Great Western; that Strong told him he needed men but could not hire him unless he had an Illinois Central clearance from the strike. Strong added that he had hired a man by the name of Ketcham without a clearance and had had to discharge him, and that he (Strong) "got hell for hiring Ketcham without a clearance."

About 35 other men who had quit various roads during the strike testified that they had applied to all the roads in Chicago, were told they needed men, but were denied employment because they did not have clearances. Many of these men had letters showing years of faithful service and good habits, but whenever a letter said they had " quit during the strike" they were told "that is not a 'clearance" and were denied employment. Some were given work and required to make out written applications showing what road they had last worked for. In a few days they were discharged, and when they asked why, were told that their "applications were rejected.

Among several letters placed in evidence as corroborating this testimony was the following significant and unequivocal official declaration of the position taken by the Wabash Railroad Company:

J. H. Dungan testified that at the time of the strike he was in the employ of the Northern Pacific Railroad, and quit with the men; that after the strike he secured successively several positions, but was discharged from each in turn because his applications were rejected; that he finally obtained a situation in Argentine, Kan., on the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, put in an application referring to the Northern Pacific as the last road he had worked for, worked for about five months, when he was discharged; that he wrote the superintendent, H. U. Mudge, about it and received the reply which is reproduced herewith. This letter shows that even officials of the United States court were parties to the conspiracy.

Burnham testified that after seeking work in vain for more than a year and being denied because he had no clearance, he went to J. W. Higgins, superintendent of terminals for the Illinois Central Railroad, told him his family was starving and he could not get work without a clearance, and begged Higgins to give him a clearance, whereupon Higgins gave him the letter reproduced herewith. He asked Higgins why he (Higgins) couldn't give him employment, and Higgins said, "I can't; that's all." He went to Robert Cherry, general yard master of the Nickel Plate Railroad, and asked if he needed any men. Cherry said, "Yes; I can use a man or two. Have you a clearance?" Whereupon Burnham said, "Yes," and showed him the letter above mentioned. After reading it, Cherry said, “Burnham, that's a good letter, but it is not a clearance. I can't hire you on that letter." Burnham further testified that he had traveled all over the country and had shown that letter to railroad officials who were hiring men, yet was denied employment and had never been able to secure any employment on a railroad since the strike of 1894.

All the other witnesses related similar experiences, covering nearly every railroad in the United States. Not one of the witnesses for the plaintiff had ever committed any violence or violated any law. All were shown to be sober, careful railroad operatives, and all had good letters of recommendation from their respective roads. No charge was made save that they had quit during the American Railway Union strike.'

SUPERINTENDENT MUDGE'S EXPLANATION.

Michael Driscoll, who had first-class references for twenty-five years' service as a railroad man, testified that he left the Pittsburg, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railway during the strike, and that after the strike he secured a position from the Chicago and Western Indiana Railway by telling Mr. Warner, the superintendent, that he was in New York during the strike. He was required to make out an application and gave the name of the Pittsburg, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railroad as the road he had last worked for, having had the promise of Mr. Belz, of the Fort Wayne, that he would recommend him. After working a short time he was discharged. When he asked Mr. Warner why he was discharged, he was told that the Fort Wayne objected and that "it was the Fort Wayne which kept him from working." He called on Mr. Belz, of the Fort Wayne, and asked him to write a letter to Mr. Warner in his behalf. Belz said "if he did so it would be the price of his own head."

Frank Deyer testified that he quit the Michigan Central Railroad during the strike. He subsequently obtained several positions, but was discharged from them all because his application was rejected, though his services were entirely satisfactory. Becoming discouraged in seeking work under his own name, Deyer

secured several letters belonging to his brother-in-law, W. G. Cherry, who had quit the railroad business before the strike. Under the name of W. G. Cherry he obtained a position with the Chicago and Erie in January, 1896, which he has held ever since. A similar story was told by H. F. Elliot, who testified that he was working for a railroad under an assumed name.

Andrew Stader testified as follows: He did not belong to the American Railway Union nor to any other labor organization. He had been in the employ of the defendant railway four years before the strike. When the strike broke out he was off duty on a leave of absence. He was called to take out a train to Milwaukee on the night of July 6, during the height of the trouble, and promised he would go, but when his wife, who was in a delicate condition, heard he was going, she became nervous and frightened and begged him not to go. Yielding to her entreaties, he went to the foreman and told him of his wife's condition, saying that under those circumstances he could not move the train. The foreman abused him and accused him of sympathizing with the strikers. He again reported for duty on July 10, when the master mechanic, John Heath, discharged him. After the strike he again applied to the defendant for employment, but was refused. An alderman interceded for him with General Manager Whitman, who ordered an investigation. After the investigation the superintendent had him reemployed as an extra man, and he worked as such during the winter of 1894-95, but was discharged in the spring of 1895 owing to slack business. After he was discharged and paid off he asked the master mechanic for a clearance, so that he could get work on some other road, whereupon he was given the letter reproduced herewith, which speaks for itself.

This letter is the necessary clearance," the explicit written consent of one of the conspirators, without which employment was, by the terms of the conspiracy, denied to any worker even suspected of the temerity of joining his fellows in a demand for better conditions. It can be explained on no other hypothesis than that the master mechanic knew that Stader must have this permission before he would be given work on any other road.

Proof was made at the trial that the superintendent and the general attorney of the Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company had tried to bribe the witness Stader to leave and not testify in the case; and a pass given him by the superintendent to Green Bay, Wis., and return, good for 30 days, was offered in evidence. Stader has since been discharged by the Chicago and Northwestern. His testimony is believed to have cost him his place.

The secretary of the General Managers' Association testified that the general manager of the defendant railway had a copy of the proceedings of the General Managers' Association, and the defendant was notified to produce this copy for inspection, an affidavit having been filed alleging that it would show the blacklisting agreement of the railroads. The defendant refused to produce the records. Norman Ford testified that in August, 1894, he was employed as a messenger boy in the office of J. W. Higgins, superintendent of terminals of the Illinois Central Railroad, and was instructed to make 50 mimeograph copies of a list of 524 names, containing 13 sheets; that he made the same and mailed 49 copies; that a copy was sent to the officials of the Illinois Central Railroad who hired men; also that a copy, marked “Private,” was sent to every railroad in Chicago, and that he addressed and mailed these.

An original of this list was introduced in evidence. Herewith will be found a photographic reproduction of the first page of the list.

Despite this damaging documentary evidence, many railroad officials, including eight general managers, sworn by the defendant, testified they had never received or sent out such a list, that they knew of no blacklisting agreement, and had never heard blacklisting discussed in the General Managers' Association. Almost the last witness introduced by the defendant was Mr. Atwater, of Detroit, Mich., superintendent of the Chicago and Grand Trunk Railway. He was shown the Illinois Central blacklist, and asked the stereotyped question which had been asked of all the other officials: "Did you ever see a list exactly like this in all respects, except that it was not addressed to J. T. Harrahan?" He naively replied to the railroad's attorney: "Never until I saw one in your office this morning." At last such a list had been located in the hands of a railroad official not an official of the Illinois Central, and Norman Ford was corroborated. The defendant's attorney sought to break the force of Ford's and Atwater's testimony by the side remark that he had simply “had a copy made," insinuating that the paper which Atwater had seen was simply a transcript of the list shown in court, and not one of the sheets mailed by Ford. He did not testify to this view of the facts, though challenged to do so, obviously wishing the jury to accept it as the correct one. Next day, when plaintiff wanted to show, in rebut