If the officers referred to were superior to the mayor, he should have done what he could to coöperate with them, in dispersing the mob, and suppressing the riot, and on them would rest the responsibility for the measures they adopted; if they were not superior to him, then even he will not claim that he had a right to do nothing. All peace officers (and the military when called out to suppress a riot, is only a posse for the peace officers) are expected, and it is their duty, to coöperate for the purpose of keeping the peace. An officer, willing and anxious to do his duty, will never object to do what he can to enforce the law because some other officer or officers are trying to assist in the same object, even if they do not consult him, while one who is looking for some excuse for evading his duty is very apt to find one that will satisfy himself, although it may be satisfy no one else. Mayor McCarthy, at any time on the 19th day of July, at the head of a determined posse of fifty men, could have dispersed the strikers, and allowed trains to go out, and the trains once running, the strikers would have given up the contest. On the 20th of July, the mayor, with one hundred men, could have dispersed the crowd, and by the arrest of a few ringleaders broken the strength of the strike.
These statements are made on the supposition that the mayor had been in earnest, and acted with the vigor that characterized several of the mayors who were called upon for the same duty in their respective cities at nearly the same time.
The mob knows instinctively the feelings of the bystanders and officers, and a little encouragement makes it very bold, while a determination to enforce the law by a few brave officers will cause the same mob to disperse, for it is an old and true saying that mobs are cowardly. This report has already stated, as a matter of fact, proved by the evidence before the committee, that all classes of the citizens of Pittsburgh sympathized with the trainmen in their strike. Some of the citizens claim this is hardly true, but most of them admit it, but deny that any of them sympathized with the riotous conduct of the mob and the destruction of property by it. The best description of the feeling of that community was given by Sheriff Fife, who testified that there was a general sympathy with the strikers; the entire laboring class sympathized with them; the merchants sympathized with them to a certain extent; that the responsible portion of the people of Pittsburgh were not in sympathy with the riot, but that it took a certain amount of riot to bring them to their senses. That this sympathy with the strikers pervaded the whole community does not admit of a reasonable doubt. There may have been, and no doubt were persons who did not sympathize, but they were isolated cases, and so few as to be of no use in controlling or directing public sentiment. There are a great many evidences of this aside from the direct testimony of most of the witnesses who were asked the question. The fact that Sheriff Fife testifies to that he did not undertake to raise a posse to disperse the mob before calling on the Governor for troops, as it would have been folly to have tried it in the city for he knew the feeling of the people, he might possibly have raised a posse in the country, if he had had time, is one evidence. On Saturday, the 21st, he sent out twenty deputies to raise a posse to assist in arresting the ringleaders, and they did not raise an average of one each, after, as they testify, making a vigorous effort. The action of the Pittsburgh troops, also shows that the same feeling of sympathy pervaded them, and the actions of the mayor and police show conclusively the same thing, so far as they were concerned. The editorials in the newspapers of the city show as strongly as any evidence can, where the sympathy of the community was, these being the best exponents of public sentiment when not repudiated by the people. The prejudice among the shippers over the Pennsylvania railroad against that company on account of the alleged discrimination in freight against them, caused them also to sympathize with the trainmen, and the general feeling was, after the commencement of the strike, to let the company take care of itself. No one can doubt that the existence of this feeling in the community was well known to the strikers, and that it encouraged them to hold out in their purposes and make them more bold in their adoption of measures to resist the company, and prevent by force any freight trains from leaving Pittsburgh.
This feeling of boldness and confidence in disregarding the law communicated itself to the new comers in the crowd, many of them being the worst criminals and tramps, until the mob became so confident that they could do as they pleased, that they did not believe any serious attempt would be made to disperse them, until the railroad company had yielded to the demand of the strikers, and that if such an attempt should be made they could easily repel it. None of the citizens had the remotest idea that the strike would culminate in any serious riot or destruction of property, neither did the strikers themselves expect this would be the result, but the resistance to law once started, the original movers soon lost all control of the movement, and the consequences were such as to astonish the most reckless among them. No one could have foreseen the result, and the experience of the people of Pittsburgh, with strikes prior to that time, had not been such as to lead them to anticipate anything serious in this case. There being many manufacturing establishments in and around that place, employing a large number of men, strikes were quite familiar to them, but as they were usually confined to the men of one establishment, or one branch of trade, they were arranged without serious disturbance of the public peace, and no one realized the danger in winking at the course of the strikers in this case. No strike had ever before taken place under such favorable circumstances to make trouble. Never before were so many of the resident laborers out of work, never before was the country so filled with tramps to flock to such a scene of disturbance, never before was the laboring class of the whole country so ready to join in a move of that kind, and never before were the civil authorities of the city so utterly incompetent to deal with such an outbreak, or if not incompetent, then criminally negligent, in not making an earnest effort to enforce the law. The railroad riots of 1877, have by some been called an insurrection, for the reason that strikes occurred at nearly the same time on several of the main trunk lines of the country, that several Governors of States issued proclamations warning the rioters to disperse, &c., some of them calling on the President of the United States for troops to assist the civil authorities in dispersing the mobs and enforcing the law, and the large number of men engaged in these troubles in the different parts of the county. Insurrection is defined to be "a rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of law in a city or State; a rebellion; a revolt."
The railroad riots in Pennsylvania were not a rising against civil or political authority; in their origin were not intended by their movers as an open and active opposition to the execution of the law. Most of the riots were the result of the strikes by a portion of the railroad men, the strikes being intended to bring the railroad officers to a compromise with the strikers, of the differences between them. In some places the men merely proposed to quit work, and not interfere with the running of trains by any men the railroad authorities could get; in other places they would not allow other men to work in their places, nor railroad officials to send out freight trains, if in their power to prevent. It was in no case an uprising against the law as such, but a combination of men to assert an illegal right as between them and the railroad company. There was no organized movement throughout the country, no pre-arranged plan of the trainmen to prevent the running of freight trains by violence or combination, understanding or agreement between the men on any one railroad and the men on another. Each strike was independent of those on other roads, each having a local cause particularly its own. As before stated, there was a sort of an epidemic of strikes running through the laboring classes of the country, more particularly those in the employ of large corporations, caused by the great depression of business, which followed the panic of 1873, by means whereof many men were thrown out of work, and the wages of those who could get work were reduced to correspond with the reduction in the prices of all commodities and the reduced amount of business to be done. Each strike, except at Reading, although commenced originally by men then at work for a railroad or some other corporation, to carry out their own purposes, was soon joined by all the idlers and vagabonds in the vicinity, and these being by far the largest in number, soon took the movement out of the hands of the originators and carried it clear beyond anything they ever anticipated. The vagabonds having no object but plunder, and having no particular interest in anything else, were ready to resort to violent measures to accomplish their object.
The immediate cause of the strike at Pittsburgh was not similar to any other that has come to the knowledge of this committee, it being the order to run double-headers. No such cause existed anywhere else, and, therefore, the troubles there could not be considered as a part of any general understanding between trainmen. At Reading, the railroad men were not engaged in any strike, nor did they take any part in the riots there. The troubles there were caused solely by idle men, who had some time previously been discharged from the employ of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company, and for the purpose of venting their spite on the company. At Scranton, although there had been a strike of the railroad men, this had been adjusted, and the men were at work again, when the riots occurred, the riots being engaged in by the idle men and striking miners and mill men. If a riot, growing out of any of these isolated movements, is to be called an insurrection, or if these movements, altogether, are to rise to the dignity of an insurrection, then the word must be given a new definition, for as it now stands, there must have been some pre-concerted arrangement between the men at the different points, to resist the laws of the country, or the move at some point must have been for the purpose of resisting constituted authority, and not the mere purpose of forcing railroad companies, or any other corporations, to come to terms with the strikers, by obstructing the business of the railroad or other corporation. No pre-concerted arrangement of any kind has been proved before your committee, although such persons as might be supposed to know the fact, if it existed at all, were subpœnaed and testified before us, and all of them positively deny that there was any concert of action whatever, among the trainmen, for a strike after the 27th of June, and a local cause for the different strikes in Pennsylvania is given by them all. It has been asserted by many that no rioting or destruction of property would have taken place at Pittsburgh, if the troops had not been called out, and had not fired on the mob. The trifling with the mob, at this place, by the civil authorities, and the sympathy shown by the citizens, with the original strikers, had emboldened and encouraged it to such an extent, that when the Philadelphia troops arrived on the ground, it had, no doubt, got beyond the control of the civil power, as then constituted, and there can be no doubt of the necessity for the presence of those troops. Such mobs as that at the Twenty-eighth street crossing, on Saturday evening, July 21st, at the time the Philadelphia troops were marched out there, would never have dispersed without making serious trouble, troops or no troops.
How long it would take a mob to disperse and melt away of its own accord, which on Thursday numbered from fifty to two hundred men, on Friday from five hundred to fifteen hundred, and on Saturday from two thousand in the morning to seven or eight thousand in the afternoon, and which was growing all the time more turbulent and excited, we leave for the advocates of the do nothing policy to determine if they can. The firing on the mob by the troops, and the subsequent inaction precipitated and aggravated its action, but did not create the riots. When a great line of public travel and traffic like the Pennsylvania railroad is blockaded by a mob, the public interests suffer more than the railroad interests, and every day that it is allowed to continue, damages the community to the extent of thousands of dollars, and it was the duty of the local civil authorities to adopt the most vigorous measures to break the blockade, but if instead of doing this, they temporize with the mob until, in consequence thereof, it becomes too strong to be suppressed by them, and the troops of the State are called on for assistance, the latter cannot be said to have caused the riots, or held responsible for the consequences of an honest effort to enforce the law. If the rioting was caused by the calling out of the troops, and their subsequent actions, then the claim that that was an insurrection falls to the ground, and if there was an insurrection, then the troops cannot have been the cause of the rioting, as the two positions are inconsistent, although held and advocated by a number of prominent men.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
JOHN E. REYBURN,
Chairman.
E. D. YUTZY,
W. L. TORBERT,
Committee of the Senate.
W. M. LINDSEY,
Chairman Joint Committee.
D. C. LARRABEE,
A. F. ENGELBERT,
SAMU'L W. MEANS,
P. P. DEWEES,
Committee of the House.
Laid on the table.