was against the rules; and then he was too full of whisky to be a safe man to have around there.
You haven't seen him since, then? I have not, except since he came back to work for the C., B. & Q.
Acting as engineer? Yes, sir.
Passenger or freight? Passenger.
On what road? On the C., B. & Q., on the main line?
Mr. Dawes, cross-examining: Did you regard that as a proper method of determining the qualifications of engineers? A. Yes, sir; it is well enough.
Is this (handing witness a paper) an accurate copy of the protest of the Brotherhood? I will direct your attention to Article 22. I don't represent the Brotherhood; I am here as a witness.
I will ask you whether you know as a matter of fact, Mr. Clark, whether Article 22 is a copy of a grievance presented by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers to the Burlington road? I did not present it.
I understand you did not; you know, do you not?
Mr. Sullivan: I object to all this as immaterial.
Commissioner Rinaker: I do not regard that as cross-examination at present. Is that offered for the purpose of showing that the rule itself was not regarded as a proper one?
Mr. Dawes: I want to ask this witness what his opinion is of this particular grievance.
Mr. Sullivan: How often have you seen him in eight years? A. He laid around Aurora two or three years before he got a job any place.
He lived around Aurora two or three years after he was discharged? Yes, sir.
When he hung around Aurora for two or three years did you see him regularly? He hung around a variety saloon that used to be there in Aurora.
Commissioner Rinaker: How often do you mean we shall understand you are stating you have seen this man drunk in the last eight or ten years?
Commissioner Rogers: When was it he wanted to come up with you on the engine? A. As near as I can remember it was in the neighborhood of a year ago.
Commissioner Rinaker: How many times have you seen him drunk? A. He was drunk at that time.
How many more times? Between the seven years before that? Well, I would not want to say how many times; but at the time he was hanging around Aurora he was off and on. He would go away and hunt for a job and come back, go away and come back; that is the way he was.
Was he drunk when you would see him around this variety show? Yes, we very seldom seen him sober.
Mr. Sullivan: Prior to this controversy between the railroad and its employes could such a man as De Witt receiveemployment as an engineer; would you have employed such a man?
(Objected to by Mr. Dawes.)
Q. Would they employ a man who had been dismissed as being responsible for a wreck, as this man was?
(Objected to by Mr. Dawes.)
Commissioner Rinaker: Do you know why he was discharged? A. He was discharged for having a collision about half a mile east of Naperville station.
You know that from your own knowledge? Yes; I was mixed up a little bit in it myself. I came near getting into trouble with it myself.
Hector H. Hall being recalled, was examined by Commissioner Rogers, and testified as follows:
Q. How long is it since this notice was given by De Witt's wife to the saloon-keepers not to give him liquor? A. I think it was on Thanksgiving day, or the day after.
That is last year? Yes, sir.
That was on Thanksgiving day? Thanksgiving day or the day after; I am not positive which.
J. A. Murray, locomotive engineer of thirteen years' service, residing at Rock Island, testified that Frank Hamilton, Frank Horn, Joseph Roach, J. Logston, Harry Zimmerman and William Patterson, running engines on the C., B. & Q. R. R., were brakemen, conductors and baggagemen, respectively; that he was acquainted with them all for eight to ten years, and that they were inexperienced as engineers or firemen.
Frank Hamilton, witness on behalf of the C., B. & Q. Railroad Company, testified:
Q. Give your name in full? A. Frank Hamilton.
What is your business? Formerly conductor until the 10th of last month; now I am running an engine.
Conductor on the C., B. & Q.? Yes, sir; St. Louis division.
How long have you been a railroad man? For the C., B. & Q. Company, running a train since November, 1880, with the exception of five months, up until the 10th of last month.
Have you been examined as to the manipulation of an engine? To a certain extent.
By whom? Mr. Wallace.
Is Mr. Wallace here? Mr. Wallace is here.
Cross-examination by Mr. Sullivan:
Q. You never got any technical instruction as to the running of an engine in your life, did you? A. Explain that word, please.
You never got any instruction in the shop from those who manufacture engines and are familiar with their detail? No, sir.
You don't understand the meaning of the word technical yourself? I do; yes, sir.
Why do you want me to explain it? Because I wanted to understand.
Witness testified that he had been handling engines off and on ever since he had been on the road.
Q. What you mean is you jumped on; would go on when the regular engineer in charge was there? A. Yes, sir.
And the fireman in charge was there? I run the engine a certain distance.
You were allowed to handle it in their presence, just as many others are allowed? Yes, sir.
Do you mean to tell this Commission, on your oath, that in that way you acquired sufficient knowledge to make you a competent engineer? That is the way, from what I understand, to learn to be an engineer. The way they all get to be engineers.
You say you were examined to some extent. Were you not examined as thoroughly as all other men were examined? I don't know how other men were examined.
How did you come to say you were examined to some extent? What do you mean by that? I mean to the extent that I was able to answer the questions.
You were only examined to that extent you were able to answer, and you were not examined as to those you were not able to answer? I don't know if there were any questions I was not to answer or not; I answered all the questions.
You used that expression, you were examined to some extent. I want to know what you mean by that? I answered all the questions that were asked me.
Do you mean to say that all questions were asked you which are equally asked applicants for employment as engineers? I do not.
Was anyone else examined at the same time you were? There was not.
Who was present when you were being examined? Anyone but the Board? No; there was not.
No one but the Board of Examiners? No.
Where were you examined? The principal place was in the building where the general officers are.
Were you examined more than once? I was instructed another time.
I asked you about examinations? No, sir, not on an engine.
How long did your examination take? I could not tell that.
How many questions were you asked? I could not say; I did not count them.
Have you no idea without counting them? I answered more questions—I asked and answered more questions than was asked me.
You examined yourself, practically, did you? The Board was there to hear it.
The Board was there to hear you examine yourself—asking questions and answering them? Those I did not thoroughly understand were questions I asked, and then I answered my way, and if I was not right, then I was instructed.
And upon that instruction which you got at that time you were employed as an engineer on the road? Oh, no; this is since.
How long after that was it before you were put in charge of an engine, since you got this instruction? I took an engine on the 10th of last month, and I run up to yesterday.
When was your examination? To-day.
You were examined to-day? Yes, sir.
Was this the first examination that took place? This is the first.
You were not examined before you were put in charge of an engine? No, sir.
You were put in charge of an engine without an examination at all? Without any examination.
You were this morning examined, and prepared for being examined here; is that it? No, sir; I don't know as I was prepared at all. I asked questions, and they were answeredto me. If I could explain them in the language that was used in regard to the management of engines.
And that is the first time you have been examined by anybody representing this road as an engineer? Examined on an engine.
Did you ever draw pay as an engineer or as a fireman at any time in the employ of this or any other railroad company in the United States before this? As an engineer or fireman?
As an engineer or fireman? I did not.
Did you ever perform the duties of an engineer or fireman at any time in your life before this date, on any road? That is, to draw pay for it?
To draw pay for it, and perform its duties regularly? No, sir.
Did you ever put a wick in a headlight? I did.
When? The other day.
Not until that? That is the first one, but I have frequently saw it done.
How old are you? I was thirty-four years old on the 16th day of last January.
Can you tell what the notches in the quadrant are for? Yes, sir.
Please do so? They are to govern the working of an engine.
State in what respect they govern the working of an engine? They start from the center and work both ways; the forward and back motions drop the engine down forward and you give her the full stroke. If you put her back to a less stroke and increase the speed.
What do you mean by the stroke? The stroke of the piston that travels in the cylinder.
What is the stroke of your engine? I don't know.
Has an engine more or less stroke when it is hooked down or hooked up? It has the same stroke, but it receives steam through the ports to a less stroke.
In what condition? Both ways; either working in the forward or back motion.
What do you refer to when you speak of receiving more steam? Can you explain that? To a certain extent, yes.
To that certain extent please explain it? As the engineis working you drop her down and give her full stroke and she is receiving steam at full stroke; as you cut her back she receives steam to a less portion as you cut her back, and then start to travel the other way—the valve it is.
Do you know anything about the points of cut-off of a valve on an engine? No, sir.
You never got any instruction on that subject? No, sir.
You were not examined on it this morning, were you? No, sir.
Evidence of a large number of expert engineers and practical railroad men was heard, together with the testimony of the incompetent men. A copy of the entire proceedings is in the hands of Mr. Alexander Sullivan, counsel for the Brotherhood.
INTER-STATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.
The result of the State Board's examination, with a vast amount of new evidence, was prepared to place before the Inter-State Commerce Commission, which had signified its willingness to sit in Chicago May 1, to examine into the charges that the Burlington was operating its lines with incompetent men. For some reason never made public the promised investigation was not made. The Brotherhood side of the case was ready, and in the hands of experienced legal counsel; however, no action was taken by the Commission.
MEETING OF THE STOCKHOLDERS.
As the stockholders were to meet on May 16, it was expected that they, having suffered great financial loss from the strike, would take some steps toward bringing about a settlement between the men and the company. It was considered by the strikers that theroad had not been successfully operated by the class of men then in its employ, and that self-interest would prompt the stockholders to do justice to their old employes.
Contrary to the anticipations of the men, the management was unanimously endorsed at this meeting and by this action gave notice that nothing in the line of concessions could be expected.
FINAL ACTION OF THE MEN.
Subsequent to this meeting, the Joint Grievance Committee was convened, and it was resolved not to declare the strike off but to continue resistance indefinitely, this action to be subject to the approval of the men. The resolution of the Committee was duly submitted to the men along the line, and a vote was taken as to whether the strike should be declared off or not. The result of the vote was an almost unanimous expression to continue the strike without abatement.
After the stockholders' meeting, the men at Chicago appointed a day to discuss anew the proposition to declare the strike off. This caused great uneasiness along the line, but was only done in order to give those who had not been present at the first vote taken an opportunity to express their sentiments. This discussion, like the preceding one, ended in an unanimous decision to continue the strike.
Every effort had been made by the company to break the lines. At Galesburg and other points, it was claimed that large sums of money had been offered toindividuals to break the ranks and again enter the services of the company. Outside of Chicago, the men were subject to all manner of persecutions to compel them to yield to the company's offers, but without effect; not a single case of weakness was developed after the second week of the strike.
In Chicago, as before stated, but two men returned, one of these, a yardmaster, had been struggling under the name of "scab" since "'82" and he was naturally expected to take the course that he did. On the morning of March 23, he was the first yardmaster to refuse to do duty as a switchman, and the first and only one to seek reinstatement. At other points along the line, the record is even better than this. Probably not over a dozen men weakened; from Chicago to Denver, all have stood firm and solid on the ground they first occupied.
The following quotation from the Brotherhood circular heretofore alluded to, will be of interest.
"THE LOYALTY OF THE STRIKERS.
"Just here it is proper to place upon record the fact—luminous in the annals of labor strikes—of the loyalty of the men, their devotion to principle, and their unexampled faithfulness to their obligations. As one man they responded to the call. So thoroughly imbued were they with the justice of their cause, that with an unanimity which will forever challenge the admiration of manly men, they surrendered their positions and faced with an unaltering fortitude all the privations incident to a strike, rather than sacrifice their manhood, their independence and self-respect.