Homestead

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.

CHAPTER XIX.

Weaving New Toils

An Epidemic Investigated – Detectives Charge Poisoning and Arrests are Made – Gallagher and Davidson Turn Informers – Dempsey and Beatty are Indicted – Hearings and Trials – A Tangled Mass of Medical Testimony – Mr. Brennen's Little Hibernicism – Defendants are Convicted and Heavy Sentences Imposed – Gallagher Recants and Then Reconsiders – Clemency Refused by the Pardon Board

THE prevalence of disease among the non-union men in the Carnegie mill, and the alarming increase of mortality in the months of September and October were touched upon in an earlier chapter. It was not until December that the first intimation of the existence of a criminal cause for the species of epidemic which struck down man after man and baffled expert physicians and chemists reached the public. The Carnegie Company had concealed the truth as far as possible, endeavoring from the first to counteract the statements sent abroad by the Amalgamated Association to the effect that bad food, bad water, and bad sanitary arrangements were killing off the "blacksheep" like cattle stricken with a murrain.

The malady was a virulent form of diarrhœa or cholera morbus, for which the medical men employed to treat the sufferers were unable to account. All sorts of remedial measures were tried by the firm. Only the purest food was used. Notices were posted warning the men not to drink from the water plugs ordinarily serving as a source of supply, and chemically pure water was provided. Still the plague did not abate. Suspecting foul play, the firm set Pinkerton detectives to work, distributing them among the cooks and waiters as assistants, and in this way evidence was secured of a wholesale poisoning conspiracy, and the identity of the conspirators was believed to be established by confessions obtained from two accessories.

On December 5, J. H. Ford, a Pinkerton detective, made information before Alderman McMasters against Robert J. Beatty, a cook in the mill, on a charge of felonious assault and battery, in administering poison to the non-union men at Homestead. It was learned that Beatty was about to start for Cincinnati on the steamboat Nellie Hudson and an officer boarded the boat to apprehend him, but was not permitted to make the arrest. Beatty was subsequently arrested in Louisville and brought back to Pittsburgh on requisition papers issued by Governor Pattison.

The confession on which the Carnegie Company based its charge against Beatty was made by Patrick Gallagher, a cook in restaurant No. 1 in the Homestead mill. Its publication, which followed immediately on the arrest of Beatty, caused a tremendous sensation, inasmuch as it named as the arch-conspirator, the designer and executive head of the plot, no less a personage than Hugh F. Dempsey, master workman of D. A. 3, K. of L.

Gallagher deposed that late in August, he was approached by Beatty with a proposition to put in the tea and coffee made by him for the Carnegie Company's men, something which would render the men sick and unfit for work; that Beatty took him, in company with J. M. Davidson, to see Hugh F. Dempsey, who was to furnish the preparation to be used; that about the 7th or 8th of September affiant received from Dempsey a bottle containing a yellow powder, which, Dempsey said, contained three doses, each being sufficient for a pot of tea or coffee containing thirty gallons; that affiant used the powder with the result of making workmen sick and unable to work; that additional powders were given him by Dempsey and Beatty and administered by him to the workmen, and that affiant received for his services $3 from Beatty and $25 from Dempsey, with the assurance of $23.85 more from the latter.

Despite the plausibility and coherency of the charges and the prima facie evidence in support of them, the Amalgamated men unanimously set down this new move of the company as a scheme devised in order to prejudice their cause. It was urged, in particular, that the relations between the Association and the K. of L. were not such as to render it probable that Dempsey would jeopardize his liberty and perhaps his life by engaging in a villainous plot in the interest of the former. Dempsey himself stoutly denied the charges, and his denial was supported by Beatty.

At the hearing before Alderman McMasters, Beatty was defended by William J. Brennen, Esq. Captain Breck appeared for the prosecution. J. M. Davidson was the first witness examined. A summary of his testimony is appended:

"I am 50 years of age, reside in the Seventeenth ward, Pittsburgh, and have been a river cook nearly all my life. I have known Beatty two or three years. In the latter part of August, Patrick Gallagher and I met Beatty on Wood street, and Beatty recognized me as "Jimmy" Davidson. I have known Gallagher for fifteen years. It was understood that we were all to go to Homestead as cooks and that we were to take something with us to put in the food given the non-union men in order to make them sick and unfit for work. When we met Beatty he took us to the office of the K. of L., on Third Avenue. There we met Hugh Dempsey, who, I understand, is master workman for this district. I am not a member of the K. of L. While we were in the office, Gallagher and Dempsey did most of the talking. Beatty suggested that it would be well for us to dose the men at Homestead with croton oil. He said croton oil could be used safely; that we could carry bottles of it in our pockets and when we were at work in the cook-houses we could put it on our fingers and rub it on the inside of the soup bowls and coffee cups. I objected to the use of croton oil on the ground that it was a deadly drug, and I did not want to run the risk of killing any one. Dempsey said he could furnish us with powders that would do the work effectively and safely; that the powders had been used on non-union men in Chicago, and that by their use a strike had been broken in four days. He said that while it would make the men sick, it was not dangerous. Dempsey said that if we would go to Homestead and administer these powders he would guarantee us $50 each and our expenses. We did not get any powders from Dempsey that day. Gallagher, Beatty and myself then left Dempsey's office. We took a walk about town discussing our plans and the contract we had undertaken. Beatty told us that if we did the work well there would be a gold watch and chain in it for each of us in addition to the money we were to receive. I did not go to Homestead until September 30. Gallagher, who had been there for some time, left the day before I arrived. Two days later he returned and worked about the restaurant in the mill. Before Gallagher went to Homestead the first time we called on Mr. Dempsey. He gave us a small jar of some kind of powder. He said there was enough of the stuff in the jar for three powders, each one sufficient to 'fix' thirty gallons of tea or coffee. I suppose there was nine or ten teaspoonsful of the stuff in the bottle. Dempsey told Gallagher to divide it into three equal parts. This Gallagher took with him to Homestead. The day before I went to Homestead Beatty gave me some powders to deliver to Gallagher. This was in Dempsey's office, or K. of L. hall. I met Gallagher on the street and gave him the package. He opened it and told me there were nine powders in the package. The bottle containing some of the stuff was given to Gallagher by Dempsey in my presence. This was in K. of L. hall and Beatty was present. Gallagher was to use his own discretion whether he put it in the tea or coffee. I next saw Beatty about September 30.