By Senator Yutzy:
Q. Why was it?
A. Because this movement was carried through on the railroads. The
railroads were all stopped. Many other classes of men were working
along contentedly, satisfied that they were doing the best thing they
could do, if they were not satisfied with their wages. We all know they
were feeling as though they were working for low wages, and those men
who came among them did their utmost to create this spirit of
dissatisfaction, and induce the strike.
Q. What combination, if any, was there between railroad men and other
laborers?
A. I don't know that there was any direct combination. There was said
to be a general labor union organized at the time. We heard a great
deal of unions of various occupations, and of a general union of
laboring and workingmen.
By Mr. Lindsey:
Q. Did you succeed in tracing that thing to a reliable source to find
whether there was a union organized here?
A. I was perfectly satisfied in my own mind that there was a union. As
to the existence of it, I couldn't definitely say.
Q. Was there any riot organized in the city of Scranton?
A. I think so.
Q. Composed of what class of men?
A. Composed of all classes of workingmen, so far as I could get at it.
I was satisfied it was so. I couldn't state that positively, nor I
couldn't point to men as directly connected with it.
By Mr. Means:
Q. Were the railroad employés the prime movers in this strike?
A. It occurred to me they were. They took the initiative at any rate in
striking. They spoke first.
By Mr. Lindsey:
Q. The railroad employés did.
A. Yes. I mean by the railroad men, the men operating their trains.
There was a large mass of miners--much the larger mass of miners are
employés of the railroad company in this vicinity.
By Senator Reyburn:
Q. From the information you got, do you think there was an
organization, and it was understood that the railroad men were the
first to strike?
A. No, sir; I don't know that that is so.
Q. From your own knowledge of the state of the case then, as I
understand it, you think the railroad men struck first of their own
accord?
A. It appeared so to me, and, from any knowledge I have, I should judge
it was so.
By Senator Yutzy:
Q. And the rest followed from a general sympathy of all laboring
classes with them?
A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Lindsey:
Q. I want to know whether the railroad men struck before or after the
strike at Pittsburgh?
A. I think it was directly after--just about that same time, and just
about the same time the thing followed around all over in quick
succession.
Q. Do you recollect the day when they struck?
A. No, sir; I don't.
Q. Do you recollect the day the trains stopped running?
A. No, sir. I could easily have ascertained this point, only I didn't
suppose I would be called upon for anything of the kind, and made no
preparations.
Q. You think it was not until after the strike at Pittsburgh?
A. It was just about that time. I think it was just after.
By Senator Yutzy:
Q. Have you learned whether it was by a pre-concerted arrangement that
they should strike here?
A. No, sir; but it appeared as if they did so. We knew very well there
were labor organizations among the railroad men. They had their
brotherhoods of engineers, and of firemen, and of brakemen, &c.
Q. Was there such an organization here as the Trainmen's Union that you
knew of?
A. I never heard of it by that name. I had nothing particularly to do
with the railroad, and, of course, wouldn't be as well posted in that
as in some other matters.
By Mr. Lindsey:
Q. From the investigation you made, and from your knowledge of the
strike here, do you think there would have been any strike here had you
heard nothing of the strike at Pittsburgh and other parts of the
country?
A. I think there would have been.
By Senator Yutzy:
Q. Why do you think there would not have been?
A. The men were working on peaceably, and apparently contented, and
there were no demonstrations made, whatever, and they were getting
reasonable pay.
Q. Did you hear any of those strikers say it was because the men struck
at Pittsburgh and in Virginia or any other place?
A. You could get no reason out of them. I conversed with many men, but
there was scarcely an instance in which he would acknowledge that he
was a striker. He stopped simply because the rest of the men stopped.
Q. It was apparently infectious?
A. I don't think I met with a dozen men who would acknowledge that they
were interested in the strike.
By Mr. Means:
Q. He proposed that if he was in Rome he would do as Rome does?
A. There was another reason assigned, something in substance to that.
By Mr. Lindsey:
Q. They wouldn't acknowledge that they were engaged in striking, in the
conversations you had with them?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was there any fear, you think, operating on the minds of those men
with whom you conversed that if they did acknowledge they were engaged
in a strike they might be discharged by their several employers?
A. There may have been. I have no doubt some were affected in that
way--no doubt of that, whatever.
By Senator Yutzy:
Q. I understood the witness to say that the railroad men struck first?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was there not a strike among other classes of men--iron men and
rolling-mill men?
A. Not until after the railroad strike occurred.
Q. Another strike preceding that?
A. I have no recollection of any; no, sir. Not a matter of recent date.
There may have been some local strikes about here, or some local
difficulties, as is frequently the case. Sometimes there would be a
strike at one mine because of some local difficulty. That won't affect
the general region, whatever. That is frequently the case.
Q. What is the general custom of the men that strike? Is it their
custom, when they quit work, to prevent other men from working?
A. Almost universally so.
Q. And by what means?
A. By intimidation of various sorts. Doing it at their houses mainly?
Q. Threatening them?
A. While the miners were idle, it has been the practice, heretofore, in
this valley, for pump men to continue at work through the strike. I
have never known a case but where they were stopped. In this case--I
can speak positively to this one fact--that at one of the collieries
that I have charge of, the pump men were visited by a crowd of men at
night and threatened, and ordered to stop. This I have from the men
themselves.
Q. Threatened with what?
A. Threatened with violence--to be beaten--forced out, if they didn't
stop. The men, in this particular case, requested to remain until
morning, and not to drop everything, and leave it unprotected. In the
morning they were so badly frightened that they refused to continue at
work. Then there was no recourse but either to let the mines fill, or
to get other parties to work in their places.
Q. What means were resorted to prevent men from working that wished to
work?
A. By beating them, going to their houses, and threatening them,
sometimes, sending communications--sometimes are ornamented with
cross-bones, and coffins, and pistols, and skulls.
Q. Drawings on paper?
A. Enough to frighten them. Sometimes men desire to be intimidated that
way, as an excuse. I think so, many times.
Q. Have any of those threats ever been carried out?
A. Yes. Men have frequently been beaten.
Q. And killed?
A. I cannot re-call of any cases here, where men have been killed.
Q. Driven away by force?
A. Yes, sir. In this case of our colliery, the house of the man who was
working as a pump-man--he had been working in the mines for years--been
foreman at one time--his house--his house was visited twice, pistol
shots fired into it, stones thrown at it, he was stoned and forced from
his work; and another man, who was working with me was stoned, his
house was stoned several times by parties, in the night. Who they were,
we cannot tell, of course.
Q. Where men didn't obey the advice of those men that threatened them,
was it generally followed by violence?
A. It very frequently has been.
Q. Has it been generally followed by violence, so far as your
observation and knowledge extends?
A. No, sir; I wouldn't say generally, because threats have been so
common. I could hardly say it was general; but, as a rule, men have
been intimidated by the threats.
Q. I want to know whether, where they didn't obey the commands of these
men that made the threats, and didn't cease work, whether that was
generally followed by violence?
A. That is a very general question.
Q. So far as your observation extends?
A. I wouldn't say generally; no, sir; I would say that it has been
frequently followed by violence.
By Mr. Lindsey:
Q. Have you seen any of the threatening letters--letters with coffins,
&c., on them?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Been shown you by the men?
A. Yes. I have sometimes taken them off the works.
Q. Taken them off--how?
A. Found them posted up; because where they had been posted up, they
had been so frightened by them, that they wouldn't go in--wouldn't go
to work for a day or two, until they got over the strike. I have some
of them. I think I could scare up a few.
Q. In our examination we have had a good many terms we are not familiar
with, and I don't know but what we ought to have some definition of
them. For instance, blacklegs?
A. A blackleg, as I understand it, is generally applied to a man who
takes another man's place. This I understand to apply to a man who,
when one man strikes, another goes in and takes his place; but it is
just as commonly applied to those who continue at work, and will not go
on a strike--they are denominated blacklegs. That was so in this case.
Q. Have you any scabs in this county?
A. I don't think that is used much about the mines. I have heard that
applied to shoe-makers more than any one else. That is, fellows who
were wandering about, without any settled place.
* * * * *