Several other witnesses testified as to being blacklisted on account of being in the strike.
Charles Naylor, a fireman on the Ft. Wayne road up to the time of the strike, was next examined.In answer to questions as to what he thought of arbitration he said: "From my knowledge of railroad men I do not believe they would have much confidence in arbitrators elected in the same way public officials are. My idea is that they should be appointed when their services are required and a new set of arbitrators selected for each case. The board should be composed of one man selected by the employes, one by the roads, and a third by these two."
Commissioner Wright: "That is the law now."
Mr. Naylor: "Yes, but it is not enforced. It seems to me that if Mr. Cleveland had followed in the line of action pursued by Mr. Gladstone, during the coal miners' strike in England, there would have been no trouble here. If he had told the railroads when they called on him for troops that they must submit to arbitration or they would get no support from the government, the men would have thought a good deal more of his honesty and fairness, but when they see the whole power of the government thrown on the side of the railroads they lose confidence in the justice of the government."
Commissioner Wright: "There was no lawunder which the president could have told the roads to arbitrate the trouble with their men."
Mr. Naylor: "From all that I can learn there was as much law for him to do so as for him to send troops here without the request of the governor of the state."
Mr. Worthington: "In your suggestion of a board of arbitrators there would be but one of them unprejudiced?"
Mr. Naylor: "I think such a board would always be able to effect a compromise between the parties. I have acted in the capacity of arbitrator between the company and the men in adjusting grievances and have always found that a spirit of compromise was met in a like spirit and that is the principle, after all, upon which such questions must be settled."
Vice President Howard of the American Railway Union, was recalled to make an explanation regarding some testimony which Mr. Heathcoat had given the day before. He said: "Mr. Heathcoat told you that Mr. Pullman had promised to allow a committee to examine his books, to prove the correctness of his statements to the effect that his company was losing money on its contracts. The next day, Wallace Rice, areporter on the Herald, called on Mr. Pullman and asked him if he would allow an expert to examine his books on behalf of the union. Mr. Pullman replied that what he meant by allowing an examination of his books was that he would have his own book-keeper prepare a statement to be submitted to the committee. He said he never had any idea of allowing the committee to actually examine his books. Mr. Howard then asked if he might make a statement of a couple of matters of importance to the employes. The commissioners looked doubtful about this, but finally Mr. Wright said he might go ahead if the matter had anything to do with the subject under consideration.
Mr. Howard then said: "The United States government is blacklisting 3,000 employes of the Union Pacific Railroad now."
Mr. Wright: "We have no authority to go into that question."
Mr. Howard: "And the other matter is that all the other roads are making a threat against the M. K. & T. to boycott its business if the road persists in making a certain rate to Washington."
Mr. Wright: "Has that anything to do with the American Railway Union?"
Mr. Howard: "Yes, sir. If the government allows the railroads to violate the laws it ought to keep hands off in disputes between the roads and the men."
Rev. Mr. Cawardine was called and related what he knew about the matter. Mr. Cawardine is pastor of the M. E. church in Pullman. His testimony was directed chiefly to the exorbitant rents. In answer to Mr. Wright, saying that he had been charged with being an anarchist, and a socialist, Mr. Cawardine said: "I have considered the charge so contemptible in the bitterness and prejudice of its origin as to be beneath answer. That I, an American born citizen and the son of a soldier who died for his country, should be charged with being anarchist, seems to me incomprehensible. It is simply an evidence of what has been made very apparent that a good many people are violently prejudiced against working men and will not listen to what may be said on their side or read what may be written. I find this feeling even among many of my brethren in the ministry. I regret it too, because the labor problem can only be solved by a consideration of it from all sides."
Andrew W. Pearson, a real estate agent who formerly worked in Pullman, was called on thestand and in answer to a question put by Mr. Wright, said:
"Houses which rent for $17.00 in Pullman can be rented in Kensington and Roseland for $10.00. Pullman houses which rent for $25.00 can be rented elsewhere for $15.00, and $10.00 Pullman houses for $5.00. In Grand Crossing, a manufacturing town, $8.00 a month will rent a five-room brick cottage. The rents I am giving now are the present rents. There has been a decline since two years ago everywhere but in Pullman."
Commissioner Kernan: "How much higher are rents in Pullman than elsewhere?"
Mr. Pearson: "I should say fully one-third."
Frank P. McDonald, a locomotive engineer and author of the Great scab route circular, testified that he was a member of the American Railway Union and a delegate to their convention. He said he was opposed to the strike, but voted for it as it was the unanimous sentiment of his local union. His reason for opposing it was because he did not think the union was strong enough to win.
President Debs, of the American RailwayUnion, was the next important witness to testify. Mr. Debs outlined the trouble from its inception down to the special convention in Chicago on Aug. 2. In answer to questions by Commissioner Wright, Mr. Debs said he was 38 years old, a resident of Terre Haute, Ind., and had been president of the American Railway Union since June 20, 1893. He was a practical railroad man, had been employed four and a half years in the capacity of locomotive fireman and was at present editor of the Fireman's Magazine. Mr. Wright told him to go ahead and give a history of the late strike so far as he knew from his own experience.
Mr. Debs said: "In the early part of May, while at home in Indiana, I received a telegram from Mr. Howard notifying me of the probability of a strike at the Pullman shops, the employes of which were members of our union. I authorized Mr. Howard to take full charge of the matter, but to do all in his power to prevent a strike. My reason for this was that the American Railway Union had just been involved in a strike on the Great Northern railway. At a meeting of the general officers of the union we had discussed the possibility of other strikes arising on account of the victory the union had won onthe Great Northern railway, and we decided that it would be good policy to be very cautious in encouraging the men to go into strikes whenever there was a possibility of avoiding them. May 11th, I heard that the Pullman employes had struck. A few days after, I came here and made a personal investigation of the trouble. After a trip to St. Paul I again went down there and the result of my investigation was that the conditions at Pullman justified the men in the course they had taken. I found that wages and expenses were so adjusted that every dollar the men made found its way back to Pullman coffers. The men were not only not getting enough wages to live on but were getting deeper and deeper in debt every day. They had not money enough as a rule to get away. There seemed to be no escape for them. Wages had been reduced, but expenses remained the same. After I had satisfied myself of the truth of the men's statements regarding their conditions, I made up my mind to do everything possible in law and justice to right the wrongs of our members who had gone out on strike. We first tried to get the company to arbitrate. We were confident that any fair and impartial board would decide in favor of theemployes. The company, however, refused every proposition of that sort saying that it had nothing to arbitrate. I then suggested that the Pullman company select two men to act with two judges of the circuit court and a fifth person whom they should select to act as a board to investigate the question whether there was anything to arbitrate. This proposition was refused.
"June 12, delegates representing 425 local unions of the American Railway Union met here in the first quadrennial convention of the organization. The Pullman question came up for consideration before the convention sitting as a committee of the whole to hear reports etc. I wish to say in this connection that all of our deliberations were held with open doors, except one executive session at which the question of finances was considered, in which we felt the general public had no interest, but at all the other meetings the entire press of the city was represented. I mention this in refutation of the statements which have been made as to the American Railway Union forming a conspiracy against the railroads and committing offenses against the United States. If a conspiracy wereintended it seems improbable that we should have sat with open doors. The first steps taken toward securing a settlement of the trouble, was the appointment of a committee composed partly of Pullman employes and in part of other delegates present, with authority to call on Mr. Wickes to find out if anything could be done toward effecting a settlement of the strike."
Here Mr. Debs related how Mr. Wickes refused to confer with a committee composed of any but his former employes, and finally refused to confer with them, stating that he had nothing to arbitrate.
He then continued: "The matter was then referred to a special committee with authority to act in the matter. This committee reported that if the Pullman Company refused to concede anything after five days time to consider the question, it was the sense of the convention that the members of the union would refuse to handle Pullman cars. Under the constitution of the American Railway Union the majority rules in all questions under consideration. No strike can be declared except by a majority of the men involved. In order to conform to this rule, the delegates were instructed to communicate by wire withtheir respective unions to ascertain the sentiment of the members on the question before the convention. After reports had been received from all the local unions, the convention by a unanimous vote decided to adopt the report of the special committee.
"Since the railroad employes have been criticised for engaging in a sympathetic strike, I wish to make some statement regarding the general situation. In many instances they had local grievances themselves, and besides, there was this general condition which aggravated the whole situation.
"In the spring of 1893, just before the opening of the World's Fair, the general managers of the various roads centering in Chicago, were very apprehensive lest there should be a general strike among all classes of railroad employes for an increase of wages. The officers of the organizations appealed to the men not to strike, arguing that it was their patriotic duty to bear with patience their grievances until the fair was over. The result was there was no strike anywhere. The men all worked in harmony throughout the country. Some of the managers promised, by implication at least, that there would be an increase of wages to reward thepatriotic action of their men. Instead of doing as they promised, the general managers during this time equipped their organization to protect their mutual interests."
Mr. Debs then read an article from a Chicago paper which told how the general managers had formed an air tight association which would be able to deal with any strikes that might arise in the future, and suggested that the association rather courted than feared trouble with employes of the railroads.
Continuing, Mr. Debs said: "Shortly after the new association had completed its organization it became apparent what course it intended to pursue. About Sept. 1, the Louisville & Nashville road made a sweeping reduction of 10 per cent in the pay of all its employes—the section men getting 67-1/2 cents a day under this reduction. Then in succession followed the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia, the Richmond & Danville, the Mobile & Ohio, Nashville & Chattanooga, Big Four, New York & New England, New York, New Haven & Hartford, Wabash, Union Pacific, Northern Pacific, Monon, Great Northern and the Great Western was just on the point of declaring a reduction when the strike was declared."It was significant that no two roads declared a reduction at the same time, and in most instances the reductions began with the unorganized and poorest paid men in the service. The men viewed these reductions with apprehension and unrest. This was particularly the case after Judge Caldwell had declared upon investigation that the cut on the Union Pacific was unwarrantable. In two cases the reductions annulled and the original pay of the men restored. On the Union Pacific—on the order of Judge Caldwell and on the Great Northern through the efforts of the American Railway Union. In the later case the matter was decided by a board of arbitration, composed of leading capitalists and business men of St. Paul and Minneapolis.
"These conditions confronted the American Railway Union, when its delegates met here in convention. The employes felt that other systems in sound financial conditions had taken advantage of the unfortunate condition of the country to reduce wages. The men had lost confidence in their old unions which had failed utterly to protect them against these reductions and they came in the hope that the American Railway Union would take some steps to resist them andprotect its members against the rapacity of the railroad companies. This was the reason they were ripe to take up the cause of the Pullman strikers. They were wrought up to a point where they were willing to jeopardize their positions to protect both themselves and the Pullman employes. The primary purpose was to cut off Pullman's revenues by cutting off his cars and thereby force him to a settlement."
Mr. Wright: "I understand you to say you advised against the Pullman strike. Why did you do so?"
Mr. Debs: "We had just gone through a strike on the Great Northern and I did not think it advisable to go into another at that time."
Mr. Wright: "What would have been the action of the convention if there had been no strike at Pullman? Did not that strike force the issue?"
Mr. Debs: "There would have been no trouble with the railroads, I think, but for the Pullman strike. That and the depressed condition of the country aggravated the situation so as to bring about a general strike."
Mr. Wright: "Was the general strike precipitated by the Pullman troubles?"
Mr. Debs: "Yes sir, it was."
Mr. Wright: "Was a notice of the action of the convention served on the different companies?"
Mr. Debs: "Not by the convention. That matter was left to the men on the various systems. From the action of the managers toward the American Railway Union generally, the matter of serving a formal notice of our action on them was not looked upon as necessary, as we were very sure it would be ignored."
Mr. Wright: "Was notice served on the Illinois Central and Rock Island roads?"
Mr. Debs: "I think so, but am not sure."
Mr. Worthington: "Did they have notice through the press?"
Mr. Debs: "Yes, sir."
Mr. Wright: "Do you know the date on which the general managers adopted their resolution to resist the strike?"
Mr. Debs: "I think it was June 24, four days after our action. It was currently reported at that time, though I have no written or other evidence of the fact that the general managers resolved among themselves to exterminate the union."
Mr. Wright: "If the American RailwayUnion had had its own way in regard to its policy would a general strike have been postponed?"
Mr. Debs: "Yes, sir. The conditions were not altogether propitious and we were fully aware of the fact."
Mr. Wright: "What was the number of your membership at that time?"
Mr. Debs: "About 150,000."
Mr. Wright: "Did you consider that strong enough for a general strike?"
Mr. Debs: "Yes, sir. But it was not a question of membership altogether. There were other reasons." Mr. Debs said there was one other point to which he wished to call the attention of the commission. One great reason the men had in resisting a reduction of wages was the fact that the companies never restored them voluntarily. The tendency had therefore been for the employes to get closer together to resist the combined efforts of the managers. That was the principle, he said, which had inspired the idea of the American Railway Union. Then resuming the history of the strike Mr. Debs said:
"Pursuant to the order of the convention, which was practically the order of 150,000 mencomposing the American Railway Union, the members refused to handle Pullman cars. It has been claimed that the president of the union was a self appointed leader who had ordered the strike, etc. In this connection I wish to say that while such is not the case, when the report came in I gave it my approval as president. I do not wish to avoid any of the responsibility. If I had had the authority I would have ordered it under the same circumstances. June 26, the men began to refuse to haul Pullman cars. They had been advised not to handle the cars on any system where they could not get the sanction of a sufficient number of men to make such a refusal effective. The officers of the union opened headquarters at Uhlics Hall and as committees came in from various roads and made their reports they were advised how to act, and above all else to avoid trouble and violence and to maintain order. We advised them of their right to quit in a body and told them their rights ended there, and that the railroad companies had a right to hire new men and their right began there."
Commissioner Kernan: "What steps if any did you take to prevent violence?"
Mr. Debs: "When we saw there was to betrouble we issued an appeal to the men not to commit any acts of violence. Fourteen years of experience taught me that violence was the worst thing that could happen for any strike."
Commissioner Kernan: "How about the telegrams sent by you?"
Mr. Debs: "None of them were inflammatory."
Commissioner Kernan: "How about that 'save your money and buy a gun' telegram?"
Mr. Debs: "I can explain that telegram very easily. Among those who were employed at headquarters to take charge of our correspondence and telegraphing was a young man named Benedict. He had authority to sign my name to telegrams in answer to questions, etc. The telegram was sent to a man whom Mr. Benedict had worked under as a telegraph operator in Montana. The allusion to the gun was a playful expression which they had been accustomed to use in joking each other, and was understood in that way by the man who received the telegram. I have his letter in explanation of the matter which I will be glad to turn over to the commissioners. I never saw many of the telegrams sent out and did not see the one you refer to. The employes,obedient to the order of the convention, began as I have said, to refuse to handle cars. The refusal usually came from the switchmen who refused to make up trains with the Pullman equipment. As they refused they were discharged—when the others would quit.
"July 1st. After five days of strike the general managers were completely defeated and their immediate resources exhausted. Up to that time there had been no signs of violence anywhere. Our men were intact and confident. Then the intervention of the courts was called into play.
"July 2d. I was served with a sweeping injunction restraining me from sending out telegrams or issuing orders having the effect of persuading the men to quit work. This injunction was issued wherever the trouble existed. The result was to reduce our influence to nothing. This was the point from which the strike was conducted by telegrams and otherwise. Then a special grand jury was called to inquire into my conduct with the result that I was indicted with other officials of the union and warrants issued for our arrest. We were held under a joint bond of $10,000. Then followed an attachment issued for contempt of the injunction of July 2d,and our incarceration in the county jail. As soon as our men found we were under arrest they quit. The U. S. courts ended the strike, not the soldiers." Mr. Debs told of the seizure of his mail and personal effects. He said he merely cited the fact to show to what extent the U. S. authorities were willing to go to defeat the strikers. He also commented on Gen. Miles who was reported to have gone directly to the General Managers headquarters on his arrival with the U. S. troops. He said Gen. Miles was quoted next day as having said he had broken the back bone of the strike. Mr. Debs thought Gen. Miles had mistaken his mission which was to preserve order and not to help the railroads run their trains. He said:
"I think Gen. Miles was vulgarly out of place, both when he went to the General Managers and when he made the remark credited to him." He said he thought if the General Managers were compelled to bring into court copies of their telegrams sent to the attorney general as the American Railway Union had done he could substantiate the charge that it was the object to annihilate the American Railway Union.
Mr. Worthington: "Did I understand you this morning to charge the General ManagersAssociation with the responsibility of the strike?"
Mr. Debs: "Not in that broad and general way. The American Railway Union ordered the strike and is responsible for it, but there were aggravating circumstances which ought to go in mitigation under any view of the situation. But the attitude taken by the General Managers' Association, their expressed determination to crush the American Railway Union, in that respect and in refusing to arbitrate they were responsible. We felt if they could combine we could and each was culpable."
Mr. Worthington: "You believe in enforcing the law, do you not, and in the proper authorities using sufficient force to do it, do you not?"
Mr. Debs: "Most certainly I do."
Mr. Worthington: "You have doubtless given considerable thought to the matter. How do you think strikes can be avoided?"
Mr. Debs: "There are two ways. First. By submitting to reduction in wages and other grievances as the old organizations have done for years. When the general manager determines to reduce wages he proposes a cut of 20 per cent when he only intends to make a 10 per cent reduction.Then there is a conference when they finally agree on 10 per cent. This avoids strikes but it reduces wages. The second way is a unification of all, or practically all the railroad men of the country in a prudently managed organization. That would prevent strikes on railroads, for even if the railroads could unite to beat such an organization, it would be expensive."
Mr. Worthington: "Do you believe that such an organization would be so strong as to compel the adoption of all reasonable demands?"
Mr. Debs: "We did believe it, or the American Railway Union would never have been organized. We see now that it cannot because all the organized forces of society and of the government are arrayed against it. When a strike inconveniences no one, no one is particularly interested in it and it gradually dwindles down to the little end of nothing. But when a strike does inconvenience the public, as railroad strikes must of necessity do, the organized forces of society and the government, a practically impregnable force, and properly so, is arrayed against it. Take, for instance, the Ann Arbor strike. It inconvenienced the public and immediately the roads applied to the courts, and Judge Taft issued an injunctionagainst the men. The first of the injunctions that have been so much questioned both by lawyers and laborers."
Mr. Worthington: "Is it justifiable to incommode the public as such strikes do?"
Mr. Debs: "It depends on circumstances. I believe with Admiral Porter, that a pin is worth fighting for if a principle is involved. To resist degradation is justifiable no matter what the result. If there were no resistance, things would be, if possible, worse than they are and without resistance degradation is inevitable. If the railroads treated their men fairly there would be no labor organizations. Every organization of railroad men is traceable to oppression. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers was born of the tyranny of the Michigan Central road. I have that from the lips of Mr. Robinson, the founder of that organization. The first meetings were held in secret because the men would have been discharged if the management knew they were organizing. Everywhere organization originated from similar causes. No legislation can reconcile railroad employers and employes while human nature is in it. Confidence has been destroyed. The men have been so treated that theyhave grown suspicious, and when general managers, who are themselves employes, order a reduction of wages on instructions from those above them, that it is necessary because of hard times or slack business, the men are not at all assured that such are the reasons. They may accept the reduction, but they are not satisfied. In many instances the general managers obey orders to reduce wages with regret for they are humane men, many of them. Soon after the Great Northern strike, the president of a railroad told me that I now had the opportunity to make myself a most enviable reputation, both among railroad employers and employes by advising the men themselves to propose a reduction of say 10 per cent in their wages during these dull times, thus putting the road under obligation to increase wages when business improved. I said to him, only a few months ago your road was doing a phenomenally heavy business. Did you propose an increase of even 5 per cent in your employes wages because you were making money? Every time a decrease in wages has been prevented or an increase secured, it has been the result of weeks of labor and pleading and the expenditures of thousands of dollars by the men. Every schedule ever adopted isevidence of that. Now that the strike is practically over the usual persecutions will be indulged in against those who took part in it. Some people are felicitating themselves that the strike has been suppressed, but the safety valve has been screwed down, that's all. The men are no more satisfied than they were. Some of them will get back their old positions; others will get work on other roads; still others will find work elsewhere, while some will be forced to remain idle for a long time. None of them are satisfied with the conditions and sooner or later strikes will break out again, I fear. You might as well try to stop Niagara with a feather as crush the spirit of organization."
Commissioner Kernan: "If it should be shown that government ownership of railroads resulted in poorer service and more expensive management, do you think it would be a good thing?"
Mr. Debs: "Government ownership of railroads is decidedly better than railroad ownership of government. The time is coming when there must be government ownership of railroads. Strikes cannot be averted otherwise."
Commissioner Worthington: "Will government supervision answer the purpose?"
Mr. Debs: "I don't think so."
Mr. Worthington: "Will arbitration answer?"
Mr. Debs: "I fear not. No good can come from compulsory arbitration, that is a contradiction of terms, even if some means of enforcing the decree could be devised. Those against whom the decree was rendered would not be satisfied. The basis must be friendship and confidence."
Commissioner Worthington: "Admitting that there is some contradiction in the term compulsory arbitration, it expresses what we mean though compulsory attempts at conciliation would express it better. Would it be of no avail in any case?"
Mr. Debs: "It would undoubtedly in many cases where trouble is local and the conditions homogeneous, so that all of them could be considered as for instance in the Pullman troubles. It could be put in force if there was a trial by jury or something of that sort, as other courts are constituted, but in interstate matters on railroads extending over thousands of miles where conditions vary, no decree could be made to fitthe case. It is easy to compass local matters but not widespread matters because the conditions are not homogeneous. It would be impossible to force the decree."
"MR. DEBS' TESTIMONY."An extract from the Chicago Times.
"People who read an Editorial from the Chicago Times of Eugene V. Debs before the strike commission, as printed in the Times yesterday, cannot, if they be fair-minded, fail to be convinced of the justice of the cause in which he is working and of the sincerity and ability of the man himself.
"In a struggle for the rights of humanity individuals are nothing. He will be but a poor champion of the cause of the people who will pause to eulogize certain champions when he should be fighting for principles. But when a leader like Debs is attacked, as he has been attacked, and all the agencies and all the influence of capitalism are set in motion to 'make an example of him'—i. e., to so persecute him that no other man will be willing to encounter like danger in the wageworkers' cause—then must every spokesman of the working classes speak out in defense of the leader so attacked.
"The slanders that have been directed againstDebs during this struggle simply baffled recountal because of their number. He has been called crazy, drunken, revolutionary, criminal, incompetent. Newspapers have at once declared his conduct of the strike impotent and denounced him for having made it so effective. Labor has been entreated to throw him over as a puerile leader and capital has been warned that he is a dangerous man because of his surpassing ability. 'Anything to beat Debs' has been the one policy which has animated the organs of capital for the last four months.
"Well, Debs is beaten—in a certain sense. His effort in behalf of the Pullman strikers has failed and the very journals which most strenuously opposed his work are now printing the story of the dreadful destitution bred of the Pullman despotism which Debs did his best to break down.
"It is too late now to fight over again the issues of the American Railway Union strike and boycott. Debs and his associates now stand in the shadow of the penitentiary for trying to avert by entirely proper and lawful means the conditions which now engage the attention of the governor of the state, and which must awaken the sympathy of all humane people. Theprivileged corporations flocked to the aid of the Pullman concern—no one conversant with the facts in the case can gainsay that. The railroads stood by Pullman; every morning newspaper in Chicago except the Times stood by the railroads; the government joined in with the combination. Mr. Debs' testimony is to the effect that governmental action, by hastily issued injunctions, killed the strike—a statement which everybody cognizant of the course of that movement will indorse.
"There has been much evidence adduced before the investigation commission, but none so exact or none more clear than that of Mr. Debs. His explanation of the causes of the strike and boycott is perspicuous and logical, his outline of the causes of its failure coherent and convincing, his suggestion of means for avoiding its recurrence absolutely right. He sees, as all clear-sighted and fair-minded men must see, that under the private ownership of railroads there is no possibility of justice for railroad employes. The public interest in the smooth and uninterrupted course of traffic over the roads enables the managers to call upon public opinion and even upon state forces to aid them against the employes in any serious controversy. The government ownership of railroadsis indeed, as Mr. Debs has said, the one effective remedy for strikes among railroad hands. Asked for a solution of the general railroad problem, he suggested the co-operative commonwealth—a solution, doubtless, but one so difficult of accomplishment as to seem almost, if not quite, Utopian. Mr. Debs might have proceeded logically from his declaration for government ownership of railroads to government ownership and management of all other industries which tend naturally and inevitably to become monopolies. This accomplished, the repeal of all laws giving private persons the benefit of artificial law-created monopolies would follow. Then the abolition of all taxes upon industry. Finally, the throwing open to all men on equal conditions of all natural opportunities so that every man starting in life should have, so far as human power could accomplish it, an equal chance with every other man. Under such an organization and with such laws the co-operative commonwealth which Mr. Debs suggests would probably prove unnecessary. Competition, which is essential to the progress of civilization, would still continue, but it would be free competition, not the calm triumph of man plus monopoly over the man without it."
Following President Debs' testimony the matter of rioting was taken up by the commissioners. Chief Deputy U. S. Marshall John C. Donnelly, testified that there were between 1,400 and 1,500 deputies sworn in, armed and paid by the government, concerning whose character and fitness practically no inquiries were made, and that there were between 3,000 and 4,000 men sworn in as deputies at the request of the railroads, armed and paid by them, and that no inquiries concerning their characters were made at all. That this army of 3,000 or 4,000 armed men clothed with the authority of the United States was not at all under the control of the U. S. marshall and was not responsible and reported to no one unless to the chiefs of detectives of the several roads. Most of the reports of drunkenness and violence of deputies were from among those hired by the railroads.
Malcolm McDonald, a reporter for the Record, was next to testify. In answer to questions by the commissioners he said, he thought as a rule the turbulent element was not composed of railroad men. He spoke to some of the American Railway Union men about upsetting cars and they denied having had any hand in it. He alsosaid that the conduct of the U. S. marshalls had not been such as to prevent trouble and they seemed to be hunting opportunities to get into conflict with the men.
M. L. Wickman, pastor of the Swedish Methodist Church, testified that many members of his church who worked for the Pullman Company, had to be taken care of during the fall and winter of 1893 and 1894. He told of one man who had his hand injured by a piece of flying steel. After a great deal of expense at the hospital he finally recovered the partial use of his hand and was taken back to work at reduced pay. Mr. Wickman took the case before Manager Brown, and that officer confronted him with a written statement by the injured man to the effect that the accident was one for which the company was in no way responsible. It was subsequently proved that the man's signature to the paper was forged.
Ray Baker, a reporter for the Record, said he was at Hammond during the rioting there and thought the rioters were not railroad men.
H. J. Cleveland, a reporter for the Herald, testified that he was to work along the Rock Island and Lake Shore tracks where considerable rioting occurred between July 4 and 15. From anextensive acquaintance among railroad men, he felt sure that there were few, if any railroad men among the rioters. Criticising the deputy marshals, Mr. Cleveland said that he saw many acts on their part which were calculated to cause trouble unnecessary, and thought, as a rule, they were men not fit to be in authority. He characterized the whole lot as a contemptible set of men. The men who were doing the rioting, had the appearance of those who had never done an honest day's work in their lives.
N. D. Hutton, reporter for the Tribune, was the next witness called. He said that he was at Blue Island and about the stock yards district. Thought some of the rioting was done by railroad men, but could not say so from personal knowledge of the fact.
Mr. Miller, a reporter for the Tribune was next examined. He testified that he was sworn in as a deputy marshall and detailed to go to Blue Island. After relating his experience as to rioting, Commissioner Kernan asked him if he had an extensive acquaintance among railroad men.
Mr. Miller: "In the course of my work Ihave learned to know a great many of them by sight at least."
Commissioner Kernan: "Did you see anyone whom you know to be a railroad man engaged in violence or encouraging others who were so engaged?"
Mr. Miller: "Never, except once. That was when a meat train had been cut in two and switches were being turned. He was not doing any of it but the general tenor of his talk was in the nature of advice to what was being done. Most of the trouble was caused by hoodlums and toughs. In my reports I characterized them as hoodlums. Many were boys."
Commissioner Kernan: "What was your observation as to the sobriety or otherwise of the strikers at the meetings?"
Mr. Miller: "I scarcely remember of seeing one under the influence of liquor. Sobriety was the rule and drunkenness the exception."
Commissioner Kernan: "Did the speakers at the meetings advice against violence or did they encourage it?"
Mr. Miller: "They advised against it."
Commissioner Kernan: "Did you think them sincere in this advice or was it simply a cloak?"Mr. Miller: "I believed them sincere particularly the brainier men."
Victor M. Harding, a reporter for the Times, was the next witness, he testified to being present during the rioting on the Rock Island road, and saw boys throwing burning waste into cars within a hundred yards of a cavalry camp."
Commissioner Kernan: "Did you ever see anyone you knew to be a railroad man engaged in any violence?"
Mr. Harding: "I never did. The stock yards furnish the most glaring examples of the false and exaggerated reports of riot and disorder made by the newspapers. This district has been for years made to bear the burden of the crimes committed in this part of the city. There was comparatively little disorder at the stock yards during the strike, but the newspaper reports contained accounts of fights, shooting affrays and riots almost every night. Capt. O'Neil, of the stock yards police told me that the reporters and the militia were both responsible for this. Volleys of shot fired by the soldiers or militia were to be heard every day and night, which on investigation proved to have no cause other than a desire to create excitement. The militia men, hesaid, were in the habit of firing merely for the sake of making a sensation. A crowd would naturally gather, reporters would flock around and then there would be something to tell and brag about. I know this is so from talk with the men themselves. They intimated that they were getting tired of doing nothing and were desirous of creating some excitement. One night Capt. O'Neil said he heard a volley of shots, went to the spot and found that the shooting had been done by a lot of sentries. They said they had fired at a Polak—the common name for a Pole—who was seen crawling under a car. The soldiers claimed it was dark, the man was at a distance and was not hit. Yet they knew he was a Polak. Equally absurd stories in explanation of shooting were given the police captain on other occasions."
Assistant Fire Marshall John Fitzgerald testified that he had been on duty at all fires of any importance and had witnessed many acts of incendiarism. In all instances he stated that these acts had been committed by boys or youths belonging to the hoodlum element. He said the eldest could not have been over nineteen years old. The fire department had never been obstructedin any way in reaching fires. On one occasion railroad men, whom he knew to be strikers, aided in placing an engine in position, though he had never solicited aid of any kind during the period when the fires were most numerous.
The Pullman side was now taken up by the commissioners.
Frank W. Glover was the first witness. He described himself as a real estate dealer who owned a sub-division in Kensington, besides acre property there, owned and sold houses and lots, and had tenants. In reply to Commissioner Worthington as to what he knew of the rents in Pullman, Kensington, Roseland and other similar suburbs, how they would compare, Mr. Glover said: "I should say a six-room house in Pullman for $17.00 is better than one of my six-room houses in Kensington which rents for $10.00 to $12.00. The Pullman houses are connected with sewers. The land on which they stand is better drained and from what I should judge from outside appearances they have more of what are called modern conveniences. My houses have no sewer connections, the land is low, and in spring and fall is liable to have water on it; besides Iunderstand the Pullman Company keeps their houses in repair, while I do not."
Paul E. Hearns, stationer and newsdealer at Pullman, was the next witness. In his opinion there would have been less suffering if some of the men had let beer and whiskey alone.
L. H. Johnson, a hardware and furniture dealer, testified next. He expressed the belief that the Pullman employes were as thrifty, economical and temperate a class of people as others of a similar class.
Wm. R. McKay, a reporter for the Mail, was next heard. He said that he had been detailed to look after the American Railway Union headquarters and the meetings at Uhlics Hall. The speeches at all these meetings were against violence and in favor of observing the law as the only means of winning the strike.
B. H. Atwell, a reporter for the Daily News, was the next witness. He testified that he was at Blue Island during the trouble. He said the deputy marshalls had drawn revolvers without any reason. Most of the men who made trouble there were not railroad men. Railroad officials had said to him that the strikers were not making the trouble. At the stock yards also, suchviolence as was done was not by railroad strikers but by toughs.
The next witness called was Alex Lungren, a wood-carver. In answer to Commissioner Kernan's question if foremen had absolute power over the men in their departments, Mr. Lungren replied that he did not know.
Commissioner Kernan: "Are the workingmen compelled to obey the orders given by the foremen?"
Mr. Lungren: "Yes. They must obey orders."
Commissioner Kernan: "Is there any appeal from these orders?"
Mr. Lungren: "No."
Commissioner Kernan: "Then there is no way of getting the matter to the officials or superintendent?"
Mr. Lungren: "No."
Commissioner Kernan: "Then there is no system of obtaining a hearing from the officials concerning any grievance?"
Mr. Lungren: "No there is no system and it is very difficult to see any of the officials to obtain redress."
Commissioner Kernan: "What were theconditions of your re-employment with the company?"
Mr. Lungren: "I had to leave the American Railway Union."
Commissioner Kernan: "Were you obliged to sign any contract relating to your membership in any labor organization?"
Mr. Lungren: "Yes. There was a written contract which I signed. It stated that I would have nothing to do with the American Railway Union." Mr. Lungren also testified that he did not vote to strike. He did not attend the meetings; said he quit work in accordance with the notice posted by the company that the works would be closed down.
Dr. John W. McLean was the next witness. He said he had been a practicing physician since 1863, and had been in the employ of the Pullman company since 1894. He thought the strike had been brought about by the general depression in business throughout the country. Did not think the rents exorbitant in Pullman. Said he attended the Pullman employes who were injured, free of charge. When asked by Commissioner Kernan if he thought intemperance one cause of the Pullman strike, he said:
"Yes, I think all labor troubles are directly due to this cause."
General Manager E. St. John of the Rock Island road was the next witness examined. His testimony, which would fill several pages, was in brief a general contradiction of all evidence offered by the reporters, and American Railway Union witnesses. He charged the rioting to the strikers. He was opposed to the government ownership of railroads and also thought arbitration impracticable. He admitted that a greater reduction of wages was liable to follow unless the present depressed condition of business was soon remedied. Regarding the losses incurred by his road on account of the strike he said it was his impression that they would be somewhere between $800,000 and $1,000,000. When the question of communications from the officers of the American Railway Union came up Commissioner Kernan asked why the General Managers Association declined to receive it.
Mr. St. John: "Because we considered such an organization unworthy of consideration."
Commissioner Kernan: "Were you determined not to recognize any union?"
Mr. St. John: "Not exactly, but the American Railway Union least of all."
Commissioner Kernan: "Were not the roads united sympathetically? Now what had the Lake Shore road to do with the Rock Island road?"
Mr. St. John: "What had the Rock Island to do with the Lake Shore?"
Commissioner Kernan: "Is it not true that the roads were united sympathetically?"
Mr. St. John: "Let me ask you a question."
Commissioner Kernan: "No, I am not on the stand. I may be some day and then you can question me."
Mr. St. John: "When a neighbor's house burns we all unite to fight the blaze. When an assault is made on all the roads, they unite to resist it."
When General Manager St. John resumed the witness stand, he had with him one of the twenty-six sets of books mentioned by Mr. Howard, containing the scale of wages and rules of employment of all classes of railway employes on the roads represented in the General Managers' Association. When questioned by Commissioner Kernan he admitted that a committee had been appointedto formulate from these a schedule of what was a fair rate of wages for all classes of employes and uniform rules of employment. That committee reported, but the report was never acted on. This committee was appointed under a resolution passed February 15, 1894. Its report was made in March, and if adopted would have affected 125,000 men at least. One or two roads, he admitted, might have reduced wages about this time, but there was no agreement with the other roads concerning it. It became known that Mr. Wright, chairman of the commission, had an annual Pullman pass. He said concerning it that he and Mr. Pullman had been personal friends for several years, and it was to him as a personal friend that the pass was given several years ago and had been renewed annually since. He deemed that it was for the glowing reports of Pullman, made by Mr. Wright and others in 1884, for he did not know Mr. Pullman then. He said that he had not used it since the appointment of the commission.
Following Mr. St. John, John M. Eagan took the stand.
Mr. Eagan admitted that as the manager of the General Managers' Association he was authorized to incur any expense to secure force to crushthe strike, but was not authorized to do anything to settle it peaceably. Of his connection with the General Managers' Association he said that he was requested to take charge of the association during the strike.
Commissioner Worthington: "Did you have anything done in relation to the appointment of deputy marshals?"
Mr. Eagan: "Each road appointed an official to select the men they wanted to act as deputy marshalls and turned 'em over to me. I sent them to Arnold to be sworn."
Commissioner Worthington: "Did those men serve as employes of the road while acting as marshals?"
Mr. Eagan: "My judgment is that they were to take care of the interests of the roads."
Commissioner Worthington: "Did they act in the double capacity as marshals and as railroad employes? That is, would an engineer, for instance, while wearing a star showing his authority, run an engine for the road?"
Mr. Eagan: "I believe they did that. They were sworn in as deputy marshals to give them a chance to protect themselves."
Commissioner Worthington: "By whomwere the deputy marshals to be paid or by whom will they be paid?"
Mr. Eagan: "Each road is supposed to pay its own men."
Commissioner Worthington: "What do you know of any efforts made by the officers of the American Railway Union or the city officials to settle the strike amicably?"
Mr. Egan: "A party named McGillen, Alderman McGillen, I think, told me that Howard and Debs wanted a conference with me about settling the strike. I told him I had no authority to confer with them."
Commissioner Worthington: "Did you not have authority to talk with them and find out what they wanted or could do, without making any agreement with them?"
Mr. Eagan: "Not with those parties—I did not think I had. A few days later I found the mayor and Mr. McGillen in the office of the General Managers' Association. They said they had come with a letter from Debs, Howard and Kelliher. I told the mayor he ought not to make a messenger boy of himself for these parties of the American Railway Union. Later I was given the document to give to the mayor. He was at Kensington, so I left itwith the chief of police, and wrote a letter telling him I could not receive the letter he had brought."
Commissioner Worthington: "Were any other overtures of settlement made to you?"
Mr. Eagan: "That's all I know of any overtures."
Commissioner Worthington: "Was there anything insulting or offensive in the language of the letter the mayor brought you that made you refuse to receive it?"
Mr. Eagan: "The letter was published that evening and next morning and speaks for itself."
Commissioner Worthington: "I am asking you how you regarded it. Did you consider that there was anything insulting or offensive in the letter?"
Mr. Eagan: "I considered that any parties that had fought railroads as they had and been beaten as I believe they have been had lots of cheek to dictate the terms of their surrender."
Commissioner Worthington: "You do not answer my question. Were there not soldiers, U. S. marshals, deputy sheriffs and policemen engaged in guarding the railroads, and were you not hindered in the operation of the roads?"
Mr. Eagan: "Yes."
Commissioner Worthington: "Now was not the letter courteously composed and looking to a settlement of the difficulty?"
Mr. Eagan: "We didn't need a settlement—we had 'em already."
Commissioner Worthington: "The soldiers, marshals, sheriffs and police remained on duty sometime after that—didn't they?"
Mr. Eagan: "Yes, we needed the soldiers to protect our property."
Commissioner Worthington: "If a settlement could have been reached at that time between the railroads and the strikers, couldn't the soldiers and marshals have been dismissed. They wouldn't have been needed after an amicable settlement had been reached, would they?"
Mr. Eagan: "It was their intention not to recognize the American Railway Union."
Commissioner Worthington: "Then it is true is it that the reason this communication was not received was not because it was not courteously worded or because it was discourteous or insulting but because the General Managers would not recognize the American Railway Union?"
Mr. Eagan: "Well, that's as I understood it."Commissioner Worthington: "What would have been out of the way in your talking with Debs and Howard when they asked a conference with you?"
Mr. Eagan: "I didn't have any authority to talk to them."
Commissioner Worthington: "Then your authority extended to this. You had authority to contract at the expense of the railroad for all the force necessary to crush the strike but had no authority to settle it by peaceful means?"
Mr. Eagan, "Well, yes. I suppose so."
Commissioner Worthington: "When you rebuked the mayor did you think it derogatory to bear a respectful message looking to a peaceful settlement of the difficulty?"
Mr. Eagan: "I believed the American Railway Union was whipped at that time."
Commissioner Worthington: "It was then the condition and not the character of the men that signed the document that made you refuse to receive it?"
Mr. Eagan: "We believed we had the strike won."
Commissioner Worthington: "Did you evertry to use anything but force to settle the difficulty?"
Mr. Eagan: "None, except to the different parties that came to see me, men that I knew personally had quit work. I told them to go back to work." In regard to violence Mr. Eagan knew nothing about it personally, but assumed that the strikers did it.
Superintendent Dunlap, of the Rock Island, was asked if he recognized any of the ex-employes among the rioters, and said that he did not know many of the men but was sure that they were present. He was also asked by Mr. Wright if he knew one John T. Norton to which he answered no.
Superintendent of Police, Michael Brennan, was next examined. He testified that but a small per cent of the rioting was done by strikers.
John T. Norton, a locomotive engineer, was next called to the stand and testified that he was employed on the Illinois Central road prior to the strike, and had since obtained a position on the Calumet & Blue Island.
This line uses the Rock Island track to Joliet. He said that he passed an examination on the C. & B. I. and also on the Rock Island. Hehad made one trip when informed that the Rock Island road had barred him and would not allow him to run over any part of their line. He consulted a lawyer and was told to see Superintendent Dunlap. He called on him in company with a friend named Fraser. He asked Mr. Dunlap if he was barred off the Rock Island, who said yes, and he then saw that he was blacklisted.
Mr. Kernan: "Do you call that evidence of a blacklist?"
Mr. Norton: "I do. After getting a letter from Superintendent Conlin I was barred out by Superintendent Dunlap who has just sworn he did not know me."
Mr. Kernan: "Can you produce Mr. Fraser. We would like to hear his testimony?"
Mr. Norton: "I will."
Mr. Kernan: "Were you concerned in any violence during the strike?"
Mr. Norton: "No."
Mr. Kernan: "Are you an officer of the American Railway Union?"
Mr. Norton: "Yes. I am president of local union No. 193."
Mr. Gompers of the American Federation ofLabor was next examined but refused to be sworn. Mr. Gompers went into the labor question in a general way. In reference to strikes, he said that so long as the present industrial and commercial systems last, so long will strikes continue.
George M. Pullman, president of the Pullman company, was now before the commissioners. He submitted a lengthy statement in relation to the town of Pullman, and under examination he told of the increase of the Palace Car company from $1,000,000 to $36,000,000 and the accumulation of a cash surplus of $25,000,000. When questioned concerning the grievance of the employes, he was not so well posted. When asked by Mr. Wright if it was the practice of the company to reduce wages from time to time, he said:
"I am not familiar with the details of the manufacturing department and must refer you to the second vice-president."
Mr. Worthington: "Did you ever express any unwillingness to arbitrate?"
Mr. Pullman: "I did express unwillingness and refer you to my published statements. I was aware of the losses of the company in paying thewages it did when contract prices were so low, and I knew it was impossible for the company to pay a higher scale. It was a question whether the shops should be closed, or secure work at a low figure. It was the principle involved in letting a third party determine how the company should transact its business."
Mr. Worthington: "But you paid the usual dividend of eight per cent last year?"
Mr. Pullman: "Yes. But the profit during the World's Fair helped out the amount."
Mr. Worthington: "Now don't you think that the Pullman corporation which paid a dividend of $2,800,000 for the year just ended should have borne with the employes and shared its profits to some extent?"
Mr. Pullman: "I don't see why we should take the money from the stockholders to pay a set of men higher wages because the manufacturing business paid well, to pay this money to men working at Pullman when the employes at Ludlow, Wilmington and St. Louis had no complaint to make. The efforts of the American Railway Union to call a strike there was a failure."
Mr. Worthington: "Has the Pullman Company ever voluntarily raised wages?"
Mr. Pullman: "No; but it always has paid fair wages."
Mr. Worthington: "Now, Mr. Pullman, when you see the present unrest of labor, and the possible consequences, what objection had you to distributing a portion of the profits or increasing wages a little?"
Mr. Pullman: "The reason is embodied in my statement, it is a matter of opinion, and then there is the principle involved. It is impossible under the circumstances."
Mr. Worthington: "Impossible, what is impossible? Could not arbitration determine the principle involved?"
Mr. Pullman: "As president of the company I do not care to give any other."
Mr. Worthington then introduced a lease used between the company and its tenants. This provided that the tenants should make all repairs to plumbing, water pipes, gas, etc., and to surrender premises in good repair. When such repairs were made by the company, the amount was deducted from their salaries.
Mr. Worthington: "Now, the company does not make any repairs, does it?"
Mr. Pullman: "The company repairs the roofs or outside of the houses, I am not familiar with the details."
Mr. Worthington: "But by the lease the tenants are bound to make all the repairs, it is stipulated that the tenant shall repay the company for all repairs made."
Mr. Pullman: "I will have to refer you to some official of the company." (Laughter.)
Mr. Worthington: "The rent is deducted monthly, is it not?"
Mr. Pullman: "I am unable myself to identify that lease you handed me."
Mr. Pullman concluded with the statement that the company declined to employ any member of the American Railway Union.
Mr. Worthington again asked if the company could not afford to pay an increased scale of wages and this Mr. Pullman refused.
Mr. Kernan: "When the general cut in salaries was made, was your salary reduced?"
Mr. Pullman: "No." (Laughter.)
Mr. Kernan: "That of officials, superintendents or foremen?"
Mr. Pullman: "No."
Mr. Wickes then took the stand. His evidence—which in main was documentary—embraced every detail of the strike. He admitted having promised members of the grievance committee that they would not be discharged, and said the agreement had not been broken by him. From statistics presented by Mr. Wickes, he claimed that the average rate of wages paid for the year ending in April, 1893, was $2.63 per day and for the same succeeding period $2.03, which fact, he said, disproved of statements made by strikers.
In the case of Miss Jennie Curtis the books showed that her father had owed but $17.00 at the time of his death, which sum had never been repaid the company.
Blacklisting, he said, had never been practiced by the Pullman Company, although the foreman kept a list of discharged men. He also said that the company had been losing $500 per month by furnishing water. He said that the men were advised by Mr. Howard not to strike.
Referring to rent and wages, he did not consider that there was any connection between them. He said: "We paid the market price forlabor and we asked the market price for houses." He contended that wages were regulated by the law of supply and demand. We go into the market to buy labor, as we go into the market to buy other things. If a manufacturer by reason of improved machinery, of special facilities, or greater ability in securing supplies or disposing of products, or by more effective handling of men, should be making larger profits than his competitors and should increase wages, he would deprive himself of all the benefits of these advantages which are his and to which his employes do not contribute, and would make no more than the manufacturer who conducted his business in a shiftless manner or without ability, energy or enterprise.
Mr. Wickes concluded his testimony, and Inspector Nicholas Hunt was called.
He testified that from June 27th, or the time his force was first called to protect railroad property at various points, up to July 3d, there had been no serious difficulty. When asked by Mr. Worthington if he had seen railroad men take part in the destruction of property. He replied:
"I have not seen one railroad man interfere in any way."
A. J. Sullivan, general manager of the Illinois Central, was next to testify.
He went into details concerning the trouble on his road. He was certain that the acts of violence were committed by the strikers although he did not witness it personally.
H. R. Saunders, general yardmaster for the Rock Island, testified for the company in relation to the way the strike was ordered on the Rock Island. He charged that Mr. Howard, vice-president of the American Railway Union, with using abusive and violent language. Epithets applied to Pullman and the expression, "if scabs take your places kill them with a coupling pin," was declared to have been used.
W. D. Fuller, agent for the Rock Island road at Blue Island, testified that he was present, and thought Mr. Howard's speech was very violent, he applied epithets to Pullman, thought he ought to be hanged, and that he (Howard) would like to head a crowd to do it.
L. A. Camp, a yardmaster for the RockIsland, was also at the meeting and heard no violent language used.
G. D. Cruelly also a yardmaster for the same road, thought the strike at Blue Island was due to Mr. Howard and Mr. Debs. Mr. Howard in particular and Mr. Debs incidentally. Mr. Howard was violent and abusive in his language. The witness is a member of the Order of Railway conductors but not of the American Railway Union.
Fred Baumbach testified to hearing both Debs and Howard speak, but did not remember of hearing either one of them using violent language.
Otto Moriling, a tailor, testified to being present. He did not hear any violent language used except that Mr. Howard applied an epithet to Pullman.
James Simmons also heard Howard speak, but did not hear him counsel violence.
Alexander Quasso said he was present when Howard spoke but heard no violence counseled except some reference by Mr. Howard to the justice of hanging Pullman.
Vice President Howard now took the standand testified regarding his speech at Blue Island. He said:
"I want to begin by saying that among railroad men particularly trainmen, it has been a constant habit and practice and has been for years, to use a certain class of expressions which literally are very offensive in the lightest and most ordinary way, and without meaning anything in particular about them. Every old railroad man can bear me out in this. A railroad man will address his best friend with a most offensive epithet uttered in a most cordial way and intended to express cordiality, so that the term I applied to Pullman, has among railroad men a technical meaning, very broad it is true and expressing according to the circumstances very different sentiments. But its use is so common and I may say usual, that it has altogether lost the meaning it has, among others than railroad men.
"I was telling them the condition of things at Pullman. I told them of incidents that have been testified to before this commission. I was trying to array them against Pullman. I used the language of railroad men and I applied to Mr. Pullman the epithet I am charged withusing. But I used it in the railroad sense. I said he ought to be hung, that is another railroad expression.
"I did not say that I would like to take part in the hanging or lead a party to hang him. As to the coupling pin expression, what I said at Blue Island, I have said at hundreds of other places, it was this I told them, it was often said that capital would always defeat labor. I denied this. I said that capital could only whip labor when it could divide it, and make labor defeat itself. That in the last few years a wave of religious intolerance had swept over this country, and the representatives of the railroads had taken advantage of it as a means of dividing labor. I gave instances where some emissary of the railroads would come in, and going to the protestant members, instill distrust in their minds of the Roman Catholic members, and then going to the Roman Catholics and creating distrust of the Protestants. I urged them not to allow themselves to be divided in the labor movement by questions of religious differences, and I said that if any of those sleuths, and I may have said sleuths of hell, come into this movement to array you against each other in a question of religion,I hope some one will have the nerve to hit him on the head with a round end coupling pin and send him to his last long sleep.