The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1883-09-19

COLUMBUS, W., april 70, 1910.
Received at Canton, 10:35 a. IN.
To j. P. Rauch, Sheriff of Stark county,
Canton, o.:
Accompany of militia has been ordered
i to report at MassillOn on Monday next
to aid the civil authority in suppress
| ing threatened violence and supporting
the laws. Meet me at the American
House there at ten o'clock, forenoon, on
that day. A. 7. WIKoFF,
Adjutant General of Ohio.
On the day named in the above dis
patch, Monday, May 1st, 1876, the first
| company Of militia-the Mansfield
| Guards-arrivedi in MassillOn. Mr.. War
wick returned on that day from the east.
| Mr.. Robert r. Rhodes, of Rhodes &;
Co., who suffered most from the strike,
says: 81 sent the first telegram on the
l4th day of April, the day of the Warm
ingtOn mine riot, to Governor Hayes, re-
| questing him to order out the militia.
Mr.. Warwick was part owner of the
mines in which Rhodes q Co. were in
teTested, but he was absent at the time
of the riot, had nothing to do with call
ing for troops, and did not return, l
think, until after the troops were sent
to the Valley, or about that time. l
don't remember seeing him before and
after the riot, or until the I'd day of May,
Il
pany of troops arrived in MassillOn. In
fact, it was a matter of complaint on
the part of Mr.. WaTwick's partners, that
he did not take the interest in the
matter that they thought he ought to.
Mr.. Warrington was especially of this
opinion"
Mr.. Mark A. Hanna, another partner
of the firm of Rhodes 81 Co., says: "Mr.
Warwick had nothing to do with calling
1 fOr nd oh 70 "a
riot, and did not return home until
about the time the troops came to the
Valley. There was no meeting of the
| operators held after the riot of the Ia tn
of April, until some time in May, after
| the troops had been sent to the Valley.
l was there for weeks nearly all the
time, and if meeting had been held
should certainly have been present. We
held meeting after the troops arrived
at MassillOn, some time in May, l can
not recall the date, and Mr.. Warwick
was present. Andrew Roy was also
| present"
Mr.. George H. Warrington, who was
injured at the Warrington mine riot,
says: 81 went to MassillOn on Monday,
| April 10TH and expected to find several
| parties there who were interested but
failed to find any one but our clerk.
| inquired for Mr.. Warwick and learned
that he had gone east, either to Wash
ingtOn or Philadelphia. | sent dis
patch to Governor Hayes, in which ex-
planned the situation. In answer he
said he could do nothing, unless called
upon by the civil authorities. In the
riot of the 14th of April l was severely
injured, and was brought home to Cleve-
land and did not get out again until the
trial of the strikers that were arrested,
took place at Canton in the following
June. 1t was the Sheriff of Stark county
that called for military assistance right
after the riot, and not Mr.. Warwick"
| Andrew Roy who has busted himself
in circulating the charge against Mr..
Warwick, quote as the next witness
in his favor, by quoting from a COM
municatiOn written by Roy at Columbus,
August goth, 1881, to the National Labor
Tribune, in which he defends Governor
Foster from the charge that was circu-
lated at that time, that Foster had sent
troops to Corning, Perry county, to sup
press the striking miners at that place.
In that article he refers to the strike in
the Tuscarawas Valley in 1876 in the
following language: I'm the MassillOn
case the Sheriff of Stark county made a
call for aid, and the Governor had no
| choice but to obey. Now the fault lies
| with these officers, the Sheriffs, and if
they would display little common
sense and try to do their duty, instead of
telegraphing for troops when public life
and property were threatened, a great
Il deal of useless trouble would be saved"
| In 1876, when it was charged that
Governor Hayes sent the troops, the
charge was evaded by charging the
| Sheriff of Stark county with the respOn-
| sibility. While the occurrence was fresh
in the minds of all men no one ever
thought of duplicating Mr.. Warwick in
the matter, and after the lapse of
eight years nearly, when he happens
to be a candidate for office, he is
suddenly assailed with trumped
up charge. If Mr.. Roy and others knew
that Mr.. Warwick was the man who call
ed for troops, why were they silent in
1882 Why did they charge 1t on the
Sheriff of Stark county; and why does
Mr.. Roy repeat that charge, no later than
two years agOp l submit to all candid
men, If the charge made against John
G. Warwick has not been proved false
in every particular? An attempt has
been made to use a communication of
mine to the Trades Assembly of Cincin-
natl, to prove that Mr.. Warwick was re-
spOnsible for calling out the troops. If
it was possible to 80 cOnstrue it, to a GER
tain extent, 1t was through a
misunderstanding on my part,
as to certain meetings of the
mine operators at that time. Mr..
| Warwick said to me that he was pres.
ent at a meeting of the operators, and
that Roy was present. l have learned
since that it was after troops had been
called for by the Sheriff of Stark county,
and ordered to go by the state authOri-
ties before Mr.. Warwick's return, and
that at the time of the meeting the
troops were either in the Valley or on
their way. There are men in all parties
who will willingly resort to wholesale
lying, If by doing so they believe they
can secure the defeat of those politically
opposed to them, and to secure the de-
feat of Mr.. Warwick this method has
been resorted to. The circulation of the
report that he was instrumental in brin-
ging the military to the mines in the
MassillOn district in 1876, was done pur-
pOsely to create the impression upon the
minds of wOrkingmen of our state that
he was their bitter enemy. And special
efforts are being made to have our mi
ners vote against him at the coming
election. These efforts, however, will
prove fruitless, for the reason that Mr..
Warwick's whole life among US has been
one of friendship, and upon more than
one occasion his friendship has been
tried and found true, and if any man on