The Sedalia weekly bazoo. [volume] (Sedalia, Mo.) 187?-1904, 1886-05-11

THE HOSPITAL ASSESSMENT.
He stated that men who were granted
the privileges of the hospital were com
PEELED to sign a release absOlving the
railroad company from any claim fol
damages. He referred at length tC
petty individual grievances, and
in conclusion stated that he was now
under four indictments, found he
believed through the agency of the
Law and Order league. He was re-
minded that the grand jury had been
appointed by the county court prior
to the strike.
! Witness was asked if the order OF
the Knights of Labor did not oppose
strikes and deprecate acts of violence.
He replied in the affirmative, and in
answer to another question stated
that many members in the order were
opposed to the strike.
The direct question was put to Sec
rotary Murrell, if he was not opposed
to the strike, and he replied that he
was.
"Then," asked Congressman Stew.
art, "your order destroys the freedom
of action and individual judgment,
does it not?'
This question was a poser to the
secretary. After some hesitation he
replied that nothing could destroy in
dividual judgment. but admitted that
it was controlled by the board.
E. A. CARPENTER,
manager of the Labor Union, next
took the stand. He proceeded to read
list of the grievances submitted by
District assembly No. 101. He also
read a report of the committee ap-
pointed to visit Vice-President Hoxie,
but Chairman Curtin said that the
chairman of that committee could be
examined when the committee reached
St. Louis. When being asked if he
was or had been in the employ of the
railroad company and a negative
reply was returned, the committee
desired to know his business, and
upon being informed, seemed to have
no further use for him.
ED. CoNRoY,
section man. was the next witness.
He stated that he went out in the
strike of March 9th, and then pro-
ceeded to relate his grievances. He
was paid s1.1O for ten hours work
but really worked eleven hours, and
in the winter time only worked three
days in the week. The men were
compelled to pay SIS per month for
board whether they worked or not.
He dared not grumble because he was
fearful of being discharged, and did
not know where to secure other en-
ployment.
FIN. COOK,
an assistant hostler, testified that his
understanding of the contract of
March, 1885, was that ten hours was
to constitute days work, but that he
was compelled to work thirteen or
fourteen hours without extra cOmpen-
sation. He had complained, hut was
told that if he did not like it he could
quit. He had laid his case before the
grievance committee, bnt no actien
was taken.
THE SAME COMPLAINT.
II. Turner, track laborer, John
TelIburg, who was employed to knock
fires from engines, and Phillip Wag-
oner, a round house employee,
all testified to being compelled
to work extra time without receiving
compensation therefor.
It. A. Mobert, who was employed
in the store room, endeavored to re-
late his grievances, but from his testi-
mony it was hard to ascertain his
cause of complaint.
OSCAR MoUsETT,
g boiler shop helper, stated that he
was paid s1.15 per day, and was COM
PEELED to do work for which other
men were receiving 1886. He testi-
fed to having signed a release, alb
solving the company from claims for
damages which he had sustained. The
consideration of signing this docu-
ment was 81, which amount he failed
to receive. He was given to under
stand that he would not be re-em-
ployed if he did not sign the release.
WILLIAM HAMILTON
was next called to the stand and
testified that he received s1.124 per
day tor nine hours work. He had
taken the place of a man who re-
ceived sl.35 per day. He had asked
that he be paid the same but his re-
quest was not complied with.
Witness, in reply to the question If