Chapter VII: Section 1: That where time is not allowed, the Master Mechanic (2)

Why? We have an order not to make up any time from Fulton Junction
to three miles west of Albany. There was an order on the board, and
has been there.

So that you were not trying to make up time, and were not running
at an extraordinary rate of speed? Not running any faster than
though we had been right on time.

And you think the time you were running between that 400 feet and
the crossing was about six to eight miles? I don't think when we
was on the crossing--I don't think it was over eight miles an hour,
anyway--six or eight.

Mr. Dawes: You rely on your fireman, don't you, to look out for his
side? A. No, sir.

Who do you rely on? I hardly ever go over the crossing without
looking myself; still, he tells me, but I think it is safer to look
myself.

You looked on your side? I did.

Did you look out on the other side? I did.

Where did you look out last? Before I started.

Before you started from the 400-foot post? Yes, sir.

Did you look out after that at all? Not after I started on the
train until I got on the crossing.

The fireman was shoveling in coal, wasn't he--firing up? Yes, sir.

Did you look out of your side of the cab after you left the
400-foot station, down the Burlington track? Yes, sir; I looked on
my side.

How long has that 400-foot post been there, do you know? The
400-foot on our track?

Yes. It has been there ever since I have run down there. I have
been running about fourteen years on that run. I don't know how
much longer it has been there.

Mr. Sullivan: That is all. The people that have been injured we
could not get.

Mr. Dawes: We will admit people were injured. The engineer we shall
call was injured more than anybody else.

D. W. Rhodes, a witness called on behalf of the Chicago, Burlington
& Quincy Railroad Company, being first duly sworn, was examined in
chief by Mr. Dawes, and testified as follows:

Q. What is your full name? A. D. W. Rhodes.

What is your business? Superintendent of motive power on the C., B.
& Q. road.

Are the engineers responsible to you? Through my assistants they
are directly responsible to me.

But they are immediate employes of your department? They are
immediate employes of my department.

Of which you are the head? Yes, sir.

Do you know Mr. Pearce? Yes, sir.

What is his business now, and what was it on the 19th day of March?
Mr. Pearce is assistant engineer of tests in our laboratory at
Aurora.

Is he an engineer in the employ of the Burlington road now? He is
not a locomotive engineer.

Was he ever, at any time, an engineer in the employ of the
Burlington road? He was never examined as an engineer for the
Burlington road.

You say he was not? No, sir; he was not.

Where was he sent? He was sent on this Clinton run, from Mendota to
Clinton.

Do you know about what time that run is made? No, I do not.

Was anybody sent with him? He had a pilot; the roadmaster was his
pilot.

The roadmaster of that section or division? Yes, sir. I am not very
clear about what Mr. Pearce's crew was. I had to take an engine out
myself that morning, and I was not at Aurora.

Mr. Sullivan: Do you know anything about it at all, except from
hearsay? Do you know from your own knowledge who was on the train?
A. From being present, no.

Mr. Sullivan: This testimony on that subject should be stricken
out. The witness: May I make one correction? I said I took an
engine out myself that morning; I fired an engine out that morning.

Cross-examination by Mr. Sullivan:

Q. Did Mr. Pearce ever run a locomotive engine before? A. Mr.
Pearce had handled a locomotive engine; yes, sir.

The question was, did he ever run a locomotive engine before?
Please answer that? I am not able to say whether he did or not.

Are you in the habit, when exercising your best judgment to select
engineers, to put a man on the road to run a locomotive engine when
you don't know whether he has ever run one before or not? In a case
like this, where our trains were----

In any case? We do so; I would do so again.

Where the lives of the public and the property of the public are in
peril, you will take a man without knowing whether he ever ran an
engine before or not, and put him in charge of an engine? No, sir;
Mr. Pearce's education and training justified me in believing that
he could handle that train properly.

Do you believe any technical education in the shops, without
practical experience, fits a man to be placed in charge of an
engine to which is attached a passenger train? Properly guided by a
pilot and conductor on the engine, I say so, decidedly.

You would do so at any time? If there had been no strike, you would
select a man of that experience, would you? I would only do that
under the circumstances as we were.

Only under emergencies? Yes, sir.

You would not say generally it is a wise thing for a railroad to
do; would you? I would say under circumstances such as we were left
in there it was a wise thing for us to do.

I ask you generally? If I had time to make a thorough examination
of a man I certainly would do it.

William H. Pearce, a witness called on behalf of the C., B. & Q.
railroad company, being first duly sworn, was examined in chief by
Mr. Dawes, and testified as follows:

Q. What is your name? A. William H. Pearce.

What is your business? Assistant engineer of tests in the C., B. &
Q.

State under what circumstances you took this engine on the 27th day
of February last? Upon learning of the strike, I, with several
other young men, signed a letter to Mr. Rhodes offering to go out
in any position which they should deem it advisable. I was detailed
by the Master Mechanic to go to Mendota and take that train to
Fulton, with the understanding that I was to have a pilot; we
struck the train; we had as pilot the roadmaster. We left Mendota
five minutes late, and we were about six minutes late when I first
see the St. Paul train.

How far was that out of Mendota, do you remember? It was somewhere
about in the neighborhood of sixty miles.

You had lost a minute in sixty miles, had you? Lost a minute in
running sixty miles.

Who were with you on the engine beside the roadmaster? When we
started out of Mendota there was only Mr. Chapin, the civil
engineer of the Chicago Division, and the roadmaster, Mr. Seegers,
and a machinist who came from the Aurora shop. After leaving Garden
Plain, which is the last stop before arriving at the crossing, the
conductor also came on the engine.

Were you familiar with that division, had you ever run over it
before? No, I never knew it; I never run over it at all.

Now state, Mr. Pearce, how this accident occurred. We were going
along, I should judge, about forty-five miles an hour. I will
preface it by saying that the roadmaster was very careful all the
way coming up, and I had no reason whatsoever to fear any lack of
duty in warning me of any such place; we were going about
forty-five miles an hour, and I had to look out for my water; it
was getting a little dark; we were going west; of course it cast a
shadow and I could not see the water glass; after losing a little
time that way I tried my gauge cocks; when I got through with that
I looked up and I saw this St. Paul train; that is the first
intimation I had of the crossing.

What did you do then? I shut off and put on the brakes.

Right off, did you? Yes, sir.

You struck this train as described? I struck a train; yes.

Did you do everything in your power to prevent that accident? Yes,
sir; I don't see how I could do anything more.

Commissioner Rinaker: Tell exactly what you did do? A. I shut off
and put the air on.

How far were you from the train, in your judgment, when you did
that? I should say in the neighborhood of 600 feet when I saw it,
and I would say right here about the speed, that that speed, down
grade, would require about a thousand feet to stop; it has been
proved by the Burlington tests.

Mr. Dawes: What became of you, do you know? A. I only know that
from hearsay. I know I was knocked off the engine and they got me
up; I was leaning against the drivers, they told me, laying up
against the drivers; the engine jumped the track, I understand; I
don't know; I didn't remember anything until the next morning.

Is your sight good--your eyesight? Yes; I think my sight is normal,
with my glasses.

You can see at a distance, can you, as well as ordinary
individuals? I think so.

In reference to your hearing? Well, I am hard of hearing in a room,
but I am not hard of hearing on an engine.

Had you received any warning before coming to this crossing, as far
as you remember of it? No.

It is fair to say that the roadmaster says he warned you; I say
that in justification of him. He says he did.

You did not hear any notice; that is what you swear, isn't it? I
did not hear him.

Are you, in your own judgment, from your education and experience,
both in study and on the road, capable of running a locomotive
engine? On such a train as that, yes; it is a branch road, and
there are comparatively few trains; I would not care about going on
a main line.

Cross-examination by Mr. Sullivan: Who was the pilot who was
furnished you? A Mr. Seegers, the roadmaster.

Can you not hear without putting your hand up? I don't wish to be
offensive, but I want, as a matter of fact, to find out. Not in
that tone. I can hear, yes; but I can hear better by putting it up,
as anyone could reasonably argue; probably you can yourself. It is
not necessary to do that where there is any noise or confusion
going on.

Could you have heard a notice to stop, or a notice that there was a
crossing, if Seegers had given it to you? I would have heard as
well as any other person.

Then you would have heard him if he gave such an order or gave such
information? You are very well aware of the fact you have to speak
more or less loud on an engine to anyone.

Did anyone speak more or less loud to you as to notify you that
there was a crossing there, and that you should stop 400 feet from
it? No.

Did you notice the crossing board on the Quincy road? I did not.

There is a board 400 feet from that crossing, four or five feet in
height?

Mr. Dawes: Who says there is a board there?

Mr. Sullivan: I will show there is by another witness.

Mr. Dawes: There may be, but I have not heard anybody say so yet.

Mr. Sullivan: How long would it have taken you to bring that train
to a full stop, running at the rate of forty-five miles an hour?
When I say how long, I mean in distance; at what space from that
crossing should you have attempted to bring it to a full stop in
order to stop it? A. If I knew the crossing?

How long would it take a train to stop? It would take in the
neighborhood of 1,000 feet.

You could not have stopped it at the rate of speed you were running
if you had noticed it at the 400 feet distance? No, sir.

When you got out of the cut was any information given to you that
it was necessary to stop there? I received no information. The
first intimation I had was the sight of the train.

Mr. Sullivan: Was there an engineer on the cab with you at the
time? Yes, sir.

Wasn't that engineer who was on the cab at that time held
responsible for it? He was.

When you were held responsible for it you never in your life run an
engine that length before, did you? No, sir.

If you had been working at the engine-house, and there was no such
emergency as this, would you have considered yourself competent to
do it? Not on a road in which I was entirely unfamiliar.

You were entirely unfamiliar with this, were you not? I was
entirely unfamiliar.

Did you shut off steam before you saw the Milwaukee train? No, sir.

How far was it from you when you did shut off the steam? Fifty or
sixty feet.

Did you reverse the engine? No, sir, I did not. With a well
designed driver-brake there is no benefit in reversing the engine.

Did you bring the lever down in front? No, sir.

Did you drop the reverse lever forward when you shut off? I don't
remember that particularly.

When you put the air on, did you use all that was indicated on your
gauge? I naturally should do so.

Did you? No, I slapped the air around, put the handle full around;
I didn't stop to see what was indicated on the gauge.

Did you use any sand? No.

Were quite excited at the time? I suppose I naturally was.

You lost your head in fact; isn't that the fact now? No, because it
is still on my shoulders.

You might as well have been without a head; you lost your judgment,
didn't you? I don't see that any judgment would come in after
having shut the steam off and put the air on.

Couldn't you have used sand? I did not.

You could have used it if you had thought of it? No, sir; because I
didn't see any benefit; as long as the drivers don't slip it is all
right.

Do you know that sand will help to stop a train quicker? No, sir, I
don't know it.

Do you swear it will not? No, sir, because I have never made any
experiment in that.

Then you know nothing about it? You don't know whether it would
help or not? I have only my judgment, which is formed after quite
an elaborate series of experiments on the brakes.

John F. Laughlin was examined in chief by Mr. Sullivan, and
testified:

Q. What is your name? A. John Francis Laughlin.

Where do you live? At 818 Washtenaw avenue.

What is your business? Switchman, in charge of switch engine.

For what road are you working? Chicago, Burlington & Quincy; I was
at one time, until I quit.

Were you employed on the 23d of March for that road? Yes, sir.

Why did you quit? Because I did not see fit to work with
incompetent engineers.

What were you engaged at on the evening of March 23d, and where
were you employed? March 23d I did not do much. I only took one
train to the Stock Yards and came back. This accident I have
reference to happened March 22d, I believe, at 10:30 p. m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What was the number of yours? 176.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you flag 310 that night? I did.

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

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

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

Re-direct examination by Mr. Sullivan:

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

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

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

Where do you reside? At Aurora.

What is your business? Engineer.

How long have you been an engineer? Nineteen years.

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

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

As engineer and fireman? Engineer and fireman both.

Do you know Hose De Witt? I do.

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

In what capacity? Passenger engineer.

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

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

Where do you live? At Pullman.

What is your occupation? Engineer.

What company are you working for? Pullman Company.

Do you know Hose De Witt? Yes, sir.

How long have you known him? About eight years.

Is he a sober man? No, sir.

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

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

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

Why? Because he was an habitual drunkard.

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

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

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

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

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

Where do you live? Aurora.

What is your business? I was a locomotive engineer.

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

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

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

Do you know Hose De Witt? I do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acting as engineer? Yes, sir.

Passenger or freight? Passenger.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Objected to by Mr. Dawes.)

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

(Objected to by Mr. Dawes.)

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

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

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

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

That is last year? Yes, sir.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By whom? Mr. Wallace.

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

Cross-examination by Mr. Sullivan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No one but the Board of Examiners? No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When was your examination? To-day.

You were examined to-day? Yes, sir.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As an engineer or fireman? I did not.

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

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

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

When? The other day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTER-STATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.

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

MEETING OF THE STOCKHOLDERS.

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

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

FINAL ACTION OF THE MEN.

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

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

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

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

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

"THE LOYALTY OF THE STRIKERS.

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

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

FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE ROAD.

In June the following statement appeared in the Chicago _Herald_: "The Burlington Company is having a hard time to make both ends meet. Its statement of net earnings for the month of May, which came to light yesterday, showed a decrease of $803,000, and for the first five months of 1888 the loss compared with the corresponding period last year reaches the astounding total of $4,194,172. Never in the history of Western railroads has such a disastrous record been made by a big railway corporation in so short a time. Less than a year ago the Burlington Company was reported to be the strongest corporation of its kind in the country. It paid the highest rate of dividends, and its securities commanded larger prices than any similar paper on the New York Stock Exchange. Since the beginning of 1888 its dividend rate has been reduced from eight to four per cent, and even the four per cent has not been earned by many thousand dollars. The interest requirements, which come ahead of the stock, alone amount to, approximately, $6,000,000 per year, or at the rate of $500,000 per month. The net earnings for five months, however, are only a little over $1,000,000, or less than half of what would be required to pay current interest charges. In face of this showing, however, the company has, since the beginning of 1888, paid three per cent in dividends on $77,000,000 stock. This required an expenditure of nearly $2,400,000. If this $2,400,000 be deducted from the net earnings of the company for the first five months of the year an actual deficit of nearly $1,400,000 is left, without allowing anything whatever for interest on bonds, which are always a prior lien. Deducting $2,500,000 interest charges, which somebody must pay, and the deficit is swelled to nearly $4,000,000. To put the matter plainly, the Burlington Company lacks $4,000,000 of being able to pay its debts out of its current earnings. It had a a surplus at the end of last year of $1,000,000, but this has been wiped out, and a floating indebtness of approximately $3,000,000 now stares the Burlington management in the face. It is currently rumored that the company has been trying to negotiate a loan of $2,000,000 in Chicago to help it out of its present difficulties, but these negotiations have fallen through, and it is understood that an effort will be made to raise the money in the East. The depreciation in value of the $77,000,000 stock, of at least one-third, is another serious loss, which will probably never be retrieved."

THE DYNAMITE PLOT.

July 5, J. A. Bowles, Thos. Broderick and J. Q. Wilson were arrested on the train leaving Aurora, at 2:15 P. M., by Deputy Marshal Burchard and Superintendent McGinty of the Pinkerton Agency. A package of some substance, said to be dynamite, was taken from the rack over the seat occupied by Wilson. They were arraigned before United States Commissioner Hoyne, under section 5353, United States Statutes, which provides a penalty of $1,000 to $10,000 fine for transporting or having in possession dynamite on trains or vessels carrying passengers.

Chairman Hoge was sent for, but when he learned the gravity of the charge against the prisoners he had little comfort to give them, but promised to secure an attorney if he found on investigation that their cause was worthy. All three of the men denied ownership of the package found in the rack. Bowles came to Aurora at the beginning of the strike, and ran an engine for thirteen days. His brother finally induced him to leave the service of the company, and he was taken into the Brotherhood Division at Aurora. The Burlington officials testified that Broderick was in their employ as late as April last, two months after the strike began. Wilson was a Pinkerton detective. Thus it will be seen that the trio were Burlington and Pinkerton employes.

The company claimed that dynamite was used at Eola, West Aurora, Galesburg and Creston, to blow up and wreck trains, but that no damage was done, except to a portion of a flange on an engine wheel at Eola. In some of these cases a portion of the dynamite was found unexploded, together with parts of the wrapper. If this stuff had really been dynamite, it is impossible to conceive how part of the cartridge could have remained unexploded.

J. A. Bauereisen, Chief of the Aurora Division of B. of L. E., was arrested July 6 as an accomplice, it having been claimed that Bowles received the package from him before starting for Chicago with Wilson and Broderick.

Alexander Smith was arrested July 6. Smith is a fireman, and was charged with having handled the dynamite in connection with the explosion at Eola and West Aurora.

Attorneys Donohue and David were retained for the defense of these men.

Chairman Hoge stated that the Brotherhood did not tolerate violence of any kind, and would not come to the assistance of any member caught in the act of committing crime. The Brotherhood would look into these cases, and if satisfied that the men were victims of a conspiracy, it would aid and defend them, but if it were shown that they had explosives and meant violence, they would be left to shift for themselves. At this time Mr. Hoge was charged by the Burlington people with having issued a circular April 16, to the various divisions of the Brotherhood, advising that a large number of engineers go to work for the road, and, after disabling as many engines as possible with sal-soda and emory, to quit in a body. Mr. Hoge denies having written this circular, or of having signed it, and stated that it was a forgery, if it existed at all. However, Hoge and Chairman Murphy of the firemen were arrested July 10 for conspiracy, and held under the Merritt law in bonds of $1,500, which was furnished by W. R. Fitzgerald. The complaint alleged that the defendants issued a circular with the fraudulent or malicious intent, wrongfully and wickedly to injure the property of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy railroad. The penalty upon conviction is five years in the penitentiary or a fine of $2,000, or both. The warrant also contained the names of John J. Kelly and J. H. McGilvery, secretaries to Hoge and Murphy, who were arrested later in the day, but not locked up. Kelly made a statement to the effect that he issued the circular at the dictation of Hoge, and that the latter signed it. It was written with hektograph ink and copied on a hektograph. Kelly also swore that he had been in the employ of Pinkerton for several months, during which time he acted as secretary to Hoge. This man belonged to the Brotherhood of Firemen, but was running a switch engine on the "Q" in Chicago, and at the time of the strike was taken into the Brotherhood of Engineers. He is a tall, slender man of twenty-seven or twenty-eight years, blonde, very natty in appearance, small brown moustache, light eyes inclined to be deep set, and a clear ringing voice, like the voice of a woman. He was considered of a giddy, frothy nature by his intimates, who were surprised at his ability to keep secret the fact that he was in the employ of Pinkerton.

George Godding, an engineer, was arrested in Aurora July 9, charged with Bauereisen in violating the United States law in handling dynamite.

George Clark, an engineer, was arrested at Galesburg July 17, charged with the same offense. During the examination of these men, Bowles, Smith, Wilson, Kelly and McGilvery appeared with the prosecution as detectives and informers.

Bauereisen was tried, and sentenced to two years imprisonment, at the last term of Kane County Court, at Geneva, Ill. He was convicted on the testimony of the informers and Pinkerton men, Bowles, Broderick, Smith and Wilson. The weight of evidence was clearly in favor of Bauereisen, but the fact that it was a Kane County jury, and that the Burlington Company was the prosecutor, settled the case against him. An appeal for a new trial is now pending.

None of the other cases have matured, and probably never will.

The general opinion of the strikers, and those who have been particularly interested in these cases, can be summed up in a few words. Knowing that the strike had financially wrecked the property, the management found it necessary to make capital for themselves, and concluded that a dynamite scheme would answer their purpose.

They believed that the Brotherhoods were a law abiding class of citizens, and that they would be dumfounded at the evidence of a dynamite plot, and immediately declare the strike off. That it was originally intended as a bluff is proven by the low grade of dynamite used, which had scarcely the explosive power of black powder. The evidence shows that the "Q" employes and the detectives procured and used the stuff without effect. The only evidence against the Brotherhood men was that they had been told by these spies what they were doing; and while the defendants placed no reliance in the story, this knowledge was considered sufficient evidence of guilt to hold them as accomplices. This course was probably decided upon when it was found impossible to make them active participants in the crime.

In the case of Hoge and Murphy, the web was easier to weave. Having a Pinkerton man as Hoge's secretary, it was a simple matter to put up a fraudulent circular, and back it up with the utterances of other confederates who visited him, and sought to induce him to resort to violence as a means of compelling a settlement of the strike.

PROPOSITIONS FOR A SETTLEMENT.

July 14, Mr. Stone sent for Chairmen Hoge and Murphy to talk over a settlement of the strike. Being under bonds, Hoge and Murphy declined to go without their attorney; therefore, Mr. Alexander Sullivan was included in the invitation. They met Mr. Stone at his residence the same evening, but having no authority to make a settlement, only a general conversation ensued. Mr. Stone indicated a willingness to take up the schedule and pay as good wages as was paid by the other roads, especially so in the passenger runs. Another meeting was arranged for July 16, at which meeting Messrs. Arthur, Sargent, Sullivan, Hoge and Murphy, on behalf of the men, and Messrs. Stone, Perkins and Dexter, for the company, were present. Mr. Perkins had arrived unexpectedly from Boston, and seemed dissatisfied with the action of Mr. Stone in calling the meeting, and for a time refused to make any concessions. Mr. Stone insisted, and the following was drawn up as a basis of settlement by the company:

"If the strike be declared off, the company agrees to take back such of the old men as can at present be given employment, and as business increases and more men are needed, they will be taken from the ranks of the strikers in preference to hiring men who had not previously been in the employ of the company.

"The company further agree that those men not so taken back would not be blacklisted, and that those whose previous record had been good would be given letters of recommendation. Mr. Perkins also agreed to rescind the order of J. D. Besler, dated March 25, to the effect that the switchmen would not again be employed by the Burlington company.

"That engineers, firemen and switchmen would be treated alike in the matter of re-employment."

This was in substance all that the company would concede. As these gentlemen had no authority to make any settlement without the consent of the men, it was decided to submit the proposition to them along the entire system, and Messrs. Hoge, Murphy and the writer were appointed to lay the matter before them. Mr. Arthur was opposed to the switchmen being represented on this committee.

Before going out on the road, a meeting of the Chicago strikers was held at Curran's Hall. In order to get the matter properly before them, the following resolution was put by the chairman, "_Resolved_, That the striking engineers, firemen and switchmen do hereby appoint the following Committee to settle the strike: Arthur, Sargent, Alexander Sullivan, Hoge, Murphy and Hall, with the understanding that we will abide by their decision and will accept the above proposition of the company, if no better terms can be obtained by the Committee." Arthur, Sargent and Mr. Sullivan strongly recommended the acceptance of the terms, and sent letters to that effect by the Committee to the men along the line.

The resolution was rejected by the Chicago men, and, in fact, by every body of strikers along the entire system. In these terms of settlement nothing was said about dismissing the dynamite cases, it being understood that they would be continued.

July 17 the Committee left Chicago to place the proposition before the men, and returned July 27. The strikers everywhere decided to accept no terms that did not include the signing of their schedule and the absolute discharge of all the new men. They considered that the company had asked them to make an unconditional surrender, and that the conspiracy cases had influenced their leaders to side with the company, and they would not now make any settlement that was not made by the entire Grievance Committee and include the whole schedule and discharge of the new men. Hoge and Murphy knew the temper of the men and knew what the result would be, but felt it their duty to present the propositions as instructed by their chiefs, Arthur and Sargent, and to give the men a complete statement of the condition of the strike, prospects of support, etc. It was a disagreeable duty, but they performed it faithfully. Many of the men were inclined to censure the Committee for presuming to offer them such terms.

UNION MEETING AT ST. JOE, July 24, 1888.

The following is the official report:

The Chairman stated the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the
merits of the C., B. & Q. strike and to try and adopt some plan to
bring it to a speedy termination. He also explained and outlined
the situation of affairs on the C., B. & Q. R. R.