Q. Can you state of your own knowledge what classes of men composed the rioters during the burning. Whether the mob was composed of railroad employés or of others than those, and if of others, of what class?
A. That would be in part my personal knowledge, but I could not give an answer to that without confounding together my personal knowledge and matters of information. I will give the result, if you wish it.
Q. State it?
A. The first difficulties, which were brought on by the employés of the company taking possession of the engines and trains, were, so far as I could judge, or saw, exclusively by those who had been railroad employés up to that point. The action which Mr. Pitcairn took with reference to that when they took that possession I cannot state. Things went on, with a great crowd accumulating from that Thursday morning, and while I say, as a lawyer, that there was a riot and mob there from Thursday morning down until the firing began, with a crowd constantly accumulating, as it would on account of any disturbance that had occurred, yet there seemed to be a feeling that it was not that kind of a riot or mob that called for the interposition of a very vigorous public sentiment to put it down; but, when the military were brought for the purpose of regaining possession of the property, and the collision was actually brought on, I can say that the mob was made up of a great many other people than railroad employés. I did not see them, nor was actually among them so I could identify any of the railroad employés, or any persons outside, but from my knowledge of the immense crowd which was assembled at Twenty-eight street as I went in and out, there were undoubtedly a great many other than railroad employés about the scene of violence, and I have no doubt participating in it.
By Mr. Larrabee:
Q. You say that while the employés were in possession of the cars of the company, there seemed to be no such riot as required the intervention of public sentiment to put it down?
A. I did not intend to say that, but that while it was confined to railroad employés public sentiment did not seem to manifest itself as requiring any decided interposition to put that down. In other words, I am bound in candor to say, when asked for it, that public sentiment here very clearly distinguished between the act of breaking the law on the part of the employés in taking possession of the railroad property, and stopping commerce at this point, and the act of rioting and incendiarism which followed in consequence of that initial breaking of the law.
Q. That is, that public sentiment did not assert itself vigorously against the employés taking possession of the cars and engines prior to the actual outbreak and destruction of property?
A. That is what I mean.
Q. In other words, public sentiment sympathized with the rioters?