Chapter L: C. Bortree, sworn (3)

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?

A. Yes, I did. It is no idle thing to come out here and shoot down twenty-two people that were innocent. If they had been rioters or strikers, if they had had any part or lot in this thing and had shot them down, they would have been right. I would not have blamed you. I do not blame the committee, of course, but I do say this: it was no more and no less than murder to shoot down these people as they were shot down. I think that is the fullest and best account of the riot that appeared in any Pittsburgh paper.

By Mr. Means:

Q. Mr. Carson, do you say and do you think, in your opinion--had the press time to deliberate--do you believe they would have written so sarcastic an article as that?

A. There is no paper in the city of Pittsburgh, published on the eventful Sunday morning of that day, that would not have put some such article as that in their paper.

Q. Understand me right. Had the press had time to deliberate, would they have cast these articles broadcast to the world?

A. No, sir; they would not, but that Sunday morning--Monday morning there was a change. I understand you----

Q. This was done, Mr. Carson, on the spur of the moment?

A. It was done when we knew--when we had four reporters out there, when they were bringing in the intelligence of the murder, as we deemed it then, and as the grand jury has since, by their presentment presented, and when they were shot down without orders, we wrote those head-lines. I did not, but I am responsible. That is why we did it.

Q. You say you wrote the balance of the article?

A. No; four reporters did. The head-lines--I am responsible for every line that appears there but the head-line. And that editorial, I dictated that. That is entirely my own, and every word of it--I stand over it to-day, after months have elapsed. The head-lines--I did not know of it until the next morning.

Q. You say in this editorial, "It is impossible for us to conceive that the action of the railroad strikers, taking the worst view of their side of the case, justified the calling out of the military"--what do you mean by that?

A. I mean their action was passive--was not aggressive. They simply were there. They refused to work, and I furthermore believe, that had there been any conciliation, or attempt at conciliation, used by Scott or their pampered officials, that it could have been arranged. That is my candid belief.

By Mr. Means:

Q. Suppose that the railroad officials had agreed to comply with the request of the strikers--is that what you mean?

A. I do not mean that. I mean if there was any attempt made, but there was not any. They assumed the attitude of tyrants--were overbearing, were tyrannical, and they were abusive.

Q. What reason have you to believe, Mr. Carson, that the strikers would have gone to work had the railroad officials not raised their wages?

A. I can only say in reply to that, I believe they could have been conciliated, and there could have been an adjustment of troubles, and more than that I cannot say. I believe it could have been managed.

Q. Without the increase of wages?

A. I do. I believe even that.

Q. You believe, then, that the strikers would have conceded to the ten per cent. being taken off?

A. Yes, I do. But you treat a workingman as a dog, and he will be very apt, like a worm, to turn. It was not so much the reduction as it was they wanted to crush out all the manhood in him, and trample him into the dust. They treated them with no consideration at all. They treated them as just so much machinery. I do not want to interject a speech into my evidence, but if you want a speech I can give it to you on that question.

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. Had the strikers--had the men sent a committee to the railroad officials?

A. Yes--and how was the committee received.

Q. How?

A. I do not know. If you want me to tell you how I was told they were received, I will tell you; I do not know of my own knowledge.

Q. You must have some grounds for forming an opinion.

A. I will give you that now. They were received with the utmost haughtiness. They were dismissed with a wave of the hand. They said, "We will make no terms, no concessions with you. Go back to your wages--go to work--then we will talk to you. We will have nothing at all to do with you." Now that was the way they were received.

Q. Were they not told that if they would retire from the company's property, and allow the company to enjoy its property and its rights, that they would receive them?

A. No, sir, never heard of it; no, sir. Not the most sanguine man that knows anything about the Pennsylvania railroad officials in western Pennsylvania would ever say such a thing either. I make that a part of my testimony.

By Mr. Means:

Q. Do you pretend to say that the----

A. I pretend to say that the railroad officials in western Pennsylvania, on the part of the Pennsylvania railroad, are tyrants, and serfs in Russia have better lives to lead than employés on the Pennsylvania railroad. There is no serfdom in Russia--if the reporter will make that correction. Slavery has been abolished in America, and has been abolished in Russia, but there is a modified form of it on the Pennsylvania----

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. What do you mean when you say that the "hated company discriminates against the interests of Pittsburgh and western Pennsylvania?"

A. Do you want me to talk on that subject? I can talk for five hours. I say they have systematically discriminated against Pittsburgh, and they have ruined it--that is what they have done. They will carry freight from Pittsburgh--they have systematically discriminated against Pittsburgh to the extent of twenty-five per cent., and when Colonel Scott was here, he said he was horrified. He had not dreamed there was such discrimination. He could not believe it possible; and James Parke, junior, who was one of our most eminent citizens, a Christian gentleman, too, he said it was true. Why, said he, I could not believe it possible. We know it's possible--we know it has ruined Pennsylvania; and the only thing that is going to help us is a competing road, and that, thank God, we will have in the course of three or four months.

Q. Let me ask you, what do you mean by discriminating?

A. it means that they will carry freight from Chicago to Philadelphia cheaper than they will carry from Chicago to Pittsburgh; that they will carry cheaper from Chicago to Albany than they will carry it to Pittsburgh; that Pittsburgh merchants can take goods to Boston, and take them to San Francisco a great deal cheaper--paying the freight to Boston and back--a great deal cheaper than they can ship them direct to San Francisco. There were three thousand tons shipped by Wilson, Walker & Co., to Boston, and from Boston to San Francisco, paying the freight to Boston and back. That is what made trouble in this community. They have been systematically oppressing Pittsburgh. There is no manufacturer unless he has got drawbacks and rebates.

By Mr. Means:

Q. This trouble might just as well have fallen on some other portion of the State as it did on Pittsburgh, would it not?

Q. It could have, and I think would, had we not anticipated the whole trouble here. There was not a community in the State of Pennsylvania, which would have sympathized to the extent that we did. I will answer why: we would have sympathized because we have been systematically oppressed for the last fifteen years. We have been practically ruined.

Q. This thing was as likely to occur at Harrisburg or Scranton or Reading, as it was at Pittsburgh, but, unfortunately, Pittsburgh was the place.

A. We bore the blunt of it. We were the first to receive it, and it found the community in full sympathy with the strikers, because of their sufferings. You systematically oppress a people, and revolution is not only right, but it is a duty.

Q. You say the community--did your merchants give aid and abet in this strike?

A. They did not. They were in sympathy with the strikers; but I was up on Sunday, there at the Union depot, and I saw the people. Saw that they were burning, and all that kind of thing. I did not see a single Pittsburgher. They were all strange faces, and not a face there that was familiar to me, and I am thoroughly familiar with Pittsburgh. They were tramps gathered from all parts of the Union.

Q. That is not the question I asked you. The question I asked you was this: if the merchants of the city of Pittsburgh sympathized with the strikers?

A. They did.

Q. Sympathized with the mob in their violence?

A. No, sir. I went up to the Union depot on Sunday, between one and three o'clock in the afternoon. I saw that mob, and there was not a single Pittsburgh face in it. They were all strangers--tramps, and the strikers had gone away.

Q. No strikers among them.

A. No; I did not see any.

By Senator Yutzy:

Q. Was there any sympathy expressed by the good portions of the citizens of this city after the burning and destruction of property had commenced?

A. On the contrary, the utmost detestation of the ravages of the mob. They sympathized with the strikers in their demand for higher wages. Ninety cents is not much for a man to live on, and I would like to see you gentlemen try to live on it.

Q. Was there any expression of sympathy on the part of citizens with the mob that attacked the troops in the round-house before the burning took place?

A. I rather imagine that the feeling of the community was that the men who had murdered----

Q. I want you to answer the question, whether there was an expression and sentiment to that effect.

A. No; no organized expression.

Q. Was there any individual expression?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Of good citizens?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Justifying the attack upon the troops in the round-house?

A. No; not justifying the attack on the troops in the round-house?

Q. Or in their retreat from the round-house?

A. No; but there was a feeling that it was no more than retributive justice--there was no urging that to be done.

Q. There seems to be an article in the nature of an advertisement, commencing, "Attention Citizens," &c.

A. I cannot tell you about that. That is an advertisement. I did not see that, and I do not know who put it in, even.

By Mr. Means:

Q. That part you claim that you are not responsible for?

A. I do not know anything about an advertisement. A man pays for it and he gets them in.

By Senator Yutzy:

Q. Was that paid for?

A. I presume so. I am not business manager. I am responsible for whatever is written there. I assume that responsibility wholly.

Q. Do you know of any articles that were published in your paper that were calculated to arouse and inflame the people that were paid for for insertion?

A. No, sir; I did not.

By Mr. Means:

Q. Have you got any idea who wrote that article, if you were paid for it?

A. I do not know who wrote it. I do not know anything about that.

Q. In writing an article--supposing I was even competent to write an article for your paper, and would wish to suppress my name, would not you require to have my name, so that if you were come back upon you could get it?

A. In regard to that, that is not an article, it is an advertisement.

Q. It might come under that head. I think it would keep you very busy to make that out an advertisement. I do not claim to be a newspaper man, but it would keep me pretty busy to make that out?

A. It was paid for, or it would not have been in, because I have assumed the responsibility for everything that was in there, but I do not assume for that, because I do not know anything about it.

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. That was paid for as an advertisement?

A. I have no doubt that our business manager could give you proper information. I am willing to assume any responsibility. I do not shirk that, but that is a matter that is not in my line. That is a business advertisement.

By Mr. Means:

Q. I am not a newspaper man, but, I suppose, if I should write an article for your paper, you would require the name?

A. Look at the position it occupies; it is put among the advertisements, I believe.

Senator Reyburn: No, sir.

Mr. Means: No, sir; it would hardly bear that construction.

By Senator Yutzy:

Q. Is not the editor of a paper responsible for anything that is published in his paper, whether it is an advertisement or anything else?

A. He is.

Q. And therefore you are responsible, as editor of that paper, for that advertisement?

A. I am.

Q. Now, give us the name of the man that had that advertisement put in?

A. I cannot.

Q. Can you give us any party that can give us the name?

A. Our business manager probably could.

Q. Who is he?

A. E. G. Minnemeyer.

* * * * *

W. F. Aull, _sworn_:

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. Where do you reside?

A. Pittsburgh.

Q. Were you a member of the National Guard of the State of Pennsylvania in July last?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What position did you hold?

A. Captain of the Eighteenth regiment.

Q. Did you receive an order from General Latta, ordering General Brinton to take a certain route after leaving the round-house, in case he was driven from the round-house?

A. I received an order from General Latta, after they had left the round-house, to deliver to General Brinton, with instructions to deliver to him at the arsenal. It was then supposed he was located at the arsenal.

Q. Did you deliver that order to General Brinton?

A. No, sir.

Q. Can you give the substance of the order?

A. Yes, sir. On Sunday morning, we were lying at Torrens station. Communication had been cut off, both by telegraph and couriers. We had no communication with General Latta at all, and Colonel Guthrie requested me to go to the Union depot, and endeavor, if possible, to obtain an interview with General Latta, and ask him what orders he had to issue for our regiment. I went to the Union depot, and, on my way there, I passed the Philadelphia troops just coming out of the round-house. I went to the Union depot and reported to General Latta that the troops were out of the round-house, and on their way out Penn avenue--I do not know where. He waited a few moments, and a messenger came in, stating that they had left the round-house, and had gone to the arsenal. Another one came in in a few moments, saying that they were quartered in the arsenal. General Latta, after deliberating for a few moments over the matter, and consulting one or two parties there, requested me to remain a few moments until he would write an order. I did not know what the substance of the order was at all, and, after I had started, he told me to take that order to General Brinton at the arsenal, and, as soon as I left the Union depot, I read the order, which was instructing General Brinton to proceed by way of Penn avenue to East Liberty, and join Colonel Guthrie. I went immediately to the arsenal, and I found that they were not quartered there at all. I made inquiry and was told they had gone on out Butler street. I drove on up Butler street as rapidly as possible, and when I got to Sharpsburg, or two miles beyond there, they told me they were stationed two miles ahead of me, on the other side of the river. There was a gentleman remarked there that they were striking for Butler county. I deliberated a few moments whether I would follow them, or report first to the regiment, and consult Colonel Guthrie. I finally concluded I would go to my regiment, at East Liberty, and, if Colonel Guthrie thought it advisable, after consulting him, I would go across the river, and deliver the order to General Brinton. Upon handing the order to Colonel Guthrie, he instructed me to take command of the regiment, and he would go to town and see General Latta in person, which he did. I never saw the order from that time until this. A day or two afterwards, however, I received a telegram from General Latta, requesting me, for the first time, to report what action I had taken in the matter, and I reported to him by letter, which is published in the Adjutant General's report, I see.

Q. Did you read the order to Colonel Norris, or did he see the order, to your knowledge?

A. Yes; I showed him the order at the arsenal. He overtook me at the arsenal coming up a different route, and started for East Liberty. I hailed him, and told him he was on the wrong road. I told him I had an order here, producing it, I think. I think I told him I had an order for General Brinton, and I was going on to overtake him, and he turned immediately and went on ahead of me. I went back to my buggy and he went on ahead of me, and I did not overtake him. He understood, however, what was in the order. I believe he read the order before it left General Latta, at the Union depot.

Q. Who was responsible for the delivery of that order, handed you by General Latta for General Brinton?

A. Who was responsible for its delivery?

Q. For its delivery or its non-delivery?

A. My instructions were to deliver the order to General Brinton in the arsenal. When I found he was not in the arsenal, and my instructions being to report back to my regiment, I considered my first duty, after I found he had gone away outside of my route, was to report to my colonel and see what he would do. He then advised me to remain where I was, and said he would go with the order to General Latta, which he did. He took the order, put it in his pocket, and left the regiment on Sunday about eleven o'clock, I think, and went in and had an interview with General Latta.

Q. You were at Torrens station?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You know nothing of the movement of the troops during Saturday night and Sunday morning?

A. I received an order on Sunday morning, at two o'clock, to join Colonel somebody, from Wall station, and move to Twenty-eighth street. We went to Torrens station, and received ammunition sent there for them, and waited there until the next morning, and they never put in an appearance.

* * * * *

August Ammon, _sworn_:

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. Where do you reside?

A. City of Pittsburgh.

Q. What is your occupation?

A. I am insurance agent.

Q. Are you the father of Robert Ammon, known as Bob Ammon during the troubles in July?

A. Yes; I am.

Q. Have you any knowledge of the occurrences during that time in Allegheny City?

A. I have, somewhat. I felt, of course, it was natural that I should feel an interest, seeing that my son was concerned there.

Q. Were you in Allegheny City at the time?

A. No, sir.

Q. Have you any personal knowledge of any of the occurrences over there?

A. Not of the occurrences. My aims were directed to inspire Robert as much as possible--to prevent destruction of property. I sent messages and communications to him frequently, almost hourly.

Q. To that effect?

A. Yes, sir.

By Senator Yutzy:

Q. Your son Robert testified in Philadelphia that he had some communications with some parties that were concerned in the railroad, either the officials of the railroad company and the civil authorities of Allegheny City--have you any of these communications--the originals?

A. Yes, sir; Robert handed them to me in the jail of Allegheny City, and I turned them over to his lawyer. I would have brought them up this morning, but Mr. Miller was sick. I did not go to see them until this afternoon. I have those that I deemed the most important here.

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. In whose handwriting are they?

A. I do not know.

Q. Do you know your son's handwriting?

A. Yes. They were dispatches which he received there.

Q. Just select them in their order?

A. Now here is the first one I present here. I have read them over so often that I am familiar with them, and if you will permit I will read them.

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. Read that one [indicating?]

A. This dispatch is directed to Allegheny City, at the outer depot, where Robert had his station, reads as follows:

"Operator, do anything to save property, and if engines and freight can be moved out of the city and men enough to do it, and the strikers will permit, run them west on north track far enough to be safe from any damage from Pittsburgh men. Give copy to Ammon. G. S. G."

If you desire an explanation of these, those initials signify "George S. Griscom," whose duty it was to send them. A gentleman by the name of W. A. Routson occupied his place.

Q. What position?

A. The position of Mr. Griscom, during his absence.

Q. What is Mr. Griscom's position?

A. He is a railroad official. Kind of assistant superintendent, Mr. Layng is general superintendent, and those gentlemen are next to him.

By Senator Yutzy:

Q. That was not signed by Griscom?

A. Not that. Routson signed these dispatches. I got that information from Robert. There is something on the other side. The operator who signs "K," says, "Ammon wants to know if you want the sixty-eight armed men."

Q. Signed by the operator?

A. Signed by the operator who signs himself "K." The answer of "G. S. G.," "Yes; if he is in good faith to defend the company's property." If it is in order, I might give you a little explanation.

Q. Certainly.

A. On Sabbath morning early, I guess, as early as five o'clock--I live on the south side--I got up, and I got my horse and buggy, and I put Robert's mother in with a younger son of mine, and asked them to drive over. I read in the _Chronicle_ that Bob was among the strikers, and I supposed Bob was in the oil regions at the time; I did not know that he was in Allegheny. I sent Mrs. Ammon over with the request to Robert, that if he thought he would be involved in the strike he had better get in the buggy with his mother and come to Birmingham, and stay until the trouble was over, and I gave the little fellow, who was in the buggy some money to pay his fare in the street car. She informed me that Bob would willingly have complied with my request, but that he could not leave. There was a very great many tramps there, and he and the strikers had to get arms to keep these men away from robbing the cars, and for this reason he could not follow my advice, and go to Birmingham.

By Mr. Means:

Q. I would like to know this before you go any further. Are those telegrams that Robert Ammon received from the railroad officials during the time that he had charge of the road?

A. Yes, sir; this is the commencement of them. He had not charge on Sunday. He took charge of it on Monday. The next telegram is directed to Bob. It says:

"Ammon, a large crowd of men going down the Brighton road, where
coaches and cars are on the main track, east of Manchester. Can you
protect them?

"G. S. G."

Q. Who is "G. S. G."?

A. Assistant superintendent Griscom. Here is one directed to the initials "W. F. R." That means William F. Ross. He was also official of the railroad.

Q. Dispatcher, wasn't he?

A. Yes; I think so.

"Tell Ammon, if the freight cannot be moved, we would like to move
the engines any way. Tell him to help the C. & P., too. [That means
Cleveland and Pittsburgh.]

"G. S. G."

Q. Were these sent by wire--by telegraph?

A. Yes; he got them.

Q. By telegraph?

A. Yes, sir. Here is an original that is in Bob's handwriting.

"J. D. L.: [That means, J. D. Layng.]

"I have just sent Ed. Compbell and Paisley to Mayor Phillips for
twenty-five police to watch cars, as our men are completely
prostrated and wish to obtain some rest. They will watch with
police. Can you make some arrangement to get victuals for these men
on watch?

"AMMON."

They got a little provisions--that came a little previous, that ought to come in afterwards. Here is another addressed to J. D. L.:

"Can you arrange to send me to-day some hundreds of cartridges?
Answer me, as I expect to have use for them.

"AMMON."

Here is another one:

"AMMON:

"Have instructed Ross and Parkin to arrange for provisions. See
them.

"J. D. L."

That means J. D. Layng.

Q. Who is "J. D. Layng?"

A. "J. D. Layng;" he is general superintendent.

"AMMON:

"C. & P. Shifter wanted to go down to Glendale and back, and take
down relief guards and supper to the men. Is it O.K. to run them
following 37?

"G. S. G."

Bob's answer is written in his own handwriting:

"Will spare engine 305. Will pick it up and take it down with the
relief.

"AMMON."

Here is another one:

"Please hurry engine for 17 over.

"W. F. ROSS."

Q. These are without dates?

A. "AMMON:

"Engine No. 421 will go on No. 17; and engine 97 on No. 37; and
engine 325 on No. 39.

"J. G. PARKIN."

Q. Who is J. G. Parkin?

A. He arranged with Ross and Parkin for provisions--he was a regular employé there.

"AMMON:

"Engine, No. 330, will go on 17, instead of engine, No. 421.

"G. S. P." That is Parkin.

Here is a despatch from Mr. Layng:

"AMMON:

"I think a new request on the mayor would give you the cartridges,
as he no doubt, has been supplied by this time.

"J. D. L."

By Senator Reyburn:

Q. Here is a dispatch:

"D. R. AMMON:

"Of course, you understand that I cannot do anything in the matter
of sending, but if you will permit me, as a private individual, to
make a suggestion, it would be, that you send to Mayor Phillips and
ask him to send you fifty to one hundred men, to protect the
property now on the Fort Wayne tracks. I think, that on a proper
representation of the facts, he would do this, and it would give
the men now in charge of the property, the rest I have no doubt
they very much need.

"J. D. L."

"AMMON:

"You had better see Cole, and get matters in shape to talk; but, as
I said in former message, what our men want to do, is to let the
mob element quiet down and then they can talk calmly. You all want
to maintain a record free from violence in any shape. I know you
can fully appreciate the force of this.

"J. D. Layng."

The witness: These are all the dispatches which represent the general spirit, and there are a great many more, all in the same strain, and that is all I have to say. They speak for themselves as to their being genuine. If it should come to trial, I think it would be no trouble to prove that. One other matter I desire to call your attention to. As I stated already, that on Sunday, I sent Mrs. Ammon to bring Bob to Birmingham. Mr. Siebeneck informed me on Saturday evening that Bob was over there, and I told him I didn't think it was so. I understood, from Bob's wife, he was up in the oil regions. Bob was living right at the scene where the troubles in Allegheny occurred, and had been an employé of the road, as you are aware. On Sunday, when Mrs. Ammon came home, I felt calm about it. I knew when Bob promised a thing, he generally would, at least, try to carry it out. On Monday morning matters seemed to move along smoothly in Allegheny--what I got was from the newspaper reports. I could not leave my office on Wood street, because our secretary had gone to Bedford, and I was there with one of the clerks and the janitor, and the situation in Pittsburgh then looked very threatening. We have a great many valuable assets there about our safe, and I thought my presence was necessary. Occasionally I would go up on Fifth street and send somebody for Bob, with a verbal message or a few lines. On about three o'clock in the afternoon--perhaps a little before----

Q. On what day?