Early in the proceedings, Judge Stowe served notice on the defense that he would not permit any line of argument or cross-examination tending to justify the killing of the Pinkertons. No matter who the invaders were or what their purpose, the court held, the killing was not justified. Mr. Erwin engaged in a tilt with the court over this ruling, citing the mode of procedure in the Critchlow case as precedent, but was summarily silenced.

The testimony offered by the prosecution differed little from that given against Critchlow. Pinkerton detectives identified Clifford and swore to having seen him in the forefront of the crowd that gathered to prevent the landing of the Pinkerton forces in the mill yard. Clifford was armed with a pistol, they said, and was active in building barricades and later in arranging the surrender. It was he that waved the white flag from the river bank and, in company with O'Donnell and others, guaranteed protection to the Pinkertons, if they would lay down their arms and come on shore. He had also aided in caring for the wounded and getting them off the barges.

George L. Johnson, a mill-worker, testified to having seen Clifford carry what appeared to him to be a powder canister in the direction of the brass cannon which was mounted in the gas house. Witness admitted that he had been employed by the Carnegie Company and had gone out on strike, but returned to work at his old job on July 5. He took no part in the fight with the Pinkertons, but was merely a spectator. This colloquy followed:

Mr. Brennen.—"You made no effort to stop it?"

"No, sir."

"You were there considerable time and did not attempt to spike the cannon?

"No, sir; I did not."

An objection to such cross-examination was raised by the prosecution and sustained by the court.

Mr. Erwin.—"Your honor, I think if this witness did not withdraw from the scene of the disturbance he too was a rioter and an accomplice, and as such his evidence would have to be corroborated?"

The Court.—"No, it would have been unhealthy for him to have interfered and the objection is overruled."