Bisbee daily review., 1920-03-27
B|SBEE LOCAL RECORDS PROV[ COPPER MINERS STRIKE PART
 IF WIDE REVOLUTIONARY PLOT
CONTINUED FROM PAGE oNE)

l other places where the I. w. w. has
 been the subject of federal investi | gation and the Introduction of the ! Embree letters and other documents The admission of the testimony concerning the |. w. w. was obvi- ously hard blow to the states ! attorneys. Since prosecution of
 the defendants was started last
 year, County Attorney R. N. French has vigorously fought the introduction of the |. w. w. as an issue in the cases. The defense has been just as determined that
 the activities of the |. w. w. snau
 be aired during the trial, contend
 ing that it has the right to show
 the conditions brought about by
 the l. w. w. in the Warren Dis
 trict and to make good it's avowai
 that the strike called there in 1917
 was not for higher wages or bet
 ter conditions, but to assist the
 !. w. w. in furtherins wide con-
 spracy against war conscription
 and the government.
 After having kept even mention of spoken before the jury since the Woot- ton case was called eight weeks ago, the states attorneys today heard tes- timony regarding it given for the first time by their own principal witness, Fred Brown, with Kidnapping whom Wootton is charged.
 w. W. Branch Call Strike
 When the defense opened it's case this morning Brown was recalled to the witness stand for cross examina. tion. One of the first questions put to him by w. H. Burges, chief counsel for the defense, concerned the strike of copper miners in the Warren Dis trict on June 26, 1917. The state ob- jected to the question but the objec- tion was overruled. Asked who called the strike, Brown said:
 'The Metal Mine Workers union" This organization, he testified, was branch of the l. w. w.
 Two copies of the Daily Square Dealer, newspaper published in Bis bee in the spring of 1917, were identi- fled by Brown, who said he worked on the paper, and filed as first exhibits of the defense. One of the newspapers carried in glaring headlines: T. w. W. Control Miners" The headlines on
 another read: q. w. w. Threaten Paper" The state also objected to the introduction of these papers as exhib its and this objection, too, was over ruled.
 Browns testimony furnished plenty Of interest for the spectators. On be- ing questioned by County Attorney French, with whom Brown has been working on the deportation cases for almost a year, Brown stated that lie had been a member of the American Federation of Labor during the Bisbee strike, that he had never belonged 10 tie l. w. w., that, as a member of the grievance committee of the Warren District Trades Council he had sought to prevent any of the A. F. of l.. locals in Eisbee from being affected by the I w. w., and that he had taken no part in the I. w. w. strike, but had sympathized with another strike of painters and other crafts, which was in progress in the district at the time of the deportations.
 Was Haywood Witness
 Cross examination by MT. Burges, however, brought out testimony from Brown that he had been a witness for the I. w. w. during the trial of Will liam D. Haywood and others in the federal court at Chicago in August, 1918.
 Brown said that he went to Chicago after receiving a letter from A. S. Elm bree. secretary-treasurer of the Bisbee branch of the l. w. w. during the in 1917, advising him that a subpoena had been issued for him in and asking him to come there as a witness. Brown admitted that he had gone to Chicago voluntarily and that the subpoena had not been served upon him until after his arrival.
 Has Had Memory
 Asked by MT. French if it were not true that the majority of the men who went out on strike at Bisbee in June and July, 1917, were members of the 1. w. w, Brown replied that he did not know. He was asked if he knew how many members of the I. w. w. were in the Warren District at the time of the deportation and answered this question, over the county attor- neys objection, in the negative. MT. French sought to question Brown re- garding statistics concerning the l. W. w., alleged to have been gathered hy an army officer. The defense objected to this on the grounds that these stat isticS should speak for themselves and thaC any answer Brown might make would be second hand information. The objection was sustained.
 D,n1,,,1 told ng havipo hood n ,,t1n, n1.