Newspaper Page Text
PAGE TWELVE
SUMMARY OF NEWS.
(Continued from Page Five.)
years. He knew nothing of the busi
ness end of the company. He ad
mitted that the Standard’s outstand
ing capital was about $100,000,003.
and that its dividends in 1905, hail
been about 40 per cent. This much
mooted hearing was barren of any
new facts, and the witness was dis
charged.
The Haywood Trial.
Attorney Darrow announced that
the defense in the Haywood case
would finish early next week
with the testimony of Moyer ai d
Haywood, and the reading of
the Bradley depositions. Dur-:
ing the past week many witnesses
discredited the story told by the
state’s chief witness, Orchard. The
wars in Colorado between employer
and unions; stories of deportations
of miners and others, and of the de
struction of property, were told be
fore Judge Wood and the jury. Eu
gene Engley, formerly Attorney-Gen
eral of Colorado under Gov. Waite,
testified that he was subjected to a
double deportation in 1904. Engley
was one of the few who refused to
stay away. <•
“I went back to Cripple Creek
with a rifle and two six-shooters,” he
said, “and carried them for several
days, until I was told that a mistake
had been made in my case.”
Engley, who admitted that he is a
Socialist and was not “riding in the
golden chariot of the Republican par
ty, or on the garbage wagon of the
Democrats,” was a willing witness.
Senator Borah, for the prosecution,
cut off much of his conclusions, and
his insistence upon relating imma
terial details caused Judge Wood to
expostulate in behalf of the jury.
To Borah’s query if he was a So
cialist, Engley said that, during 1904.
soldiers surrounded his home, ar est
ed him and took him to military h?a 1-
quarters.
Witness said he was told that he
could return to his bed if he prom
ised to leave town in the morning.
He refused to leave and was put in
jail with forty other men. The next
day he was forced on board a train
and was sent out of the county. He
returned to his home in Cripple
Creek in August of the same year,
when he was seized on the streets by
mine owners’ agents and Citizens’
Alliance men, escorted out of the
district and told that if he returned
he would be shot or lynched. This
was the time when he had gone back
with the arsenal.
Engley said that he did not know
Orchard, but that the man he saw
in the court room and' called Or
chard came into his law office in
Cripple Creek in January, 1904, and
after looking over a pamphlet of
the Coeur d’Alenes troubles said fliat
Gov. Steunenberg had ruined him,
and that he would fix him if it was
the last act of his life.
Thomas C. Foster, of Bisbee, Ariz.,
one of the union miners arrested for
the attempt to wreck the Florence
and Cripple Creek train, recited how
he gave himself up to the civil au
thorities when he heard the charge
was made, how he proved an alibi
when fried, and how the detectives
then endeavored to switch the dale
of the offense, but the court suppress'
ed them and he was acquitted. He
was in dark, solitary confinement in
jail for seventeen days before the
trial. He walked out of the district
the day after the Independence rail
road station explosion and never re
tinned.
“Billy” Ackman, now a prospector
in Goldfield, the miner who Or
chard averred had assisted him in
placing the bomb in the Vindicator
mine, denied that he ever assisted
Orchard in any crime, or talked with
him about crimes. He kept a saloon
for a time in Cripple Creek, and Or
chard frequented it. He went out
of the saloon busmess and out of
the district after the explosion. He
never changed his name and worked
in Denver, for months after-ward. He
lived with Steve Adams in Denver,
and Orchard was there for a time.
He denied that he accompanied O -
cnard on any bomb expedition
against Gov. Peabody or Justice God
dard.
Max Malich, an excitable Slav, who
began as a laborer twenty years ag.»,
but is now wealthy, said he was con
ducting a hotel, saloon and store it'
Globeville, in the spring of lf'os,
when Orchard was introduced to him
as Tom Hogan by A. W. Gratias,
President of the local Federation
Union. He did not know at the time
that Gratias was a Pinkerton. Or
chard frequented the saloon, and they
became quite friendly. Orchard, he
declared, said to him one day: “Yeo
can never win the strike until you
get rid of those fellows in the Globe
Hotel. I will blow up the whole out
fit, and it won’t cost much.”
Malich declared that he threatened
to denounce Orchard, and Orchard
then said that he was only joking.
In Orchard’s testimony, Malich, he
said, was the man who suggested the
blowing up of the hotel and 150 n >n
union men.
Malich denied that he had asked
Orchard to kill William McDonald,
who conducted the Globe Mercantile
Company, a business rival of Mal
ich’s. In a Turkish bath, in Denver,
Orchard, he said, related to him bow
he was run out of the Coeur d’Alenes
and said that he would kill Steun
enberg if he had to swing for it rhe
next minute; that but for Steumm
berg he would be drawing an income
of SIOO a day. Malich loaned Or
chard S3O to go on his insurance
trip, and Orchard paid it back. He
did not believe, at the time, that Or
chard would kill any one. He testi
fied that he was made a targe, for
a bottle of acid, thrown into his bed
room one night, and afterward, while
lie was away from home, his store
and home was burned up. The prose
cution cross-questioned him hi u way
to infer that he had burn 1 ! his own
store, and that the acid inn lent was
pi rt of another scheme.
Joseph Mehalich, formei vice-nro--
ic’tnt of the union in Glob-ville, said
that Gratias introduced Orehatd to
him under the name of Hogan. Gra
tias boarded with the witness »\r a
year and a half. Mehalich did not
know that he was a detective. Dr
chard asked him how the basement
of the hotel, filled with non-union
men, was constructed, and snggeS'ed
to Mehalich that they blow if up.
Mehalich says that he demurred, lie
never, he declared, accompanied Or
chard on any bomb expedition
WATSON’S WEEKLY JEFFERSONIAN.
against Judges Goddard or Gabbert,
Later, the witness said, he and Steve
Adams left together for Park City,
Utah, where they worked in the
mines.
Three women related experiences
with detectives, Citizens’ Alliance
men and the military in Cripple
Cieek. Margaret Houghton was or.
the relief committee and furnished
food to families of deported miners.
She was, she said, twice notified by
Ihe Alliance that she must stop or
she would be sent out of the district.
She did not stop.
Mrs. Saunders conducted a room
ing-house, and was told, she testified,
that she must not harbor union men.
She i efused to be coerced, and her
house was ra ded and all the men
were arrested. Then her lease was
abrogated and she was compelled to
move.
Mrs. Joyce told of observing Or
chard with detectives several times.
David Coates, former Lieutenant-
Governor of Colorado, testified
that Orchard was introduced to him
under the name of Hogan by Geo.
A. Pettibone, of the Western Fede r
ation, in Denver, in July, 1905.
Coates was then publishing a labor
paper in Wallace. Orchard, on learn
ing that Coates lived in the Coeur
d’Alenes, said his name was not Ho
gan, but Orchard, and sent his com
pliments to his old friends in the
Hercules Mine. He called on Coates
ir September, witness declared, and
said he was “a wandering pauper”;
that his old companions had struck
it rich,’and that if it were not for
Steunenberg he would be rich. He
then said he could kidnap a child
cf Paulson, one of his old Hercules
friends, who had become rich, and
write a letter asking that $60,000 be
left with Coates for ransom. Coates
asserted that he threatened to de
nounce Orchard for his kidnapping
plan, whereupon Orchard laughed,
and witness thought that he was
merely joking. Orchard afterward
borrowed S3OO from Paulson, and
made arrangements with Coates to
go to Los Angeles to sell stock in
mines Coates was organizing. Or
chard, he said, left Wallace six weeks
before the Steunenberg murder, and
witness received a letter from him,
dated Salt Lake, in which he wro A e
that he was sick and had been de
layed in reaching Los Angeles.
The trial will continue next we°k.
G. N.
CAPITALISTS’ WAR FUND TO
CRUSH LABOR.
Parry has been out-Parried. The
National Association of Manufac
turers which recently held its con
vention in New York City revealed
a degree of bourbonism, stupidity,
malignity, and impudence that aston
ished even the corporation organs.
The comments of the press through
out the country on the proceedings
of that gathering have been almost
uniformly unfavorable, and this is
a good sign—a sign of progress. But
how is one to account for the vio
lence and folly of the moving spir
its of the convention? Is it possible
that the manufacturers of the coun
try, many of whom have just and
rational ideas, maintain friendly r•-
lations with union labor, have trade
agreements with labor, conduct un-
ion shops; will allow an association,
controlled by reactionaries and rant
ers, to misrepresent them and create
strife, ill will and bitterness?
The president of the association,
Mr. Van Cleave, of St. Louis, is evi
dently jealous of Parry and deter
mined to better that gentleman’s in
structions. One of his recommenda
tions in the annual address was con
tained in the following passage:
“We want to federate the manu
facturers of this country to effect
ively fight industrial oppression. The
president ought to have fully $500,-
000 a year for the next three years.
We should certainly provide ways
and means to properly finance the
.association, to federate the employ
ers of the country, and to educate
our manufacturers to a proper sdhse
of their own duty, patriotism, and
self-interests.”
The convention agreed with Mr.
Van. Cleave and appointed a com
mittee of thirty-five to raise the
amount specified.
What does the association propose
to do with such a fund? Hire spi°s,
establish agencies of strike-break
ers, corrupt and bribe law-makers or
others, maintain lobbies? “Not at
all,” say the officers. The fund is
to be devoted to educational pur
poses. The public is to be informed
as to the lawful aims and demands
and methods of organized labor, a’ d
manufacturers who are not suffi
ciently alarmed and excited are to be
worked up to the proper pitch.
Mr. Van Cleave indicated in hi<
address what it was he wanted to
combat in the union movement. He
was modest and generous. He del
not propose to destroy unions root
and branch. He had no objection to
benevolent associations of workmen.
He was opposed, and would fight, if
you please, the “abuses” and
“evils” of unionism. And what are
they from the Van Cleave point of
view ?
The closed shop, the boycott, lim
itation of apprentices, limitation of
output, dictation by the unions or
the officers, and the attempt to con
trol legislation. New issues, the
convention was told, had been raised
bv the apparent resolve of labor tn
“terrorize the President, Congress,
judges, and juries.” This danger
had to be fought at all points and
at any cost.
Now, union labor will not give up
the right ©/contract upon which the
“closed,” or more properly speak
ing, the union shop, is based; nor
the right to dispose of its patronage
as it wills, which is the basis of the
peaceful boycott. It will not give
up the right to have a voice in the
management of the shop, and to de
termine on what terms and condi
tions it will co-operate with capital
in production, and the right to work
steadily for the improvement of the
position of the wage-earner.
Employers who do not like this
will have to accept the situation all
the same. |*r
The notion that employers are
“masters,” and that Labor should
bow to their will and be thankful f»r
the opportunity to work at all, is out
of date.
What the Parry-Post-Van Cleavo
element calls “dictation” is merely
Labor’s assertion of its own rights
and interests.