Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-09-25
SENT BACK TO JAIL.
Judge Porter Refuses to Ad-
NIT Hugh 0'Donnell to
Bail for Murder.
HIS PRESENCE AT A RIOT
Held to Make Him Responsible for
the Killing of Pinkerton.
AMALGAMATED OFFICERS PRAISED
For Their Manly Endeavos to Secure
Peace at Homestead.
HIS PRESENCE AT A RIOT
OFFICERS PRAISED
For Their Manly Endeavon to Secure
Peace at Homestead.
JAMES REDSHAW's APPEAL HEARD

"Have been refused bail; must remain
here until tried by court" were the words
telegraphed by Hugh O'Donnen from the
jail to his wife in Homestead yesterday
Immediately after retiring from the court
room. There he had listened to Judge
Porter's reasons why the prisoner, charged
with the murder of Captain Klein in con-
nection with the Homestead trouble, could
not be admitted to bail
O'Donnell had been called into court
shortly after o'clock in the morning to
hear the Courts decision. He listened to
the unfavorable opinion without showing
nervousness. His Jail life had apparently
agreed with him, and he looked fresh and
pleasant There were but few people in
the courtroom when the important session
opened. The delay in the decision had con-
WINGED the prisoner that it would be un-
favorable to him, and he listened attentive
ly to the reading of the opinion without ap-
parent concern. After hearing the decision
O'Donnell shook hands with one or two of
his friends who had gathered about him,
but, without remaining to talk, followed the
deputy sheriff back to the jail.
O'Donnen Anticipated the Decision.
After being returned to his cell the pris-
oner telegraphed his wife, and then took up
g morning paper. To Warden McAleese he
said he was not disappointed in Judge Por-
ter's decision. 81 realized the delay in
reaching conclusion was against me, and
would have been agreeably surprised had 1
been admitted to ball." O'Donnell said.
81 have no fear of the trial in court. am
content in the belief that jury will decide
that had no part in the killing for which
am charged"
The opinion in the case handed down by
Judge Porter is appended:
Upon the hearing of this application the
Commonwealth produced evidence that
prior to the killing, which is the subject Of
inquiry, the defendant had at various times,
in substance declared that there was a COM
bination or men, himself among the number,
whose interests were in charge of an Ad-
visory Board, OF which he was Chairman,
and that they had made arrangements under
which the approach Of any person to the
works OF the Carnegie Company, Limited,
would be strictly reported to the rooms of
the Advisory Committee; that they would
protect the property, preserve order, and by
parties to whom they objected upon the
property.
Prepared TO Resist an Invasion.
They had arranged to have q certain
whistle blown as a signal to call out the
people in case they received intelligence of
the approach OF any parties to the mill; that
they held consultations with the Sheriff Of
Allegheny county, who had been notified by
the owners OF the property to take charge Of 4
and protect It, and that they had told the
Sheriff that they would protect the prop
erty, but they would not permit him to put
IN deputies unless such deputies were
known to and approved by them. That at
the last visit of the Sheriff, he had notified
them that he could not accept their terms,
and that they had thereupon declared that
the committee or Advisory Board was dis
solved. That after this the defendant de-
clared that they would permit the Sheriff to
put in deputies who were known to and ap-
proved by them, but they would not permit
him to put in deputies that they did not
know.
1t is further in evidence that at one time
during the existence of the trouble and
prior to the killing, the Sheriff did send a
number of his regular deputies in charge of
the ex-Sher1f of the county to take charge
of the properly, but they were met by a
large crowd of men who refused co permit
them to perform their duty, and by sheer
force of numb prevented their entrance
upon the property and compelled them to
go away. Upon one occasion Information
was brought to the defendant at the rooms
of the committee, that workmen, or de-
tectives, were on their way to be
introduced into the mill. and shortly
thereafter the signal was blown.
Armed Men Respond to the Signal.
A large number of men, some of whom
were armed with revolvers, quickly re-
sponded to the alarm, which proving to be
false, the crowd dispersed. Subsequently to
the time when the Advisory Committee was
declared to be dissolved, the men who had
composed it continued to meet at the same
room. Upon the morning of the 9th of July
tue defendant received Information that a
steamboat with two barges con ntaining men
20 be introduced upon the property of the
Carnegie Steel Company was on the way to
Homestead. Shortly atterward the signal
was again blown and a large number OF men
assembled upon the bank of the river, and
the defendant was seen going in the direction
of the mill. The fence surrounding tho
property was torn down by the GRO wd,
the property of the company entered upon,
and when the steamer landed q large num-
Der of men, many of whom were armed with
deadly weapons, were there to oppose the
landing. The defendant was there present
upon the ground, a parley ensued and
threats we're made by those on shore. When
some of the men on the boat We're starting
to disembark a volley WAS fired from the
shore, which wounded a number of men on
the boat and killed the man Klein. whose
death is the subject of inquiry. The de-
fendant remained upon the ground during
the greater part or the day counseling,
assisting and directing those engaged in the
deadly attack the men the boat,
though there was no evidence that the
defendant was armed.
Praise for Amalgamated Officers.
During the afternoon the general officers
OF the AmaIgamated Association went to
Homestead and to the scene of the conflict
and made creditable appeal to the assail-
ants to desist from the attack upon the
barges, warning them that if they did not do
so troops would be upon the ground that
night, but the rioters refused to listen to
their suggestions. Some time after this the |
defendant made q speech TO those upon the |
ground, saying that the men in the barges
had raised the white flag, and advising that |
they be permitted to unite the barges and |
float them down the river. 1t was finally |
voted that they be permitted to give up |
their arms and surrender, which was done. |
That night the defendant speaking |
OF the conflict, said: 1--WE have |
them" During the afternoon, while the |
attack upon the barges was in progress, and |
dynamite was being thrown on them, and |
preparations made to burn them with oil, |
he said: I'VE are going to win" All this /
testimony is liable to be contradicted, ex.
planned or impeached on a trial, but in this, |
as in all preliminary hearings, we must ac-
cept the testimony offered by the Common |
wealth as true. 1t indicates that the killing |
in question was done in riot by body of |
men who had common understanding or /
agreement that they should resist all who |
opposed them to the extent OF taking life, if |
necessary, to accomplish their purpose; that |
the defendant was party to this combina-
rtOn, and that he was present upon the i
ground with full knowledge OF the proceed |
ings of the rioters and giving them encour-
Rgement. We must, therefore, refuse the |