Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.