Q. Did they claim a right to stop trains—interfere with trains?
A. Of course, they didn't to me. They were men of too good sense. They denied having anything to do with it. It was always somebody else. As I said, they were there giving countenance.
Q. How did these people define a strike?
A. They said this was not a strike of the engineers. This was a strike of the firemen—the firemen and brakemen, I believe. They threw it on them. I thought things were settled, and they were going to work. I came up and said, "Boys, how is it, I thought you were going to work" They said they were going to have a meeting, and asked me to go with them. I said I would go. They said they were going to have it then. I went down to the meeting in the Odd Fellows' Hall, and went in with them, and was there, and they denied that it was them solely. They said the engineers had as much to do with it as they had—just the same—and that they were encouraging them. I stated to them, then, that I would do all I could to have their pay made right, but there was only one way to do it, that I could see, and that was to report themselves ready for work, and take their positions, and after the road was once running, and in order, then the citizens would see to it that their case was properly represented, and that they would be more likely to get their rights in that way than in any other.
By Senator Yutzy:
Q. At this time they had possession of the railroad property?
A. They disclaimed having possession of the property. They would not admit that fact. They appeared to understand that that was in violation of the law.
Q. Was that the fact?
A. This was the fact—there was no doubt of that. You could not get any of them to admit it, though.
Q. Did they understand that they had no right to interfere with the running of trains, or with any other employé who desired to work?