Part 107

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

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

A. Yes, sir.

[The following is the article referred to:]

[Dispatch, July 21.]

FRUITS OF A HASTY STEP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How did you obtain that information?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. None that I could see.

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

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

By Mr. Means:

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

A. Of which kind?

Q. Of the mob going out to destroy property?

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

Q. Was there any demonstration of that kind?

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

Q. That was your Pittsburgh troops?

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

By Mr. Means:

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

J. M. Carson, _sworn_:

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. What is your name?

A. Joseph M.

Q. Where do you reside, sir?

A. Pittsburgh.

Q. What is you occupation?

A. Journalist.

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

A. Yes, sir.

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

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

Q. That is in the _Critic_ of July 22?

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

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

A. Yes, sir.

[Critic, July 22.]

MILITARY BLUNDER--UNCALLED-FOR BLOODSHED.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. N. McCullough, $12,000 per annum. William Thaw, 10,000 per annum. Thomas D. Messier, 10,000 per annum. John Scott, (solicitor,) 10,000 per annum. H. H. Houston, (in no recognized position,) 10,000 per annum.

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

BABY FOOD FOR LABORING MEN.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. At the time of the occurrence?