The Pullman boycott

by W. F. Burns

Mr. Wright: "Has that anything to do with the American Railway Union?"

Mr. Howard: "Yes, sir. If the government allows the railroads to violate the laws it ought to keep hands off in disputes between the roads and the men."

Rev. Mr. Cawardine was called and related what he knew about the matter. Mr. Cawardine is pastor of the M. E. church in Pullman. His testimony was directed chiefly to the exorbitant rents. In answer to Mr. Wright, saying that he had been charged with being an anarchist, and a socialist, Mr. Cawardine said: "I have considered the charge so contemptible in the bitterness and prejudice of its origin as to be beneath answer. That I, an American born citizen and the son of a soldier who died for his country, should be charged with being anarchist, seems to me incomprehensible. It is simply an evidence of what has been made very apparent that a good many people are violently prejudiced against working men and will not listen to what may be said on their side or read what may be written. I find this feeling even among many of my brethren in the ministry. I regret it too, because the labor problem can only be solved by a consideration of it from all sides."

Andrew W. Pearson, a real estate agent who formerly worked in Pullman, was called on the stand and in answer to a question put by Mr. Wright, said:

"Houses which rent for $17.00 in Pullman can be rented in Kensington and Roseland for $10.00. Pullman houses which rent for $25.00 can be rented elsewhere for $15.00, and $10.00 Pullman houses for $5.00. In Grand Crossing, a manufacturing town, $8.00 a month will rent a five-room brick cottage. The rents I am giving now are the present rents. There has been a decline since two years ago everywhere but in Pullman."

Commissioner Kernan: "How much higher are rents in Pullman than elsewhere?"

Mr. Pearson: "I should say fully one-third."

Frank P. McDonald, a locomotive engineer and author of the Great scab route circular, testified that he was a member of the American Railway Union and a delegate to their convention. He said he was opposed to the strike, but voted for it as it was the unanimous sentiment of his local union. His reason for opposing it was because he did not think the union was strong enough to win.

President Debs, of the American Railway Union, was the next important witness to testify. Mr. Debs outlined the trouble from its inception down to the special convention in Chicago on Aug. 2. In answer to questions by Commissioner Wright, Mr. Debs said he was 38 years old, a resident of Terre Haute, Ind., and had been president of the American Railway Union since June 20, 1893. He was a practical railroad man, had been employed four and a half years in the capacity of locomotive fireman and was at present editor of the Fireman's Magazine. Mr. Wright told him to go ahead and give a history of the late strike so far as he knew from his own experience.

Mr. Debs said: "In the early part of May, while at home in Indiana, I received a telegram from Mr. Howard notifying me of the probability of a strike at the Pullman shops, the employes of which were members of our union. I authorized Mr. Howard to take full charge of the matter, but to do all in his power to prevent a strike. My reason for this was that the American Railway Union had just been involved in a strike on the Great Northern railway. At a meeting of the general officers of the union we had discussed the possibility of other strikes arising on account of the victory the union had won on the Great Northern railway, and we decided that it would be good policy to be very cautious in encouraging the men to go into strikes whenever there was a possibility of avoiding them. May 11th, I heard that the Pullman employes had struck. A few days after, I came here and made a personal investigation of the trouble. After a trip to St. Paul I again went down there and the result of my investigation was that the conditions at Pullman justified the men in the course they had taken. I found that wages and expenses were so adjusted that every dollar the men made found its way back to Pullman coffers. The men were not only not getting enough wages to live on but were getting deeper and deeper in debt every day. They had not money enough as a rule to get away. There seemed to be no escape for them. Wages had been reduced, but expenses remained the same. After I had satisfied myself of the truth of the men's statements regarding their conditions, I made up my mind to do everything possible in law and justice to right the wrongs of our members who had gone out on strike. We first tried to get the company to arbitrate. We were confident that any fair and impartial board would decide in favor of the employes. The company, however, refused every proposition of that sort saying that it had nothing to arbitrate. I then suggested that the Pullman company select two men to act with two judges of the circuit court and a fifth person whom they should select to act as a board to investigate the question whether there was anything to arbitrate. This proposition was refused.