Part 106

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

A. I think I have indicated them all.

* * * * *

James W. Breen, _sworn_:

By Senator Yutzy:

Q. You have no regular file of your _Globe_?

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

By Mr. Reyburn:

Q. What is your occupation?

A. Journalist.

Q. You reside in Pittsburgh?

A. Yes, sir. Thirteenth ward.

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

A. Yes, sir.

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

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

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

A. You mean the entire article?

Q. More particularly that following the heading?

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

Q. Would you call that an editorial?

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

Q. These head lines are also yours?

A. Yes; I make the head lines.

The article referred to is as follows:

[Sunday Globe Extra, July 22.]

FIRST BLOOD.

SEVENTEEN CITIZENS SHOT IN COLD BLOOD BY THE ROUGHS OF PHILADELPHIA.

THE LEXINGTON OF THE LABOR CONFLICT AT HAND.

THE CITY IN THE HANDS OF THE STRIKERS.

ARMED BANDS PATROLLING THE STREETS.

THE CIVIL AND MILITARY AUTHORITIES POWERLESS.

BITTER DENUNCIATIONS OF SHERIFF FIFE, GENERAL PEARSON, AND THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD AUTHORITIES.

THREATS THAT THE PHILADELPHIA SOLDIERS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO GO HOME ALIVE.

THE FOURTEENTH AND NINETEENTH REGIMENTS DISBANDED AND REFUSE TO FIGHT, AND MANY GIVE THEIR ARMS TO THE STRIKERS.

THE PHILADELPHIA TROOPS PENNED IN THE ROUND-HOUSE AND SURROUNDED BY 20,000 STRIKERS.

THE SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS.

MILES OF BLAZING CARS.

THE STRIKERS HOLD THE FORT AND THE FREIGHT.

[Cut of man brandishing a bowie knife.]

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

By Senator Reyburn:

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

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

Q. What do you mean by Philadelphia roughs?

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

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

A. Yes, sir.

By Senator Yutzy:

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

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

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

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

Q. Had you a reporter there?

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

By Senator Yutzy:

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

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

Q. You heard them yourself?

A. Yes, sir.

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

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

By Mr. Means:

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

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

By Senator Yutzy:

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

A. That was the information at that time.

Q. Was it verified after further investigation?

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

By Senator Reyburn:

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

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

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

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

By Mr. Means:

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

A. Yes, sir.

By Senator Yutzy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Senator Reyburn:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. You mean common rumor?

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

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

A. Yes; so far as could be gathered.

By Senator Reyburn:

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

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

Q. On Saturday?

A. Yes, sir.

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

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

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

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

By Senator Yutzy:

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

A. Yes, sir.

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

A. Yes, sir.

By Mr. Means:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. Do you know, of your own knowledge?

A. No, sir.

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Mr. Means:

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

A. Citizens of Pittsburgh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. I don't exactly understand your question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. Just local?

A. Just local.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. No, sir.

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

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

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

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

Q. Yes.

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

By Senator Yutzy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. At that time?

A. Yes, sir.

* * * * *

Eugene O'Neal, _sworn_:

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. Where do you live?

A. Pittsburgh.

Q. What is your occupation?

A. Connected with Pittsburgh _Dispatch_.

Q. Are your files here?

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

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