Report of the Committee Appointed to Investigate the Railroad Riots in July, 1877: Read in the Senate and House of Representatives May 23, 1878Pennsylvania. General Assembly. Committee Appointed to Investigate the Railroad Riots in July, 1877
History
Report of the Committee Appointed to Investigate the Railroad Riots in July, 1877: Read in the Senate and House of Representatives May 23, 1878
Pennsylvania. General Assembly. Committee Appointed to Investigate the Railroad Riots in July, 1877
A. The first difficulties, which were brought on by the employés of the
company taking possession of the engines and trains, were, so far as I
could judge, or saw, exclusively by those who had been railroad
employés up to that point. The action which Mr. Pitcairn took with
reference to that when they took that possession I cannot state. Things
went on, with a great crowd accumulating from that Thursday morning,
and while I say, as a lawyer, that there was a riot and mob there from
Thursday morning down until the firing began, with a crowd constantly
accumulating, as it would on account of any disturbance that had
occurred, yet there seemed to be a feeling that it was not that kind of
a riot or mob that called for the interposition of a very vigorous
public sentiment to put it down; but, when the military were brought
for the purpose of regaining possession of the property, and the
collision was actually brought on, I can say that the mob was made up
of a great many other people than railroad employés. I did not see
them, nor was actually among them so I could identify any of the
railroad employés, or any persons outside, but from my knowledge of the
immense crowd which was assembled at Twenty-eight street as I went in
and out, there were undoubtedly a great many other than railroad
employés about the scene of violence, and I have no doubt participating
in it.
By Mr. Larrabee:
Q. You say that while the employés were in possession of the cars of
the company, there seemed to be no such riot as required the
intervention of public sentiment to put it down?
A. I did not intend to say that, but that while it was confined to
railroad employés public sentiment did not seem to manifest itself as
requiring any decided interposition to put that down. In other words, I
am bound in candor to say, when asked for it, that public sentiment
here very clearly distinguished between the act of breaking the law on
the part of the employés in taking possession of the railroad property,
and stopping commerce at this point, and the act of rioting and
incendiarism which followed in consequence of that initial breaking of
the law.
Q. That is, that public sentiment did not assert itself vigorously
against the employés taking possession of the cars and engines prior to
the actual outbreak and destruction of property?
A. That is what I mean.
Q. In other words, public sentiment sympathized with the rioters?
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