The Great Strike on the 'Q' Part 11

Mr. Sullivan: I object to all this as immaterial.

Commissioner Rinaker: I do not regard that as cross-examination at present. Is that offered for the purpose of showing that the rule itself was not regarded as a proper one?

Mr. Dawes: I want to ask this witness what his opinion is of this particular grievance.

Mr. Sullivan: How often have you seen him in eight years? A. He laid around Aurora two or three years before he got a job any place.

He lived around Aurora two or three years after he was discharged?

Yes, sir.

When he hung around Aurora for two or three years did you see him regularly? He hung around a variety saloon that used to be there in Aurora.

Commissioner Rinaker: How often do you mean we shall understand you are stating you have seen this man drunk in the last eight or ten years?

Commissioner Rogers: When was it he wanted to come up with you on the engine? A. As near as I can remember it was in the neighborhood of a year ago.

Commissioner Rinaker: How many times have you seen him drunk? A. He was drunk at that time.

How many more times? Between the seven years before that? Well, I would not want to say how many times; but at the time he was hanging around Aurora he was off and on. He would go away and hunt for a job and come back, go away and come back; that is the way he was.

Was he drunk when you would see him around this variety show? Yes, we very seldom seen him sober.

Mr. Sullivan: Prior to this controversy between the railroad and its employes could such a man as De Witt receive employment as an engineer; would you have employed such a man?

(Objected to by Mr. Dawes.)

Q. Would they employ a man who had been dismissed as being responsible for a wreck, as this man was?

(Objected to by Mr. Dawes.)

Commissioner Rinaker: Do you know why he was discharged? A. He was discharged for having a collision about half a mile east of Naperville station.

You know that from your own knowledge? Yes; I was mixed up a little bit in it myself. I came near getting into trouble with it myself.

Hector H. Hall being recalled, was examined by Commissioner Rogers, and testified as follows:

Q. How long is it since this notice was given by De Witt's wife to the saloon-keepers not to give him liquor? A. I think it was on Thanksgiving day, or the day after.

That is last year? Yes, sir.

That was on Thanksgiving day? Thanksgiving day or the day after; I am not positive which.

J. A. Murray, locomotive engineer of thirteen years' service, residing at Rock Island, testified that Frank Hamilton, Frank Horn, Joseph Roach, J. Logston, Harry Zimmerman and William Patterson, running engines on the C., B. & Q. R. R., were brakemen, conductors and baggagemen, respectively; that he was acquainted with them all for eight to ten years, and that they were inexperienced as engineers or firemen.

Frank Hamilton, witness on behalf of the C., B. & Q. Railroad Company, testified:

Q. Give your name in full? A. Frank Hamilton.

What is your business? Formerly conductor until the 10th of last month; now I am running an engine.

Conductor on the C., B. & Q.? Yes, sir; St. Louis division.

How long have you been a railroad man? For the C., B. & Q. Company, running a train since November, 1880, with the exception of five months, up until the 10th of last month.

Have you been examined as to the manipulation of an engine? To a certain extent.

By whom? Mr. Wallace.

Is Mr. Wallace here? Mr. Wallace is here.

Cross-examination by Mr. Sullivan:

Q. You never got any technical instruction as to the running of an engine in your life, did you? A. Explain that word, please.

You never got any instruction in the shop from those who manufacture engines and are familiar with their detail? No, sir.

You don't understand the meaning of the word technical yourself? I do; yes, sir.

Why do you want me to explain it? Because I wanted to understand.

Witness testified that he had been handling engines off and on ever since he had been on the road.

Q. What you mean is you jumped on; would go on when the regular engineer in charge was there? A. Yes, sir.

And the fireman in charge was there? I run the engine a certain distance.

You were allowed to handle it in their presence, just as many others are allowed? Yes, sir.

Do you mean to tell this Commission, on your oath, that in that way you acquired sufficient knowledge to make you a competent engineer?

That is the way, from what I understand, to learn to be an engineer. The way they all get to be engineers.

You say you were examined to some extent. Were you not examined as thoroughly as all other men were examined? I don't know how other men were examined.

How did you come to say you were examined to some extent? What do you mean by that? I mean to the extent that I was able to answer the questions.

You were only examined to that extent you were able to answer, and you were not examined as to those you were not able to answer? I don't know if there were any questions I was not to answer or not; I answered all the questions.

You used that expression, you were examined to some extent. I want to know what you mean by that? I answered all the questions that were asked me.

Do you mean to say that all questions were asked you which are equally asked applicants for employment as engineers? I do not.

Was anyone else examined at the same time you were? There was not.

Who was present when you were being examined? Anyone but the Board?

No; there was not.

No one but the Board of Examiners? No.

Where were you examined? The princ.i.p.al place was in the building where the general officers are.