St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-07-30
POWDERLY 1ESTIF|ES.
The Grand Master Workman
Takes Issue With the
Pinkertons.
Their So-Called Watchmen
Blamed for Prolonging
Strikes.
Harrison's Champion, Depew,
Accused Of a Very Mean
Subterfuge.
Conservative Answers to the
Questions Of the InVesti-
gators.

3" WASHINGTON, July 80 Mr.. Pow
aeriy, master workman of the K. of L.,
appeared before the Pinkerton investi-
CATION committee today. He said he had
some personal knowledge of cases where
violence had been exercised by Pinker-
ION men, and had heard of other cases
from what he considered good author
ity. He read statement denying the
allegations of the Finkertons before the
committee. Referring to the New York
central strike. he accused Mr.. Depew
or deliberately causing the strike and
then going to Europe.
The Pinkertoiis, he said, prevented
the settlement of strikes. He had been
investigating the character of the Pink
erton men, and thus far had found eight
OF them of doubtful character. despite
the PinkertonS' testimony as to the char
acter of their employees. One of them,
webb. was charged with wife murder;
four with burglary, two with wife beat
ing and one with arson. MIR. Powderly
continued by showing that the Pinker-
tons acted as spies and obtained admiS-
sion to labor councils on false pretenSes.
MIR. Powderly thought that the state
ment made by the Plnkertons that but
three men had been killed by the per-
sons employed by them during the last
twenty years was incorrect. Seven
lives, he thought, were lost in the East
st. Louis strike.
Treatment of Non-Unionists.
The Knights of Labor, he said, never
nrpVantnH
ing work, and he thought employers
could replace union men by non-union
men if Pinkertons were not employed.
MIR. BOatner asked him how nom
union men were kept away.
Witness replied that they were met
by labor people and persuaded to remain
away. Replying further to Mr. Boatner,
he said that organized labor did not
justify the use of force to keep non
union men away. He thought that many
OF the labor troubles could be settled
without loss of life ii Pinkerton men
state and territory should care for It's
own affairs. He preferred, in cases like
that of homestead to have men selected
from the locality, as such persons were
more careful and cOnSderate than those
gathered from distances.
Mr.. Frederick asked if a law were
passed prohibiting the transportation
of armed men from one state to another,
If 1t would not meet the trouble.
Witness replied that he thought it
would, and stated that that was what
the labor folks wanted.
Compulsory Arbitration.
In reply to further questions by Mr..
Frederick, he said that the labor people
urged the passage of law making ar
bitration between employer and en-
ployes compulsory. The government,
he said, by its tariff law protected the
Carnegie company, and he thought that
I It should go farther and protect the la
Dorer. The bone of contention. witness
said, was the Pinkertons. The labor
people did not want to eXterminate
them IT 1t could be done by law.
Mr.. Oates asked witness, surprising
the committee was against the Pinker-
tons, their hire and tranSpol tation, II. in
his opinion, there was any use in taking
further testimony.
MIR. Powderly replied that there was
not.
Mr.. Ray asked if there was any con-
necton between the Homestead trouble
and the tariff.
Witness replied that there was not,
III Was tIldt tllt CARNEGIE CON-
pany was becoming wealthy and got ar
rOgant with its men.
FayOrs Moral SuasIOn.
Mr.. Ray asked him if in the Home
stead matter the strikers had a moral
right to take possession of the property
OF the Carnegie company and prevent
nen-uniOn Hell from entering,
Witness replied that he would not
Justify the strikers IN preventing nom
union men from entering the works i'm
any way but through persuasion. He
also admitted the right OF the owners to
protect their plant, but was against the
bringing of irresponsible men to pro-
tect the WOrkS-men who were picked
up anywhere, and who sneak off after
the trouble and were not held RESPONSE
be.
MIR. Ray questioned witness about the
right OF the company to discharge per-
sons In its employ with whom it did not
agree.
Mr.. Powderly recognized such right.
but said they were frequently altered
by contracts or agreements between
companies and their men. Mr.. Pow
derby in conclusion said he believed the
state should own the railroads, as he
thought this would go a long way to-
wards settling the labor troubles.
After inviting Mr.. Powderly to notify
them if he had any witnesses whom he
would like to have examined the COM
mittee adjourned subject to the call Of
the chair.