Homestead : $b A complete history of the struggle of July, 1892, between the Carnegie-Steel Company, Limited, and the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel WorkersBurgoyne, Arthur Gordon
History
Homestead : $b A complete history of the struggle of July, 1892, between the Carnegie-Steel Company, Limited, and the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers
Burgoyne, Arthur Gordon
Homestead Strike, Homestead, Pa., 1892
The import of the verdict was unmistakable. It meant that, for the
second time, the people of Allegheny County, speaking through their
representatives in the jury box, refused to be governed by the letter of
the law in the matter of punishing the men of Homestead as rioters and
murderers, and that the continuance of the prosecutions would be a waste
of time, energy and money. Such was the construction generally put upon
it, and most probably the Carnegie Company and its counsel formed the
same judgment. Nevertheless, the district attorney announced that every
one of the Homestead cases would be brought to trial and as an earnest
of sincerity, Hugh O'Donnell was brought forward to face a jury of his
peers on February 13, the fifth day after Clifford's safe deliverance.
The young leader looked pale and thin as a result of his imprisonment,
but his eye was as clear and his voice as firm as on the day when he
marshaled the fighting men at the barricades, and there was no sign of
flinching in his demeanor as he stood up to enter his plea of "not
guilty."
The attorneys engaged in the case were the same that served in the
preceding trials, excepting that Major E. A. Montooth and Mr. John F.
Cox relieved the counsel who had previously taken the most active part
for the defense. The following jurors were selected: Fred Vogel, William
Richardson, Charles Beuchler, John Sproul, M. J. Byrne, Henry Brooker,
A. C. Flood, Henry Eisenhauer, John McGann, John Geisler, Peter Stragen
and William Dramble.
The case for the prosecution differed little from that advanced against
Clifford and Critchlow. Pinkerton detectives, sheriff's deputies, mill
clerks and reporters repeated the old, old story of the events of July
6, while Mr. D. F. Patterson, who conducted the direct examination as a
substitute for the district attorney, elicited from each statements
showing O'Donnell's ostensible participation in the battle.
The line of cross-examination pursued by the defense showed that the
intention was to prove that O'Donnell was present at the battle as a
newspaper correspondent, and that, when he interfered actively, it was
in the capacity of a peacemaker. Several newspaper men testified that
the defendant was known as a correspondent of the Tri-State News Bureau
and of various daily papers, and that, in a spirit of professional
fraternity, he had taken care of the reporters during the fight and
secured for them a convenient headquarters of observation in the cupola
of the mill. Only one out of a dozen reporters examined specifically
incriminated O'Donnell, and the evidence of that one was vitiated by the
knowledge that he had sold out to the Carnegie Company at the beginning
of the Homestead trouble and had acted throughout as a spy.
The prosecution could not have made a weaker showing, all things
considered, and the work of the other side was, therefore, comparatively
easy.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account