The Pullman boycott

by W. F. Burns

THE COMMISSION.

The commission appointed by President Cleveland to investigate the strike began its work Aug. 15, at 10 o'clock in Judge Grosscup's court room. Most of those present were members of the American Railway Union. Prof. Bemis, of the Chicago University, was in attendance. Neither the Pullman Company or the railroad companies were represented. The witnesses examined were Geo. W. Howard, vice-president of the American Railway Union, and James R. Sovereign, grand master workman of the Knights of Labor. Acting with the commission were B. J. Hastings, of Utica, N. Y., and Deputy United States Marshall Bartlett. Chairman Wright announced that they were in session pursuant to the President's call which the clerk read. This document directed an inquiry into the causes and the conditions of the controversy between the Illinois Central and the Rock Island roads and their employes. After the reading chairman Wright made the following statement: "By the act recited in the commission of the President that has just been read, this commission is directed to examine into the causes, controversies and difficulties existing between the roads named and their employes at the time the commission of the President was issued. The board is constituted as a temporary body for this purpose and not for the purpose of arbitrating the difficulties that existed. It is practically a court of inquiry and its proceedings will be in accordance with the usages of such courts. It will proceed first to hear all witnesses in behalf of the employes and then those of the corporations named. All such witnesses are requested to hand their names to the clerk. Under the law parties may be represented by counsel or appear in person as they see fit, and examine and cross-examine the witnesses. After all the witnesses have given their testimony the commission will then consider arguments or suggestions to be made upon the questions before it. All suggestions and arguments presented in writing will be filed and considered by the commission, but the question as to how far the commission will listen to parties who desire to be heard orally will depend upon the time left to the disposal of the commission and will be determined after the testimony is concluded. By the act creating it this commission possesses all the power and authority of the United States Commissioners appointed by the Circuit Courts of the United States. The hours of sitting will be from 10:00 A. M. to 4:00 P. M. Parties and their counsel and witnesses attending will find seats within the rail."

Vice President Howard was the first witness sworn. In answer to questions as to his age, residence and occupation, Mr. Howard replied that he was 46 years old, resided in Chicago, and was vice president of the American Railway Union. For nearly 30 years he had been identified with the railroad service filling positions from trackman to general superintendent. He had been a member of the Yard Masters' Association, the B. of L. E. and O. R. C. By request of Mr. Wright he gave the following connection of the American Railway Union with the strike.

"We began organizing the Pullman employes in March of this year. Early in May they struck. The strike was voted by themselves not by the American Railway Union, indeed we advised against the strike.

"Immediately after the strike was called I accompanied a committee of forty-three representing every branch of the Pullman service to a conference with Mr. Wickes at Pullman. Mr. Pullman refused to arbitrate but promised to give their grievances immediate attention if they would return to work. I inquired of Mr. Wickes if there would be any prejudice against the members of the committee and was assured by him that there would not be. After receiving this assurance from Mr. Wickes, I advised the men to go back to their work, which they did. Next day three of the committee were discharged, not on order or with the knowledge of Mr. Wickes or Mr. Pullman, but by some under boss in the shops. This so incensed the rest of the employes who considered it a breach of promise that they unanimously struck again.

"June 12, the convention of the American Railway Union met in Chicago. The Pullman strikers were represented by seven or eight delegates. The situation at Pullman received consideration. A joint committee representing the convention and the Pullman strikers was appointed to wait on the Pullman company. The committee was informed that the Pullman company would confer with only its employes, consequently this body was discharged and a committee consisting of Pullman employes appointed. The action of the Pullman company was reported to the American Railway Union convention whereupon each delegate wired his local union for instructions. The result of this was that the members of the American Railway Union all over the country voted to discontinue handling Pullman cars if at the end of five days from that date the Pullman company refused to arbitrate with its employes.

"In this connection I wish to say that Mr. Pullman stated to the committee of forty-three, in my hearing, that his employes at that time owed him $70,000 for rent and that he had not pushed them for payment which fact clearly shows that his men were not making enough to pay rent."

Mr. Wright: "That was the boycott order, was it?"

Mr. Howard: "I do not use the word boycott. The action taken was simply that members of the American Railway Union would not handle Pullman cars.

"Two days before the limit of five days—the dates I do not now recall—but I will furnish them—the General Managers' Association took action declaring that they would share the expense of whipping the American Railway Union.

"Pullman would not arbitrate and first the men on one road then on another refused to handle Pullman cars. They did not decline to handle other cars, but switchmen, you understand, would not attach Pullmans to trains. Engineers, conductors, firemen and trainmen would not take out trains which Pullman cars were attached to. There was no attempt to interfere with the mails but on the contrary every effort in our power was made to help the roads carry them. The companies held the mails in their determination to attach Pullman cars to trains.

"Of my personal knowledge I know of a road that abandoned a mail train to take out an excursion train, not having crews to take out both. In another instance I know of a mail train going out on the order of the railway officials after the Pullmans had been cut off by the employes. Things went on in this way for several days. No violence was committed by the employes and the police were in full control of the situation to prevent violence from outsiders.

"The first pistol was drawn by one Miller, an employe of the Tribune at Blue Island, wholly without cause, and after the troops were on the ground. The violence that was afterward committed was not as was believed by members of the American Railway Union but by outsiders—some acting in passion, because they saw in the presence of the soldiers an instrument of tyranny. Others in a spirit of mischief and love of destruction and others still—hired by the General Managers in order to create public sentiment against us. Yesterday I gave the mayor of Chicago the name of a man who claimed, while under the influence of liquor to have received $400 for burning cars. The Committee of safety, at Springfield, sent us the names of three men who quarreled about the division of $500 received for burning cars. $200 of which was paid in advance by John M. Eagan, of the General Managers' Association."

Regarding the motives actuating the organization of the American Railway Union Mr. Howard denied that it was to destroy the old organizations but because they no longer fulfilled the necessities of the situation. If the old brotherhoods could get together amicably there would be no need of the American Railway Union, but they never can. There are two many causes for jealousy, for instance: There are 10,000 locomotive engineers who are not in the B. of L. E. but are members of the B. of L. F. In case of a grievance the engineers are divided and are represented by two organizations. The Brotherhood of Trainmen contains men who have been promoted to conductors causing a friction between these two orders.

Mr. Wright: "Then the sole purpose of the American Railway Union in taking the action it did was to oppose the Pullman company and it was not actuated by any desire to injure the other railway organizations?"

Mr. Howard: "That is it exactly. After the action taken by the General Managers' Association we had to act as we did or lie down."

Mr. Wright: "Did the officers of the American Railway Union advise the men on roads other than those using Pullmans to go on strike?"

Mr. Howard: "The men on all roads represented by the General Managers' Association were advised to go out on strike."

Mr. Kernan: "Was this order extended to roads not using Pullman cars or which were not represented in the General Managers' Association?"

Mr. Howard: "No, sir."

Mr. Kernan: "Were there any such road?"

Mr. Howard: "Yes. General Manager Clark, of the Mobile & Ohio, sent us word that his road would drop the Pullman service if the men would continue at work. We advised the men to return to work under those conditions, but the men at St. Louis argued that such action would weaken their cause and refused to take our advice in the matter."

Mr. Worthingford: "How did you advise all other organizations to go on a sympathetic strike?"

Mr. Howard: "We did not advise nor even request other organizations to declare a strike. We invited the heads of all labor organizations to come here and aid us by their advice or in any way they saw fit to help us. I think Mr. Debs sent the invitation. When the representatives of the other labor organizations met here, we went before the body and explained the entire situation. They asked Mr. Debs what he wished them to do. He replied that he did not ask anything of them but left it to their best judgment and conscience to take such measures as would help bring the trouble to an end. Mr. Debs read a communication which he had prepared to present to the general managers, and asked the representatives at the conference if they would act as a board of arbitration or assume the role of peace-makers. President Gompers of the American Federation of Labor, seemed afraid that such action would involve the other organizations in some way and hesitated to accept our request to take the communication to the general managers. We then concluded to ask Mayor Hopkins to present our communication. The mayor willingly granted our request."

Mr. Kernan: "Was any written record kept of that conference of the heads of the labor organizations which was held at the Briggs House?"

Mr. Howard: "I do not know."

Commissioner Kernan: "What records have you of the proceedings of your convention as to who invited the heads of other labor organizations to meet here in conference, and what they were expected to do?"

Mr. Howard: "I think it was decided at the convention of the American Railway Union, which met here June 12, to extend such an invitation. I know it was talked over then."

Commissioner Wright: "Then the American Railway Union did not advise a sympathetic strike of all organizations."

Mr. Howard: "No, sir. Mr. Debs left that question to the judgment and conscience of the men themselves."

Commissioner Wright: "Was the action of the convention of June 12 a strike?"

Mr. Howard: "Well, it was called a strike."

Commissioner Worthington: "Was the communication you referred to presented to the general managers?"

Mr. Howard: "Yes, sir, and returned without an answer further than a statement that the General Managers' Association had no business to transact with the American Railway Union or its representatives."

Mr. Kernan: "It is charged that your organization, like others, encouraged its members to persistently interfere with and prevent unorganized labor from taking positions given up by their striking members. Is that charge true?"

Mr. Howard: "It cannot be shown in one instance that anything of the kind has been done."

Commissioner Kernan: "You won't go so far as to say that no interference of the sort alluded to has ever been engaged in?"

Mr. Howard: "Certainly not. I mean that such interference was not authorized or countenanced by the union."

Commissioner Kernan: "Did you take any steps to prevent such interference?"

Mr. Howard: "We have taken the ground that when we go out on strike not to interfere with any of the new men the companies may employ."

Commissioner Kernan: "You do countenance advice to such men not to take the places of strikers?"

Mr. Howard: "Oh, yes. We claim the right to ask new men not to take our places."

Mr. Kernan: "Is it not a fact that such interviews usually result in violence?"

Mr. Howard: "No. I think the rule is to the contrary. We go no further than to request the men to quit work and to commit no violence."

Commissioner Kernan: "Is there any punishment for violation of that rule?"

Mr. Howard: "No. No organization has any power to punish a member for violation of such rule except by expulsion. We leave the punishment of such cases to the civil authorities."

Commissioner Kernan: "Don't you think some steps should be taken by labor unions to punish their members who violate the rules in that respect?"

Mr. Howard: "Yes, sir, I do, and we started out to do so here during the strike but the trouble assumed such vast proportions that it was impossible to do anything in that direction. In the case of the Great Northern strike we appointed committees to guard the company's property, and the men were instructed to shoot anyone found in the act of destroying same."

Commissioner Kernan: "What, as a rule has been your experience in strikes where violence was restored to?"

Mr. Howard: "The men have always been defeated."

Commissioner Kernan: "Then a resort to violence is rather detrimental to the cause of the strikers?"

Mr. Howard: "Decidedly so. We want public opinion with us in a strike."

Commissioner Kernan: "Do you know of any organization that disciplines its members for resorting to violence?"

Mr. Howard: "None, excepting the American Railway Union. Our argument is that the only weapons labor has to fight its battles with are the strike and the boycott. There is some talk about the ballot but some questions cannot be settled by the ballot. Only the array of labor in one solid phalanx will give it the power that will make strikes unnecessary."

Commissioner Kernan: "Does not history show that on account of jealousies in your own ranks a complete organization of labor cannot be effected?"

Mr. Howard: "Yes. That is history up to the present, but the workingman is doing more thinking to-day than ever before."

Commissioner Kernan: "You regard such a strike as would be possible under the conditions you outline as a desirable thing for organized labor?"

Mr. Howard: "No, sir. If employers would be a little more considerate of their men there would soon be no labor organizations in existence."

Commissioner Kernan: "You do not say that all grievances are just, do you?"

Mr. Howard: "No. Many of them are frivolous."

Commissioner Kernan: "It is charged that there is a minority in all labor organizations who are practically enslaved by the will of the majority and that a man for that reason loses his independence when he joins a union?"

Mr. Howard: "Well, I think the reverse is the rule. The hot heads and agitators in the labor movement are in the minority; the quiet, thinking men are always in the majority. It often happens that the man who is really most anxious to strike assumes an air of indifference or positive objection to such a move. He is merely waiting for a good excuse to stop and let the blame lie with some one else. He wants some one to order him to quit work so he can say to the superintendent that he is afraid to remain at work for fear of personal violence."

Commissioner Kernan: "Was any other motive behind the strike other than to force a settlement with Mr. Pullman?"

Mr. Howard: "No."

Commissioner Kernan; "Was there any object in breaking the older unions so that the American Railway Union might profit thereby?"

Mr. Howard: "While the increase in membership in the American Railway Union meant a decrease in the strength of the older organizations it was not the object of the strike to break down the older unions."

In answer to a question by Commissioner Kernan as to what he would suggest to prevent railroad strikes in the future, Mr. Howard replied that the government ownership and control of railroads was the only practical solution of the question. He argued that about one third of the railroads of the country are practically under control of the government, and thought the balance could easily be taken. He claimed the Santa Fe was from two to four months behind in payment of wages; that it would seem only fair that the government should see that the men were paid. The government had gone to the extent of forcing the employes of that and other roads to work whether they wished to or not and he thought the other step might as well be taken at once.

Mr. Sovereign, grand master workman of the Knights of Labor, was the next witness. He testified that he was a member of the American Railway Union. Said the only official connection the Knights of Labor had with the strike was the adoption of a resolution that they would not ride in Pullman cars. He also stated that a general tie-up of all the industries in the country to force public sentiment on Pullman and bring to bear on the Pullman company the greatest possible pressure was contemplated, but it was found the tie-up could not be made sufficiently general to bring about the desired results, so it was not attempted.

Commissioner Kernan: "Then you do not consider the American Railway Union responsible for the rioting that occurred?"

Mr. Sovereign: "No, sir. In fact I do not think there was any rioting."

Commissioner Kernan: "Do you consider burning cars a species of rioting?"

Mr. Sovereign: "Not when it was done by U. S. marshalls."

Commissioner Kernan: "Was it so done?"

Mr. Sovereign: "I read reports in Mayor Hopkins' office to-day to that effect—reports that seem conclusive on that point. Moreover I don't think there was as much rioting as is generally believed. I came from Des Moines on what was supposed to be the last train to Chicago. We arrived without incident at Blue Island on July 6. There the train was side tracked and we were told by the officials that it could go no further because of the mobs between there and the city. I saw a west bound mail train on another track and was told it had been there for twenty-six hours and could not proceed on account of the mob and violence beyond, though it would go on the very same track on which we had just arrived. I bought a ticket from Blue Island to Chicago on the Wisconsin Central. After coming a short distance the train stopped and the conductor told us we could go no further on account of mobs ahead of us. I picked up my grip with the intention of walking to the city, but the conductor cautioned me against risking my life. However I walked in, was not molested, saw no disorder and did not see more then ten men at any one place."

Mr. Kernan inquired what views the Knights of Labor held about letting non-union men take the places of strikers.

Mr. Sovereign: "That depends on circumstances. In the case of mine owners, for instance, who have sold houses to their employes who have partly paid for same, the unjust discharge of these men means a forfeiture to the mine owners of all money paid on the property. We hold that we must by all honorable means prevent others from taking their places."

Commissioner Kernan: "But suppose honorable means are not effective?"

Mr. Sovereign: "Well, if it's necessary to prevent them from passing a given line we clasp hands and keep them out."

Commissioner Kernan: "You do not assault them?"

Mr. Sovereign: "No. If they break through they assault us."

Mr. Sovereign did not think that strikes or compulsory arbitration was the remedy for labor troubles. He believed that the government ownership of railroads would settle the trouble for employes. He also believed the employes of corporations had an equity in their positions and for unjust discharge should have a remedy in a court of equity.

Mr. Kernan: "Why cannot the contract between employer and employe provide for all you want the law to cover?"

Mr. Sovereign: "Because labor is always dependent, always has been at least and is forced by the duress of circumstances to accept employment without insisting on protecting conditions."

George W. Lovejoy was the next witness to take the stand. In answer to a question by Commissioner Wright, he said: "I am familiar with the history of the strike on the Rock Island road. Beside the order passed by the convention to refuse to handle Pullman cars, the men at La Salle had a special grievance that consisted of unjust treatment of the members of the American Railway Union which had a local lodge at that point. I for one was dismissed without any cause being assigned. Complaint was made to Supt. Dunlap and an explanation asked as to why the men were discharged. He refused to consider the grievance submitted to him so the men concluded to strike."

Commissioner Wright: "Was the grievance submitted in writing?"

Mr. Lovejoy: "It was. I have not a copy, but think I can get one from the local union."

Commissioner Wright: "What part did your local union take in the Pullman strike?"

Mr. Lovejoy: "It decided to sustain it."

Mr. Worthington: "Was there any violence at La Salle?" Mr. Lovejoy: "No, sir. None whatever."

Commissioner Kernan: "Have any of the old men been taken back?"

Mr. Lovejoy: "No, sir. And never will."

Mr. Worthington: "Is it on account of the strike that they cannot get back?"

Mr. Lovejoy: "I suppose it is."

Commissioner Kernan: "How general was the strike at La Salle?"

Mr. Lovejoy: "It extended to every branch of the service. Switchmen, firemen, engineers, conductors, brakemen, telegraph operators, clerks, round-housemen and trackmen."

Commissioner Kernan: "Now tell us about the cause that led to your discharge as you understand it?"

Mr. Lovejoy: "Six months previous to the convention of the American Railway Union which met in Chicago, June 12, I had an understanding with the superintendent that I would get a leave of absence and was to put a man in my place while absent. When I got ready to come to Chicago, I sent a note asking for such leave of absence and transportation. The transportation was sent me, but no answer to my note was given. When I came to Chicago I called at the office of the superintendent to have an understanding about my leave and he told me that a written notice was not necessary. Whenever I wanted to go anywhere all I had to do was to put a good man in my place and go. The Tuesday following the opening of the convention the assistant superintendent went to La Salle and put another man in my place permanently. No reason has ever been given me why such action was taken."

Commissioner Wright: "Mr. Lovejoy, I suppose you have given the subjects of labor troubles and strikes some study. I wish to ask if you can suggest any solution of these troubles."

Mr. Lovejoy: "Yes, sir, I have and I consider the only way to solve the question is for the government to own the railroads."

Commissioner Kernan: "What is your reason?"

Mr. Lovejoy: "I think the employes would receive better treatment and be better satisfied. I think they would get the same kind of treatment as the postal employes and there would be no strikes under these conditions."

Commissioner Kernan: "What do you think of arbitration as a remedy?"

Mr. Lovejoy: "I have never seen arbitration tried to any great extent and while I believe in the principle I am not prepared to say that I am in favor of compulsory arbitration."

Commissioner Wright: "If the government owned the railroads how would you avoid the changes incident to a change in administration?"

Mr. Lovejoy: "I consider that railroad employes would be in practically the same position as postal clerks. They would be under civil service rules to the extent of being pensioned after a term of years of faithful service."

Commissioner Kernan: "Would it not cause jealousy among other branches of workingmen if such a system should be adopted toward railroad men?"

Mr. Lovejoy: "I do not think so. I am not jealous of postal clerks."

Commissioner Wright: "What would you suggest as the next best thing if government ownership proved impracticable?"

Mr. Lovejoy: "That the government keep hands off altogether; let the roads and their men fight out their troubles free from outside interference. It is the knowledge that the government can be called to their aid that makes many of the railroad officials so arbitrary with their men."

Commissioner Kernan: "Don't you think that disputes ought to be settled by some other method than open warfare?"

Mr. Lovejoy: "There would be none if the authorities would keep away. The employes would settle their grievances by arbitration."

Mr. Worthington: "What would you think of a law providing that upon application of a certain number of employes the railroads should be compelled to come before a board of arbitration and make answer to the grievances of the men or vice versa before a strike could be declared? I mean by that a law which would compel a hearing of disputes by a constituted tribunal even though that tribunal had not the power to force a decision in the matter?"

Mr. Lovejoy: "I would be in favor of such a court and believe that the railroad men would abide by its decision voluntarily if they had some choice in the selection of the arbitrators."

Commissioner Kernan: "Is it not one of the greatest troubles the railroad men have to contend with that they cannot get a hearing of their grievances?"

Mr. Lovejoy: "Yes, sir. It is. And if the men could always be sure of getting a fair and impartial hearing I do not believe there would be any strikes. As a rule the men are opposed to strikes and resort to them only when every means of settling grievances has failed."

Commissioner Kernan: "Is it not true that strikes usually end disastrously to the men?"

Mr. Lovejoy: "Strikes often fail to accomplish the particular end in view, but I believe on the whole their tendency is toward a betterment of the conditions of the men. The strike we have just passed through has demonstrated to the working people of this country that they must get together as one solid body before they can win. They have found out that when they undertake to assert their rights they have no friends but themselves. The press, the judiciary, the ministers and office holders are all against them."

Secretary Kelliher of the American Railway Union was next to testify. He promised to furnish the commissioners with certified copies of any of the proceedings of the convention, and the correspondence which occurred during the strike. In answer to questions by the commissioners he considered government ownership of railways the only solution to strikes. While he favored arbitration, he did not think compulsory arbitration would be satisfactory to the men.

Thomas J. Heathcoat, a resident of Pullman, and one of the strikers, was the next witness examined. He testified to the condition of Pullman prior to and at the time of the strike and gave a full account of the strike and the causes that brought it about. He gave in detail the scale of wages paid prior to June, '93, and the constant reductions since.

Mr. Heathcoat, in answer to Commissioner Kernan asking him to explain the mode adopted by the Pullman Company in cutting wages for piece work, said:

"Take, for instance, that desk behind which you sit. Suppose it were given to me to make. I figured that I could do the work for $20.00, and took it at that price. As a good mechanic I could make $4.00 per day at it. For the next one the foreman would allow me $18.00. Being anxious to make good wages, and being a good mechanic, I would use extra effort and still make $4.00 per day. The next one the foreman would allow me only $16.00 for. Yet, by extraordinary effort I could still make $4.00 daily. The next one the foreman would allow me $12.00 for, and with my utmost endeavors I could make only $3.00 per day. As a good mechanic I would refuse to take any more at that price and the work would be given to an inferior workman who could make only $1.25 per day. This is the way the Pullman Company has worked its piece work system."

Commissioner Wright: "Did the cuts in other departments average as much as in yours?"

Mr. Heathcoat: "They averaged the same though they were not alike. The new men in the freight car department suffered more than we did and there were others in some of the departments that were making pretty good wages at the time of the strike."

Commissioner Wright: "You have spoken of asking the company for a reduction in rent. What rent do you pay, and what did you get for it?"

Mr. Heathcoat: "Up to the beginning of the strike I paid $17 a month rent and 71 cents per month for water. Gas I did not use. Could not afford it. The company charged $2.25 per 1,000 feet. My house had five rooms, cellar and back yard." Commissioner Wright: "What would similar houses rent for elsewhere?"

Mr. Heathcoat: "I know of eight and nine room cottages with front and back yards, in every way more desirable than the house I live in, that can be rented for $8.00 and $9.00 per month."

Commissioner Worthington: "What, in your opinion, would it cost to build houses such as you live in?"

Mr. Heathcoat: "I should like to take the contract for building them at $600 apiece."

Commissioner Kernan: "What other accommodations do you get for the rent you pay, say in the way of paved streets?"

Mr. Heathcoat: "There are cheap wooden sidewalks in front of the house and the company keeps a force of men on the street picking up paper and hauling away garbage. That's all I know."

Commissioner Wright: "Have you applied to the Pullman company for work since the strike?"

Mr. Heathcoat: "No, sir. I understand that I am blacklisted. They have a blacklist, you know. I have one in my pocket now."

Commissioner Wright: "Will you let me see it?"

Mr. Heathcoat: "Yes, sir. Here it is."

Commissioner Wright: "Have you any objection to telling us where you got this?"

Mr. Heathcoat: "Yes, sir. I got it from a friend of one of the clerks in the Pullman office and I would not like to tell the name of either, as it would cost the clerk his position."

Commissioner Wright: "Have you any other evidence of the existence of a blacklist?"

Mr. Heathcoat: "Yes, sir. One of the men who applied to Mr. Childs at the Rock Island shops for work. He was asked his name and the same being found on one of their lists he was told that he was a Pullman striker, consequently could not get work. I understand the Pullman company's blacklist was sent to all the railroads so that others besides myself can never get work in the railroad shop again."

Commissioner Wright: "Do labor unions ever blacklist non-union men?"

Mr. Heathcoat: "The American Railway Union does not. That is the only labor union I ever belonged to."

Commissioner Wright: "What was the feeling of the employes toward Mr. Pullman previous to the strike?"

Mr. Heathcoat: "As a rule I think the employes had a high regard for Mr. Pullman until Harry Middleton took charge two and a half years ago. He is not a practical car builder. He wastes material for which we are charged. He displaces men who have earned their positions by good work and promotes his favorites. He makes arbitrary and tyrannical shop rules which deprive us of part of our pay. For instance, suppose a car carpenter be given a lot of cars, the work to be finished in a certain time. Within a day of the time limit it is seen that there is still six days work for one man. He will put on five extra men, regardless whether that many can work to advantage, and pay them by the hour charging the same to the man who took the job as piece work."

Commissioner Kernan: "Is not time enough allowed to finish the work so that such instances would be due to the neglect of the man who took the job?"

Mr. Heathcoat: "No, sir. It is not, except in rare cases. It is misjudgment on the part of the manager, Mr. Middleton, as I said before, who is not a practical car builder. As an instance of a waste of material—There was a set of car sashes, made of mahogany. Care was not taken to see that the mahogany picked out was all of the same color. Instead of picking out those of the set that were alike in color and completing the set with new ones and using the off color ones in another set with wood picked out to match, Middleton had the whole set smashed and charged the men with the cost of the material and refused to pay them for their time when it was not their fault at all."

Mr. Wright: "Referring now to the committee appointed to wait on Mr. Pullman—tell us what you said and what was said to you."

Mr. Heathcoat: "We asked Mr. Wickes and Mr. Pullman to adjust our wages so that we could support our families. We wanted either the wages of June, 1893, or a reduction in rent and some increase in wages. Mr. Pullman said he could not reduce rents as he was making only 3-1/2 or 2-1/2 per cent., I don't know which now, on his investment. He said he could not increase wages because he was losing money on his contract work. But he did not say what was a fact that nine tenths of the work that had been done since the cut began was Pullman and not contract work."

Commissioner Kernan: "What do you mean by Pullman work?"

Mr. Heathcoat: "Work on cars owned and operated by the Pullman Company and not work on cars sold to railroads. One result of this was that the company was getting work from us for $1.90 for which it paid the railroads when they did this work $2.50 and $2.70. Two days after he told us the company was losing money on its contract work, a quarterly dividend of 2 per cent. was declared."

Commissioner Kernan: "That might have been paid from accumulations and not from earnings."

Mr. Heathcoat: "Mr. Pullman did not make any such explanation to us when we spoke to him afterward. If he had, perhaps we would not have felt so badly about it. But it did seem hard that when men were working and not getting enough from the company to buy enough to eat that it should pay out $600,000.00 in dividends."

Commissioner Wright: "Were there those not getting enough to eat?"

Mr. Heathcoat: "I have seen men faint by the side of cars on which they were working because they had not had enough to eat. After the cuts, while working as hard as I could to earn enough to support my family, I have been obliged to sit down in the middle of the forenoon to rest because I had not had enough food to enable me to do such hard work and there were hundreds worse off than I. If rents had been reduced I believe there would have been no strike. We wanted to submit the question of rent and wages to a board of arbitration, we to choose one, the Pullman company one, and the two a third. We would have abided by any decision the arbitrators made."

Commissioner Wright: "Did not Mr. Pullman offer to let you look over the company's books to convince you that what he said was true?"

Mr. Heathcoat: "Yes. But what would we know about them? Besides, we did not believe that the books would show the real facts. I have been told that there is only one accountant in the city who understands the company's books and we did not have money enough to buy bread let alone to hire an accountant. I have seen men crying at the paymaster's window when their pay checks for two weeks would be eight cents or 35 cents, or one dollar or two dollars over their rent and the company expected them to support their families on that 'till next pay day. You see the men got two pay checks, one for just the amount of rent owed and the other for the balance of their two weeks pay. The rent checks they are expected to indorse and turn over at once to the town agent in payment of rent. The law will not allow the company to deduct the rent from the pay and retain it, but the check must be turned over just the same for you cannot cash it unless you can persuade the agent that you cannot possibly live unless you are allowed to retain it. Then perhaps you will be allowed to retain a part or all of it. I have been insulted by the clerks in the agent's office because I told them I could not get along without the money for my rent check. Yet such was the case for there was one time when my pay after the rent was deducted left only eight cents a day for each member of my family to live on until the next pay day."

Mr. Worthington: "Are the Pullman employes required to live in Pullman?"

Mr. Heathcoat: "Yes, sir. As long as there are any houses in Pullman vacant the men must live there, unless they own houses somewhere else or are favorites of the shop bosses. In fact during last winter I knew of people who owned houses in Roseland leaving them unrented and moving to Pullman so they could get work. When you apply for work you are required to make application if you are a man of family."

Mr. Worthington: "Are there any lots in Pullman bought and sold so that you could form an idea of the value, for instance, of the lot on which the house you live in stands?"

Mr. Heathcoat: "No, sir. No lots are sold but I know of a house and lot over in Roseland on the boulevard near One hundred and eleventh street which were bought two years ago for $2,500 and can be rented for $12 a month. The house is better than the one I live in, is bigger and in a good location while mine is on a back street and I would not pay more than $1,000 for the house and lot."

Mr. Worthington: "If your house could be built for $600 and only yields 3-1/2 per cent the lot must be worth more than $5,000. Is it?"

Mr. Heathcoat: "No, sir. It is not, but there are some frame houses in Pullman which the company charges eight dollars a month for that could be built for $100."

Mr. Wright: "It was said at the beginning of this strike that the Pullman people owed $70,000 for rent. How far back did that accumulation begin?"

Mr. Heathcoat: "I should say about Nov. 1, 1893."

Mr. Wright: "Tell us if you know what the cuts in wages were in departments other than your own."

Mr. Heathcoat: "The freight car builders suffered more than others, but the commission can find out best by having some one from each department come before it."

Commissioner Kernan: "Don't the people of Pullman know that we want to hear from every one that can throw any light on this subject?"

Mr. Heathcoat: "Yes, sir. They understand it but there are lots of them who have not money to get down here."

Mr. Wright: "Tell us if you can what was the average pay of the employes, say in April last?"

Mr. Heathcoat: "On a lot of elevated cars on which I worked I made 16 cents per hour, on one car and 15 cents per hour on another, but there were men working alongside of me who made only four and five cents per hour. I would say that in January, February and March the mechanic's pay averaged $1.50 and the laborers' pay $1.30 per day. Some times the laborers' checks were bigger than the mechanics'."

Commissioner Wright: "Have you any suggestion of a remedy for labor troubles?"

Mr. Heathcoat: "Yes, sir. The ownership of railroads and banks by the government would do it. I never heard of a strike in the post-office department or the navy yard."

Miss Curtis next took the stand. She was an employe of Pullman and president of the Girls Union of the American Railway Union at Pullman. Beginning her testimony she said: "In June, 1893, the wages in my department were 22-1/2 cents per hour, $2.25 a day. In April, 1894, they were 70 to 80 cents a day. There were two cuts in one week in November and another in January. In April the best wages any of us could make was eighty cents a day, while some could not make more than from 40 to 50 cents a day. Last June they could make at least $1.50 per day." Commissioner Wright: "Do you pay rent?"

Miss Curtis: "Not now. My father worked for the Pullman company thirteen years, during which time he paid rent. He died last September and as there was some expense connected with his sickness he owed $60 back rent. Then I went to work in the repair shop and boarded out. The company made me pay $3 per week on account of the back rent. I still owed $15 on the day of the strike and owe it yet. Some weeks I did not earn enough to pay my board and rent too and then I paid only part of the $3."

Commissioner Wright: "Were you on any of the committees that waited on Mr. Pullman and Mr. Wickes?"

Miss Curtis: "Yes, sir. I represented the girls on that committee. We wanted our wages raised as the men did theirs. Mr. Wickes said it was impossible to raise wages as they were losing money on their contracts and it was utterly impossible to reduce rents. An appointment was made to meet Mr. Pullman on another day. When we saw him he said the same that Mr. Wickes told us."

Commissioner Kernan: "What work was done in your department?"

Miss Curtis: "We made the silk, satin and velvet drapings; the carpets, tapestries and mattresses for the sleeping coaches, the linen for the dining cars, sewed the fringe on cushions and all that sort of thing."

Theodore Rhode was the next to testify. He said: "Four years ago I had a good job. Then they wanted me to do a kind of work that no one else could make a living at. Four or five of us were to work together. I was to have charge of the work and we were to divide whatever we made. I said I would try it, but if I didn't like it wanted my old job back. This was agreed to. When I became satisfied that I could make nothing at the new work I asked for my old place, but they would not give it to me and told me that if I didn't like what I was doing I could quit working for the company. After a while we got so we could make from $2.60 to $2.85 for 10-3/4 hours work. Then the cuts came, and work for which we had received $9.00 paid only $4.25. It was impossible to make $1.25 per day, and we were told by the foreman to quit if not satisfied. I paid $15.00 a month for rent and 71 cents for water. I could rent as good a house in Kensington or Roseland for $7.00 a month. On the day of the strike I owed $2.50 for rent. Have not paid it since, although the collector has been around two or three times lately. Low wages and high rents are not all the trouble. It is the abuse. They talk to men as they would to dogs. They are constantly experimenting with new materials. If it don't prove satisfactory we get no pay for our work. Take English varnish, for instance. The atmosphere must be just right or it won't work. Oftentimes, owing to a dampness in the air, we were obliged to do our work over two or three times for which we get no extra pay. In April my wages every two weeks were from $12.00 to $15.00. I understand they pay the men who took our places from $2.50 to $3.00 and $3.00 to $5.00 per day. I have not applied for work again."

R. W. Combes. For 30 years a car carpenter and for 10 years employed at Pullman, was next called before the commission.

"A year ago," he said, "wages in his department was $2.25 at piece work, and 17-1/2 cents per hour. In March, piece work was cut so that they could not make more than 68 cents a day."

Commissioner Kernan: "How much would you have gotten at the rate of wages in force in March or April?" Mr. Combes: "We did not built the same kind of cars in 1894, but had we, we would not have received anything for them. In February I had $3.50 to support my wife and two children after paying rent. Had the men received fair treatment there would have been no strike. John Pearson, superintendent of the freight car department, is the whole cause of the strike. He is abusive and tyrannical. I was inspector in April and Pearson told me if the men did not do what I told them to take a club and knock their damned heads off. That's the kind of a man he is. I have not applied for work. Middleton told me I never could work there again."

H. F. Griswold, a switchman, testified that he had last been employed by the C. M. & St. P. Ry.—that he lost his position through the strike—had tried to get work within the last few weeks on the Penn. R. R., at Pittsburg, Altona and Columbus and at each of these places had been shown a blacklist with his name on it as a member of the American Railway Union.

Several other witnesses testified as to being blacklisted on account of being in the strike.

Charles Naylor, a fireman on the Ft. Wayne road up to the time of the strike, was next examined. In answer to questions as to what he thought of arbitration he said: "From my knowledge of railroad men I do not believe they would have much confidence in arbitrators elected in the same way public officials are. My idea is that they should be appointed when their services are required and a new set of arbitrators selected for each case. The board should be composed of one man selected by the employes, one by the roads, and a third by these two."

Commissioner Wright: "That is the law now."

Mr. Naylor: "Yes, but it is not enforced. It seems to me that if Mr. Cleveland had followed in the line of action pursued by Mr. Gladstone, during the coal miners' strike in England, there would have been no trouble here. If he had told the railroads when they called on him for troops that they must submit to arbitration or they would get no support from the government, the men would have thought a good deal more of his honesty and fairness, but when they see the whole power of the government thrown on the side of the railroads they lose confidence in the justice of the government."

Commissioner Wright: "There was no law under which the president could have told the roads to arbitrate the trouble with their men."

Mr. Naylor: "From all that I can learn there was as much law for him to do so as for him to send troops here without the request of the governor of the state."

Mr. Worthington: "In your suggestion of a board of arbitrators there would be but one of them unprejudiced?"

Mr. Naylor: "I think such a board would always be able to effect a compromise between the parties. I have acted in the capacity of arbitrator between the company and the men in adjusting grievances and have always found that a spirit of compromise was met in a like spirit and that is the principle, after all, upon which such questions must be settled."

Vice President Howard of the American Railway Union, was recalled to make an explanation regarding some testimony which Mr. Heathcoat had given the day before. He said: "Mr. Heathcoat told you that Mr. Pullman had promised to allow a committee to examine his books, to prove the correctness of his statements to the effect that his company was losing money on its contracts. The next day, Wallace Rice, a reporter on the Herald, called on Mr. Pullman and asked him if he would allow an expert to examine his books on behalf of the union. Mr. Pullman replied that what he meant by allowing an examination of his books was that he would have his own book-keeper prepare a statement to be submitted to the committee. He said he never had any idea of allowing the committee to actually examine his books. Mr. Howard then asked if he might make a statement of a couple of matters of importance to the employes. The commissioners looked doubtful about this, but finally Mr. Wright said he might go ahead if the matter had anything to do with the subject under consideration.

Mr. Howard then said: "The United States government is blacklisting 3,000 employes of the Union Pacific Railroad now."

Mr. Wright: "We have no authority to go into that question."

Mr. Howard: "And the other matter is that all the other roads are making a threat against the M. K. & T. to boycott its business if the road persists in making a certain rate to Washington."

Mr. Wright: "Has that anything to do with the American Railway Union?"

Mr. Howard: "Yes, sir. If the government allows the railroads to violate the laws it ought to keep hands off in disputes between the roads and the men."

Rev. Mr. Cawardine was called and related what he knew about the matter. Mr. Cawardine is pastor of the M. E. church in Pullman. His testimony was directed chiefly to the exorbitant rents. In answer to Mr. Wright, saying that he had been charged with being an anarchist, and a socialist, Mr. Cawardine said: "I have considered the charge so contemptible in the bitterness and prejudice of its origin as to be beneath answer. That I, an American born citizen and the son of a soldier who died for his country, should be charged with being anarchist, seems to me incomprehensible. It is simply an evidence of what has been made very apparent that a good many people are violently prejudiced against working men and will not listen to what may be said on their side or read what may be written. I find this feeling even among many of my brethren in the ministry. I regret it too, because the labor problem can only be solved by a consideration of it from all sides."

Andrew W. Pearson, a real estate agent who formerly worked in Pullman, was called on the stand and in answer to a question put by Mr. Wright, said:

"Houses which rent for $17.00 in Pullman can be rented in Kensington and Roseland for $10.00. Pullman houses which rent for $25.00 can be rented elsewhere for $15.00, and $10.00 Pullman houses for $5.00. In Grand Crossing, a manufacturing town, $8.00 a month will rent a five-room brick cottage. The rents I am giving now are the present rents. There has been a decline since two years ago everywhere but in Pullman."

Commissioner Kernan: "How much higher are rents in Pullman than elsewhere?"

Mr. Pearson: "I should say fully one-third."

Frank P. McDonald, a locomotive engineer and author of the Great scab route circular, testified that he was a member of the American Railway Union and a delegate to their convention. He said he was opposed to the strike, but voted for it as it was the unanimous sentiment of his local union. His reason for opposing it was because he did not think the union was strong enough to win.

President Debs, of the American Railway Union, was the next important witness to testify. Mr. Debs outlined the trouble from its inception down to the special convention in Chicago on Aug. 2. In answer to questions by Commissioner Wright, Mr. Debs said he was 38 years old, a resident of Terre Haute, Ind., and had been president of the American Railway Union since June 20, 1893. He was a practical railroad man, had been employed four and a half years in the capacity of locomotive fireman and was at present editor of the Fireman's Magazine. Mr. Wright told him to go ahead and give a history of the late strike so far as he knew from his own experience.

Mr. Debs said: "In the early part of May, while at home in Indiana, I received a telegram from Mr. Howard notifying me of the probability of a strike at the Pullman shops, the employes of which were members of our union. I authorized Mr. Howard to take full charge of the matter, but to do all in his power to prevent a strike. My reason for this was that the American Railway Union had just been involved in a strike on the Great Northern railway. At a meeting of the general officers of the union we had discussed the possibility of other strikes arising on account of the victory the union had won on the Great Northern railway, and we decided that it would be good policy to be very cautious in encouraging the men to go into strikes whenever there was a possibility of avoiding them. May 11th, I heard that the Pullman employes had struck. A few days after, I came here and made a personal investigation of the trouble. After a trip to St. Paul I again went down there and the result of my investigation was that the conditions at Pullman justified the men in the course they had taken. I found that wages and expenses were so adjusted that every dollar the men made found its way back to Pullman coffers. The men were not only not getting enough wages to live on but were getting deeper and deeper in debt every day. They had not money enough as a rule to get away. There seemed to be no escape for them. Wages had been reduced, but expenses remained the same. After I had satisfied myself of the truth of the men's statements regarding their conditions, I made up my mind to do everything possible in law and justice to right the wrongs of our members who had gone out on strike. We first tried to get the company to arbitrate. We were confident that any fair and impartial board would decide in favor of the employes. The company, however, refused every proposition of that sort saying that it had nothing to arbitrate. I then suggested that the Pullman company select two men to act with two judges of the circuit court and a fifth person whom they should select to act as a board to investigate the question whether there was anything to arbitrate. This proposition was refused.

"June 12, delegates representing 425 local unions of the American Railway Union met here in the first quadrennial convention of the organization. The Pullman question came up for consideration before the convention sitting as a committee of the whole to hear reports etc. I wish to say in this connection that all of our deliberations were held with open doors, except one executive session at which the question of finances was considered, in which we felt the general public had no interest, but at all the other meetings the entire press of the city was represented. I mention this in refutation of the statements which have been made as to the American Railway Union forming a conspiracy against the railroads and committing offenses against the United States. If a conspiracy were intended it seems improbable that we should have sat with open doors. The first steps taken toward securing a settlement of the trouble, was the appointment of a committee composed partly of Pullman employes and in part of other delegates present, with authority to call on Mr. Wickes to find out if anything could be done toward effecting a settlement of the strike."

Here Mr. Debs related how Mr. Wickes refused to confer with a committee composed of any but his former employes, and finally refused to confer with them, stating that he had nothing to arbitrate.

He then continued: "The matter was then referred to a special committee with authority to act in the matter. This committee reported that if the Pullman Company refused to concede anything after five days time to consider the question, it was the sense of the convention that the members of the union would refuse to handle Pullman cars. Under the constitution of the American Railway Union the majority rules in all questions under consideration. No strike can be declared except by a majority of the men involved. In order to conform to this rule, the delegates were instructed to communicate by wire with their respective unions to ascertain the sentiment of the members on the question before the convention. After reports had been received from all the local unions, the convention by a unanimous vote decided to adopt the report of the special committee.

"Since the railroad employes have been criticised for engaging in a sympathetic strike, I wish to make some statement regarding the general situation. In many instances they had local grievances themselves, and besides, there was this general condition which aggravated the whole situation.

"In the spring of 1893, just before the opening of the World's Fair, the general managers of the various roads centering in Chicago, were very apprehensive lest there should be a general strike among all classes of railroad employes for an increase of wages. The officers of the organizations appealed to the men not to strike, arguing that it was their patriotic duty to bear with patience their grievances until the fair was over. The result was there was no strike anywhere. The men all worked in harmony throughout the country. Some of the managers promised, by implication at least, that there would be an increase of wages to reward the patriotic action of their men. Instead of doing as they promised, the general managers during this time equipped their organization to protect their mutual interests."

Mr. Debs then read an article from a Chicago paper which told how the general managers had formed an air tight association which would be able to deal with any strikes that might arise in the future, and suggested that the association rather courted than feared trouble with employes of the railroads.

Continuing, Mr. Debs said: "Shortly after the new association had completed its organization it became apparent what course it intended to pursue. About Sept. 1, the Louisville & Nashville road made a sweeping reduction of 10 per cent in the pay of all its employes—the section men getting 67-1/2 cents a day under this reduction. Then in succession followed the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia, the Richmond & Danville, the Mobile & Ohio, Nashville & Chattanooga, Big Four, New York & New England, New York, New Haven & Hartford, Wabash, Union Pacific, Northern Pacific, Monon, Great Northern and the Great Western was just on the point of declaring a reduction when the strike was declared. "It was significant that no two roads declared a reduction at the same time, and in most instances the reductions began with the unorganized and poorest paid men in the service. The men viewed these reductions with apprehension and unrest. This was particularly the case after Judge Caldwell had declared upon investigation that the cut on the Union Pacific was unwarrantable. In two cases the reductions annulled and the original pay of the men restored. On the Union Pacific—on the order of Judge Caldwell and on the Great Northern through the efforts of the American Railway Union. In the later case the matter was decided by a board of arbitration, composed of leading capitalists and business men of St. Paul and Minneapolis.

"These conditions confronted the American Railway Union, when its delegates met here in convention. The employes felt that other systems in sound financial conditions had taken advantage of the unfortunate condition of the country to reduce wages. The men had lost confidence in their old unions which had failed utterly to protect them against these reductions and they came in the hope that the American Railway Union would take some steps to resist them and protect its members against the rapacity of the railroad companies. This was the reason they were ripe to take up the cause of the Pullman strikers. They were wrought up to a point where they were willing to jeopardize their positions to protect both themselves and the Pullman employes. The primary purpose was to cut off Pullman's revenues by cutting off his cars and thereby force him to a settlement."

Mr. Wright: "I understand you to say you advised against the Pullman strike. Why did you do so?"

Mr. Debs: "We had just gone through a strike on the Great Northern and I did not think it advisable to go into another at that time."

Mr. Wright: "What would have been the action of the convention if there had been no strike at Pullman? Did not that strike force the issue?"

Mr. Debs: "There would have been no trouble with the railroads, I think, but for the Pullman strike. That and the depressed condition of the country aggravated the situation so as to bring about a general strike."

Mr. Wright: "Was the general strike precipitated by the Pullman troubles?"

Mr. Debs: "Yes sir, it was."

Mr. Wright: "Was a notice of the action of the convention served on the different companies?"

Mr. Debs: "Not by the convention. That matter was left to the men on the various systems. From the action of the managers toward the American Railway Union generally, the matter of serving a formal notice of our action on them was not looked upon as necessary, as we were very sure it would be ignored."

Mr. Wright: "Was notice served on the Illinois Central and Rock Island roads?"

Mr. Debs: "I think so, but am not sure."

Mr. Worthington: "Did they have notice through the press?"

Mr. Debs: "Yes, sir."

Mr. Wright: "Do you know the date on which the general managers adopted their resolution to resist the strike?"

Mr. Debs: "I think it was June 24, four days after our action. It was currently reported at that time, though I have no written or other evidence of the fact that the general managers resolved among themselves to exterminate the union."

Mr. Wright: "If the American Railway Union had had its own way in regard to its policy would a general strike have been postponed?"

Mr. Debs: "Yes, sir. The conditions were not altogether propitious and we were fully aware of the fact."

Mr. Wright: "What was the number of your membership at that time?"

Mr. Debs: "About 150,000."

Mr. Wright: "Did you consider that strong enough for a general strike?"

Mr. Debs: "Yes, sir. But it was not a question of membership altogether. There were other reasons." Mr. Debs said there was one other point to which he wished to call the attention of the commission. One great reason the men had in resisting a reduction of wages was the fact that the companies never restored them voluntarily. The tendency had therefore been for the employes to get closer together to resist the combined efforts of the managers. That was the principle, he said, which had inspired the idea of the American Railway Union. Then resuming the history of the strike Mr. Debs said:

"Pursuant to the order of the convention, which was practically the order of 150,000 men composing the American Railway Union, the members refused to handle Pullman cars. It has been claimed that the president of the union was a self appointed leader who had ordered the strike, etc. In this connection I wish to say that while such is not the case, when the report came in I gave it my approval as president. I do not wish to avoid any of the responsibility. If I had had the authority I would have ordered it under the same circumstances. June 26, the men began to refuse to haul Pullman cars. They had been advised not to handle the cars on any system where they could not get the sanction of a sufficient number of men to make such a refusal effective. The officers of the union opened headquarters at Uhlics Hall and as committees came in from various roads and made their reports they were advised how to act, and above all else to avoid trouble and violence and to maintain order. We advised them of their right to quit in a body and told them their rights ended there, and that the railroad companies had a right to hire new men and their right began there."

Commissioner Kernan: "What steps if any did you take to prevent violence?"

Mr. Debs: "When we saw there was to be trouble we issued an appeal to the men not to commit any acts of violence. Fourteen years of experience taught me that violence was the worst thing that could happen for any strike."

Commissioner Kernan: "How about the telegrams sent by you?"

Mr. Debs: "None of them were inflammatory."

Commissioner Kernan: "How about that 'save your money and buy a gun' telegram?"

Mr. Debs: "I can explain that telegram very easily. Among those who were employed at headquarters to take charge of our correspondence and telegraphing was a young man named Benedict. He had authority to sign my name to telegrams in answer to questions, etc. The telegram was sent to a man whom Mr. Benedict had worked under as a telegraph operator in Montana. The allusion to the gun was a playful expression which they had been accustomed to use in joking each other, and was understood in that way by the man who received the telegram. I have his letter in explanation of the matter which I will be glad to turn over to the commissioners. I never saw many of the telegrams sent out and did not see the one you refer to. The employes, obedient to the order of the convention, began as I have said, to refuse to handle cars. The refusal usually came from the switchmen who refused to make up trains with the Pullman equipment. As they refused they were discharged—when the others would quit.

"July 1st. After five days of strike the general managers were completely defeated and their immediate resources exhausted. Up to that time there had been no signs of violence anywhere. Our men were intact and confident. Then the intervention of the courts was called into play.

"July 2d. I was served with a sweeping injunction restraining me from sending out telegrams or issuing orders having the effect of persuading the men to quit work. This injunction was issued wherever the trouble existed. The result was to reduce our influence to nothing. This was the point from which the strike was conducted by telegrams and otherwise. Then a special grand jury was called to inquire into my conduct with the result that I was indicted with other officials of the union and warrants issued for our arrest. We were held under a joint bond of $10,000. Then followed an attachment issued for contempt of the injunction of July 2d, and our incarceration in the county jail. As soon as our men found we were under arrest they quit. The U. S. courts ended the strike, not the soldiers." Mr. Debs told of the seizure of his mail and personal effects. He said he merely cited the fact to show to what extent the U. S. authorities were willing to go to defeat the strikers. He also commented on Gen. Miles who was reported to have gone directly to the General Managers headquarters on his arrival with the U. S. troops. He said Gen. Miles was quoted next day as having said he had broken the back bone of the strike. Mr. Debs thought Gen. Miles had mistaken his mission which was to preserve order and not to help the railroads run their trains. He said:

"I think Gen. Miles was vulgarly out of place, both when he went to the General Managers and when he made the remark credited to him." He said he thought if the General Managers were compelled to bring into court copies of their telegrams sent to the attorney general as the American Railway Union had done he could substantiate the charge that it was the object to annihilate the American Railway Union.

Mr. Worthington: "Did I understand you this morning to charge the General Managers Association with the responsibility of the strike?"

Mr. Debs: "Not in that broad and general way. The American Railway Union ordered the strike and is responsible for it, but there were aggravating circumstances which ought to go in mitigation under any view of the situation. But the attitude taken by the General Managers' Association, their expressed determination to crush the American Railway Union, in that respect and in refusing to arbitrate they were responsible. We felt if they could combine we could and each was culpable."

Mr. Worthington: "You believe in enforcing the law, do you not, and in the proper authorities using sufficient force to do it, do you not?"

Mr. Debs: "Most certainly I do."

Mr. Worthington: "You have doubtless given considerable thought to the matter. How do you think strikes can be avoided?"

Mr. Debs: "There are two ways. First. By submitting to reduction in wages and other grievances as the old organizations have done for years. When the general manager determines to reduce wages he proposes a cut of 20 per cent when he only intends to make a 10 per cent reduction. Then there is a conference when they finally agree on 10 per cent. This avoids strikes but it reduces wages. The second way is a unification of all, or practically all the railroad men of the country in a prudently managed organization. That would prevent strikes on railroads, for even if the railroads could unite to beat such an organization, it would be expensive."

Mr. Worthington: "Do you believe that such an organization would be so strong as to compel the adoption of all reasonable demands?"

Mr. Debs: "We did believe it, or the American Railway Union would never have been organized. We see now that it cannot because all the organized forces of society and of the government are arrayed against it. When a strike inconveniences no one, no one is particularly interested in it and it gradually dwindles down to the little end of nothing. But when a strike does inconvenience the public, as railroad strikes must of necessity do, the organized forces of society and the government, a practically impregnable force, and properly so, is arrayed against it. Take, for instance, the Ann Arbor strike. It inconvenienced the public and immediately the roads applied to the courts, and Judge Taft issued an injunction against the men. The first of the injunctions that have been so much questioned both by lawyers and laborers."

Mr. Worthington: "Is it justifiable to incommode the public as such strikes do?"

Mr. Debs: "It depends on circumstances. I believe with Admiral Porter, that a pin is worth fighting for if a principle is involved. To resist degradation is justifiable no matter what the result. If there were no resistance, things would be, if possible, worse than they are and without resistance degradation is inevitable. If the railroads treated their men fairly there would be no labor organizations. Every organization of railroad men is traceable to oppression. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers was born of the tyranny of the Michigan Central road. I have that from the lips of Mr. Robinson, the founder of that organization. The first meetings were held in secret because the men would have been discharged if the management knew they were organizing. Everywhere organization originated from similar causes. No legislation can reconcile railroad employers and employes while human nature is in it. Confidence has been destroyed. The men have been so treated that they have grown suspicious, and when general managers, who are themselves employes, order a reduction of wages on instructions from those above them, that it is necessary because of hard times or slack business, the men are not at all assured that such are the reasons. They may accept the reduction, but they are not satisfied. In many instances the general managers obey orders to reduce wages with regret for they are humane men, many of them. Soon after the Great Northern strike, the president of a railroad told me that I now had the opportunity to make myself a most enviable reputation, both among railroad employers and employes by advising the men themselves to propose a reduction of say 10 per cent in their wages during these dull times, thus putting the road under obligation to increase wages when business improved. I said to him, only a few months ago your road was doing a phenomenally heavy business. Did you propose an increase of even 5 per cent in your employes wages because you were making money? Every time a decrease in wages has been prevented or an increase secured, it has been the result of weeks of labor and pleading and the expenditures of thousands of dollars by the men. Every schedule ever adopted is evidence of that. Now that the strike is practically over the usual persecutions will be indulged in against those who took part in it. Some people are felicitating themselves that the strike has been suppressed, but the safety valve has been screwed down, that's all. The men are no more satisfied than they were. Some of them will get back their old positions; others will get work on other roads; still others will find work elsewhere, while some will be forced to remain idle for a long time. None of them are satisfied with the conditions and sooner or later strikes will break out again, I fear. You might as well try to stop Niagara with a feather as crush the spirit of organization."

Commissioner Kernan: "If it should be shown that government ownership of railroads resulted in poorer service and more expensive management, do you think it would be a good thing?"

Mr. Debs: "Government ownership of railroads is decidedly better than railroad ownership of government. The time is coming when there must be government ownership of railroads. Strikes cannot be averted otherwise."

Commissioner Worthington: "Will government supervision answer the purpose?"

Mr. Debs: "I don't think so."

Mr. Worthington: "Will arbitration answer?"

Mr. Debs: "I fear not. No good can come from compulsory arbitration, that is a contradiction of terms, even if some means of enforcing the decree could be devised. Those against whom the decree was rendered would not be satisfied. The basis must be friendship and confidence."

Commissioner Worthington: "Admitting that there is some contradiction in the term compulsory arbitration, it expresses what we mean though compulsory attempts at conciliation would express it better. Would it be of no avail in any case?"

Mr. Debs: "It would undoubtedly in many cases where trouble is local and the conditions homogeneous, so that all of them could be considered as for instance in the Pullman troubles. It could be put in force if there was a trial by jury or something of that sort, as other courts are constituted, but in interstate matters on railroads extending over thousands of miles where conditions vary, no decree could be made to fit the case. It is easy to compass local matters but not widespread matters because the conditions are not homogeneous. It would be impossible to force the decree."

"MR. DEBS' TESTIMONY."
An extract from the Chicago Times.

"People who read an Editorial from the Chicago Times of Eugene V. Debs before the strike commission, as printed in the Times yesterday, cannot, if they be fair-minded, fail to be convinced of the justice of the cause in which he is working and of the sincerity and ability of the man himself.

"In a struggle for the rights of humanity individuals are nothing. He will be but a poor champion of the cause of the people who will pause to eulogize certain champions when he should be fighting for principles. But when a leader like Debs is attacked, as he has been attacked, and all the agencies and all the influence of capitalism are set in motion to 'make an example of him'—i. e., to so persecute him that no other man will be willing to encounter like danger in the wageworkers' cause—then must every spokesman of the working classes speak out in defense of the leader so attacked.

"The slanders that have been directed against Debs during this struggle simply baffled recountal because of their number. He has been called crazy, drunken, revolutionary, criminal, incompetent. Newspapers have at once declared his conduct of the strike impotent and denounced him for having made it so effective. Labor has been entreated to throw him over as a puerile leader and capital has been warned that he is a dangerous man because of his surpassing ability. 'Anything to beat Debs' has been the one policy which has animated the organs of capital for the last four months.

"Well, Debs is beaten—in a certain sense. His effort in behalf of the Pullman strikers has failed and the very journals which most strenuously opposed his work are now printing the story of the dreadful destitution bred of the Pullman despotism which Debs did his best to break down.

"It is too late now to fight over again the issues of the American Railway Union strike and boycott. Debs and his associates now stand in the shadow of the penitentiary for trying to avert by entirely proper and lawful means the conditions which now engage the attention of the governor of the state, and which must awaken the sympathy of all humane people. The privileged corporations flocked to the aid of the Pullman concern—no one conversant with the facts in the case can gainsay that. The railroads stood by Pullman; every morning newspaper in Chicago except the Times stood by the railroads; the government joined in with the combination. Mr. Debs' testimony is to the effect that governmental action, by hastily issued injunctions, killed the strike—a statement which everybody cognizant of the course of that movement will indorse.

"There has been much evidence adduced before the investigation commission, but none so exact or none more clear than that of Mr. Debs. His explanation of the causes of the strike and boycott is perspicuous and logical, his outline of the causes of its failure coherent and convincing, his suggestion of means for avoiding its recurrence absolutely right. He sees, as all clear-sighted and fair-minded men must see, that under the private ownership of railroads there is no possibility of justice for railroad employes. The public interest in the smooth and uninterrupted course of traffic over the roads enables the managers to call upon public opinion and even upon state forces to aid them against the employes in any serious controversy. The government ownership of railroads is indeed, as Mr. Debs has said, the one effective remedy for strikes among railroad hands. Asked for a solution of the general railroad problem, he suggested the co-operative commonwealth—a solution, doubtless, but one so difficult of accomplishment as to seem almost, if not quite, Utopian. Mr. Debs might have proceeded logically from his declaration for government ownership of railroads to government ownership and management of all other industries which tend naturally and inevitably to become monopolies. This accomplished, the repeal of all laws giving private persons the benefit of artificial law-created monopolies would follow. Then the abolition of all taxes upon industry. Finally, the throwing open to all men on equal conditions of all natural opportunities so that every man starting in life should have, so far as human power could accomplish it, an equal chance with every other man. Under such an organization and with such laws the co-operative commonwealth which Mr. Debs suggests would probably prove unnecessary. Competition, which is essential to the progress of civilization, would still continue, but it would be free competition, not the calm triumph of man plus monopoly over the man without it."

Following President Debs' testimony the matter of rioting was taken up by the commissioners. Chief Deputy U. S. Marshall John C. Donnelly, testified that there were between 1,400 and 1,500 deputies sworn in, armed and paid by the government, concerning whose character and fitness practically no inquiries were made, and that there were between 3,000 and 4,000 men sworn in as deputies at the request of the railroads, armed and paid by them, and that no inquiries concerning their characters were made at all. That this army of 3,000 or 4,000 armed men clothed with the authority of the United States was not at all under the control of the U. S. marshall and was not responsible and reported to no one unless to the chiefs of detectives of the several roads. Most of the reports of drunkenness and violence of deputies were from among those hired by the railroads.

Malcolm McDonald, a reporter for the Record, was next to testify. In answer to questions by the commissioners he said, he thought as a rule the turbulent element was not composed of railroad men. He spoke to some of the American Railway Union men about upsetting cars and they denied having had any hand in it. He also said that the conduct of the U. S. marshalls had not been such as to prevent trouble and they seemed to be hunting opportunities to get into conflict with the men.

M. L. Wickman, pastor of the Swedish Methodist Church, testified that many members of his church who worked for the Pullman Company, had to be taken care of during the fall and winter of 1893 and 1894. He told of one man who had his hand injured by a piece of flying steel. After a great deal of expense at the hospital he finally recovered the partial use of his hand and was taken back to work at reduced pay. Mr. Wickman took the case before Manager Brown, and that officer confronted him with a written statement by the injured man to the effect that the accident was one for which the company was in no way responsible. It was subsequently proved that the man's signature to the paper was forged.

Ray Baker, a reporter for the Record, said he was at Hammond during the rioting there and thought the rioters were not railroad men.

H. J. Cleveland, a reporter for the Herald, testified that he was to work along the Rock Island and Lake Shore tracks where considerable rioting occurred between July 4 and 15. From an extensive acquaintance among railroad men, he felt sure that there were few, if any railroad men among the rioters. Criticising the deputy marshals, Mr. Cleveland said that he saw many acts on their part which were calculated to cause trouble unnecessary, and thought, as a rule, they were men not fit to be in authority. He characterized the whole lot as a contemptible set of men. The men who were doing the rioting, had the appearance of those who had never done an honest day's work in their lives.

N. D. Hutton, reporter for the Tribune, was the next witness called. He said that he was at Blue Island and about the stock yards district. Thought some of the rioting was done by railroad men, but could not say so from personal knowledge of the fact.

Mr. Miller, a reporter for the Tribune was next examined. He testified that he was sworn in as a deputy marshall and detailed to go to Blue Island. After relating his experience as to rioting, Commissioner Kernan asked him if he had an extensive acquaintance among railroad men.

Mr. Miller: "In the course of my work I have learned to know a great many of them by sight at least."

Commissioner Kernan: "Did you see anyone whom you know to be a railroad man engaged in violence or encouraging others who were so engaged?"

Mr. Miller: "Never, except once. That was when a meat train had been cut in two and switches were being turned. He was not doing any of it but the general tenor of his talk was in the nature of advice to what was being done. Most of the trouble was caused by hoodlums and toughs. In my reports I characterized them as hoodlums. Many were boys."

Commissioner Kernan: "What was your observation as to the sobriety or otherwise of the strikers at the meetings?"

Mr. Miller: "I scarcely remember of seeing one under the influence of liquor. Sobriety was the rule and drunkenness the exception."

Commissioner Kernan: "Did the speakers at the meetings advice against violence or did they encourage it?"

Mr. Miller: "They advised against it."

Commissioner Kernan: "Did you think them sincere in this advice or was it simply a cloak?" Mr. Miller: "I believed them sincere particularly the brainier men."

Victor M. Harding, a reporter for the Times, was the next witness, he testified to being present during the rioting on the Rock Island road, and saw boys throwing burning waste into cars within a hundred yards of a cavalry camp."

Commissioner Kernan: "Did you ever see anyone you knew to be a railroad man engaged in any violence?"

Mr. Harding: "I never did. The stock yards furnish the most glaring examples of the false and exaggerated reports of riot and disorder made by the newspapers. This district has been for years made to bear the burden of the crimes committed in this part of the city. There was comparatively little disorder at the stock yards during the strike, but the newspaper reports contained accounts of fights, shooting affrays and riots almost every night. Capt. O'Neil, of the stock yards police told me that the reporters and the militia were both responsible for this. Volleys of shot fired by the soldiers or militia were to be heard every day and night, which on investigation proved to have no cause other than a desire to create excitement. The militia men, he said, were in the habit of firing merely for the sake of making a sensation. A crowd would naturally gather, reporters would flock around and then there would be something to tell and brag about. I know this is so from talk with the men themselves. They intimated that they were getting tired of doing nothing and were desirous of creating some excitement. One night Capt. O'Neil said he heard a volley of shots, went to the spot and found that the shooting had been done by a lot of sentries. They said they had fired at a Polak—the common name for a Pole—who was seen crawling under a car. The soldiers claimed it was dark, the man was at a distance and was not hit. Yet they knew he was a Polak. Equally absurd stories in explanation of shooting were given the police captain on other occasions."

Assistant Fire Marshall John Fitzgerald testified that he had been on duty at all fires of any importance and had witnessed many acts of incendiarism. In all instances he stated that these acts had been committed by boys or youths belonging to the hoodlum element. He said the eldest could not have been over nineteen years old. The fire department had never been obstructed in any way in reaching fires. On one occasion railroad men, whom he knew to be strikers, aided in placing an engine in position, though he had never solicited aid of any kind during the period when the fires were most numerous.

The Pullman side was now taken up by the commissioners.

Frank W. Glover was the first witness. He described himself as a real estate dealer who owned a sub-division in Kensington, besides acre property there, owned and sold houses and lots, and had tenants. In reply to Commissioner Worthington as to what he knew of the rents in Pullman, Kensington, Roseland and other similar suburbs, how they would compare, Mr. Glover said: "I should say a six-room house in Pullman for $17.00 is better than one of my six-room houses in Kensington which rents for $10.00 to $12.00. The Pullman houses are connected with sewers. The land on which they stand is better drained and from what I should judge from outside appearances they have more of what are called modern conveniences. My houses have no sewer connections, the land is low, and in spring and fall is liable to have water on it; besides I understand the Pullman Company keeps their houses in repair, while I do not."

Paul E. Hearns, stationer and newsdealer at Pullman, was the next witness. In his opinion there would have been less suffering if some of the men had let beer and whiskey alone.

L. H. Johnson, a hardware and furniture dealer, testified next. He expressed the belief that the Pullman employes were as thrifty, economical and temperate a class of people as others of a similar class.

Wm. R. McKay, a reporter for the Mail, was next heard. He said that he had been detailed to look after the American Railway Union headquarters and the meetings at Uhlics Hall. The speeches at all these meetings were against violence and in favor of observing the law as the only means of winning the strike.

B. H. Atwell, a reporter for the Daily News, was the next witness. He testified that he was at Blue Island during the trouble. He said the deputy marshalls had drawn revolvers without any reason. Most of the men who made trouble there were not railroad men. Railroad officials had said to him that the strikers were not making the trouble. At the stock yards also, such violence as was done was not by railroad strikers but by toughs.

The next witness called was Alex Lungren, a wood-carver. In answer to Commissioner Kernan's question if foremen had absolute power over the men in their departments, Mr. Lungren replied that he did not know.

Commissioner Kernan: "Are the workingmen compelled to obey the orders given by the foremen?"

Mr. Lungren: "Yes. They must obey orders."

Commissioner Kernan: "Is there any appeal from these orders?"

Mr. Lungren: "No."

Commissioner Kernan: "Then there is no way of getting the matter to the officials or superintendent?"

Mr. Lungren: "No."

Commissioner Kernan: "Then there is no system of obtaining a hearing from the officials concerning any grievance?"

Mr. Lungren: "No there is no system and it is very difficult to see any of the officials to obtain redress."

Commissioner Kernan: "What were the conditions of your re-employment with the company?"

Mr. Lungren: "I had to leave the American Railway Union."

Commissioner Kernan: "Were you obliged to sign any contract relating to your membership in any labor organization?"

Mr. Lungren: "Yes. There was a written contract which I signed. It stated that I would have nothing to do with the American Railway Union." Mr. Lungren also testified that he did not vote to strike. He did not attend the meetings; said he quit work in accordance with the notice posted by the company that the works would be closed down.

Dr. John W. McLean was the next witness. He said he had been a practicing physician since 1863, and had been in the employ of the Pullman company since 1894. He thought the strike had been brought about by the general depression in business throughout the country. Did not think the rents exorbitant in Pullman. Said he attended the Pullman employes who were injured, free of charge. When asked by Commissioner Kernan if he thought intemperance one cause of the Pullman strike, he said:

"Yes, I think all labor troubles are directly due to this cause."

General Manager E. St. John of the Rock Island road was the next witness examined. His testimony, which would fill several pages, was in brief a general contradiction of all evidence offered by the reporters, and American Railway Union witnesses. He charged the rioting to the strikers. He was opposed to the government ownership of railroads and also thought arbitration impracticable. He admitted that a greater reduction of wages was liable to follow unless the present depressed condition of business was soon remedied. Regarding the losses incurred by his road on account of the strike he said it was his impression that they would be somewhere between $800,000 and $1,000,000. When the question of communications from the officers of the American Railway Union came up Commissioner Kernan asked why the General Managers Association declined to receive it.

Mr. St. John: "Because we considered such an organization unworthy of consideration."

Commissioner Kernan: "Were you determined not to recognize any union?"

Mr. St. John: "Not exactly, but the American Railway Union least of all."

Commissioner Kernan: "Were not the roads united sympathetically? Now what had the Lake Shore road to do with the Rock Island road?"

Mr. St. John: "What had the Rock Island to do with the Lake Shore?"

Commissioner Kernan: "Is it not true that the roads were united sympathetically?"

Mr. St. John: "Let me ask you a question."

Commissioner Kernan: "No, I am not on the stand. I may be some day and then you can question me."

Mr. St. John: "When a neighbor's house burns we all unite to fight the blaze. When an assault is made on all the roads, they unite to resist it."

When General Manager St. John resumed the witness stand, he had with him one of the twenty-six sets of books mentioned by Mr. Howard, containing the scale of wages and rules of employment of all classes of railway employes on the roads represented in the General Managers' Association. When questioned by Commissioner Kernan he admitted that a committee had been appointed to formulate from these a schedule of what was a fair rate of wages for all classes of employes and uniform rules of employment. That committee reported, but the report was never acted on. This committee was appointed under a resolution passed February 15, 1894. Its report was made in March, and if adopted would have affected 125,000 men at least. One or two roads, he admitted, might have reduced wages about this time, but there was no agreement with the other roads concerning it. It became known that Mr. Wright, chairman of the commission, had an annual Pullman pass. He said concerning it that he and Mr. Pullman had been personal friends for several years, and it was to him as a personal friend that the pass was given several years ago and had been renewed annually since. He deemed that it was for the glowing reports of Pullman, made by Mr. Wright and others in 1884, for he did not know Mr. Pullman then. He said that he had not used it since the appointment of the commission.

Following Mr. St. John, John M. Eagan took the stand.

Mr. Eagan admitted that as the manager of the General Managers' Association he was authorized to incur any expense to secure force to crush the strike, but was not authorized to do anything to settle it peaceably. Of his connection with the General Managers' Association he said that he was requested to take charge of the association during the strike.

Commissioner Worthington: "Did you have anything done in relation to the appointment of deputy marshals?"

Mr. Eagan: "Each road appointed an official to select the men they wanted to act as deputy marshalls and turned 'em over to me. I sent them to Arnold to be sworn."

Commissioner Worthington: "Did those men serve as employes of the road while acting as marshals?"

Mr. Eagan: "My judgment is that they were to take care of the interests of the roads."

Commissioner Worthington: "Did they act in the double capacity as marshals and as railroad employes? That is, would an engineer, for instance, while wearing a star showing his authority, run an engine for the road?"

Mr. Eagan: "I believe they did that. They were sworn in as deputy marshals to give them a chance to protect themselves."

Commissioner Worthington: "By whom were the deputy marshals to be paid or by whom will they be paid?"

Mr. Eagan: "Each road is supposed to pay its own men."

Commissioner Worthington: "What do you know of any efforts made by the officers of the American Railway Union or the city officials to settle the strike amicably?"

Mr. Egan: "A party named McGillen, Alderman McGillen, I think, told me that Howard and Debs wanted a conference with me about settling the strike. I told him I had no authority to confer with them."

Commissioner Worthington: "Did you not have authority to talk with them and find out what they wanted or could do, without making any agreement with them?"

Mr. Eagan: "Not with those parties—I did not think I had. A few days later I found the mayor and Mr. McGillen in the office of the General Managers' Association. They said they had come with a letter from Debs, Howard and Kelliher. I told the mayor he ought not to make a messenger boy of himself for these parties of the American Railway Union. Later I was given the document to give to the mayor. He was at Kensington, so I left it with the chief of police, and wrote a letter telling him I could not receive the letter he had brought."

Commissioner Worthington: "Were any other overtures of settlement made to you?"

Mr. Eagan: "That's all I know of any overtures."

Commissioner Worthington: "Was there anything insulting or offensive in the language of the letter the mayor brought you that made you refuse to receive it?"

Mr. Eagan: "The letter was published that evening and next morning and speaks for itself."

Commissioner Worthington: "I am asking you how you regarded it. Did you consider that there was anything insulting or offensive in the letter?"

Mr. Eagan: "I considered that any parties that had fought railroads as they had and been beaten as I believe they have been had lots of cheek to dictate the terms of their surrender."

Commissioner Worthington: "You do not answer my question. Were there not soldiers, U. S. marshals, deputy sheriffs and policemen engaged in guarding the railroads, and were you not hindered in the operation of the roads?"

Mr. Eagan: "Yes."

Commissioner Worthington: "Now was not the letter courteously composed and looking to a settlement of the difficulty?"

Mr. Eagan: "We didn't need a settlement—we had 'em already."

Commissioner Worthington: "The soldiers, marshals, sheriffs and police remained on duty sometime after that—didn't they?"

Mr. Eagan: "Yes, we needed the soldiers to protect our property."

Commissioner Worthington: "If a settlement could have been reached at that time between the railroads and the strikers, couldn't the soldiers and marshals have been dismissed. They wouldn't have been needed after an amicable settlement had been reached, would they?"

Mr. Eagan: "It was their intention not to recognize the American Railway Union."

Commissioner Worthington: "Then it is true is it that the reason this communication was not received was not because it was not courteously worded or because it was discourteous or insulting but because the General Managers would not recognize the American Railway Union?"

Mr. Eagan: "Well, that's as I understood it." Commissioner Worthington: "What would have been out of the way in your talking with Debs and Howard when they asked a conference with you?"

Mr. Eagan: "I didn't have any authority to talk to them."

Commissioner Worthington: "Then your authority extended to this. You had authority to contract at the expense of the railroad for all the force necessary to crush the strike but had no authority to settle it by peaceful means?"

Mr. Eagan, "Well, yes. I suppose so."

Commissioner Worthington: "When you rebuked the mayor did you think it derogatory to bear a respectful message looking to a peaceful settlement of the difficulty?"

Mr. Eagan: "I believed the American Railway Union was whipped at that time."

Commissioner Worthington: "It was then the condition and not the character of the men that signed the document that made you refuse to receive it?"

Mr. Eagan: "We believed we had the strike won."

Commissioner Worthington: "Did you ever try to use anything but force to settle the difficulty?"

Mr. Eagan: "None, except to the different parties that came to see me, men that I knew personally had quit work. I told them to go back to work." In regard to violence Mr. Eagan knew nothing about it personally, but assumed that the strikers did it.

Superintendent Dunlap, of the Rock Island, was asked if he recognized any of the ex-employes among the rioters, and said that he did not know many of the men but was sure that they were present. He was also asked by Mr. Wright if he knew one John T. Norton to which he answered no.

Superintendent of Police, Michael Brennan, was next examined. He testified that but a small per cent of the rioting was done by strikers.

John T. Norton, a locomotive engineer, was next called to the stand and testified that he was employed on the Illinois Central road prior to the strike, and had since obtained a position on the Calumet & Blue Island.

This line uses the Rock Island track to Joliet. He said that he passed an examination on the C. & B. I. and also on the Rock Island. He had made one trip when informed that the Rock Island road had barred him and would not allow him to run over any part of their line. He consulted a lawyer and was told to see Superintendent Dunlap. He called on him in company with a friend named Fraser. He asked Mr. Dunlap if he was barred off the Rock Island, who said yes, and he then saw that he was blacklisted.

Mr. Kernan: "Do you call that evidence of a blacklist?"

Mr. Norton: "I do. After getting a letter from Superintendent Conlin I was barred out by Superintendent Dunlap who has just sworn he did not know me."

Mr. Kernan: "Can you produce Mr. Fraser. We would like to hear his testimony?"

Mr. Norton: "I will."

Mr. Kernan: "Were you concerned in any violence during the strike?"

Mr. Norton: "No."

Mr. Kernan: "Are you an officer of the American Railway Union?"

Mr. Norton: "Yes. I am president of local union No. 193."

Mr. Gompers of the American Federation of Labor was next examined but refused to be sworn. Mr. Gompers went into the labor question in a general way. In reference to strikes, he said that so long as the present industrial and commercial systems last, so long will strikes continue.

George M. Pullman, president of the Pullman company, was now before the commissioners. He submitted a lengthy statement in relation to the town of Pullman, and under examination he told of the increase of the Palace Car company from $1,000,000 to $36,000,000 and the accumulation of a cash surplus of $25,000,000. When questioned concerning the grievance of the employes, he was not so well posted. When asked by Mr. Wright if it was the practice of the company to reduce wages from time to time, he said:

"I am not familiar with the details of the manufacturing department and must refer you to the second vice-president."

Mr. Worthington: "Did you ever express any unwillingness to arbitrate?"

Mr. Pullman: "I did express unwillingness and refer you to my published statements. I was aware of the losses of the company in paying the wages it did when contract prices were so low, and I knew it was impossible for the company to pay a higher scale. It was a question whether the shops should be closed, or secure work at a low figure. It was the principle involved in letting a third party determine how the company should transact its business."

Mr. Worthington: "But you paid the usual dividend of eight per cent last year?"

Mr. Pullman: "Yes. But the profit during the World's Fair helped out the amount."

Mr. Worthington: "Now don't you think that the Pullman corporation which paid a dividend of $2,800,000 for the year just ended should have borne with the employes and shared its profits to some extent?"

Mr. Pullman: "I don't see why we should take the money from the stockholders to pay a set of men higher wages because the manufacturing business paid well, to pay this money to men working at Pullman when the employes at Ludlow, Wilmington and St. Louis had no complaint to make. The efforts of the American Railway Union to call a strike there was a failure."

Mr. Worthington: "Has the Pullman Company ever voluntarily raised wages?"

Mr. Pullman: "No; but it always has paid fair wages."

Mr. Worthington: "Now, Mr. Pullman, when you see the present unrest of labor, and the possible consequences, what objection had you to distributing a portion of the profits or increasing wages a little?"

Mr. Pullman: "The reason is embodied in my statement, it is a matter of opinion, and then there is the principle involved. It is impossible under the circumstances."

Mr. Worthington: "Impossible, what is impossible? Could not arbitration determine the principle involved?"

Mr. Pullman: "As president of the company I do not care to give any other."

Mr. Worthington then introduced a lease used between the company and its tenants. This provided that the tenants should make all repairs to plumbing, water pipes, gas, etc., and to surrender premises in good repair. When such repairs were made by the company, the amount was deducted from their salaries.

Mr. Worthington: "Now, the company does not make any repairs, does it?"

Mr. Pullman: "The company repairs the roofs or outside of the houses, I am not familiar with the details."

Mr. Worthington: "But by the lease the tenants are bound to make all the repairs, it is stipulated that the tenant shall repay the company for all repairs made."

Mr. Pullman: "I will have to refer you to some official of the company." (Laughter.)

Mr. Worthington: "The rent is deducted monthly, is it not?"

Mr. Pullman: "I am unable myself to identify that lease you handed me."

Mr. Pullman concluded with the statement that the company declined to employ any member of the American Railway Union.

Mr. Worthington again asked if the company could not afford to pay an increased scale of wages and this Mr. Pullman refused.

Mr. Kernan: "When the general cut in salaries was made, was your salary reduced?"

Mr. Pullman: "No." (Laughter.)

Mr. Kernan: "That of officials, superintendents or foremen?"

Mr. Pullman: "No."

Mr. Wickes then took the stand. His evidence—which in main was documentary—embraced every detail of the strike. He admitted having promised members of the grievance committee that they would not be discharged, and said the agreement had not been broken by him. From statistics presented by Mr. Wickes, he claimed that the average rate of wages paid for the year ending in April, 1893, was $2.63 per day and for the same succeeding period $2.03, which fact, he said, disproved of statements made by strikers.

In the case of Miss Jennie Curtis the books showed that her father had owed but $17.00 at the time of his death, which sum had never been repaid the company.

Blacklisting, he said, had never been practiced by the Pullman Company, although the foreman kept a list of discharged men. He also said that the company had been losing $500 per month by furnishing water. He said that the men were advised by Mr. Howard not to strike.

Referring to rent and wages, he did not consider that there was any connection between them. He said: "We paid the market price for labor and we asked the market price for houses." He contended that wages were regulated by the law of supply and demand. We go into the market to buy labor, as we go into the market to buy other things. If a manufacturer by reason of improved machinery, of special facilities, or greater ability in securing supplies or disposing of products, or by more effective handling of men, should be making larger profits than his competitors and should increase wages, he would deprive himself of all the benefits of these advantages which are his and to which his employes do not contribute, and would make no more than the manufacturer who conducted his business in a shiftless manner or without ability, energy or enterprise.

Mr. Wickes concluded his testimony, and Inspector Nicholas Hunt was called.

He testified that from June 27th, or the time his force was first called to protect railroad property at various points, up to July 3d, there had been no serious difficulty. When asked by Mr. Worthington if he had seen railroad men take part in the destruction of property. He replied:

"I have not seen one railroad man interfere in any way."

A. J. Sullivan, general manager of the Illinois Central, was next to testify.

He went into details concerning the trouble on his road. He was certain that the acts of violence were committed by the strikers although he did not witness it personally.

H. R. Saunders, general yardmaster for the Rock Island, testified for the company in relation to the way the strike was ordered on the Rock Island. He charged that Mr. Howard, vice-president of the American Railway Union, with using abusive and violent language. Epithets applied to Pullman and the expression, "if scabs take your places kill them with a coupling pin," was declared to have been used.

W. D. Fuller, agent for the Rock Island road at Blue Island, testified that he was present, and thought Mr. Howard's speech was very violent, he applied epithets to Pullman, thought he ought to be hanged, and that he (Howard) would like to head a crowd to do it.

L. A. Camp, a yardmaster for the Rock Island, was also at the meeting and heard no violent language used.

G. D. Cruelly also a yardmaster for the same road, thought the strike at Blue Island was due to Mr. Howard and Mr. Debs. Mr. Howard in particular and Mr. Debs incidentally. Mr. Howard was violent and abusive in his language. The witness is a member of the Order of Railway conductors but not of the American Railway Union.

Fred Baumbach testified to hearing both Debs and Howard speak, but did not remember of hearing either one of them using violent language.

Otto Moriling, a tailor, testified to being present. He did not hear any violent language used except that Mr. Howard applied an epithet to Pullman.

James Simmons also heard Howard speak, but did not hear him counsel violence.

Alexander Quasso said he was present when Howard spoke but heard no violence counseled except some reference by Mr. Howard to the justice of hanging Pullman.

Vice President Howard now took the stand and testified regarding his speech at Blue Island. He said:

"I want to begin by saying that among railroad men particularly trainmen, it has been a constant habit and practice and has been for years, to use a certain class of expressions which literally are very offensive in the lightest and most ordinary way, and without meaning anything in particular about them. Every old railroad man can bear me out in this. A railroad man will address his best friend with a most offensive epithet uttered in a most cordial way and intended to express cordiality, so that the term I applied to Pullman, has among railroad men a technical meaning, very broad it is true and expressing according to the circumstances very different sentiments. But its use is so common and I may say usual, that it has altogether lost the meaning it has, among others than railroad men.

"I was telling them the condition of things at Pullman. I told them of incidents that have been testified to before this commission. I was trying to array them against Pullman. I used the language of railroad men and I applied to Mr. Pullman the epithet I am charged with using. But I used it in the railroad sense. I said he ought to be hung, that is another railroad expression.

"I did not say that I would like to take part in the hanging or lead a party to hang him. As to the coupling pin expression, what I said at Blue Island, I have said at hundreds of other places, it was this I told them, it was often said that capital would always defeat labor. I denied this. I said that capital could only whip labor when it could divide it, and make labor defeat itself. That in the last few years a wave of religious intolerance had swept over this country, and the representatives of the railroads had taken advantage of it as a means of dividing labor. I gave instances where some emissary of the railroads would come in, and going to the protestant members, instill distrust in their minds of the Roman Catholic members, and then going to the Roman Catholics and creating distrust of the Protestants. I urged them not to allow themselves to be divided in the labor movement by questions of religious differences, and I said that if any of those sleuths, and I may have said sleuths of hell, come into this movement to array you against each other in a question of religion, I hope some one will have the nerve to hit him on the head with a round end coupling pin and send him to his last long sleep.

"I said nothing about injuring men who came to take their places. I told them if they struck, to put on their good clothes and keep away from the railroad property. If the railroads could get men to run their roads, let them, but if the men stood together, were united, the roads couldn't get men and would have to yield.

"Far from advising violence, I have always advised against it. I have some questions I would like the commission to put to the general managers, either here, or in Washington. They are these:

"1st. Were not the general managers whipped on July 5, before there had been any violence to array public opinion against the strikers, and before the troops were here and by their presence provoked violence?

"2d. Did your company have a contract with the government to carry the mails?

"3d. Was the contract dependent upon your ability to carry Pullmans?

"4th. Did your contract with the Pullman Company require you to refuse to transport mail if you left the Pullmans off?

"5th. Did the strikers interfere to prevent carrying of the mails if you left the Pullmans off?

"6th. Could you not have carried mails, if you did not insist in hauling Pullmans?

"7th. Was your contract with the government less binding on you than your contract with the Pullman Company, or was either dependent on the other?"

Mr. Kernan had no objection to the questions being put to the general managers, but did not think, under the circumstances, the commission could prolong its sitting in order to ask them.

Mayor John P. Hopkins was then called and cordially shook hands with the commissioners before taking the witness chair. His examination was conducted by Judge Worthington as follows:

Mr. Worthington: "As mayor of the city and the actual head of the police department, please state the general conduct of the police force during the strike and the conditions attending the strike."

Mr. Hopkins: "The evening of June 25, Mr. Ellsworth, who claimed to represent the different railroads, called on me and said he understood a boycott was to be enforced on all roads hauling Pullman cars. He said he understood I was going to Springfield that night and wished me to give instructions to the chief of police and arrange for the protection of the roads. So far as I know, the police did all the work required of them, and I have ample assurance of that fact from railway officials.

"This condition existed until July 5. That morning Mr. Wright of the Rock Island called at my office and claimed that riotous mobs were interfering with the operation of trains, overturning cars, etc. I went with him to the office of Mr. Cable of the Rock Island road, where we discussed the matter. Mr. Cable said he thought the police were not doing their duty, but from the information I had received, I was confident that such was not the case. I then suggested that Mr. Cable go with me to the scene of the alleged trouble, but he said that he did not think it safe to do so. I proposed the same plan to Mr. Wright, but he made the same objection. I then saw the corporation counsel and suggested the same plan, which he accepted. A switch engine was secured and we went. A crowd of probably 3,000 or 3,500 persons, mostly women and children, had assembled at that point. On the tracks at Thirty-seventh street four trains were standing, and just north of them an empty freight car was lying across the tracks. Half an hour after we arrived, a wrecking crew, accompanied by young Newell, Attorney Wright, and other officials came up, and they started to take the car off the track. On going down we had found the tracks entirely unobstructed, but on going back found ten or fifteen overturned cars. I thought the police did all they could to prevent such an occurrence. I stayed about two hours, when I came back and issued the proclamation to the people which was published. I also instructed the chief of police to suspend all officers who had been stationed at the crossings where the cars were overturned.

"That night I wired the governor at Springfield, that the militia, which had been preparing to go into camp there, had better be retained in the city, as it might be advisable to call out the troops within twenty-four hours. The same night about 10:30, I was at the Hyde Park police station when I heard that the "Diamond Special" had been stopped at Kensington and that large crowds had congregated there. Inspector Hunt sent re-inforcements to that point, and when I retired everything seemed quiet. Friday morning, July 6, which was the first time the railroads had intimated that the protection afforded them was inadequate, I heard from Kensington that there was trouble in the Rock Island and Chicago & Eastern Illinois roads. I then called on the governor for five regiments of the state militia. Saturday, at 3:30 P. M., some trouble occurred at Forty-seventh and Loomis streets, where a mob had collected. The state troops fired and killed one man, two others dying afterward. There was no trouble after that, so far as I know."

Mayor Hopkins then read a number of communications from railway officials expressing satisfaction in regard to the perfect protection afforded by the police during the strike. Among these were letters from President Marvin Hughitt of the Northwestern, General Superintendent Sullivan of the Illinois Central, President Thomas of the Chicago & Western Indiana, and others. Several officers who were deemed worthy of promotion for their good services at critical times were mentioned in a letter from a Santa Fe official. The mayor then continued his testimony as follows:

"So far as the management of the police was concerned I think it was excellent. I wish to state that the Blue Island police are governed by the officials of that town. The word police has been referred to indiscriminately in the testimony, leaving the impression that Blue Island was under the jurisdiction of the city.

"There was very little resistance to the police. The strikers treated me all right, and the crowds seemed good-natured. There was some resistance to the police, I believe, on the night of July 7, at Ashland avenue and the Northwestern tracks. The police fired and killed a woman on the roof of a house in the neighborhood."

Mr. Worthington: "How many were killed in all or who have since died in consequence of injuries received?"

Mr. Hopkins: "About seven, I think in Chicago. Three at Forty-seventh and Loomis streets, one at Kensington, the woman just mentioned, and I think two others."

Mr. Worthington: "Please state about the militia engaged during the strike."

Mr. Hopkins: "I will read my copy of the telegram to the governor to which I referred. The next day I again telegraphed the governor suggesting that five regiments be placed at the disposal of the city. In one half hour I received an answer stating that the militia had been ordered to report. There was virtually the entire militia of the state in service, probably 2,000 men. The last detachment went home August 6."

Mr. Worthington: "You have stated that you gave orders to suspend officers at certain crossings. Why was that?"

Mr. Hopkins: "The officers complained that people jumped over the fences and that they could not prevent them. The Rock Island road is protected on each side of the right-of-way by low fences, and empty freight cars were standing for many blocks on the side track next the fence. The people who lived near the tracks could easily jump the fence unseen and tip the cars over. I ordered the men suspended for the general effect it would have on the force."

Mr. Worthington: "I would like to ask a general question. As mayor of the city, do you think the police, or a portion of them, either directly or indirectly, took a part in promoting the strike in any way?"

Mr. Hopkins: "I would not deny that some of the men had sympathy with the strikers. I am in sympathy myself with the Pullman strikers."

Mr. Worthington: "But do you think the police did their duty?"

Mr. Hopkins: "Yes, sir. Several times Mr. Eagan telephoned that trouble was occurring at some point. When officers would investigate they would find no trouble at all. There are 2,100 miles of railway in the city limits; there are 1,360 trains daily, 160 railroad crossings, and 3,000 surface railroad crossings. The police force for this year is scheduled at 1,928 patrolmen. There are 186 square miles of territory in the city and you can readily see that every point could not be covered at once. The amount of violence was not very great. In Pullman not one pane of glass was broken in the three months of the strike. I live in Pullman myself."

Mr. Worthington: "You may state whether at any time you advised the American Railway Union or its members to strike?"

Mr. Hopkins: "No, sir."

Mr. Worthington: "Did the General Manager's Association either during or since the strike request the city to arrest any individual strikers or suggest such arrest?"

Mr. Hopkins: "No, sir; I think that President Newell swore out a warrant for a man named Hall, but the information was furnished by the city."

Mr. Worthington: "Has the American Railway Union brought in any information of this character?"

Mr. Hopkins: "Yes, sir; in the case of Hall, who was charged with turning over cars; also in other cases, which upon investigation we concluded not to take up."

Mr. Worthington: "Then the disposition of the American Railway Union appears to have been to assist the city?"

Mr. Hopkins: "Yes, sir."

Mr. Worthington: "During or before the strike were there any overtures made in regard to arbitration?"

Mr. Hopkins: "I met Mr. Pullman at lunch in the Chicago club one day and he told me of a meeting his employes had held. Then July 3, there was a further talk about protecting the works on the following day when trouble might be expected. There was some talk about a settlement, but the company seemed to regard the strikers as law breakers. Then a committee of the council was appointed, and word sent to Mr. Eagan, but he said he couldn't come. Then the committee called at Mr. Pullman's office to discuss the question of arbitration—or if there was anything to arbitrate. The answer received there was that the company refused to arbitrate. July 11, I received a telegram from Mayor Pingree of Detroit, asking if I would act with him in endeavoring to settle the strike. He had communications from fifty other mayors giving their views on the question. We saw Mr. Wickes, Mr. Runnels and Mr. Brown, and had a long interview. Mayor Pingree took the point that arbitration should be tested, and made a strong argument. He is a member of a shoe manufacturing firm and related his own experience in a strike of nine months' duration. Mr. Wickes, Mr. Runnels and Mr. Brown withdrew and prepared a statement giving the position of the company and declining the proposition. On July 13, Mr. Debs, Mr. Howard, and Mr. Kelliher prepared a communication to the railway managers offering to settle the strike if the railroads would re-instate the men as individuals or such men as had committed no overt acts. With Mr. McGillen I went over with the document to Mr. St. John. What occurred there has been published. Now, while I think of it, I want to say that the statement published in some papers that Mr. St. John told me I should not act as a messenger boy for the American Railway Union is false. I deny most emphatically that Mr. St. John used those words. I should not have allowed it. This was the last action on my part to bring about a settlement.

"It has been said that I protested against the presence of the federal troops in the city. I do say that the railways had never complained that the civil authorities were unable to protect the roads. I have never protested against the federal troops and think they did some good."

Mr. Worthington: "It has been stated in the press that you applied to Mr. Debs to move trains."

Mr. Hopkins: "That is not true. A man named Brenock has a contract with the city to remove dead animals, the place where they are rendered being over the Indiana state line. He called upon me and said that there was a train load of dead animals at the stock yards which could not be pulled out; the men had quit work. I said I thought a volunteer crew of trainmen could be procured which would do the work. I sent my secretary to the American Railway Union with that request. A crew went down to the yards and manned the train. When it proceeded some distance it was discovered that a train load of dressed beef had been substituted and the train crew abandoned the cars. The dead animals then remained where they were for several days."

Mr. Kernan: "Then this action was simply a plan to guard the public health?"

Mr. Hopkins: "Yes, sir; simply to remove the dead animals from the city limits."

At the conclusion of Mayor Hopkins' testimony, President Carroll D. Wright arose and declared the commission formally adjourned until Wednesday, Sept. 26, at Washington, D. C.

---