REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE THE Railroad Riots IN JULY, 1877.

The sub-committee met at three o'clock, at the orphan's court room, pursuant to adjournment. Mr. Reyburn in the chair. Present, Messrs. Reyburn, Torbert, Yutzy, and Englebert.

Q. Were you editor of the Leader at the time of the railroad strike in July last?

Q. Be kind enough to look at these papers during that time, and see if they are your——

Q. Take from the 19th of July on, and take the editorials—whether they were your articles?

Witness identifies editorial headed "Talk of the Desperate," July 20; also, editorial headed "No Violence." July 21; also, editorial headed "Fatal Rashness," July 22; also, editorial headed "Law and Order," second edition, July 23.

[Leader, July 20.]

The Talk of the Desperate.

"This may be the beginning of a great civil war in this country, between labor and capital, that is bound to come. It only needs that the strikers at Martinsburg, or here, or elsewhere, should boldly attack and rout the troops sent to quell them—and they could easily do it if they tried—to set the spark to the magazine, and the explosion would follow at once. The workingmen everywhere, and of all classes of trade, are in the fullest sympathy with the strikers, and only waiting to see whether they are in earnest enough to fight for their rights. They would all join and help them, the moment an actual conflict took place. Against such an uprising, what would capital have to oppose? The militia? Why, have not we seen how the militia at Martinsburg fraternized with the mob; how at Wheeling only thirty men responded to the Governor's call to arms; how Mr. Garrett, in his appeal to the President, acknowledges that the militia is in such full sympathy with the strikers that they were of no use at all? And do not we see, to-day, in the ridiculous response to the calls upon the Grays to turn out—a corporal's guard—that the militia is of no more use here? The Governor, with his proclamations, may call and call, but the laboring people, who mostly constitute the militia, will not take up arms to put down their brethren. Will capital, then, rely on the United States army? Pshaw! These ten or fifteen thousand men, available men, would be swept from our path like leaves in the whirlwind. The workingmen of this country can capture and hold it, if they will only stick together, and it looks as if they were going to, this time, sure."

"Of course, as you say, the capitalists…. Many of the unemployed would be glad to get work as soldiers or extra policemen. The farmers, too, might turn out to preserve your 'law and order.' But the working army would have the most men and the best men. The war might be bloody, but right would prevail. Men like Tom Scott, Frank Thomson, yes, and William Thaw, who have got rich out of the stock-holders of railroads, so they cannot pay honest labor living rates, we would hang to the nearest tree. Honest incorporate management would be enforced, and labor would demand and receive its fair share of the profits that are made by means of it."

"But even if the workingmen should fail—even if so-called law and order should beat them down in blood—why, that would be better than starving. We would, at least, have our revenge on the men who have coined our sweat and muscles into millions for themselves, while they think that dip is good enough butter for us, and do not care whether our families get a living or not. We would inflict more loss on them than the last ten per cent. reduction would net them gain in ten years, and if we died in this cause, we would only end lives of degradation and misery. Civilization! You say we should endanger civilization, if we succeeded in enforcing our demands by violence! Well, what has civilization done for us? Better the times of the Conestoga wagon, when everybody lived fat, than these railroad times, when labor goes around begging. Better than both, perhaps, the time when every man had his own farm, or lived by his brow; they had enough to eat then, and did not have to work so hard as we do now. What care we for civilization that is grinding us down, down, down to starvation and nakedness by one ten per cent. reduction after another, and one doubling up of crews after another, until the workingman shall be the white slave of his employer, and work for his board, if he gets even that."

It is well that the community should know something of the ideas that are circulating among the strikers and their friends at this time; the hates, and hopes, and aspirations, and half formed plans that animate the more impassioned leaders of them, and therefore we give the above, which is a faithful re-production of what a representative workingman said on the subject this morning. It will be seen, that he is really a communist, and there is no doubt that communistic ideas have widely spread, even among the most respectable, and most thoughtful classes of American workingmen. There is no gainsaying either, that the picture this man draws of the hardship which the present business depression has subjected labor to in many cases is not exaggerated, and it is true, that the sympathy of nearly the entire community, is with the railroad strikers in the present case, who are called to endure still another turn of the screw, which is cutting down their wages to the danger limit. Nor is it wonderful, that these men, contrasting their hard lives with the luxury and extravagance with which certain railroad men live, and the brutal disregard to their sufferings, which one of them is alleged to have shown, should be goaded to revengeful and bitter thoughts, and even desperate talk.

But when all these allowances are made, it still remains to be said, that threats of violence, of war, of communism, are worse than folly on the part of strikers or the workingmen general. Of one thing there is no doubt, and that is, that resort to violence will not accomplish its object. Widely spread as is the sympathy with the strikers, it is a fallacy to suppose that lawful force will not be found to put down unlawful force. There never yet was a case in this country, where mob violence triumphed in the end, however apparently righteous the cause in which it was invoked, and there never will be such a case, until the American people loses its strong instinct for the preservation, at all hazards, of the established law and order. The people will turn out and enforce the law, so soon as they really think that the law is in serious danger, and there will be no war, nor even a serious insurrection, but all will yield to the majesty of established authority. And then the violent will see that they have accomplished nothing, and that their vengeance has mainly re-acted upon themselves. It will be a long time, before, in this free country, the communists can achieve even such a temporary success, put down speedily as it was, in fire and blood, as the Paris communes of 1871.

We are glad, therefore, to see that these enthusiastic, extravagant, and bitter ideas are being met in the counsels of the workingmen themselves, with solid arguments for moderation, and the use of pacific means only. If the employés of the Pennsylvania railroad can prove, by simply abstaining from work, that the railroad cut down their wages too low, and cannot properly fill their places with other men, everybody will be very glad. If that would show that labor is worth more than was supposed, and the price of labor is the measure of the prosperity of the whole community. But if they attempt to force the railroad to accede to their demands, and prevent any person else from working, they will only make their friends everywhere sorry for them, and insure for themselves a certainty of discharge from their positions in the end.

[Leader, July 21.]

No Violence.

One point that the inbred lawlessness of southern blood had something to do with the greater recklessness of the strikers on the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, as compared with the conduct of the men in similar circumstances on northern roads, was dreadfully illustrated at Baltimore, yesterday. No sooner was the militia called out to go to Cumberland, than the street crowds assaulted them with stones; and no sooner were they thus assaulted than the militia opened fire with ball cartridge right into the midst of people, dealing destruction around. Contrast now the conduct of both parties here, where an equally determined strike is in progress. The strikers carefully protect the property of the different railroads that center here. In stopping the trains they merely "entreat" the engineers to step down and out, though of course the entreaty is equivalent to command. Everything is done decently and in order, and rumors about the burning of the round-house are baseless and apparently malevolent. All violence is discountenanced; even the communistic speeches of certain hot-heads, who have gone out to incite the men, have been coolly received, and the imputation that they are a mob in act of riot is indignantly denied. Towards the militia, the strikers preserve a dignified and manly attitude. They know that the soldiers had to turn out when ordered, and they entertain no hard feelings to any of them, except, possibly, toward one or two of the officers, whom they believe to have been officious about trying to get the Governor to order out their division. They mingle with the soldiers in perfect good humor, though without abating a jot of their determination. And this is not only the feeling among the strikers, but among all the people whom, though they almost universally sympathize with the strikers, admit that the soldier boys are but doing their duty, and never dream of making that unpleasant duty more difficult by assaulting them with stones. On the other hand, the soldiers are equally determined to get through this matter without shedding blood, if possible. They recognize in the strikers men whom, if they do take an attitude in opposition to authority, are, nevertheless, hard-working, honest, and well-meaning citizens, who only resort to their present procedure from what they conceive a desperate necessity. They are men who are anxious to work for a living, but see, as they have, that living taken away from them, and who are making a desperate effort to prevent the reduction, which they believe will make paupers of them. There is no doubt at all that the soldiers will endure insult, and even stone-throwing, before they will shed blood.

But we do not believe that either insult or violence will be offered them. The strikers will confine themselves to the exclusive and more effectual plan of a passive and what may be called distributive resistance. If a large body of troops are stationed here, trains will be allowed to go out, but will be stopped at some other point, at Altoona, or Philadelphia, or Harrisburg, where the soldiers are not. In this way they can and probably will carry on a warfare that will break no bones and shed no blood, but will yet be very difficult to subdue.

We are proud of both our workingmen and our soldiers that have thus far got along with no bloodshed, and with no casualty except one black eye and one swollen nose. We hope profoundly that the whole matter will be settled, one way or the other, without any more violence, and it will and can be, too, if our law-abiding people will sustain the reputation they have thus far merited.

[Leader, July 22.]

A Fatal Rashness.

A Philadelphia regiment which came here in the name of law and order has been swift to shed blood. Not two hours in our city, and before a hostile shot was fired at them, they have stained our hill-sides with the blood of ten or twelve men and children. Most of them were spectators, drawn by an unfortunate and innocent curiosity to their deaths. The wailing of women and children, the deep cursing of outraged men, and the outspoken indignation of an entire community, swell the chorus of condemnation against the officer or officers of the First regiment of Pennsylvania militia, who assumed the fearful responsibility of that hasty command to fire. We desire not to be unjust to the strangers. The strong current of public feeling should not prevent us from upholding them in their terrible deed, if the facts sustain them. Even now we will say that their side of the story may, perhaps, somewhat modify public opinion, when it is known. As appears elsewhere, the Leader tried to obtain their version of the affair officially, but in vain. Those officers who were seen going along the line striking up the rifles of their troops with their swords and otherwise endeavored to stop the effusion of blood, deserve as much credit as that officer who was seen waving his sword and encouraging the men to keep on with the butchery deserves censure.

But making all possible allowance for the Philadelphians, it does still appear that they acted rashly, importunately, deplorably. The crowd hissed them, but that was no reason for shooting. They hooted and jeered them, but all crowds do that, and true soldiers are not disquieted by such demonstrations. Men on the crossing caught hold of their bayonets, and half jocosely expostulated with the soldiers. That was reason for clearing a passage with a quiet forward movement with the bayonet, which would have been effective without hurting anybody. It was still no reason for firing—the hurling of a few stones from the hillside, which seems to have been the provocation that caused the massacre—but neither was that for men who came here to enforce order, it is true, but should have made up to endure much before shedding the blood of honest workingmen, who, even, if wrong were only misguided and had thus far conducted themselves with wonderful calmness and respect for order—neither was sufficient reason for beginning a fire of musketry upon the people, and change, what was before but a peaceful though earnest conflict between the railroad men and their employers, into a scene of battle, murder, and sudden death.

The railroad officials do not seem to be responsible for the massacre. They appear to have evoked a power that they could not control, and so dazed and shocked at the consequences. Mr. Pitcairn's expression, "God only knows what will come of it," well shows this. Mr. Thaw, early in the day, expresses himself as willing and anxious that anything, everything, should be yielded up to the men rather than that blood should be shed. But it was too late. The collision was then inevitable, and it came.

What the end will be cannot now be known. At this writing the air is filled with rumors of fire and war. The troops of the State are concentrating here from all sides to the support of the Philadelphians, now cooped up, apparently terror-stricken, in the fire-threatened railroad round-house, and surrounded by an ever-increasing mass of armed citizens. It is possible that further bloodshed may be averted. The very free vent given to the excitement to-night, in arming and marching about with banners and guns may explain it, and give time for sober second thought to assert itself. The reasonable speeches at the Southside meeting, show that the best spirits among our workingmen are laboring to prevent riot and disorder. Time works for peace. But it is useless to disguise that the situation is very grave and growing graver, and that the men who were swift to shed blood will have the heaviest responsibility to answer for.

[Leader, July 23.]

Law and Order.

The citizens of Pittsburgh are rising to-day to defend themselves from the threatened revolt against law and property. This is a ringing answer to the tones that already come from other cities, that Pittsburgh is honored in the manhood and public spirit to put down mob law. The people are responding to the mayor's call by thousands. Let not enlistments slacken, however. Now is the time to display such a force that resistance will be seen to be in vain, and effusion of blood prevented. We are proud to say that the Nineteenth and Fourteenth regiments of militia are redeeming themselves from the fault that they committed on Saturday, and are now mustering strength and will. By night this issuing would be and will be decided, and we hope by Harrisburg and Allegheny efforts alone.

Q. Who was your reporter that reported the occurrences of the riot during Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday?

A. Well, we have a corps of about five or six regular men, and during these three or four days, we employed a great many others. We gave page after page of matter about, and it would not have been possible for one or two or three or four to get it up. I can give you the names of a number of them. The man whom we had stationed close to the round-house during Saturday night, was named Mr. George Vickers. He is now, I think, on the Philadelphia Times. Mr. John Haslet and Mr. William Clark, and a number of others. Mr. Henry Myer was assisting us some.

Q. Will you please examine this article, and say whether you are author of it. [Indicating article of July 20, headed "Let them Go."]

To the workingmen of Pittsburgh: In the name of the whole people of Pittsburgh we make an appeal for peace. There has been bloodshed enough—far more than enough. The workingmen have triumphed over the soldiers who rashly opened fire upon them, and there is now nothing more to fight for. Now is the time to show they deserve victory by proving themselves good citizens, refusing to prolong a slaughter that is a mere useless butchery. The Philadelphia militia, however rash, however boastful, are yet men who thought they were obeying the call of duty. There were undoubtedly roughs among their number, who gave an evil character to the regiment; but there are many good men among them, who simply obeyed orders; even when they fired their pieces they obeyed orders. Now that their point has been gained, we beseech our people not to sully their victory with the further shooting down of these men, who only seek to escape. To continue to hunt them down in their retreat on the north side, whither it is said they have gone, is to stain the green fields of our suburbs this bright Sunday morning with useless effusion of blood. To do this would only be to cause a revulsion of feeling, and the sympathy which to this point has been altogether with the strikers and their friends, and we confidentially appeal to them, that having gained everything they fought for, they now exert themselves as nobly to prevent excited outsiders from taking advantage of their triumph to shoot men, when they only want to get away.

Since writing the above it appears that the bulk of Philadelphia have got away from Sharpsburg, and are scattered in clouds through the hills. It is believed that they will now escape in safety, though it is possible that some of them may be yet followed up and shot down. It is a matter of thankfulness that they have escaped, the victory is complete, and that a great final massacre has been avoided. Let us now decently and solemnly mourn our dead, and mourn in calmness and order.

A. I have no special knowledge, no, sir, except what common rumor, and what was published about the matter. It originated out of the organization of the Trainmen's Union, precipitated in Maryland, and the particular special cause here, as I understood it, was the double-header grievance on the Pennsylvania railroad.

Q. Have you any knowledge as to the necessity of calling the military to this place?

Q. Yes; I mean the military. I will say in explanation that in our resolution we are required to inquire into the necessity of calling out, and the conduct of the troops; and as a public man you would be apt to know, and able to give an expression of opinion that would be of value?

Q. That judgment could be expressed as a citizen, and would be formed from facts, I suppose, coming to your knowledge?

A. It seemed to me at the time that the military need not have been called so soon. I was under the impression at the time, strongly, that the mayor, with policemen, might have quieted the trouble—and, perhaps, would have done so if the military had not been brought so promptly on the scene—and it seemed to me, also, that bringing Philadelphia troops from a city that Pittsburgh has always felt a kind of rivalry toward, was calculated, perhaps, to inflame feeling here rather than to allay it. I remember there were rumors that Saturday evening—whether authenticated or not, I do not know—that the Philadelphia men had said that Pittsburgh troops had failed here, and they would clean out the rioters. I don't know whether they said it or not; but if they did not say it, it shows just as well the feeling of jealousy with which their presence was regarded, and they asserted that feeling during that whole Saturday night, that in attacking those Philadelphia troops they were cleaning out Philadelphia men. They had come here to interfere in what might have been settled by local authorities, and from that point of view it seemed to me injudicious.

Q. Do you believe that the local authorities could have preserved order, and finally quieted the strike, without any loss of property?

A. I believe that they could have preserved order until the Governor would return, and I think that his presence would have prevented any outbreak. The fact that the Governor's proclamation calling out troops was gravely doubted here—everybody knew he was out of the State a long distance—had, perhaps, a good deal to do with the disorderly feeling. I do not believe that the local authorities could have eventually put down the riot; but I think they could have preserved order here, and kept things in tolerable order until the Governor himself had arrived here. I think if Governor Hartranft had been here on that evening, the collision could have been avoided.

Q. I see, in this editorial you speak of, the "sympathy being with the strikers and their friends?"

A. There is no doubt that the sympathy of the people here was strongly with the strikers, before any act of violence was committed.

A. Yes, sir; and the idea spread, after the collision had taken place, that it was all owing to reckless firing, without orders, which kept the sympathy with the strikers until the actual destruction of property commenced.

Q. In your opinion, was the sympathy of the citizens, and people generally here in the city, with the strikers when they made the assault on the troops in the round-house and driving them out of the city?

A. No, sir; I don't think that. I think the mass of our citizens then were not expressing sympathy with anybody—just paralyzed.

Q. Here is one expression: "The workingmen have triumphed over the soldiers, who rashly opened fire upon them, and there is now nothing more to fight for." Did the people, in your opinion, justify these men, called workingmen, in driving out the troops and triumphing over them?

A. I don't think they did. No, sir; that is not the spirit of that article, either, which is an appeal for the cessation of any further hostilities. At that time, of course, it was said that it was the workingmen entirely that was fighting—the railroad men—and they were in sympathy with them, the railroad strikers and their friends.

Q. There is another sentence: "Now is the time to show they deserve victory, by proving themselves good citizens, and refusing to prolong a slaughter that is mere useless butchery."

A. That is to show that they had deserved the victory they had got, by not using it any further.

Q. The expression is not used to justify them so much as to allay further bloodshed?

A. Yes; that is the whole spirit of it. When that article was written, it was supposed that General Brinton's troops were fleeing out into the country. A large mob was pursuing them, shooting them down in every direction, and nobody knew where the pursuit had stopped, perhaps not until they were all exterminated. We could not get at their side of the story, but it was supposed that they were even more demoralized than perhaps they were. That article was written for the express purpose of trying to stop pursuit, to try to allay the excitement.

Q. You had no intention of contributing any to the excitement by any inflammatory article?

Q. Did you have any reporter with the troops as they retired from the round-house and went out Penn street?

A. We had no reporter at any time with the troops. You could not get any man to them. We had a reporter right in sight of the round-house. He saw the retreat, and followed out some distance towards Lawrenceville—towards the arsenal. That was Mr. George Vickers, the man I spoke of before. I, myself, was out there early in the morning, to look at the situation at the round-house. There was still some firing then.

Q. Did you indicate all the editorials you wrote during the riot on that subject in these papers?

A. That is a copy of the extra. The regular edition—I couldn't get a copy for the file. It ran out early in the day. That has all that pertains to the riot in it.

Q. Is this article written by you? [Indicating extra, July 22, article headed "First Blood."]

A. My impression is that it was; but it was made up in detail at different times and by different parties.

A. It is a local introduction. The only editorial that was in the paper during the riot is in that issue of the paper for the following Sunday, July 29—that is the only editorial that was in the paper.

Bitter Denunciations of Sheriff Fife, General Pearson, and the Pennsylvania Railroad Authorities.

The Fourteenth and Nineteenth Regiments Disbanded and Refuse to Fight, and Many Give their Arms to the Strikers.

The Philadelphia Troops Penned in the Round-House and Surrounded by 20,000 Strikers.

Now that the strikers' contest has reached its crisis, and the military and civil are powerless to preserve order, and the blood of innocent men and children, shot down by Philadelphia roughs, cries aloud for atonement, it may not be amiss to place the responsibility for this awful condition of things where it belongs. The strikers have manifested, all along, an unwonted forbearance. There was no overt act of violence. The civil process had not been legally exhausted or properly invoked, and Sheriff Fife's misstatements and lying bulletins, and General Pearson's indiscreet bravado, only added fuel to what was already an overmastering flame. In a city where nearly every man is a worker, and where the mercantile community was bitterly hostile to an odious corporation, which had ground its life blood out by discrimination, the folly of bringing a few thousand Philadelphia troops to overawe the one hundred thousand workingmen of the city ought to have been apparent to the dullest observer. The little junta of railroad officials who wrote out the Governor's proclamation at the Union Depot hotel, and their indiscreet buncombe in disregarding Mr. Thaw's advice and cultivating an unnecessary issue with the strikers, and the culminating bloody blunder, which sent thirteen innocent victims to their graves, all show how such martinets as Cassatt, Scott, Gardiner, &c., fail to comprehend the situation. With bands of five and ten thousand men patrolling the streets, the rumors and gun-works sacked, the booming of cannon, and the sharp crack of the strikers' muskets in front of the city hall, the threats of vengeance against the military and the railroad authorities, and the murder of the innocents, all this is directly attributable to the blunder of the sheriff and the indiscreet bluster of the military and railroad authorities, who imagined, because they had a few troops at their back, that they could defy the lightning. The feeling against the Philadelphia soldiery, which seemed to have acted with unseemly precipitancy, was very bitter, and threats were made that they will not be allowed to go home alive. Every law-abiding citizen must deplore extremes, but in a contest like the present, so long as labor, without violence, merely asserted its right to live, it was entitled to the sympathy of every worker in the hive of human industry, and the cowardice and imbecility of the railroad sharks, who sought to overawe all this community by imported bummers, met its proper rebuke. Contrast, in all this crisis, between the mock heroics of the Pennsylvania railroad squad, with its plotting and counter-plotting, and the clear-headed attitude of the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, who wisely remained passive until the storm spent itself, shows the difference between the statesmanship of Garrett and the poppy-cock of Scott. As the case stands, every one of the military should be arrested and tried for murder, and their abettors taught a lesson not likely to be soon forgotten.

Q. What reason had you for saying that "seventeen citizens shot in cold blood by the roughs of Philadelphia?"

A. From the information that they fired on the populace without orders, and without justification, so far as the information went at that time—it was received to that effect—that they had not fired on the mob, who were in front of them obstructing the track, but fired on the unarmed populace on the hill side.

A. That was the expression used, that parties fired on the people without orders, and acting as roughs—firing recklessly, and without orders, and on people who were not firing on them.

Q. Did your information at that time lead you to suppose that there had been no attack made by the mob?

Q. Were you on the ground where the firing took place, on Twenty-eight street, at the time?

A. No, sir; at no time on the ground. I had a reporter sent to Torrens station early in the evening. The idea at that time was that that would be the vital point; there was where the trouble was going to be. Colonel Guthrie was there with the Grays, and it was supposed to be the real point. It turned out afterwards that the trouble was down at the round-house. I got my information from sundry sources.

A. No, sir; I had no reporter, but I had parties who were out there and gave me information that was supposed to be intelligent. At the time, they thought that the trouble would be at Torrens station, and I sent parties there, and there was no trouble there. There was no news from that point. The reporter was detained there until very late in the night.

Q. This heading here of threats that the Philadelphia soldiers will not be allowed to go home alive—where did you get that information from—that there was such threats?

A. Oh, yes. I couldn't say. I must have met a thousand people. The streets were blocked with people. I couldn't name anybody specifically.

A. No; I say I must have met a thousand people on the street—not a thousand making threats.

Q. Here is another expression: "The Fourteenth and Nineteenth regiments disband, and refuse to fight, and many give their arms to the strikers." Was that the case?

A. I think it was pretty well ascertained afterwards that a portion of the military threw down their arms. I think that was developed afterwards.

Q. In this article, you say that there was no overt act of violence. What do you mean by that?

A. There was no overt act of violence committed by the mob at the time it was written. I didn't consider that an overt act of violence to be standing on the railroad track—that refers to a physical effort.

Q. Do you mean, that the mob had a right to stand on the railroad track and take possession of the railroad track, and refuse to allow traffic?

A. No, sir; it was written from this standpoint: that the military, instead of removing the mob who were in front of them, and who were obstructing traffic, fired on the populace on the hill side who were unarmed and spectators, and were not parties to the conflict.

Q. I suppose you mean that there were no demonstrations to destroy either life or property?

Q. Had you gone to any trouble to ascertain the truth of the facts as they really occurred before the fire by the mob, before you wrote this article?

A. We sent reporters to the point where we supposed the trouble would be, and when we couldn't get reporters, I got other parties to go to the point, and got them to report the facts—used every proper effort to get at the truth of the matter. It was a hard matter to get reporters that night, it being Saturday night, and the daily reporters being all off and at home, it was very difficult to get them. I had to improvise by getting parties outside to give the news, the best way I could—outside of the regular reporters.

Q. When you wrote this article, you were fully of the opinion and believed that the mob had not shown any violence towards the troops?

A. No; the reporters didn't report until long after midnight. I got that information on the street. Some of the reporters sent out, found it difficult to get back at all in consequence of obstructions to travel—street cars stopped, and difficulty in getting in.

Q. You say here, the civil process had not been legally exhausted or properly invoked. "Sheriff Fife's misstatements and lying bulletins, and General Pearson's indiscreet bravado, only added to the fuel to what was already an overmastering flame." What do you mean by that—the civil process had not been exhausted?

A. I understood information was made before the mayor first, and that instead of the parties being arrested, that arrangements were being made for the arrest of the leaders of the riot peacefully and without bloodshed, and by that means the backbone of the outbreak would have been broken. Instead of that, the warrants were taken up to court, and bench-warrants were given, and then they attempted to arrest them by the aid of the military, and the military failed. So far as regards Fife, the information was at that time that he had not exhausted his process. Had not called a posse comitatus, and hadn't taken sufficient number to go out there and indite a proclamation such as he had indicted, or such as was written for him. My information was, that it was written by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company officials.

Q. What information led you to believe that this proclamation had been written by the Pennsylvania railroad officials?

A. I heard it in a number of instances—I cannot exactly recall from whom—that the telegram had been written by somebody for the sheriff. It came in the usual course of news. I forget now from whom, and I think it was repeated in most of the papers at the time. The impression was that the sheriff had not exhausted his powers before calling on the military, and that the matter had been taken out of the hands of the mayor, and given into the hands of the military with undue precipitancy.

Q. Do you know that the mayor had been called upon to furnish a police force, for the protection of the railroad?

A. Yes; that was the information. I know that the police force was depleted to at least one third of its original force, and it was very difficult to get policemen to go in for a day, or a few hours, at the risk of being shot or killed for one day's pay. There was great reluctance on the part of policemen to go in on that plea.

Q. You say "the little junta of railroad officials, who wrote out the Governor's proclamation, at the Union Depot hotel." What reason had you for writing that? Had you any reason to suppose, or did you know that this proclamation had been written by the railroad officials?

A. I didn't see them write it; but the information was, at that time, that the proclamation was written in the Union depot. It turned out afterwards, it was written by the Governor's private secretary, Mr. Farr, I believe. That was not the information at that time. It was known, however, that it was not the Governor's proclamation, and it was the common opinion that it was written by Pennsylvania railroad officials.

A. Yes; in the excitement of the time, it was very difficult to get accurate information. Officials couldn't be found at their positions, and it was very difficult to get people to go—had to take it just as you could.

Q. Is it not characteristic of newspaper men to gather up all the information that they can, even if it is flying reports on the street, and give as near the truth of the matter as you can? Is that not characteristic of newspaper men?

Q. You don't mean to say that newspaper men—an editor—will sit down and write an article on nothing but common street rumor, without taking proper steps to verify these facts, and see whether what they allege is true?

A. You cannot judicially prove everything before it goes in a newspaper, and the sources of information were stopped. It was impossible to see any railroad officials—most of them had left town.

Q. Was not Mr. Cassatt and other railroad officials at the Union depot through Saturday afternoon and evening?

A. I don't know whether he was there. You speak about street information when that information coincides and comes from many quarters and many sources, it was reasonably something to pass upon.

Q. I believe you have identified this paper, and this editorial, entitled "Military Mob?" Did you write that?

Q. Mr. Breen, in your opinion, was the sympathy of the citizens of Pittsburgh with the strikers, when they first struck and quit work?

A. Yes, sir; very emphatically; both on the part of the business community and the other portion.

Q. Do you know of any business men in the city of Pittsburgh that made any proposition to the strikers in the way of support, furnishing them provisions, or taking care of them while they were not employed on the road?

A. There was some talk of that kind at the time, that Mr. Jenkins and Mr. King had proposed to furnish something or other.

Q. I don't wish to be personal in this matter; I just wish to know of any parties that proposed to these strikers to give them support?

A. I know as in the case of this other knowledge, that it could not be judicially proved at that time as a fact, but it was common rumor and talk that certain gentlemen had proposed to give provisions to aid the strikers.

Q. But it was common rumor that the citizens of Pittsburgh were in sympathy with the strikers?

Q. You don't know, then, any particular man or Pittsburgh parties who offered aid and comfort?

A. No, sir; I heard parties' names mentioned, but as they afterwards disclaimed it, I suppose there was nothing in it.

A. Double-headers, and the issue between the Trainmen's Union and the Pennsylvania railroad. That was the primary cause, as I understood it.

Q. These parties that reported to you information from which this article was written, were they railroad men or were they citizens of Pittsburgh?

A. I couldn't exactly classify them. I think they represented all classes. I think the entire sympathy of the community, mercantile and otherwise, was with the strikers up to the time of news of violence.

Q. During the destruction of railroad property, was there any demonstration on the part of the citizens to subdue this riot, or did they begin to realize their situation after it came to the destruction of individual property?

A. I think they sympathized fully with the strikers up to the point of burning and pillaging, and after that began there was a re-action in public sentiment.

Q. Was that so far as the railroad company was concerned, or had they come down to private property?

Q. Just what I want to know is this: Did the citizens of Pittsburgh think that the strikers were doing right, as long as they were destroying railroad property?

A. Well, I don't think they thought that exactly, but they didn't make any attempt to stay the conflagration or the fire.

A. Then, I think, even before there was an effort made to get up a citizen's committee, and I think it was a failure; and I think only four responded to go out and assist in that.

A. Then, of course, there were more active efforts made by the authorities, and by parties living in the neighborhood.

Q. And then, if a fire was in the Sixth ward, the people of the Sixth ward or the Eighth or the Tenth or the Twentieth ward, or wherever it was, they would want to stop it, but the adjoining ward did not appear to take any part?

A. The fire was at Grant and Washington street, immediately in the neighborhood of the depot, and, of course, they used every effort possible, but I do not know, outside of the official departments, that anybody from any other quarter of the city was endeavoring to quell it—the firemen and police department, of course, were there, so far as I can learn, but they were comparatively powerless, on account of the size of the mob, and the area of territory they covered. I wish to make a remark here concerning the expression, "shooting down innocent citizens." That remark was intended to apply, and does apply, from reading the context, to parties on the hill side who were mere spectators, and not active rioters in any sense. If the military had cleared the track, and used proper force in clearing the track, I think they would have been justified, but they didn't even shoot the mob in front of them. They didn't fire into that crowd, but fired into an innocent crowd on the hill side, some of whom were in no sense rioters, and some of whom lived on the hill side. There was a small boy next door to me, was fired at and shot in his lung, who was taking some clothes to his brother, who was in the Fourteenth regiment; a boy about ten years of age, and he was nearly dead for several months. He finally got over it. This class of people here referred to, who were shot at on the hill side, were not rioters or participants in the riot.

A. The information at that time, and, I think, the testimony since, showed that they were fired at an angle with the hillside. The hill ran up there rather abruptly, and the volley took effect there where these people were looking down. I remember a few hours before that, parties had said that would be a good place to see the trouble. The appraiser of the port, here, Mr. Chandler, sent his boy there, that day, and says, "Don't you go down on the track, but go on the hillside; you will be out of harm's way." It turned out afterwards that was the very place to be in harm's way.

Q. You speak about trouble. What trouble was there anticipated? Was it anticipated that the mob on the railroad tracks would resist the military, and bring on a collision?

A. There was certain trouble anticipated—there was a conflict anticipated of some kind. Either the mob or the soldiers would have to give way, and it was not known which. Trouble was apprehended.

Q. Was there trouble talked of—rumors in the street that there would be a resistance to the soldiers?

A. No, sir; I didn't think there was any talk of resistance. There was talk of trouble. The rioters seemed to be taking the ground that they had a right to stop there, so long as they did not interfere with the trains, and the military undertook to clear the track; and do not think if the military had cleared the mob who had actively obstructed them, that the trouble would not have been so great as it was. Firing into these people who were on the hillside, and not participating in the riot, I think, considerably aggravated the trouble, from my observation.

Q. Do you know that the mob did not fire—that, at least, the soldiers did not fire on the mob in front of them?

A. That was the information, and I believe that was the fact, that they fired on the hill-side, and not on the strikers.

A. I think there is a list there that was tolerably accurate at the time. I cannot vouch for its absolute accuracy. You refer to the number killed on the hill-side?

A. I could not tell that. This boy, there mentioned, was shot on the hill-side, and I heard of a number of others. I cannot exactly re-call them. That list merely embraces the total number.

Q. Were these editorials, with the head-lines, intended to mollify and quiet the mob?

A. They were intended to represent the exact condition of affairs as we understood it at that time.

A. It is an exact reflex of the condition of affairs at the time. In the articles below, and in different other parts of the paper, any resort to physical violence was deprecated, further than the act of striking.

Q. In your estimation, did your editorial give a representation of the general sentiment of the citizens here as a reflex of the sentiment of the people?

A. My knowledge of the occurrences is confined first to the strike and calling out of the military. I was there on the Thursday, Friday, and part of Saturday preceding this bloodshed. I was then called away upon business to Buffalo, and all that I know of the strike reporters brought of the suspension of work of the railroad hands, and I saw a crowd collected around the tracks. I was on the ground on Friday night. I also noticed in some degree manifestations of public feeling in regard to the strike and calling out of the troops. That came from personal knowledge. The entire knowledge I had was derived from reports.

Q. There is an editorial in your issue of the 21st July, entitled "Fruits of a Hasty Step." Did you write that article?

There was a general feeling in the community yesterday that the sudden and unlooked for ordering out of the troops to adjust the railroad difficulty was not the wisest course that might have been pursued. The actions of the strikers, while in some instances reprehensible, could scarcely be held by any construction to amount to a continuous riot, as there was only one case of violence, (in which the offender, McCall, was promptly arrested by the police,) and while there was a very general trespassing upon the company's road, there was certainly no destruction of property. It was hoped that with a cooling night intervening to both the officers and the men calmly thinking the situation over, an amicable arrangement might be effected, and the inconvenience to the public ended; but the precipitate calling for troops dispelled that possibility, and made the affair assume a really very serious aspect.

One point that must have been lost sight of by the sheriff in his excitement (and perhaps by the company's representatives too) was, that the engineers and firemen, while not themselves striking, were naturally in sympathy with their late associates, and that the stoppage of the trains was done rather upon solicitation than compulsion.

But the question arises whether, conceding there was a riot within the legal acceptation of the term, the usual remedies were exhausted before calling for troops. So far as appears, a small squad of the mayor's police was sufficient to quell the only fight that occurred. It was then supposed that peace was reigning, until sometime after midnight, when Sheriff Fife addressed a party of the strikers advising them to go home, and when a more irreverent person in the crowd replied that he (the mayor) might migrate to a hot climate. This simple circumstance seems to have been the last straw. It was, of course, a very wrong remark to the sheriff who (without waiting, so far as is evidenced, to summon a posse comitatus) hastened off to the telegraph office and apprised the Governor, at lightning speed, that the red planet of war had risen on the banks of the Allegheny. And then flashed back telegrams to the major general in local command, and the major general emitted general order number one, (it must have scared the readers of yesterday morning's Dispatch as it burst upon them with double-leaded significance from our advertising columns,) and troops were hurried out of bed, and amid a great rushing to and fro in hot haste, and sleepy eyes looked sad farewells to other eyes that winked, and mouths that yawned again, the regiments were put in marching order for the battle-field which lay from the Union depot along Snyder's hollow to the East Liberty stock-yards.

There was a sort of general feeling through the community yesterday that there was a good deal of farce about this, that so solemn a matter as calling out the military, spreading broad-cast over the continent the notion that Pittsburgh was on the verge of a civil war, ought not to have been resolved upon before at least all the ordinary police resources were exhausted. It also had the effect of creating an active sympathy for the strikers with many, who before had none. And besides, it incensed the men themselves, made them less open to argument and persuasion, and in so far as it did this, it tended to prolong the strike, and consequently disturb the business interests of the city; and worse yet, it drew hundreds of angry outsiders to the scene and mixed them in the controversy. We do not believe, as some are inclined to fear, that this affair will—ill-advised though it may have been—will occasion a general bitter feeling between labor and capital. The best proof is to be found in the expressions upon the street yesterday, which were not those of labor against capital or capital against labor; but almost unanimously, one of mortification at the eagerness and haste with which the solemn and expensive course of proclaiming a community in a state of insurrection was decided upon. It was hoped all around that the difference between the railroads and the hands would adjust itself inside of forty-eight hours at the furthest, if left to take its course; when or how it will be settled now remains to be seen; but at the best, there will be bitter feeling, and it is to be feared acts from time to time that under moral suasion and under peaceful treatment would not have been thought of. Two hours of calm, candid talk and fair treatment between the officers of the roads and the employés would have done more toward a permanent pacification than a regiment of military. Who would answer for the consequences, supposing that on the head of the hasty turn out of the military blood had been shed yesterday? The law is great and its majesty powerful when administered with cautious solemnity and decorum, but never should it be stripped of its grave and most serious surroundings. To abate one jot or one tittle of them, is to inflame the passions of the multitude, and make them to forget their paramount duty of obedience to the law, and to precipitate the very evils sought to be avoided. It is scarcely necessary to add to aught which has been written, that on the question of the attitude of the strikers or violence by them or obstruction thrown by them in the way of the company, there can be no two opinions among calm people. Yesterday we said, as we believed firmly and as gathered from their conversations, the reasons that led them to quit work. For quitting work, they are certainly not censurable; in fact, considering the lowness of their wages, if by this method alone they could improve their condition, sympathy would attend their effort; but, of course, they have no right to violently interfere with the roads, if the roads can get other men to fill their places. On this point, no two intelligent and unheated persons think of disputing. There is, however, as explained by them, a considerable difference of opinion between the community and the authorities as to the wisdom of trying to knock this principle into the heads of the strikers with the butt end of a gun, instead of exhausting first peaceful methods. Brute force is bad all around, and even threats of it are not always the best or quickest remedy for evils.

A. I have no personal knowledge. I had, however, some knowledge of the causes which had been gathered for some months before, and which were familiar in people's mouths about the time—the reduction of wages and the bitter feeling that existed between the employés and officers of the roads. I heard of these things as leading to the strikes. I was very familiar with the reports that Tradesmen's Unions had been formed for the purpose of carrying them out.

A. I obtained it by personal information—partly among railroad men, partly among citizens, and from our reporters.

Q. Did you have any knowledge leading you to suppose that this strike would take place before the 19th?

A. No; the strike had taken place before my attention was directed to it. Of course the information had come from other sections of the country that it had already taken place there.

Q. From your knowledge and information, was there any necessity for calling out the troops?

A. Not the slightest, sir, according to the best of my judgment and belief, at the time they were called.

Q. You mean by that that the civil authorities were able to cope with the mob, or with the strikers?

A. I think the civil authorities could have successfully coped with any disorder if it had not been for the introduction of the troops and their want of discipline. I think that the troops helped more than any other cause, so far as my judgment has been able to reach. Their want of discipline, their want of coolness, and subsequently their demoralization, running away, was the prime cause which led the mob, and brought out the bad elements in it, and gave them to suppose they were masters of the field.

Q. You mean to say that there was a demonstration of that kind before the Philadelphia troops arrived?

A. There was a demonstration to the extent of numbers of citizens assembling at the different points along the road, drawn by curiosity. The first demonstration I saw, was a demonstration of people who went out of curiosity to see the troops.

A. Pittsburgh, yes, sir. So far as I could see, there was no disposition to violence, in any shape, manner or form, at that time.

Q. After the arrival of the Philadelphia troops, did it excite the people of the city of Pittsburgh or the mob, to more violence than before they arrived?

A. There had been no act of violence, to my knowledge, in the sense of physical violence. There was no violence, save in so far as the presence of these men as trespassers might be considered violence, and the action of the strikers in their dealings with the engineers towards stopping the cars, so far as that might be considered violence. I do not speak of that. But there was no violence up to Saturday morning, that I heard of, save in the case of the assault upon the railroad officer at the time, which seemed to be an assault and battery, and the party, I think, was arrested, and brought to the station-house.

Q. After the arrival of the Philadelphia troops, was it then demonstrated that the citizens of Pittsburgh or the mob, was determined to clean out the Philadelphia troops?

A. I was not in the city after the conflict occurred, but suppose that of course. I could only judge as you judge, from what you read, that the shedding of blood aroused the feeling of animosity, and as to the feeling among the citizens, I do not think there was any disposition among the citizens of Pittsburgh, to the encouragement of arson or bloodshed—that is, among the respectable and larger portion of the community. After the militia, which was supposed to be able to take charge of the situation had fled, then I have no doubt that the mob took control.

A. Not the slightest. The troops arrived here the morning I left. I had arranged for a trip to New York, and I went to Buffalo, and the troops had arrived, and there was a bitter feeling among the people in regard to calling out the Philadelphia troops. There had been mention of that feeling about calling out the Pittsburgh troops, and a great many people thought it was unnecessary, as the civil authorities had been able to cope with disorder for ten years, and would be able to do it on this occasion, and I think the people thought the military force was being used as a police force for the railroad. I think they felt aggravated about it; but there was no evidence of disposition to resist, or tendency towards bloodshed, so far as my observation went, or so far as any reports we heard would lead me to believe.

Q. Will you be kind enough to state any information that you have in regard to the causes leading to the riot?

A. I have none to give of personal knowledge. I was not out of the office that day from three o'clock until the next morning or the next day at one or two. I only know it from reporters that had been out at the scene of the difficulty. I only know it from hearsay, and I do not suppose that is evidence. I am prepared to answer to the queries in regard to the paper. There is an editorial in there. I desire to state that that is mine.

Even at the moment of this writing, it is not difficult to perceive that a fearful blunder has been committed by the Governor and his ill-timed military advisers. It is impossible for us to conceive that the action of the railroad strikers, taking the worst view of either side of the case, justified the calling out of the military.

Time should have been allowed for a respectful parley between parties; time for the railroad company to properly consider the grievances complained of in the respectful petition of the strikers, and time for the railroad employés to act in response. There is tyranny in this country worse than anything ever known in Russia, and it is time we should get at the gist of it.

Strikes are common occurrences, but it appears that it is only when the "great monopoly," the hated company, which discriminates against the interests of Pittsburgh and western Pennsylvania, is subjected to one of these strikes, that the military are ordered out, and that, too, without a moment's consideration, us though the Pennsylvania railroad was more important than the peace and order and the lives of half the citizens of this State.

There is no use disguising the matter. The people of this city sympathize with the strikers. They are incensed beyond measure, with the cold, corrupt legislation which has fostered the colder and more corrupt organization known as the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. But we cannot disguise the legal technicalities which appear to brace up that company as against the people. All that we say and care to know is, that a fearful blunder was made by the constituted authorities, who from the Governor down to General Pearson and Sheriff Fife, appeared to be only the willing tools of the giant oppressor.

We hold that the reckless haste of General Pearson and Governor Hartranft makes them the prime ringleaders of what promises to be the bloodiest riot with which the Commonwealth has ever been visited. The insane policy of calling Philadelphia troops to this city to quell a domestic quarrel is reprehensible beyond degree.

Hartranft and Pearson have only added fuel to the flames, that may not be satisfied till the lives of hundreds of militia and citizens are sacrificed. But while we counsel peace, it is only the duty of journalists to fix the blame where it belongs, and therefore we arraign before the board of public opinion General Pearson, Sheriff Fife, Thomas Scott, and Governor Hartranft, and their aiders and abettors for the murder of our fellow-citizens, who were slaughtered by the Philadelphia militia.

Whether the officer commanding was drunk or crazy when he ordered the Philadelphia soldiers to fire into our own Nineteenth regiment, whereby one member was killed, it is a matter that should engage the minds of a military court. But such recklessness and mismanagement is only part and parcel of the great blunder of which we complain.

The railroad magnates claim and protest their inability to carry on their business with profit without the much vexed reduction. All the employés can say is, we must starve at these wages. Now, granting that on one side or the other there must be suffering, which, is it equable, should suffer? But the concession can only be made for the sake of casuistic argument. The railroads affirm that they cannot meet expenses without curtailing salaries to the extent that has caused this present trouble. Let us take the case of the Pennsylvania Company. In this instance, we could show some other method of escaping the difficulty. Look at this:

J. N. McCullough,	$	12,000 per annum.
William Thaw,		10,000 per annum.
Thomas D. Messier,		10,000 per annum.
John Scott, (solicitor,)		10,000 per annum.
H. H. Houston, (in no recognized position,)		10,000 per annum.