The events of the next two weeks after the strike was declared off

showed but little brightening of the outlook. By actual count there were

2,715 men on the pay rolls of the mill on the day when the mechanics and

laborers went back to work. Two weeks later there were 3,121 men

employed in the works, from which showing it will be seen that out of

2,200 men who had applied for reinstatement only 406 obtained

employment. Almost all of these were laborers.

At the call of Burgess Hollingshead, successor to Honest John McLuckie,

a meeting of citizens was held to consider plans for the relief of the

many cases of absolute destitution reported in the town. Dr. Purman

presided and J. H. Rose acted as secretary. David Lynch explained to

those present that the Amalgamated men would take care of themselves,

but that the suffering among those for whom the Association could not

undertake to provide was intense and demanded prompt measures for its

alleviation. A committee consisting of David Lynch, William Gaches and

Harry Bayne was appointed to investigate the immediate needs of the

people, and a fund was started on the spot by the subscription of $200

among the citizens in attendance. After a few days' work the

sub-committee reported to the general committee, and on the strength of

the information presented the following appeal was adopted:

"There are 218 families in Homestead and vicinity in a state of

destitution. This fact has been ascertained by a competent

committee, consisting of three persons, appointed at a citizens'

meeting held on Friday evening, December 2, 1892. The

undersigned committee was appointed as a result of the above

investigation to issue this appeal to the country, asking public

aid in caring for these destitute families. The strike is over,

but less than 800 of the 3,800 former workmen of the Carnegie

Steel Company have as yet secured employment in the mill, and

only a limited number elsewhere. It is highly improbable that

this vast body of unemployed men will be able to secure work for

many weeks to come. This means prolonged and increasing

distress. The people of Homestead, although liberal in their

contributions, are unable to provide for the demands of such

general want. This call is an urgent one, and the public must

assist us."

The general relief committee perfected its organization by electing

Burgess Hollingshead president, William Gaches, treasurer, and George

Hadfield, secretary. Mr. Hollingshead was authorized to receive money

contributions and turn them over to the treasurer, and to Mr. Hadfield

was assigned the duty of receiving donations of food, fuel and clothing.

One of the first subscriptions received was the sum of $25 from the

employees of Kaufman Brothers of Philadelphia, transmitted by the city

editor of the Philadelphia _Record_. Others poured in rapidly, the

business people of Pittsburgh being especially liberal in their

response to the demands upon them. The Building Trades council

appointed a committee to take charge of the Pittsburgh donations, with

Vice President Michael Sharran at the head. Mr. Sharran, assisted by Mr.

D. S. Mitchell, labored with untiring activity and these two men were

instrumental in securing thousands of dollars worth of supplies.

Among the most liberal contributors was Mrs. J. M. Gusky, head of the

great clothing firm of J. M. Gusky & Company, a lady noted for her

charities and always foremost to respond in emergencies such as that

occurring at Homestead.

Kaufmann Brothers and Eisner & Philipps gave an immense quantity of

clothing. W. M. Laird contributed a sufficient quantity of shoes for all

claimants, and the large grocery and commission firms forwarded

provisions of all kinds.

The Pittsburgh _Press_ raised a fund of $2,500 in addition to supplies

of clothing and other necessaries, and the _Dispatch_ collected over

$700, to which was added $300 from the charitable people of Washington,

D. C.

As Christmas drew near, public sympathy was more and more keenly aroused

in behalf of the Homestead sufferers. A few days before that holiday of

holidays, the children in the Homestead public schools were instructed

to write letters to Santa Claus, asking for whatever they most desired.

Nearly all the letters contained requests for shoes and other

necessaries. Many of them were published in the newspapers and spoke

volumes for the unhappy condition of the poorer class of strikers and

their families.

Santa Claus was not missing, however, when the eventful morning came,

nor were the other essentials of a merry Christmas conspicuous by their

absence. One thousand turkeys came from the kind hearted workingmen of

McKeesport and 300 from Mrs. Gusky, and the heart of every child was

gladdened by the gift of a picture book and a box of candy from Kaufmann

Bros. of Pittsburgh.

The Homestead relief committee kept up its good work until the end of

March, by which time the necessities of the people ceased to be

pressing. A report was then published showing receipts amounting to

$5,587.28, of which $4,926.79 had been expended in relieving distressed

families. A committee of three was appointed to use the unexpended

balance in relief work, and the general committee then dissolved, having

excellently discharged its mission.

Reference has already been made to the appointment of a committee of

United States senators to investigate the Homestead affair and the

postponement of action by Senator Gallinger, the Republican chairman of

that committee, until after the presidential election. Within two weeks

after election day, Senators Gallinger and Pfeffer began the inquiry at

Chicago, where a hearing was given to Pinkerton agents and authorities

on police methods, the latter submitting opinions on the best means of

coping with labor disturbances. Chief of Police McClaughrey advocated

the removal of the police force in great cities from the field of

politics and placing municipal departments under a civil service system,

and Marshal Hitchcock suggested the enactment of a law providing a

severe penalty for refusing to serve on a _posse comitatus_. On November

23, Messrs. Gallinger and Pfeffer arrived in Pittsburgh. The other

members of the committee, Messrs. Hansbrough, of North Dakota; Felton,

of California; Sanders, of Montana; White, of Louisiana, and Hill, of

New York, did not find it convenient to attend. The testimony taken was

mainly a repetition of that given before the House Committee. Captain

Rodgers repeated his tale of the adventures of the Little Bill;

Superintendent Potter told of the innocence of the purpose entertained

in the bringing in of the Pinkertonian Three Hundred; William Weihe

explained how easily the trouble could have been adjusted if the

Carnegie firm had desired an amicable settlement and condemned the

facilities afforded for the importation of cheap labor in violation of

the contract labor law; David Lynch and William G. Roberts testified to

the peaceable disposition of the Homestead men prior to the Pinkerton

invasion and their respect for the property rights of their employers;

A. C. Robertson, a politician who had formerly been a glass blower,

condemned arbitration, whether voluntary or compulsory, as a failure,

and ex-Judge Thomas Mellon declared the employment of armed guards

during strikes to be necessary because there is "too much politics" to

permit of the proper enforcement of the law.

After a visit to the Homestead mill, the committee proceeded directly to

New York where the testimony of Robert A. Pinkerton and Captain Heinde

was heard. The Pinkerton chief described the men sent to Homestead as

model citizens. It had been agreed, he said, that the guards should be

sworn in as deputy sheriffs. There had been no firing from the barges

until after the captain was shot, and then only in sheer self-defense.

Witness claimed that his agency had lost $15,000 by the Homestead

affair, owing to the seizure of 225 rifles and other property, and the

cost of caring for men hurt in the battle. He thought it doubtful that

Mr. Carnegie would reimburse the agency. Being asked if he thought that

the violence committed at Homestead was due to the strikers or to the

rabble attracted there, he said: "I think it was committed by the

strikers, their leaders and the advisory committee itself." Captain

Heinde's evidence was merely a recital of the events of July 6. With his

examination the investigation was concluded.

The report of the committee, presented to the senate on February 11,

1893, denounced the employment of Pinkertons as "an utterly vicious

system, responsible for much of the ill-feeling and bad blood displayed

by the working classes," and suggested that if Mr. Frick had carried out

the humane policy enunciated by Mr. Carnegie in his famous article in

the _Forum_, the Homestead strike might have been avoided. At the same

time, it declared that there was "no excuse for the scenes of disorder

and terrorism for which the strikers were themselves responsible," and

that "laboring men should learn the lesson that they cannot better their

condition by violating the law or resisting lawful authority." The

committee doubted the power of Congress to mend matters by legislation,

and advised arbitration as the only middle ground on which employer and

employe could meet without depreciating the rights of either.

About this time the House committee on investigation of the Homestead

strike awoke from its lethargy and Messrs. Ray and Broderick, the

Republican members, handed in a minority report, condemning the

employment of armed guards, but advising that legislation on this

question be left to the several states. In the judgment of the minority

of the committee the "present system of federal taxation" had nothing to

do with the Homestead strike, which was in reality a struggle for

supremacy between organized capital and organized labor.

The majority report was presented shortly afterwards. It held that Mr.

Frick should have united with the sheriff of Allegheny county, without

regard to the inefficiency of that officer, in an appeal to the

governor, instead of undertaking to crush the strikers on his own

account; criticized the Amalgamated Association as a body the members of

which were encouraged to become intemperate zealots, denied the right of

the Homestead men to oppose the landing of the Pinkertons, and ended by

suggesting that it be left to the several states to enact laws

regulating Pinkertonism.

Individual minority reports were presented as follows:

By Mr. Broderick, advocating the passage of a compulsory arbitration law

by the states.

By Mr. Buchanan, of New Jersey, declaring the investigation to have

acted as a boomerang against the Democrats in that it showed a high

protective tariff to be productive of high wages.

By Mr. Boatner, claiming that, under the clause of the constitution

which authorizes the inter-state commerce law, inter-state carriers can

be prevented from hiring Pinkertons.

By Mr. Stockdale, of Mississippi, claiming that the Pinkertons were

trespassers; and

By Messrs. Bynum and Layton confessing their inability to find a remedy

for conflicts between capital and labor.

All the reports cited having been duly read and filed away by the two

branches of Congress, the Homestead question was thereupon dropped by

general consent and, its political utility having vanished, was heard of

no more in the national legislature.

The Pennsylvania legislature, which assembled in January, 1893, was

obliged to meet the Pinkerton question squarely. All the members of the

lower branch of that body--the House of Representatives--and one-half of

the members of the senate came fresh from the people, having been chosen

in the November elections, and a large proportion of them stood pledged

to their constituents to aid in the passage of an anti-Pinkerton bill.

Many measures of this character were introduced, but that upon which

support was centered, by common consent, was a bill introduced by

Representative John Kearns, of Pittsburgh, a gentleman in close touch

with organized labor. The Kearns bill was entitled "An Act relative to

the appointing of special deputies, marshals, detectives or policemen by

sheriffs, mayors or other persons authorized by law to make such

appointments, and by individuals, associations or corporations

incorporated under the laws of this State or any other State of the

United States, and making it a misdemeanor for persons to exercise the

functions of an officer without authority."

The bill underwent some vicissitudes, which delayed its passage until

May, although introduced early in January and advanced on the House

calendar through Mr. Kearns' energetic efforts. At one stage in its

progress, a proviso was added requiring that any person appointed or

deputized to perform the duties of special deputy, marshal, policeman or

detective should be "of known good moral character and temperate habits"

and should give bond in a considerable sum for the faithful performance

of his duties. This provision was attacked because of its being

presumably aimed at the low class of detectives employed by the Law and

Order society of Pittsburgh, which was just then making war on Sunday

newspapers and lobbying against a bill for the protection of journals

publishing Sunday editions, and for this reason it was eliminated. The

word "detectives" was stricken out of the title and, as it was feared

that the bill might interfere with the appointment of regular policemen

in municipalities, a special proviso to prevent such a result was added

in the senate:

As finally enacted into a law, signed by the governor, and placed upon

the statute books, the measure reads as follows:

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in General

Assembly met, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the

same, That no sheriff of a county, mayor of a city, or other

person authorized by law to appoint special deputies, marshals

or policemen in this Commonwealth to preserve the public peace

and prevent or quell public disturbances, and no individuals,

association, company or corporation incorporated under the laws

of this State or of any other State of the United States and

doing business in this State, shall hereafter appoint or employ

as such special deputy, marshal or policeman any person who

shall not be a citizen of this Commonwealth.

SECTION 2. That any person who shall in this Commonwealth

without due authority pretend or hold himself out to any one as

a deputy sheriff, marshal, policeman, constable or peace

officer, shall be deemed guilty of misdemeanor.

SECTION 3. Any person or persons, company or association, or any

person in the employ of such company or association violating

any of the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a

misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be sentenced to pay a fine

not exceeding five hundred dollars, or undergo an imprisonment

not exceeding one year, or both or either at the discretion of

the court.

_Provided_, That if any company or association be convicted

under this act it shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding

five thousand dollars.

_Provided further_, That the provisions of this act shall not be

construed as applying to policemen, constables or specials

appointed by municipalities for municipal purposes.

As long as the Kearns act stands--and it is safe to say that it is not

likely ever to be repealed--the Pinkerton Detective Agency is

effectually barred out of Pennsylvania.

CHAPTER XVIII.

[Illustration: THE FIRST TRIAL]

SYLVESTER CRITCHLOW ARRAIGNED--PINKERTONS ON THE STAND--THE

PROSECUTION MAKES A STRONG SHOWING--A SUSPICIOUS CARNEGIE

BANQUET--ATTORNEYS ERWIN AND ARGO TO THE RESCUE--AN ALIBI FOR

THE DEFENSE--JOHN S. ROBB ATTACKS MR. ERWIN--THE "NORTHWESTERN

WHIRLWIND'S" MAGNIFICENT ORATION--HE CAPTURES THE COURT AND

CONFOUNDS THE PROSECUTION--"NOT GUILTY"--THE BACKBONE OF THE

MURDER CHARGES BROKEN.

Sylvester Critchlow was the first of the Homestead men to be placed on

trial in the Allegheny County Criminal Court, the charge against him

being the murder of T. J. Connors.

On the morning of November 18, 1892, Critchlow was arraigned before

Judges Kennedy and McClung. A great crowd assembled in the court room,

curious to observe the opening scenes in the memorable legal battle

which was to ensue, but to the great disappointment of the throng, the

judges ordered the room to be cleared of all except members of the bar,

witnesses, jurors and reporters.

The prisoner was perfectly cool and self possessed. His wife and mother

sat near him, watching with womanly solicitude every step in the

proceedings, the issue of which meant so much to both.

The array of legal talent on both sides was formidable. The prosecution

was in the hands of District Attorney Burleigh, assisted by Messrs. D.

F. Patterson, John S. Robb, E. Y. Breck, P. C. Knox and Assistant

District Attorney Harry Goehring. Counsel for the defense were: Messrs.

W. W. Erwin and G. W. Argo, of St. Paul, Minn.; E. A. Montooth, Thomas

M. Marshall, William J. Brennen and William Reardon, of Pittsburgh, and

John F. Cox, of Homestead.

Immediately upon the opening of court, Critchlow was ordered to stand

up, and having heard the charge read, pleaded not guilty in a clear,

firm tone of voice. Attorney Brennen asked to have the indictment

quashed on the ground of an irregularity in the drawing of the grand

jury panel. The motion was overruled, and the selection of jurors began,

this process being conducted by Mr. Burleigh for the prosecution and Mr.

Marshall for the defense. Within a few hours, the following "good men

and true" were selected: Peter Roth, John Herron, James Marshall, Amos

Mashey, Chris Wiggand, C. S. Eaton, Chris A. Sende, James M. Wright, D.

J. Herlehy, W. A. Freyvogel, Burns Wadsworth and Louis Jackman.

The District Attorney, in his opening speech, after having given the

conventional explanation as to degrees of murder, asked the jury to

avoid the impression that the case on trial was one of treason or was

to be considered in connection with Homestead. "We are," he said,

"simply trying Sylvester Critchlow for the murder of T. J. Connors, who

was killed in the barges at Homestead on July 6. The barges were there

lawfully and for a peaceable purpose.... We will show that Sylvester

Critchlow was behind the barricade with a rifle, shooting down to the

barges within easy range of Connors, and firing in a direction in which

he would likely hit Connors."

"You must also remember, gentlemen, that the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania is the prosecutor and Sylvester Critchlow is the defendant.

There is no private prosecutor here. The case will be prosecuted by

public officials and no one else will be allowed to interfere. Other

counsel may appear in the case, but they will be in subordination to the

district attorney."

Dr. McKennan, Superintendent W. A. Cowan, of the West Penn hospital and

Rev. Father Leonard Lynch were the first witnesses examined. They

testified to the death of Connors and the nature of his wound.

Captain John W. Cooper, of the Pinkerton agency, followed with the

familiar story of the river expedition and the battle at the landing. He

also swore positively to the position of Connors at the time when he was

shot and the hour at which he fell.

Captain Cooper was subjected to a searching cross-examination by Mr.

Brennen, but went through the ordeal without permitting himself to

become confused. Mr. Brennen sought to show (1) that the witness was not

of good moral character and (2) that Connors was accidentally shot by

one of his own comrades.

At one point the cross-examination ran as follows:

MR. BRENNEN.--Were you not a "Hey Rube" for a circus for nine years?

MR. BURLEIGH.--What in the name of common sense is a "Hey Rube?"

JUDGE KENNEDY.--Yes, Mr. Brennen, we would like to know what you mean by

a "Hey Rube."

MR. BRENNEN.--I mean a circus fighter. The witness knows what I mean.

WITNESS.--I was detailed by the Pinkerton agency to accompany the Barnum

circus in the capacity of a detective. I was with the circus for nine

years.

W. H. Burt, also a Pinkerton detective, recounted the incidents of the

fight at the landing and described the shooting of Connors as follows:

"I knew T. J. Connors. He was on the boat. I saw him between 11 and 12

o'clock that day. That was before he was shot. He was near the bow of

the boat. Three or four minutes later I saw two men picking him up. He

had fallen about twenty-five feet from the bow of the boat. He was

placed on a table and a medical student from Chicago, who had hired as a

guard, bandaged the wound on Connors' arm."

Detectives P. J. Connors and Joseph Malley gave evidence of similar

tenor to that of the two preceding witnesses, and Captain Rodgers and

Deputy Sheriff Gray repeated their well-worn story of the Little Bill.

This stage of the proceedings was reached on the afternoon of Saturday,

November 19, at the customary hour of adjournment. The court decided to

hold a night session, and accordingly at 7 P. M. the examination of

witnesses was resumed.

J. M. Dickson, H. H. Hervey and J. H. Slocum, clerks in the employ of

the Carnegie firm, swore that on the morning of July 6 they saw

Critchlow with a gun in his hand going towards the mill gate. Each of

them positively identified the prisoner.

Charles Reese, a newspaper artist, being sworn, said that he saw

Critchlow, with a gun in his hands, occupying an exposed position in the

mill yard, near the pump house. Somebody had said to witness, "There is

Critchlow. He is a regular dare devil." Mr. Brennen elicited from the

witness the fact that he had attended a gathering of newspaper reporters

called together by Capt. E. Y. Breck, attorney for the Carnegie firm, at

the time when the Critchlow case was before the grand jury. This affair

had created no little scandal when it occurred, some of the newspapers

openly stating that Captain Breck had invited those whom he intended to

use as witnesses to a banquet for the purpose of "coaching" them. Mr.

Reese, however, denied that there had been a banquet or, that he had

received any formal invitation from Captain Breck. Nevertheless, the

evidence was regarded as establishing a reasonable presumption of the

use of unfair methods by the prosecution.

Isaac J. Jury, a constable residing in Homestead, swore that he saw

Critchlow in the mill yard and advised him to get out, but that his

warning was not heeded.

The most damaging testimony of all was given by Samuel Stewart, a clerk,

in the Homestead mill. He said:

"I know Sylvester Critchlow; saw him near the Company office

between 8 and 9 o'clock on the morning of July 6; next saw him

back of the barricades, near the pump house on the river bank;

he was kneeling back of the barricade, a gun in his hands; the

gun projected through the barricade between the second and third

beams; the barricade was built of steel 'I' beams; his gun was

pointed toward the barges; the bows of the barges were nearest

to the barricades; you could see into the boats from where

Critchlow was kneeling; the door of the outer barge was open; I

saw Critchlow fire once in the direction of the barge; saw him

aim carefully and pull the trigger; I remained there about 20

minutes; Critchlow was there when I arrived, and was still there

when I left; I cannot tell the kind of gun Critchlow had, except

that it was a single barrel."

On cross-examination witness stated that he also saw Anthony Flaherty,

Joseph A. Hall and James Flannagan shoot from behind the barricade. He

stuck firmly to his story in the face of Mr. Brennen's questioning.

Stewart's examination ended the Saturday night session.

When the trial was resumed on Monday morning, Detective Malley was again

placed on the stand and swore to having seen Critchlow on the river bank

with a gun in his hands and to have heard him called by name.

Photographs of the burning barges, the barricades and the mill yard,

taken by order of the Carnegie Company on July 6, were put in evidence,

and here the commonwealth rested.

Attorney George W. Argo made the opening speech for the defense. He

explained that he and his colleague, Mr. Irwin, had been sent by the

laboring element of the Northwest to assist in the defense of the

Homestead men. "As far as I am concerned," he said, "I was not selected

on account of any extraordinary ability, but because for years I have

been in touch with labor. At one time I was a barge builder near this

city. My parents resided in Washington County."

In setting forth the reasons for demanding an acquittal, Mr. Argo

enlarged upon the enlistment of armed men to invade Homestead "within

two days of the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of

Independence" and, after describing the expedition of the Pinkertons

went on to say:

"These men were not laboring men. It was an invasion of armed

men employed by a man named Frick; it was an assault upon this

grand old commonwealth; it was an assault upon the state in

which the Declaration of Independence was signed; this armed

body of men who invaded this state and trampled upon the soil

made sacred by the feet of Washington; these men were not under

the command of any regular officer of this county; they were men

who could not be sworn in as deputies or special officers. Under

the evidence in this case these men made an attack upon the

people of Homestead; there is not any evidence that Frick owned

one dollar's worth of property in Homestead. These men sneaked

in on a dark, foggy night; they were met, not by strikers, for

there is no evidence that there was a strike, but by the good

people of the town, who, when the armed foe attempted to land

told the latter not to come ashore; begged of them not to

interfere with their rights, begged of them not to attempt to

land. Not a particle of evidence has been given that these

foreign emissaries had any right there. The men, the peaceable

citizens, attempted to defend their rights. A young man named

Foy went down to the gang-plank to plead with the men not to

come ashore. He was met by a lot of armed men. Becoming alarmed

he turned to go back, when he slipped and fell across the plank.

As he fell he was shot in the back by some one on the barges.

That was the beginning of the terrible battle. It will appear in

evidence in this case that the first shots were fired from the

barges and not by the people on shore. We will show you that

preparations had been made for this trouble one month before it

occurred. We will show that a stockade or high fence had been

built around the works, a fence like that built in the west to

repel Indian attacks. This fence was full of portholes, and

resembled the outer wall of a fort. There is no evidence that

the people who were on the banks on the morning of the invasion

were strikers. They were peaceable citizens of Homestead. Every

man in that crowd had a right to defend himself with arms; the

law gives to every man the right to defend himself, to defend

his family; to defend his neighbors and his friends; this right

is given every man by a power higher than the law of man. The

people were attacked by an armed foe and they had the right to

use weapons in self-defense. The evidence shows that the men on

the barges were in command of officers whose names are known,

who have testified in this case, yet your honorable district

attorney has made no effort to bring these men to justice. Thus

he becomes a defender of these armed invaders of your county."

Mr. Argo further outlined the plan of defense as showing that the

Critchlow who was seen behind the barricades was another Critchlow and

that the prisoner was not present when Connors met his death.

W. M. Erwin followed with a spirited address in which he said that the

prosecution rested entirely on the theory that there had been a riot,

which he characterized as a "doubly damned fiction." "Is there," he

asked, "another such hard-hearted, villainous man within the limits of

the land as this man Frick, whom we find hob-nobbing with the leaders of

the Republic. This man Frick, whose name will be more notorious than

that of the man who fired the Ephesian dome, did not apply to your

courts or your legislature, but violated the agreement with his men, and

assumed, like a tyrant, to act as arbiter; this most brutal tyrant of

all tyrants tried to force his men to bow to his will by an armed force

of invaders. Thus have these scoundrels defied the laws of the

commonwealth. Carnegie bent the eternal laws of God and the poorer

imitations by man. We will show that the defendants only tried to

straighten these laws. If there is no Judas Iscariot among you,

gentlemen of the jury, you will plant the flag of independence on your

hills."

Captain O. C. Coon, of Homestead, was the first witness called by the

defense. He testified that he was at the mill landing when the Pinkerton

barges arrived, and described the opening of the battle as follows:

"When the plank was thrown out my attention was called to a man

on the barge; he had a gun in his hand; there was a boy on the

shore; he was tantalizing the man; the latter raised his gun to

shoot the boy; I said to him: 'For God's sake don't shoot that

boy, for he is only a boy.' I asked him if he was a deputy

sheriff, he said no; I asked him if he was a guardsman, he said

no; I then said 'you are a Pinkerton'; he replied that he was,

and, holding up his gun, said his party was going to enter the

mill in fifteen minutes; the boy on shore continued to call the

man on the barge; the latter raised his gun and aimed at the

boy, but someone pushed his gun down; when he raised it again he

had it drawn on me; about that time a boy came running down to

where we were, slipped and fell across the gang plank; a minute

later there was a shot from the barge, and I heard afterward

that the boy on the plank was shot in the side; the first shot

fired after the landing was fired by either the second or third

man on the plank; I do not know who he was; I went there to try

and preserve order; I never saw Critchlow to know him until I

saw him in court to-day."

Charles Mansfield, of Homestead, effectually offset the evidence of

Charles Reese. He swore that he had been in the mill yard and conversed

with Reese. Asked as to the nature of the conversation, he said:

"I was in a cupola with Mr. Reese. I saw a man named Critchlow go into

the pump-house. I said to Reese, 'There goes Critchlow into the place

where Morris was killed. He will be killed sure. You had better get a

good sketch of him.'"

MR. BRENNEN--"Was the man you pointed out to Reese the defendant?"

"No, sir."

"Who was the man?"

"I do not wish to state."

"Was his name Critchlow?"

"It was."

Numerous witnesses were then introduced to prove an alibi for the

defendant. Samuel Rothrauff, J. Miller Colgan and J. J. Baird testified

that they saw Critchlow in Braddock before 10 A. M. on July 6. Mrs.

Bridget Coyle said that she saw him at 3 P. M. a mile distant from the

mill on his way home. "There's no lie about it," exclaimed Mrs. Coyle,

in answer to Attorney Patterson's questions, "but you're trying to make

me tell a lie, and I wouldn't do it for all the money Carnegie has."

Three witnesses corroborated Mrs. Coyle's statement and a half-dozen

others accounted for Critchlow's movements in the evening.

The taking of all this testimony occupied the court throughout a second

night session.

On Tuesday, the fourth day of the trial, the defendant testified in his

own behalf, denying that he had been on the Carnegie Company's grounds

at any time on the day of the battle. A light suit of clothes which he

claimed to have worn on that day was exhibited as an offset to the

evidence of witnesses for the prosecution who coincided in the statement

that the Critchlow whom they had seen wore dark clothing.

Critchlow's wife was sworn and said that at 4 P. M. on July 6, at which

hour, it was alleged, defendant had been behind the barricades, he was

at home sleeping.

This closed the case for the defense.

Only one witness was called by the commonwealth in rebuttal, and his

evidence was valueless.

Mr. Marshall, for the defense, submitted a number of points, among which

was the contention that, when it is certain that one or more persons

committed a crime, but it is uncertain which, all must be acquitted.

Mr. D. F. Patterson responded for the prosecution, taking special

exception to the plea against individual liability.

Four hours were allowed to each side for the closing arguments.

Mr. Robb, for the commonwealth, arraigned the defense in scathing

language for seeking to belittle the laws of the commonwealth in the

eyes of the jury. "There is, gentlemen," he said "some mysterious power

that comes from the blue sky above the clouds that leads us away from

the law; we have been told this by an attorney from the other side. Has

it come to this, as we are told, that there is not law enough in

Allegheny county or Pennsylvania for a plain cause? We have been told,

but thank God those who made the statement are not citizens of our

state, that we are all, from the man who sits on the supreme bench to

the district attorney, corrupt. We have been told that in their cause

there has been a mysterious, swimming atmosphere, something that would

develop in this cause. But when you hear his honor you will know how

plain is your duty and how plain is the law."

And again:

"The Carnegie company may have done wrong; we all do wrong, but

is that any reason why our laws and our great flag, which was

referred to so eloquently by the gentleman on the other side in

his opening address should be trampled underfoot by rioters? My

forefathers were not so high as the forefathers of the gentleman

who addressed you yesterday; mine were only privates; his were

away-up officers. But if I were not a better citizen of

Allegheny county than to advise a jury to disregard its solemn

oath I should hope that I should be stricken dead."

Mr. Erwin, who, since the delivery of his fiery speech of Monday, had

come to be known among the members of the bar as the "Northwestern

Whirlwind," followed Mr. Robb. There was dead silence in the court-room

when he began. Surely he would respond in kind to Mr. Robb's virulent

attack on him! But no. The Westerner was too shrewd to let himself be

drawn off into the mere by-ways of argument, and with but a passing

contemptuous allusion to Mr. Robb's onslaught, he proceeded calmly and

impressively with the discussion of the main issue. As one of the

newspapers put it, "The strategy of the prosecution to lead into a

by-path had failed, and he stuck to the high road and tramped defiantly

along the highest part of it."

After a few preparatory remarks, including his brief reference to Mr.

Robb's speech, which he characterized as a "gauzy affair," Mr. Erwin

plunged into his subject as follows:

"Unhappily for you, and I think for the county, the propelling

causes that led to the riots at Homestead are not shown in

evidence. Under your oaths you cannot merely presume on them. I

think that is unfortunate for the country, the state and the

city. After the news of the battle flashed over the wires calm

minds awaited the result of the investigation. That it has not

been touched is a matter of sincere regret. You are now put in

an iron vest by your oaths, and you can presume nothing except

such presumptions as are legal and presumable. We of the defense

are in no way responsible for this. A man has the right to rebut

only the testimony addressed against him, and that is so strong

that if you committed the murder you would not have a chance to

prove I did it. And thus we are bound hand and foot, and our

mouths are open to receive what the prosecution presents."

Mr. Erwin defined indictments as mere accusations, and said that the

law's presumption of innocence was as a shield on which the prosecution

must pile evidence until the weight is so heavy that it breaks the

prisoner down. The speaker referred to the important part that intuition

plays in law cases, and said in that respect women often possessed it

more acutely because they were nearer like the angels. Going further, he

adverted to the exclusion of any evidence that there was a strike at

Homestead or that Mr. Frick had hired an armed body there. The

constitution, he said, still gives the people right to bear arms in

their defense.

"The cloven foot of the power that invoked this invasion of Pennsylvania

has been hidden from you," continued he. "I know not whether

accidentally, but it has been concealed. You know, though, that it was

Frick, the blackest name there ever was; you know that Frick, whoever he

may be, put on board the Little Bill arms and men for this invasion of

Pennsylvania.

"And, therefore, you are bound to presume that if the proceeding had a

just excuse it should be shown, and the absence of it is favorable to

the prisoner. What was there that even justified Frick in arming men

like that? You do not know. I cannot but presume that it is so black he

dare not show it in this open forum before the republic. The great

question with you, gentlemen, is, under the evidence we have before us,

was this battle at Homestead a riot or an authorized invasion? That's

the first question. If you answer it was an invasion that's the end of

it. It requires no proclamation of the governor to resist an invasion. I

do not see how under the evidence you can see anything else than an

invasion. I would like to have shown you what an irresponsible

constabulary the Pinkertons are, but that is denied us."

Mr. Erwin sarcastically said that Mr. Robb in his endeavor to carry them

by storm became the personification of a rioter, and forgot to tell them

that if Mr. Frick had not sent the Pinkertons to Homestead there would

never have been a battle. There may have seemed a reason to Frick, but

the state had not shown anything of that. People for self-aggrandizement

may often do things that, if shown in court, might convict them of what

they charge against others, and that is murder.

"If you find there is no excuse for that invasion the people of

Homestead should have pursued and shot the Pinkertons even at God's

altar, and further still have gone across the line that separates the

dead from life and shot them while they lay on the bosom of the prince

of hell," shouted Erwin in a particularly passionate outburst that

seemed to appal the court. "If there was no invasion, you must ask

yourselves was the riot such as to make the people on the shore

responsible for that tumult. Who were on those boats? Three hundred men

from the slums of Philadelphia and Chicago, armed with 150 Winchesters,

and revolvers and maces. And they were under captains and had waived

their right to think for themselves; had sworn to obey their captain

when he told them to kill the people at Homestead. This shows you the

abandonment of individuality and concentration of power under one

executive head; and that is the primary principle that constitutes war.

Were the people on the mill shore who had fired on the Pinkertons down

the river? Not one of them. Is there any evidence that the people on

shore were responsible for that firing down on the shore? Not a

particle. Perhaps the prosecution did not go into it for fear they might

show that Frick was guilty of murder. The evidence has not been put to

you to show that the people on shore were there to repel any but

'scabs.' If you cannot determine these points you should acquit the

defendant."

Mr. Erwin then went into an analysis of the testimony of the Pinkerton

witnesses for the prosecution; and defined detectives as men who could

not make a living at any honorable pursuit, and preferred to hunt men

instead of serving the Almighty by working by the sweat of their brows.

He said it was hardly possible the jury could like a human hyena. Had

the Pinkertons been honorable men the district attorney would have shown

the jury evidence of such and thus helped to strengthen their

statements. The speaker justified burning oil and dynamite and anything

else that could be thought of if used against the Pinkertons. There was

no intent in the gathering of the crowd on shore; and, therefore, the

individual up for justice could not be held guilty for what happened.

Erwin held that if Critchlow was on the scene of battle he had a perfect

right to be there. It was a point of law older than Rome, copied by

Cicero, that when arms are used all political laws are set at naught.

The resistance of the Homestead people was a "majestic" performance.

Were not three hundred rifles cowed by eight behind the barricade?

Stewart, "that magnificent volunteer witness," was a preposterous liar

and a "squirt" who was eyeing the fighters.

Here the orator asked his colleagues how long he had to speak and was

told to go on without regard to time. Taking up a synopsis of the

testimony he proceeded to analyze the statements of witnesses for the

commonwealth with telling effect. His sarcastic commentaries set the

court-room in a roar, even the tipstaves being so amused that they

forgot to cry order until Judge Kennedy aroused them.

The witnesses for the defense, Mr. Erwin said, were all reputable

citizens of Homestead. He thought it impossible to construct a better

alibi than had been proven for Critchlow. No machinations of testimony

could make such an excellent alibi as the one presented. In view of it

all, he could not look for any decision other than in favor of

acquittal, even though the district attorney had so artfully presented

the testimony as almost to compel the jury to decide for the

commonwealth against their consciences.

In conclusion the speaker pictured the misery that would be inflicted on

Critchlow's family, if the bread winner were snatched away.

"That is the greatest speech ever delivered in this court house,"

remarked the veteran, Thomas M. Marshall, when Mr. Erwin had finished.

"I want to retire from the bar now, for I have been snuffed out."

On Wednesday morning Mr. Marshall spoke. He laid much stress on the

surreptitious entry of the Pinkertons and the assumption that somebody

had authority to give these private hirelings orders to shoot. "The

order from Captain Cooper and Captain Heinde to shoot entitled them to

be shot," said the speaker vehemently. "When there is war," he

continued, "the man that arrives first on the battlefield has the right

to shoot first. But why did the Pinkertons come down upon Homestead like

thieves in the night? Who is it that likes darkness? Why did not Mr.

Frick say he was bringing these men here to protect his property and not

to intimidate people? Why did they steal into Homestead with guns that

shot sixteen times?"

Mr. Marshall attacked the evidence for the prosecution, and especially

the identification of Critchlow by the Pinkertons, who could only have

seen the man once or twice, if they had seen him at all, and were,

therefore, not qualified to swear to his identity. He held that the

district attorney had no right to throw the weight of his talents and

influence against the defendant. That officer's client was the

commonwealth, and yet Mr. Robb spoke of "our clients" as if Frick and

the commonwealth were identical. "I don't believe," said Mr. Marshall

ironically, "that H. Clay Frick had anything to do with this

prosecution, oh, no! I don't believe that anybody connected with the

Carnegie Company had anything to do with the attempt to take away the

lives of these Homestead men. And this man Lovejoy who made these

informations, he had nothing to do with the Carnegie interests; oh, no!

Love--joy! L-o-v-e-j-o-y! I don't say his name should be Loveblood; but

I do say that there are several people in the Carnegie Company who

should have their names changed."

In concluding his address, Mr. Marshall said: "The real capitalist is

the workingman, the producer, who has nothing but his paltry $3 a day,

while the lordlings, the so-called manufacturers, walk abroad as social

gods and revel in the luxury made by the sweat of the workingman's

brow."

District Attorney Burleigh, in his speech closing the case for the

commonwealth, volunteered the statement that he was in the pay of no man

but was there solely to plead for justice in the name of the

commonwealth. He taxed the defense with relying mainly on artifice and

meretricious oratory; scouted the idea that the Pinkertons were

"invaders," and declared that Mr. Erwin's defense of the right "to

shoot down on the very bosom of the prince of hell," three hundred men

"caged like rats in those barges," was anarchy-red, rampant anarchy!

Mr. Burleigh contended that the Carnegie Company in massing and

attempting to land the Pinkertons with the permission of the Sheriff,

acted within its legal rights. The landing had been attempted at night

because it was desired to avoid a breach of the peace.

The closing portion of the address was given up to an endeavor to

discredit the testimony adduced to establish an alibi for the defendant.

Judge Kennedy occupied only forty minutes in charging the jury. He held

that a man mixing with a riotous crowd and not helping to quell the

disturbance was as guilty as the active participants. The Carnegie

Company had a lawful right to protect its property, even with Pinkerton

detectives, no matter whence the guards came, and the people on the

shore had no right to shoot down the men on the barges.

After one hour's deliberation the jury returned a verdict of "Not

Guilty," to the surprise of the court and the delight of Critchlow's

weeping wife, who remained near him to the last.

The news of the acquittal spread rapidly, and at Homestead an

enthusiastic crowd watched every train from Pittsburgh in the hope of

meeting Critchlow with an appropriate demonstration. The people were

disappointed, however, for the lion of the occasion was doomed to remain

a caged lion, being remanded to jail on additional charges--two of

murder, two of riot and one of conspiracy.

At the same time the public made up its mind from the turn which affairs

had taken in the Critchlow case that a conviction could not be secured

against any of the Homestead men. The officials of the Amalgamated

Association were jubilant and gave vent to their satisfaction by waiting

in a body upon Attorney Erwin at the Monongahela House and formally

congratulating him on the success which he had achieved President

Garland acting as spokesman.

On the Carnegie Company's side there was a corresponding feeling of

disappointment and three months were allowed to elapse before the trial

of the Homestead cases proper--that is to say, those based on the battle

with the Pinkertons--was resumed.

[Illustration: THE WORKMEN'S DISPATCH BOAT.]

CHAPTER XIX.

[Illustration: WEAVING NEW TOILS.]

AN EPIDEMIC INVESTIGATED--DETECTIVES CHARGE POISONING AND

ARRESTS ARE MADE--GALLAGHER AND DAVIDSON TURN

INFORMERS--DEMPSEY AND BEATTY ARE INDICTED--HEARINGS AND

TRIALS--A TANGLED MASS OF MEDICAL TESTIMONY--MR. BRENNEN'S

LITTLE HIBERNICISM--DEFENDANTS ARE CONVICTED AND HEAVY

SENTENCES IMPOSED--GALLAGHER RECANTS AND THEN

RECONSIDERS--CLEMENCY REFUSED BY THE PARDON BOARD.

The prevalence of disease among the non-union men in the Carnegie mill,

and the alarming increase of mortality in the months of September and

October were touched upon in an earlier chapter. It was not until

December that the first intimation of the existence of a criminal cause

for the species of epidemic which struck down man after man and baffled

expert physicians and chemists reached the public. The Carnegie Company

had concealed the truth as far as possible, endeavoring from the first

to counteract the statements sent abroad by the Amalgamated Association

to the effect that bad food, bad water, and bad sanitary arrangements

were killing off the "blacksheep" like cattle stricken with a murrain.

The malady was a virulent form of diarrhoea or cholera morbus, for which

the medical men employed to treat the sufferers were unable to account.

All sorts of remedial measures were tried by the firm. Only the purest

food was used. Notices were posted warning the men not to drink from the

water plugs ordinarily serving as a source of supply, and chemically

pure water was provided. Still the plague did not abate. Suspecting foul

play, the firm set Pinkerton detectives to work, distributing them among

the cooks and waiters as assistants, and in this way evidence was

secured of a wholesale poisoning conspiracy, and the identity of the

conspirators was believed to be established by confessions obtained from

two accessories.

On December 5, J. H. Ford, a Pinkerton detective, made information

before Alderman McMasters against Robert J. Beatty, a cook in the mill,

on a charge of felonious assault and battery, in administering poison to

the non-union men at Homestead. It was learned that Beatty was about to

start for Cincinnati on the steamboat Nellie Hudson and an officer

boarded the boat to apprehend him, but was not permitted to make the

arrest. Beatty was subsequently arrested in Louisville and brought back

to Pittsburgh on requisition papers issued by Governor Pattison.

The confession on which the Carnegie Company based its charge against

Beatty was made by Patrick Gallagher, a cook in restaurant No. 1 in the

Homestead mill. Its publication, which followed immediately on the

arrest of Beatty, caused a tremendous sensation, inasmuch as it named

as the arch-conspirator, the designer and executive head of the plot, no

less a personage than Hugh F. Dempsey, master workman of D. A. 3, K. of

L.

Gallagher deposed that late in August, he was approached by Beatty with

a proposition to put in the tea and coffee made by him for the Carnegie

Company's men, something which would render the men sick and unfit for

work; that Beatty took him, in company with J. M. Davidson, to see Hugh

F. Dempsey, who was to furnish the preparation to be used; that about

the 7th or 8th of September affiant received from Dempsey a bottle

containing a yellow powder, which, Dempsey said, contained three doses,

each being sufficient for a pot of tea or coffee containing thirty

gallons; that affiant used the powder with the result of making workmen

sick and unable to work; that additional powders were given him by

Dempsey and Beatty and administered by him to the workmen, and that

affiant received for his services $3 from Beatty and $25 from Dempsey,

with the assurance of $23.85 more from the latter.

Despite the plausibility and coherency of the charges and the _prima

facie_ evidence in support of them, the Amalgamated men unanimously set

down this new move of the company as a scheme devised in order to

prejudice their cause. It was urged, in particular, that the relations

between the Association and the K. of L. were not such as to render it

probable that Dempsey would jeopardize his liberty and perhaps his life

by engaging in a villainous plot in the interest of the former. Dempsey

himself stoutly denied the charges, and his denial was supported by

Beatty.

At the hearing before Alderman McMasters, Beatty was defended by

William J. Brennen, Esq. Captain Breck appeared for the prosecution. J.

M. Davidson was the first witness examined. A summary of his testimony

is appended:

"I am 50 years of age, reside in the Seventeenth ward,

Pittsburgh, and have been a river cook nearly all my life. I

have known Beatty two or three years. In the latter part of

August, Patrick Gallagher and I met Beatty on Wood street, and

Beatty recognized me as "Jimmy" Davidson. I have known Gallagher

for fifteen years. It was understood that we were all to go to

Homestead as cooks and that we were to take something with us to

put in the food given the non-union men in order to make them

sick and unfit for work. When we met Beatty he took us to the

office of the K. of L., on Third Avenue. There we met Hugh

Dempsey, who, I understand, is master workman for this district.

I am not a member of the K. of L. While we were in the office,

Gallagher and Dempsey did most of the talking. Beatty suggested

that it would be well for us to dose the men at Homestead with

croton oil. He said croton oil could be used safely; that we

could carry bottles of it in our pockets and when we were at

work in the cook-houses we could put it on our fingers and rub

it on the inside of the soup bowls and coffee cups. I objected

to the use of croton oil on the ground that it was a deadly

drug, and I did not want to run the risk of killing any one.

Dempsey said he could furnish us with powders that would do the

work effectively and safely; that the powders had been used on

non-union men in Chicago, and that by their use a strike had

been broken in four days. He said that while it would make the

men sick, it was not dangerous. Dempsey said that if we would go

to Homestead and administer these powders he would guarantee us

$50 each and our expenses. We did not get any powders from

Dempsey that day. Gallagher, Beatty and myself then left

Dempsey's office. We took a walk about town discussing our plans

and the contract we had undertaken. Beatty told us that if we

did the work well there would be a gold watch and chain in it

for each of us in addition to the money we were to receive. I

did not go to Homestead until September 30. Gallagher, who had

been there for some time, left the day before I arrived. Two

days later he returned and worked about the restaurant in the

mill. Before Gallagher went to Homestead the first time we

called on Mr. Dempsey. He gave us a small jar of some kind of

powder. He said there was enough of the stuff in the jar for

three powders, each one sufficient to 'fix' thirty gallons of

tea or coffee. I suppose there was nine or ten teaspoonsful of

the stuff in the bottle. Dempsey told Gallagher to divide it

into three equal parts. This Gallagher took with him to

Homestead. The day before I went to Homestead Beatty gave me

some powders to deliver to Gallagher. This was in Dempsey's

office, or K. of L. hall. I met Gallagher on the street and gave

him the package. He opened it and told me there were nine

powders in the package. The bottle containing some of the stuff

was given to Gallagher by Dempsey in my presence. This was in K.

of L. hall and Beatty was present. Gallagher was to use his own

discretion whether he put it in the tea or coffee. I next saw

Beatty about September 30.

"Some time in September Gallagher came back, and Beatty and I

went to the K. of L. hall. Dempsey asked him how the powders

worked. He said successfully, and wanted more and Dempsey said

he would get more. After I came back I again met Beatty. We

talked about the success the powders had, and Beatty seemed

pleased. I had quit work on October 15. About December 1, I met

Beatty at Cavanaugh's saloon. Gallagher was with us and we then

went to Gallagher's room, where we discussed the powders, and I

asked Beatty what was in the powders. He said rhubarb and snuff

and other things. He didn't say who furnished them. While we

were talking he mentioned Lynch, Crawford and Dr. Purman.

Gallagher presented his bill of expenses to Dempsey and he asked

me where mine was, and I made it out and gave it to Dempsey.

Dempsey said the money was exhausted and we would have to wait.

Beatty said the powders didn't seem to be a success. Gallagher

told Dempsey that the powders had been used in cook house No. 1.

I saw Beatty again two weeks later on Wood street. We talked

over Gallagher's success in administering the powders. Met him

again a week later; that was after I had quit work in

Homestead."

On cross-examination witness said that Beatty gave him $2 and Dempsey

$12. Mr. Brennen was unable to shake his testimony.

Pinkerton Detective Ford deposed to having overheard a conversation

carried on by Beatty, Gallagher and Davidson concerning the powders used

at Homestead. Witness hired adjoining rooms for Gallagher and himself,

and induced Gallagher to entertain the other two men in his quarters, he

(Ford) furnishing liquor for the party. He kept a man stationed in the

room next Gallagher's and received daily reports of what took place. On

confronting Davidson with proof of his guilt, Davidson made a full

confession.

Louis Wolfe, of Anapolis, Md., said that he had served as steward of

restaurants Nos 1, 4 and 5 in the Carnegie mill. Witness hired Gallagher

as cook and had seen Beatty in the mill. On September 7, witness' wife

came on from Anapolis and he invited thirty or forty friends to supper

in honor of her arrival. Many of the guests were taken ill and Mrs.

Wolfe suffered terribly from cramps and vomited a great deal. Her weight

was soon reduced from 120 to 66 pounds. Witness himself fell ill and

lost 38 pounds.

J. O. Nesbitt swore that he had attended the supper given by Wolfe, fell

ill immediately afterwards, was in bed five weeks and had not yet fully

recovered.

W. E. Bullock, pay roll clerk in the Carnegie office at Homestead, had

also been at the supper, sickened, lost sixteen pounds in eight days and

was still ailing.

Mr. Brennen made a long argument for his client, alleging that the two

informers were "miserable, contemptible rascals who had put up a job on

an innocent man in order to shield themselves." The magistrate, however,

believing a good _prima facie_ case to have been made out, held Beatty

for court in $5,000 bail.

As if to accentuate the force of the poisoning charge several more

deaths from sickness contracted in the mill now occurred, the symptoms

being identical in all cases.

District Attorney Burleigh proceeded without loss of time against

Dempsey and Davidson, the information against the men being lodged by

County Detective Beltzhoover. Dempsey surrendered himself and was

released on $2,500 bail. Gallagher, against whom an information had been

made by William E. Griffith, one of the workmen who had been poisoned,

was arrested and sent to jail in default of $5,000 bail. Davidson was

also arrested, but was released on $3,000 bail.

Hugh F. Dempsey was the first of the accused men to stand trial, being

arraigned before Judge Stowe on January 12, 1893. The indictment against

him contained four counts, 2 charging felonious assault and battery with

intent to murder, and two felonious assault and battery with intent to

"make sick." The defendant was represented by Messrs. Marshall,

Montooth, Brennen and L. K. Porter. District Attorney Burleigh, Captain

Breck and John S. Robb appeared for the Commonwealth. The jury selected

was composed as follows: Harry T. Anderson, L. P. Boyer, Michael Brown,

David Duff, Charles H. Kretzer and William G. Murray, all farmers;

Daniel Bohannon, painter; Louis Blumenschein, gardener; David C.

Brickell, gent; Alex. D. Guy, merchant; Edward Letzkus, clerk, and John

H. Wilson, manufacturer.

Captain Breck, in his opening speech, admitted that no man could be

convicted of crime on the evidence of an accomplice, but promised to

furnish ample testimony corroborative of the confessions made by

Gallagher and Davidson. He laid special stress on the reports of the

physicians who had treated the men supposed to have been poisoned at

Homestead.

A numerous array of witnesses was brought forward by the prosecution.

Attorney L. K. Porter conducted most of the cross-examinations for the

defense.

Dr. Weible, surgeon for the Carnegie Company, submitted a tabulated

report of the cases treated by him in the mill.

Louis Wolfe repeated the testimony which he gave at the Beatty hearing.

George W. Amy, Henry P. Thompson and Louis H. Craig, all of Chicora,

Butler County, deposed to having worked in the Homestead mill and being

stricken with disease, from which none of them had fully recovered. Dr.

J. L. Campbell, of Chicora, had treated these men and described their

symptoms, which, he said, he had ascribed to mineral poisoning. He was

certain that antimony had been given.

Stephen Loveless, of Butler, William H. Johnston, a watchman in the

mill; Benjamin Weaver, a steelworker residing at Homestead, and Wilmot

Herr, a watchman, deposed to having been attacked by the prevailing

malady.

Dr. McGeary, of Homestead, had treated William H. Johnston and was

convinced that his patient suffered from arsenical poisoning. In his

opinion, impure water, spoiled meat or climatic conditions could not

have caused the sickness which occurred in the mill.

Charles H. Smith, an engineer in the Carnegie works, said that he had

fallen ill twice and lost 55 pounds. Three doctors were unable to

restore his health fully.

William E. Griffith, the man named in the indictment as the victim of

the poisoning plot, said that he had been serving in restaurant No. 6 as

head waiter. On September 11 or 12, after eating supper in the

restaurant, he was seized with diarrhoea and vomiting and was then laid

up for a week. On October 6, after drinking some coffee, witness took

sick again. This time he was prostrated for eight weeks. Dr. A. P.

Vogleman, of Homestead, had treated Griffith and thought that the

patient might have been made ill by drinking bad water.

Dr. McGeary (recalled) and Dr. E. W. Dean testified to the conditions

attending the case of J. W. Van Winkle, who had died at the Homeopathic

Hospital. They thought it safe to pronounce his death due to arsenical

poisoning.

Numerous other witnesses gave testimony similar to the foregoing,

nearly a week being occupied in listening to the stories of those who

had been poisoned and to the diagnoses learnedly set forth by medical

men.

On the fifth day of the trial, Gallagher, the informer, was placed on

the witness stand and repeated the narrative embodied in his previously

published confession, with some new embellishments. In describing his

first interview with Dempsey, Gallagher said:

"When we entered Dempsey's office a lady who was present

retired; the door was then locked; we sat down; Beatty said to

Dempsey: 'These are the two men;' we talked about the weather

for a few minutes after which Dempsey said to me and Mr.

Davidson: 'I suppose you know what we want?' We said we knew a

little about it. Dempsey then said: 'Well, we want to get the

men in the Homestead mill on the trot.' Beatty then spoke about

using croton oil. Davidson and I said we wouldn't use it.

Dempsey then spoke about breaking a street car strike in

Chicago--the State street strike. He said powders had been used;

that if we would use these powders in the Homestead mill it

would make the men sick and that we could break the strike in

about ten days."

Gallagher also swore that Beatty's trip to Cincinnati was for the

purpose of getting two more cooks to finish the poisoning job. Dempsey

had subsequently shown him a dispatch from Cincinnati, which read, "Two

good agents on the road." When witness went to work in the mill the

second time two cooks came from Cincinnati. They were Tony Gilfoil and

William Coleman. Witness took them to a hotel and paid their bills; but

was warned by Dempsey not to let the new comers know of his (Dempsey's)

connection with the plot.

Gallagher further deposed that, after leaving the mill finally, he had,

in the presence of Davidson, presented a bill to Dempsey, which the

latter O.K'd. He had also signed a receipt for $25, which Dempsey gave

him in the dispatcher's office of the Citizens' Traction Line. The bill

marked "O.K." was identified and offered in evidence.

Attorney Marshall subjected Gallagher to a trying cross-examination but

without impairing his testimony.

J. M. Davidson repeated in court the evidence given by him at the Beatty

hearing.

George W. Crail, dispatcher of the Citizens' Traction Line, corroborated

Gallagher's statement as to the receipt of $25 from Dempsey. Dempsey,

the witness claimed, came into his office and said: "Crail, if a man

comes in here and asks if I left anything for him, give him this money."

The death of L. B. Hebron from sickness contracted in the mill was

attested by the mother and brother of the deceased, and Captain A. E.

Hunt, of the Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory, then stated the result of an

analysis of sick bed accumulations furnished him by Mrs. Hebron. The

analysis showed the presence of croton oil and arsenic.

J. D. Flynn, manager of the Western Union Telegraph Company in

Pittsburgh, produced a copy of a telegram sent to Dempsey from

Cincinnati, on September 26. It read: "Send me $20; in a pinch; two good

agents on the road.--BEATTY." It was shown by a messenger boy that the

telegram was delivered to a man in Dempsey's office, who signed for it.

Thomas M. Marshall, Esq., made the opening speech for the defense, the

principal points set forth in which were, (1) That the sickness in the

Homestead mill was merely incident to an epidemic from which soldiers

and others outside the mill were suffering, and (2) That the men sent

into the mill by Dempsey and paid for their services were detailed by

Dempsey as scouts.

Dr. George T. McCord, being sworn, stated that the conditions of life

among the non-union men in the Homestead mill were very favorable to the

development of diarrhoea, dysentery and kindred complaints. He had

treated one man who was taken sick with diarrhoea in the mill and cured

him.

Dr. John Purman, of Homestead, told of the filthy condition of City Farm

lane, and said he had under treatment numerous cases of diarrhoea and

dysentery not incurred in the mill.

Nine members of Battery B, Eighteenth regiment, N. G. P., swore that

they were afflicted with precisely the same complaint that attacked the

non-union workmen.

Other witnesses testified as to the impurity of the water supply in the

mill and the invariable prevalence of diarrhoea and kindred diseases

among the millworkers during the hot season.

E. W. Robertson, who occupied the cell next to Gallagher's in the county

jail, said that Gallagher had told him that Dempsey was an innocent man.

Hugh F. Dempsey, being sworn in his own defense, stated that he had

employed Gallagher and Davidson, on Beatty's recommendation, to get work

in the Homestead mill and report to him how things were running. Nothing

had ever been said about putting poison in food, and witness knew

nothing of a poison plot. The $25 paid by him to Gallagher was a loan.

[Illustration: RELIEF COMMITTEE OF BUILDING TRADES, PITTSBURGH, PA.]

On cross-examination, Dempsey stated that it was through the Knights of

Labor in New York, who were striving to procure a settlement of the

Homestead trouble, that he became interested in the affair. He gave a

synopsis of one of Davidson's reports to him on the number of men

employed and the output, and said that Gallagher made reports of like

tenor.

While Dempsey was giving his testimony, resolutions affirming implicit

faith in his honesty and innocence of wrong-doing were being adopted by

District Assembly No. 3, and on the evening of the same day he was

reelected to the position of master workman by acclamation. This strong

expression of confidence on the part of his fellow workmen might, it was

thought, have some influence for good on the determination of Dempsey's

case.

With the exception of Prof. George Hay, a chemist, who swore that

Captain Hunt could not possibly have discovered traces of croton oil in

nine drops of oleaginous liquid, all the remaining witnesses for the

defense were called to prove Dempsey's good character.

Attorney L. K. Porter made the opening argument for the defense. He

charged the prosecution with unfairness in having a chemical examination

made without permitting the attendance of an expert on the part of the

defense and dilated upon the reasons for presuming that an epidemic of

stomach troubles would naturally occur in an establishment where 2,678

men were lodged and fed in close quarters and practically without

outdoor exercise. The doctors disagreed and most of them had never

treated poison cases. How could a man be convicted on such testimony?

The men who claimed to have been poisoned had, for the most part,

admitted that they had suffered from diarrhoea and vomiting before and

why should it be surmised that the attacks which beset them in the mill

arose from other than natural causes? The majority of the non-union men

came from distant points and were liable to be affected by change of

climate.

Gallagher, Mr. Porter said, being a self-confessed accomplice, was

unworthy of credit. He was a spy, procured by Pinkerton Detective Ford,

and the fact that he was left at large for five weeks after his

confession indicated in what a questionable relation he stood to the

prime movers in the prosecution of Dempsey. Dempsey, the speaker said,

was the honored choice of 600,000 men for the chieftanship of the K. of

L. in the Pittsburgh district. He was a frank and generous man, to whose

kind heart no one ever appealed in vain. Was it humanly probable that

this man would have bribed Gallagher to poison men? Would he, if such

had been his purpose, have conferred with Gallagher and have given him

money in broad daylight? The issue was between Gallagher, the hired

informer, and Dempsey, the honorable citizen, whom it was proposed to

take away from his wife and home on the testimony of strangers without

title to belief.

Attorney Marshall followed his colleague with a telling analysis of the

evidence for the commonwealth. He read from the report of the mill

physician, Dr. Weible, figures showing that there was actually more

sickness in the mill, in proportion to the number of men employed,

before Gallagher went there than at any time afterwards. He also showed

by Gallagher's testimony that on the day of the Wolfe family's supper,

the coffee which Gallagher claimed to have dosed was all used up at

dinner time and, as there was none left over, where, Mr. Marshall asked,

did the poison come from by which the Wolfes' claimed to have been

sickened. After commenting on the improbability of Dempsey's employing

strangers to aid him in a poisoning plot, Mr. Marshall said in

conclusion: "We ask you to put the stamp of your disapproval on these

corruptionists and send Hugh Dempsey home to those who love him, a free

man, with a character as spotless as it was before these two worthless,

degraded creatures tried to ruin it."

Mr. Robb closed for the prosecution. His strongest point consisted in

ridiculing the idea that if Dempsey wanted reports on the operations of

the mill he would have sent cooks instead of steelworkers to secure

them.

Judge Stowe charged the jury in a perfectly dispassionate and unbiased

manner. This was on the morning of Friday, January 20, the seventh day

of the trial. The jury remained out less than three hours and brought in

a verdict of "Guilty as indicted." A demand for a new trial was promptly

made and, pending the hearing of the application, Dempsey was liberated

on $2,500 bail.

On January 24, Robert W. Beatty was placed on trial, charged with

"felonious assault in administering, or employing persons to administer,

poison" to the non-union men in the Carnegie steel plant. The same

counsel appeared on both sides that figured in the Dempsey case, with

the exception of District Attorney Burleigh, whose place was taken by

his assistant, Harry Goehring. William M. Erwin, the "Western Cyclone"

also appeared in court and joined the attorneys for the defense.

Captain Breck opened the case for the commonwealth by reading the

testimony brought out on his side in the Dempsey case. There were 67,000

words of this matter and, before the reading was concluded, most of the

Captain's auditors sank into a gentle slumber. The array of medical men

and diarrhoea victims previously examined was then marshaled into court

and re-examined and cross-examined for the benefit of the jury which was

supposed not to be cognizant of the evidence submitted when Dempsey was

on trial. Not until Charles McKinnie was put on the stand was an element

of interest infused into the proceedings. McKinnie said that he was a

riverman, knew Beatty well, and had been approached by the prisoner with

a proposition to go to Homestead and dose the men with croton oil. He

had refused to have anything to do with such contemptible work. The

witness testified in a straightforward manner and made a visible

impression on the jury.

Gallagher and Davidson repeated their former testimony with some

variations, Davidson in his efforts to shield himself managing to

contradict Gallagher in many points.

Charles C. Comstock swore that he had met Beatty in the mill and been

advised by the latter to get out or the powders would fix him.

Many other witnesses were called to bear testimony to having seen Beatty

in the mill at various times.

Attorney Brennen opened the case for the defense and at one point in his

address amazed his auditory by stating his ability to prove, with

reference to the supper at Wolfe's house, that "_the tea that was drank

at this banquet was all consumed at the dinner the day before_." Mr.

Brennen's slip of the tongue was much enjoyed. Undismayed by the effect

of his inadvertent Hibernicism, the doughty little attorney proceeded to

set forth the strong points of the case for the defendant, laying

special emphasis on the declaration that there was nothing suspicious in

the employment of cooks as detectives, inasmuch as the cookhouses were

the most convenient headquarters for the kind of espionage which Dempsey

had instituted.

Many witnesses were called to testify to the occurrence among the

soldiers of a similar epidemic to that which beset the non-union

steelworkers, and to prove the bad character of Gallagher and Davidson.

Borough officials from Homestead swore that City Farm lane, which is

close to the Carnegie works, was in a filthy, disease-breeding condition

and physicians corroborated this evidence and showed that much sickness

resulted from this cause.

Hugh F. Dempsey was summoned to the stand and told his story in about

the same terms as were used by him when he testified on his own trial.

He explained that nobody had authorized or requested him to send

spies to Homestead. He had acted simply "in the interest of labor

organizations."

Professor Hay again rebutted Captain Hunt's claim of having detected

traces of croton oil in material furnished him by the mother of L. B.

Hebron, and Dr. C. C. Wiley, surgeon of the Eighteenth regiment, stated

that the conditions at Homestead conduced strongly to the spread of

diarrhoea, cholera morbus and kindred complaints.

Robert J. Beatty, being sworn in his own defense, said that he had

worked in the water house and pump house at the Carnegie mills for

nearly a year prior to the lock-out. He was a member of Boxmakers' Lodge

No. 52, K. of L. Witness denied all parts of the testimony of Gallagher

and Davidson which tended to incriminate him. His telegram concerning

"two good agents on the road," referred, he said, to two men supplied by

a labor organization in Cincinnati, of whom he knew no more than this.

He had received for expenses $33 from Dempsey and some money from David

Lynch, Thomas Crawford and other Homestead men.

The closing speeches on both sides and the judge's charge, being

substantially identical with those delivered in the Dempsey case, need

not be outlined here.

The jury evidently had its mind made up before withdrawing. After only

nine minutes' consideration, a verdict of "guilty as indicted" was

agreed upon.

A strong fight was made to secure a new trial for Dempsey, but without

success, and on February 21, the convicted men were called up for

sentence. Dempsey and Beatty were each sentenced to seven years'

imprisonment in the penitentiary, and Gallagher and Davidson, who had

pleaded guilty, were sentenced respectively to five and three years'

imprisonment.

Dempsey's attorneys took an appeal to the supreme court, which was

negatived, and later applied for a pardon for their client on the

strength of a recantation made by Gallagher, but subsequently repudiated

by him. Gallagher made affidavit that the story told by him in court was

false and that he had been suborned to commit perjury by detectives and

others in the service of the Carnegie Company. Hardly was the ink on

the affidavit dry, however, until this paragon of mendacity made a

third "confession," reaffirming his original testimony. The pardon board

denied the application on Dempsey's behalf, and the ex-master workman

was thus deprived of his last hope and doomed to serve his full term in

prison.

[Illustration: OFFICES IN THE MILL YARD.]

CHAPTER XX.

[Illustration: The Denouement.]

CLIFFORD TRIED FOR HIS LIFE--ALIBI TESTIMONY--ATTORNEYS ERWIN

AND ANDERSON WIN NEW LAURELS--"NOT GUILTY"--HUGH O'DONNELL AT

THE BAR--THE HOMESTEAD LEADER AS A REPORTER AND

PEACEMAKER--WEAK TESTIMONY FOR THE PROSECUTION--MAJOR MONTOOTH

RIDICULES THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S SUBSTITUTE--O'DONNELL

ACQUITTED--THE CARNEGIE LAWYERS ABANDON THE FIELD--BERKMAN'S

ACCOMPLICES DISPOSED OF.

On February 2, 1893, Jack Clifford was put on trial before Judge Stowe,

on an indictment charging him, jointly with Hugh Ross, Hugh O'Donnell,

Burgess McLuckie and others, with the murder of Detective T. J. Connors.

The counsel on both sides were the same that appeared in the Critchlow

case, with the exception that W. S. Anderson, an eminent criminal lawyer

of Youngstown, Ohio, was added to the side of the defense. The jury

selected was as follows: John Erichson, J. L. Hammitt, Andrew Hepp, Jr.,

W. G. Bigham, Henry Lloyd, H. A. Price, John Stauffer, D. C. Mayer,

Andrew Donnelly, T. C. Rafferty, John M. Hamilton and Patrick Kearney.

Early in the proceedings, Judge Stowe served notice on the defense that

he would not permit any line of argument or cross-examination tending to

justify the killing of the Pinkertons. No matter who the invaders were

or what their purpose, the court held, the killing was not justified.

Mr. Erwin engaged in a tilt with the court over this ruling, citing the

mode of procedure in the Critchlow case as precedent, but was summarily

silenced.

The testimony offered by the prosecution differed little from that given

against Critchlow. Pinkerton detectives identified Clifford and swore to

having seen him in the forefront of the crowd that gathered to prevent

the landing of the Pinkerton forces in the mill yard. Clifford was armed

with a pistol, they said, and was active in building barricades and

later in arranging the surrender. It was he that waved the white flag

from the river bank and, in company with O'Donnell and others,

guaranteed protection to the Pinkertons, if they would lay down their

arms and come on shore. He had also aided in caring for the wounded and

getting them off the barges.

George L. Johnson, a mill-worker, testified to having seen Clifford

carry what appeared to him to be a powder canister in the direction of

the brass cannon which was mounted in the gas house. Witness admitted

that he had been employed by the Carnegie Company and had gone out on

strike, but returned to work at his old job on July 5. He took no part

in the fight with the Pinkertons, but was merely a spectator. This

colloquy followed:

MR. BRENNEN.--"You made no effort to stop it?"

"No, sir."

"You were there considerable time and did not attempt to spike the

cannon?

"No, sir; I did not."

An objection to such cross-examination was raised by the prosecution and

sustained by the court.

MR. ERWIN.--"Your honor, I think if this witness did not withdraw from

the scene of the disturbance he too was a rioter and an accomplice, and

as such his evidence would have to be corroborated?"

THE COURT.--"No, it would have been unhealthy for him to have interfered

and the objection is overruled."

Robert Pollock swore that he saw Clifford at the pump house throwing

bottles filled with ignited oil at the barges, and also at the fire

engine pumping oil through hose while other men were throwing lighted

waste in the stream of oil flowing towards the barges.

C. S. Capehart, a clerk, had seen Clifford throwing dynamite, and

William J. Henderson had seen him distributing stick dynamite to men who

walked to the bank and threw the missiles at the barges.

As in the Critchlow trial, the defense set up for Clifford rested

entirely on alibi testimony, his counsel undertaking to show that he was

asleep and knew nothing of the fight until after Connors was shot, and

that his part in the trouble of July 6 was confined to an attempt to

save the Pinkertons at the risk of his own life.

Captain O. C. Coon, Charles Mansfield, of the _Homestead Local News_,

Andrew Soulier and others, stated that they had witnessed the opening of

the conflict between the Pinkertons and the workmen and that Clifford

was not among the combatants.

Mrs. Annie Malloy, a widow residing in Mifflin township about two miles

from the scene of the disturbance, swore that Clifford slept at her

house on the night before July 6, and that she did not waken him until

about 11.15 A. M. on that day. Her statements were corroborated by her

daughters Maggie and Dora, the former of whom was said to be Clifford's

sweetheart. Additional evidence sustaining the alibi was given by Mrs.

Riley, with whom Clifford boarded, Constable Charles Stewart, President

Garland, of the Amalgamated Association and P. H. McEvey, Vice-President

of the Association.

Determined efforts were made by Attorney Erwin to show by witnesses that

the crowd which gathered on the river bank to meet the Pinkertons was

there for a peaceable purpose and that the Pinkertons were the actual

rioters, but the prosecution objected to testimony of this character and

its objections were sustained.

The closing speeches for the defense, delivered by Messrs. Erwin and

Anderson, were masterpieces of forensic eloquence, and they were heard

by a gathering such as has rarely assembled in a Pennsylvania court

room. Legal practitioners, young and old, were there to watch the climax

in this struggle of legal giants. Labor leaders sat side by side with

capitalists. The classes and the masses were alike represented, and

observed with equally keen interest the closing scene of the drama

which, for all they knew, was to end in a tragedy. The prisoner himself

was perhaps the coolest person in the throng. His nerve remained

unshaken to the last.

After Mr. Robb had made his address for the prosecution, in the course

of which he characterized the battle at Homestead as "the most fanatical

piece of barbarity ever witnessed," Mr. Erwin spoke. He said, in part:

"At this time a grave responsibility rests upon me, for it now

becomes my duty to address your conscience. It is a serious

duty, your honor, (turning to the bench) to judge your fellow

men's conscience. I am a stranger among you, but I do not fear

your crowd, your array of lawyers or your judge, but I do fear

my God. I am an officer of the court. I must obey it. I will

obey it. I will walk in the line which it sets. We are here to

try a citizen of Pennsylvania, born here, for taking the life of

a man who, twenty-four hours after landing on your soil, was

carried wounded from the boat with his smoking rifle in his

hands. Your citizens ask me to ask you if you will believe these

men who shot down McCoy and others of your citizens, or those

self-confessed red-handed murderers. I stand here, and by the

spirits of your dead citizens shot from your mills, I appeal to

you for justice. I stand before a jury of Pennsylvania kings;

there are no kings in Pennsylvania but the jury. There is no

just adjudication but the jury box. It was the discovery of

ages--to find some body wherein the conscience should be free.

* * * * *

"Now the duty of the commonwealth is plain in this case. It must

convince your minds and your consciences that the defendant is

guilty. Who says this Pennsylvania boy killed Connors? Nobody.

They want to say and want you to say a great riot was in

progress. I deny it. A riot is some act done by several persons

unlawful in its character. I deny that there was any riot on the

shore that day; the state does not prove that the defendant had

a gun in his hand that day. They do try to prove by one witness

that he had a revolver in his hand. The doctor testified that

the wound that killed Connors was a rifle bullet. Then how can

they accuse the defendant of the crime? They first (the state)

must prove to you that there was a riot there that day and that

Clifford was there, participating in that riotous proceeding,

either aiding or abetting. They offer us Pinkertons--Pinkertons

to a Pennsylvania jury, gentlemen--who came into this state with

guns, who are murderers of your citizens, making their children

orphans. One of the attorneys for the prosecution, in his fervid

manner, stigmatized that gathering of Homestead people as

anarchy. I say that invasion of the Pinkertons was the highest

evidence of anarchy. You saw these little Carnegie clerks come

here and testify that they had gone behind these barricades

spying around, while bullets, as they say, were flying fast and

furious. That is simply absurd. It would have been the highest

act of bravery. It might be so, but it is not reasonable and I

would stigmatize it as a lie. It is a tenet of the law that it

is better that ninety-nine guilty persons should escape than

that one innocent man should suffer. Will you believe the

sheriff who would try to pull the wool over your eyes and

endeavor to launch this defendant into eternity? Will you

believe the testimony of the defendant or this red-handed

Pinkerton? No, this is not a question between labor and capital,

and it amused me to have the learned counsel on the other side

assert it. It is claimed by the prosecution that Clifford was at

the landing firing at these men when they landed; that there was

a cessation for four hours after. I deny this, for witness after

witness for the prosecution went upon the stand and swore to the

contrary. What is the purpose of this move by the prosecution?

It is simply a trick; a pure trick of the law to show that there

was a cessation of firing which would permit the people of

Homestead to withdraw. There was no cessation, but these Pinks

poured out a continuous fire upon these defenseless people on

the hillside from port-holes cut in the barges. Self-defense is

a cardinal principle not depending upon the law of the state,

but upon God. It does not depend upon man. Oh! how weak is that

attempt of man to try to prove wrong that which God has

implanted in every man. That old doctrine that a man must

retreat from a man with a sword or a stone in order to preserve

the peace, has been swept away by the introduction of the

Winchester rifle. Can you show me a man who can retreat from a

fire of 300 rifles? Just so long as you can show me that there

is no possibility for them to escape from that deadly fire, just

so long do I contend they had a right to return that fire. There

is another point of the prosecution to prove as an evidence of

riot the fact that these people were on the Carnegie property

and were using vile language. I deny that this can be shown as

riot."

ATTORNEY BURLEIGH--We don't attempt to show it.

MR. ERWIN--I don't know what you don't attempt to show.

Attorney Erwin then read the law in definition of riot.

Continuing he said: "There is no proof here that they were assembled as

riotors; not the least scintilla of such a gathering. But on the other

side I will show a riotous gathering."

MR. BURLEIGH--We object. Your honor has already ruled against such

proceedings.

COURT--Yes.

MR. ERWIN--I know your honor has, and I therefore offer an exception

that you will not permit me to speak of it. I will not speak of it. As I

understand, Justice is represented blindfolded, with a scale in her hand

equally weighing in both pans and with a sword in her hand. It is a sad

thing that one of her exponents should----

COURT--Stop that. I won't allow any such line of argument.

MR. ERWIN--I am limited by the court and can't discuss the material

necessary to be introduced in this case, but I will say that, through

the objections of the district attorney, we have been denied a fair

trial for our client.

Attorney Anderson followed Mr. Erwin. After outlining the case in a few

graphic words, he said:

"Mr. Robb has attempted to tell you while he depicted that

horrible act of the people on the bank that there was another

side to that story. He forgot to tell you that a man from a

foreign state raised and leveled his rifle and in spite of

earnest pleadings shot a young man down. He forgot to tell you

that not a shot was fired from the river bank until that young

man lay weltering in his life blood. I will try to show you that

the trouble did not come from the men on the shore, but from the

men in the barges sent there. I want to see, and so do you, what

the commonwealth of Pennsylvania wants to prove. It does not

claim, because there is no evidence to prove it, that Jack

Clifford fired that shot that killed Connors. Because Clifford

was there they want to hold him responsible for an act committed

by another party. Before they do it they must prove that he was

acting and assisting those men to acts of violence. It matters

not what was done after 12 o'clock. It matters not if he threw

that dynamite or the can of powder. Because before that you must

be convinced that Jack Clifford was there when Connors was shot.

You might wonder at that; that it is not a crime to throw

burning oil or dynamite, but the prosecution specifies a

particular charge against Jack Clifford. They claim that he was

on the bank of the river in the forenoon when Connors was

killed. How have they proved it. Let us look at the forenoon.

They prove it by three detectives and three persons residing

around Homestead--but six witnesses; purely identification.

Three of these men saw Clifford before that morning. It is well

for the jury to consider these men and the prisoner. Men

gathered from the slums of the cities of New York, Chicago and

Philadelphia; men without employment, men without character, men

who can be impeached by their testimony. Suppose a difficulty

arose in Chicago and a person came here to employ a body of men

to go there and suppress it, what sort of men would go there?

Would a lawyer have the cinch? Oh, no. Would the banker leave

his duties? Oh, no. Would the business man? Oh, no. But the

idlers--the scrub of your city--would be the ones who would go.

Then I say to you is this not sufficient to show the character

of these people who invaded your state and are attempting to

swear away the life of Jack Clifford? Upon whose testimony is

this crime to be fixed upon Clifford? By three Pinkertons who,

in the excitement of that battle and having never seen him

before, swear that they saw him there. How do they prove it? By,

as they say, a pink shirt on Clifford. Think of it, looking out

in a crowd of 500 people and picking out a man with his coat

buttoned up, could they be so collected in their thoughts as to

distinguish him by a small portion of a pink shirt visible? I

say they never did identify him there. But they did not fix this

point of identification until brave Jack Clifford, in spite of

the hail of bullets, went down and saved these men's lives. It

was then, if at all, this pink shirt identification was fixed in

their minds. These brave, true, honest men of your community

with as keen perceptions as these Pinkertons, were in that boat,

and yet they come on the stand and swear they did not see

Clifford there. Captain Coon, who knew Clifford for years and

was standing at the gangway watching what was going on, swears

that Jack Clifford was not there. Then again, there is the old

man Gray, a watchman at that mill, with an eye as keen as any

Pinkerton's, who swears that Jack Clifford was not there that

morning. Then, I say, is it just in this commonwealth where a

man is on trial for his liberty and his life, that the

testimony of reputable witnesses of your state is of no more

weight than that of the Pinkertons? I know not what effect the

testimony of these employees may have upon you; but I do know

that the employer has held the lash over his employees and

forced them to testify in their interest. I do not know whether

it has been done in this case."

Here the speaker discussed at length the testimony offered to establish

an alibi for the prisoner and begged the jury to weigh carefully in the

balance the statements of the opposing witnesses bearing on the subject.

In conclusion he said:

"The life and liberty of Jack Clifford are as dear to him as

yours are to you. There may be some one who looks to him with an

interest. There may be a gray-haired mother depending upon him,

and there is no love like a mother's. That mother is waiting for

your verdict. It is better that ninety-nine guilty escape than

one innocent shall suffer. I ask at your hands justice for Jack

Clifford. I ask it upon the oath you have sworn faithfully to

fulfill and I ask it in the tears of his mother. Gentlemen, I

leave Jack Clifford in your hands."

Judge Stowe's charge was a plain statement of the law in the case,

without the least tincture of bias one way or the other.

The jury occupied less than two hours in deliberation and brought in a

verdict of acquittal. Clifford was then remanded to jail to await trial

on the other indictments found against him.

[Illustration: PROPOSED MONUMENT TO THE HEROES OF HOMESTEAD.]

The import of the verdict was unmistakable. It meant that, for the

second time, the people of Allegheny County, speaking through their

representatives in the jury box, refused to be governed by the letter of

the law in the matter of punishing the men of Homestead as rioters and

murderers, and that the continuance of the prosecutions would be a waste

of time, energy and money. Such was the construction generally put upon

it, and most probably the Carnegie Company and its counsel formed the

same judgment. Nevertheless, the district attorney announced that every

one of the Homestead cases would be brought to trial and as an earnest

of sincerity, Hugh O'Donnell was brought forward to face a jury of his

peers on February 13, the fifth day after Clifford's safe deliverance.

The young leader looked pale and thin as a result of his imprisonment,

but his eye was as clear and his voice as firm as on the day when he

marshaled the fighting men at the barricades, and there was no sign of

flinching in his demeanor as he stood up to enter his plea of "not

guilty."

The attorneys engaged in the case were the same that served in the

preceding trials, excepting that Major E. A. Montooth and Mr. John F.

Cox relieved the counsel who had previously taken the most active part

for the defense. The following jurors were selected: Fred Vogel, William

Richardson, Charles Beuchler, John Sproul, M. J. Byrne, Henry Brooker,

A. C. Flood, Henry Eisenhauer, John McGann, John Geisler, Peter Stragen

and William Dramble.

The case for the prosecution differed little from that advanced against

Clifford and Critchlow. Pinkerton detectives, sheriff's deputies, mill

clerks and reporters repeated the old, old story of the events of July

6, while Mr. D. F. Patterson, who conducted the direct examination as a

substitute for the district attorney, elicited from each statements

showing O'Donnell's ostensible participation in the battle.

The line of cross-examination pursued by the defense showed that the

intention was to prove that O'Donnell was present at the battle as a

newspaper correspondent, and that, when he interfered actively, it was

in the capacity of a peacemaker. Several newspaper men testified that

the defendant was known as a correspondent of the Tri-State News Bureau

and of various daily papers, and that, in a spirit of professional

fraternity, he had taken care of the reporters during the fight and

secured for them a convenient headquarters of observation in the cupola

of the mill. Only one out of a dozen reporters examined specifically

incriminated O'Donnell, and the evidence of that one was vitiated by the

knowledge that he had sold out to the Carnegie Company at the beginning

of the Homestead trouble and had acted throughout as a spy.

The prosecution could not have made a weaker showing, all things

considered, and the work of the other side was, therefore, comparatively

easy.

Captain O. C. Coon, who accompanied O'Donnell to the river bank on the

morning of July 6, was the star witness for the defense. O'Donnell, he

said, went to the scene of the trouble for the express purpose of

preventing bloodshed, and used every effort to check the combatants even

to the extent of pushing angry men back from the water's edge after the

firing had started. The witness had also seen O'Donnell, on the day

after the surrender, rescue from the hands of a mob of strikers a poor

wretch who was supposed to be a straggler from the Pinkerton forces.

Dr. John Purman testified in the same strain. He swore that O'Donnell

came to his office with three wounded men on the morning of July 6. A

crowd gathered on the street without, and O'Donnell exhorted them to go

peaceably to their homes and avoid going to the mill-yard. Later in the

day, witness met O'Donnell on the street. A crowd surrounded the young

leader, cursing him, and some one said, "You are a ---- of a leader,

staying away from the mill." O'Donnell answered, "There are no leaders;

everyone acts for himself. If you want to do me a favor you will stop

this and go to your homes."

Numerous other witnesses gave testimony corroborative of the assumption

that the defendant had taken no part in the riot other than as a

law-abiding citizen anxious to preserve the peace. O'Donnell's wife was

placed on the stand, but her evidence was unimportant.

After the attorneys for the defense had practically won their case, it

was decided to let O'Donnell testify in his own behalf. There was some

doubt about the prudence of this move, and that it was not without

foundation was shown by the difficulty which O'Donnell experienced in

escaping damaging admissions.

In his direct examination by Mr. Brennen, O'Donnell told a

straightforward and impressive story. He told of his residence of seven

or eight years in Homestead, his newspaper correspondence and other

personal matters, and then went on to describe, in graphic terms, his

doings on the day of the riot. On that eventful morning, he said he had

gone to the river bank, arriving just when the gang-plank was being run

out from the barges. He begged the Pinkertons not to land and not to

shoot, reminding them of the presence of women and children and the

certainty of wholesale loss of life if violence should be resorted to.

After the first skirmish, he had gone to the Postal Telegraph offices

and notified the Mercy and South Side Hospitals to send ambulances. If

he had had only a few minutes more time to gain the bow of the barges

before the fighting began, not a shot would have been fired. In no

manner had he aided or abetted the trouble which occurred that day, nor

did he at any time encourage the use of violence in preventing the

introduction of non-union men into the Homestead mill.

Mr. Patterson, in his cross-examination, tried to extract from

O'Donnell the admission that the workmen maintained an armed military

organization, but was unsuccessful. He managed, however to force the

defendant to name some of the men who were among the combatants on the

river bank.

Attorney Robb closed for the prosecution, in an address which was mainly

devoted to picturing the trouble at Homestead as a revolution conducted

by a band of assassins, thirsting for Pinkerton blood. He referred to

Hugh O'Donnell as having been summoned by a whistle signal to "marshal

his standing army and begin a battle to the death."

Major Montooth closed for the defense. He contended that the

substitution of Mr. Patterson, the attorney hired by the Carnegie

Company, in the place of the public prosecutor was sufficient reason

why Hugh O'Donnell should be acquitted. Mr. Robb interrupted to ask

the court if this was good law. Judge Stowe answered in the negative.

Nevertheless, the shaft had been too well aimed to miss its mark

because of this interference, and the point made by Major Montooth was

undoubtedly appreciated by the jury.

Judge Stowe charged the jury briefly and to the same effect as in the

Clifford case. The jurors stayed out from 7 o'clock in the evening until

9:30 o'clock on the next morning. When they filed into court there was

nothing in their faces to indicate whether they brought good or bad news

for the defendant. O'Donnell was quite cool and collected, nodding

pleasantly to his wife and niece when he was brought in from the jail,

and betraying no sign of emotion except a slight heaving of the chest at

the moment when the foreman of the jury drew the sealed verdict from his

pocket. "We find the prisoner not guilty," were the words that rang out

upon the death-like stillness of the court-room--welcome words to almost

everybody present. A murmur of approval was heard, but was hushed when

the court officials rapped for order. The jury was dismissed without

comment. Then O'Donnell, with tears of joy coursing down his cheeks,

turned to his faithful wife and embraced her tenderly, while friends

thronged around to proffer their congratulations. O'Donnell was

recommitted to jail, pending a hearing on the remaining charges against

him, but was shortly afterward released on bail. His was the last of the

Homestead cases brought to trial. Realizing that it was impossible to

obtain the conviction of any of the Homestead men, the attorneys for the

Carnegie Company made overtures to their opponents which resulted in the

dropping of all prosecutions on both sides. Ex-Burgess McLuckie

protested vigorously against abandoning the case against H. C. Frick, in

which he himself was the principal prosecutor, but his protest was

overruled and, aside from the trials of Dempsey and Beatty, Homestead

was heard of no more in the criminal court.

The anarchists, Carl Knold and Henry Bauer, whose arrest in connection

with Berkman's attempt on the life of Mr. Frick was mentioned in an

earlier chapter, were brought to trial a few days before Hugh O'Donnell

on indictments charging them with conspiracy and with being accessories

to Berkman's crime. It was shown that Berkman was harbored by Knold at

the residence of Paul Eckert, in Allegheny City, a rendezvous for

anarchists; that the anarchist circulars distributed at Homestead were

printed at Eckert's and taken to Homestead by Bauer and Knold, and that

the two defendants had counseled and guided Berkman in his assault on

the Carnegie chairman. Berkman was brought in from the penitentiary to

testify, but proved a recalcitrant witness. The solitary sensational

feature of the trial was a speech delivered by Colonel W. D. Moore,

counsel for the defense, in which he lauded the doctrine of anarchy and

traced its origin back to the Redeemer of Mankind. Judge Slagle, in his

charge to the jury, expressed profound regret at the enunciation of such

objectionable views by a member of the legal profession. Bauer and Knold

were found guilty on both indictments and sentenced five years to the

penitentiary. At the same time the rioters arrested at Duquesne during

the strike at that place were sentenced to the work-house for terms

ranging from two to six months.

CONCLUSION.

Although ignobly routed in the courts, the Carnegie Company lost not a

foot of the ground gained at Homestead. On the contrary, it has since

doubly re-inforced itself, for not only is the spirit of unionism

stamped out among the employees of the firm, but fully three-fourths of

the former union men are now working, most of them at their old jobs,

without exhibiting a trace of the independence which was once their

pride, or making any pretensions to a voice in the determination of

their wages.

The re-employment of so many of the old hands was one of the fruits of

the substitution of Mr. Schwab for Mr. Potter as general superintendent.

Mr. Potter, having received the non-union men who came in during the

strike and guaranteed them permanent work, would have become a

stumbling-block when the time arrived for treating with the defeated

union men and was, therefore, removed just before the crisis came. Mr.

Schwab was bound by no pledges of his own and refused to recognize those

made by his predecessor. Hence but a short time elapsed after the

collapse of the strike until most of the green hands were discharged and

their places filled by ex-strikers, whose experience rendered their

services almost indispensable.

The active leaders of the strike were, of course, excluded from the

amnesty, and few of them have since been able to secure employment at

their trade. They are the victims of a form of ostracism; blacklisted

as dangerous agitators in every steel and iron mill in the country.

Hugh O'Donnell left Homestead to travel as manager of a concert company

and subsequently became connected with a weekly journal published in

Chicago.

Honest John McLuckie tried his hand in sundry small ventures, lectured a

little, took the stump in the campaign of November, '93, and otherwise

managed to keep his head above water, but always under the handicap of a

lost cause and the diversion of energy from the familiar pursuits of a

lifetime into new and untried fields.

William T. Roberts turned his attention exclusively to speechmaking and

politics.

Thomas Crawford worked for a time for the Uniontown Steel Company, and

on the suspension of that firm, went into business with Jack Clifford

alternately as politician and book agent.

David Lynch obtained a position as agent for a liquor firm.

Hugh Ross visited his birth-place in Scotland and has been idle since

his return.

William H. Gaches carried on a successful business enterprise in Chicago

during the World's Fair, but has since been idle.

Eddie Burke, known as "Rioter Burke," was stricken with an affection of

the eyes which prevented his working even if he could have found a

place. The Amalgamated Association, at the '93 convention, voted an

appropriation sufficient to pay for his treatment at an eastern

hospital.

Of the Amalgamated lodges in Homestead nothing remains but the charters

which have never been surrendered, and under which a reorganization may

be effected if the men should hereafter find themselves in a condition

to return to union principles and practice. There is, however, nothing

to indicate a future revival of the old-time order of things. If there

are grievances to be suffered the men must simply be contented to suffer

them in silence rather than invite a repetition of the calamitous

consequences of their first and only encounter with Chairman Frick.

Of the rates of wages now paid, no more is known by outsiders than that

they are even lower than was contemplated by the firm when the lock-out

was ordered and that they promise to fall lower still. The firm refuses

to publish its scale rates on the pretext that, by so doing, it would be

playing into the hands of competitors. Rival manufacturers have

endeavored to secure the Homestead schedules and so, too, has the

Amalgamated Association, but without success. The Amalgamated officials

made their last fruitless effort in this direction during the

scale-making period in June, 1893.

As an additional protection against surprises of any description, the

fortifications of the Homestead mills have been strengthened and no one

can enter otherwise than through the offices, from which a bridge leads

to the workshops. Mr. Frick is evidently determined to be always ready,

hereafter, for battles, sieges or stolen marches.

There is one means of defense, however, which, having weighed it in the

balance and found it wanting, the Carnegie chairman is not likely to try

a second time. He will never again undertake to capture his own

territory with a posse of Pinkerton Guards.

EVERY WISE HOUSEWIFE SHOULD USE

CAMELLIA,

QUEEN OF FLOUR.

The BEST BREAD BAKER in the WORLD.

WILLOW GROVE BREWERY,

MICHAEL ENZ, PROP.

WEINER EXPORT, LAGER BEER, ALE AND PORTER

EXPORT BOTTLED BEER A SPECIALTY.

TELEPHONE 5571. BENNETT P. O., ALLEGHENY CO., PA.

ROBERT WINTER,

LONDON EXPRESS CO.

PROMPT SERVICE DAY OR NIGHT.

Main Office, 178 Grant Avenue, Allegheny, Pa.

T. D. CASEY & CO.

WHOLESALE DEALERS IN

PURE OLD MONONGAHELA

RYE WHISKIES,

971 Liberty St., PITTSBURGH, PA.

Transcriber's Notes:

Simple typographical errors were corrected.

Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant

preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.

This book uses both "secrecy" and "secresy", "employe" and "employee",

"fulfil" and "fulfill".