Part 6

What were you doing on the evening of the 22d, and where were you employed? On the evening of the 22d of March I had fifty cars shoving into the new yard at Hawthorne, which is about three miles and a half, as near as I can judge, from Western avenue. We stopped to give me a chance to raise the semaphore for the protection of trains coming east, and also set the switches going into the new yard. I got up and gave the signal to go ahead, and as I did a crash came.

What character of train was it that run into yours--a freight? A freight train.

What was the condition of the track, so far as obstructions were concerned, between your train and the train which collided with you? There was no obstruction whatever; there was a clear view four miles or three miles and a half; something like that.

What time in the evening was it? About half-past ten.

Had you a headlight on your engine? Yes, sir.

Had you a light on the other end of your train? No, sir; only my own lamp.

You were at that end? And a red light; yes, sir.

You had a red light, as well? Yes, sir.

Do you know the number of the engine which collided with yours? Yes, sir; 310.

What was the number of yours? 176.

Was engine 310 flagged? I presume it was, according to my helpers' statement.

Your helpers are here, are they? Yes, sir.

You had enough helpers to give the necessary flagging? I believe I had; I had two.

To how many of these new men did you give signals who were unable to answer or failed to answer the signals? I should say three or four.

Did you have any conversation with any of them in relation to the signals? No, sir; well, I had a conversation with one; I gave him a signal and he says, "I don't understand that signal."

Was that signal which you gave him and which he said he did not understand the usual signal given by railroad men? Yes, sir.

The same signal which has been used on the road all the time you have been in its employ? Yes, sir.

When was that, about what time? That was a couple or three nights before I left.

Commissioner Marsh: State what conversation between you and him there was at the time he told you he did not understand that signal? I merely gave him a signal to back up. He says, "Partner, I don't understand that signal." I merely says to him, "What kind do you understand--steamboat signals?" He says, "No, stationary engines."

William G. Frisbie was examined by Mr. Sullivan and testified:

Q. Were you on the train to which engine 176 was attached? A. I belonged to that crew.

At Hawthorne, March 22. I belonged to that crew? Yes, sir.

Did you flag 310 that night? I did.

State to the Commissioners how far you went from your own engine, 176, to flag 310, the one which collided with it? I can tell you perhaps better by car lengths; I can make a guess at the number of feet. I did not measure it exactly. I should think it was in the neighborhood of 1,500 feet to 2,000 feet that I was back of where our engine stood. I found the train was not coming to a stop, and kept going back myself as long as it was possible, giving them all the swing that it was proper and right to stop him. He paid not the slightest attention to my signal; never even whistled for brakes until after his train passed me.

Did you start back as soon as your train stopped to flag? Yes, sir.

You went as far as you could? Yes, sir.

Re-direct examination by Mr. Sullivan:

Q. Did you ever, in all your experience, know a case where an engineer was flagged on a clear track, as in this case, and disobeyed a signal and run into another train? No, sir.

Stewart W. Hadlock, examined in chief by Mr. Sullivan, testified as follows:

Q. What is your name? A. Stewart W. Hadlock.

Where do you reside? At Aurora.

What is your business? Engineer.

How long have you been an engineer? Nineteen years.

In what company's employ were you recently? C., B. & Q.

How long were you in the employ of that company? Twenty-three years.

As engineer and fireman? Engineer and fireman both.

Do you know Hose De Witt? I do.

Do you know in whose employ he now is? He is in the employ of the C., B. & Q.

In what capacity? Passenger engineer.

Hector H. Hall was examined in chief by Mr. Sullivan, and testified:

Q. What is your name? A. Hector H. Hall.

Where do you live? At Pullman.

What is your occupation? Engineer.

What company are you working for? Pullman Company.

Do you know Hose De Witt? Yes, sir.

How long have you known him? About eight years.

Is he a sober man? No, sir.

What is his general reputation for sobriety? He is an habitual drunkard.

Is that the reputation in the neighborhood where he lives? Yes, sir.

Have you ever heard it discussed? His wife has been around to all the saloons forbidding them to sell him anything.

Why? Because he was an habitual drunkard.

When did you see him last? I think it was last Thanksgiving day.

What condition was he in then? He was very drunk.

Did you ever see him sober? Well, no, sir; very seldom. I have once or twice, probably; as a general thing he was under the influence of liquor.

John B. Clark, examined in chief by Mr. Sullivan, testified:

Q. State your name? A. John B. Clark.

Where do you live? Aurora.

What is your business? I was a locomotive engineer.

How long were you engaged in that capacity? Ten years, probably.

For what company were you employed? Chicago, Burlington & Quincy.

Did you serve on any committee for that road while you were in its employ? I was on the local examining board for the Chicago division.

Do you know Hose De Witt? I do.

How long have you known him? About fourteen years, I think.

Do you know he was discharged from this company because of his connection with a wreck at Naperville? I do.

Do you know what his reputation for sobriety is and has been during all the time of your acquaintance? He was always a hard drinker, when he fired and run here both.

Have you known him since he was in the employ of the company; have you seen him since? I have seen him on my way through Plano; he worked at Plano for the Plano Manufacturing Company, and I see him there about in the neighborhood of a year ago; he struck me for a ride to Chicago.

Mr. Dawes: I object to any specific instance of drunkenness a year ago.

Mr. Sullivan: Was he drunk or sober? A. He was not sober.

Did you ever see him sober? I don't think I did; not what I should call dead sober.

You have known him eight years? I have known him fourteen years.

Why did you refuse to give him a ride when he applied to you? Well, it was against the rules; and then he was too full of whisky to be a safe man to have around there.

You haven't seen him since, then? I have not, except since he came back to work for the C., B. & Q.

Acting as engineer? Yes, sir.

Passenger or freight? Passenger.

On what road? On the C., B. & Q., on the main line?

Mr. Dawes, cross-examining: Did you regard that as a proper method of determining the qualifications of engineers? A. Yes, sir; it is well enough.

Is this (handing witness a paper) an accurate copy of the protest of the Brotherhood? I will direct your attention to Article 22. I don't represent the Brotherhood; I am here as a witness.

I will ask you whether you know as a matter of fact, Mr. Clark, whether Article 22 is a copy of a grievance presented by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers to the Burlington road? I did not present it.

I understand you did not; you know, do you not?

Mr. Sullivan: I object to all this as immaterial.

Commissioner Rinaker: I do not regard that as cross-examination at present. Is that offered for the purpose of showing that the rule itself was not regarded as a proper one?

Mr. Dawes: I want to ask this witness what his opinion is of this particular grievance.

Mr. Sullivan: How often have you seen him in eight years? A. He laid around Aurora two or three years before he got a job any place.

He lived around Aurora two or three years after he was discharged? Yes, sir.

When he hung around Aurora for two or three years did you see him regularly? He hung around a variety saloon that used to be there in Aurora.

Commissioner Rinaker: How often do you mean we shall understand you are stating you have seen this man drunk in the last eight or ten years?

Commissioner Rogers: When was it he wanted to come up with you on the engine? A. As near as I can remember it was in the neighborhood of a year ago.

Commissioner Rinaker: How many times have you seen him drunk? A. He was drunk at that time.

How many more times? Between the seven years before that? Well, I would not want to say how many times; but at the time he was hanging around Aurora he was off and on. He would go away and hunt for a job and come back, go away and come back; that is the way he was.

Was he drunk when you would see him around this variety show? Yes, we very seldom seen him sober.

Mr. Sullivan: Prior to this controversy between the railroad and its employes could such a man as De Witt receive employment as an engineer; would you have employed such a man?

(Objected to by Mr. Dawes.)

Q. Would they employ a man who had been dismissed as being responsible for a wreck, as this man was?

(Objected to by Mr. Dawes.)

Commissioner Rinaker: Do you know why he was discharged? A. He was discharged for having a collision about half a mile east of Naperville station.

You know that from your own knowledge? Yes; I was mixed up a little bit in it myself. I came near getting into trouble with it myself.

Hector H. Hall being recalled, was examined by Commissioner Rogers, and testified as follows:

Q. How long is it since this notice was given by De Witt's wife to the saloon-keepers not to give him liquor? A. I think it was on Thanksgiving day, or the day after.

That is last year? Yes, sir.

That was on Thanksgiving day? Thanksgiving day or the day after; I am not positive which.

J. A. Murray, locomotive engineer of thirteen years' service, residing at Rock Island, testified that Frank Hamilton, Frank Horn, Joseph Roach, J. Logston, Harry Zimmerman and William Patterson, running engines on the C., B. & Q. R. R., were brakemen, conductors and baggagemen, respectively; that he was acquainted with them all for eight to ten years, and that they were inexperienced as engineers or firemen.

Frank Hamilton, witness on behalf of the C., B. & Q. Railroad Company, testified:

Q. Give your name in full? A. Frank Hamilton.

What is your business? Formerly conductor until the 10th of last month; now I am running an engine.

Conductor on the C., B. & Q.? Yes, sir; St. Louis division.

How long have you been a railroad man? For the C., B. & Q. Company, running a train since November, 1880, with the exception of five months, up until the 10th of last month.

Have you been examined as to the manipulation of an engine? To a certain extent.

By whom? Mr. Wallace.

Is Mr. Wallace here? Mr. Wallace is here.

Cross-examination by Mr. Sullivan:

Q. You never got any technical instruction as to the running of an engine in your life, did you? A. Explain that word, please.

You never got any instruction in the shop from those who manufacture engines and are familiar with their detail? No, sir.

You don't understand the meaning of the word technical yourself? I do; yes, sir.

Why do you want me to explain it? Because I wanted to understand.

Witness testified that he had been handling engines off and on ever since he had been on the road.

Q. What you mean is you jumped on; would go on when the regular engineer in charge was there? A. Yes, sir.

And the fireman in charge was there? I run the engine a certain distance.

You were allowed to handle it in their presence, just as many others are allowed? Yes, sir.

Do you mean to tell this Commission, on your oath, that in that way you acquired sufficient knowledge to make you a competent engineer? That is the way, from what I understand, to learn to be an engineer. The way they all get to be engineers.

You say you were examined to some extent. Were you not examined as thoroughly as all other men were examined? I don't know how other men were examined.

How did you come to say you were examined to some extent? What do you mean by that? I mean to the extent that I was able to answer the questions.

You were only examined to that extent you were able to answer, and you were not examined as to those you were not able to answer? I don't know if there were any questions I was not to answer or not; I answered all the questions.

You used that expression, you were examined to some extent. I want to know what you mean by that? I answered all the questions that were asked me.

Do you mean to say that all questions were asked you which are equally asked applicants for employment as engineers? I do not.

Was anyone else examined at the same time you were? There was not.

Who was present when you were being examined? Anyone but the Board? No; there was not.

No one but the Board of Examiners? No.

Where were you examined? The principal place was in the building where the general officers are.

Were you examined more than once? I was instructed another time.

I asked you about examinations? No, sir, not on an engine.

How long did your examination take? I could not tell that.

How many questions were you asked? I could not say; I did not count them.

Have you no idea without counting them? I answered more questions--I asked and answered more questions than was asked me.

You examined yourself, practically, did you? The Board was there to hear it.

The Board was there to hear you examine yourself--asking questions and answering them? Those I did not thoroughly understand were questions I asked, and then I answered my way, and if I was not right, then I was instructed.

And upon that instruction which you got at that time you were employed as an engineer on the road? Oh, no; this is since.

How long after that was it before you were put in charge of an engine, since you got this instruction? I took an engine on the 10th of last month, and I run up to yesterday.

When was your examination? To-day.

You were examined to-day? Yes, sir.

Was this the first examination that took place? This is the first.

You were not examined before you were put in charge of an engine? No, sir.

You were put in charge of an engine without an examination at all? Without any examination.

You were this morning examined, and prepared for being examined here; is that it? No, sir; I don't know as I was prepared at all. I asked questions, and they were answered to me. If I could explain them in the language that was used in regard to the management of engines.

And that is the first time you have been examined by anybody representing this road as an engineer? Examined on an engine.

Did you ever draw pay as an engineer or as a fireman at any time in the employ of this or any other railroad company in the United States before this? As an engineer or fireman?

As an engineer or fireman? I did not.

Did you ever perform the duties of an engineer or fireman at any time in your life before this date, on any road? That is, to draw pay for it?

To draw pay for it, and perform its duties regularly? No, sir.

Did you ever put a wick in a headlight? I did.

When? The other day.

Not until that? That is the first one, but I have frequently saw it done.

How old are you? I was thirty-four years old on the 16th day of last January.

Can you tell what the notches in the quadrant are for? Yes, sir.

Please do so? They are to govern the working of an engine.

State in what respect they govern the working of an engine? They start from the center and work both ways; the forward and back motions drop the engine down forward and you give her the full stroke. If you put her back to a less stroke and increase the speed.

What do you mean by the stroke? The stroke of the piston that travels in the cylinder.

What is the stroke of your engine? I don't know.

Has an engine more or less stroke when it is hooked down or hooked up? It has the same stroke, but it receives steam through the ports to a less stroke.

In what condition? Both ways; either working in the forward or back motion.

What do you refer to when you speak of receiving more steam? Can you explain that? To a certain extent, yes.

To that certain extent please explain it? As the engine is working you drop her down and give her full stroke and she is receiving steam at full stroke; as you cut her back she receives steam to a less portion as you cut her back, and then start to travel the other way--the valve it is.

Do you know anything about the points of cut-off of a valve on an engine? No, sir.

You never got any instruction on that subject? No, sir.

You were not examined on it this morning, were you? No, sir.

Evidence of a large number of expert engineers and practical railroad men was heard, together with the testimony of the incompetent men. A copy of the entire proceedings is in the hands of Mr. Alexander Sullivan, counsel for the Brotherhood.

INTER-STATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.

The result of the State Board's examination, with a vast amount of new evidence, was prepared to place before the Inter-State Commerce Commission, which had signified its willingness to sit in Chicago May 1, to examine into the charges that the Burlington was operating its lines with incompetent men. For some reason never made public the promised investigation was not made. The Brotherhood side of the case was ready, and in the hands of experienced legal counsel; however, no action was taken by the Commission.

MEETING OF THE STOCKHOLDERS.

As the stockholders were to meet on May 16, it was expected that they, having suffered great financial loss from the strike, would take some steps toward bringing about a settlement between the men and the company. It was considered by the strikers that the road had not been successfully operated by the class of men then in its employ, and that self-interest would prompt the stockholders to do justice to their old employes.

Contrary to the anticipations of the men, the management was unanimously endorsed at this meeting and by this action gave notice that nothing in the line of concessions could be expected.

FINAL ACTION OF THE MEN.

Subsequent to this meeting, the Joint Grievance Committee was convened, and it was resolved not to declare the strike off but to continue resistance indefinitely, this action to be subject to the approval of the men. The resolution of the Committee was duly submitted to the men along the line, and a vote was taken as to whether the strike should be declared off or not. The result of the vote was an almost unanimous expression to continue the strike without abatement.

After the stockholders' meeting, the men at Chicago appointed a day to discuss anew the proposition to declare the strike off. This caused great uneasiness along the line, but was only done in order to give those who had not been present at the first vote taken an opportunity to express their sentiments. This discussion, like the preceding one, ended in an unanimous decision to continue the strike.

Every effort had been made by the company to break the lines. At Galesburg and other points, it was claimed that large sums of money had been offered to individuals to break the ranks and again enter the services of the company. Outside of Chicago, the men were subject to all manner of persecutions to compel them to yield to the company's offers, but without effect; not a single case of weakness was developed after the second week of the strike.

In Chicago, as before stated, but two men returned, one of these, a yardmaster, had been struggling under the name of "scab" since "'82" and he was naturally expected to take the course that he did. On the morning of March 23, he was the first yardmaster to refuse to do duty as a switchman, and the first and only one to seek reinstatement. At other points along the line, the record is even better than this. Probably not over a dozen men weakened; from Chicago to Denver, all have stood firm and solid on the ground they first occupied.

The following quotation from the Brotherhood circular heretofore alluded to, will be of interest.

"THE LOYALTY OF THE STRIKERS.

"Just here it is proper to place upon record the fact--luminous in the annals of labor strikes--of the loyalty of the men, their devotion to principle, and their unexampled faithfulness to their obligations. As one man they responded to the call. So thoroughly imbued were they with the justice of their cause, that with an unanimity which will forever challenge the admiration of manly men, they surrendered their positions and faced with an unaltering fortitude all the privations incident to a strike, rather than sacrifice their manhood, their independence and self-respect.

"Be it said to the everlasting honor of the engineers, firemen and switchmen on the C., B. & Q. system, that they acted their part nobly from the first to the last. There was no deserters or traitors to the cause; faithful to their obligations, true to their manhood, honorable in all their methods, they have dignified themselves and glorified the Orders to which they belong, and while courage and fidelity have admirers, they will be remembered for their unyielding purpose by every true knight of the throttle and scoop where-ever the iron horse draws a train."

FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE ROAD.