Chapter L: C. Bortree, sworn (2)

"This may be the beginning of a great civil war in this country,
between labor and capital, that is bound to come. It only needs
that the strikers at Martinsburg, or here, or elsewhere, should
boldly attack and rout the troops sent to quell them--and they
could easily do it if they tried--to set the spark to the magazine,
and the explosion would follow at once. The workingmen everywhere,
and of all classes of trade, are in the fullest sympathy with the
strikers, and only waiting to see whether they are in earnest
enough to fight for their rights. They would all join and help
them, the moment an actual conflict took place. Against such an
uprising, what would capital have to oppose? The militia? Why, have
not we seen how the militia at Martinsburg fraternized with the
mob; how at Wheeling only thirty men responded to the Governor's
call to arms; how Mr. Garrett, in his appeal to the President,
acknowledges that the militia is in such full sympathy with the
strikers that they were of no use at all? And do not we see,
to-day, in the ridiculous response to the calls upon the Grays to
turn out--a corporal's guard--that the militia is of no more use
here? The Governor, with his proclamations, may call and call, but
the laboring people, who mostly constitute the militia, will not
take up arms to put down their brethren. Will capital, then, rely
on the United States army? Pshaw! These ten or fifteen thousand
men, available men, would be swept from our path like leaves in the
whirlwind. The workingmen of this country can capture and hold it,
if they will only stick together, and it looks as if they were
going to, this time, sure."

"Of course, as you say, the capitalists.... Many of the unemployed
would be glad to get work as soldiers or extra policemen. The
farmers, too, might turn out to preserve your 'law and order.' But
the working army would have the most men and the best men. The war
might be bloody, but right would prevail. Men like Tom Scott, Frank
Thomson, yes, and William Thaw, who have got rich out of the
stock-holders of railroads, so they cannot pay honest labor living
rates, we would hang to the nearest tree. Honest incorporate
management would be enforced, and labor would demand and receive
its fair share of the profits that are made by means of it."

"But even if the workingmen should fail--even if so-called law and
order should beat them down in blood--why, that would be better
than starving. We would, at least, have our revenge on the men who
have coined our sweat and muscles into millions for themselves,
while they think that dip is good enough butter for us, and do not
care whether our families get a living or not. We would inflict
more loss on them than the last ten per cent. reduction would net
them gain in ten years, and if we died in this cause, we would only
end lives of degradation and misery. Civilization! You say we
should endanger civilization, if we succeeded in enforcing our
demands by violence! Well, what has civilization done for us?
Better the times of the Conestoga wagon, when everybody lived fat,
than these railroad times, when labor goes around begging. Better
than both, perhaps, the time when every man had his own farm, or
lived by his brow; they had enough to eat then, and did not have to
work so hard as we do now. What care we for civilization that is
grinding us down, down, down to starvation and nakedness by one ten
per cent. reduction after another, and one doubling up of crews
after another, until the workingman shall be the white slave of his
employer, and work for his board, if he gets even that."

It is well that the community should know something of the ideas
that are circulating among the strikers and their friends at this
time; the hates, and hopes, and aspirations, and half formed plans
that animate the more impassioned leaders of them, and therefore we
give the above, which is a faithful re-production of what a
representative workingman said on the subject this morning. It will
be seen, that he is really a communist, and there is no doubt that
communistic ideas have widely spread, even among the most
respectable, and most thoughtful classes of American workingmen.
There is no gainsaying either, that the picture this man draws of
the hardship which the present business depression has subjected
labor to in many cases is not exaggerated, and it is true, that the
sympathy of nearly the entire community, is with the railroad
strikers in the present case, who are called to endure still
another turn of the screw, which is cutting down their wages to the
danger limit. Nor is it wonderful, that these men, contrasting
their hard lives with the luxury and extravagance with which
certain railroad men live, and the brutal disregard to their
sufferings, which one of them is alleged to have shown, should be
goaded to revengeful and bitter thoughts, and even desperate talk.

But when all these allowances are made, it still remains to be
said, that threats of violence, of war, of communism, are worse
than folly on the part of strikers or the workingmen general. Of
one thing there is no doubt, and that is, that resort to violence
will not accomplish its object. Widely spread as is the sympathy
with the strikers, it is a fallacy to suppose that lawful force
will not be found to put down unlawful force. There never yet was a
case in this country, where mob violence triumphed in the end,
however apparently righteous the cause in which it was invoked, and
there never will be such a case, until the American people loses
its strong instinct for the preservation, at all hazards, of the
established law and order. The people will turn out and enforce the
law, so soon as they really think that the law is in serious
danger, and there will be no war, nor even a serious insurrection,
but all will yield to the majesty of established authority. And
then the violent will see that they have accomplished nothing, and
that their vengeance has mainly re-acted upon themselves. It will
be a long time, before, in this free country, the communists can
achieve even such a temporary success, put down speedily as it was,
in fire and blood, as the Paris communes of 1871.

We are glad, therefore, to see that these enthusiastic,
extravagant, and bitter ideas are being met in the counsels of the
workingmen themselves, with solid arguments for moderation, and the
use of pacific means only. If the employés of the Pennsylvania
railroad can prove, by simply abstaining from work, that the
railroad cut down their wages too low, and cannot properly fill
their places with other men, everybody will be very glad. If that
would show that labor is worth more than was supposed, and the
price of labor is the measure of the prosperity of the whole
community. But if they attempt to force the railroad to accede to
their demands, and prevent any person else from working, they will
only make their friends everywhere sorry for them, and insure for
themselves a certainty of discharge from their positions in the
end.

[Leader, July 21.]

NO VIOLENCE.

One point that the inbred lawlessness of southern blood had
something to do with the greater recklessness of the strikers on
the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, as compared with the conduct of
the men in similar circumstances on northern roads, was dreadfully
illustrated at Baltimore, yesterday. No sooner was the militia
called out to go to Cumberland, than the street crowds assaulted
them with stones; and no sooner were they thus assaulted than the
militia opened fire with ball cartridge right into the midst of
people, dealing destruction around. Contrast now the conduct of
both parties here, where an equally determined strike is in
progress. The strikers carefully protect the property of the
different railroads that center here. In stopping the trains they
merely "entreat" the engineers to step down and out, though of
course the entreaty is equivalent to command. Everything is done
decently and in order, and rumors about the burning of the
round-house are baseless and apparently malevolent. All violence is
discountenanced; even the communistic speeches of certain
hot-heads, who have gone out to incite the men, have been coolly
received, and the imputation that they are a mob in act of riot is
indignantly denied. Towards the militia, the strikers preserve a
dignified and manly attitude. They know that the soldiers had to
turn out when ordered, and they entertain no hard feelings to any
of them, except, possibly, toward one or two of the officers, whom
they believe to have been officious about trying to get the
Governor to order out their division. They mingle with the soldiers
in perfect good humor, though without abating a jot of their
determination. And this is not only the feeling among the strikers,
but among all the people whom, though they almost universally
sympathize with the strikers, admit that the soldier boys are but
doing their duty, and never dream of making that unpleasant duty
more difficult by assaulting them with stones. On the other hand,
the soldiers are equally determined to get through this matter
without shedding blood, if possible. They recognize in the strikers
men whom, if they do take an attitude in opposition to authority,
are, nevertheless, hard-working, honest, and well-meaning citizens,
who only resort to their present procedure from what they conceive
a desperate necessity. They are men who are anxious to work for a
living, but see, as they have, that living taken away from them,
and who are making a desperate effort to prevent the reduction,
which they believe will make paupers of them. There is no doubt at
all that the soldiers will endure insult, and even stone-throwing,
before they will shed blood.

But we do not believe that either insult or violence will be
offered them. The strikers will confine themselves to the exclusive
and more effectual plan of a passive and what may be called
distributive resistance. If a large body of troops are stationed
here, trains will be allowed to go out, but will be stopped at some
other point, at Altoona, or Philadelphia, or Harrisburg, where the
soldiers are not. In this way they can and probably will carry on a
warfare that will break no bones and shed no blood, but will yet be
very difficult to subdue.

We are proud of both our workingmen and our soldiers that have thus
far got along with no bloodshed, and with no casualty except one
black eye and one swollen nose. We hope profoundly that the whole
matter will be settled, one way or the other, without any more
violence, and it will and can be, too, if our law-abiding people
will sustain the reputation they have thus far merited.

[Leader, July 22.]

A FATAL RASHNESS.

A Philadelphia regiment which came here in the name of law and
order has been swift to shed blood. Not two hours in our city, and
before a hostile shot was fired at them, they have stained our
hill-sides with the blood of ten or twelve men and children. Most
of them were spectators, drawn by an unfortunate and innocent
curiosity to their deaths. The wailing of women and children, the
deep cursing of outraged men, and the outspoken indignation of an
entire community, swell the chorus of condemnation against the
officer or officers of the First regiment of Pennsylvania militia,
who assumed the fearful responsibility of that hasty command to
fire. We desire not to be unjust to the strangers. The strong
current of public feeling should not prevent us from upholding them
in their terrible deed, if the facts sustain them. Even now we will
say that their side of the story may, perhaps, somewhat modify
public opinion, when it is known. As appears elsewhere, the
_Leader_ tried to obtain their version of the affair officially,
but in vain. Those officers who were seen going along the line
striking up the rifles of their troops with their swords and
otherwise endeavored to stop the effusion of blood, deserve as
much credit as that officer who was seen waving his sword and
encouraging the men to keep on with the butchery deserves censure.

But making all possible allowance for the Philadelphians, it does
still appear that they acted rashly, importunately, deplorably. The
crowd hissed them, but that was no reason for shooting. They hooted
and jeered them, but all crowds do that, and true soldiers are not
disquieted by such demonstrations. Men on the crossing caught hold
of their bayonets, and half jocosely expostulated with the
soldiers. That was reason for clearing a passage with a quiet
forward movement with the bayonet, which would have been effective
without hurting anybody. It was still no reason for firing--the
hurling of a few stones from the hillside, which seems to have been
the provocation that caused the massacre--but neither was that for
men who came here to enforce order, it is true, but should have
made up to endure much before shedding the blood of honest
workingmen, who, even, if wrong were only misguided and had thus
far conducted themselves with wonderful calmness and respect for
order--neither was sufficient reason for beginning a fire of
musketry upon the people, and change, what was before but a
peaceful though earnest conflict between the railroad men and their
employers, into a scene of battle, murder, and sudden death.

The railroad officials do not seem to be responsible for the
massacre. They appear to have evoked a power that they could not
control, and so dazed and shocked at the consequences. Mr.
Pitcairn's expression, "God only knows what will come of it," well
shows this. Mr. Thaw, early in the day, expresses himself as
willing and anxious that anything, everything, should be yielded up
to the men rather than that blood should be shed. But it was too
late. The collision was then inevitable, and it came.

What the end will be cannot now be known. At this writing the air
is filled with rumors of fire and war. The troops of the State are
concentrating here from all sides to the support of the
Philadelphians, now cooped up, apparently terror-stricken, in the
fire-threatened railroad round-house, and surrounded by an
ever-increasing mass of armed citizens. It is possible that further
bloodshed may be averted. The very free vent given to the
excitement to-night, in arming and marching about with banners and
guns may explain it, and give time for sober second thought to
assert itself. The reasonable speeches at the Southside meeting,
show that the best spirits among our workingmen are laboring to
prevent riot and disorder. Time works for peace. But it is useless
to disguise that the situation is very grave and growing graver,
and that the men who were swift to shed blood will have the
heaviest responsibility to answer for.

[Leader, July 23.]

LAW AND ORDER.

The citizens of Pittsburgh are rising to-day to defend themselves
from the threatened revolt against law and property. This is a
ringing answer to the tones that already come from other cities,
that Pittsburgh is honored in the manhood and public spirit to put
down mob law. The people are responding to the mayor's call by
thousands. Let not enlistments slacken, however. Now is the time to
display such a force that resistance will be seen to be in vain,
and effusion of blood prevented. We are proud to say that the
Nineteenth and Fourteenth regiments of militia are redeeming
themselves from the fault that they committed on Saturday, and are
now mustering strength and will. By night this issuing would be and
will be decided, and we hope by Harrisburg and Allegheny efforts
alone.

By Senator Yutzy:

Q. Who was your reporter that reported the occurrences of the riot during Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday?

A. Well, we have a corps of about five or six regular men, and during these three or four days, we employed a great many others. We gave page after page of matter about, and it would not have been possible for one or two or three or four to get it up. I can give you the names of a number of them. The man whom we had stationed close to the round-house during Saturday night, was named Mr. George Vickers. He is now, I think, on the Philadelphia _Times_. Mr. John Haslet and Mr. William Clark, and a number of others. Mr. Henry Myer was assisting us some.

Q. Had you more than one edition on that Sunday of the riot?

A. Yes. Had three editions.

Q. They are all on file, are they?

A. Think they are, ain't they?

Q. Will you please examine this article, and say whether you are author of it. [Indicating article of July 20, headed "Let them Go."]

A. Yes, sir.

The article referred to is as follows:

[Leader, July 22.]

LET THEM GO.

_To the workingmen of Pittsburgh_: In the name of the whole
people of Pittsburgh we make an appeal for peace. There has been
bloodshed enough--far more than enough. The workingmen have
triumphed over the soldiers who rashly opened fire upon them, and
there is now nothing more to fight for. Now is the time to show
they deserve victory by proving themselves good citizens, refusing
to prolong a slaughter that is a mere useless butchery. The
Philadelphia militia, however rash, however boastful, are yet men
who thought they were obeying the call of duty. There were
undoubtedly roughs among their number, who gave an evil character
to the regiment; but there are many good men among them, who simply
obeyed orders; even when they fired their pieces they obeyed
orders. Now that their point has been gained, we beseech our people
not to sully their victory with the further shooting down of these
men, who only seek to escape. To continue to hunt them down in
their retreat on the north side, whither it is said they have gone,
is to stain the green fields of our suburbs this bright Sunday
morning with useless effusion of blood. To do this would only be to
cause a revulsion of feeling, and the sympathy which to this point
has been altogether with the strikers and their friends, and we
confidentially appeal to them, that having gained everything they
fought for, they now exert themselves as nobly to prevent excited
outsiders from taking advantage of their triumph to shoot men, when
they only want to get away.

Since writing the above it appears that the bulk of Philadelphia
have got away from Sharpsburg, and are scattered in clouds through
the hills. It is believed that they will now escape in safety,
though it is possible that some of them may be yet followed up and
shot down. It is a matter of thankfulness that they have escaped,
the victory is complete, and that a great final massacre has been
avoided. Let us now decently and solemnly mourn our dead, and mourn
in calmness and order.

By Senator Reyburn:

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

A. I have no special knowledge, no, sir, except what common rumor, and what was published about the matter. It originated out of the organization of the Trainmen's Union, precipitated in Maryland, and the particular special cause here, as I understood it, was the double-header grievance on the Pennsylvania railroad.

Q. Have you any knowledge as to the necessity of calling the military to this place?

A. You mean Philadelphia military?

Q. Yes; I mean the military. I will say in explanation that in our resolution we are required to inquire into the necessity of calling out, and the conduct of the troops; and as a public man you would be apt to know, and able to give an expression of opinion that would be of value?

A. I could only give my judgment about it, I suppose, not being in the service.

Q. That judgment could be expressed as a citizen, and would be formed from facts, I suppose, coming to your knowledge?

A. It seemed to me at the time that the military need not have been called so soon. I was under the impression at the time, strongly, that the mayor, with policemen, might have quieted the trouble--and, perhaps, would have done so if the military had not been brought so promptly on the scene--and it seemed to me, also, that bringing Philadelphia troops from a city that Pittsburgh has always felt a kind of rivalry toward, was calculated, perhaps, to inflame feeling here rather than to allay it. I remember there were rumors that Saturday evening--whether authenticated or not, I do not know--that the Philadelphia men had said that Pittsburgh troops had failed here, and they would clean out the rioters. I don't know whether they said it or not; but if they did not say it, it shows just as well the feeling of jealousy with which their presence was regarded, and they asserted that feeling during that whole Saturday night, that in attacking those Philadelphia troops they were cleaning out Philadelphia men. They had come here to interfere in what might have been settled by local authorities, and from that point of view it seemed to me injudicious.

Q. Do you believe that the local authorities could have preserved order, and finally quieted the strike, without any loss of property?

A. I believe that they could have preserved order until the Governor would return, and I think that his presence would have prevented any outbreak. The fact that the Governor's proclamation calling out troops was gravely doubted here--everybody knew he was out of the State a long distance--had, perhaps, a good deal to do with the disorderly feeling. I do not believe that the local authorities could have eventually put down the riot; but I think they could have preserved order here, and kept things in tolerable order until the Governor himself had arrived here. I think if Governor Hartranft had been here on that evening, the collision could have been avoided.

By Senator Yutzy:

Q. I see, in this editorial you speak of, the "sympathy being with the strikers and their friends?"

A. There is no doubt that the sympathy of the people here was strongly with the strikers, before any act of violence was committed.

Q. Before the burning of the property?

A. Yes, sir; and the idea spread, after the collision had taken place, that it was all owing to reckless firing, without orders, which kept the sympathy with the strikers until the actual destruction of property commenced.

Q. In your opinion, was the sympathy of the citizens, and people generally here in the city, with the strikers when they made the assault on the troops in the round-house and driving them out of the city?

A. No, sir; I don't think that. I think the mass of our citizens then were not expressing sympathy with anybody--just paralyzed.

Q. Here is one expression: "The workingmen have triumphed over the soldiers, who rashly opened fire upon them, and there is now nothing more to fight for." Did the people, in your opinion, justify these men, called workingmen, in driving out the troops and triumphing over them?

A. I don't think they did. No, sir; that is not the spirit of that article, either, which is an appeal for the cessation of any further hostilities. At that time, of course, it was said that it was the workingmen entirely that was fighting--the railroad men--and they were in sympathy with them, the railroad strikers and their friends.

Q. There is another sentence: "Now is the time to show they deserve victory, by proving themselves good citizens, and refusing to prolong a slaughter that is mere useless butchery."

A. That is to show that they had deserved the victory they had got, by not using it any further.

Q. The expression is not used to justify them so much as to allay further bloodshed?

A. Yes; that is the whole spirit of it. When that article was written, it was supposed that General Brinton's troops were fleeing out into the country. A large mob was pursuing them, shooting them down in every direction, and nobody knew where the pursuit had stopped, perhaps not until they were all exterminated. We could not get at their side of the story, but it was supposed that they were even more demoralized than perhaps they were. That article was written for the express purpose of trying to stop pursuit, to try to allay the excitement.

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. You had no intention of contributing any to the excitement by any inflammatory article?

A. If I had I certainly would not have asked leave to let them go.

Q. Did you have any reporter with the troops as they retired from the round-house and went out Penn street?

A. We had no reporter at any time with the troops. You could not get any man to them. We had a reporter right in sight of the round-house. He saw the retreat, and followed out some distance towards Lawrenceville--towards the arsenal. That was Mr. George Vickers, the man I spoke of before. I, myself, was out there early in the morning, to look at the situation at the round-house. There was still some firing then.

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?

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.