he talks to them then because he must do it. I have conversed with newspaper men and manufacturers who have defended the right of the employers to compel their men to vote as they wanted them to.

Q. If you will answer my questions and not give us a stump-speech, I will be obliged to you. You talk to people in your audiences who do not believe as you do, who are of opposite beliefs politically, and try to convince them, do you not?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you hold that a man, simply because he employs another, is deprived of the privilege which you have and which is conceded to you, of trying to convince men by proper argument?-A. I do not wish to deprive any man of his rights; but, Senator, you know as well as I do, only you are a Republican and I am a Democrat.

Q. Excuse me. I am not talking of whether the employer abuses his right or not. But assuming that he does not abuse his position, do you hold that the employer has not the right to talk to men who are his employés and try to convince them?-A. I do not hold anything of the kind.

Q. (By Mr. BLAIR.) Do you know of any intimidation of employers. by workingmen?-A. I have heard of cases of that kind.

Q. Do you know that it has been done?-A. I do not know that it has been done.

Q. (By the CHAIRMAN.) Do you speak of it as to voting ?-A. No; the gentleman asked the question in a general way, and I did not suppose the gentleman would put so absurd a question as to voting.

By Mr. BLAIR:

Q. What, then, did you refer to ?-A. To business. I never knew an employé to bulldoze an employer in that sort of way as to voting.

Q. I asked that question with a view to predicating upon it another. In reading the addresses of Mr. Kearney and the others who were pretty friendly to General Butler in the last campaign, have you not observed that they abound with denunciations of and threats against the capitalists, and have you not found in them many expressions from which the capitalist could reasonably infer that unless he changed his political course his property would be destroyed and his capital ruined? -A. I do not think

Q. Can you not answer the question by yes or no?-A. Not if you put the question in a way that is unfair and untrue.

Q. I do not. I ask you if the speeches of Dennis Kearney-perhaps your own speeches and those of many who advocate the greenback theory-did not, last year, and do not customarily abound with denunciations and threats against the capitalist? Is not that so?-A. Will you permit me to answer in my own way? You ask what I think is an unfair question.

The CHAIRMAN. Answer, if you can, yes or no, and then explain what you mean by your answer.

The WITNESS. Then I certainly answer, no, sir. I say that the gen eral speaker, that is, the greater number of the speakers in favor of General Butler should not be classed, as the honorable Senator and many others of his party class them, with Dennis Kearney, and that their speeches are not full of vituperative terms.

By Mr. BLAIR:

Q. You must understand that I have not classed them, but have referred to the speeches of Dennis Kearney, and of many who advocate the greenback theory, to have you state whether they do or not abound with denunciations of the capitalists as a class.-A. I acknowledge that

Dennis Kearney's do. I acknowledge that there are some who, like Dennis Kearney, use language that they should not. But it is equally true that many of those who talked for and supported General Butler last year used language less censurable than that which was made use of this morning, in this chair, by the gentleman who had the honor of being the chairman of the Republican State committee last year.

Q. On the other hand, the speeches of those who advocated the elec tion of Governor Talbot were, as a rule, in their language, moderate and temperate in their treatment of the class to which you belong.-A. That is not true of last year, because their papers as well as their speeches abounded in extreme language, the tendency of which was to excite illwill and bad feeling to a greater extent than was the talk of Dennis Kearney, because Kearney was assumed to be uncultivated, "a sand-lot orator," as he was called.

Q. Is not this the fact, that while the politicians were more or less heated, on the one side, the moderate and sensible meu on the other side advocated their views in a sensible and moderate way; and did you not hear, in the last campaign, as much talk against the capitalists as you heard against the employers?-A. Well, that is about balancing the thing.

Q. Is it not true that it was so ?—A. Probably it was.

By Mr. McDONALD:

Q. You were asked, in regard to their operation in this State, whether the Federal election laws were not intended to protect men from being influenced improperly, or improperly controlled. You do not know of any thing in the election laws that would make it an offense for the chairman of the Republican State central committee to call together such gentlemen as Joseph H. Walker, George Crompton, George S. Barton, John J. Inman, É. W. Vaill, Philip L. Moen, and others of their character, and make to them a speech such as the one that he reported here to-day as the one that he did make to them at that meeting in Worcester?-A. No, sir; I do not think you could prevent it.

Q. The election laws furnish no safeguard against the consequences of an incendiary speech of that kind?-A. No, sir.

Q. It is better to let such talk go unnoticed than to prohibit it?—A. It would be difficult to draw the dividing line.

Q. Suppose that the manufacturers among these gentlemen, alarmed and impressed with what had been told them with so much apparent sincerity and earnestness by the chairman of the Republican State committee, had called the voters among their operatives together and given them what has been called "conviucing advice" in regard to their duty; is there anything in the law that prohibits that?-A. No, sir.

Q. So that this law does not reach the particular evil that manifested itself out there in Worcester last year?-A. No, sir.

Q. Further legislation would be required before these laws could reach an offense such as that?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know of any benefit, in this State, that these Federal election laws are?-A. I do not. When was that law enacted?

Q. In 1871.-A. It seems to me that we got along the same when this law was not in operation.

Q. It seems to have been in operation only in 1876.—A. I was thinking that it was not in operation in 1872.

Q. Do you think that it pays to keep up, in this State, the expensive machinery which it has created?—A. No, sir. I believe, though, there have been cases and places where it has been efficacious.

Q. You were asked if General Butler was not the author of this law. Do you not know that a little gentleman down here in New York City is said to have framed this law?-A. I heard something on that subject. Mr. MCDONALD. I believe he has filed a caveat on that subject in order to secure his invention.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Did the operatives in the mills express themselves freely during the heated canvass previous to the last governor's election in this State-A. They say not.

Q. Why?-A. Because the men who were over them and the superintendents were adverse to them; did not agree with them in their politics and there was a danger of their losing their situations or being among the first that would be let go. Now, sir, that night we were in Manchaug the operatives there told about the operations in that village for years. They said that one man, the superintendent, controlled the elections there; that he obliged men to vote as he would.

Q. After this meeting of manufacturers at Worcester what, if any, expression was there that you know of as to whether it was perfectly safe for the operatives to vote as they saw fit?-A. There was no meeting for the expression of any sentiment.

Q. Was there a sentiment, as to that, among the workmen throughout the county ?-A. There was fault-finding in the city before it was held.

Q. When a man is discharged from one of the places at which he has been employed in a mill, is it usual for him to get employment easily at another?-A. There is such a thing as black-listing. I have heard a good deal of it in my experience in the legislature. I do not know that the committee have.

Q. What is a black-list?-A. If a man is pretty independent and asserts his opinion and is discharged, word is sent around to the manu. facturers of that section, giving his name, that he is a man they should not employ; that he is apt to stir up strife and dissension.

Q. Can you give us the figures, for 1877, of the total vote polled in the city of Worcester?-A. I think the total was about 8,000.

Dy Mr. PLATT :

Q. Do you know as a fact that any manufacturers have sent word to other manufacturers about men who they thought ought not to be taken to work?—A. That is another thing it is difficult to answer. I have heard the testimony of men who have experienced the bitterness of this way of pursuing them.

Q. Are you able to say that such was the fact, or was it mere suspicion on their part? That is what we want to get at facts; not at mere stories that cannot be substantiated. You do not know of any manufacturer who does it?-A. No; it never has been done to me. As soon as work was a little slack, I was let go off by a manufacturer who acknowledged I was a good workman, and the only thing I could attribute it to was that I had been a little too independent. I had refused to sign a petition in favor of a gentleman who wanted to run, in the city, for mayor.

Q. That was a surmise. Then, too, as to this story of black-listing, does that amount to anything more than a mere surmise by people who are unable to get employment?-A. When you find a skillful work.

man

Q. I am not asking you for an argument?—A. That is all that I can tell you.

Q. You have no knowledge on the subject, but you argue that it must be so-A. No; the knowledge that I can now adduce is not of the kind that would convince you, but it is sufficient to convince me.

Q. Do you claim that there is a general system of that character among the manufacturers of Massachusetts?-A. I do not say that, by any means. I do not say that there is a general system of bulldozing by all the manufacturers.

Q. Have you ever known an instance where it was proved, or of any evidence that proved, that one manufacturer had informed other manufacturers about men ?—A. It is hard for me to tell you now. I believe I could refer to State documents in which the fact is pretty well substantiated. I could, I think, if I had time, get men who would give evidence that would convince you that there are such manufacturers.

Q. Can you give the names of any manufacturers who, you think, have black-listed men ?-A. That is putting a man in a box when you ask me to give the name of a man, and say that he did that, without my having my proof right here.

Q. On the other hand, you ought not to accuse manufacturers withont pretty substantial grounds. -A. Those I have. But it is hardly fair to ask me to say that a man did it without my being prepared with proof.

Q. To what reports have you referred as containing information on this subject?-A. The labor bureau's reports. I think you will find some evidence in that work.

Q. In what year?-A. I cannot pick out the year. Of late years. You will there find testimony given by some of the operatives in that direction; that they have been black-listed.

Q. Is not this necessarily true, that an operative who, for one reason or another, has not been able to get employment during these hard times, naturally feels that there is some unusual reason existing why he can. not get employment?-A. I have no doubt there are some men who have been industrious, try to be thrifty, and are out of employment, who do feel that there is some unnatural reason for their position and are a little discontented.

Q. Is it not perfectly natural that there should be such a feeling?— A. I acknowledge that.

JASON WATERS sworn and examined.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Question. Where do you live?—Answer. In Sutton, Massachusets. Q. Have you been a member of the legislature ?-A. I was, some two or three years ago.

Q. Were you at Manchaug Village at the time of the meeting last fall, when Mr. Eli Thayer was there?-A. I was. I introduced Mr. Thayer.

Q. Who is the superintendent of the Manchaug corporation?-A. Robert McArthur is the superintendent or agent. I do not know which title he assumes.

Who is John McArthur?-A. He is a brother of Robert McArthur's, and an employé about the establishment.

Q. In what capacity is John McArthur there?-A. I think he has some outdoor work, and is clerk in some of the departments.

Q. Who has charge of the hall in Manchaug?-A. I do not know

whether there is a janitor in charge of it, or whether Mr. Robert McArthur has charge of it.

Q. Did you not make application to Mr. Robert McArthur for the use of the hall?-A. I made application to him for the use of the hall, personally.

Q. For whom?-A. For Mr. Thayer and others to speak in it.

Q. Did you get it ?—A. I met with a refusal of it.

Q. State what the conversation was.-A. Shall I state the reasons why I came to apply for it?

Q. Yes.-A. Up to 1876 I had always been a Republican; but in that year I went with the Democrats, for Tilden, because of my preference on the financial issues. At that time I was informed by the Democratic. town committee that the hall had been refused to them, and also that the streets and lands throughout the village of the Manchaug corporation had been refused to them to allow them to raise a flag. At that time (October, 1876) I was requested to meet some speakers from Worcester to come and attend this flag-raising. I afterwards spoke there myself, in the same barn to which Mr. Thayer referred this morning. The gentlemen having the matter of the flag-raising in charge having been refused permission to raise it in the village, went outside of the property of the corporation, to the land of Mr. Coggshall, where they stretched a flag across the road, and there had the speaking from the veranda of Mr. Coggshall's house. That was in 1876. It was alleged at that time, as an excuse for the refusal to allow the use of the public hall, as they seemed to feel ashamed on that account, (the operatives and workmen, as I have been told, having contributed liberally for the furniture of the hall), that had responsible parties asked for the hall they probably would have got it. Therefore, in the Butler campaign of 1878, I suggested to the chairman of the Democratic committee, who was the same gentleman who had been chairman in 1876, to go and apply for the hall; but as he was very busy in his store, he requested that I should make the application. I then went to Mr. McArthur and applied for the hall, and told Mr. McArthur that as Mr. Rice, the Republican candidate, bad complimented our town by making his opening speech of the canvass there, I thought it would be a very good send-off and a compliment to the place if Mr. Thayer would make the second speech of his canvass in our town, and that all parties would then have had an opportunity to hear their candidates in the opening of the canvass. Mr. McArthur replied that he could not let the ball, and remarked to me, "You know how our people are." I supposed that by "our people" he meant the owners. He went on to say, "You know how our people are, and they are not of that way of political thought, and do not belong to that political party; if you owned a hall you would not let in the opposition to speak, either." I replied, "Mr. McArthur, on the contrary, I should certainly do that very thing; and if you people are intending to suppress freedom of discussion of political questions our community want to know it." He said, "Well, I think I cannot let you have the hall." I then proceeded to the house of Mrs. Coggshall (her husband, of whom I spoke before as the owner, having since died) and asked for the use of a portion of her grounds and the veranda for the purpose of holding the meeting. This she very cordially granted. I then sent to Mr. Terrence Kennedy instructions to distribute documents, he being the only man for that purpose on whose courage I could confide in the distribution of the documents; and as the occasion was the only one during the campaign upon which Mr. Thayer would be likely to have an opportunity to speak in the town, it was important that