Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-10-07

|
: guage he could have employed? HI
offered no relief; suggested no com
promise; would accept nothin,
but absolute surrender. Do no
the circumstances make it prob
able that he should have discussed
wages, and in a manner agreeable to hiI
clients? Gould he have said anything
on such an occasion and have beer
silent on the matter OF wages? 1t was
not picnic or prayer-meeting. 1t was
a wage meeting. 1t was a wage meeting
at which his clients we're contendine
that dollar day was enough. He was
for his clients, although he had slipped
On the jury. His clients acted dollar a
day. He acted dollar day. Is it i'm.
probable that he used language express
sive of his feeling and employment? In.
deed it is not absurd to contend that he
did not use such language. He was out
OF politics and in the law business Eek
clusively."
Now, again, did he use expressions to
the effect that he would 'shoot," "resort
to the militia" fuse the bayonet," or
words of like import? He had already,
as we have seen, put himself on the side
OF the "Pinkerton policy" He was
captain OF a company of men whom he
had organized. He armed them with
"the new breech-loading Springfield
rifle, most formidable and efficient
| weapon" By his course what did he
say? What are new breech-loading
Springfield rifles most formidable and
efficient weapons" for? Did Capt. Har-
| rison intend feeding the strikers biscuit
out OF the muzzle of musket? He is
called "cold" and distant" but he
would hardly undertake an act of char
itv at SO long range as that. Was he
intending to 'storm" the men with
golden coins? No such ammunition was
seen at the Arsenal. It was not fur
nished by the State.
WHAT DID HE EAN?
The cartridge boxes contained bullets.
In drilling his company he taught his
men to fire at the word of command.
Did he prepare to "shoot?" Did he
think "shoot?" Did he act "shoot ?"
Did he talk "shoot?" And even if he
said nothing upon that subject, does it
weaken the case against him? 1t is said
the barking dog never bites," but when
the mastiff of the household sneaks
stealthily around it is time to get over
the fence. His men carried bay onets.
Were they to cut with? Are they imple-
ments OF the bake shop or the battery
Were they carried by Mr.. Harrison as a
sort of solace or threat to the strikers?
Do these facts, conceded, uncontradicted,
prove anything; But in support of the
claim that Mr.. Harrison delivered him
self of cruel and inhuman utterances on
that occasion that his speech was that of
hired, heartless attorney; that he dis
regarded the crying appeals of labor,
crushed and scourged by the lashes of
corporate power, will submit next the
evidence OF few of the participants of
that strike. These witnesses speak from
personal contact. Their statements have
been furnished me from reliable sources.
All were members of committees or in
some way connected with the strike
They are the words of honest men. ALI 1
believe, members of organized labor.
They possess the confidence of their COM
rades and are entitled to the credit of
truthful citizens. While willing in the
broadcast sense to assist in making Mr..
Harrison stand squarely on his record,
they have not desired to crush into
rint," and have only permitted the use
Of their knowledge through feeling of
duty in making truthful history and that
the groundless rehearsals of those gov
erned by selfish political interests shall
not be permitted to falsify and distort the
facts. If occasion demanded the testi-
monv here submitted could be multiplied
almost without end. Many of the men
are scattered; some are dead, but
large number yet remain, who upon call
will add their version to corroborate
those already secured. In submitting
these statements we get the opinions
and recollections of the railroad
men themselves and what they
thought of Harrison's speech. OF
course, the Journal, always Mr.. Har-
rison's organ, approved it. They be-
lieved in it's sentiments. Workingmen
do not.
MARTIN j. MURPHY.
Martin J. Murphy, residing at No. 159
Buchanan street, Indianapolis, Ind,
when asked for review OF the strike
period of 1877, said
Il was a fireman in the l., B. & w.
yards at the time the strike begun. The
first start of the trouble was the discharge
OF certain men on the Pennsylvania sys-
tenn, but the general cause was ON &C.
count of the repeated reductions of wages.
There were two or three grades of men
at the time getting 81 day, and I think
on one road the section men were only
getting 80 cents day. The fight was to
restore and stop further reductions.
"About the conference meeting in the
old Council chamber, we were invited to
be present-we didn't request it our
selves. AS 1 now recall it, Governor
Porter addressed the entire meeting. He
was followed by Harrison. For some
days before this Harrison had been get
ting up militia companies and then had
lot OF men quartered at the arsenal.
In his speech he spoke about this
and used very plain language about
what they would do with us if
we didn't come to time; yet l can't
just recall his words. know he offend
ed the men by them. He said by strik-
ing we had forfeited all claims on the
roads and didn't have no right to ask
for any redress. He used the terms
law breakers and 'violators of the law
several times. He was all one-sided, so
much SO that every one saw he didn't
intend to give the boys any show. He
said the roads couldn't pay any higher
wages, as the books of the company
would show, and asked our committee to
go down and inspect them. So long as
we were law breakers nothing could be
done. In this connection he used the
assertion that dollar day was better
than nothing at all, and that a
4 II