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: