Homestead

THE secession of the mechanics and laborers was all that was wanting to complete the discouragement of the tonnage men. The usual mass meeting was held in the rink on Saturday, November 20, but the leaders, perceiving that a crisis was imminent, decided to exclude all who were not members of the lodges and only about 500 strikers took part in the secret deliberations which followed. Addresses were made by Vice Presidents Lynch and Carney, of the Amalgamated Association. Thomas Crawford, Chairman of the Advisory Board, was not present, and the information was conveyed to the meeting that he had resigned in order to take a position in a mill at Uniontown, Pa., and that Richard Hotchkiss, Secretary of the board, had been appointed to fill the vacancy. The discussion turned mainly on the necessity, now self-evident, of abandoning the strike and declaring the Homestead mill open to union men. It was manifestly the sense of the meeting that this step should be taken, but the men recoiled from it, and, after a debate lasting four hours, action was deferred until the following day.

It was a mournful little band that assembled in the rink on Sunday morning. In that memorable meeting-place which had again and again resounded with triumphant oratory and with the plaudits of sanguine multitudes, less than 300 dispirited men now came together to register the confirmation of their defeat. There were some who argued passionately against capitulation. To yield, they said, would be to hasten the disintegration of the Amalgamated Association. Better go naked and starve than sacrifice the principles on the vindication of which the men of Homestead had staked everything. But this reasoning was of no avail. A standing vote was taken on the question of declaring the mill open and the proposition was carried by 101 to 91.

There was no outburst when the result was declared. The men sat and stared at one another for a few seconds, and then dropped out of the hall in twos and threes, some of them giving vent to their feelings in bitter denunciations of the action of the majority.

The news caused little excitement through the town. It was no more than had been expected, and, for the most part, the people were glad of it, for it had long been understood that the continuance of the unequal struggle with the Carnegie Company meant an increased burden of debt and poverty.

It was among the outside sympathizers that the keenest regret was felt over the failure of the strike. Messrs. Powderly, Devlin, Wright and other high officers of the K. of L. deplored the collapse, and here and there K. of L. men took occasion to lay the blame on the shoulders of Samuel Gompers and his associates in the management of the Federation.

Hugh O'Donnell gave his opinion of the ending of the strike in the appended letter to the Pittsburgh Leader:

"Editor Leader:—In reply to your request for an expression of opinion concerning the action of the men at Homestead in declaring the strike off, I can say but little at the present time. Owing to the fact that, certain of my acts in that most memorable struggle are sub judice, I am not in a position to criticize the acts of my late associates. Great battles are rarely, if ever, fought as planned. The world has never witnessed before so much suffering and sacrifice for a cause. The action of the three thousand laborers and mechanics who came out with our men on pure principle alone is unexampled in the history of labor struggles.

"But to the men in the Lawrenceville and Beaver Falls mills too much praise cannot be given. Their loyalty and steadfastness to the principles for which they were contending should never be forgotten. Out of consideration for them I regret that the Homestead struggle should have terminated in the manner in which it did.

Hugh O'Donnell.

"Allegheny county jail, November 21."

Secretary Lovejoy contented himself with assuring the newspapers that the surrender would have no effect on the cases of the strikers under arrest, as far as the Carnegie firm was concerned.

On Monday the Advisory board disbanded and the dissolution of the workingmen's once great and powerful organization was complete.

The battle for the preservation of the integrity of this body had been fought at a fearful cost. The outlay on the side of the Carnegie Company has never been made known, but it cannot have fallen short of $250,000. The workmen, in the course of twenty weeks of idleness, lost $850,000 in wages, and the expense to the state of maintaining the militia at Homestead was about $500,000. In round numbers then, the total cost of the strike to all parties involved, allowing for the pay of deputy sheriffs, the expense of court trials and the relief funds, may be set down at two million dollars, an enormous sum to be paid for the gratification of Mr. Frick's desire to get rid of unions and unionism. Inasmuch, however, as but a small portion of this amount came out of the coffers of the Carnegie Company, Mr. Frick had no reason to feel dissatisfied. His victory was in reality, a cheap one. Had he not precipitated a bloody conflict by shipping Pinkertons to Homestead and in this way secured the support of the entire military force of Pennsylvania, there is no telling how long the strike might have been continued and how heavy the loss that might have been inflicted on the firm by the stoppage of operations.

The last restraint having been removed, hundreds of men who had been active among the strikers now thronged the mill office and besieged the officials with applications for positions. Superintendent Schwab began receiving the applicants at 9 o'clock on Monday morning. At that hour about 500 men were in line. The men were admitted in groups of five and those who were not black-listed as dangerous rioters received permits authorizing them to file their applications with the superintendents of the various departments. The line of waiting ones kept constantly growing and it was not until 4 o'clock that Mr. Schwab and his assistants were enabled to wind up their labors. Unfortunately the number of vacancies was so small that but few of the old employees could be accommodated by the superintendents, and fully 2,500 men were left to keep the wolf from the door as best they could, without the assurance of early employment. The prospect confronting these unfortunates was disheartening in the extreme. Most of them were already embarrassed in consequence of their long idleness. Rent and taxes were unpaid, the endurance of grocers and butchers was exhausted, and with winter at hand and no money in sight to purchase the necessaries of life, what was to become of these destitute workingmen and their families?

The Amalgamated Association came at once to the relief of its own members, a large number of whom were on the blacklist, by voting the payment of $6 a week to each as long as he should be out of employment. The ordinary financial resources of the lodges would not have justified this step, but contributions continued to come in and the special necessity for relief now exhibited was recognized by union workingmen everywhere.

The events of the next two weeks after the strike was declared off showed but little brightening of the outlook. By actual count there were 2,715 men on the pay rolls of the mill on the day when the mechanics and laborers went back to work. Two weeks later there were 3,121 men employed in the works, from which showing it will be seen that out of 2,200 men who had applied for reinstatement only 406 obtained employment. Almost all of these were laborers.

At the call of Burgess Hollingshead, successor to Honest John McLuckie, a meeting of citizens was held to consider plans for the relief of the many cases of absolute destitution reported in the town. Dr. Purman presided and J. H. Rose acted as secretary. David Lynch explained to those present that the Amalgamated men would take care of themselves, but that the suffering among those for whom the Association could not undertake to provide was intense and demanded prompt measures for its alleviation. A committee consisting of David Lynch, William Gaches and Harry Bayne was appointed to investigate the immediate needs of the people, and a fund was started on the spot by the subscription of $200 among the citizens in attendance. After a few days' work the sub-committee reported to the general committee, and on the strength of the information presented the following appeal was adopted:

"There are 218 families in Homestead and vicinity in a state of destitution. This fact has been ascertained by a competent committee, consisting of three persons, appointed at a citizens' meeting held on Friday evening, December 2, 1892. The undersigned committee was appointed as a result of the above investigation to issue this appeal to the country, asking public aid in caring for these destitute families. The strike is over, but less than 800 of the 3,800 former workmen of the Carnegie Steel Company have as yet secured employment in the mill, and only a limited number elsewhere. It is highly improbable that this vast body of unemployed men will be able to secure work for many weeks to come. This means prolonged and increasing distress. The people of Homestead, although liberal in their contributions, are unable to provide for the demands of such general want. This call is an urgent one, and the public must assist us."

The general relief committee perfected its organization by electing Burgess Hollingshead president, William Gaches, treasurer, and George Hadfield, secretary. Mr. Hollingshead was authorized to receive money contributions and turn them over to the treasurer, and to Mr. Hadfield was assigned the duty of receiving donations of food, fuel and clothing.

One of the first subscriptions received was the sum of $25 from the employees of Kaufman Brothers of Philadelphia, transmitted by the city editor of the Philadelphia Record. Others poured in rapidly, the business people of Pittsburgh being especially liberal in their response to the demands upon them. The Building Trades council appointed a committee to take charge of the Pittsburgh donations, with Vice President Michael Sharran at the head. Mr. Sharran, assisted by Mr. D. S. Mitchell, labored with untiring activity and these two men were instrumental in securing thousands of dollars worth of supplies.

Among the most liberal contributors was Mrs. J. M. Gusky, head of the great clothing firm of J. M. Gusky & Company, a lady noted for her charities and always foremost to respond in emergencies such as that occurring at Homestead.

Kaufmann Brothers and Eisner & Philipps gave an immense quantity of clothing. W. M. Laird contributed a sufficient quantity of shoes for all claimants, and the large grocery and commission firms forwarded provisions of all kinds.

The Pittsburgh Press raised a fund of $2,500 in addition to supplies of clothing and other necessaries, and the Dispatch collected over $700, to which was added $300 from the charitable people of Washington, D. C.

As Christmas drew near, public sympathy was more and more keenly aroused in behalf of the Homestead sufferers. A few days before that holiday of holidays, the children in the Homestead public schools were instructed to write letters to Santa Claus, asking for whatever they most desired. Nearly all the letters contained requests for shoes and other necessaries. Many of them were published in the newspapers and spoke volumes for the unhappy condition of the poorer class of strikers and their families.

Santa Claus was not missing, however, when the eventful morning came, nor were the other essentials of a merry Christmas conspicuous by their absence. One thousand turkeys came from the kind hearted workingmen of McKeesport and 300 from Mrs. Gusky, and the heart of every child was gladdened by the gift of a picture book and a box of candy from Kaufmann Bros. of Pittsburgh.

The Homestead relief committee kept up its good work until the end of March, by which time the necessities of the people ceased to be pressing. A report was then published showing receipts amounting to $5,587.28, of which $4,926.79 had been expended in relieving distressed families. A committee of three was appointed to use the unexpended balance in relief work, and the general committee then dissolved, having excellently discharged its mission.

Reference has already been made to the appointment of a committee of United States senators to investigate the Homestead affair and the postponement of action by Senator Gallinger, the Republican chairman of that committee, until after the presidential election. Within two weeks after election day, Senators Gallinger and Pfeffer began the inquiry at Chicago, where a hearing was given to Pinkerton agents and authorities on police methods, the latter submitting opinions on the best means of coping with labor disturbances. Chief of Police McClaughrey advocated the removal of the police force in great cities from the field of politics and placing municipal departments under a civil service system, and Marshal Hitchcock suggested the enactment of a law providing a severe penalty for refusing to serve on a posse comitatus. On November 23, Messrs. Gallinger and Pfeffer arrived in Pittsburgh. The other members of the committee, Messrs. Hansbrough, of North Dakota; Felton, of California; Sanders, of Montana; White, of Louisiana, and Hill, of New York, did not find it convenient to attend. The testimony taken was mainly a repetition of that given before the House Committee. Captain Rodgers repeated his tale of the adventures of the Little Bill; Superintendent Potter told of the innocence of the purpose entertained in the bringing in of the Pinkertonian Three Hundred; William Weihe explained how easily the trouble could have been adjusted if the Carnegie firm had desired an amicable settlement and condemned the facilities afforded for the importation of cheap labor in violation of the contract labor law; David Lynch and William G. Roberts testified to the peaceable disposition of the Homestead men prior to the Pinkerton invasion and their respect for the property rights of their employers; A. C. Robertson, a politician who had formerly been a glass blower, condemned arbitration, whether voluntary or compulsory, as a failure, and ex-Judge Thomas Mellon declared the employment of armed guards during strikes to be necessary because there is "too much politics" to permit of the proper enforcement of the law.

After a visit to the Homestead mill, the committee proceeded directly to New York where the testimony of Robert A. Pinkerton and Captain Heinde was heard. The Pinkerton chief described the men sent to Homestead as model citizens. It had been agreed, he said, that the guards should be sworn in as deputy sheriffs. There had been no firing from the barges until after the captain was shot, and then only in sheer self-defense. Witness claimed that his agency had lost $15,000 by the Homestead affair, owing to the seizure of 225 rifles and other property, and the cost of caring for men hurt in the battle. He thought it doubtful that Mr. Carnegie would reimburse the agency. Being asked if he thought that the violence committed at Homestead was due to the strikers or to the rabble attracted there, he said: "I think it was committed by the strikers, their leaders and the advisory committee itself." Captain Heinde's evidence was merely a recital of the events of July 6. With his examination the investigation was concluded.

The report of the committee, presented to the senate on February 11, 1893, denounced the employment of Pinkertons as "an utterly vicious system, responsible for much of the ill-feeling and bad blood displayed by the working classes," and suggested that if Mr. Frick had carried out the humane policy enunciated by Mr. Carnegie in his famous article in the Forum, the Homestead strike might have been avoided. At the same time, it declared that there was "no excuse for the scenes of disorder and terrorism for which the strikers were themselves responsible," and that "laboring men should learn the lesson that they cannot better their condition by violating the law or resisting lawful authority." The committee doubted the power of Congress to mend matters by legislation, and advised arbitration as the only middle ground on which employer and employe could meet without depreciating the rights of either.

About this time the House committee on investigation of the Homestead strike awoke from its lethargy and Messrs. Ray and Broderick, the Republican members, handed in a minority report, condemning the employment of armed guards, but advising that legislation on this question be left to the several states. In the judgment of the minority of the committee the "present system of federal taxation" had nothing to do with the Homestead strike, which was in reality a struggle for supremacy between organized capital and organized labor.

The majority report was presented shortly afterwards. It held that Mr. Frick should have united with the sheriff of Allegheny county, without regard to the inefficiency of that officer, in an appeal to the governor, instead of undertaking to crush the strikers on his own account; criticized the Amalgamated Association as a body the members of which were encouraged to become intemperate zealots, denied the right of the Homestead men to oppose the landing of the Pinkertons, and ended by suggesting that it be left to the several states to enact laws regulating Pinkertonism.

Individual minority reports were presented as follows:

By Mr. Broderick, advocating the passage of a compulsory arbitration law by the states.

By Mr. Buchanan, of New Jersey, declaring the investigation to have acted as a boomerang against the Democrats in that it showed a high protective tariff to be productive of high wages.

By Mr. Boatner, claiming that, under the clause of the constitution which authorizes the inter-state commerce law, inter-state carriers can be prevented from hiring Pinkertons.

By Mr. Stockdale, of Mississippi, claiming that the Pinkertons were trespassers; and

By Messrs. Bynum and Layton confessing their inability to find a remedy for conflicts between capital and labor.

All the reports cited having been duly read and filed away by the two branches of Congress, the Homestead question was thereupon dropped by general consent and, its political utility having vanished, was heard of no more in the national legislature.

The Pennsylvania legislature, which assembled in January, 1893, was obliged to meet the Pinkerton question squarely. All the members of the lower branch of that body—the House of Representatives—and one-half of the members of the senate came fresh from the people, having been chosen in the November elections, and a large proportion of them stood pledged to their constituents to aid in the passage of an anti-Pinkerton bill. Many measures of this character were introduced, but that upon which support was centered, by common consent, was a bill introduced by Representative John Kearns, of Pittsburgh, a gentleman in close touch with organized labor. The Kearns bill was entitled "An Act relative to the appointing of special deputies, marshals, detectives or policemen by sheriffs, mayors or other persons authorized by law to make such appointments, and by individuals, associations or corporations incorporated under the laws of this State or any other State of the United States, and making it a misdemeanor for persons to exercise the functions of an officer without authority."

The bill underwent some vicissitudes, which delayed its passage until May, although introduced early in January and advanced on the House calendar through Mr. Kearns' energetic efforts. At one stage in its progress, a proviso was added requiring that any person appointed or deputized to perform the duties of special deputy, marshal, policeman or detective should be "of known good moral character and temperate habits" and should give bond in a considerable sum for the faithful performance of his duties. This provision was attacked because of its being presumably aimed at the low class of detectives employed by the Law and Order society of Pittsburgh, which was just then making war on Sunday newspapers and lobbying against a bill for the protection of journals publishing Sunday editions, and for this reason it was eliminated. The word "detectives" was stricken out of the title and, as it was feared that the bill might interfere with the appointment of regular policemen in municipalities, a special proviso to prevent such a result was added in the senate:

As finally enacted into a law, signed by the governor, and placed upon the statute books, the measure reads as follows:

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in General Assembly met, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That no sheriff of a county, mayor of a city, or other person authorized by law to appoint special deputies, marshals or policemen in this Commonwealth to preserve the public peace and prevent or quell public disturbances, and no individuals, association, company or corporation incorporated under the laws of this State or of any other State of the United States and doing business in this State, shall hereafter appoint or employ as such special deputy, marshal or policeman any person who shall not be a citizen of this Commonwealth.

Section 2. That any person who shall in this Commonwealth without due authority pretend or hold himself out to any one as a deputy sheriff, marshal, policeman, constable or peace officer, shall be deemed guilty of misdemeanor.

Section 3. Any person or persons, company or association, or any person in the employ of such company or association violating any of the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or undergo an imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both or either at the discretion of the court.

Provided, That if any company or association be convicted under this act it shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars.

Provided further, That the provisions of this act shall not be construed as applying to policemen, constables or specials appointed by municipalities for municipal purposes.

As long as the Kearns act stands—and it is safe to say that it is not likely ever to be repealed—the Pinkerton Detective Agency is effectually barred out of Pennsylvania.

CHAPTER XVIII.

SYLVESTER Critchlow was the first of the Homestead men to be placed on trial in the Allegheny County Criminal Court, the charge against him being the murder of T. J. Connors.

On the morning of November 18, 1892, Critchlow was arraigned before Judges Kennedy and McClung. A great crowd assembled in the court room, curious to observe the opening scenes in the memorable legal battle which was to ensue, but to the great disappointment of the throng, the judges ordered the room to be cleared of all except members of the bar, witnesses, jurors and reporters.

The prisoner was perfectly cool and self possessed. His wife and mother sat near him, watching with womanly solicitude every step in the proceedings, the issue of which meant so much to both.

The array of legal talent on both sides was formidable. The prosecution was in the hands of District Attorney Burleigh, assisted by Messrs. D. F. Patterson, John S. Robb, E. Y. Breck, P. C. Knox and Assistant District Attorney Harry Goehring. Counsel for the defense were: Messrs. W. W. Erwin and G. W. Argo, of St. Paul, Minn.; E. A. Montooth, Thomas M. Marshall, William J. Brennen and William Reardon, of Pittsburgh, and John F. Cox, of Homestead.

Immediately upon the opening of court, Critchlow was ordered to stand up, and having heard the charge read, pleaded not guilty in a clear, firm tone of voice. Attorney Brennen asked to have the indictment quashed on the ground of an irregularity in the drawing of the grand jury panel. The motion was overruled, and the selection of jurors began, this process being conducted by Mr. Burleigh for the prosecution and Mr. Marshall for the defense. Within a few hours, the following "good men and true" were selected: Peter Roth, John Herron, James Marshall, Amos Mashey, Chris Wiggand, C. S. Eaton, Chris A. Sende, James M. Wright, D. J. Herlehy, W. A. Freyvogel, Burns Wadsworth and Louis Jackman.

The District Attorney, in his opening speech, after having given the conventional explanation as to degrees of murder, asked the jury to avoid the impression that the case on trial was one of treason or was to be considered in connection with Homestead. "We are," he said, "simply trying Sylvester Critchlow for the murder of T. J. Connors, who was killed in the barges at Homestead on July 6. The barges were there lawfully and for a peaceable purpose.... We will show that Sylvester Critchlow was behind the barricade with a rifle, shooting down to the barges within easy range of Connors, and firing in a direction in which he would likely hit Connors."

"You must also remember, gentlemen, that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is the prosecutor and Sylvester Critchlow is the defendant. There is no private prosecutor here. The case will be prosecuted by public officials and no one else will be allowed to interfere. Other counsel may appear in the case, but they will be in subordination to the district attorney."

Dr. McKennan, Superintendent W. A. Cowan, of the West Penn hospital and Rev. Father Leonard Lynch were the first witnesses examined. They testified to the death of Connors and the nature of his wound.

Captain John W. Cooper, of the Pinkerton agency, followed with the familiar story of the river expedition and the battle at the landing. He also swore positively to the position of Connors at the time when he was shot and the hour at which he fell.

Captain Cooper was subjected to a searching cross-examination by Mr. Brennen, but went through the ordeal without permitting himself to become confused. Mr. Brennen sought to show (1) that the witness was not of good moral character and (2) that Connors was accidentally shot by one of his own comrades.

At one point the cross-examination ran as follows:

Mr. Brennen.—Were you not a "Hey Rube" for a circus for nine years?

Mr. Burleigh.—What in the name of common sense is a "Hey Rube?"

Judge Kennedy.—Yes, Mr. Brennen, we would like to know what you mean by a "Hey Rube."

Mr. Brennen.—I mean a circus fighter. The witness knows what I mean.

Witness.—I was detailed by the Pinkerton agency to accompany the Barnum circus in the capacity of a detective. I was with the circus for nine years.

W. H. Burt, also a Pinkerton detective, recounted the incidents of the fight at the landing and described the shooting of Connors as follows: "I knew T. J. Connors. He was on the boat. I saw him between 11 and 12 o'clock that day. That was before he was shot. He was near the bow of the boat. Three or four minutes later I saw two men picking him up. He had fallen about twenty-five feet from the bow of the boat. He was placed on a table and a medical student from Chicago, who had hired as a guard, bandaged the wound on Connors' arm."

Detectives P. J. Connors and Joseph Malley gave evidence of similar tenor to that of the two preceding witnesses, and Captain Rodgers and Deputy Sheriff Gray repeated their well-worn story of the Little Bill.

This stage of the proceedings was reached on the afternoon of Saturday, November 19, at the customary hour of adjournment. The court decided to hold a night session, and accordingly at 7 P. M. the examination of witnesses was resumed.

J. M. Dickson, H. H. Hervey and J. H. Slocum, clerks in the employ of the Carnegie firm, swore that on the morning of July 6 they saw Critchlow with a gun in his hand going towards the mill gate. Each of them positively identified the prisoner.

Charles Reese, a newspaper artist, being sworn, said that he saw Critchlow, with a gun in his hands, occupying an exposed position in the mill yard, near the pump house. Somebody had said to witness, "There is Critchlow. He is a regular dare devil." Mr. Brennen elicited from the witness the fact that he had attended a gathering of newspaper reporters called together by Capt. E. Y. Breck, attorney for the Carnegie firm, at the time when the Critchlow case was before the grand jury. This affair had created no little scandal when it occurred, some of the newspapers openly stating that Captain Breck had invited those whom he intended to use as witnesses to a banquet for the purpose of "coaching" them. Mr. Reese, however, denied that there had been a banquet or, that he had received any formal invitation from Captain Breck. Nevertheless, the evidence was regarded as establishing a reasonable presumption of the use of unfair methods by the prosecution.

Isaac J. Jury, a constable residing in Homestead, swore that he saw Critchlow in the mill yard and advised him to get out, but that his warning was not heeded.

The most damaging testimony of all was given by Samuel Stewart, a clerk, in the Homestead mill. He said:

"I know Sylvester Critchlow; saw him near the Company office between 8 and 9 o'clock on the morning of July 6; next saw him back of the barricades, near the pump house on the river bank; he was kneeling back of the barricade, a gun in his hands; the gun projected through the barricade between the second and third beams; the barricade was built of steel 'I' beams; his gun was pointed toward the barges; the bows of the barges were nearest to the barricades; you could see into the boats from where Critchlow was kneeling; the door of the outer barge was open; I saw Critchlow fire once in the direction of the barge; saw him aim carefully and pull the trigger; I remained there about 20 minutes; Critchlow was there when I arrived, and was still there when I left; I cannot tell the kind of gun Critchlow had, except that it was a single barrel."

On cross-examination witness stated that he also saw Anthony Flaherty, Joseph A. Hall and James Flannagan shoot from behind the barricade. He stuck firmly to his story in the face of Mr. Brennen's questioning. Stewart's examination ended the Saturday night session.

When the trial was resumed on Monday morning, Detective Malley was again placed on the stand and swore to having seen Critchlow on the river bank with a gun in his hands and to have heard him called by name. Photographs of the burning barges, the barricades and the mill yard, taken by order of the Carnegie Company on July 6, were put in evidence, and here the commonwealth rested.

Attorney George W. Argo made the opening speech for the defense. He explained that he and his colleague, Mr. Irwin, had been sent by the laboring element of the Northwest to assist in the defense of the Homestead men. "As far as I am concerned," he said, "I was not selected on account of any extraordinary ability, but because for years I have been in touch with labor. At one time I was a barge builder near this city. My parents resided in Washington County."

In setting forth the reasons for demanding an acquittal, Mr. Argo enlarged upon the enlistment of armed men to invade Homestead "within two days of the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence" and, after describing the expedition of the Pinkertons went on to say:

"These men were not laboring men. It was an invasion of armed men employed by a man named Frick; it was an assault upon this grand old commonwealth; it was an assault upon the state in which the Declaration of Independence was signed; this armed body of men who invaded this state and trampled upon the soil made sacred by the feet of Washington; these men were not under the command of any regular officer of this county; they were men who could not be sworn in as deputies or special officers. Under the evidence in this case these men made an attack upon the people of Homestead; there is not any evidence that Frick owned one dollar's worth of property in Homestead. These men sneaked in on a dark, foggy night; they were met, not by strikers, for there is no evidence that there was a strike, but by the good people of the town, who, when the armed foe attempted to land told the latter not to come ashore; begged of them not to interfere with their rights, begged of them not to attempt to land. Not a particle of evidence has been given that these foreign emissaries had any right there. The men, the peaceable citizens, attempted to defend their rights. A young man named Foy went down to the gang-plank to plead with the men not to come ashore. He was met by a lot of armed men. Becoming alarmed he turned to go back, when he slipped and fell across the plank. As he fell he was shot in the back by some one on the barges. That was the beginning of the terrible battle. It will appear in evidence in this case that the first shots were fired from the barges and not by the people on shore. We will show you that preparations had been made for this trouble one month before it occurred. We will show that a stockade or high fence had been built around the works, a fence like that built in the west to repel Indian attacks. This fence was full of portholes, and resembled the outer wall of a fort. There is no evidence that the people who were on the banks on the morning of the invasion were strikers. They were peaceable citizens of Homestead. Every man in that crowd had a right to defend himself with arms; the law gives to every man the right to defend himself, to defend his family; to defend his neighbors and his friends; this right is given every man by a power higher than the law of man. The people were attacked by an armed foe and they had the right to use weapons in self-defense. The evidence shows that the men on the barges were in command of officers whose names are known, who have testified in this case, yet your honorable district attorney has made no effort to bring these men to justice. Thus he becomes a defender of these armed invaders of your county."

Mr. Argo further outlined the plan of defense as showing that the Critchlow who was seen behind the barricades was another Critchlow and that the prisoner was not present when Connors met his death.

W. M. Erwin followed with a spirited address in which he said that the prosecution rested entirely on the theory that there had been a riot, which he characterized as a "doubly damned fiction." "Is there," he asked, "another such hard-hearted, villainous man within the limits of the land as this man Frick, whom we find hob-nobbing with the leaders of the Republic. This man Frick, whose name will be more notorious than that of the man who fired the Ephesian dome, did not apply to your courts or your legislature, but violated the agreement with his men, and assumed, like a tyrant, to act as arbiter; this most brutal tyrant of all tyrants tried to force his men to bow to his will by an armed force of invaders. Thus have these scoundrels defied the laws of the commonwealth. Carnegie bent the eternal laws of God and the poorer imitations by man. We will show that the defendants only tried to straighten these laws. If there is no Judas Iscariot among you, gentlemen of the jury, you will plant the flag of independence on your hills."

Captain O. C. Coon, of Homestead, was the first witness called by the defense. He testified that he was at the mill landing when the Pinkerton barges arrived, and described the opening of the battle as follows:

"When the plank was thrown out my attention was called to a man on the barge; he had a gun in his hand; there was a boy on the shore; he was tantalizing the man; the latter raised his gun to shoot the boy; I said to him: 'For God's sake don't shoot that boy, for he is only a boy.' I asked him if he was a deputy sheriff, he said no; I asked him if he was a guardsman, he said no; I then said 'you are a Pinkerton'; he replied that he was, and, holding up his gun, said his party was going to enter the mill in fifteen minutes; the boy on shore continued to call the man on the barge; the latter raised his gun and aimed at the boy, but someone pushed his gun down; when he raised it again he had it drawn on me; about that time a boy came running down to where we were, slipped and fell across the gang plank; a minute later there was a shot from the barge, and I heard afterward that the boy on the plank was shot in the side; the first shot fired after the landing was fired by either the second or third man on the plank; I do not know who he was; I went there to try and preserve order; I never saw Critchlow to know him until I saw him in court to-day."

Charles Mansfield, of Homestead, effectually offset the evidence of Charles Reese. He swore that he had been in the mill yard and conversed with Reese. Asked as to the nature of the conversation, he said:

"I was in a cupola with Mr. Reese. I saw a man named Critchlow go into the pump-house. I said to Reese, 'There goes Critchlow into the place where Morris was killed. He will be killed sure. You had better get a good sketch of him.'"

Mr. Brennen—"Was the man you pointed out to Reese the defendant?"

"No, sir."

"Who was the man?"

"I do not wish to state."

"Was his name Critchlow?"

"It was."

Numerous witnesses were then introduced to prove an alibi for the defendant. Samuel Rothrauff, J. Miller Colgan and J. J. Baird testified that they saw Critchlow in Braddock before 10 A. M. on July 6. Mrs. Bridget Coyle said that she saw him at 3 P. M. a mile distant from the mill on his way home. "There's no lie about it," exclaimed Mrs. Coyle, in answer to Attorney Patterson's questions, "but you're trying to make me tell a lie, and I wouldn't do it for all the money Carnegie has." Three witnesses corroborated Mrs. Coyle's statement and a half-dozen others accounted for Critchlow's movements in the evening.

The taking of all this testimony occupied the court throughout a second night session.

On Tuesday, the fourth day of the trial, the defendant testified in his own behalf, denying that he had been on the Carnegie Company's grounds at any time on the day of the battle. A light suit of clothes which he claimed to have worn on that day was exhibited as an offset to the evidence of witnesses for the prosecution who coincided in the statement that the Critchlow whom they had seen wore dark clothing.

Critchlow's wife was sworn and said that at 4 P. M. on July 6, at which hour, it was alleged, defendant had been behind the barricades, he was at home sleeping.

This closed the case for the defense.

Only one witness was called by the commonwealth in rebuttal, and his evidence was valueless.

Mr. Marshall, for the defense, submitted a number of points, among which was the contention that, when it is certain that one or more persons committed a crime, but it is uncertain which, all must be acquitted.

Mr. D. F. Patterson responded for the prosecution, taking special exception to the plea against individual liability.

Four hours were allowed to each side for the closing arguments.

Mr. Robb, for the commonwealth, arraigned the defense in scathing language for seeking to belittle the laws of the commonwealth in the eyes of the jury. "There is, gentlemen," he said "some mysterious power that comes from the blue sky above the clouds that leads us away from the law; we have been told this by an attorney from the other side. Has it come to this, as we are told, that there is not law enough in Allegheny county or Pennsylvania for a plain cause? We have been told, but thank God those who made the statement are not citizens of our state, that we are all, from the man who sits on the supreme bench to the district attorney, corrupt. We have been told that in their cause there has been a mysterious, swimming atmosphere, something that would develop in this cause. But when you hear his honor you will know how plain is your duty and how plain is the law."

And again:

"The Carnegie company may have done wrong; we all do wrong, but is that any reason why our laws and our great flag, which was referred to so eloquently by the gentleman on the other side in his opening address should be trampled underfoot by rioters? My forefathers were not so high as the forefathers of the gentleman who addressed you yesterday; mine were only privates; his were away-up officers. But if I were not a better citizen of Allegheny county than to advise a jury to disregard its solemn oath I should hope that I should be stricken dead."

Mr. Erwin, who, since the delivery of his fiery speech of Monday, had come to be known among the members of the bar as the "Northwestern Whirlwind," followed Mr. Robb. There was dead silence in the court-room when he began. Surely he would respond in kind to Mr. Robb's virulent attack on him! But no. The Westerner was too shrewd to let himself be drawn off into the mere by-ways of argument, and with but a passing contemptuous allusion to Mr. Robb's onslaught, he proceeded calmly and impressively with the discussion of the main issue. As one of the newspapers put it, "The strategy of the prosecution to lead into a by-path had failed, and he stuck to the high road and tramped defiantly along the highest part of it."

After a few preparatory remarks, including his brief reference to Mr. Robb's speech, which he characterized as a "gauzy affair," Mr. Erwin plunged into his subject as follows:

"Unhappily for you, and I think for the county, the propelling causes that led to the riots at Homestead are not shown in evidence. Under your oaths you cannot merely presume on them. I think that is unfortunate for the country, the state and the city. After the news of the battle flashed over the wires calm minds awaited the result of the investigation. That it has not been touched is a matter of sincere regret. You are now put in an iron vest by your oaths, and you can presume nothing except such presumptions as are legal and presumable. We of the defense are in no way responsible for this. A man has the right to rebut only the testimony addressed against him, and that is so strong that if you committed the murder you would not have a chance to prove I did it. And thus we are bound hand and foot, and our mouths are open to receive what the prosecution presents."

Mr. Erwin defined indictments as mere accusations, and said that the law's presumption of innocence was as a shield on which the prosecution must pile evidence until the weight is so heavy that it breaks the prisoner down. The speaker referred to the important part that intuition plays in law cases, and said in that respect women often possessed it more acutely because they were nearer like the angels. Going further, he adverted to the exclusion of any evidence that there was a strike at Homestead or that Mr. Frick had hired an armed body there. The constitution, he said, still gives the people right to bear arms in their defense.

"The cloven foot of the power that invoked this invasion of Pennsylvania has been hidden from you," continued he. "I know not whether accidentally, but it has been concealed. You know, though, that it was Frick, the blackest name there ever was; you know that Frick, whoever he may be, put on board the Little Bill arms and men for this invasion of Pennsylvania.

"And, therefore, you are bound to presume that if the proceeding had a just excuse it should be shown, and the absence of it is favorable to the prisoner. What was there that even justified Frick in arming men like that? You do not know. I cannot but presume that it is so black he dare not show it in this open forum before the republic. The great question with you, gentlemen, is, under the evidence we have before us, was this battle at Homestead a riot or an authorized invasion? That's the first question. If you answer it was an invasion that's the end of it. It requires no proclamation of the governor to resist an invasion. I do not see how under the evidence you can see anything else than an invasion. I would like to have shown you what an irresponsible constabulary the Pinkertons are, but that is denied us."

Mr. Erwin sarcastically said that Mr. Robb in his endeavor to carry them by storm became the personification of a rioter, and forgot to tell them that if Mr. Frick had not sent the Pinkertons to Homestead there would never have been a battle. There may have seemed a reason to Frick, but the state had not shown anything of that. People for self-aggrandizement may often do things that, if shown in court, might convict them of what they charge against others, and that is murder.

"If you find there is no excuse for that invasion the people of Homestead should have pursued and shot the Pinkertons even at God's altar, and further still have gone across the line that separates the dead from life and shot them while they lay on the bosom of the prince of hell," shouted Erwin in a particularly passionate outburst that seemed to appal the court. "If there was no invasion, you must ask yourselves was the riot such as to make the people on the shore responsible for that tumult. Who were on those boats? Three hundred men from the slums of Philadelphia and Chicago, armed with 150 Winchesters, and revolvers and maces. And they were under captains and had waived their right to think for themselves; had sworn to obey their captain when he told them to kill the people at Homestead. This shows you the abandonment of individuality and concentration of power under one executive head; and that is the primary principle that constitutes war. Were the people on the mill shore who had fired on the Pinkertons down the river? Not one of them. Is there any evidence that the people on shore were responsible for that firing down on the shore? Not a particle. Perhaps the prosecution did not go into it for fear they might show that Frick was guilty of murder. The evidence has not been put to you to show that the people on shore were there to repel any but 'scabs.' If you cannot determine these points you should acquit the defendant."

Mr. Erwin then went into an analysis of the testimony of the Pinkerton witnesses for the prosecution; and defined detectives as men who could not make a living at any honorable pursuit, and preferred to hunt men instead of serving the Almighty by working by the sweat of their brows. He said it was hardly possible the jury could like a human hyena. Had the Pinkertons been honorable men the district attorney would have shown the jury evidence of such and thus helped to strengthen their statements. The speaker justified burning oil and dynamite and anything else that could be thought of if used against the Pinkertons. There was no intent in the gathering of the crowd on shore; and, therefore, the individual up for justice could not be held guilty for what happened. Erwin held that if Critchlow was on the scene of battle he had a perfect right to be there. It was a point of law older than Rome, copied by Cicero, that when arms are used all political laws are set at naught. The resistance of the Homestead people was a "majestic" performance. Were not three hundred rifles cowed by eight behind the barricade?

Stewart, "that magnificent volunteer witness," was a preposterous liar and a "squirt" who was eyeing the fighters.

Here the orator asked his colleagues how long he had to speak and was told to go on without regard to time. Taking up a synopsis of the testimony he proceeded to analyze the statements of witnesses for the commonwealth with telling effect. His sarcastic commentaries set the court-room in a roar, even the tipstaves being so amused that they forgot to cry order until Judge Kennedy aroused them.

The witnesses for the defense, Mr. Erwin said, were all reputable citizens of Homestead. He thought it impossible to construct a better alibi than had been proven for Critchlow. No machinations of testimony could make such an excellent alibi as the one presented. In view of it all, he could not look for any decision other than in favor of acquittal, even though the district attorney had so artfully presented the testimony as almost to compel the jury to decide for the commonwealth against their consciences.

In conclusion the speaker pictured the misery that would be inflicted on Critchlow's family, if the bread winner were snatched away.

"That is the greatest speech ever delivered in this court house," remarked the veteran, Thomas M. Marshall, when Mr. Erwin had finished. "I want to retire from the bar now, for I have been snuffed out."

On Wednesday morning Mr. Marshall spoke. He laid much stress on the surreptitious entry of the Pinkertons and the assumption that somebody had authority to give these private hirelings orders to shoot. "The order from Captain Cooper and Captain Heinde to shoot entitled them to be shot," said the speaker vehemently. "When there is war," he continued, "the man that arrives first on the battlefield has the right to shoot first. But why did the Pinkertons come down upon Homestead like thieves in the night? Who is it that likes darkness? Why did not Mr. Frick say he was bringing these men here to protect his property and not to intimidate people? Why did they steal into Homestead with guns that shot sixteen times?"

Mr. Marshall attacked the evidence for the prosecution, and especially the identification of Critchlow by the Pinkertons, who could only have seen the man once or twice, if they had seen him at all, and were, therefore, not qualified to swear to his identity. He held that the district attorney had no right to throw the weight of his talents and influence against the defendant. That officer's client was the commonwealth, and yet Mr. Robb spoke of "our clients" as if Frick and the commonwealth were identical. "I don't believe," said Mr. Marshall ironically, "that H. Clay Frick had anything to do with this prosecution, oh, no! I don't believe that anybody connected with the Carnegie Company had anything to do with the attempt to take away the lives of these Homestead men. And this man Lovejoy who made these informations, he had nothing to do with the Carnegie interests; oh, no! Love—joy! L-o-v-e-j-o-y! I don't say his name should be Loveblood; but I do say that there are several people in the Carnegie Company who should have their names changed."

In concluding his address, Mr. Marshall said: "The real capitalist is the workingman, the producer, who has nothing but his paltry $3 a day, while the lordlings, the so-called manufacturers, walk abroad as social gods and revel in the luxury made by the sweat of the workingman's brow."

District Attorney Burleigh, in his speech closing the case for the commonwealth, volunteered the statement that he was in the pay of no man but was there solely to plead for justice in the name of the commonwealth. He taxed the defense with relying mainly on artifice and meretricious oratory; scouted the idea that the Pinkertons were "invaders," and declared that Mr. Erwin's defense of the right "to shoot down on the very bosom of the prince of hell," three hundred men "caged like rats in those barges," was anarchy-red, rampant anarchy!

Mr. Burleigh contended that the Carnegie Company in massing and attempting to land the Pinkertons with the permission of the Sheriff, acted within its legal rights. The landing had been attempted at night because it was desired to avoid a breach of the peace.

The closing portion of the address was given up to an endeavor to discredit the testimony adduced to establish an alibi for the defendant.

Judge Kennedy occupied only forty minutes in charging the jury. He held that a man mixing with a riotous crowd and not helping to quell the disturbance was as guilty as the active participants. The Carnegie Company had a lawful right to protect its property, even with Pinkerton detectives, no matter whence the guards came, and the people on the shore had no right to shoot down the men on the barges.

After one hour's deliberation the jury returned a verdict of "Not Guilty," to the surprise of the court and the delight of Critchlow's weeping wife, who remained near him to the last.

The news of the acquittal spread rapidly, and at Homestead an enthusiastic crowd watched every train from Pittsburgh in the hope of meeting Critchlow with an appropriate demonstration. The people were disappointed, however, for the lion of the occasion was doomed to remain a caged lion, being remanded to jail on additional charges—two of murder, two of riot and one of conspiracy.

At the same time the public made up its mind from the turn which affairs had taken in the Critchlow case that a conviction could not be secured against any of the Homestead men. The officials of the Amalgamated Association were jubilant and gave vent to their satisfaction by waiting in a body upon Attorney Erwin at the Monongahela House and formally congratulating him on the success which he had achieved President Garland acting as spokesman.

On the Carnegie Company's side there was a corresponding feeling of disappointment and three months were allowed to elapse before the trial of the Homestead cases proper—that is to say, those based on the battle with the Pinkertons—was resumed.