The Pullman boycott

by W. F. Burns

The situation at Hammond, Ind., would compare favorably with Chicago in so far as the wanton shooting of innocent citizens was concerned. The town had become infested with a gang of toughs from Chicago, who overturned a number of box cars and blocked the passage of trains. About noon of July 8th, the U. S. troops arrived, and their appearance attracted large crowds of citizens on the streets, in the vicinity of the railroad tracks. The troops who were ensconced in passenger cars were being hauled up and down the track, when a gang of toughs attempted to overturn a Pullman coach. The soldiers, who could easily have left the coaches and placed the lawbreakers under arrest opened fire, but strange to say these sharpshooters, under instructions to shoot to kill, did not wound even one of the lawless rioters. Not so, however, with the citizens who were walking along the street and had no connection whatever with the mob. Charles Fleischer, who lived near with his wife and five children, walked down the street in search of his little son, when without a moment's warning he fell to the ground a corpse pierced with a law and order bullet. This man had no connection whatever with the riot nor even with the strike.

Miss Flemming, of Chicago, who was visiting friends in Hammond was on the street when the shooting occurred and was seriously injured by a shot in the knee. Wm. Campbell, Victor Dizuttner and an unknown man were also shot and seriously injured by the regulars without the slightest provocation.

These people had no connection with the rioters, were citizens of Hammond, and not on railroad property.

Bullets crashed through frame walls, and I was told by a man whose head was grazed by a bullet while in his room, that nothing short of a miracle saved many persons from being shot down in their own dwellings.

Mayor Reily whose anger knew no bounds, after the killing rushed to the telegraph office and wired Governor Matthews, asking if martial law had been proclaimed. I should like to know, he said, by what authority the U. S. troops come to our city and shoot down our citizens without the slightest warning.

Immediately after the fatal occurrence, A. Shields and Dr. F. E. Bell, representing the citizens of Hammond, wired Governor Matthews the following message: "Federal troops shooting down citizens promiscuously and without provocation. Cannot something be done to protect citizens? Act quickly."

The governor replied that he had sent troops to restore order, enforce law, and protect lives of law abiding citizens. Lawlessness and rioting must be suppressed. Citizens obeying law had nothing to fear.

Was ever military despotism more thoroughly demonstrated? What further proof was necessary than the reply of the chief executive of the state, to the citizens, that they were at the mercy of, and subject to the arrogant brutality of military despotism? The governor in his reply said: "Citizens obeying law have nothing to fear, that lawlessness must be suppressed." According to that we can only arrive at one conclusion; that the persons overturning cars and destroying property were obeying the law, as they were not shot down nor were they arrested, but on the other hand peaceable citizens who were in no way connected with the rioting, were shot and maimed by the troops.

The people were beginning to regard the law with suspicion, they no longer felt that sense of security, the implicit confidence, they were wont to place in the constitution. The law of to-day, if the interests of the railroad corporations so required, would be reversed to-morrow. Under those circumstances could it be wondered that the people were beginning to lose the respect that had been accorded the law, and to which it was entitled? Could it be wondered that they became restless and exhibited signs of revolting against such damnable brutality, and the indignities to which they were subjected under the guise of the law?

Cleveland was now beginning to fear, that in his eagerness to assist the railroads in crushing the strikers he had overreached himself and the wanton murder of citizens, he feared, might have a damaging effect on his future political plans. His uneasiness was quite apparent, while on the other hand his co-conspirator, Olney, was in a happy state of mind. He claimed to be able with the anti-trust bill, to break up every labor union in America.