In the Chicago strike the strikers were not responsible for the burning
of the property of the railroads. It was not done until after the
arrival of the United States troops. It was done then at the instance of
the railroads because the railroads knew that without violence they
would lose the strike. People who doubt this statement are referred to
the reports of Chief Brennan of the Chicago Police, Hon. Carroll D.
Wright, head of the Labor Bureau, and the reports of the governor of
Illinois, and the report of the Special United States Commission that
heard witnesses of all sorts in their investigation of the A. R. U.
strike.
The substance of the report of the commission was as follows:
“The third smash-up comes from the commissioners appointed by
Cleveland, who make their report to Congress, that the Managers’
Association at Chicago who fought the A. R. U. threw the whole
country into turmoil and dismay, stopped traffic and destroyed
commerce, was an utterly illegal body. The twenty-four railroads,
including the Southern Pacific, Atchison and Southern California,
which so ruthlessly pursued the employes to crush and starve them
are now pronounced to have had no ‘standing in law.’ And yet, they
had the influence to bring into their support the Federal executive
and army and navy and all the machinery and power of the Federal
courts. The commission says: ‘If we regard its practical workings
rather than its profession, as expressed in its constitution, the
General Managers’ Association has no more standing in law than an
old trunk line pool. It cannot incorporate because railroad charters
do not authorize roads to form associations or corporations to fix
rates for service or wages, nor to battle with strikers. It is
usurpation of power not granted. In fact, this “usurpation” had
extended everywhere by courts as well as Railroad Managers’
Associations. The latter can be classed with the other cutthroat
organizations of hirelings and Hessians, who for money will start
out to kill any citizens at the order of the corporations—the
Pinkertons.’”
The commission says: “An extension of the Association, as above
suggested, and the proposed legalization of pooling, would result in an
aggregation of power and capital dangerous to the people and their
liberties, as well as to their employes and rights.” And they might have
added that with the aid of the Federal judiciary these twenty-four
managers could have subverted the constitution and erected a despotism.
The commission thoroughly endorses the legality of the actions of the A.
R. U. and refutes the charge that they were guilty of violence or
encouraging it. They say:
“It should be noted that until the railroads set the example, the great
union of railroad employes was never attempted. * * * The refusal of the
General Managers to recognize and deal with such a combination of labor
as the American Railway Union, seems arrogant and absurd, when we
consider its standing before the law, its assumption, and its past and
obviously contemplated future action.”
Another signal reversal of the position assumed by the United States
courts in the Chicago cases came in the shape of a reversal by the
Federal Court of Appeals in the opinion of Justice Harlan against the
use of equity proceedings to punish railway employes by means of
contempt in injunctions and especially that the act of July 2, 1890, was
totally inapplicable. Another was in the opinion filed by Attorney
General Olney, who practically reversed himself when he declared in his
brief to the United States Circuit Court that the position taken by the
receiver of the Reading Railroad was entirely illegal and unjustifiable
in his notice to the men that he would dismiss all who remained members
of labor organizations of railways. It controverts everything that has
been done in the Chicago cases and in other Federal courts on the
subject of the A. R. U. and other brotherhoods.
After the appearance of the report of the strike commission, Mr. Debs
wrote the following letter to the _New York World_, in reply to some
criticisms of the report of the commission: To the Editor of the
_World_:
The report of the strike commission is eminently fair and impartial and
meets with the unqualified approval of not only the A. R. U. but of all
people who believe in the American spirit of fair play and desire the
enthronement of justice. The conclusions of the board are based on the
testimony and both are presented with absolute impartiality. The result
is a triumphant vindication of the American Railway Union and fixes the
responsibility for the lawlessness, violence, arson and loss of life
with the General Managers’ Association, where it properly belongs. Any
intimation that I wrote the report or any part of it, or that I had
anything to do with its preparation, directly or indirectly, is totally
and maliciously false. I simply rendered my testimony in open session
and then and there my connection with the board ceased. I never met or
corresponded with any member of the board, either before or after my
testimony was given.