Pinkerton’s National Detective Agency 
 
 AND ITS CONNECTION WITH 
 
 THE LABOR TROUBLES 
 
 AT 
 
 Homestead, Penn, 
 
 Jitly 6th , i8g2, 
 
 WITH 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM PROOFS BEFORE THE 
 JUDICIARY COMMITTEES OF THE U. S. 
 SENATE AND HOUSE OF 
 REPRESENTATIVES. 
 
Pinkerton’s National Detective Agency. 
 
 Founded by Allan Pinkerton, 1850. 
 
 ROBT. A. PINKERTON, NEW YORK,/ 
 WM. A. PINKERTON, CHICAGO, ' 
 
 Gso. D. Bangs, 
 
 Gen’l Supt. 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 
 RICHARD WARD GREENE WELLING. 
 
 icago. 
 
 , Denver. 
 
 BOSTON, 42 &. 44 COURT St., 
 
 NEW YORK, 66 EXCHANGE PLACE, 
 
 PH I LADELPH I A, 441 CHESTNUT ST., 
 CHICAGO, 199 &. 201 FIFTH AVE., - 
 ST. PAUL, GERMANIA BANK BUILDING, 
 KANSAS CITY, 105 A 107 W. 6TH ST., 
 DENVER, opera House block, - 
 PORTLAND, ORE., WlARQUAM BLOCK, - 
 
 JOHN CORNISH, Supt. 
 
 W. J. LOADER, Supt. 
 
 E. S. GAYLOR, Supt 
 FRANK MURRAY, Supt 
 C. M. WEBER, Supt. 
 
 C. H EPPELSHEIMER, Supt 
 JAS. McPARLAND, Supt. 
 
 H. W. MINSTER, Supt. 
 
 Attorneys for Agency at New York: 
 
 Messrs. SEWARD, GUTHRIE & MORAWETZ. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2016 
 
 https://archive.org/details/pinkertonsnation01pink 
 
331. HX 
 7&B5T 
 
 Pinkerton’s National Detective Agency 
 
 AND ITS CONNECTION WITH 
 
 THE LABOR TROUBLES 
 
 AT 
 
 Homestead, Penn. 
 
 In answer to numerous inquiries as to the connection 
 of Pinkerton’s National Detective Agency with the 
 labor troubles and riots last July, at Homestead, 
 Penn., we have prepared the following pamphlet, which 
 may be interesting to those who desire to know the 
 true facts in connection with this matter. 
 
 The employment of watchmen to protect private 
 property is entirely distinct and separate from our de- 
 tective bureau. This business’of watching and guard- 
 ing private property is extensively carried on in large 
 cities in this country by many reputable concerns, and 
 thousands of banks, residences, warehouses, offices, 
 stores, shipping, &c., are thus protected and guarded 
 by private watchmen. We submit this pamphlet to 
 show that our acts in connection with strikes and labor 
 troubles have been entirely legal, and when calmly and 
 fairly investigated, will be upheld by all who recognize 
 the right of the employers, whether individuals or cor- 
 porations, to protect their property and the lives of 
 their employees. 
 
2 
 
 Our Agency has, at all times, preferred not to fur- 
 nish watchmen in strikes and riots ; but we have felt 
 that we could not consistently refuse to do so whenever 
 the necessities of our clients have required the services 
 of our employees. It may be that the calling out of 
 the militia will hereafter prevent the destruction of 
 property during strikes, riots, &c., and remove all ne- 
 cessity for private watchmen. Certainly this would be 
 the most effective method of handling these troubles. 
 A State constabulary or police, such as is now in Mas- 
 sachusetts, might afford some means of protection. Yet 
 it seems probable that it will be necessary in the future 
 to employ carefully selected watchmen to protect 
 private property ; and the right of the owner thus to 
 protect his property must ultimately be upheld by the 
 courts and public opinion. 
 
 New York, December 7th, 1892. 
 
 Robert A. Pinkerton, 
 
 William A. Pinkerton, 
 Proprietors of 
 
 Pinkerton’s National Detective Agency. 
 
UNITED STATES SENATE INVESTIGATION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 LABOR TROUBLES AT HOMESTEAD. 
 
 Statement Submitted by William A. and 
 Robert A. Pinkerton. 
 
 New York, December 3d, 1892. 
 
 To the Judiciary Committee of the United States 
 Senate. 
 
 In connection with the testimony of Robert A. Pink- 
 erton, we have prepared, by your direction, the following- 
 statement as to the nature of our business and the occur- 
 rences at Homestead, Pennsylvania, on the 6tli of July, 
 1892. 
 
 It may be of aid to review, again, briefly the facts and 
 circumstances immediately preceding the riots on the 6tli 
 of July. 
 
 During the month of June, 1892, it became probable 
 that, upon the termination of the existing arrangement 
 between the Carnegie Steel Company and its workmen, 
 some disagreement would result as to the scale of wages. 
 The Company owned an immensely valuable plant and had 
 on hand large contracts and orders which required comple- 
 tion within a given time. The Company’s officials knew 
 from past experience — what the whole community knows — - 
 that in case they failed to agree or accede to the terms of 
 their workmen and the dictation of the Amalgamated 
 
4 
 
 Association, there would be a sudden and concerted 
 cessation of work at a given signal or order and attempts 
 made to prevent other labor from filling the vacant places. 
 If the plants shut down until the strikers saw fit to return 
 to work, or to permit others to fill their places, great and 
 irreparable injury would result, involving the temporary 
 abandonment to competitors of a trade and business which 
 had taken millions of investment and years of labor to estab- 
 lish. On the other hand, the works could be operated 
 without loss or cessation by the employment of non-union 
 labor, of which there was an abundant supply, and which 
 would certainly be attracted to Homestead by the excep- 
 tionally high wages paid by the Carnegie Company. 
 
 It was reasonable for the Company, in case of a fail- 
 ure to agree upon a scale of wages, to expect trouble 
 with its employees and to anticipate attempts on the 
 part of the latter by intimidation, coercion and force 
 to prevent non-union men filling their places. In- 
 deed, in view of similar strikes during the last thirty 
 years, it would seem almost puerile to argue that the 
 employers should have relied upon the offers and preten- 
 sions of the members of the so-called Amalgamated 
 Association, and should have waited until their new work- 
 men were attacked and assaulted and their property pil- 
 laged and destroyed before apprehending danger thereto 
 or employing watchmen to protect them or calling upon 
 the legal authorities for the enforcement of the law. 
 
 While the negotiations were pending with the Amalga- 
 mated Association, which in case of disagreement would 
 inevitably result in a strike similar to that of 1SS9. the 
 Carnegie Company applied to Pinkerton’s Aational Detect- 
 ive Agency to ascertain if the Agency could supply, in 
 case of necessity, three hundred watchmen. The reputa- 
 tion and responsibility of the Agency guaranteed to the 
 Company the character and conduct of the men to be sent. 
 
5 
 
 Before final arrangements were made or tire watchmen 
 had started from New York or Chicago, the Carnegie Com- 
 pany applied for protection to the High Sheriff of Allegheny 
 County. He conceded, as we understand, that he would 
 be practically powerless to handle such a large strike and to 
 protect the lives of non-union employees if any attempt 
 should be made to send any such workmen to Homestead. 
 In or about Pittsburgh or Homestead no adequate force 
 could have been obtained. The Sheriff then knew that 
 the Company proposed to employ watchmen at their own 
 expense to protect their property, and agreed to swear in 
 these watchmen as deputies if that became necessary. 
 The Agency refused to send any watchmen without the 
 knowledge and approval of the local authorities, and they 
 were sent upon the distinct understanding that the men 
 should be duly deputized. There can be no dispute as to 
 these facts. 
 
 As soon as the strike was declared, before any Pinker- 
 ton men had been sent from Chicago or New York, the 
 so-called Advisory Committee of the strikers took posses- 
 sion of Homestead and placed pickets, guards and sentinels 
 on the different streets and roads and at the works. The 
 Advisory Committee virtually declared Martial Law and 
 took possession and control of the property of the Com- 
 pany. It is true that they promised not to injure the 
 Company’s property, and to protect it, but it was 
 ridiculously obvious that this promise of protection was 
 coupled with the condition that the strikers should have 
 their own way, and that the Company should not presume 
 to employ any one without their consent. The Advisory 
 Committee and the strikers trampled upon the law, defied 
 the authorities, constituted themselves judges and denied 
 to others the right to labor. It was then, and then only, 
 that the final orders were given to send watchmen from 
 Chicago and New York. In order that there may be no 
 
6 
 
 doubt as to the correctness of this statement, we quote 
 from the charge of Chief Justice Paxson. of the Supreme 
 Court of Pennsylvania, to the Grand Jury of Pittsburgh in 
 this connection : 
 
 “ It is alleged that the Advisory Committee did more than 
 induce others not to accept employment from the Company; 
 that it allowed no persons to enter the mills of the Carnegie 
 Steel Company, and even permitted no strangers to enter the 
 town of Homestead without its consent ; that it arranged and 
 perfected an organization of a military character, consisting of 
 three divisions, with commanders, captains, etc. ; the captains 
 to report to the division commanders and the latter to report 
 to the Advisory Committee ; that a girdle of pickets was 
 established by which the works and the town were guarded 
 like a military encampment ; that these pickets arrested every 
 man who attempted to approach either the town or the works 
 until he could give an account of himself which was satis- 
 factory to the Advisory Committee ; that all discussion of the 
 wage question was positively prohibited ; that all these and 
 many other things were done to deprive the Company of the 
 use of its property, and to prevent it from operating its works 
 by the aid of men who were not members of the Amalgamated 
 Association. 
 
 It was in this state of affairs that the Company, apprehend- 
 ing injury to its property and its possible destruction, applied 
 to the High Sheriff of Allegheny County for protection. That 
 officer made an effort to secure 100 deputies to go to Home- 
 stead on the afternoon of July 5th. He succeeded in getting 
 about a dozen who, under the charge of a deputy sheriff, 
 attempted to enter the works of the Company in order to pro- 
 tect them. They were driven off with threats and the author- 
 ity of the sheriff defied. On the morning of July 6th the 
 Company attempted to place 300 watchmen into the works. 
 The men were selected by the aid of the Pinkertou Agency and 
 were in charge of a deputy sheriff. Their business and their 
 only business was to protect property of their employers. The 
 landing of these men on the grounds of the Company was re- 
 sisted by a large crowd of men, many of whom were armed. 
 Guns, pistols and cannon were discharged at the watchmen, and 
 the fire was returned by a portion of the latter. An attempt 
 was made to destroy them by the rioters by the use of dyna- 
 mite and burning oil. Finally, after a number had been killed 
 and wounded on each side, the watchmen surrendered to the 
 Advisory Committee, — at that time the only authority permitted 
 
7 
 
 to be exercised at Homestead. Their treatment after their 
 surrender has few chapters to equal it in savage warfare, not- 
 withstanding the humane efforts of a portion of the committee 
 to prevent it.” 
 
 The conduct of the strikers prior to July 5th showed, 
 beyond quibble or doubt, that they were determined, 
 peaceably or forcibly, to take control of Homestead and 
 the Carnegie Company’s works, and to prevent the em- 
 ployment by the Company of non-union laborers, skilled 
 or unskilled. Had they shown any intention or disposi- 
 tion to act as law-abiding citizens, the Company could have 
 countermanded its order for watchmen. It was obviously 
 to the interest of the Company to save the expense they 
 were incurring for watchmen, which expense might last 
 three months and involve an expenditure of over $1,500 
 per clay. As matter of fact, however, it would have 
 been the extreme of folly to have relied on the good 
 behavior of the strikers, for the Sheriff himself was defied, 
 and the whole community of Homestead coerced and ter- 
 rified, as the statement of Chief Justice Paxson clearly 
 shows. 
 
 The acts referred to by Judge Paxson were done before 
 there was any public suggestion or mention of the employ- 
 ment of Pinkerton watchmen, and the conspiracy which 
 the Advisory Committee and strikers entered upon was for 
 the avowed purpose of preventing workmen from entering 
 the employ of the Carnegie Company and laboring 
 for the exceptionally high wages which the Company paid. 
 The strikers had no grievance or wrong to redress, no 
 danger or peril to anticipate or guard against, except the 
 advent at Homestead of other workmen, seeking employ- 
 ment for the support of themselves and their families and 
 the high pay which the strikers had refused and spurned. 
 Yet, it is urged that the Carnegie Company should have 
 .submitted to the authority of the Advisory Committee and 
 
8 
 
 have accepted the protection and guard of the strikers 
 themselves ! 
 
 There was only one vital principle at stake in the con- 
 test between the Amalgamated Association and the Com- 
 pany, namely, whether the latter should be allowed to em- 
 ploy non-union men. This the Amalgamated Association 
 and its Advisory Committee were determined to prevent, by 
 force, if necessary. The Company refused to arbitrate its 
 differences because its officials desired to manage their own 
 business, and more particularly because, twice before, they 
 had arbitrated, and the Amalgamated Association had 
 refused to abide by the decision of the referees. 
 
 The Company then had either to submit to the strikers 
 and abandon their private property and business until the 
 strikers saw fit to permit them to resume, or else employ 
 watchmen to protect their property and then offer employ- 
 ment to other workmen. The argument of the labor 
 organizations is, that they should have adopted the former 
 course of passive submission, and that a wrong was done 
 to the strikers in the employment of the watchmen and 
 the attempt to land them quietly at night upon the private 
 property of the Company. It is amazing that any such 
 argument should receive the sanction and approval of re- 
 spectable people. As Chief Justice Paxson says: 
 
 “We can have some sympathy with a mob driven to des- 
 peration by hunger, as in the days of the French Revolution, 
 but we can have none for men receiving steady employment 
 at exceptionally high wages in resisting the law and in resort- 
 ing to violence and blood-shed in the assertion of imaginary 
 rights, and in entailing such a vast expense upon the tax- 
 payers of the Commonwealth. It was not a cry of ‘ bread or 
 blood ’ from famished lips or an ebullition of angry passions 
 from a sudden outrage or provocation. It was a deliberate 
 attempt from men without a grievance to wrest from others 
 their lawfully acquired property and to control them in their 
 use and enjoyment of it. * * * 
 
 It is much to be feared that there is a diseased state of pub- 
 lic opinion growing up in regard to disturbances of this nature. 
 
9 
 
 and that a confused, if not erroneous, view of tlie law bearing* 
 upon these questions has found a lodgment in the public mind. 
 This is evidenced by the comments of a portion of the press, and 
 in the utterance of demagogues who pander to the mob, and 
 of politicians who hunger for votes. It finds expression in 
 sympathy for men, who, without a recognized grievance, 
 trample upon the law, and the rights of others, yet have no 
 sympathy for the outraged law, or the laborer who is beaten 
 and sometimes murdered in his efforts to seek honest employ- 
 ment for the support of his family * * * 
 
 The company had the undoubted right to protect its 
 property. For this purpose it could lawfully employ 
 as many men as it saw proper, and arm them, if neces- 
 sary. Many of our banks and other places of business are 
 guarded by armed watchmen. The law did not require it 
 to employ as watchmen the men from whom it anticipated 
 the destruction of its works. When a man seeks to pro- 
 tect his house from burglars it would be unreasonable to re- 
 quire him to place the burglars in possession for that purpose. 
 So long as the men employed by the company as watchmen to 
 guard and protect its property, acted only in that capacity, and 
 for that purpose, it mattered not to the rioters, nor to the 
 public, who they were nor from whence they came. It 
 was an act of unlawful violence to prevent their landing upon 
 the property of the company. That unlawful violence amounted 
 at least to a riot on the part of all concerned in it. If life was 
 taken in pursuance of a purpose to resist the landing of the 
 men by violence, the offense was murder. * * * 
 
 The rights of the men, as before stated, were to refuse to 
 work unless their terms were acceded to, and to persuade 
 others to join them in such refusal. But it will sustain them 
 no further. The moment they attempted to control the works, 
 and to prevent by violence, or threats of violence, other 
 laborers from going to work there, they placed, them- 
 selves outside the pale of the law, and became riot- 
 ers. It cannot be tolerated for a moment that one laborer 
 shall say to another laborer, ‘ Y ou shall not work for 
 this man or that wage without my consent,’ and thus en- 
 force such command by brutal violence upon his person. And 
 what will not be permitted to one man to do will not be per- 
 mitted to an organization of men. * * * The law should be so 
 enforced from the Delaware to the Ohio, that the humblest 
 laborer can work for whom he pleases and at what wage he 
 sees fit, undeterred by the bludgeon of the rioter or the pistol 
 of the assassin. * * * 
 
 We have reached a point in the history of the State where- 
 
10 
 
 there are hut two roads left to us to pursue. The one leads to 
 order aud good government, the other leads to anarchy. The 
 one great question which now confronts the people of this coun- 
 try is the enforcement of the law and the preservation of 
 order. ” 
 
 The men we sent were carefully selected. More than 
 two-thirds were well-known to us and our superintendents, 
 for they were either in our employ at the time, or had pre- 
 viously been employed by us as watchmen in similar work. 
 We felt that these men could be thoroughly trusted for 
 integrity and sobriety. The remainder were men recom- 
 mended to us. and their written applications and refer- 
 ences are on file in our office. 
 
 Our men were sent at night by barge in order to 
 prevent a breach of the peace. It was hoped and expected 
 that they would land upon the private property of the 
 company without the knowledge of the strikers. Had it 
 been known that the strikers would fire on the barges, the 
 men in charge would have refused to start from Pittsburgh, 
 and no attempt would have been made to go to Homestead 
 unless under the orders and command of the Sheriff, and 
 after our men had been duly deputized. 
 
 The arms were sent from Chicago to the Union Supply 
 Company at Pittsburgh. It was our desire and under- 
 standing that the boxes would be placed inside the 
 Works of the company and there distributed to our 
 men, if necessary, after they had been sworn in as 
 deputies. They were not shipped to Homestead before 
 the arrival of the watchmen, because the strikers had 
 possession of the place, and would have prevented 
 the delivery of the arms and probably confiscated 
 them if sent by rail. The arms were sent on the barges 
 because they could not otherwise be landed or delivered 
 at the property. Had the arms been sent by rail, as 
 was originally intended, our men would have beeu abso- 
 
11 
 
 lately defenceless on tlie barges. Our instructions were 
 that our men should not be armed, unless they were 
 first sworn in as deputies by the Sheriff of Allegheny 
 County, and the men would not have been sent, under 
 any consideration, unless the Sheriff had distinctly prom- 
 ised to deputize them. In nearly every strike, our men 
 have only carried arms after having been deputized by 
 the legal authorities. 
 
 The Sheriff sent his deputy, Colonel Gray, to accom- 
 pany our men. It was distinctly promised that, upon the 
 first sign of trouble, they would be sworn in. Before the 
 barges reached the works at Homestead, firing commenced 
 from the shore. Hinde, a capable and responsible man, 
 who had been in our employ for ten years, was in charge of 
 the watchmen. As soon as the firing began, he applied to 
 Gray to swear them in, but Gray refused, saying that it 
 would be time enough when they got to the Works. As 
 soon as the barges passed the bend in the river and ap- 
 proached the bank of the private property of the Carnegie 
 Company, Gray again was appealed to for the purpose of 
 having the men duly deputized. He repeated that it would 
 be time enough when our men landed. It was not until 
 after Gray had been thus twice requested to comply with 
 the Sheriff's promise that any arms were distributed, 
 Twelve rifles were handed to some of our most reliable 
 men. An attempt was then made to place on the bank a 
 gang plank from one of the barges. The strikers at once 
 renewed their attack by firing upon the barges. At this 
 lire, six of our men were injured, including Hinde, who 
 was hit by two rifle balls, and Klein, who was killed. 
 Prior to this not a single shot had been fired from the barges. 
 
 The attack was made, not because the strikers were 
 suddenly excited or exasperated at the presence of 
 our men, but because they believed the barges con- 
 tained non-union laborers. No one on the shore knew 
 
12 
 
 that they were Pinkerton men. They were called “ scabs ” 
 and “black sheep.” Deputy Sheriff Gray left on 
 the tug “Little Bill,” and stated that he was going 
 to get instructions from the Sheriff. Several hours 
 afterwards, the tug endeavored to return to the barges, 
 but was fired upon and driven back by the mob on 
 the Carnegie property. It was after this that Cooper, 
 who had taken command in Hinde’s place, hearing 
 the cries and yells against the “scabs,” stepped for- 
 ward and explained that there were no non-nnioii men on 
 board, but merely Pinkerton watchmen. Prior to this, 
 the mob believed that they had been attacking non-union 
 men coming to take their places. Indeed, when our men 
 surrendered, their hands were examined to see if they 
 were not mechanics. 
 
 The labor leaders are constantly attacking the character 
 of the men employed by our Agency. * * * We know 
 of no complaints on the part of our employers as to the 
 integrity, sobriety and behavior of our watchmen en- 
 gaged in these strikes. None of our watchmen have, so 
 far as we knoAv, ever been convicted of a crime. Mr. 
 Powderly, who is at the head of the Knights of Labor, 
 charged that we employ men of bad character, although 
 he admitted that none of our men have ever been convicted 
 of a crime. His testimony before the Judiciary Commit- 
 tee of the House of Representatives would not have been 
 permitted in a court of justice, and its falsity would have 
 been easily shown had he been cross-examined by any one 
 familiar with the facts. A few examples will show this. 
 Thus, 
 
 1. Mr. Powderly stated that an alien named Adolph Pol- 
 letscliek “ was engaged by our agent, who made no inquiry 
 as to who or what he was.” When employed by us, 
 Polletscliek spoke English fluently ; stated that he wa s a 
 
13 
 
 citizen of tlie United States ; said that he was a member 
 of a prominent Democratic organization in the City of New 
 York, and that he had resided there for thirteen years. 
 He further represented his trade as that of a clothing cut- 
 ter, and stated that he was compelled to leave his pre- 
 vious employment because he was a non-union man. He 
 referred to a reputable firm of cloak manufacturers in this 
 city. We have in our possession his application for 
 employment in his own handwriting, certifying to the 
 above. 
 
 2. It was further charged that our men wantonly and reck- 
 lessly fire upon bystanders, and in support of this assertion 
 Mr. Powder ly cited the injury to John McCarthy, August 
 1 6, 1890, during the New York Central strike. As matter of 
 fact, we can show by credible witnesses that McCarthy 
 was an iron moulder by trade ; that for two or three days 
 before the shooting he had been seen throwing stones at 
 the brakemen and watchmen upon passing trains; that 
 the day before the shooting he had been seen with a 
 revolver in his possession ; that immediately before the 
 shooting he filing a stone ivliich hit one of the watchmen ; 
 that the firing was done by one of our men who was a 
 sworn deputy sheriff, and that he did so because the 
 lives of the brakemen and watchmen on the train were in 
 peril, and it was his duty to protect them. At the place 
 where the shooting occurred, a great many strikers were 
 gathered, abusing the brakemen and watchmen (all of the 
 latter being deputy sheriffs), and throwing stones at them. 
 The cars were going down a heavy grade to the New York 
 Central bridge crossing the Hudson River at Albany, and it 
 was a matter of life and death for the brakemen to be at 
 their posts and to have the train under control in order to 
 prevent the train running into the Hudson River. Dur- 
 ing this strike, several freight cars were cut loose from 
 the rest of a train by strikers and started down this 
 
14 
 
 incline, and if it had not been for the heroism of a non- 
 union man named Jones, who at the risk of his life jumped 
 on the passing cars and applied the brakes, they would 
 have been thrown from the bridge into the draw, which 
 was open. At the time, the Troy boat, full of passen- 
 gers, men, women and children, was passing through the 
 open draw ; and had the purpose of the parties who 
 committed this fiendish act been accomplished, the loss of 
 life would have beeu fearful. 
 
 In another instance, during the same strike, the strikers 
 attempted to wreck the Chicago express going down a 
 steep grade into West Albany, and would have succeeded 
 in killing or maiming a great number of passengers if one 
 of the railroad ties, with which the obstruction was 
 made, had not been rotten. Obstructions were re- 
 peatedly placed on the tracks by the strikers, and 
 in one instance a train of palace cars, filled with sleep- 
 ing passengers and running at a high rate of speed, was 
 thrown down a steep embankment. One of the strikers, 
 Thomas Cain a knight of labor, was afterwards convicted 
 on his plea of guilty for putting obstructions on the track 
 during this strike, and confessed that he and John Kier- 
 nan, another knight of labor, were the guilty parties in the 
 attempt to wreck the Chicago express. These facts can be 
 proved by numerous witnesses, and Cain's confession is 
 in the possession of the District Attorney of Rensselaer 
 County. Cain further testified that he had been furnished 
 money by Master Workman Lee, who conducted this 
 strike, to enable him to escape. 
 
 3. Mr. Powderly then stated as follows : 
 
 “ Was it not proved that the Pinkerton agents made efforts 
 to induce men to place obstructions on the tracks during t be 
 Chicago, Burlington & Quincy strike ? ” 
 
 This malicious and preposterous statement is absolutely 
 without foundation, and Mr. Powderly knew this when he 
 
15 
 
 sought to impose on the Committee of the House. As- 
 matter of fact, members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive 
 Engineers confessed to the crime of placing dynamite on 
 the tracks and turned State’s evidence, and it was on their 
 testimony that their companions were convicted. 
 
 4. Mr. Powderly also stated as follows : 
 
 “During the continuance of the Denver & Rio Grande 
 strike, some years ago, we employed watchmen to watch the 
 Pinkerton watchmen, and discovered them in the act of placing 
 dynamite on the tracks. I believe you will have no trouble in 
 securing this evidence. ” 
 
 This is equally false, and must have been made delib- 
 erately for the purpose of prejudicing and misleading the 
 Committee ; because none of the watchmen of the Pinker- 
 ton Agency were employed during this strike on the Den- 
 ver & Rio Grande. It is, however, singular that if the 
 strikers discovered and witnessed any such acts, they did 
 not have the men arrested and prosecuted. Certainly, 
 there was no possible reason why they should refrain from 
 punishing our watchmen. 
 
 5. Mr. Powderly further said in his statement to the 
 House Committee : 
 
 “ Who is to prove that it was not a ‘paid agent’ of the 
 Pinkerton Agency who placed the explosive in the mould dur- 
 ing the strike at the Chicago Stove Works?” 
 
 Yet Mr. Powderly must have known what everybody 
 familiar with the matter knew at the time — that the offence 
 was committed by one of the strikers ; that he was an old 
 member of the Stove Workers and Moulders’ Union, and 
 that he was arrested, pleaded guilty and was sent to the 
 penitentiary for his crime. 
 
 6. Mr. Powderly also stated : 
 
 “During the stone-cutters’ strike in New York, Pinkerton 
 watchmen were on guard when the acid was poured on the 
 
16 
 
 rope. Why were they not watchful enough to do detective 
 duty then and arrest the perpetrators of the dastardly deed ? 
 Is it not wonderful that the alleged damage is discovered, just 
 before the final catastrophe takes place, by the Pinkertons ? ” 
 
 The facts were that no Pinkerton men were employed or 
 -connected in any way as watchmen or detectives in the 
 stone-cutters’ strike in New York at the time in question. 
 In order to kill non-union men, certain parties, believed 
 to be strikers, unwound a part of the rope of a windlass, 
 and during the night poured acid on the rope and then re- 
 wound it, so that the next day non-union men might be 
 killed in ascending with the stone or by the falling stones. 
 
 Another late instance may be recalled in New York 
 where a carman was killed by a striker for carting boy 
 cotted stone. 
 
 7. Mr. Powderly further charged that we employed a 
 man named Webb, who was implicated in the murder of his 
 wife. Webb was of good reputation previous to entering our 
 employ, and he referred to, and was recommended by. some 
 of the best residents of Queens County. It was claimed 
 that his wife died of malpractice, and Webb was held as a 
 witness against the doctor. The doctor was discharged, 
 and Webb was not charged with the murder of his wife. 
 
 8. Mr. Powderly claimed that there were seven men 
 killed by our employees at East St. Louis. As matter of 
 fact, we were not engaged in any way in connection with 
 the shooting on the East St. Louis bridge, and none of our 
 watchmen were employed at that time by the company on 
 this work. 
 
 9. In the Pennsylvania coke strike, the shooting was 
 done by the regular deputies of the Sheriff, several days 
 before our men arrived, and the deputies were engaged in 
 defending lives and property, and repelling an attack upon 
 themselves. 
 
17 
 
 In regard to the matter of the James brothers in Mis- 
 souri, to which Senator Vest also has referred, it may be 
 stated that the woman injured was the mother of the James 
 brothers, and the boy killed was their step-brother. These 
 James brothers were notorious outlaws and murderers, and 
 for years committed murder and robbery with impunity. 
 The public will recall the condition of Western Missouri 
 at this time. When the house in which these robbers 
 lived was surrounded, none of the Pinkerton detectives or 
 watchmen were present. It was afterwards shown that a 
 ball of cotton, saturated with camphene, was lighted and 
 thrown into one of the rooms of the James brothers (not a 
 sleeping-room, as stated), in order to see who was present 
 and to avoid injuring any one except the murderers. 
 Some one came into the room (at the time it was 
 said to be Mrs. James), picked up the ball and threw 
 it into the fireplace, where a log fire was burning. 
 This resulted in an explosion, injuring Mrs. James 
 and killing the step-brother of the James brothers. 
 The investigation made immediately after the occurrence 
 showed that no hand-grenades were thrown and no shots 
 fired. In any event, what was done was not done by our 
 employees. 
 
 We could multiply the number of instances in which 
 members of these secret labor organizations have com- 
 mitted crimes to aid their strikes or to revenge themselves 
 upon their employers for not submitting to their terms. 
 The reign of terror during the time of the Molly Maguires 
 has not been forgotten, and it was through the efforts of 
 the Pinkerton Agency that this famous organization was 
 broken up and so many of its members hanged. 
 
 We have attached hereto a pamphlet issued by Mr. E. 
 T. Jeffery, President of the Denver & Rio Grande Rail- 
 road Company, from which it will appear how insincere is 
 the present cry of the labor leaders for compulsory arbi- 
 
18 
 
 tration. In that case an engineer was discharged for 
 insolence and disobedience. A committee, on which the 
 engineer was represented, unanimously reported against 
 him and sustained the action of the Company. The labor 
 organization then threatened to strike. The Company 
 offered to arbitrate, in order to avoid the great loss neces- 
 sarily involved by a strike; bnt the labor committee, 
 counting on the immense damage they could inflict, abso- 
 lutely refused to submit to arbitration and ceased work. 
 This occurred only a few weeks after the Homestead 
 troubles. 
 
 The investigation by your Committee of this Denver & 
 Rio Grande strike, and many similar occurrences, would 
 show to what extremes of socialism and anarchy we 
 must inevitably drift if the leaders of these secret labor 
 organizations are to be given, by sanction of law. the 
 power to dictate to employers. 
 
 It is undoubtedly true that the great majority of the 
 members of these secret labor organizations are law-abiding 
 and respectable, and that a small number only participate in 
 these crimes. Yet it seems to us that the leaders in many 
 instances are not sincere in their expressions of a desire 
 to uphold law and order and to protect property. It 
 cannot be reasonably doubted that, if labor organizations 
 or their leaders honestly condemned outrage and force, 
 they could readily discipline and control their own mem- 
 bers, and we should no longer witness the scenes that 
 attend nearly all strikes, and that are such a disgrace to 
 labor in this country. Instead of being condemned, the 
 outrages so committed are secretly applauded, and the 
 guilty persons, if caught and indicted, are glorified as 
 martyrs in the cause of labor. 
 
 We need only refer to a few editorials to show pub- 
 lic opinion upon this point. Thus, in speaking of the 
 Buffalo switchmen's strike (at which no Pinkerton men 
 
19 
 
 were employed), the New York Times in the issue of 
 August 16th, 1892, said : 
 
 ‘ ‘ When they resorted to arson and other crimes they for- 
 feited all claim to sympathy or support, and justified the rail- 
 roads in refusing to take them back on any terms. There is 
 the usual plea that the mischief was done by ‘ outsiders,’ but 
 there is sufficient evidence to hold the strikers responsible for 
 it. In fact, there is said to be proof that it was deliberately 
 planned by the Switchmen’s Union. 
 
 Such behavior as this takes all force out of the workingmen’s 
 protest against the employment of Pinkerton men to protect 
 property whenever and wherever there is a strike. If they 
 shoAved themselves peaceable and laAV-abiding in their contests, 
 there would be no excuse for employing protection of that 
 kind, but Avhen they demonstrate that a strike means that 
 there is likely to be violence and destruction of property, they 
 give employers the right to provide against it. The public 
 authorities will not act until an actual outbreak occurs, and 
 then much injury may be done before the lawlessness can be 
 overcome. Every man has the right to protect his property 
 and his business from violent and lawless attacks, and AA'hen 
 workingmen show a disposition to resort to such methods they 
 justify the employment of men to resist and repel them.” 
 
 In speaking of tlie same strike, the Hew York Sun, on 
 the 17th of August, pointed out that, if license were to 
 be given to the labor organizations, it could only end in 
 anarchy. In the editorial published that day it was said : 
 
 “If the strikers had failed to obey the laAvs of the union, 
 they Avould have been cast out of the organization in short 
 order and treated as ‘scabs.’ When they violate the laivs of 
 the State and strike at the very foundations of civilized society, 
 the union leaders have only mild words of reproval for them. 
 They are not denounced as criminals. Their conduct is merely 
 ‘ not countenanced ’ by their leaders. After they have perpe- 
 trated their savage atrocities they are told that they,ha\ r e not 
 done wisely. So far as the union is concerned, they will go 
 unpunished. They will laugh at Grand Master Sweeney’s 
 righteous sentiments, for they know that his rebuke of them 
 will end with mere talk. 
 
 During this Summer the strikes at Homestead, at Coeur 
 d’Alene, and noAV at Buffalo, have been accompanied by mur- 
 der, murderous outrages, and the Avanton destruction of prop- 
 
20 
 
 -erty. Here in New York violent assaults have been made on 
 non-union workmen, and scarcely a day has passed for a month 
 past when such exhibitions of savagely have not been reported 
 as occurring among strikers in some part of the Union. Yet 
 no reports have come to us that organized labor has subjected 
 any one of the perpetrators of these outrages to any sort of 
 discipline because of his crime. The unions have seen tlm 
 lawlessness, but they have done nothing to punish it. They 
 hold their members in such complete subjection to their will 
 that they compel them to throw up work though they them- 
 selves may have no grievances to complain of ; but when their 
 strikers have assailed life and property as barbarous anarchistic 
 outlaws, they profess to have had no power to check the mob. At 
 great expense to the State the militia has to be called out for 
 the protection of society. If it had not been available, the 
 rioters would have continued their depredations and extended 
 and aggravated them. Order is preserved by military force. 
 It is assailed by the union force. That force is not held in 
 restraint by its own leaders. They boast of their discipline, 
 yet they profess to be unable to prevent the lawless excesses 
 of their followers. Only after the crimes have been committed 
 and the militia are on the ground to preserve the peace is the 
 anarchical business stopped.” 
 
 It is pretended that there would be no acts of violence 
 during these strikes if they were not caused by the Pink- 
 erton men or the exasperation of the strikers at their pre- 
 sence. This was solemnly urged before the House Com- 
 mittee. Yet, shortly after the occurrences at Homestead, 
 and whilst the labor leaders were professing that the 
 whole trouble resulted from the employment of Pinkerton 
 watchmen, the community was shocked by the outrages 
 aud the destruction of property at Coeur d'Alene and 
 Buffalo. No Pinkerton watchmen were employed or were 
 present at either of these strikes. The conduct of the 
 strikers, however, was exactly similar to that at Home- 
 stead. They were determined to and did attempt to 
 prevent the employment of non-union men. If your 
 Committee wl investigate those strikes, you will ascertain 
 repeated acts of lawlessness on the part of the strikers, 
 who did not hesitate to attack the militia. 
 
21 
 
 The enmity which the labor organizations have against 
 our Agency would exist against any persons attempt- 
 ing to protect the property of employers and the 
 lives of non-union workmen. Whoever may be thus 
 employed, whether private watchmen, or the police, or the 
 militia, or the Federal troops, the animosity against them 
 will be just as strong as is now shown against our Agency. 
 It is undeniable that the feeling of the strikers against the 
 troops at Homestead, Coeur d’Alene and Buffalo was bitter 
 in the extreme, and that if the strikers had not been over- 
 awed by the large bodies of troops, the latter would have 
 been also attacked. Indeed, for days it was expected that 
 there would be conflicts between the troops and the strikers. 
 At Buffalo, the strikers and their sympathizers stoned 
 and abused the troops. The feeling among the labor 
 organizations in this State against the militia for its part 
 in the Buffalo strike is venomous and intense. 
 
 If, in answer to the demands of the labor leaders and 
 demagogues, employers, whether corporations or indivi- 
 duals, are to be prevented from employing watchmen to 
 protect their private property, we reach the point of 
 anarchy and communism. It must be borne in mind that 
 in large cities like New York, the police are so efficient 
 that they can handle strikes without outside assistance ; 
 but that in communities where the majority of the inhabit- 
 ants are in sympathy with the labor unions, and where the 
 police force is small and inadequate, it is practically impos- 
 sible to furnish the necessary police protection. It can- 
 not be that a large police force is to be maintained all over 
 the country to provide for these occasional emergencies 
 and the community taxed to maintain them. It has been 
 repeatedly shown that the Sheriff cannot afford protection 
 through a posse comitatus. In such communities, there- 
 fore, the only other remedy, if watchmen cannot be em- 
 ployed, is by calling out the militia, which involves im- 
 
22 
 
 mense expense to the State. It is evident that it is to the 
 interest of the employer to rely entirely upon the pro- 
 tection of the police or the militia ; for if such protection 
 is effective, the expense is borne by the taxpayers, and 
 not individually by the employer. 
 
 The leaders of these strikes always seek a time when the 
 cessation of work may cripple and greatly injure the em- 
 ployer, just as at the present time arrangements are being 
 attempted to be made for a gigantic strike next year, 
 which may jeopardize the success of the World’s Fail- and 
 will certainly greatly injure many large interests. Strikes 
 without notice or warning have been frequent; and such 
 strikes, if the employers are unprepared or not forew arned 
 mean incalculable loss. The men abandon work at a 
 given signal, usually without reasonable notice. If the 
 labor unions forced their men to give reasonable notice 
 of their intention to strike, there would be no occa- 
 sion for employers of large numbers of men to 
 have detectives among their laborers, in order to be 
 advised and warned when to expect trouble, and the 
 necessity for such detectives would no longer exist. But 
 until such notice is given or made compulsory, the 
 employer must, in order to protect himself, ascertain in 
 some way or another when to anticipate and provide 
 against the consequences of sudden strikes. 
 
 It was testified, we understand, before the House Com- 
 mittee, that our men were cowards, because they did not 
 charge upon the crowd and take possession of the works. 
 We are informed that they could have taken posses- 
 sion at any time before ten o'clock with fifty or seventy- 
 five men. They had the arms and the ammunition. But 
 they would have had to fire into the crowd, many of whom 
 were women and children, and would have had to kill 
 numbers of them. We marvel that they did not fire into 
 the crowd in self-defence. Certainly, they would have 
 
23 
 
 ■' 
 
 been justified in doing so. They simply aimed, where 
 possible, at the men who were firing upon the barges. 
 Many of our men refrained from firing, because they had 
 not been deputized, and the Sheriff’s deputy had aban- 
 doned them. But we shall ever be grateful that our men 
 did not fire into the crowd in any attempt to take the 
 works by assault, and that additional loss of life was thus 
 avoided. 
 
 You have requested us to explain the history, nature 
 and scope of our business, fit is divided into two separate 
 and distinct branches, although both are under the same 
 management. The detective bureau has nothing whatever 
 to do with the employment of watchmen. The detective 
 business was founded in 1850, by the late Allan Pinkerton, 
 the father of the present managers, and shortly afterwards 
 he began to furnish watchmen for banks, private residences, 
 warehouses, etc. The reputation of the agency grew and 
 the business developed. During the war Allan Pinker- 
 ton acted as Chief of the United States Secret Service. 
 Since his death in 1884, the agency has been con- 
 tinued by his two sons, the present managers. The or- 
 ganization is a simple copartnership, consisting of 
 Robert A. Pinkerton, of Yew York, and William A. 
 Pinkerton, of Chicago. The principal offices are at Yew 
 York and Chicago, and there are six branches, viz., at 
 Boston, Philadelphia, St. Paul, Kansas City, Den- 
 ver and Portland, Oregon. The Chicago office and the 
 Western branches are under the personal direction of Will- 
 iam A. Pinkerton, and the Yew York office and Eastern 
 branches are under the personal direction of Robert A. 
 Pinkerton. The various branches are in charge of super- 
 intendents, who are known to us to be men of integrity 
 and character, and who have been in our employ for from 
 fifteen to twenty-five years. 
 
 The employment of watchmen to protect buildings, 
 
 i 
 
24 
 
 stores, banks, docks, shipping, &c., is entirely distinct 
 and separate from our detective bureau. The business of 
 watching and guarding private property is extensively 
 carried on in all the large cities by many reputable con- 
 cerns, and thousands of banks, residences, warehouses, 
 offices, stores, docks, shipping, &c., are thus protected ana 
 guarded by private watchmen. This branch of our bus- 
 iness has been conducted since 1857. 
 
 Instead of app lying to the ordinary employment agen- 
 cies or advertising, business men prefer to contract with 
 the Pinkerton Agency for watchmen, because they can 
 rely upon the character of the men furnished and the 
 responsibility of the Agency and have the benefit and ad- 
 vantage of its direct supervision. If all the detective 
 agencies should abandon this branch of the business, the 
 ordinary employment agencies or advertisements in the 
 papers would have to be resorted to. We have never 
 employed men as watchmen unless they were well known 
 to us or our superintendents, or had satisfactory recom- 
 mendations and references. We have employed and fur- 
 nished hundreds of men in connection with about seventy 
 strikes, and an investigation of our records would con 
 clusively show the great care and thoroughness we exercise | 
 in selecting them. 
 
 The first strike at which we were employed was that 
 of the miners at Braidwood, Illinois, in September and i 
 October, 1866; and in April, 1868, we furnished men at 
 the same place. The next strike was in 1874, and during 
 the last eighteen years we have been employed to protect ! 
 private property in connection with seventy strikes, which j 
 is, of course, a very small percentage of the total number 
 of strikes during that period in the United States. 
 
 Our employees have been opposed in all parts of the coun- 
 try to over one hundred and twenty-live thousand strikers, 
 within the last twenty-six years, and in nearly every hi- 
 
25 
 
 stance our watchmen have been assaulted, stoned and 
 abused for doing no other act than protecting private 
 property and the lives of non-union laborers. And, in all 
 that time, our men have killed only two persons, 
 which cases were accidental, and in self-defence, and 
 where our men had been deputized by the proper legal 
 [^authorities, and upon trial were duly acquitted. We 
 ‘'earnestly submit that these facts should prove con- 
 clusively that our men are selected with care ; that they 
 ‘are of good character, and that they do not, as has been 
 charged, wantonly and recklessly lire upon the strikers 
 and mobs attacking them. It would, indeed, be extraor- 
 dinary if we were not occasionally misled as to the char- 
 acters of our men ; we owe our comparative freedom from 
 (\ such mistakes to the care we have always exercised in 
 ' their selection — a care well known and relied upon by the 
 community who employ us. 
 
 We have always approved and sympathized with labor 
 organizations when directed by honest, capable and con- 
 servative leaders. The law-abiding members have no 
 quarrel with us, nor any grievance or cause of complaint 
 against us. We have never violated any of their rights. 
 
 ! Our detective branch may have sought to ascertain when 
 they intended to strike ; but it is only fair and proper 
 that the employers should have this information. We 
 have never clashed with the temperate and law-abiding 
 members of these organizations. We have never done 
 ) more than to protect the private property of the employers 
 and the lives of non-union workmen from attacks by law- 
 1 less members of the unions, whose acts tend to disgrace- 
 organized labor. We confidently assert that the decent 
 and orderly members of these organizations deeply deplore 
 and condemn such excesses as were committed at Home- 
 . stead, Coeur d’Alene and Buffalo, and we venture to predict 
 that ultimately the great body of laboring men in the- 
 
26 
 
 ■country will recognize that it is to their interest to insis' 
 on the enforcement of the law, and the preservation o 
 order, and that all in this country must be guaranteed tin 
 absolute and free right to protect their private property a 
 and to work for whom they please, at such wages as the? 
 see fit. 
 
 The bitterness of the unions against employers and non 
 union men, and the increasing lawlessness at strikes lmv< 
 rendered the work of supplying watchmen extremely 1 tnj 
 gerous and undesirable; and for that reason we prefer no'; 
 to furnish watchmen in such cases, although formerly I 
 w T e solicited this work. 
 
 We have not been able to procure a copy of the testi 
 mony taken by your Committee, and we only know fron 
 garbled and prejudiced statements in the press, what ha 
 been testified by other witnesses. We court the fulles 
 investigation of our actions. Had we been given th- 
 opportunity to have our counsel cross-examine the wit 
 nesses who testified against us, we could have shown hov 
 false and unfounded were their accusations. It seem 
 grossly unjust that the man Bruce in Chicago should b- 
 permitted to slander us and all the detectives in th 
 United States with impunity, under cover of testifying 
 before your Committee and the pietence of aiding you t- 
 ascertain the truth. 
 
 As requested by the Committee, we shall submit thj 
 opinion of our counsel, Messrs. Seward, Guthrie A Mora wet z. 
 of New York, under whose advice we have acted through 
 out this wdiole matter. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 William A. Plnkertox 
 
 and 
 
 Robert A. Pixkertox. 
 
27 
 
 t [United States of America, \ 
 
 South ern District of New York. ) 
 
 !' I Robert A. Pinkerton, being duly sworn, deposed 
 and said that he had read the foregoing statement and 
 ■ knew the contents thereof, and that the same was true 
 to the best of his knowledge and belief. 
 
 Robert A. Pinkerton. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me \ 
 this 5th day of December, 1892. ) 
 
 Arthur L. Kent, 
 
 Notary Public in Kings Co., 
 
 Cert, filed in N. Y. Co. 
 
Denver and Rio Grande Railroad Co. 
 
 OFFICE OF PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER. 
 
 The following is a statement of the facts leading up to 
 the strike of Engineers, Conductors, Firemen and Brake- 
 men on the Second Division of the Denver & Rio Grande Rail- 
 road, inaugurated at 7 a.m. on October 1 5th, 1 892 : 
 
 On August 22d, 1892, the following order regarding fast 
 freight trains No. 61 and 64 was bulletined by the Division 
 Superintendent, Mr. R. M. Ridgway: 
 
 SECOND DIVISION. 
 
 Bulletin, No. 23. 
 
 Salida, Colo., August 22, 1892. 
 
 Conductors and Enginemen, Second Division: 
 
 Train and Enginemen on trains 61 and 64 must not 
 detain their trains to get meals at Malta or Glenwood. 
 
 On leaving terminals you must go prepared to go 
 through, as these trains must make time. 
 
 (Signed) R. M. Ridgway, 
 
 Superintendent. 
 
 This was bulletined for the information of employes at 
 the terminals of runs on the Division. 
 
30 
 
 On August 24th, two days after the issuance of the bul- 
 letin order, Engineer William Gordon was listed to take 
 west-bound California fast freight train No. 61, from Min- 
 turn to Grand Junction. As the train was ready to leave 
 Minturn, Engineer Gordon called the Trainmaster, who was 
 in Minturn, upon his engine and informed him that unless 
 bulletin order No. 23, relating to detentions of trains 61 
 and 64 at Malta and Glenwood by train and enginemen 
 taking meals, was recalled, he would not leave Minturn 
 with the train. He used violent language, and stated he 
 “did not care a damn if he never worked another minute," 
 he would not go out until the order was recalled, and told 
 the Trainmaster to go to the office and repeat this to 
 Division headquarters. This the Trainmaster did at once. 
 In order to avoid contention and disarrangement of the 
 train service, the Division Superintendent, on being advised 
 by telegraph of the situation, directed the Trainmaster to 
 remove the order from the bulletin board, and train No. 61 
 was then taken out by Engineer William Gordon. 
 
 An investigation into the action of Mr. Gordon was 
 ordered by the General Superintendent, and was held at 
 Salida at 10.30 a.m., October 3d, at which were present the 
 following persons, constituting the Board of Investigation: 
 
 R. M. Ridgway, Division Superintendent, Chairman, 
 
 A. W. Jones, Division Master Mechanic, 
 
 J. E. Barnes, Traveling Engineer, 
 
 G. H. Barnes, Trainmaster, 
 
 I. G. Baker, Locomotive Engineer (selected by Mr. 
 
 Gordon). 
 
 The following is a verbatim transcript of the proceed- 
 ings of the Investigating Board : 
 
 Mr. Ridgway — Gentlemen, this meeting is called for the purpose of 
 investigating the case of Engineer William Gordon refusing to leave Min- 
 turn until Bulletin No. 23 was recalled. 
 
 The following letter from Trainmaster Barnes was read, as well as 
 Bulletin No. 23, copy of which will be found above : 
 
Salida, Colo., September 8th, 1892. 
 
 Me. R. M. Rid gw ay, 
 
 Supt. Salida, Colo. 
 
 Dear Sir: — On August 24tli, as train 61 was getting ready to leave 
 the yard at Minturn, Engineer William Gordon called me up on his 
 engine and informed me that the bulletin in regard to eating on trains 61 
 and 64 at Glenwood and Malta must be recalled before he would leave the 
 yard. He said that no fireman could fire a hog from Grand Junction to 
 Minturn for him without having something to eat on the road, as they 
 
 couldn’t stand it. He also said that he didn’t care a d n if he never 
 
 worked another minute, he would not go until it was recalled, and for me 
 to go in office and tell them so, which I immediately done. 
 
 Engineer George Gordon was present and expressed his displeasure,, 
 but not in such a positive and violent manner as William Gordon. 
 
 I only said to them that if they had used a reasonable length of time at 
 these points to eat in, the bulletin would never have appeared. After- 
 wards in conversation with Geo. Gordon I said that enginemen, in fact the 
 whole train crew, were eating too long, and that these trains were impor- 
 tant and all should take an interest in making good time with them, and on 
 account of our inability to do so we were losing freight. 
 
 G. H. Barnes, 
 
 Trainmaster. 
 
 Mr. Ridgway. — Please give us the dead time of these trains. 
 
 Answer. — 61 has 20 minutes at Malta and 15 minutes at Glenwood. 
 64 has 17 minutes at Glenwood and 18 minutes at Malta. 
 
 G. H. Barnes. — This letter is correct, is it not, Mr. Gordon ? 
 
 Mr. Gordon. — It is correct. 
 
 Mr. Ridgway. — Then Mr. Barnes’ report of the case is correct, is it,. 
 Mr. Gordon ? 
 
 Mr. Gordon. — As near as I can remember. 
 
 Mr. Ridgway. — I think you should remember whether or not you 
 said you did not care a damn whether you worked for the Company or 
 not, and that you would not go out until the bulletin was recalled. 
 
 Mr. Gordon.— I was pretty warm under the collar and thought the- 
 bulletin was unjust, and probably I said it. 
 
 Mr. Ridgway.- — I do not think it unjust. We do not want to de- 
 prive the men of a chance to get something to eat, but we want to get our 
 trains through on time. 
 
 Mr. Gordon. — I would like to ask for a little information. I would 
 like to know if when I come out of Grand Junction late and get to Glen- 
 wood I am allowed the 17 minutes if I am behind time. 
 
 Mr. Ridgway. — Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Gordon. — I have got to oil around the engine myself and take- 
 water, and that takes considerable time. 
 
32 
 
 Mr. Ridgway. — Your fireman can oil one side. 
 
 Mr. Gordon. — I have been in the habit of carrying a lunch with me. 
 I have a family in Minturn. Sometimes I do not carry one out of Grand 
 Junction as I have to have it put up at a restaurant. I will tell you my 
 reasons. If we come out of Grand Junction with a lunch, when we can 
 get to Minturn there is no restaurant open where we can get anything to 
 eat, and the fireman is in no condition to fire an engine on an empty 
 stomach, as he is compelled to do when we come out of Grand Junction 
 and catch the run to Aspen, and he cannot get anything to eat without 
 losing a lot of sleep. 
 
 Mr. Ridgway. — You will admit that it is not very hard work to fire 
 from Minturn to Glenwood. 
 
 Mr. Gordon. — Yes, sir; hut the hard work is from Glenwood to 
 Aspen, on train 65. 
 
 Mr. Ridgway. — I do not know why our employes should not carry a 
 lunch. 
 
 Mr. Baker. — Of course, a man has time enough to eat on the dead time 
 shown on card. I do not think that Mr. Gordon took the right means to 
 have this bulletin cancelled. If he thought it was obnoxious, he should 
 have had one of the men come over and see Mr. Ridgway. I think Mr. 
 Gordon used rather unbecoming language in regard to having the bulletin 
 recalled. 
 
 Mr. Gordon. — I would like to say further that I did not think that the 
 bulletin was just. I wanted to live up to instructions, but I did not see 
 how we could with this bulletin. I do not like to have a fireman fire an 
 engine for me on an empty stomach. I told the trainmen that we did not 
 want to run this thing into the ground. I know that there has been lots 
 of unnecessary delays at Glenwood, but I claim that I have not caused 
 them. 
 
 Mr. Baker. — You say that you were not making a personal complaint, 
 but that it was made for the fireman. I think that the fireman should be 
 able to fight his own battles. 
 
 Mr. Gordon.- — If the fireman cleans his ash pan and takes coal at 
 Glenwood, it takes about all the time allowed there. I have often cleaned 
 the ash pan myself for the fireman. I think the bulletin was an impo- 
 sition on the fireman more than on me. If the fireman cleaned the ash pan 
 and took his own coal, he would not have time to eat. If we could eat at 
 Minturn, it would be a whole lot different; and they can not get sleep. 
 
 Mr. Jones. — Even if it was so, it does not justify you in disobeying 
 orders. 
 
 J. E. Barnes.— I think Mr. Gordon did exceedingly wrong in 
 refusing to go out until the bulletin was recalled, even if it was 
 obnoxious to him. I was in Minturn, but did not hear the conversa- 
 tion. The Trainmaster told me that Gordon refused to go out until the 
 bulletin was recalled. 
 
 Mr. Jones. — This appears to be a clear case of insubordination. 
 
Mr. Gordon. — Supposing I took a lunch with me; do you suppose 
 I would be attending to my business while I eat it ? I know that the fire- 
 man could not do it. 
 
 Mr. Ridgway.— I think a man can eat on an engine as well as he can 
 take out a cigar and light it and smoke. 
 
 Mr. Baker. — Could not the head brakeman relieve the fireman for a 
 few minutes while he ate his lunch ? 
 
 Mr. Gordon. — I would not like to eat while going through Glen wood 
 Canon. I usually hang out of the window while going through there. 
 I have never struck any rocks there ; perhaps it is because I am 
 lucky. 
 
 Mr. Ridgway. — Well, Mr. Gordon acknowledges he refused to gO' 
 out and that he said what the Trainmaster states in his letter. 
 
 G. H. Barnes. — There were no messages in regard to the matter. I 
 was at the key myself talking with the Dispatcher and told him that 
 Gordon refused to go out until the bulletin was recalled. 
 
 Mr. Baker. — I think you should have had some representative man 
 come to see Mr. Ridgway about the matter. Mr. Ridgway is a pretty 
 reasonable man about letting men eat. 
 
 Mr. Gordon.— I scarcely ever go over the road but what there is from 
 two and a half to four hours’ delayed time. I never get any letters in 
 regard to it. 
 
 Mr. Baker. — Perhaps the engine does a little fast running and covers 
 some of it up. 
 
 Mr. Ridgway. — I presume that these delays are doing local -work and 
 meeting trains, and are so reported by the conductors. 
 
 Mr. Gordon. — Well, so far as I am concerned, I do not want to 
 answer for the shortcomings of other men on the road, but I am willing to 
 suffer for my own. I have always tried to work for the interests of the 
 Company, and do not think that anybody can say that I have not. Of 
 course, I did wrong in acting as I did about this business, but at the time 
 I thought I did right, as 1 did not think a man capable of doing his work 
 on an empty stomach. 
 
 Mr. Ridgway. — I believe that this is all, gentlemen, unless you have 
 something more to say on the subject. 
 
 Findings : 
 
 Engineer Gordon acknowledges having used the language in his 
 conversation with Mr. Barnes at Minturn, as reported, and that he refused 
 to obey the bulletin order or go out until it was recalled. 
 
 A copy of the proceedings of the Board of Investigation 
 was forwarded to the General Superintendent on October 
 4th, with the following letter of transmission, signed by 
 Mr. R. M. Ridgway, Superintendent of Division, and Mr. 
 A. W. Jones, Master Mechanic. 
 
34 
 
 Salida, Colo., October 4th, 1892. 
 
 Me. N. W. Sample, 
 
 General Superintendent, Denver. 
 
 Dear Sir: — Herewith we return all papers in case of Wm. Gordon, 
 engineer, with report of the investigation attached. 
 
 You will note that Engineer Gordon acknowledges having used the 
 language as reported by Trainmaster Barnes, also that he refused to obey 
 the bulletin order or go out on train Cl of August 24th until it was 
 recalled. 
 
 This is a case that merits dismissal from the service, and we would 
 recommend that it be done. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 (Signed.) R. M. R mo way. 
 
 Superintendent . 
 
 (Signed.) A. W. Joxes, 
 
 Master Mechanic. 
 
 The General Superintendent in considering the matter 
 gave due weight to the previous record of Engineer Gordon, 
 and in consideration thereof, overruled the recommendation 
 of the Division Superintendent and Master Mechanic, and 
 directed that Engineer Gordon be suspended for thirty days, 
 as set forth in the following letter to Division Superintendent 
 Ridgway : 
 
 Deyyer, Colo., October 7th, 1892. 
 
 R. M. Ridgway, Esq., 
 
 Division Superintendent, Salida, Colo. 
 
 Dear Sir : Your favor of the 4th iust. attached to report of 
 investigation in the matter of Engineer Wm. Gordon refusing to obey 
 bulletin order on August 24th, or to go out on train Xo. 61 until it was 
 recalled, received. 
 
 While the discipline recommended is perhaps proper for the offence, 
 in consideration of his long service and previous record (which is above 
 the average), 1 think thirty days’ suspension will serve to keep him 
 reminded of his conduct on this occasion, and you will please notify the 
 Master Mechanic to this effect, who will send the usual papers in the case 
 to this office. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 (Signed.) X. W. Sample, 
 
 General Superintendent. 
 
 In conformity with the order of the General Superin- 
 tendent, Engineer William Gordon was notified of the deci- 
 sion, his suspension taking effect from October 2nd, the day 
 
35 
 
 r ne was taken from his run pending investigation and 
 ■decision. 
 
 The care taken to obtain all the facts, and in a calm 
 and judicial spirit take action in the case, is illustrated by 
 the deliberation and patience shown in the action of the 
 •officers as above outlined. 
 
 The case was taken up by the employes of the Second 
 Division, and apparently secret meetings were held, and at 
 2:10 o’clock on the morning of Saturday, October 15th, the 
 following message was received by General Superintendent 
 Sample, at his residence in Denver: 
 
 Minturn, Colo., Oct. 14th, 1892. 
 
 Mr. N. W. Sample, 
 
 General Superintendent D. & B. G., Denver. 
 
 By action of employes taken at a Union meeting at Minturn, 
 ■October 7th, we as a committee hereby request the reinstatement 
 of Engineer William Gordon and full time from the date of his sus- 
 pension. This matter to be made known by a bulletin being posted 
 at Salida, Leadville, Minturn and Grand Junction. This bulletin to 
 be conspicuously posted by 7 o’clock a. m., October loth, and unless 
 such bulletin is posted by such time, we as the engineers, conductors, 
 firemen and brakemen positively refuse to handle trains on Second 
 Division after 7 o’clock a. m., October loth. 
 
 By order of 
 
 (Signed.) Committee. 
 
 In accordance with the threat expressed in the telegram 
 the engineers, conductors, firemen and brakemen of the 
 second division which extends from Salida to Grand Junc- 
 tion, abandoned and refused to t*ake out their trains at 
 seven o’clock in the morning of the same day (the 15th of 
 October, 1892,) and no trains have moved over the division 
 since that time. As early as practicable after receipt of the 
 above, and on the morning of the same day, the General 
 Superintendent telegraphed to Superintendent Ridgway and 
 Master Mechanic Jones, as follows: 
 
 Denver, Colo., October 15th, 1892. 
 
 R. M. Ridgway, A. W. Jones, 
 
 Salida. 
 
 At two ten this morning, much to my surprise, the following 
 message was delivered at my house : 
 
36 
 
 Minturn, Colo., October 14th, 1892. 
 
 To N. W. Sample, 
 
 General Superintendent I). & R. G., Denver. 
 
 By action of employes taken at a Union meeting at Minturn, 
 October 17th, we, as a committee hereby request the reinstatement of 
 Engineer W. Gordon, and full time paid from the date of his suspen- 
 sion. This matter to be made known by bulletin being posted at 
 Salida, Leadville, Minturn and Grand Junction ; this bulletin to be 
 conspicuously posted by seven o’clock a. m., October lath, and unless 
 such bulletin is posted by such time we, as the engineers, conductors, 
 firemen, and brakeman, positively refuse to handle trains on' Second 
 Division after seven o’clock A. M. , October fifteenth. 
 
 By order of (Signed) Committee. ” 
 
 You will see that no names are appended to the telegram 
 nor was any conference asked for, nor the least consideration shown to 
 the Company, nor to me personally as the General Superintendent. 
 I doubt if any set of railway men in the United States ever acted 
 as arbitrarily, and with less regard to the interest of their company, than 
 have the men on the Second Division in this case. It seems to be 
 impossible for reasonable and right thinking men to continue this course, 
 and if it has not already been done, I wish that you and Master Mechanic 
 Jones would at once confer with some of the Second Division engineers 
 and conductors for the purpose of showing them the wrongfulness of the 
 action taken. (Signed.) N. W. Sample. 
 
 The notification received by the General Superintend- 
 ent at 2:10 a. m., October 15, five hours before that portion 
 of the line was tied up, was the first information, or even 
 intimation, received by the company of the contemplated 
 strike. * 
 
 Believing that friendly conferences between employer 
 and employes for the purpose of adjusting differences are 
 desirable, and that to avert a strike, disastrous alike to the 
 company and the men, and in its effects greatly injurious to 
 the public, arbitration in this case might be resorted to, the 
 following telegram was sent at 5:16 p. m. to the Division 
 Superintendent. 
 
 Denver, Colo., October loth, 1892. 
 
 R. M. Ridgway, 
 
 Salida. 
 
 I shall be glad to confer with any committee of our employes for the 
 adjustment of any grievances, and if we cannot agree, am willing to 
 
arbitrate matters of difference ; in the meantime, the men should return to 
 and remain at work pending the adjustment, either by conference or 
 arbitration. The Company has always treated its employes liberally and 
 justly, and the present strike, almost without notice, will not be sustained 
 by railway employes generally, or the public. Give a copy of this message 
 to the committee. 
 
 (Signed.) 1ST. W. Sample. 
 
 To this the following reply was received by the Division 
 Superintendent, and immediately transmitted by telegraph 
 to the General Superintendent: 
 
 N. W. Sample, 
 
 Denver. 
 
 Salida, October, loth, 1892.. 
 
 Following report from the committee received. 
 
 (Signed.) R. M. Ridgwat. 
 
 Salida, October loth, 1892. 
 
 R. M. Ridgwat, 
 
 Salida. 
 
 We, the employes of Second and Third Divisions, instruct our 
 committee to inform you that we will not accept Mr. Sample’s terms, 
 and that we will remain out until a settlement is made amicable to our- 
 selves. 
 
 (Signed.) Employes Train and Motive Power Depart- 
 ments, Second and Third Divisions. 
 
 From the foregoing it will be seen that even arbitra- 
 tion, for which so many labor organizations have contended, 
 is refused by the men through their duly appointed com- 
 mittee. 
 
 E. T. JEFFERY, 
 
 President , 
 
 Denver, October 16th, 1892, 
 
38 
 
 Proceedings of the Judiciary Committee of the House 
 of Representatives. 
 
 In the House of Representatives on May 12, 1892, 
 Mr. Oates, from the Committee on the Judiciary, sub- 
 mitted the following- report, which was adopted : 
 
 “ The House of Representatives having ordered this commit- 
 tee to report back the resolution proposing an investigation of 
 the Pinkerton Detective Agency, the Committee on the Judici- 
 ary, having had the same under consideration, report therefor 
 the following substitute and recommend its adoption: 
 
 “ Whereas , it has been alleged that a certain organization 
 known as the Pinkerton detectives has been employed unlaw- 
 fully and to the detriment of the public by railroad corpora- 
 tions engaged in the transportation of the United States mails 
 and interstate commerce: Therefore, be it 
 
 “ Resolved , that the Committee on the Judiciary be, and it is 
 hereby, directed to investigate the said Pinkerton detectives, to 
 wit: The character of their employment by corporations engaged 
 in the transportation of interstate commerce or the United States 
 mails, the numbers so employed, and whether such employ- 
 ment has provoked breaches of the peace or caused the destruc- 
 tion of property, and all the material facts connected with their 
 alleged employment, and to report the same to this House bv 
 bill or otherwise at any time. And to this end, the said Com- 
 mittee on the Judiciary is hereby authorized and empowered to 
 issue and cause to be served processes for the production of 
 papers and to procure the attendance of witnesses, to administer 
 oaths, and to employ a clerk and stenographer if necessary, and 
 any sub-committee of said Judiciary Committee is hereby 
 invested with like powers, for the purpose aforesaid, and may 
 sit wherever deemed necessary, and during the sessions of the 
 House. All of the expenses of such investigation shall be paid 
 out of the contingent fund of the House upon proper vouchers,, 
 certified as correct by the chairman of the said committee or 
 sub-committee, not to exceed the aggregate sum of two thou- 
 sand dollars, which the Clerk of the House of Representatives is. 
 
39 
 
 hereby directed to turn over to the chairman of such sub-com- 
 mittee, not exceeding one thousand dollars at a time, taking his 
 receipt therefor, and which shall be accounted for by him to 
 said clerk in the manner aforesaid, the same to be immediately 
 available.” 
 
 On July 6, 1892, in the House of Representatives, 
 Mr. Williams, of Massachusetts, submitted the follow- 
 ing resolution : 
 
 “ Whereas , the Pinkerton detective or private police force, to 
 the number of several hundred, is now engaged in an armed 
 conflict at Homestead, Pa., with the.late employees of the Car- 
 negie Iron Works at said place, and great loss of human life 
 and destruction of property are likely to result from the same ; and 
 “ Whereas , the Judiciary Committee has been directed by a 
 resolution of the House to investigate the nature and character 
 of the employment of Pinkerton detectives by corporations 
 engaged in interstate commerce; therefore, be it 
 
 “ Resolved , that said committee shall investigate and report on 
 the character of the employment of said forces in the present 
 instance, and the causes and conditions of the sanguinary con- 
 flict now going on at Homestead, Pa.” 
 
 This resolution was referred to the Committee on the 
 Judiciary and was reported back favorably on July 7, 
 1892, and adopted with the following amendment : 
 “That the committee be instructed to inquire whether or not 
 the employment of Pinkerton detectives has any connection 
 with the present system of Federal taxation.” 
 
 Extract from Official Report, 52c! Congress, 1st Session, 
 Misc. Doc. No. 325. 
 
 Committee Room of Committee on Judiciary, 
 Washington, D. C., July 22, 1892. 
 
 The sub-committee of the t_ommittee on the Judici- 
 ary appointed to investigate the employment of Pink- 
 
40 
 
 erton detectives in connection with the transportation 
 of interstate commerce and the recent labor troubles at 
 Homestead, Pa., this day met at 10 a.m., Hon. Wm. 
 C. Oates in the chair. 
 
 Present, the Chairman, Mr. Bynum, and Mr. Broderick. 
 
 Robert A. Pinkerton, sworn and examined. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 O. Please give the stenographer your full name and 
 residence? A. Robert A. Pinkerton, 39 Eighth Av- 
 enue, Brooklyn. 
 
 I desire to present a statement which I have drawn 
 up and which I hand to the committee [handing state- 
 ment to the chairman of himself and William A. 
 Pinkerton]. 
 
 At this point John Devlin, A. W. Wright and John 
 W. Hayes, secretary general executive board of the 
 Knights of Labor, presented to the committee a list of 
 questions which the said Devlin and his associates 
 desired answered. They made the request on behalf 
 of the Knights of Labor. 
 
 The committee retired to examine the statement of 
 the Messrs. Pinkerton and the list of questions offered, 
 and on their return the statement was allowed to go in 
 as a presentation of their case and not as evidence, and 
 the questions were allowed to be put. The statement 
 of the Pinkertons is as follows : 
 
 Washington, D. C., July 22, 1892. 
 
 To the Judiciary Committee of the House of Represent- 
 atives: 
 
 You have asked us to appear before you and testify 
 in regard to the business conducted by us under the 
 
41 
 
 name of Pinkerton’s National Detective Agency. The 
 present inquiry by your committee arises from the 
 recent deplorable events at Homestead, in the State of 
 Pennsylvania, and we are informed that a statement on 
 our part of our connection with strikes and of the 
 general method of carrying on this branch of our busi- 
 ness will aid the committee in its investigation. 
 
 o 
 
 The agency was founded in 1850 by the late Allan 
 Pinkerton, and during the last twenty years it has fre- 
 quently furnished private watchmen to protect the 
 property of individuals and corporations during strikes. 
 The men employed by us in this strike work are 
 selected with great care, and only after a full investiga- 
 tion of their characters and antecedents. Not a single 
 instance can be cited where we have knowingly em- 
 ployed unreliable or untrustworthy men, or where any 
 of our watchmen have been convicted of a crime. 
 Moreover, we have seldom permitted our watchmen to 
 carry arms for the purpose of protecting property and 
 life unless they were authorized by the proper legal 
 authorities or sworn in as deputy sheriffs. Our men 
 have never wantonly or recklessly fired a single shot in 
 any of these strikes, and have only used dieir arms as 
 the last extremity and in order to protect life. We have 
 consistently refused to permit our watchmen to bear 
 arms without special legal authority or as deputy sher- 
 iffs, even when on private property, and we had no 
 intention of varying from this rule in the Homestead 
 strike. 
 
 When first requested to send watchmen to protect 
 the Homestead plant and property of the Carnegie 
 Steel Company, Limited, we refused to do so unless all 
 our men should be sworn in as deputy sheriffs before 
 
42 
 
 going to Homestead. We were then assured that the 
 sheriff of Allegheny County, Pa., knew that our men 
 were going to Homestead to act as watchmen and to 
 guard the property of the company and protect its 
 workmen from violence. We were further assured that 
 the sheriff had promised, immediately upon any out- 
 break or disturbance, to deputize all our watchmen as 
 sheriff’s deputies if it became necessary for the protec- 
 tion of life and property. On that condition only did 
 we consent to furnish about three hundred watchmen. 
 A lame number of these men were our regular em- 
 
 o o 
 
 ployees, who could be thoroughly trusted for integrity, 
 prudence and sobriety. The remainder were men whom 
 we employed from time to time, or who were known 
 and recommended to us. They did not go into the 
 State of Pennsylvania as an armed body or force, and 
 we should not have permitted or assented to this. 
 There was no intention or purpose whatever of arming 
 them until they were on the property of the company 
 at Homestead and until and unless they had been sworn 
 in as the sheriff’s deputies. 
 
 The Sheriff’s Chief Deputy Gray accompanied our 
 men, being’ on the tug towing the barges, and it was 
 distinctly understood that he had authority duly to 
 deputize them in case of necessity. The boxes contain- 
 ing the arms and ammunition were shipped from 
 Chicago, and were to be delivered at the Homestead 
 yards. The instructions to our men were that they 
 should not be armed unless previously deputized by 
 the sheriff. As a matter of fact, the boxes on board 
 the barges were not opened and the arms and ammuni- 
 tion were not distributed until after the strikers had 
 commenced firing on the watchmen and it became evi- 
 
43 
 
 dent that it was a matter of self-defense, for life or 
 death. Klein had been murdered by the strikers, and 
 about five other watchmen shot and wounded before 
 our men began their fire in self-defense. Even then it 
 was impossible to attempt to shoot those firing at the 
 barges, because the strikers made a breastwork for 
 themselves by placing women and children in front and 
 firing from behind them. Not a single woman or child 
 was injured by our men. 
 
 When our men surrendered, the leaders of the strik- 
 ers solemnly promised full protection to property and 
 life. They knew that our men surrendered because 
 the wounded required attention and for the purpose of 
 saving further loss of life. After the surrender all our 
 men, including the wounded and helpless, were brutally 
 beaten and robbed by the strikers, and the leaders made 
 no real or honest effort to protect them. Our men 
 were robbed of watches, money, clothing, in fact, 
 everything, and then mercilessly clubbed and stoned. 
 Conners, unable to move or defend himself, was delib- 
 erately shot by one of the strikers and then clubbed. 
 Edwards, also wounded and helpless, was clubbed by 
 another striker with the butt end of a musket. Both 
 died, and subsequently another watchman became in- 
 sane and committed suicide as a result of the fearful 
 beating after having surrendered. All our men were 
 more or less injured. The acts of the strikers, after 
 our men had surrendered, 'would be a disgrace to sav- 
 ages. Yet, because done in the name of organized 
 American labor, sympathy, if not encouragement, is 
 shown for such deeds by part of the press and by polit- 
 ical demagogues. 
 
 We do not shirk responsibility for any of our acts in 
 
this or any other strike. The coming murder triaib 
 ought to bring out the truth and uphold the law. Our 
 actions will then be shown to have been legal from be- 
 ginning to end. Whatever may be the present preju- 
 dice against our agency, we shall patiently wait the 
 sober reflection of the country in the confidence that 
 the enormity of the wrong and outrage done to our 
 men at Homestead will be ultimately recognized, 
 although the example will in the meantime have caused 
 incalculable injury to the community. 
 
 The principle involved is of far more importance 
 than are the merits of the present controversy between 
 the Carnegie Company and its workmen. We have no 
 quarrel with organized labor, and they have no cause 
 of complaint against us except in so far as they attempt 
 to destroy property and life and to violate the law. If 
 the owners of mills, factories, mines, railroads, and other 
 valuable property cannot employ watchmen to protect 
 life and property, then all capital so invested is practi- 
 cally at the mercy of secret labor organizations, whose 
 tyranny and despotism exceed anything ever known in 
 the history of the world. These societies intimidate 
 whole communities by threats of murder, and are deter- 
 mined upon ruin and destruction of property if their 
 demands, no mattter how unreasonable or impractica- 
 ble, are not complied with. 
 
 In the case of the Mollie Maguires, they terrorized 
 the public authorities, and for years were absolute in 
 their rule of murder and destruction of property. 
 Every large strike has shown that these labor organiza- 
 tions will murder and destroy property out of sheer 
 wantonness and revenue. During the Chicao-o Stove 
 Company’s strike, the strikers concealed explosives in a 
 
45 
 
 mould in order to cause an explosion when the molten 
 metal was poured in. During the strike on the Chicago, 
 Burlington and Quincy Railroad, dynamite was put 
 under trains by leaders of the strike in the expectation 
 that trains would be blown up and innocent passengers 
 killed. During the recent strike on the New York 
 Central obstructions were repeatedly placed on the 
 track by strikers, and in one instance a train of sleeping 
 cars, filled with sleeping passengers, and running at a 
 high rate of speed, was thrown down a steep embank- 
 ment. In another instance during the same strike, the 
 strikers attempted to wreck the Chicago express going 
 down a steep grade into West Albany, and would have 
 succeeded in killing or maiming a great number of pas- 
 sengers, if one of the railroad ties, with which the 
 obstruction was made, had not been rotten. In the 
 City of New York, during the stonecutters’ strike, 
 strikers, in order to kill non-union men, unwound a part 
 of the rope of a windlass and during the night poured 
 acid on the rope and then rewound it so that the next 
 day non-union men might be killed in ascending with 
 the stone or by the falling stones. These fiendish acts 
 were done by members of labor organizations in the 
 promotion of their strikes, and the only grievance 
 which the men had was that the employer was seeking- 
 to hire men who were perfectly willing and eager to 
 take the places of the well-paid strikers. 
 
 These are but a few instances where strikers, con- 
 trolled by secret labor orders, have sought to murder 
 and to destroy property. It was morally certain, from 
 the threats of the men themselves, that the strikers at 
 Homestead would resort to similar violence and attempt 
 to destroy the property of the Carnegie Company if 
 
46 
 
 any attempts were made to supply their places by non- 
 union men. At the present time, thousands of men 
 would go to Homestead, attracted by the high wages 
 paid there, if they were assured of protection in the 
 right to earn their living. 
 
 The business of watching and guarding private 
 property is now extensively carried on in large cities 
 in this country, not only by ourselves, but by many 
 other reputable concerns. Thousands of banks, resi- 
 dences, warehouses, offices, stores, etc., are thus pro- 
 tected and guarded by private watchmen. If men 
 cannot lawfully act as private watchmen in a large 
 manufacturing plant, then it must follow that the bank 
 or the private house or office cannot be protected or 
 guarded. It would, we think, surprise the community 
 if it should be declared by Congress that the right to 
 protect one’s property and to hire servants and agents 
 to assist in so doing no longer exists in this country. 
 
 We were advised by our counsel, Messrs. Seward, 
 Guthrie & Morawetz, of New York, that we were not 
 violating any Hav of the United States or of the State 
 of Pennsylvania ; that our acts were lawful ; that we 
 had the right to employ and send men to Homestead 
 to act as watchmen ; that if they were attacked they 
 had the right to kill, if absolutely necessary for self- 
 defense ; that they had the right to bear arms on the 
 premises of the Carnegie Company in order to protect 
 life and private property whether or not they were dep- 
 utized by the sheriff of Allegheny County ; that we had 
 the right to ship arms from Chicago to the Carnegie 
 yards at Homestead for the purpose of arming our men 
 if and after they were deputized by the sheriff ; that in 
 view of the attack on the barges our men had the right 
 
47 
 
 to bear arms and to defend themselves, and that all 
 their acts in firing in self-defense from the barges, after 
 the attack on them, were legally justifiable under the 
 laws of the United States and of the State of Penn- 
 sylvania. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 Wm. A. Pinkerton, 
 Robert A. Pinkerton. 
 
 At this point the committee took a recess until i p.m. 
 after the recess. 
 
 The committee met. Present, the chairman, Mr. 
 Boatner, Mr. Bynum, and Mr. Broderick. 
 
 The Chairman : I will state for the information of 
 
 the reporters that, as we began, a committee represent- 
 ing the Knights of Labor, Mr. John Devlin, Mr. A. W. 
 Wright and Mr. John W. Hayes, presented several 
 questions which they desired the committee to propound 
 to the witness. Under our rules and practice we do 
 not allow any parties not members of the committee 
 to put questions. The committee examined the ques- 
 tions and have submitted them to the witness for answer, 
 and the witness has no objection to answering all of 
 them, and he proposes now to make his answers. 
 
 The chairman then proceeded to read the following 
 questions, and the witness made the following answers : 
 
 O. State the names and residences of the principals 
 composing the so-called Pinkerton agency. A. Pinker- 
 ton’s National Detective Agency is owned and con- 
 ducted by William A. Pinkerton, of Chicago, and 
 Robert A. Pinkerton, of New York, as copartners, and 
 
48 
 
 as survivors and successors of the late Allan Pinker- 
 ton. 
 
 The Chairman : There are no other persons mem- 
 bers of the association or business ? 
 
 The Witness : Except the employees. 
 
 The Chairman (reading) : 
 
 O. State the number and location of the offices, 
 principal and subordinate, of the agency. A. There 
 are two principal offices, situated respectively at New 
 York and Chicago. The Chicago office is under the 
 immediate direction and control of William A. Pinker- 
 ton, and the New York office of Robert A. Pinkerton. 
 We have six regular branches situated in Boston, Phila- 
 delphia, Kansas City, St. Paul, Denver, and Portland, 
 Oregon. 
 
 O. What is the nature of the several branches or 
 kinds of business which the agencv undertakes to 
 conduct ? A. The nature of our business in all its 
 branches is that of a general private detective business. 
 We supply watchmen to protect and guard banks, pri- 
 vate residences, offices, stores, warehouses, etc. \\ e 
 also supply men to act as watchmen for race tracks, 
 summer resorts, fairs, exhibitions, theatres, etc. 
 
 O. What number of firearms and weapons of offense 
 of all kinds were subject to your control or owned by 
 your agency on the 4th day of July, A. D. 1892, and 
 where were they deposited ? A. Our agency owned 
 about two hundred and fifty rifles, about four hundred 
 pistols and about an equal number of clubs, and they 
 were deposited at Chicago. 
 
 0. State the number of the persons regularly in 
 your employ on the said 4th day of July, or formerly ? 
 A. We had in our employ at that time not to exceed 
 
49 
 
 boo employees, including- clerks, stenographers, type- 
 writers, etc., detectives, night and day watchmen, 600. 
 To the best of my knowledge and belief we have never 
 had more than 800 persons in our employ at any one 
 time at all the offices in the United States. 
 
 The Chairman : Would it be practicable for you 
 to give the names and places of residence of these 
 people at present ? 
 
 The Witness: Well, it would not. 
 
 Mr. Boatner : Do you think it would be well to load 
 down the report by printing the names and addresses 
 of 800 people ? 
 
 The Chairman : I do not. 
 
 Mr. Boatner: It does not seem to me to be relevant 
 to the investigation. You might inquire as to the class 
 of people they employ, and you can inquire about that 
 without requiring him to give their names and resi- 
 dences. 
 
 Mr. Bynum : Could we get about the number em- 
 ployed in each city? 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 0 . Can you give about the number employed in each 
 office? A. Well, it is according to the season. We 
 have more employees in the summer time than we do 
 in the winter months, and I suppose I could give an 
 estimate of what there were at each office 
 
 O. Just give that. A. Well, at the present time 
 there are employed in New York — there may be from 
 100 to 125 ; in Boston, 20 to 25 ; in Philadelphia, pos- 
 sibly 40 ; in Chicago, possibly 125 to 150; in Kansas 
 City, possibly 30; in Portland, Oregon, possibly 15; 
 in Denver, possibly 30 ; and in St. Paul, possibly 20. 
 
50 
 
 The Chairman (reading) : 
 
 Q. What authority do you exercise, or claim to ex- 
 ercise, over your employees as to obedience of orders ? 
 Are they required to bear arms and go wherever ordered 
 by the principals of the agency, and perform whatever 
 service is imposed upon them? A. The only authority 
 we ever exercised, or claim to exercise, is that of any 
 employer exacting obedience, attention to duty, honesty 
 and sobriety. They are not required to bear arms or 
 to perform whatever service is imposed upon them. 
 They are always advised of exactly what they are ex- 
 pected to do, and are at perfect liberty to refuse any 
 employment to which they object. 
 
 Q. Are any of your contracts with your employees 
 in writing? If yea, produce one or more of them? 
 A. Our contracts with many of our employees are in 
 writing. They provide for honesty, sobriety and atten- 
 tion to the duties for which they are employed. W e 
 decline, under advice of counsel, to produce these con- 
 tracts, because they are matters of private agreement 
 between ourselves and our employees. 
 
 Mr. Boatner : I desire to enter my protest against 
 any such style of proceeding as to propound these 
 questions at the beginning of the examination of this 
 witness. It appears to me it is an usurpation of the 
 powers of this committee. It is a reflection upon the 
 committee in that it takes for granted that the com- 
 mittee will not make a proper investigation. The very 
 purpose for which we summoned Mr. Pinkerton is to 
 investigate the participation of the Pinkerton Company 
 with the late riots and disturbances at Homestead, and 
 I do not like to be put in the position of having a 
 reflection thrown upon us that we would not ask the 
 
proper questions. If I had been present this morning, 
 I would have opposed these questions coming in at this 
 time. After we had examined the witness, then, if 
 there were any questions which they desired to have 
 put not covered by our examination, the questions could 
 have been asked. 
 
 The question was discussed by the committee and it 
 was decided, as the examination had been begun in this 
 manner, it would be continued and the balance of the 
 questions put. 
 
 The Chairman (reading) : 
 
 O. State under what circumstances you entered into 
 the agreement with Mr, Frick, or his associates, to 
 guard the works at Homestead, Pa. Who first broached 
 the negotiation ending in the employment ? Produce 
 all correspondence relating thereto. A. We were re- 
 quested by the Carnegie Steel Company, Limited, to 
 furnish about 300 watchmen to protect the property of 
 the company at Homestead and the lives of their 
 employees. The negotiations were first broached by 
 the company’s representative. The correspondence 
 relating thereto is not in my possession here. 
 
 0 . Was this your first agreement to supply men to 
 Mr. Frick or his associates? How many men and on 
 what terms did you supply them in the matter of the 
 difficulty in the Connellsville coke regions ? 
 
 The Chairman : You may answer that or not, as 
 that is something we are not charged with inquiring 
 into. A. Our firm had been previously engaged by 
 Mr. Frick, or the Coke Company with which he was 
 connected in Pennsylvania. During the coke strike we 
 supplied between 150 and 200 watchmen, as nearly as 
 I can now recollect, and the terms were $5 per day. 
 
52 
 
 These men were ultimately all sworn in as sheriffs depu- 
 ties, and some of them were given State commissions 
 under the Pennsylvania Coal and Iron Police Law. 
 
 The Chairman (reading): 
 
 O. How many men were you requested to furnish in 
 the Homestead matter; within what time, and from 
 what localities did you obtain them ? A. We were re- 
 quested to furnish about 300 watchmen ; they were to 
 be supplied by the 6 th of July ; we had about ten days’ 
 notice, and the men were obtained from Chicago, Phil- 
 adelphia and New York. All these men knew exactly 
 the nature of their employment, and many of them had 
 been for some time regularly in our employ. All of 
 these men had recommendations as to their character 
 and antecedents, or were personally known to us. 
 Their references are always investigated, and we use 
 the utmost care in selecting as reliable and trustworthy 
 men as possible. 
 
 O. How were the barges on which your men were 
 transported to Homestead constructed as to the de- 
 fense and protection of persons upon them ? A. I do 
 not personally know anything about the barges, but so 
 far as my firm are concerned the barges were not con- 
 structed for the purpose of defense and protection. 
 They were simply ordinary barges, used for transporta- 
 tion. 
 
 O. Were not the barq-es lined with iron or steel 
 plates of sufficient strength to resist small arms of even- 
 kind ? A. I am informed and verily believe that the 
 barges were not lined with iron or steel, and were not 
 of sufficient strength to resist small arms. 
 
 0. Were not the men on the barges entirely secure 
 from any attack from the union men of Homestead, so 
 
53 
 
 long as they remained behind the protecting sides of 
 the barges? A. To the best of my knowledge and 
 belief the barges were not secure from attack, and the 
 Sfreat amount of wounds indicted on our men should 
 
 o 
 
 conclusively establish that they were not a sufficient 
 protection. We would never have allowed our men to 
 start on the expedition had we known they were going 
 to be attacked before landing. 
 
 Q. Why were barges employed to transport the men 
 from Pittsburg to Homestead instead of the ordinary 
 modes and means of travel by land and water ? A. 
 Barges were employed instead of the railroads, because 
 the Carnegie Company and ourselves expected that 
 thereby our watchmen would be enabled to land upon 
 the company’s property without causing any breach of 
 the peace or tending to excite the men who had gone 
 on strike. The landing was made at night, and at an 
 hour when we expected the strikers would be in bed, 
 because we believed that after the experience of the 
 sheriff’s men an attempt might be made to forcibly 
 prevent our men entering the works if we came by rail- 
 road in the daytime. Our sole desire was to avoid by 
 all means a breach of the peace and inciting or aggra- 
 vating a riot. Had we known, when the men started, 
 that they could not land without a breach of the peace, 
 we should have refused to permit them to go unless 
 authorized by the Governor of the State or deputized 
 by the sheriff. 
 
 0 . State the number of men on the barges, the 
 amount of fixed ammunition, and the number and kind 
 of firearms of all kinds, and by whom the said ammuni- 
 tion and arms were supplied ? A. There were about 
 310 men on the barges. There were about 250 rifles, 
 
54 
 
 about 300 pistols, and ammunition and night clubs. 
 The clubs are what are usually known as watchmen’s 
 sticks or police batons. 
 
 0. How many of the men on the barges were old 
 and trained employees of your agency ? What authority 
 had they over the recruits in respect to requiring them 
 to bear and use firearms at their command and direc- 
 tion ? A. About two-thirds of the men had previously 
 been in our employ. They had no authority over the 
 other men in any way, and could not have given them 
 any orders in respect of bearing or using firearms. All 
 the men were under the charge of F. H. Hinde, who 
 had been in our employ for many years, and whom we 
 knew to be trustworthy, prudent and reliable in every 
 way. 
 
 O. State with particularity where the men who were 
 finally taken to Homestead were assembled together, 
 through what States, and by what lines of railroad 
 they were transported to Pittsburg? A. About 120 
 men were sent from Chicago ; they passed through 
 Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. About 76 men were sent 
 from Philadelphia, passing through New Jersey, New 
 York and Ohio. About 120 men were sent from New 
 York, passing through New York, Ohio and Pennsyl- 
 vania. All the men met at Ashtabula, Ohio, and went 
 from there to a point near Youngstown, Ohio, where 
 they were put aboard the barges. The Chicago men 
 left by the Lake Shore Road ; the New York men 
 went over the West Shore Road and the Lake Shore ; 
 the Philadelphia men went over the Pennsylvania 
 Road, the Lake Shore and the West Shore. 
 
 O. State precisely the object in placing the large 
 number of firearms on the barges, and whether it was 
 
55 
 
 not understood between the principals of the agency 
 and Mr. Frick and others representing the Carnegie 
 Works at Homestead, that the men on the barges were 
 to commit a breach of the peace, or to use force to re- 
 cover possession of these works if necessary? A. The 
 arms placed aboard the barges were in boxes and were 
 destined for the yards and private property of the 
 Carnegie Company. Our positive instructions were 
 that they should not be used or distributed to the men 
 until after they had been sworn in by the sheriff, and 
 we were assured that the sheriff had promised to swear 
 them in upon the first sign of trouble or disturbance. 
 Our men were not, under any circumstances, to com- 
 mit a breach of the peace, and there never was any 
 such understanding, directly or indirectly, with any 
 one connected with the Carnegie Company or with 
 anybody else. We would not permit them to use force 
 to recover possession of the works if they had been in 
 possession of the strikers, unless they had been duly 
 authorized and sworn in by the sheriff. Our only pur- 
 pose was to go upon private property and then protect 
 it from attack. 
 
 O. State whether it was not the intention of the 
 superior officers on the barges, and whether they had 
 not been instructed to fire on the so-called lockecl-out 
 union workmen at Homestead, and to take life if it 
 were necessary, to obtain possession of these works ? 
 A. They were not so instructed, and would not have 
 fired upon the locked-out men except as a matter of 
 self-defense after they had been attacked and six of 
 their number shot down. 
 
 Q. Did you know that it was your duty to first 
 apply to the Courts for assistance and secure the usual 
 
56 
 
 process and writs before you were authorized to employ 
 force to reach the Carnegie steel and iron works at 
 Homestead ? A. We understood that our employers, 
 the Carnegie Company, had duly applied to the proper 
 legal authority, and that we were going to Homestead 
 with the consent and approval of the sheriff, and our 
 watchmen would be sworn in in case of any outbreak. 
 
 O. What right did you believe, you had to assemble 
 men at various places outside of the State of Pennsyl- 
 vania, and to carry them within that State armed or 
 with stores of arms conveniently at hand, without the 
 request or consent of the authorities of the Common- 
 wealth of Pennsylvania, or of any municipality therein ? 
 
 A. We were advised by counsel that we had a perfect 
 right to send watchmen from one State to another. We 
 did not attempt and have never attempted to send any 
 armed body, and the arms on the barges would not 
 have been distributed if the men had not been attacked. 
 There was every reason to believe from the threats 
 from the strikers themselves that our men would be * 
 attacked, and that attempts would be made to destroy 
 the property of the Carnegie Company. The principal 
 deputy of the Sheriff of Allegheny County, Mr. Gray, 
 accompanied our men, and we distinctly understood 
 that he would be authorized and prepared to swear our 
 men in as soon as there was any outbreak or indication 
 of trouble. 
 
 O. Did your agency, before taking armed men into 
 Pennsylvania, make any effort to obtain the consent or 
 authority of the executive of the Commonwealth of 
 Pennsylvania ; or did you ever, upon any occasion 
 before taking armed men into any State or common- 
 wealth, ask for or obtain the consent or authority of 
 
57 
 
 the executive of such State or commonwealth ? A. 
 This question is a matter of law, and it would be a 
 waste of time for us to attempt to instruct the com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Q. Would you not have the same authority or legal 
 right to place 10,000 armored barges on the navigable 
 waters of the United States, equipped with men and 
 loaded with arms and ammunition, that you had to 
 place these barges so manned and loaded upon the 
 waters of the Monongahela River ? A. This question 
 is a matter of law, and it would be a waste of time for 
 us to attempt to instruct the committee. 
 
 Q. How many human lives have your employees 
 taken since your agency first entered upon the busi- 
 ness of supplying men to protect the property of cor- 
 porations and employers against so-called “strikers,” 
 or to make effective so-called “ lockouts ?” A. During 
 the twenty years that we have been engaged in this 
 strike work, not a single instance can be cited where 
 our men have fired upon the strikers except as a last 
 extremity in order to save their lives. During these 
 twenty years three men have been killed by our watch- 
 men in these strikes, up to the time of the Homestead 
 affair. In each instance our men were sworn in as 
 deputy sheriffs or peace officers, and whenever tried 
 have been acquitted. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. As I understand you, you are engaged in the reg- 
 ular detective business, and in addition to that furnish 
 guards to corporations and others who desire to employ 
 them to guard property in case of strikes, disturbances, 
 &c. ? A. We are engaged in the general detective 
 
58 
 
 business. The watch business is a separate business, 
 but controlled by ourselves, and we furnish watchmen 
 for private parties or corporations. 
 
 O. Will you mention the number of strikes or dis- 
 turbances between corporations engaged in the trans- 
 portation of interstate commerce or carrying the United 
 States mails and their employees wherein you have in- 
 terposed and furnished men as detectives or as guards 
 to such corporations and their property ? A. I cannot 
 state the exact number of railroads, corporations or 
 individuals we have been employed by or furnished with 
 watchmen in the twenty years since we commenced it. 
 
 O. State the principal ones within your recollection, 
 and give the committee an account of the character of 
 them ? A. The ones that I recollect are the Chicago, 
 Burlington and Quincy; the Lake Shore 
 
 Q. When did that occur — take them one at a time ? 
 A. I cannot give the date. 
 
 O. What year? A. I cannot give you the year. It 
 was about four years ago ; that was the Burlington 
 strike. The Lake Shore Road was about five years 
 ago, and the New York Central Road about two years 
 ago. There have been other roads, but I do not call 
 them to mind. There was the Union Pacific seven or 
 eight years ago. 
 
 Q. You furnished men, did you not, at a strike, or a 
 series of strikes, occurring, I believe, in 1886 and 1887, 
 out west ; that is, west of the Mississippi River ? A. 
 West of the Mississippi ? 
 
 Q. Yes ; it was investigated by a committee of Con- 
 gress ? A. I do not call it to mind ; I do not know of 
 any investigating committee who investigated any strike 
 which we were engaged in. 
 
59 
 
 O. Have any of your men ever been indicted or tried 
 for killing or wounding any people while engaged in 
 the duties which you employed them to perform ? A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 O. Will you state the cases and the results? A. In 
 the strike — there is another road I had forgotten, and 
 that is the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western — there 
 were several arrested, one for shooting, who was tried 
 and acquitted. At the stock-yard strike in Chicago, 
 there were two or three arrested, tried and acquitted. 
 In a number of strikes there have been parties arrested 
 on charge of assault. None have been convicted, ex- 
 cept two before a magistrate or justice of the peace, 
 and the judgments have been reversed. 
 
 O. What cases are they ? A. That was on a strike 
 on the New York Central Road. 
 
 O. What year ? A. Two years ago. 
 
 Q. What was the charge against the men, or how 
 many charges ? A. Simply assault. Some were acquit- 
 ted. Those who were taken into the higher courts 
 were acquitted, but some being tried by local magis- 
 trates, the men were committed for trial, but never were 
 tried ; that was the result of that, or if tried, were ac- 
 quitted. 
 
 O. Have you ever furnished guards to travel on 
 trains which were engaged in the transportation of in- 
 terstate commerce and the United States mails be- 
 tween different States? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. In what cases ? A. In the cases of the Burling- 
 ton strike and the New York Central strike. I think, 
 wherever we have done strike work for railroads, at the 
 time we furnish men to ride the trains. 
 
60 
 
 0. Do these men go armed? A. I should think 
 they did ; I do not know positively. 
 
 O. What were your instructions in such cases? A. 
 It was all owing to the circumstances. In the New 
 York Central strike the men who rode freight trains 
 were armed. They were obliged to protect themselves 
 from parties shooting out of buildings at them and 
 throwing stones from an elevation down on the com- 
 pany’s employees or on themselves. In the New York 
 strike a number of men were knocked off freight trains, 
 off trains while in motion, by stones, and some were 
 shot. 
 
 O. About what number would be furnished for a 
 train ? A. It would be according to the length of the 
 freight train. I suppose that one man would probably 
 cover five cars — five, six or seven cars. There would 
 be a man, anyhow, to every brakesman on the train, and 
 one in the caboose, and probably one riding with the 
 engineer. 
 
 0. Can you give the date ? A. (Continuing.! I 
 
 will say these men were sworn in, all of them, as peace 
 officers. 
 
 O. Can you give the date of the negotiations between 
 you and Mr. Frick, chairman of the Carnegie Steel 
 Company, at Homestead, with reference to furnishing 
 men who were sent there subsequently ; I mean the 
 men who were sent to Homestead and got into trouble 
 on the morning of the 6th of July? A. Yes, sir; I 
 think the negotiations commenced eight or ten davs 
 previous to that. 
 
 O. Some eight or ten days previous to that ? A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 O. With whom did you negotiate ? A. My negotiations 
 
61 
 
 were conducted through Mr. Schoonmaker, who was in 
 consultation with Mr. Frick; he is the vice — I think 
 the assistant to the president of the Carnegie Steel 
 Company. 
 
 O. Mr. Frick testified that he contracted to pay you 
 $5 a day per man and feed them — board them ; was 
 that the contract? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 O. How many did you say were furnished? A. I 
 say 310. There may have been 312 or 315, along 
 there. I say under 316 men limit. 
 
 O. Who had charge of these men ; did you not have 
 some one who controlled their action and directed 
 them ? A. Yes, sir ; F. H. Hinde, an employee of 
 ours at New York, was to be in charge of the men. 
 
 Q. Did he go in charge of them ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. What became of him ? A. He was shot down in 
 attempting to land at Homestead. 
 
 Q. Did he recover? A. He is still in the hospital 
 at Pittsburg ; he was shot twice. 
 
 0 . You have no personal knowledge of the barges 
 or of any transaction which occurred in taking the barges 
 up the river, and in the landing or attempted landing at 
 Homestead? A. Nothing except from the reports 
 which have been made to me. 
 
 0 . You have no personal knowledge? A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Have your men, while in the employ of railroads 
 and on trains running through the country, ever been 
 engaged in any fight or battle with other people other 
 than you have stated, that in some instances they were 
 fired upon by unknown parties and had stones thrown 
 at them ? A. Well, we have a good deal of work, and 
 I guess we do most of what they call train-robbery 
 work — where trains are robbed by train robbers. We 
 
62 
 
 work for all express companies, and where there is a 
 robbery we go out — and in this case, in speaking of men 
 who have been killed by our men, I leave the train rob- 
 beries outside. I mentioned three men who have been 
 killed in connection with strikes, but I did not mention 
 the men killed while being arrested for holding up trains 
 and who resisted arrest. 
 
 O. Do you know how many people of that character, 
 train robbers, have been killed by your men ? A. No, 
 sir ; I would have to look up the papers to see it. I 
 think there were in 1866, at the time of the Adams Ex- 
 press robbery at Seymour, Ind., two or three killed 
 while attempting to rob the train. 
 
 Q. By your men who were on the train? A. Well, 
 there were a number of our men on the train, and there 
 were others on the train, and it was done at the night- 
 time, and whether they were killed by our men or not 
 I could not say. 
 
 Mr. Bynum : Those who were not killed were hung- 
 to a limb of a tree on the ed^e of Sevmour the morning- 
 afterwards. 
 
 The Witness: Yes, sir; there were a number hung 
 out there. In replying further to the question, I desire 
 to state that at any time we have ever had trouble in 
 connection with strike work on railroads, it has always 
 been where it has been brought on by the strikers or 
 their friends, and in riding trains, where strikers have 
 come out and put obstructions on the track to stop 
 trains from moving, and take possession of freight yards 
 and driven off switchmen, our duties have always been 
 to put the trains in motion and to clear the yards of 
 strikers and allow the trains to move ; never to stop a 
 train or obstruct it. 
 
63 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Have your employees in any case within your 
 knowledge fired upon or made an assault upon any 
 citizen of the United States or other people while in 
 the discharge of these duties or in the employ of corpo- 
 rations ; have they ever made any assault upon them or 
 begun any riot, or shot, or abused them ? A. Not be- 
 gun it. They have fired when they have been fired at ; 
 when they thought their lives were in danger. 
 
 O. Is it not a habit of your men while thus employed 
 to go armed? A. Well, where they have been sworn 
 in as peace officers, yes, sir ; and where they have been 
 actually on the road, protecting the property and the 
 lives of employees, or traveling through the country ; 
 but traveling through the country like transporting the 
 men from Chicago or New York or Philadelphia to the 
 Carnegie works, they did not carry arms. The arms 
 are sent, and they are generally put on the company’s 
 property, and are not used except where some necessity 
 arises to use them. W e do not carry armed guards 
 through the country. 
 
 By Mr. Boatner : 
 
 O. You have charge of the New York office, I be- 
 lieve ? A. I have charge of what we call the eastern 
 division — New York, Boston and Philadelphia. 
 
 O. Mr. Frick put in evidence a letter, I think, of your 
 agency, dated on the 25th day of June, in which he 
 made formal application to be supplied with men. Was 
 there any agreement between your agency and Mr. 
 Frick prior to that time that men should be furnished ? 
 A. I do not believe there was an agreement at that 
 time. I had declined to furnish men unless they could 
 
64 
 
 be sworn in. I had positively declined to furnish them 
 unless that should be done. 
 
 O. Mr. Frick testified that several days before the 
 25 th a representative of your agency came from Phila- 
 delphia and had an interview with him in regard to 
 these men ; that your representative had stated the 
 terms upon which they would be furnished, and that he 
 had accepted the terms by making no objection ? A. I 
 said that to the best of my recollection it was eight or 
 ten days before that consultations had been going on. 
 I now remember that Mr. Hinde was sent on from New 
 York, at the request of either Mr. Frick or his repre- 
 sentative, to come to Pittsburg for the purpose of an 
 interview. 
 
 0. What I want to get at is the date when Mr. Hinde 
 went to Pittsburg? A. What was the date of Mr. 
 Frick’s letter ? 
 
 0. Mr. Frick’s letter was dated the 25 th of fune. 
 He said Mr. Hinde had been there prior to that, but 
 we could not get out of him just how long prior to that. 
 A. I could not state now ; it may have been four, five 
 or six days prior, but there was no understanding at 
 that time that our men were to be employed. The un- 
 derstanding; was that in case circumstances arose which 
 warranted it, they would be employed. Terms were 
 mentioned, no doubt, but there was no understanding 
 they were to come in and go to work at that time. It 
 was simply a general conversation that in case the men 
 were to be employed that a man had been on the ground 
 and looked it over, and it was for consultation only 
 that Mr. Hinde went to Pittsburg. 
 
 O. Had Mr. Hinde returned to New York before 
 
65 
 
 the 25th? A. Oh, yes, sir. He went away with these 
 men when they left. 
 
 0 . He went away with the men ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 0 . When he returned to New York you received 
 this letter, which was dated on the 25th of June, and 
 that was after he had had an interview with Mr. Frick? 
 A. Yes, sir; my recollection is that that is what led up 
 to the letter. I declined to furnish the men unless they 
 could be sworn in. After Mr Hinde’s return I declined 
 to furnish the men unless they could be sworn in. 
 
 The Chairman : As deputy sheriffs ? 
 
 The Witness : As peace officers or deputy sheriffs. 
 
 By Mr. Boatner : 
 
 O. Did you reply to Mr. Frick’s letter of the 25th of 
 June? A. My recollection is I did, but most of our ne- 
 gotiations were done through Mr. Schoonmaker through 
 the telephone or over their private wire. Mr. Schoon- 
 maker would come to me and then he would go back, 
 and whether he would telephone or use the private wire 
 I could not say. 
 
 0. I would like for you to be certain, if you can, 
 whether you did reply to this letter of the 25th of June? 
 A. I think it is very likely. 
 
 O. Well, that still leaves it in a condition of uncer- 
 tainty? A. I do not think there is much doubt about 
 it myself ; I believe I did ; that is all I can say. 
 
 0 . Do you recollect having written the letter or 
 dictated it yourself? A. I did not write it myself; if I 
 did send one I dictated it. 
 
 O. Do you recollect having dictated it? A. I have 
 a recollection I did. My recollection is I did. 
 
 0 . Do you recollect the substance of the letter? A. 
 
66 
 
 Well, I can only say I think it applied to the swearing 
 in of the men ; that if we furnished the men they must 
 be sworn in. 
 
 Q. Could you furnish us with a press copy of that 
 letter? A. I could furnish you with a copy of that let- 
 ter if it was necessary. 
 
 0. We would like to have it. Mr. Frick has furnished 
 us with a letter to you, and we would be very glad to 
 have a copy of your reply. Now, it was testified to by 
 the captain of the boat who took those men to Home- 
 stead that the arms were turned over to him, with the 
 supplies, and that they were delivered to him in ordinary 
 boxes, which did not show what they contained. Will 
 you state to the committee who sent those arms to the 
 City of Pittsburg? A. We sent them. 
 
 O. From what point ? A. From Chicago. 
 
 Q. To whose care did you ship them at Pittsburg? 
 A. To the Union Supply Company. 
 
 Q. Did you give the Union Supply Company instruc- 
 tions as to the disposition to be made of the arms? A. 
 No, sir. 
 
 Q. You gave them no instructions? A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. How did the Union Supply Company come to 
 deliver them to the captain of this boat ? A. I have 
 no personal knowledge how it was, but I could assume 
 how it was done. 
 
 O. How would you assume it was done ? A. I assume 
 they got instructions from the Carnegie people — from 
 some one of them. 
 
 O. Had you given the Union Supply Company in- 
 structions to act on the orders of the CameHe Steel 
 
 o 
 
 Company? A. No, sir. 
 
 O. How do you account for the fact that the Supply 
 
67 
 
 Company accepted instructions from the Carnegie Steel 
 Company about your property? A. I do not know 
 they accepted instructions. I assume that they did, 
 but I cannot account for why they were delivered 
 there. 
 
 The Chairman : Mr. Boatner, I think there is some- 
 thing in the testimony taken out there that Mr. Frick 
 or some of those people are members of the Union Sup- 
 ply Company. 
 
 By Mr. Boatner: 
 
 O. What sort of an organization is the Union Sup- 
 ply Company — what business does it do ? A. I do not 
 know. 
 
 O. You do not know? A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. At whose suggestion did you send those arms and 
 ammunition to the Union Supply Company? A. The 
 instructions came from the Carnegie people. 
 
 O. And you merely obeyed their instructions in re- 
 gard to the shipment of their arms? A. Yes, sir; that 
 is, to ship anything we had to ship. 
 
 O. You have testified at considerable length about 
 the object of having these arms on board; under what 
 contingencies were these arms to be used? A. In case 
 that their lives — we positively instructed the men and 
 officers that the arms were not to be used except they 
 were sworn in by the sheriff and their lives were in 
 danger. I desire to say that I did not know that the 
 arms were to go up on the boat, but I have understood 
 that the reason they were sent up on the boat was, it 
 was impossible to get anything inside of the works 
 otherwise. I had nothing to do with putting the arms 
 on the boat. 
 
68 
 
 Q. Then, as I understand, your instructions were that 
 the men, in the event resistance was made to their land- 
 ing, should not use the arms unless their lives were in 
 danger? A. Or unless they were sworn in, and then 
 only when their lives were in danger. 
 
 O. They were not to use the arms unless they were 
 sworn in and their lives were also in danger? A. Yes, 
 sir ; unless their lives also were in danger. 
 
 O. Do you mean if they had been attacked and their 
 lives were threatened before they were sworn in, that 
 they had no right to protect themselves ? A. Not with 
 arms. 
 
 Q. Even if they were attacked with arms? A. If 
 they were attacked with arms, and the men’s lives were 
 in danger, they were to protect themselves. 
 
 O. Were not arms furnished? A. They were to 
 protect themselves ; those were the instructions to the 
 men. 
 
 O. But they were provided with those arms ? A. 
 They were not; the arms were sent up to be put inside 
 the Homestead works. 
 
 Q. But the evidence which was .furnished there at 
 Homestead shows this state of facts: when the pro- 
 visions were put on board the barges the arms were put 
 on also ; that the sheriff was instructed not to swear 
 these men in except in case of trouble, and there is a 
 good deal of doubt, and the sheriff himself did not seem 
 to know what instructions he had given ; but that was 
 the contention of the Frick people. 
 
 Mr. Bynum: Pardon me, Mr. Boatner; without any 
 intention you might mislead him, and you should state 
 to him that that was the testimony which was elicited 
 at Pittsburg. 
 
69 
 
 Mr. Boatner : I am now stating to him what testi- 
 mony was stated there ; you understand that ? 
 
 The Witness : Yes, sir. 
 
 O. Now, I want to know what use would be made of 
 those arms in the event an attack should be made upon 
 the boat in advance of those men being sworn in. You 
 say to this committee the men were instructed they were 
 not to use the arms until after they were sworn in and 
 then assailed ? A. I desire to say this : I had no reason to 
 anticipate an attack on the boat, and therefore gave no 
 instructions on that point. We had every reason to 
 believe that they could land on the company’s property 
 without trouble. 
 
 O. You thought they could get there without the 
 Homestead men knowing anything about it ? A. That 
 was the object. 
 
 O. Without the strikers ascertaining that fact? A. 
 That was the object. 
 
 O. That was the object in sending them up by boat ? 
 A. Yes, sir; by boat. 
 
 Q. Then the object of furnishing them with arms 
 was to resist any forcible attack which might be made 
 on the works after obtaining possession ? A. Made on 
 the works, or any forcible attempt which was made on 
 themselves where their lives were in danger. 
 
 O. Well, now, let me see if we can get at what your 
 understanding was. These men, you supposed, were 
 to be gotten into the works without the strikers know- 
 ing it ? A. That was what we hoped to do. 
 
 Q. That was what you expected ? A. That was 
 what we expected. 
 
 Q. They were then furnished with arms ? A. They 
 
70 
 
 were not ; no, sir ; the arms were shipped by the Union 
 Supply Company. 
 
 Q. We have gotten way past that ; the arms were 
 put upon the boat; you do not deny that ? A. No, 
 sir ; I do not. 
 
 Q. And the arms were issued to the men ? A. Yes, 
 sir ; but I had nothing to do with issuing them. 
 
 Q. Was it not contemplated when you shipped the 
 arms that they were to be issued to the men in the 
 event it became necessary to issue them ? A. Yes, sir ; 
 when they were on the company’s property. 
 
 O. That was the understanding when you sent them ? 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 O. Now, then, in the event any attempt should be 
 made by the Homestead workmen to dislodge your men 
 from those works or dislodge the employees of the 
 Homestead Company from those works, was it not ex- 
 pected your men were to use the arms with which they 
 had been provided? A. No, sir; not unless their lives 
 were in danger. 
 
 O. Then, if the Homestead strikers had come to the 
 works and undertaken to put your men off without en- 
 dangering their lives, they would not have been author- 
 ized to use those guns ? A. No, sir ; they would not. 
 
 O. If the strikers had come there with sufficient force 
 just to shove them out of the works, they would have 
 gone ? A. Well, I suppose if there had been trouble 
 there they would have fought there, but there would 
 have been no arms used. 
 
 O. What did you expect them to fight with ? A. 
 They had three hundred what we call night sticks — 
 night clubs. 
 
 O. They were then to use the sticks unless the Home- 
 
71 
 
 stead people resorted to arms ? A. They were to pro- 
 tect themselves and they were to keep trespassers off 
 the company’s property. 
 
 Q. How? A. Well, at the first sign of trouble the 
 understanding was they were to be sworn in. And after 
 that, if any one attempted to come on the property of 
 the company, they would be then peace officers, and 
 any one committing a breach of the peace should be 
 arrested. 
 
 O. It was supposed, then, if any one attempted to 
 enter those works they would be sworn in as peace offi- 
 cers and they would have authority to arrest them ? 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 O. And in the exercise of that authority they were 
 authorized to use the arms if their lives should become 
 endangered ; is that the way of it ? A. If their lives 
 were in danger and they were fired on, and perhaps 
 some of them were killed, and they supposed their lives 
 depended upon their firing back, they were authorized 
 to use their arms. 
 
 O. You stated something about the Chicago, Bur- 
 lington and Quincy strike ; how many men did you 
 have in the service of the company on that Burlington 
 strike? A. Well, it extended from Chicago to Den- 
 ver, and I suppose that, guessing at the number, there 
 may have been 300 men employed there. 
 
 0 . Were those men sworn in as peace officers on that 
 occasion ? A. At different parts of the road they were ; 
 yes, sir. 
 
 O. Were the men considered as employees of the 
 road or as your employees? A. At some parts of the 
 road they were not. 
 
 Q. Were those men armed? A. The men riding 
 
trains and the men doing duty at different points of the 
 road where there had been trouble were armed. Where 
 there had been no trouble they carried clubs. 
 
 O. What was the purpose of having men armed on 
 that occasion ? A. Well, to protect their own lives and 
 to protect the company’s employees. 
 
 O. In other words, to resist any armed attack upon 
 the road or its employees ? A. To drive off any armed 
 attacks. 
 
 O. By the use of arms ? A. Well, if arms were used, 
 the men would be expected to protect themselves 
 rather than be killed. 
 
 O. Well, as a general rule, it is too late for a man to 
 use arms after he is fired upon. Were your instruc- 
 tions to your men that they had to be fired upon be- 
 fore they could return the fire? A. There has never 
 been a case where that has not been the case that I 
 know of. They have always been assailed first. If a 
 man is standing on top of a freight train and another man 
 is standing upon a bank above him, and he takes a bowl- 
 der and throws it down on him, he might as well shoot 
 at him with a rifle bullet. 
 
 O. Would it not be too late to shoot the man after 
 he had thrown the bowlder ? A. I think if the man 
 got away it would not be too late. 
 
 O. What is the use of a man bein^ armed if it is not 
 for the purpose of preventing these assaults ? A. They 
 are to defend themselves with. 
 
 O. It seems to me there is an inconsistency in your 
 statement. You say that your men are armed for the 
 purpose of defending themselves, and yet you say they 
 are not to defend themselves until after they are fired 
 upon. Now, down in my part of the country it is gen- 
 
erally too late for a man to defend himself after he is 
 fired upon ; he is generally hors de combat afterwards? 
 A. There is quite a difference between where you live 
 and up here, although the law may be the same. 
 
 Q. Then they are not as good shots here as they are 
 down there? A. No; I do not think they are. In 
 fact, if the firing at Homestead had been done to kill, 
 there would have been a great many more people killed 
 than there were. I have no doubt if the men had 
 wanted to use those arms they would have obtained 
 possession of that yard, but they would have had to 
 sacrifice a great many more lives to do it. 
 
 O. You also stated you served the New York Cen- 
 tral Railroad. How many men did you have in the 
 service of that road during the strike ? A. Possibly 
 350 . 
 
 O. Were those men considered as employees of the 
 company, or your employees ; from whom did they get 
 their orders while they were in that service ? A. Well, 
 they got their orders from me. 
 
 O. Were they sworn in as peace officers ? A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 O. Well, after having been sworn in as peace officers, 
 did they continue to get their instructions from you ? 
 A. Yes, sir ; and the sheriff was in consultation 
 
 O. The sheriff was in consultation ? A. Yes, sir ; 
 at times. 
 
 0. Yet you say you continued to give orders to the 
 men ? A. Simply in regard to the protection of the 
 property and the protection of the employees. 
 
 O. Now, by what legal authority are you advised 
 that you have the right to instruct a sworn officer of 
 
74 
 
 the law; you had no official position, had you ? A. I 
 was sworn in. 
 
 Q. Were you sworn in also ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 O. In what capacity? A. As a peace officer. 
 
 Q. What sort of a peace officer ? A. A deputy 
 sheriff. 
 
 Q. Then I suppose you got your orders from the 
 sheriff and gave them to the men ? A. Yes, sir; I got 
 orders from the sheriff and I also gave orders to the 
 men. 
 
 O. Did you have any participation or did your men 
 have any participation in the strike which occurred at 
 St. Louis two years ago ? A. No, sir. 
 
 O. You did not ? A. No, sir. You mean where the 
 trouble was on the bridge — what was known as the 
 Missouri Pacific strike, where the trouble was on the 
 bridge ? 
 
 Q. Yes. A. No, sir. 
 
 O. Are those two strikes, the Chicago, Burlington 
 and Quincy and the New York Central, the only strikes 
 you have had connection with in the last six or seven 
 years? A. No, sir; we have had connection with a 
 good many strikes. 
 
 O. Well, railroad strikes ? A. I mentioned, I think, 
 the Lake Shore, and the one I did not mention at the 
 time was the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western. 
 
 O. State if there has been any instance in which you 
 have furnished men as guards or policemen under such 
 circumstances as have been detailed unless they have 
 been sworn in as deputy sheriffs ; in other words, have 
 you made it a rule that your men shall be sworn in as 
 deputy sheriffs ? A. We made it a rule. Possibly at 
 some point on the Burlington road where there was no 
 
75 
 
 trouble the men have acted as watchmen without being 
 sworn in, but only at those points where there has been 
 no trouble. 
 
 Q. You have stated that three men were killed by 
 your people in these strikes, and I have been requested 
 to ask you if you know of any women who have been 
 killed? A. Never, to my knowledge ; there never was. 
 It was stated in the papers that was so, but it is not a 
 fact. It was stated that women were killed at Albany, 
 but that is not the fact. 
 
 The Chairman : Have you any women detectives in 
 your employ ? 
 
 The Witness : No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Boatner : 
 
 O. How many similar agencies are there to yours in 
 the United States, or are there any others of which you 
 know? A. There are a very large number of what 
 they call private detective agencies in the United 
 States, in New York, and all the large cities. 
 
 Q. Are there any other agencies besides yours of 
 which you know which furnishes men, such as you fur- 
 nish, to aid corporations in resisting strikes or maintain- 
 ing lockouts ? A. There have been other agencies 
 who have furnished men to do this work. 
 
 O. In late years ? A. Yes, sir ; in the Lake Shore 
 strike before we took hold of it there were other parties 
 contracting to do the work. 
 
 O. Can you state any other such agencies ? A. 
 Well, there was a firm called Mooney & Boland, of 
 Chicago, who furnished men for the strike ; also in the 
 street-car hands’ strike in Chicago, and the Lake 
 Shore. There are other parties who are not known as 
 
76 
 
 being in the detective agencies who have contracted to 
 supply men in small numbers as watchmen at different 
 points. That is men who have been officers. There 
 is an agency called Field’s who have supplied men to 
 some roads there in the Northwest and to mining com- 
 panies in the Northwest. 
 
 The Chairman : Have you furnished any men in the 
 case of the troubles in Idaho which are now going on 
 there ? 
 
 The WiTNESS : No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Bynum : 
 
 O. Is your organization in the form of a corporation 
 ora mere company? A. It is a copartnership. 
 
 Q. You have stated fully, I presume, the object of 
 that copartnership ? A. It is for the carrying on of 
 the general detective business and having a watch 
 force. 
 
 O. What was the object of your furnishing men ; for 
 what purpose have you furnished men to railroad cor- 
 porations transporting interstate commerce and carry- 
 ing the mails; in other words, I want to know what 
 was the object for which these men were furnished ? 
 A. In strike work, strike troubles. 
 
 O. Well, at any time, what was the purpose for which 
 they were employed? A. Well, of course we do other 
 work for railroad companies outside of strike work ; we 
 do detective work. 
 
 O. But in strike work, say ? A. Well, we have fur- 
 nished them for the purpose of protecting the property 
 and employees, for the moving of trains, and seeing that 
 trains were kept moving ; for clearing yards of strikers 
 and switch yards and protecting life and property gen- 
 erally, and passengers. 
 
77 
 
 O. The purpose was for the movement of trains upon 
 schedule time and to prevent interference with them ? 
 A. Always so. 
 
 By the Chairman: 
 
 O. Have you ever supplied men for the interference 
 with the running of trains or the transportation of in- 
 terstate trade or commerce? A. Never. Our whole 
 work in connection with strikes on railroads has been 
 to raise blockades and move trains, never to stop them. 
 
 Q. To allow trains to run on their regular time ? A. 
 Yes, sir ; where trains have been obstructed by strikers 
 and discontented employees, or for any other causes 
 which might arise during the strike, our duties have 
 been to get the trains started and kept moving, all 
 freight, passenger and mail trains, as rapidly as we can. 
 
 Q. You do that for a consideration ; the companies 
 pay you, I suppose? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. B RODERICK: 
 
 O. Where is your principal office ? A. Our princi- 
 pal office ? We call Chicago our principal office, as 
 that is where we originated from, but the business now 
 is such we call New York and Chicago our principal 
 offices. 
 
 Q. You stated, I believe, that it was a partnership; 
 have you never had a charter from any State ? A. 
 Never. 
 
 O. Does the law of Illinois require a partnership to 
 be in writing and recorded ? A. I think not. 
 
 0. I refer to the articles of copartnership ? A. I 
 think not. 
 
 O. Do you know whether the articles of copartner- 
 ship are in writing or not ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
78 
 
 Q. Have you a copy, and could you furnish the 
 committee with a copy? A. I have a copy. 
 
 Q. Have you one with you? A. No, sir; I have not 
 seen the articles of copartnership for many years. 
 
 O. Can you state, in substance, the object of the co- 
 partnership more definitely than you have ? A. Only 
 that the copartnership is for the carrying on of the 
 general detective business and the private watch force. 
 
 O. When you first inaugurated your enterprise, the 
 only object was to establish and maintain a detective 
 agency? A. And a private watch force. I think the 
 agency was started in 1850 by my father, and in 1857 
 he established a private watch force ; that is what we 
 call the merchant’s force, to watch stores, banks, and 
 private residences. 
 
 By the Chairman: 
 
 O. Allan Pinkerton was the father of you and 
 William A. Pinkerton? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 O. You and he are brothers? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Broderick: 
 
 O. The original purpose was to establish and main- 
 tain a detective agency? A. Yes, sir; that was the 
 original idea at the time it was started. 
 
 O. But the scope of your organization has been 
 enlarged? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 O. Are you required to report, or do you report to 
 any authority in the States where you operate ? A. 
 When we are sworn in, if at any time we are sworn in, 
 we report ; if not, no, sir. 
 
 O. Have you ever been subject to the order of the 
 governor in any State in which you have operated ? 
 A. Occasionally. If we serve the governor’s warrant 
 
79 
 
 we are supposed to report on it, and we do report on 
 it; that is, in criminal cases. 
 
 Q. Have you ever been authorized by the governor 
 of a State to do anything other than serving of a 
 warrant? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. What other service have you been authorized to 
 do ? A. Our men have been sworn in as coal and iron 
 policemen under the State law. 
 
 O. In what State? A. In the State of Pennsylvania. 
 I think we organized the first coal and iron police 
 in the State of Pennsylvania at the time of the Molly 
 Maguire troubles. 
 
 Q. The governor there exercises some control and 
 authority over the police ? A. Over the coal and iron 
 police ; that is, their commission comes from the 
 governor. 
 
 The Chairman : There is a statute there which 
 authorizes the governor to appoint men railroad police, 
 and coal and iron police ? 
 
 Mr; Broderick : I have understood there was. 
 
 The Witness : When I spoke of his swearing us in 
 I referred to our men, our employees. 
 
 Q. From what State were those men brought to 
 serve as coal and iron police? A. When the coal and 
 iron police were first organized the men came from 
 Chicago and part of them from Philadelphia. At that 
 time it was not probably known that they were our 
 men. I do not know whether the governor understood 
 they were our men or not. 
 
 Q. Has your association ever been recognized as an 
 association by the governor of any State ? A. Only to 
 the extent we have been working for the governors of 
 different States ; we have done a great deal of this work. 
 
80 
 
 Q. What sort of work ? A. Detective work. 
 
 Q. Nothing more than detective work? A. Detect- 
 ive work. 
 
 By Mr. Boatner : 
 
 Q. Is it true you were employed to police this city, 
 or to assist in policing this city, at the last inauguration? 
 A. To this extent — that I selected a number of men 
 who were brought in from the outside, from the 
 different cities, for the purpose, during the inauguration, 
 of picking out thieves, pickpockets, and confidence men, 
 but only in the detective line ; in no other way. 
 
 O. At whose suggestion ? A. I think it was the 
 board of police. 
 
 Q. The strikers, I believe, or Mr. Weihe, who is a 
 representative of the Amalgamated Association, claimed 
 that the methods of the strikers are purely peaceable ; 
 that they only persuade people not to accept the posi- 
 tions which they vacate, or from which they have 
 been locked out, and that they did not encourage any 
 sort of violence or countenance it. Now, I understand 
 you to say your men are never authorized to use 
 arms or force until they are attacked, and I want you to 
 explain to us how you and your men and the strikers 
 get together under these conditions ? A. Well, I never 
 knew a strike in my life, and I have seen and had to do 
 with a great many of them, where these labor organiza- 
 tions have not taken hold of non-union men who 
 wanted to go to work and caught them and beaten 
 them. I have seen men’s faces beaten into a jelly ; I 
 have seen men knocked off freight trains and shot off 
 the top of freight trains ; I have known of strikers, 
 members of this very Knights of Labor, putting obstruc- 
 
81 
 
 tions on the tracks to throw off trains moving on the 
 railroad at night time, on a part of the road where they 
 run the fastest down an embankment, and where there 
 were nothing but sleeping cars on the train ; I know 
 of members of this same Knights of Labor who have 
 been convicted and sent to State prisons for that very 
 offense. I have seen men who wanted to work treated 
 worse than savages by those very representatives of 
 these secret labor organizations, and there has never 
 been a case, and they cannot cite a case, where they 
 have not been the means of bringing on trouble, and I 
 notify them to do it if they can. I have known of them 
 putting, in the strike at Chicago — the iron strike — 
 where stoves were molded, high explosives in the molds 
 so that when the hot iron was putin the molds it would 
 explode. On the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy strike 
 members of this very organization were arrested and 
 convicted for putting dynamite under cars. There 
 were two trains wrecked on the Central road, one a fast 
 express on the way from Chicago, and the men who 
 committed these acts were convicted, and they were 
 members of the Knights of Labor, and they confessed 
 they were furnished money by the Knights of Labor. 
 
 Q. There is one other question I wanted to ask you. 
 Knowing the hostility of the Knights of Labor people 
 and organized labor generally to your force, and know- 
 ing that in all probability sending your men to Home- 
 stead would result in a collision, why did you send them 
 there without the authority of the officers of Allegheny 
 County, and without stipulating that they should be 
 qualified as officers before they approached the Home- 
 stead works ? A. I stipulated that as far as possible. 
 
 I had no reason to know that our men would go and be 
 
82 
 
 assaulted ; we supposed our men would be landed on 
 that property without assault. 
 
 O. You only supposed that because you would slip 
 right in there without the strikers knowing it ? A. We 
 expected to get them in there without being noticed. 
 
 O. You knew you could not get them in over any of 
 the railroads and that they could not be brought there by 
 daylight, and therefore you tried to get them in there 
 at night? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 O. That shows you were fully aware that an effort to 
 send them there would result in a collision. Now, why 
 did not you see the sheriff or some other legal officer 
 of that county, and have your men, if they were going 
 to send them there, qualified as officers of the State of 
 Pennsylvania? A. That is what we did do. 
 
 O. Did you see the sheriff? A. No, sir; the Car- 
 negie people did. 
 
 O. You took the word of the Carnegie people for it? 
 A. Yes, sir; the sheriff, I believe, testified to it. 
 
 O. But there is a difference in the testimony. Did 
 you ^ee any one there, or seek the sheriff, or an)* other 
 officer of the county of Allegheny, to have him authorize 
 these men to be sent there ? A. No, sir. 
 
 O. Have you got any such paper in your possession ? 
 A. No, sir; from the sheriff, no sir. 
 
 O. Or any other officer? A. No, sir. 
 
 O. Then you merely accepted the verbal statement 
 of the Carnegie firm ? A. Of their representative. 
 
 O. And you acted entirely upon their representation ? 
 A. As they represented it to me. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 O. How many detectives did you furnish here in 
 
83 
 
 Washington at the last inauguration ? I understood 
 you to say you furnished some. A. I think we fur- 
 nished anywhere from sixteen to twenty. They were 
 detectives selected from different parts of the country, 
 as I say, for the purpose of keeping away thieves. 
 
 O. With whom did you contract to furnish those 
 men ? A. There was no contract, as you might call it— 
 that is, a signed contract. It was simply a notice sent. 
 
 O. Somebody paid for it? A. Yes, sir; it was paid 
 for by the order of the Board of Police Commissioners. 
 
 O. And application was made by the chief of police ? 
 A. I could not say whether application first came 
 through the chief or secretary, but they have the letters 
 which would show, I suppose. It was somebody in 
 authority there, and I think the board authorized them 
 to be employed. 
 
 O. They were here for duty only as detectives ? A. 
 Yes, sir; to pick out professional thieves who gather 
 where great crowds gather at any time, and they ar- 
 rested, I think, about forty. 
 
 By Mr. Boatner : 
 
 Q. Did you ever detail any of your men for services 
 as Knights of Labor ? A. Well, not services as Knights 
 of Labor. I suppose we have got men who have been 
 members of the Knights of Labor. 
 
 O. My question was whether you ever detailed them 
 to become Knights of Labor, and to serve in that direc- 
 tion ? A. Well I 
 
 Q. You may be like Mr. Frick, and it may be a secret 
 which you do not care to give away ? A. If I can I 
 should prefer not to answer that question. 
 
 The Chairman : That would go into one of the pri- 
 vate methods of transacting your business. 
 
84 
 
 The Witness : Yes, sir — that is, the detective part 
 of it. 
 
 By Mr. Bynum : 
 
 0. Those detectives you furnished here at the in- 
 auguration I understood you to say were simply fur- 
 nished to detect thieves, etc. That is the custom in all 
 the great cities in the country, where large crowds 
 gather together? A. Yes, sir; where unusual crowds 
 gather together. 
 
 O. Where the municipal authorities in those local- 
 ities call on the police officers from different cities, who 
 are acquainted with professional thieves ? A. They 
 make what they think is the best selection, and that is 
 the only work that we have done in the District of Co- 
 lumbia that I know of. 
 
 O. You say you know of only three persons having 
 been killed by your men ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 O. Do you mean the only persons killed where your 
 employees were engaged ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 O. How many men were killed at the coke strike? 
 A. None, I think. 
 
 O. How many people were killed at the Connellsville 
 strike ? A. I do not remember of anybody being killed 
 there — that is, killed at the time. Of course, men might 
 have been killed by railroad trains or something of that 
 kind, but I do not remember it. 
 
 Q. Do you know of any one having been killed in a 
 collision between your men and strikers ? A. No, sir: 
 not there. Our watch service and our detective service 
 are entirely separate ; the detective business is one 
 thing and the watch is another, and they are the same 
 as two different institutions. 
 
85 
 
 O. I understand that. The watch service finally 
 grew and developed with the necessity for sending 
 watchmen to protect property? A. Yes, sir; these 
 men who go out on strike work — the papers call them 
 detectives, but they are none of them detectives — they 
 are simply watchmen, as none of the detectives go on 
 that kind of work. 
 
 By Mr. Broderick : 
 
 Q. You spoke of furnishing the last inauguration 
 with some men. Has that been the custom heretofore, 
 or has this been the only case? A. I think on one or 
 two previous occasions we have furnished men, but not 
 to the extent we furnished them at this time, on this 
 last occasion ; and whether it was because their services 
 were satisfactory on the previous occasion, I cannot say, 
 but on this last occasion it was given to me to select 
 the men who were to be brought from the outside. 
 
 O. Do you remember on what other occasion you 
 furnished them, or what other inauguration ? A. Well, 
 I suppose it was the one before that. 
 
 O. The one before the last? A. It was either that 
 or when there was some large crowd of people here, but 
 that was only two or three men, and on the last occa- 
 sion we furnished, I think, anywhere from 16 to 20. 
 
 O. You furnish men to State fairs and gatherings of 
 that nature ? A. Yes, sir ; where we are applied to. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 0 . You say you do not employ any women ? A. We 
 do as typewriters and clerks. 
 
 O. Not as detectives, nor in the guard business? A. 
 No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Boatner : I suppose if women possessed the 
 
86 
 
 necessary qualifications you would not debar them on 
 account of their sex ? 
 
 The Witness : We do not employ them. Those 
 who want to go into detective business are sort of 
 unreliable, and you cannot depend on them, you can- 
 not bet on them. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 O. Here is a statement which you and your partner 
 furnished to this committee. I see by the character of 
 it that you could not testify to all of it because a good 
 deal of it is argumentative. Do you swear that the 
 statement of facts which it contains are true ? A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. And you desire it to go along with your testimony 
 as a statement of your case ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Boatner : 
 
 O. There is one single question I want to ask, with 
 the chairman’s permission. Do you conduct your busi- 
 ness in any State where the laws of the State prohibit 
 it, as far as you know ? A. I do not exactly under- 
 stand the question. I do not know of any State which 
 prohibits our carrying on a detective business. 
 
 O. That is what I wanted to get at ; but what I mean 
 is, in the way of furnishing bodies of men for the pro- 
 tection of property in case of strikes or lockouts such as 
 you have named, have you been stopped from the busi- 
 ness by the officers of any State? A. No, sir. 
 
 O. As being contrary to the laws of the State ? A. 
 No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bynum : The only laws which have been passed 
 are those which prohibit police powers being conferred 
 upon others than residents of the State. 
 
87 
 
 The Witness: That is it; residents of a county. 
 
 Mr. Bynum : That is a law of Indiana, I believe. 
 
 Mr. Boatner : Have such laws been passed in some 
 counties ? 
 
 Mr. Bynum : Indiana has a law which prohibits them 
 from conferring police powers on any others than 
 residents of a county, and he must be a resident for a 
 stated length of time. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 O. What is your method of recruiting men for this 
 service as guards or watchmen ? A. Well, take for 
 instance, the Carnegie strike. There are all the time 
 constantly applying to us parties who want employment 
 as watchmen or detectives. Each one who applies is 
 furnished an application, a printed application, and he 
 writes out his application. These application blanks 
 ask certain questions, which are to be answered. He 
 writes out his application, and on the margin of the ap- 
 plication the superintendent or assistant superintendent, 
 who has examined the man, must state what his im- 
 pressions are in regard to the man as he sees him and 
 talks to him. If at any time we propose to employ 
 that man we then go into his references, which he gives 
 in his application. For instance, in the Carnegie 
 strike, if we wanted more men than we had our- 
 selves we used those applications. We went back to 
 those applications. We sent for the men to explain 
 what we wanted them for. If they wanted the employ- 
 ment they took it. If they did not not want it they did 
 not take it. It has been stated I advertised in New 
 York ; I did not do that. 
 
 O. How many of the 310 or 312 men there were your 
 
88 
 
 regular employes, or what portion were recruited who 
 had not served you before ? A. I think two-thirds 
 fully were men who were in our employ, and had been 
 in our employ, and whom we knew. The others were 
 men who had been got on these applications to us and 
 whose references we looked into. 
 
 O. One of the witnesses who testified before us, Mr. 
 Kennedy, a boatman, who was on the barge, testified 
 that not more than 40 or 50 of your men were on 
 the deck of the barge and fired at the time when the 
 strikers on the shore or the mob were firing ; that it was 
 a sudden fusillade and both parties ran ; the strikers on 
 shore fled in every direction, and your men ran back 
 into the barges and hid ; many of them stating when he 
 suggested to them just afterwards that they might go 
 out and take possession of the property that they did 
 not come there to fight ; that they only came there to 
 stand guard ; and he said, furthermore, that he never 
 saw such cowardice in his life. What do you say in 
 regard to that ? A. I have heard the stories in regard 
 to the matter. I have also questioned the officers who 
 had charge. They stated to me they could have taken 
 possession of the yard right at the start, almost any 
 time before 10 o’clock, with 50 or 75 men, but they 
 would have had to kill a number of people, and among 
 them women and children, and they concluded not to 
 do anything of the kind. They say the force down 
 there was firing over their heads and it 
 
 O. Over whose heads ? A. Over the strikers’ heads 
 — and it goes to show that must have been so or there 
 would have been more killed than there were. 
 
 O. What kind of arms did your men have ? A. 
 Winchester rifles. 
 
89 
 
 Q. They are powerful weapons ? A. I understand 
 at the start there were not over 20 men who were given 
 arms, and afterwards when the thing got to be pretty 
 hot there were about 40 men armed ; but when it 
 started there were not over 15 or 20 armed. 
 
 0 . The testimony was they were getting arms out 
 after they had seen this hostile demonstration and some 
 shots had been fired at the boat coming up the river, 
 and that they were unboxing their arms when the 
 boat landed ? A. That is the way I understand it. 
 
 By Mr. Broderick : 
 
 O. Are there similar agencies to yours in this 
 country ? A. There are large numbers of detective 
 agencies. There is hardly a city of any size in the 
 country that has not got them. 
 
 0 . Do you know whether any private agencies are 
 chartered by the State ? A. Some are, I think. I am 
 not sure of that. I think that is so. 
 
 O. Are they generally organized 
 
 The Witness (interrupting) : That is what we call a 
 license. 
 
 0 . Are they generally organized and incorporated 
 like yours? A. We are not incorporated, sir; we are 
 just a copartnership. 
 
 0 . That is the rule, is it, simply to form a partner- 
 ship? A. Some are incorporated and some have licenses 
 to operate. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 O. Yours is simply a private partnership between 
 you and your brother ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 0 . In the case of the New York Central Railroad 
 strike did you have any correspondence with any officers 
 
90 
 
 of that company prior to the employment of your men ? 
 A. Oh, no ; I think it was all done by personal inter- 
 views. 
 
 O. With what officers or employees of the company 
 or agents ? A. Personally I was up on the line of the 
 road attending court in a burglary case when the strike 
 came on the Central Railroad, and it was not expected 
 at all ; it was very sudden. It came on within two or 
 three hours when the order making the strike was given 
 and the trains were all tied up, and as soon as I could 
 get to Albany I went there to get directions from New 
 York by telegraph, and I stayed at Albany during the 
 whole strike. 
 
 O. From whom did the telegram come ? A. Mr. 
 Bangs, who was our superintendent in New York; he 
 was in consultation with the officials of the railroad. 
 
 O. Who were the officials of the railroad who ne- 
 gotiated for the employment of your men ? A. I 
 think that Mr. H. Walter Webb, the vice-president, 
 was probably the one who did it, but I did not see him 
 until after the strike was over, or rather, I saw him 
 when he came up the road on one or two occasions, 
 but I stayed in Albany and was not in New York. 
 
 O. Have you the letters and correspondence touch- 
 ing the matter of your employment, or any directions, 
 printed or written, or contracts in writing which you 
 can furnish ? A. From the officers of the company ? 
 
 O. Yes; between you and them ? A. No, sir; there 
 was nothing of the kind. 
 
 O. The negotiations you say were not carried on by 
 written correspondence ? A. No, sir; it is simply an 
 understanding. 
 
 O. Did your employees come into collision with those 
 
91 
 
 strikers of the railroad, and was there any killing done 
 on either side? A. We had two men killed up there, 
 but I will say there were no men killed on the strikers’ 
 side. These men were not killed either by the strikers. 
 They were killed by the railroad trains while they were 
 patrolling along the tracks at night time. 
 
 O. You testify that your men did not kill anybody 
 there? A. Not a one. 
 
 O. Never have killed but three except in the matter 
 of train robberies ? A. Outside of the Homestead 
 strike. 
 
 O. I mean up to the Homestead strike ; is that your 
 testimony? A. Yes, sir; that is my recollection ; three 
 is the limit in twenty years. 
 
 O. You say that during the years you have been in 
 the business that some of your men have been indicted 
 and tried for shooting or for assaults, but you have 
 never had one convicted by a superior court or on final 
 trial? xY Before a jury; no sir. 
 
 O. Never had one convicted ? A. No, sir; notone. 
 
 O. They have always been acquitted ? A. Yes, sir ; 
 they have always been acquitted. 
 
 William A. Pinkerton, sworn and examined. 
 
 By the Chairman: 
 
 0. Please give your place of residence? A. 196 
 Ashland Avenue, Chicago. 
 
 0. You have heard the testimony of Mr. Robert A. 
 Pinkerton ? A. I have. 
 
 O. You are a brother of his? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 O. And business partner ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 O. What do you have to say as to the statement he 
 has made as to the business that you are engaged in 
 
92 
 
 and the manner in which it is carried on ? A. I should 
 verify his statement, sir, in every particular. One 
 thing he appeared to neglect, and that is the question 
 of riding men on trains which probably 
 
 O. Will you state about that ? A. Well, off and on 
 for the last twenty-five years all over the United States, 
 particularly in the west and southwest, we have fur- 
 nished men to guard against the attacks of train robbers. 
 We have furnished men to act as guards to express 
 messengers and take care of their money. 
 
 O. How many railroad strikes and strikes of other 
 corporations do you remember that you have furnished 
 a guard or detective force, and when and where was it 
 and the extent, to the best of your recollection ? A. 
 Well, in the Burlington, Lake Shore and Michigan 
 Southern — they were the two which came under my 
 personal observation — and the Union Pacific. 
 
 O. In what years ? A. Well, the Union Pacific 
 matter was nearly eight years ago, the Burlington was 
 about four years ago, and the Lake Shore about five 
 years ago. It was a switchmen’s strike on the Lake 
 Shore Railroad. 
 
 O. Did you furnish armed men to those corporations, 
 and if so, about how many to each ? A. Well, I do not 
 recollect now, but it might have been between 200 and 
 300 in the employ of the Burlington. In the Lake 
 Shore and Michigan Southern there were probably 
 anywhere from 75 to 90 men, but they only went to 
 work after the road had been blocked up for five days 
 and not a wheel turned on the road. 
 
 O. What did they go there to do ? A. To open up 
 the yards, clear men out of the yards who did not be- 
 long there, allowing engineers and firemen to go on the 
 
93 
 
 trains unmolested to pull the trains out. For five days 
 there had not been a train taken away from there. 
 
 Q. In doing that did you shoot anybody or were 
 they shot by anybody ? A. They did not shoot any- 
 body. 
 
 O. Did they have any personal collision or conflict 
 or blood-letting ? A. Well, up in the town of Lake 
 there were three men caught turning a switch, which 
 was for the purpose of wrecking a train which was due, 
 and the men were caught and resisted, and they fought 
 when they attempted to make them prisoners, and they 
 were handled with a night stick. The town of Lake 
 w r as then on the outskirts of Chicago and is now a part 
 of Chicago. 
 
 O. Do you know of any instance where your men in 
 the employ of corporations, companies, or private indi- 
 viduals have taken life or killed anybody? A. Well, 
 the three instances which my brother mentioned are all 
 I recollect. We canvassed the matter over together. 
 
 O. Do you know the names of those men and where 
 those killings occurred ? A. I know the name of one 
 of them, and the other occurred down in New York, 
 and we are not sure in regard to the third one, even, 
 and that took place down in Ohio, in the Hocking Val- 
 ley coal strike nine years ago. 
 
 Q. Were your men tried or indicted for the killing 
 of either one of those three men? A. The men in 
 Jersey were indicted and tried and acquitted. The 
 men in Chicago were arrested, and after examination 
 before a magistrate the case went to the grand jury, and 
 the grand jury returned no bill. 
 
 Q. How about the Ohio case ? A. There was never 
 any one punished for that. 
 
94 
 
 O. No trial had there ? A. My recollection of that 
 is, it was a charge of shooting and not of killing, but I 
 will not be positive. I think there were only two, the 
 case in New Jersey and the case of the Union stock 
 yards in Chicago. 
 
 O. What was your practice in regard to sending out 
 men with guards ? Do you send them armed or box 
 up their arms and send them along with the men, or do 
 you depend upon their employers to furnish arms ? A. 
 Well, the way we got the arms in the first place was 
 the employers bought the arms. 
 
 O. In what case do you refer to ? A. W ell, this is one ; 
 two or three different cases, where they bought arms in 
 small quantities, and when it was over, the arms were 
 thrown on their hands, and they said, “ What will we 
 do with them ” ; so we bought them up in that way, 
 and latterly we have furnished the arms. 
 
 O. What amount of arms and the character of them 
 belong to your company ? A. Well, we had about 250 
 or 260 rifles. 
 
 O. Enfield? A. No, sir; Winchester; and I think 
 between 400 and 500 revolvers of all sizes and all 
 kinds. 
 
 O. You divided your arsenal and kept some at one 
 place and some at another? A. They are all kept at 
 Chicago. 
 
 O. That is headquarters and the arsenal or arms are 
 kept there? A. Well, as you like; the arms were 
 there. 
 
 O. Do you keep on hand a good supply of ammuni- 
 tion ? A. No ; it is not necessary ; you can buy that at 
 short notice. 
 
95 
 
 By Mr. Broderick : 
 
 Q. You stated you owned some arms which were 
 kept at Chicago; are your men drilled ? A. No, sir; 
 not with arms ; not at all, and never have been drilled. 
 All that is newspaper talk in which there is no truth, 
 and as a matter of fact they have never been drilled. 
 
 Mr. Robert A. Pinkerton : Where there has been a 
 strike and they go armed they went through a certain 
 drill. 
 
 The Witness : But at the headquarters of the organ- 
 ization there has never been anything of the kind. 
 
 O. There has never been any drilling of arms ? A. 
 No, sir ; nothing of the kind in the world. 
 
 Q. Any drilling without arms ? A. The patrol force 
 in Chicago amounts to upwards of 100 watchmen now; 
 they are drilled in the method of marching, etc. 
 
 O. Some of your men have been with you a good 
 many years ? A. Yes, sir ; a good many of them. 
 
 O. About what proportion of your force have been 
 with you two years or more ? A. Well, sir, I should 
 judge four-fifths of the men have been with us for five 
 years or more, and from that up to thirty years. 
 
 Q. How are they paid? A. Paid a salary, sir. 
 
 O. Monthly? A. Weekly. 
 
 By Mr. Bynum : 
 
 O. There is one question I will ask, to see if I under- 
 stand the testimony of you and your brother. In cases 
 where you furnish men as watchmen, your instructions 
 have been that they shall only use force to resist force ? 
 A. That is right. 
 
 O. And only so much as to protect themselves ? A. 
 Yes, sir. I have always told them in going away, and 
 
96 
 
 when I have been present myself, that because a man 
 blackguards and throws a stone, and women use a stick 
 or stone, that is not occasion to go back at them, but to 
 try to get along without any trouble, and never more so 
 than in this last case. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Part of the men who went to Homestead were 
 sent by you? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 O. What number ? A. Well, there were over ioo. 
 
 O. You shipped the arms from Chicago down there, 
 did you ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 O. Was that a part of the contract ? A. I do not 
 know anything about the contract personally, sir ; that 
 was not made with me ; but I shipped them under in- 
 structions from New York; boxed them up and sent 
 them to the Union Supply Company. I did not know 
 they were even on the boat, and there was no intention 
 to put them on the boat, and I was surprised at their 
 being on the boat, and the only reason that that was 
 done was because they could not get anything on the 
 company’s property. 
 
 O. What is the general character of the men you em- 
 ploy and use as watchmen ? A. Good. 
 
 O. Are the men of good character ? A. Yes, sir ; 
 they cannot get there unless they are, either. They 
 must be sober, industrious, reliable men. 
 
 O. You say you would not employ men of doubtful 
 character or bad habits? A. No, sir; we never have. 
 
 O. How do you ascertain when you are employing 
 your recruits as to their reliability ? A. The same way 
 a bank president would ascertain the habits of a clerk 
 in regard to reliability, by making him give references 
 
97 
 
 and looking up the references and examining to see if 
 he is all right. 
 
 O. Does that habit prevail— is this the practice in all 
 your offices ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 O. That has been your practice heretofore ? A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 O. Are you or your brother regarded as the head of 
 the firm ? A. Neither one ; it is a copartnership. 
 
 O. All of these other offices have to be operated un- 
 der your direction and head ? A. Under our head. He 
 takes the Eastern one, and I take the West. 
 
 O. Have you ever furnished any men to prevent 
 railroad trains from running, and obstructing them ? A. 
 Never in the world. 
 
 O. Or to prevent any particular class of men from 
 working in a factory, or furnaces, or mines? A. Never, 
 sir. 
 
 O. Then for what purpose do you hire and furnish 
 men to these various corporations? A. To protect 
 property and life. 
 
 O. And to enable them to pursue A. (Interrupt- 
 
 ing. ) To enable them to conduct their business with- 
 out interference ; that is, unauthorized interference. 
 
 O. Did you ever see that book before (handing 
 book) ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. What book is that ? A. This is an ordinary time 
 book. 
 
 Q. Used by whom and for what purpose? A. By us. 
 
 Q. Used by your firm of Pinkertons? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 O. To keep the time for the men in your employ? 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 O. Is that a list of the names of the men who went 
 to Homestead ? A. Some are in there which I recog- 
 
98 
 
 nize. I think that is an old list, sir, of men that have 
 been used at fair grounds or race tracks, although there 
 is quite a number of men there I know who are among 
 the number that went to Homestead. 
 
 Q. That book, then, was a book with which the ac- 
 counts of men in your employ were kept? A. Yes, sir ; 
 the same as an ordinary time book would be kept as to 
 how many days the men worked. 
 
 O. The entries in that book seem to be the time of 
 men in 1890? A. It is an old book, probably taken 
 along for the purpose of filling up, that is all. There 
 is nothing relating to anything very recent in there. 
 
 0 . That book was said to have been captured when 
 the men surrendered at the barges ? A. I do not doubt 
 it, sir. 
 
 O. Do you recognize any of those names (handing 
 sheet) ? A. Yes, sir ; I know the handwriting. 
 
 O. Whose handwriting- is it ? A. It is in the hand- 
 writing of one of the men who was shot there ; his name 
 is Hoffman. I suppose he appeared before the com- 
 mittee, as he was supposed to appear. These things 
 here (exhibiting blank) are forms of pay orders. If a 
 man is away from home and he wants to send the 
 money to his family he fills up a duplicate and sends it 
 to the office, to be paid to whom he pleases, and the 
 office turns it over to whoever he wants it turned over to. 
 
 By Mr. Broderick : 
 
 O. Have you any means of giving the names of those 
 who were at Homestead, all of them? A. \ es, sir. 
 
 O. Can you furnish the list? A. I guess I could 
 furnish the list from Chicago. 
 
 O. You have no means of doing that now ? A. Xo 
 sir ; I could not give it here ; no, sir. 
 
99 
 
 Mr. Robert A. Pinkerton : There is one thing I 
 want to explain to the committee, and that was in re- 
 gard to the answer that has been given that we have 
 employed no one whose character was not all right. 
 That had reference to strike work, and that answer is 
 correct. There have been occasions in bank robberies 
 where we have bought information from criminals, and 
 where we have used criminals where we have been 
 obliged to do it, and where the men have had bad 
 characters. 
 
 Mr. Bynum : That is in the detection of crime and 
 not as peace officers ? 
 
 Mr. Robert A. Pinkerton : Not as peace officers ; 
 no, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman: 
 
 O. (To Mr. Robert A. Pinkerton.) Do you testify 
 that you sent out as guards or watchmen men of good 
 character ? A. As far as we are able to investigate they 
 are, and I do not believe you can find any instance 
 where that is not the case. They have been called 
 thieves, thugs and ex-convicts, but they cannot cite a 
 single case of that. 
 
 O. I do not know of any complaint of your work 
 within the province of detective work ; it is only where 
 you have furnished these guards or watchmen. A. I 
 also desire to state, as far as we are personally con- 
 cerned, that we have no feeling against labor organiza- 
 tions and never had, and all we have ever done in con- 
 nection with labor work or with these strikers is simply 
 to protect life and property. We have no quarrel with 
 labor organizations. I believe that labor organization 
 is a good thing, and I believe if a man wants to strike 
 
100 
 
 he has a right to strike, but if a man wants to work he 
 has a right to work, and a labor organization has no 
 right to interfere with him ; but we have no quarrel with 
 any labor organization that I know of, and we have no 
 feeling against them. 
 
 O. And you carry on the business which you have 
 described, as a matter of course, for the money that is 
 in it for you ? A. Yes, sir ; as a matter of business. 
 
 By Mr. Broderick : 
 
 Q. xA.bout what proportion of your men which you 
 have employed are citizens of the United States? 
 
 The W itness : All of them. I take it all of them 
 are ; I do not know of any who are not. 
 
 By Mr. Boatner : 
 
 O. Do you inquire about a man’s citizenship when he 
 applies to you for work ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. William A. Pinkerton: You are referrinor to 
 
 o 
 
 watchmen ? 
 
 O. Yes, sir. Where you are sending out men like 
 those in this Homestead case. 
 
 Mr. Robert A. Pinkerton : They have all got to be 
 citizens as far as we know. 
 
 O. Do these strikes furnish you with a considerable 
 part of your business? A. No, sir; it is an outside 
 branch of the business entirely. 
 
 The Chairman : The detective business pays better 
 than that ? 
 
 Mr. Robert A. Pinkerton : We have never looked 
 for any strike work ; but it is something which has 
 grown up on our shoulders. 
 
 Mr. Boatner : I suppose you take that sort of em- 
 ployment from a sense of duty ? 
 
 The Witness: Yes, sir. 
 
101 
 
 Opinion of the Hon. George Ticknor Curtis, on the legality 
 of the employment of detectives in the Homestead 
 strike: — 
 
 “ North American Review , ” September , 1892. 
 
 The editor of “The North American Review” has 
 requested me to give my opinion on “ the legality of the 
 employment of Pinkerton detectives in such cases as the 
 Homestead strike.” The inquiry relates to other cases 
 similar in all material respects to the recent occurrences 
 at Homestead, at Pennsylvania. It also involves the 
 relations of employers and employed in all similar 
 branches of manufactures ; the relations between the 
 owners of mills, factories, etc., and the workmen whom 
 they employ. A great deal has been written on the 
 relations of capital and labor, and written to very little 
 purpose. It is, however, not difficult to define the 
 rights of property owners or capitalists on the one 
 hand, and of workmen on the other ; nor is it difficult 
 to determine what society — by which I mean the legisla- 
 tive power — owes to each of them respectively. 
 
 The matter of the Homestead strike has been very 
 much simplified by the statement made by the Messrs. 
 Pinkerton on the 2 2d of July to the Judiciary Com- 
 mittee of the United States Senate. It appears that 
 for the past twenty years what is called the Pinkerton 
 agency has been a private concern, which has furnished 
 detectives for the discovery of crime, and watchmen to 
 guard the property of individuals and corporations 
 during strikes. The men who have been so employed 
 were not public officers or officers of the law, unless in 
 a particular case they were made so by some public 
 authority. They were like any other private individuals 
 employed as watchmen to protect private property from 
 
102 
 
 the violence of a mob, from burglars, or any similar 
 danger. They had the same rights of self-defence and 
 the same right of defending the property of their 
 employers. 
 
 Homestead is a borough on the Allegheny River, 
 ten miles from Pittsburg. It contains about 10,000 
 inhabitants. Most of the male inhabitants are employed 
 in one capacity or another, either as skilled or unskilled 
 laborers, in the iron and steel manufacturing establish- 
 ments. Their wages were exceptionally high. There 
 exists among them, as there exists elsewhere, what is 
 called a “trades-union.” This is a body of workmen 
 banded together for the purpose, among other things, 
 of keeping up the price of labor, and, by means of a 
 strike, of coercing their employers, when the latter do 
 not accede to their terms. A strike is a concerted and 
 sudden cessation of work at a given signal or order, 
 issued by the authority of the union, in whom the 
 power to issue it is vested by the members. Sometimes 
 this authority is a single individual ; sometimes it is an 
 advisory committee. In all cases, when a strike is 
 ordered, work ceases at once, to the great injury of 
 employers and employed. 
 
 In the Homestead case, the existing agreement 
 between the Carnegie Steel Company and their work- 
 men about wages, had run out. Mr. Frick, the manag- 
 ing agent of the company, had an interview with the 
 men, and offered a new scale of wages. This the men 
 refused to accept. Mr. Frick then closed the mills. 
 After this the workmen seized the mills, excluded the 
 owners from their property by an overwhelming force, 
 and prevented the employment of non-union men. 
 Obviously, it was indispensable that something should 
 
103 
 
 be done to restore law and order, and to reinstate the 
 owners of the mills in their property. The local officer 
 of the law, whose duty it was to do this, was the sheriff 
 of Allegheny County. His means consisted only of 
 special duty sheriffs appointed from the citizens at 
 large, and sworn in as a temporary and extemporized 
 force. In a population consisting largely of the striking 
 workmen and their sympathizers, a force adequate to 
 do what had to be done could not be obtained. 
 
 Thereupon the Carnegie Steel Company applied to 
 the Pinkerton agency for a body of watchmen to pro- 
 tect their property. The agency refused to supply the 
 men unless they should be sworn in as deputy sheriffs 
 before going to Homestead. The account runs : 
 
 “ The Agency was then assured that the sheriff of Allegheny 
 County knew that the men were going to Homestead to act as 
 watchmen to guard the property of the company, and that the 
 sheriff had promised immediately upon any outbreak or disturb- 
 ance to deputize all the Pinkerton watchmen as deputy sheriffs. 
 On that condition only the agency consented to furnish about 
 300 watchmen. A large number of these were regular employees 
 of the agency, who could be thoroughly trusted for integrity, 
 prudence and sobriety. The sheriff’s chief deputy, Gray, 
 accompanied the men.”* 
 
 The men were sent down the Allegheny River on 
 barges. It is immaterial whether there is or is not a 
 law of Pennsylvania which prohibits the sending of a 
 body of armed men into the State for any purpose. I 
 understand that there is no such law in Pennsylvania, 
 although there is such a law in some of the New 
 England States. But the Pinkerton men were within 
 
 * Statement of Mr. Robert A. Pinkerton to the Judiciary Committee of the 
 United States Senate, July 22, 1892. 
 
104 
 
 the limits of the State before they were armed or needed 
 to be. The boxes containing arms and ammunition 
 were shipped from Chicago, and were to be delivered at 
 the Homestead yards. These boxes, on board the 
 barges, were not opened and the contents distributed 
 until after the strikers had begun firing from the shore 
 on the watchmen and it had become an evident matter 
 of self-defense. Klein, one of the Pinkerton watchmen, 
 had been killed by the strikers, and about five other 
 men shot and wounded before the Pinkerton men be^an 
 their fire in self-defense. Then it was impossible to 
 shoot those firing from the shore at the barges, because 
 the strikers had made a breastwork for themselves by 
 placing women and children in front and firing from 
 behind them. 
 
 The Pinkerton men were obliged to capitulate before 
 they were allowed to land, and even then they were not 
 permitted to go to the mills which they had been em- 
 ployed to protect. They were conducted by an over- 
 whelming force of the strikers to Labor Hall, the place 
 of meeting of the strikers. There they were made to 
 promise to quit Homestead and never again to serve 
 the mill owners. On their way from the hall the)' were 
 insulted and brutally assailed by a mob, among whom 
 the women were the most violent. They were with- 
 drawn from the State by the agency, and thus the 
 whole object for which they had been employed was 
 prevented. 
 
 Under these circumstances, the sheriff of Allegheny 
 County applied to the Governor of the State for a 
 military force. The Governor declined to order out 
 any of the troops of the State, until the sheriff had ex- 
 hausted his means of restoring law and order by the 
 
105 
 
 appointment of special deputies. The sheriff made an 
 ineffectual effort to do this, but the citizens responded 
 in such few numbers that it would have been idle to rely 
 on the civil arm alone. When the Governor was offic- 
 ially informed of this, he ordered out the entire division 
 of the State militia, about 6,000 men, under General 
 Snowden, a capable, prudent and experienced officer. 
 The troops were marched to Homestead, and encamped 
 on a hill that overlooks the town. It is only necessary 
 to say, concerning this part of the history, that at the 
 time at which I am writing there is every prospect that 
 the strike will be completely put down, and thus the 
 State of Pennsylvania will have rendered a great service 
 to the whole country, employers and employed, capital- 
 ists and laborers. 
 
 On the indubitable facts of the Homestead case, 
 which I have taken great pains to gather from authentic 
 sources, I have no hesitation in expressing my opinion, 
 as follows : 
 
 First , That the owners of the mills had a perfect 
 legal right to employ any necessary number of men to 
 defend their property. 
 
 Secondly , That all the acts of the Pinkerton men at 
 Homestead were lawful ; and that, as watchmen, they 
 had a right to bear arms on the premises of the Carne- 
 gie Company in order to protect life and property, 
 whether they were or were not deputized by the sheriff 
 of Allegheny County ; and that the agency had the 
 right to ship arms for such purposes from Chicago to 
 the Carnegie yards at Homestead ; and that, in view of 
 the attack on the barges, the watchmen had the right 
 to bear arms and defend themselves; and that all their 
 acts in firing in self-defense from the barges after the 
 
106 
 
 attack on them were legally justifiable under the laws 
 of the United States and the State of Pennsylvania. 
 
 Thirdly, That the killing of Klein by one or more of 
 the riotous strikers was a murder. 
 
 Fourthly , That all who stood by, sympathizing with 
 and encouraging the strikers, or not exerting them- 
 selves to prevent the strikers who were armed from fir- 
 ing on the barges, were accessories to the murder. 
 
 Having thus answered the question that was pro- 
 pounded to me, I shall devote the remainder of the 
 space allotted for this article to the consideration of the 
 duty of the legislative power in the States of this 
 Union in reference to the whole subject of strikes. 
 The stake that society has in all branches of manufac- 
 turing industries and in all the great lines of communi- 
 cation and travel is too vast to permit any body of men, 
 large or small, on any pretext, to put a sudden stop to 
 production, or to cause a sudden paralysis in the system 
 of daily and hourly intercourse between different com- 
 munities. 
 
 Unfortunately, there is one embarrassing difficulty. 
 Whenever such a disturbance as that at Homestead 
 occurs, politicians at once endeavor to turn it to the 
 advantage of their political party ; and men in high 
 places, who ought to be ashamed of themselves, are 
 often found encouraging the strikers, for the purpose 
 of making what is called “ political capital." Mr. Car- 
 negie happens to be a Republican in politics, and his 
 works at Homestead are an eminent instance of the 
 beneficial effect of a protective tariff on the interests of 
 American manufacturers and American laborers. For 
 this reason, Democratic papers and politicians of free 
 trade proclivities take the side of the strikers and 
 
107 
 
 endeavor to excite hatred of Mr. Carnegie and his busi- 
 ness associates. On the other hand, some Republican 
 papers and politicians are prone to charge the Demo- 
 cratic executive of Pennsylvania with pusillanimous 
 hesitation because he did not at once respond to the 
 call of the sheriff of Allegheny County. Whether we 
 shall ever be entirely free from this disturbing element 
 of politics in reference to this matter of strikes, is 
 problematical. But it is certain that the duty of society 
 remains the same. 
 
 The first duty of the legislative power is to emanci- 
 pate the individual workman from the tyranny of his 
 class. Unless this be done, capitalists can afford no 
 aid to the solution of any labor problem Avhatever. Of 
 what avail is it that a mill owner or a railroad com- 
 pany is willing to make fair terms with workmen if the 
 state of things is such that they cannot employ whom 
 they- please, on such terms as will be agreed to by the 
 men who want employment. It is only by making the 
 individual laborer a perfectly free man that society can 
 do its duty to him and to those who wish to buy his 
 labor for a price that he is willing to take, and which it 
 is for the interest of those who are dependent upon him 
 to have him take. 
 
 In opposition to this view, it will be said that the in- 
 dividual workman is a free agent now, and that if he 
 choose to join a trades-union and bind himself not to 
 work for wages less than what the union permits him 
 to take, it is his own affair ; he is acting in his own 
 right. There is a wide distinction between the physical 
 power to do a thing, and the moral and legal right to 
 do it. Men have the physical power to commit suicide, 
 but society does not allow that they have a moral or a 
 
108 
 
 legal right to do it. On the same principle the individ- 
 ual workman should not be allowed to commit moral 
 suicide by surrendering his liberty to the control of his 
 fellow-workmen. His labor is his capital, all that he 
 has in the world, all that he and his family have to de- 
 pend upon for subsistence from day to day. It is to 
 him and them what money invested in real estate, ma- 
 chinery, etc., is to the capitalist. Deprive the capitalist 
 of the power to determine what remuneration he shall 
 derive from the employment of his invested money, 
 and you do the same wrong as when you deprive the 
 laborer of the free power to determine what remunera- 
 tion he will be content to take for the employment of 
 his capital, which consists of his muscular power and 
 his acquired skill. 
 
 These doctrines may not be popular. They may not 
 meet at once with universal acceptance. But until they 
 are accepted and carried out in legislation, there can be 
 no successful reconcilement between the interests of 
 capital and the interests of labor ; no adjustment of 
 the rights of society and the rights of employers and 
 employed. 
 
 In order that I may not be misunderstood, I will now 
 draw the line between what it may and what it may not 
 be permitted to workmen to do. Associations of work- 
 men, formed for the purpose of discussing the subject 
 of wages with their employers, of obtaining and diffus- 
 ing information about the price of labor in different 
 places, and of mutual assistance in time of sickness, are 
 beneficial and should be encouraged. But the trades- 
 unions do not confine themselves to these objects. 
 They transcend the line which divides what they may 
 
109 
 
 from what they may not rightfully do. In this respect 
 they do a double wrong : 
 
 First, They bind their members to strike when 
 ordered to do so by the governing authority of the union. 
 Now the right to renounce an employment is anjndi- 
 vidual and not a corporate right. The corporate body 
 of a trades-union should not be permitted to bind their 
 members to quit work, as a body, when ordered to do 
 so by the governing authority of the association. 
 
 Secondly, The trades-unions, as most of them are 
 now organized, prevent non-union men from getting 
 employment, by every species of intimidation, even by 
 personal violence, and sometimes by murder. 
 
 This coercion of non-union men, however attempted 
 and in whatever it ends, should be made a crime, and 
 be punished with severity. It is contrary to the funda- 
 mental principles of our institutions. The Declara- 
 tion of Independence says, "we hold these truths to be 
 self-evident, that all men are created equal ; that they 
 are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 
 rights ; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit 
 of happiness. That, to secure these rights, govern- 
 ments are instituted among men, deriving their just 
 powers from the consent of the governed.” 
 
 Be it observed that these are individual rights ; that 
 they are inalienable by the individual himself. We 
 should not permit a man to sell himself into slavery or 
 to sell his own life. He cannot alienate his right to 
 life or his right to liberty. No more should he be per- 
 mitted to alienate his right to the pursuit of happiness 
 by giving up his power to consult his own individual 
 welfare, in obtaining the means of happiness ; and by 
 putting it in the power of those who are engaged in 
 
110 
 
 the same employment to take the bread out of his 
 mouth. We have emancipated the colored race from 
 slavery ; certain portions of our own race need eman- 
 cipation from a slavery that is just as bad. 
 
 George Ticicnor Curtis. 
 
 The Charge of Chief-Justice Paxson of Pennsylvania, to 
 the Grand Jury of Allegheny County. 
 
 2j Pittsburgh Legal Journal , N. S , 106 ( October 26, 1892). 
 
 A corporation has the undoubted right to protect its property, 
 and for this purpose could lawfully employ as many men as 
 it might deem proper, and arm them, if necessary. It 
 would be an act of unlawful violence to prevent the landing 
 of such men upon the property of the company, and if life 
 were taken in pursuance of a purpose to resist the landing 
 of the men by violence, the offense would be murder. 
 
 While a mere mob, collected upon the impulse of the moment, 
 without any definite object beyond the gratification of its 
 sudden passions, does not commit treason, although it 
 destroys property and takes life; yet when a large number 
 of men arm and organize themselves by divisions and com- 
 panies, appoint officers, and engage in a common purpose 
 to defy the law, to resist its officers, and to deprive any 
 portion of their fellow-citizens of the rights to which they 
 are entitled under the Constitution and laws, it is a levying 
 of war against the State, and the offense is treason. 
 
 While the gravamen of this offense is the design of overturning 
 the government of the State, such intention need not extend 
 to every portion of its territory. It is sufficient if it be to 
 overturn it in a particular locality, and such intent may be 
 inferred from the acts committed. 
 
 Aliens domiciled within the State, and who enjoy its protection, 
 owe temporary allegiance to it, and are amenable for 
 treason. 
 
Ill 
 
 Informations for treason having been made against 
 numerous persons who had participated in the strike 
 and riots at Homestead during the summer of 1892, 
 Chief Justice Paxson, of the Supreme Court of Penn- 
 sylvania, sitting as a Judge of the Court of Oyer and 
 Terminer of Allegheny County, delivered the following 
 charge to the Grand Jury : 
 
 “Gentlemen of the Grand Jury: 
 
 The district attorney will lay before you at the pres- 
 ent term one or more indictments charging certain par- 
 ties with the offense of' treason against the Common- 
 wealth of Pennsylvania. In view of the gravity of the 
 charge the learned judges holding the present term of 
 the Court of Oyer and Terminer for this county, have 
 invited me to come in and give you some instructions 
 as to the character of the offense, and your duties in 
 regard to it. And that you may know that I am not 
 assuming to act without right, it is proper to say to you 
 that by the express terms of the Constitution of Penn- 
 sylvania the Justices of the Supreme Court are made 
 Justices ex-officio of the Court of Oyer and Terminer in 
 every county in the State. Notwithstanding this, I 
 would hesitate to act were it not that the situation is so 
 grave, and, it is feared, the law so much misunderstood, 
 that an authoritative exposition of it seemed necessary 
 in the interests of good government. It having required 
 the intervention of the Governor, as commander-in- 
 chief, and the entire military power of the State to 
 restore order, it was considered proper for those high- 
 est in position in the judiciary department of the 
 Government, to declare the law in such manner that it 
 may be clearly understood. 
 
112 
 
 The offenses charged in the bills of indictment had 
 their origin in what are popularly known as the Home- 
 stead riots of last summer. Many of the incidents of 
 those riots may be properly referred to as a part of the 
 history of the times. 
 
 In order that you may the more readily understand 
 the nature of the offenses charged in the bills of indict- 
 ment, I will refer briefly to some facts connected with 
 those disturbances about which I do not understand 
 there is any dispute. 
 
 About the close of the month of June a disagreement 
 in regard to wages arose between the Carnegie Steel 
 Company, at what is known as the Homestead Works, 
 and some of its employees. It is not necessary that I 
 should refer to the details of this difficulty further than 
 to say that the dispute concerned only a small portion 
 of the employees of the company, and those receiving 
 the highest wages. The parties being unable to come 
 to an agreement that was mutually satisfactory, the 
 company closed its works on the 30th day of June and 
 discharged its men. So far there was no violation of 
 law by any one. 
 
 The men had the right to demand what wages they 
 saw fit, and to refuse to go to work unless their demand 
 was satisfied. 
 
 The company had the right to decline to employ the 
 men upon the terms offered by them, and to employ 
 others in their stead upon such terms as could be agreed 
 upon. This arises from the fact that the relation of 
 employer and employee is one of contract merely. 
 Neither party has the right to coerce the other into the 
 making of a contract to which his mind does not assent. 
 The employer cannot compel his employee to work a 
 
113 
 
 day longer than he sees fit, or his contract calls for, nor 
 for a wage that is unsatisfactory to him. It follows 
 that the employee cannot compel his employer to give 
 him work, or enter into a contract of hiring. Much less 
 can he dictate the terms of employment. 
 
 When the negotiations between the parties came to 
 an end all contract relations between them ceased. 
 The men had no further legal demands upon the com- 
 pany, and they had no more interest in or claims upon 
 its property than has a domestic servant upon the 
 household goods of his employer when discharged by 
 the latter, or when he voluntarily leaves his service. 
 Nor does it make any difference that a large number 
 were discharged at one time. Their aggregate rights 
 rise no higher than their rights as individuals. 
 
 The mutual right of the parties to contract in regard 
 to wages, and the character of the employment, whether 
 by the piece or by the day, whether for ten hours or 
 less, is as fixed and clear as any other right which we 
 enjoy under the Constitution and laws of the State. It 
 is a right which belongs to every citizen, laborer or 
 capitalist, and it is the plain duty of the State to pro- 
 tect him in the enjoyment of it. 
 
 As before observed, but a small portion of the men 
 were affected by the proposed readjustment of wages. 
 The larger portion of them, who were members of what 
 is known as “ the Amalgamated Association of Iron 
 and Steel Workers,” were not affected at all, nor were 
 the large force of employees, some 3,000 in number, 
 who were not members of said association. 
 
 Upon the failure to arrive at an adjustment of the 
 wage difficulty, the company proposed to operate its 
 works by the employment of other men not members of 
 
114 
 
 the Amalgamated Association. It had the right to do 
 this under the law of Pennsylvania. This right was 
 resisted, and the fact of its resistance and the manner 
 of it are now a part of the history of the State. It is 
 a chapter which every good citizen would gladly see 
 obliterated. 
 
 It is a part of the history of these events that the 
 lodges composing the Amalgamated Association pro- 
 ceeded to organize what has been widely known as the 
 “ Advisory Committee ” ; that this committee organ- 
 ized by the appointment of a chairman, and proceeded 
 at once to take charge of affairs at Homestead; that 
 among its first acts was to order the mechanics, laborers 
 and other employees of the works, amounting to about 
 3,000, whose wages were not affected by the proposed 
 change, and who had entered into a new agreement with 
 the company, upon the terms of their old contract, to 
 break their contracts and to refuse to work until the 
 Amalgamated Association was recognized and its terms 
 agreed to. 
 
 Up to this point there had been no breach of the 
 peace. The men had the right to refuse the work and 
 to persuade their friends to refuse also. The law has 
 no quarrel with labor associations so long as they act 
 peaceably and respect the rights of others. On the 
 contrary, while they keep within the law, they have the 
 sympathy oi all good citizens in every honest, manly 
 effort to improve their condition. But the State of 
 Pennsylvania will not permit these, or any other organ- 
 izations, to trample upon the law and deny the rights 
 of other laborers, not members of such associations. 
 
 It is alleged that the Advisory Committee did more 
 than induce others not to accept employment from the 
 
115 
 
 company ; that it allowed no persons to enter the mills 
 of the Carnegie Steel Company, and even permitted no 
 strangers to enter the town of Homestead without its 
 consent ; that it arranged and perfected an organiza- 
 tion of a military character, consisting of three divi- 
 sions, with commanders, captains, etc. ; the captains to 
 report to the division commanders, and the latter to 
 report to the Advisory Committee ; that a girdle of 
 pickets was established by which the works and the 
 town were guarded like a military encampment ; that 
 these pickets arrested every man who attempted to 
 approach either the town or the works until he could 
 give an account of himself which was satisfactory to 
 the Advisory Committee ; that all discussion of the 
 wage question was positively prohibited ; that all these 
 and many other things were done to deprive the com- 
 pany of the use of its property, and to prevent it from 
 operating its works by the aid of men who were not 
 members of the Amalgamated Association. 
 
 It was in this state of affairs that the company, appre- 
 hending injury to its property and its possible destruc- 
 tion, applied to the High Sheriff of Allegheny County 
 for protection. The officer made an effort to secure 
 ioo deputies to go to Homestead pn the afternoon of 
 July 5th. He succeeded in getting about a dozen, 
 who, under the charge of a deputy sheriff, attempted 
 to enter the works of the company in order to protect 
 them. They were driven off with threats and the au- 
 thority of the sheriff defied. On the morning of July 
 6th the company attempted to place 300 watchmen into 
 the works. The men were selected by the aid of the 
 Pinkerton agency and were in charge of a deputy 
 sheriff. Their business and their only business was to 
 
116 
 
 protect property of their employers. The landing of 
 these men on the grounds of the company was resisted 
 by a large crowd of men, many of whom were armed. 
 Guns, pistols and cannon were discharged at the watch- 
 men, and the fire was returned by a portion of the 
 latter. An attempt was made to destroy them by the 
 rioters by the use of dynamite and burning oil. Finally, 
 after a number had been killed and wounded on each 
 side, the watchmen surrendered to the Advisory Com- 
 mittee, at that time the only authority permitted to be 
 exercised at Homestead. Their treatment after their 
 surrender has few chapters to equal it in savage war- 
 fare, notwithstanding the humane efforts of a portion 
 of the committee to prevent it. 
 
 This outbreak was so serious in its character that the 
 Governor of the State, and commander-in-chief of its 
 army, acting in the strict line of his duty and after a 
 call for aid from the High Sheriff of Allegheny County, 
 ordered out the entire National Guard of the State for 
 its suppression. Since then we have had for many 
 weeks the humiliating spectacle of a business plant sur- 
 rounded by the army of the State for its protection at 
 an expense of several hundred thousand dollars to the 
 taxpayers and the business of the country disturbed to 
 some extent. And for what? 
 
 We can have some sympathy with a mob driven to 
 desperation by hunger, as in the days of the French 
 Revolution, but we can have none for men receiving 
 steady employment at exceptionally high wages in re- 
 sisting the law and in resorting to violence and blood- 
 shed in the assertion of imaginary rights, and in entail- 
 ing such a vast expense upon the taxpayers of the Com- 
 monwealth. It was not a cry of “ bread or blood ” from 
 
117 • 
 
 famished lips or an ebullition of angry passions from a 
 sudden outrage or provocation. It was a deliberate 
 attempt from men without a grievance to wrest from 
 others their lawfully acquired property and to control 
 them in their use and enjoyment of it. 
 
 The existence of such a state of things in a govern- 
 ment of law indicates a weak spot somewhere. It is not 
 in the law itself. That is sufficient for the preservation 
 of order. All that is needed is its proper enforcement. 
 To accomplish this it is only necessary that every one 
 connected with its administration shall do his duty. 
 This duty is as solemn and imperative with the juror in 
 the box as with the judge upon the bench. And I am 
 glad to be able to say, as the result of my experience in 
 the criminal courts, that I have seldom known a jury to 
 falter in the performance of a duty when that duty 
 has been clearly and fairly presented to them. If jurors 
 fail in this respect the courts can accomplish nothing, 
 and the result is anarchy. 
 
 It is much to be feared that there is a diseased state 
 of public opinion growing up in regard to disturbances 
 of this nature, and that a confused, if not erroneous, 
 view of the law bearing upon these questions has found 
 a lodgment in the public mind. This is evidenced by 
 the comments of a portion of the press, and in the 
 utterance of demagogues who pander to the mob, and 
 of politicians who hunger for votes. It finds expression 
 in sympathy for men, who, without a recognized griev- 
 ance, trample upon the law, and the rights of others, 
 yet have no sympathy for the outraged law, or the 
 laborer who is beaten and sometimes murdered in his 
 efforts to seek honest employment for the support of 
 his family. 
 
118 
 
 The growth of this sentiment may have- been pro- 
 moted to some extent by the addition of large numbers 
 of foreigners to our laboring population. Many of them 
 are densely ignorant as well as brutal in their disposi- 
 tions. They have false ideas in regard to the kind of 
 liberty we enjoy in this country. It is needed that all 
 such persons should be taught the lesson that our 
 liberty is the liberty of law and not the liberty of 
 license. 
 
 The present occasion requires me to define the law. 
 I will endeavor to do it so clearly and fully that there 
 shall be hereafter no excuse for misunderstanding it. 
 To some extent it has been already foreshadowed. 
 
 When the company shut down its works and dis- 
 charged its men, it was acting strictly within the line of 
 the law. It could not compel the men to work, nor 
 could the men compel the company to employ them. 
 No arrangement could be made in this regard except 
 in the nature of a contract agreed upon by the parties. 
 Upon this subject their rights were mutual. 
 
 The company had the undoubted right to protect its 
 property. For this purpose it could lawfully employ as 
 many men as it saw proper, and arm them, if necessary. 
 Many of our banks and other places of business are 
 guarded by armed watchmen. The law did not require 
 it to employ as watchmen the men from whom it an- 
 ticipated the destruction of its works. When a man 
 seeks to protect his house from burglars it would be 
 unreasonable to require him to place the burglars in 
 possession for that purpose. So long as the men 
 employed by the company as watchmen to guard and 
 protect its property acted only in that capacity, and 
 for that purpose, it mattered not to the rioters, nor to 
 
119 
 
 the public, who they were nor from whence they came. 
 It was an act of unlawful violence to prevent their 
 landing upon the property of the company. That 
 unlawful violence amounted at least to a riot on the 
 part of all concerned in it. If life was taken in pur- 
 suance of a purpose to resist the landing of the men by 
 violence, the offense was murder, and perhaps treason. 
 I will speak of treason later on. 
 
 The rights of the men, as before stated, were to re- 
 fuse to work unless their terms were acceded to, and to 
 persuade others to join them in such refusal. But it 
 will sustain them no further. The moment they 
 attempted to control the works, and to prevent by vio- 
 lence, or threats of violence, other laborers from going 
 to work there, they placed themselves outside the pale 
 of the law, and became rioters. It cannot be tolerated 
 for a moment that one laborer shall say to another 
 laborer, “ You shall not work for this man or that wage 
 without my consent,” and thus enforce such command 
 by brutal violence upon his person. And what will 
 not be permitted to one man to do will not be per- 
 mitted to an organization of men. 
 
 It is the duty of the State to protect every citizen 
 within her borders. In this there is no distinction be- 
 tween the laborer and the capitalist. It protects each 
 with equal impartiality. When the State fails to do 
 this it fails in its duty as sovereign. And it will pro- 
 tect with a firm hand the individual laborer from the 
 tyranny and unlawful demands of organized labor. 
 The law should be so enforced from the Delaware to 
 the Ohio, that the humblest laborer can work for whom 
 he pleases and at what wage he sees fit, undeterred 
 
120 
 
 by the bludgeon of the rioter or the pistol of the 
 assassin. 
 
 If we were to concede the agrarian doctrine that the 
 employee may lawfully dictate to his employer the 
 terms of his employment, and upon the refusal of the 
 latter to accede to them, take possession of his prop- 
 erty, and drive others away who are willing to work, 
 we would have anarchy. No business could be con- 
 ducted upon such a principle. The doctrine, when 
 once countenanced, will be extended to every industry. 
 Some of you, gentlemen of the grand jury, maybe farm- 
 ers. I am one myself, and take an honest pride in it. 
 Suppose, when your crops are ready to be gathered, 
 your men, with or without cause, refuse to work, and 
 not only refuse to work, but also take possession of 
 your farm, and by violence and threats prevent all 
 others from doing so, unless you accede to demands 
 which you regard as unreasonable. In the meantime 
 your crops perish and you lose the fruits of your year’s 
 toil. Under such circumstances you would not like to 
 be told from this bench that you have no right to protect 
 your property, or to employ men as watchmen for that 
 purpose. There is no such law. 
 
 I have made these preliminary remarks, in order that 
 you may the better understand the offense of treason 
 to which I now come. It is defined by the first section 
 of the Act of 31st March, i860. P. L. 385, as follows : 
 
 “ If any person owing allegiance to the Common- 
 wealth of Pennsylvania shall levy war against the same, 
 or shall adhere to the enemies thereof, giving them aid 
 and comfort, within the State or elsewhere, and shall be 
 thereof convicted, on confession in open court, or on 
 the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act of 
 
121 
 
 the treason whereof he shall stand indicted, such per- 
 son shall, on conviction, be adjudged guilty of treason 
 against the Commonwealth, and be sentenced to pay a 
 fine not exceeding $2,000 and undergo an imprison- 
 ment by separate and solitary confinement at labor, 
 not exceeding twelve years.” 
 
 I am glad to be able to say that the law-abiding 
 character of our people has been such that heretofore 
 no one has been prosecuted under this Act since its 
 passage in i860. 
 
 It is also proper to say, so far as the State is con- 
 cerned, that this prosecution has not been commenced 
 from any vindictive feeling, or from any disposition to 
 multiply offenses, or to inflict any unnecessarily severe 
 punishments. Its object is merely to vindicate the law. 
 It is only the maximum punishment that is fixed by the 
 statute. The Court possesses the power to fix it at 
 any point within it. 
 
 You will also observe that the offense chareed is 
 
 o 
 
 treason against this State and not against the United 
 States, It is a matter with which the latter has noth- 
 ing to do, and over which its courts have no jurisdic- 
 tion. 
 
 A mere mob, collected upon the impulse of the 
 moment, without any definite object beyond the grati- 
 fication of its sudden passions, does not commit trea- 
 son, although it destroys property and takes human 
 life. 
 
 But when a large number of men arm and organize 
 themselves by divisions and companies, appoint officers, 
 and engage in a common purpose to defy the law ; to 
 resist its officers, and to deprive any portion of their 
 fellow-citizens of the rights to which they are entitled 
 
122 
 
 under the Constitution and laws, it is a levying of war 
 against the State ; and the offense is treason. 
 
 Much more so when the functions of the State gov- 
 ernment are usurped in a particular locality ; the pro- 
 cess of the Commonwealth, and the lawful acts of its 
 officers resisted, and unlawful arrests made at the dic- 
 tation of a body of men who have assumed the func- 
 tions of the government in that locality. 
 
 And it is a state of war when a business plant has to 
 be surrounded by the army of the State for weeks to 
 protect it from unlawful violence at the hands of men 
 formerly employed in it 
 
 Where a body of men have organized for a treason- 
 able purpose, every step which any one of them takes, 
 in part execution of their common purpose, is an overt 
 act of treason in levying war. 
 
 Every member of such usurped government, whether 
 it be an Advisory Committee, or by whatever name 
 called, who has participated in such usurpation ; who 
 has joined in a common purpose of resistance to the law 
 and the denial of the rights of other citizens, has com- 
 mitted treason against the State. 
 
 While the gravamen of this offense is the design of 
 overturning the government of the State, such intention 
 need not extend to every portion of its territory. It is 
 sufficient if it be to overturn it in a particular locality. 
 And such intent may be inferred from the acts com- 
 mitted. 
 
 If they be such that the authority of the State is 
 overturned in a particular locality, and an usurped 
 authority substituted in its place, the parties doing so 
 must be presumed to have intended to do what they 
 have actually done. 
 
123 
 
 It is a maxim of the criminal law that a man must be 
 presumed to have intended that which is the natural 
 and probable consequences of his act. Thus, if a man 
 assaults another with a deadly weapon, and aims a 
 blow at a vital part, the law presumes he intended to 
 take life. 
 
 Aliens domiciled within the State and who enjoy its 
 protection, owe temporary allegiance to it, and are 
 amenable for treason. 
 
 There are no accessories in treason, all are prin- 
 cipals. 
 
 It will be your duty to examine all the witnesses 
 whose names appear on the back of the bills of indict- 
 ment, or who shall be sent before you by the district 
 attorney. It is not your business to try the accused 
 parties ; all you have to do is to ascertain from the evi- 
 dence whether a prima facie case has been made out 
 sufficient to send the defendants to a trial before a petit 
 jury. 
 
 If you find from the evidence that the defendants 
 have, or any of them has, committed, participated or 
 aided in any of the acts which I have defined to you as 
 constituting the offense of treason, it will be your sworn 
 duty to find a true bill against the party or parties so 
 offending. 
 
 We have reached a point in the history of the State 
 where there are but two roads left to us to pursue. 
 The one leads to order and good government, the other 
 leads to anarchy. 
 
 The one great question which now confronts the 
 people of this country is the enforcement of the law and 
 the preservation of order.”