Arson, Murder and a Horse Named Kitty

(The 1917 Plumbers Strike)

By: George Vair

The early part of the twentieth century witnessed a series of violent strikes throughout North America that shook capitalism. Workers were fighting for union recognition, shorter hours of work and better wages. The corporations, with the assistance of the governments, resisted any attempt by workers to unionize. They used many tactics to deny workers their rights, but their most effective weapon was the use of strikebreakers (scabs). Local police, the militia, company goons and the courts would guarantee protection for these strikebreakers as they took over the jobs of the strikers. The laws were sympathetic to the employers, placing a higher priority on property rights and the right of the employer to carry on operations without interference, than it did on the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively with their employer. All the strikes that involved violence had one thing in common: the use of scab labour. Most of the violence would be directed against the strikers and their leaders, as police and the militia broke picket lines in order to keep the company operating. But the use of scab labour also pitted worker against worker, which would sometimes result in violent confrontations between the strikers and the scabs who were taking away their livelihood. Such was the case in Saint John, N.B., during the 1917 plumbers strike

The events leading up to the 1917 plumbers strike began six years earlier when twenty Saint John plumbers decided to form a union. On 11 March 1911, the United Association of Journeymen Plumbers, Gas Fitters, Steam Fitters and Steam Fitters Helpers of the United States and Canada (UA) chartered Local 531, with jurisdiction for all plumbers in the Saint John area. At their first official meeting, on 13 April, J.J. Hughes was elected the first President and J.P. Henneberry Recording Secretary. This was the second attempt by the Saint John plumbers to organize. In 1903 the UA had issued a charter to the Saint John plumbers—Local 429—but they were unsuccessful in getting recognition from the master plumbers.(1) That local lasted less than a year. The plumbers were determined that Local 531 was not about to suffer the same fate.

They soon discovered that the master plumbers were no more accepting of a union in 1911 than they had been in 1903. After a year of being frustrated in their attempts to receive recognition of their union, they decided to take strike action. They decided that as of 8 April 1912 wages would be set at $3.00 per day. Any master plumber who agreed to the union demand would be declared a fair shop and work would continue. If a master plumber refused to recognize the union, the unionized plumbers would refuse to work for that shop. At a regular meeting, on the 9 April a motion was passed to assess all union members working in a fair shop the sum of three dollars per week to assist the striking members. Notices were placed in newspapers in Fredericton, Moncton, Campbellton and Halifax informing plumbers not to come to Saint John. A committee was set up to “look after scabs that may come to the city” and the secretary was empowered to “pay any man’s way out of the city who may come into the city to work.”(2) In less than a week most shops recognized the union and agreed to the $3.00 per day wage rate. At the 15 April union meeting it was reported that only two plumbers were still on strike. The plumbers had finally received the recognition they had sought nine years earlier.

The plumbers continued to push for higher wages and better working conditions. On 24 February 1913, the members voted unanimously to join the campaign of the local Building Trade unions, who were organizing a general strike for the eight-hour day. The meeting then voted to advise the Master Plumbers that they would be joining the strike scheduled for the 1st May.(3) That strike lasted only two days. The plumbers returned to work, without the eight-hour day, when the employers agreed to increase wages to $3.25 per day.(4)

The next indication of any serious effort by the plumbers to advance their standard of living was in January 1917, when the members voted to make an application to the head office of the union for permission to take strike action. They placed a number of demands before the Master Plumbers Association (MPA), including: (1) a closed shop, where all plumbers would have to become members of the union; (2) an eight-hour day; (3) wages for all journeymen to be increased to $4.00 per day; (4) men working out of Saint John would have their fare and board paid and if required to travel overnight a sleeper would be provided; work on seven holidays (5) would be paid at double time; and they wanted a procedure for settling grievances. The union set a strike deadline of 16 April for the master plumbers to meet their demands.

As the strike deadline passed General Organizer John Bruce, from the union’s head office in Toronto, attempted to resolve the issues. The union compromised on wages and the negotiators agreed on a wage rate of $3.60 per day. They also agreed the day would be reduced from ten to eight hours. Yet, when the agreement went before a meeting of the MPA they refused to agree to its terms. They claimed the employers negotiating committee was formed out of courtesy to the union, but was not binding on the individual shops. The matter of increased wages would be left up to each individual master plumber to deal with. They claimed each shop must stand or fall on its own. (6) All other union demands, including the closed shop, were rejected. Organizer Bruce took the employer’s position to the membership, telling them it was the best he could do. The plumbers were convinced that if their union was to survive they would have to have the closed shop. Given the position taken by the MPA the plumbers felt they had little choice but to force the employer’s hand and on the 23rd of April carried through on their strike threat.

From the very beginning, the lines were drawn in the sand. The MPA issued a statement saying that the agreement proposed by the plumbers was not suited for the conditions in Saint John. They termed the proposal for a sleeper when traveling overnight as ridiculous and a joke. The statement concluded, “The plumbers can strike to doomsday before we will grant their demands.”(7) Both sides dug in and a month into the strike the attitudes had only hardened. The master plumbers had imported some plumbers from outside the city to use as scab labour and a few of the union members had broken ranks and returned to work. The MPA sent letters to shops outside the city, asking them not to hire the striking plumbers. Suppliers were approached and pressured into not selling supplies to the strikers, except at double the regular price. Some master plumbers had picked up their tools and were now doing some of the work themselves. They claimed they were now enjoying the most profitable business period they had experienced for many years. They explained that where formerly they paid men to do the jobs, and where they often carried the men and paid them when work was slack, they were now eased of that burden by the actions of the men themselves. In spite of the positive statements from the master plumbers, it was reported that householders were finding operations delayed.(8) But the master plumbers had no intention of returning to the bargaining table. They were now on a crusade to destroy the union.

For their part, the strikers said that they were not the least bit disconcerted by the delay in a settlement. The union had reverted back to its original demand of $4.00 per day.(9) They said their demands were just and declared they were going to win. The union claimed that some of the strikers were working at their trade, while others had temporary jobs of one kind or another. They said all strikers were receiving their $5.00 per week strike allowance. The union had imposed fines of $100.00 on the union members who continued to work. Neither side was about to admit any difficulties.

The union held a special meeting to deal with the issue of scab labour. They talked about writing the names of the scabs in public places. Several at the meeting said chalk was the thing to use and the time to use it was between one and two o’clock in the morning. The words “Bob Harris—The Scab” had been written with chalk on the iron bridge at Stanley Street. General Organizer John Bruce told the meeting that he would let no man take his meal ticket. He advised the strikers to, “Hound the scabs, keep after them and hound them out, call them rats, but use no violence and stay away from booze.” Bruce also said that the strikers should put the union carpenters wise to the scabs that were working on the same job with them. By the first of June there was only one thing that everyone could agree on: the battle had been joined. No one, however, could have imagined the events that would follow.

The first clash with the authorities came on 15 June when two of the striking plumbers, James Campbell and John Henneberry, were in court on a charge of drunkenness. They had been picked up the night before on Dorchester Street and both pleaded guilty to being drunk. Prohibition had come into effect in New Brunswick on 1 May and Magistrate Robert J. Ritchie seemed more interested in where they got the liquor. The men told the court they had received it from two fellow striking plumbers, Joseph O’Brien and Everett Carland. The Magistrate ordered the police to go and find the two men and bring them before the court. Carland was the first to arrive and told the court that ten of the plumbers had sent to Montreal for a case of gin. He said the package had come to him and Joseph O’Brien and he had simply given the other men their share of the liquor. The police had picked up the wrong O’Brien who claimed he was one of the striking plumbers, but never gave liquor to anyone. He said his name was John O’Brien, Joseph O’Brien’s brother. The Magistrate then ordered the police officers to go find the right man. Joseph O’Brien was finally brought to the courthouse and he corroborated the story of Everett Carland. Nevertheless, both men pleaded guilty to distributing the liquor and were each fined $100.00. The strikers charged with drunkenness were fined $8.00 each. The Magistrate warned the strikers that anyone brought before him in the future for dividing liquor would get the full penalty of $200.00.

The only issue before the court that day, concerning the striking plumbers, was the one of drunkenness and where they got the booze. The Magistrate, however, allowed the president of the MPA, George Blake, to address the court. Blake told the Magistrate that he had come to the court as he thought the four men who had been interfering with others would be present. He said that the plumbers were acting disgracefully. He told the Magistrate that a young man, who had continued to work during the strike, had been hit from behind while walking home. He said a brick had been thrown through his shop window on Germain Street causing damage of more than $20.00. He told the Judge that his employees had been abused and called names by the strikers. The master plumbers knew they would receive a sympathetic ear from the courts and they intended to take full advantage of it.

General Organizer John Bruce was in the courtroom and asked to be allowed to make a statement. Magistrate Ritchie said there was no need and told Bruce he would get his chance on Saturday, as a complaint had been filed by a non-union plumber against four of the striking plumbers. The Magistrate then went on to state that two men had come to him, one a master plumber and the other a journeyman, complaining about the treatment the journeyman had received at the hands of the strikers. Noticing a number of strikers in the courtroom, the Magistrate quoted from the criminal code to the effect that “any person using violence during a strike to another man, his wife or children or who injures property was liable to a heavy penalty.” He warned, “Anyone who intimidates a person by following them about or hides tools or clothes or damaged property of over $20.00 could be sent to the penitentiary and during a strike could have a sentence of five years imposed.” The seventy-four year old Magistrate added, “Anyone coming before me will get the full penalty.”(10) It was becoming very clear that the striking plumbers could expect little sympathy from the police or the courts and they should stay clear of both. That, however, would prove difficult, if not impossible for them to do.

The strikers had taken Organizer Bruce’s advice to heart. They set out on a campaign to intimidate and shame the scabs for taking their jobs and continuing to assist the employer in destroying their union. One of the strikebreakers, Frank McManus, had been working in McAdam. He had returned to Saint John at the commencement of the strike to work for master plumber Joseph Noble. Union President, John O’Brien, had confronted McManus on the ferryboat, calling him a scab and a dirty rat. While passing through the market one day he was followed by four of the strikers who called after him, “There’s a rat in the market.” They continued to follow him along Germain Street and up King Street calling him names. They stopped harassing him when they ran into a policeman at the head of King Street. The Union Secretary, Everett Carland, had stopped McManus on Sydney Street and told him that the plumbers would follow him on streetcars and shame him. On 14 June he was sitting on a bench on the north side of King Square having his lunch. He heard someone shout, “There’s McManus the rat; spring the trap, this is the second one we got today.” He looked up and saw Joseph O’Brien, John O’Brien, Everett Carland and George Livingston coming toward him. The four men sat on the grass about six feet in front of McManus. John O’Brien said, “McManus, you’re a goddamn dirty scab.” Carland said, “McManus, you’re nothing but a pimp for Noble. We wish we had you handy a sewer and we would throw you in.” Livingston called out to some other strikers, who were standing across the street, “We got a white rat here boys, get the trap.” A passer-by, hearing the reference to a rat, wanted to know where the rat was.

Strikebreakers Roy Sears, Frank Donohoe and others complained of receiving similar treatment. A young apprentice named Robert Harris had not joined the strike.(11) A number of the strikers had gone to the Armouries where Harris was working to try to talk him into coming out on strike, but to no avail. After that, Harris had been followed and called a scab. One evening three men followed Harris home. One of them, Everett Carland, called after him, “Never mind scab, you’ll be without your supper some night.” Another time the strikers had encouraged some children to call him a scab and a rat. These and other incidents would land two of the officers of the union behind bars. John O’Brien and Everett Carland were arrested on charges of intimidation and were refused bail. In denying the bail application Magistrate Ritchie said, “Yesterday I was handed some information that prevents me from admitting these two to bail just yet.” He pointed out that as the men were out of work they would suffer very little by remaining in jail and he was anxious to await developments in the Harris case. This was a serious blow to the union. They now had to carry on the strike with the leadership of the union in jail. By the end of June matters would only get worse.

Robert Harris was just twenty years of age, but had been working as an apprentice for master plumber Francis Walker for almost five years. He would have received his journeyman status in the fall. On the evening of 14 June he was installing a set of tubs at Robert Clark’s residence in Lancaster. Working with Harris was a plumber’s helper, Harry Lunn and a carpenter named James McAuliffe. Shortly after 10:00 p.m. the three men boarded a streetcar for home. Harris and McAuliffe exited the streetcar at the foot of Rockland Road. The two men walked together as far as Kitchener Street, where they parted, with McAuliffe going to his home on Kitchener Street. Harris continued alone along Rockland Road toward his home on Pine Street. Suddenly he was struck from behind, rendering him temporarily unconscious. At approximately 11:00 p.m. a passer-by found him lying on the grass at the corner of Rockland Road and Cranston Avenue. A coach was procured and Harris was taken to his home, where a doctor was summoned. Harris regained consciousness, but could give no description of his assailant. His condition worsened and on 16 June he was moved to the St. John Infirmary. For the next few days he would drift in and out of consciousness. On 22 June he passed away and the Coroner immediately ordered an inquest.

The announcement of Harris’s death shook the entire community and the police were under extreme pressure to find his assailant. In addition to the President and Secretary of the union, two other strikers were in jail. They were facing charges of arson for torching a summer cottage that belonged to the secretary of the MPA. The strikers would spend the summer in the courts on charges of arson, making threats and intimidating statements to the strikebreakers and finally for murder, relating to the death of Robert Harris.

Attempting to keep things on track, Organizer Bruce said he hoped to see an adjustment that would show the innocence of our members and urged, “The devotion of all members to a full realization of their duties.”(12) But regrettably for the plumbers, the strike had now become a secondary issue. The union was forced to direct their resources to the activities in the courts and the community had turned its mind to whether or not the strikers were guilty as charged.

 

Joseph O’Brien and John Hughes were the two striking plumbers that were in jail pending charges of arson for allegedly burning the summer cottage of master plumber William Crawford. Crawford owned a cottage in the Loch Lomond area. It was situated on the shores of Douglas Lake, about eight miles from the city. Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. on 15 June the cottage went up in flames. It was unoccupied at the time and a neighbour called Crawford at 11:30 p.m. to advise him of the fire. Crawford immediately proceeded to the scene of the fire, but by the time he arrived all that was standing was the chimney. The cottage and its contents had burned to the ground, resulting in a loss of $1,400. The night was dark and foggy, but he witnessed four half-circle marks where a horse and wagon had turned around. There was no evidence to show that the fire had been deliberately set, however, Crawford said he would offer a “liberal reward” for any information on the matter.

The police wasted no time in launching an investigation and quickly set their sights on the striking plumbers. County policeman J. H. Saunders was assigned to the case and he immediately checked with the local stables. He discovered Joseph O’Brien and John Hughes had rented a horse and buggy on the evening of the fire and had been seen on the Loch Lomond Road. On 18 June, at 2 a.m. O’Brien and Hughes were ousted from their beds and taken to the police station. Following questioning they were locked up in the county jail. When they appeared in court later that morning the question of jurisdiction arose. Policeman Saunders had arrived at the local police headquarters with the intention of taking the two men to the county court, as the offence had taken place outside the city. Magistrate Ritchie, however, objected to this procedure. He said the names of the men appeared on the local police sheet and he had the jurisdiction. He then remanded the two accused to the county jail. Apparently, Judge Ritchie was anxious to deal with the strikers. He was not about to let this high profile case get away.

The preliminary hearing on the arson charges opened on 23 June, under the cloud of the death of Robert Harris. Harris had passed away the previous day. At the opening of the preliminary hearing Magistrate Ritchie said the case was one of the most important to come before him in all the time he had been presiding on the police courts. He said if the defendants were found guilty they would be liable to be sent to the penitentiary for life. The Magistrate said setting fire to houses might be considered the third most serious crime. Only murder and attacks on women would be considered more serious.

Much of the Crown’s evidence concerned the horseshoe imprints found at the scene and the shoes on a horse named Kitty, who the defendants had rented the night of the fire: first it was plate shoes, then it was cork shoes, and then it was cork shoes worn to plate shoes. Finally, Policeman Saunders was recalled and stated that he had visited the barn on Monday and the horse’s shoes had been changed. “Not the same shoes on the mare today as when I examined her the day after the fire,” said Saunders. With this evidence, Magistrate Ritchie became extremely irritated. He ordered the police to find Frank Donnelly, the owner of the stable, and bring him before the court. Upon his arrival the Magistrate put Donnelly on the stand and the following exchange took place:

Magistrate: Have the shoes on the horse Kitty been changed since the night of the fire?

Donnelly: Not to my knowledge.

Magistrate: Have they been changed by your orders?

Donnelly: They have not been.

Magistrate: Did you pay for having them changed?

Donnelly: I did not.

Magistrate Ritchie then informed Donnelly that he would expect to find out if the shoes had been changed, by whom, under whose instructions, as well as all matters pertaining to the horse in question. Whether it had been hired to any person since the time of the incident and to whom it was hired? The Magistrate added, “If the section in the criminal code is large enough and broad enough to cover the matter, the guilty party will get the full penalty.”

O’Brien and Hughes claimed they were on the Loch Lomond Road the night of 15 June visiting a sick friend by the name of Thomas Lydon. Mrs. Lydon confirmed that the two men were at her residence for about one hour that evening, leaving at approximately 9:50 p.m. She could not say whether they drove off in the direction of the city or towards Loch Lomond. She said her residence was at Lakewood, about five miles from the city. She had known O’Brien for about four years as he was a close friend of her husband and had boarded at her house at one time. Mrs. Lydon told the Court that when Police Officer Saunders came to her house to investigate the matter he told her he wanted to see the two men convicted. She quoted him as saying, “I am in charge of this case and not Crawford. If I can convict those boys it will be a star case for me and I will do it if I can.” This evidence should have cast considerable doubt on Policeman Saunders’s evidence that Kitty’s shoes had been changed. Nevertheless, at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, on 26 June, Magistrate Ritchie acknowledged that all the evidence was purely circumstantial, but of such a nature as to lead him to believe that there was sufficient evidence to commit the defendants to stand trial. J.A. Sinclair, representing the accused, requested that the Magistrate hear an application for bail, but his request was denied.

The trial of Joseph O’Brien and John Hughes got under way on 12 July before Chief Justice McKeown. The charges against the plumbers had become the talk of the community and the courtroom was filled to capacity. Attorney General J.P. Byrne would prosecute the case and J.A. Sinclair appeared on behalf of the defendants. Many witnesses were called during the five days of the trial that produced considerable conflicting evidence concerning the size of horseshoe imprints found at the scene of the fire and the size of the shoe worn by the horse named Kitty. At 4:15 p.m. on 17 July the jury retired to consider the case. Two hours later they emerged to announce they had a disagreement and a unanimous decision seemed unlikely. The Chief Justice ordered them back into session to reconsider. At 9:30 p.m. they reported that they were unable to agree and that further deliberations would be useless. The standing was eight to four in favour of conviction. The Attorney General immediately announced that a new trial would commence as soon as possible. J.A. Sinclair again requested a bail hearing and again was denied.

The second trial commenced on 24 July before Chief Justice McKeown; Attorney General Byrne was again the prosecutor. This time, however, O’Brien and Hughes had a much more aggressive and capable lawyer. Mr. Daniel Mullin, KC would be the lead counsel for the defendants, assisted by J.A. Sinclair. At the opening of the court Mullin raised a number of objections, the most serious being that Sheriff Amon Wilson was attempting to rig the jury. According to Mullin, thirty additional jurors had been added to the panel of jurors that the sheriff knew were partial to the prosecution and hostile to the defendants. Among other things, Mullins claimed there were too many Protestants and not enough Catholics on the panel.

In 1917 Saint John was still very much divided along religious lines. Settled by the Loyalists in 1783, the city had experienced an influx of Irish Catholics who by the mid-nineteenth century comprised forty percent of the population. The city had a history of violent confrontations between the Catholics and the Protestant’s Orange Order, which was firmly entrenched in the city. All the strikers that were before the courts were Catholic, while most of the authority figures were Protestant.(13) Mullin’s objections were far from frivolous. After much argument it was agreed to add twenty additional names to the panel of possible jurors. It took three days to complete the jury selection and court officials acknowledged that it had been several years since such a large number of challenges had been made before the swearing in of a jury. Mullin claimed the public mind had been prejudiced against the striking plumbers and questioned whether or not they could get a fair trial.

The Crown called many witnesses and the trial lasted for nine days, but like the first trial the most relevant evidence centered on the hoof imprints found at the scene of the fire and on the property of Thomas Lydon, where O’Brien and Hughes had visited. Master plumber John Coughlan had accompanied Crawford to the scene on the night of the fire. He told the court that he had measured the horseshoe imprints at the scene and had later measured horseshoe imprints on the Lydon’s property and that they were one and the same. He said he never kept any notes of the measurements, but kept them in his head. He told the court he was accustomed to taking exact measurements and retained them in his memory. Mr. Mullin began his cross-examination by asking Coughlan to measure a number of horseshoes. Following a lengthily cross-examination Mr. Mullin asked Coughlan the size of one of the horseshoes he had measured. Coughlan replied it was four and three-quarters inches. After some argument Coughlan was forced to admit he had made a mistake. Coughlan had previously measured the shoe and said it measured four and five-eights inches. Finally, he was forced to agree with Mullin that it was possible he could have also been mistaken about the horseshoe imprints at the scene of the fire.

There was considerable conflicting evidence during the trial. James Coveny, who worked at the Donnelly delivery stable, gave a different description of the shoe worn by Kitty than Policeman Saunders had. This prompted the Chief Justice to state, “Either the witness or Policeman Saunders have taken a false oath.” However, Coveny maintained his position, in spite of a vigorous cross-examination. Dr Alfred Boyce, a veterinarian, told the court that he had examined Kitty’s hoof and there was nothing peculiar about the mare’s foot. “There are a great many horses in the city with hoofs like hers,” said Boyce. This contradicted the evidence of Policeman Saunders and Coughlan who claimed the horse had peculiar long narrow shaped hoofs.

During the course of the trial Mullin would raise a number of other objections that would be overruled by the Chief Justice. For instance, Mullin objected, on grounds that the evidence was irrelevant, when a witness stated he had heard Joseph O’Brien say that if he had received the maximum fine of $200.00 for distributing liquor, he would have burned the jail down. And when William Crawford was put in charge of leading the jury on a trip to the scene of the fire, Mullin objected on the grounds that Crawford was a witness in the proceedings and it was not appropriate for him to lead the jury. At another point, the Attorney General sought to recall a witness, but would not say what the rebuttal evidence was. “That is a new method for a crown officer to pursue when he seeks to convict men on flimsy testimony,” remarked Mr. Mullin. The Chief Justice did uphold one of the defence objections: the Attorney General was unsuccessful in attempting to enter statements taken from the accused on the night they were arrested. Mr. Mullin had objected, saying the defendants had not been cautioned. He said the statements were not damaging, but it would not be proper to admit them. The Chief Justice ruled the evidence inadmissible, in spite of having ruled the statements admissible at the first trial.

The trial finally came to a close on 3 August, with no direct evidence linking O’Brien and Hughes to the fire. In fact, there was no evidence to show the fire had been deliberately set. Further, the evidence showed it would have been very difficult for O’Brien and Hughes to set the fire. They had left the Lydon’s residence at 9:50 p.m., four and one-half miles away from the scene of the fire. They had returned the horse to the stable at 11:30 p.m. This meant they would have had to travel almost fourteen miles in one hour and forty minutes over bad roads in wet foggy weather. The horse had shown no signs of having been driven hard when she was returned to the stable. The court had also heard evidence that a number of suspicious fires had taken place in the area. Two barns had been burned, which was thought to be the result of tramps.

It appears that Daniel Mullin’s fears may have been well founded. Following five and one-half hours of deliberations the jury returned to announce they could not agree on a verdict. This time the jury stood seven for conviction and five for acquittal. Attorney General Byrne asked that the jury be polled. Mr. Mullin vehemently objected, saying this was a most extraordinary procedure, but the Chief Justice ordered that a poll be taken. Each juror was required to stand and announce his opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Jurors: Henry Grey, George Burton, George Colwell, George Stephenson, Burton Green, Frederick Cochrane and Benjamin Myers voted to convict, while Jurors: Joshua Corkery, Arthur Godsoe, Lewis King, Howard Phinney and William Morrison voted for acquittal. It is interesting to note that all those voting to convict appear to be Protestant names, while those voting to acquit appear to have been Catholic names.

The Attorney General immediately announced that he was compelled to ask that the Crown try the accused again. Mr. Mullin asked that the matter proceed in a timely fashion. After some discussion it was agreed that the case could not be tried until the September session. That being the case, the Crown consented to bail being granted. For the first time since 18 June, Joseph O’Brien and John Hughes would spend the night in their own beds.

The assault and subsequent death of Robert Harris created substantial interest in the community. It was not only front-page news in the city, but throughout the province. The Standard newspaper offered $100.00 reward to anyone producing evidence, which would lead to the conviction of the murderer. A number of private citizens were also offering reward money. Common Council passed a motion giving the Commissioner of Public Safety, Harry A. McLellan, “carte blanche” authority to set the machinery in motion to discover who had “assaulted and murdered that boy.” The Public Safety Commissioner advised Council that it might be necessary to employ persons whose names would not be made public. Commissioner McLellan stated, “I, for one, would be glad to lend a hand to pull the rope or guillotine to aid in the just punishment of such a cowardly murderer.” But he then added that he did not believe that the act was committed with the intention of killing the young man, but only to give him a good clout. Speaking in the Cathedral during Sunday mass, Bishop LeBlanc said he hoped there was no foundation for the current reports about the young man’s death. He said, “Personally, I sympathize with trade unionism, but violence should not be tolerated”.(14)

The inquest into the death of Robert Harris began on Saturday evening 23 June and lasted four weeks. On 20 July the jury reported as follows:

We the jury empanelled to inquire into the death of Robert Harris and: That the deceased Robert Harris came to his death on the night of June 22 at the St. John Infirmary from fracture of the skull complicated with hemorrhage and meningitis. The said fracture of the skull was due to being struck on the head with some heavy instrument on the 14th June last, near the Haley house on Rockland Road, City of St. John, at the hand or hands of some person or persons unknown, which person or persons did feloniously and wilfully, and of his or their malice against the peace of our King his crown and dignity.

Over the course of the inquest a number of strikers were called to explain their whereabouts on the evening of 14 June. There was, also, considerable evidence concerning the statements of threats and intimidation made by the strikers toward Robert Harris. As a result of the testimony heard at the inquest, the father of the victim, Robert Harris Sr., swore out information before the court. He alleged that John O’Brien and Everett Carland had murdered his son. O’Brien and Carland had been held in jail since 22 June, pending charges of intimidation. The two union officers were brought from their cells and paraded before police Magistrate Ritchie to hear the sworn information of Robert Harris Sr. It was a solemn affair.(15) The only ones in the courtroom were the Chief of Police, the Commissioner of Public Safety, the Crown Prosecutor and the Clerk, who read the information. The Magistrate advised them that they would not be required to enter a plea at this time and that the preliminary hearing would commence the next afternoon. The Crown Prosecutor advised that the intimidation charges would continue independently.

Meanwhile, local labour leaders were expressing criticism about the methods used to implicate the strikers in the murder. At a meeting, chaired by James L. Sugrue president of the New Brunswick Trades and Labour Federation, labour leaders claimed that the men were innocent and the process was a gigantic frame-up against the trade union movement. They voted to support the striking plumbers, as their demands were reasonable. The meeting decided to issue an appeal to the organized labour movement of the North American continent for their sympathy and financial assistance to pay the legal fees of those charged. A committee was appointed to carry through on the appeal. It appears the strikers got strong support from the local labour movement. James Sugrue, John Kemp, president of the St. John Trades and Labour Council, and James Tighe, of the International Longshoremen’s Association, addressed the strikers at the August meeting of Local 531.(16)

A report in a local newspaper said that a high profile union lawyer was coming to the city to represent the accused. The Union denied that this was the case. They said local lawyer, Daniel Mullin KC, would continue to look after their interests. The witness seats were full and the courtroom was packed with spectators when the preliminary hearing opened before Magistrate Ritchie on 26 July. The hearing lasted four days and many witnesses were called who gave evidence similar to that heard at the Harris inquest. The most attention-grabbing evidence came when Defence Counsel Mullin cross-examined Robert Harris Sr., concerning his sworn statement. First, Mullin claimed the information was incorrect, in that it claimed John O’Brien had followed young Harris persistently from his work. Robert Harris Sr. was forced to admit he had made a mistake and it was Joseph O’Brien who had followed his son. Mullin then asked, “Is it not true that you, personally, are not instigating the proceedings in this case?” Harris answered, “I would not like to put anyone down for something they did not do.” Mullin then asked, “Did anyone get you to lay information in this case?” Harris replied, “I decline to answer.” “I’ll accept that answer,” said Mr. Mullin.

On the final day of the preliminary hearing the citizens jammed into the courtroom to hear the final arguments from the lawyers and whether or not Magistrate Ritchie would commit the two union officers to trial. The St. John Standard reported that the courtroom was packed to “suffocation.” Numerous policemen were stationed inside the railing, while others were stationed among the spectators. In his final argument Mr. Mullin took issue with the sworn statement of Robert Harris Sr. He wanted to know who was behind it. He said, “Mr. Henderson, clerk of the court, has written the statement. Now Mr. Henderson is a good man, but who else is behind it? Is it my learned friend? Is it the Recorder? Is it Mr. Taylor, who represents the Master Plumbers? Or is it the Attorney General?” His remarks brought a loud applause from the spectators. Magistrate Ritchie sternly warned the audience about such outbursts, while the Prosecutor remarked, “I will not remain in court one moment if there is applause one way or the other.” Mr. Mullin then went on to say that Mr. Harris did not realize the charge he was making against these men and if his attention had been drawn to the matter he would not have laid the information.

At the conclusion of the arguments Magistrate Ritchie went through the evidence in some detail, finally concluding, “There is sufficient evidence to place these two young men on trial.” For several seconds after the Magistrate’s announcement there was not a stir in the courtroom.(17) Finally, Magistrate Ritchie asked the accused if they had anything to say. Both answered in a clear voice, “I have nothing to say; I am not guilty, Your Honour.” Several friends of Carland and O’Brien attempted to speak with them and would have succeeded except for a policeman who prevented them from doing so. As the men walked from the dock, John O’Brien’s young son ran over and stood holding his father’s pant leg, while he consulted with his lawyer. The inquest and the preliminary hearing had drawn large crowds and much public interest was shown. At the murder trial, however, the number of spectators in the courtroom would increase, the headlines would become bolder and the case would start to receive some national attention.(18)

On 7 August the Crown announced they might indict union organizer John Bruce as a principal in the trial. They said there was no direct evidence against Bruce, but it was on the advice of Bruce that Carland and O’Brien had proceeded to hound Harris. “They are the young men who carried out the commands of Bruce,” said the Prosecutor. The next day Organizer Bruce left town. There was some speculation in the newspapers that the union organizer had skipped town to avoid the indictment. The union denied this, saying his departure was pure coincidence. The union claimed Bruce had announced some days before that he would be leaving Saint John as he had matters to attend to in Toronto and would be attending the union’s International Convention in Toledo, Ohio. The union said he would return as soon as his other duties permitted. On 26 August Bruce did return to the city, fresh from the International Convention in Toledo, where he had been elected general officer of the union for the Dominion of Canada. His return to the city coincided with the start of the Harris murder trial.

O’Brien and Carland appeared cool and collected as they entered the courtroom on 28 August to face charges of murder. They smilingly acknowledged the bows from their many friends in the courtroom.(19) The first day was taken up with the selection of the jury. In spite of one hundred names being added to the panel of possible jurors, by 5 p.m. only nine jurors had been selected. The list of 121 had been gone over twice. When a possible juryman was found, who was acceptable to both parties, he would produce a medical certificate to excuse him from serving. This angered Chief Justice McKeown, who acknowledged that capital cases are unpleasant, but that citizens should not try to escape their responsibility of service. It was clear, however, that no one was interested in getting involved in this high profile case. The community was split on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Most people had already made up their mind and, regardless of the outcome, the jury could count on being criticized.

Over the course of the four-day trial the Crown called several witnesses, including a number of the striking plumbers, who told of being with Carland when he followed Harris and called him a scab and a rat. Some of the strikebreakers told of being called a “scab” and a “rat” by John O’Brien and Carland on many occasions. Harris’s mother told the court that when her son regained consciousness, he had told her, “I would not put this past Carland.” Harris’s fiancé said that he had told her about Carland following him. She said that Harris told her that if it didn’t stop, he (Harris) was going to find a way to stop him. Jeremiah Lenehan told of seeing Carland and O’Brien on Mill Street, across from the Red Rose Tea building, between 6:30 a.m. and 6:45 a.m. the morning after the assault. Both men had claimed they were home in their beds at that hour. But the key witness for the Crown would be Lawrence Lambert.

Lawrence Lambert had been one of the striking plumbers. He had participated in the strike and had joined in harassing some of the strikebreakers. However, after giving testimony at the preliminary hearing, he had quit the union and become a strikebreaker, returning to work for master plumber Walker. Lambert gave detailed evidence of the whereabouts of O’Brien and Carland on the evening of 14 June, the night Harris was assaulted. Six of the strikers: Joseph O’Brien, John O’Brien, Everett Carland, James Campbell, Joseph Henneberry and Lambert had met at the rooms of the union in the market building at 8 p.m. Joseph O’Brien and Carland had brought some bottles of gin. The six were carrying on and drinking and discussing the strike situation. At one point James Campbell wrote the names of the scabs on a blackboard as the others called them out. Harris was one of the names put on the board. They called it the roll of dishonour. At approximately 9:20 p.m., they left the rooms of the union. According to Lambert, Joseph O’Brien, Henneberry and Campbell were drunk. John O’Brien and Carland were under the influence and he was sober, having had only one drink. They had consumed three bottles of gin.

As they exited the market building onto Charlotte Street they ran into Roy Spears, one of the strikebreakers. Carland said, “There is Spears, the scab plumber, boys what do you think of him? Joseph O’Brien asked Spears how he would like to have his face punched in. The others quickly reminded O’Brien of Organizer Bruce’s words, “To use no violence.” Joseph O’Brien then asked a complete stranger to come over and see what a scab looked like. At this point, Sergeant Sullivan showed up and ordered them to move along. The six men walked together to the corner of Charlotte and Union Streets, where they stood for a few minutes. John O’Brien and Everett Carland abruptly left the party and the last Lambert saw of them they were walking briskly down Union Street toward the engine house. He said that the night was foggy and dark; it was difficult to see any distance. The rest of them proceeded to Coburg Street, where Joseph O’Brien addressed a crowd on the strike situation. They then went down Dorchester Street, where Campbell and Henneberry were arrested for drunkenness.

Lambert made a number of other statements to the court, which was intended to raise suspicions about the accused. The day after the assault on Harris, he said that he was in the rooms of the union and John O’Brien was there. He said he picked up a stick and said to O’Brien, “The fellow who struck Harris must have used something like this.” He said O’Brien did not reply, he only grinned. Later that day he was with Joe O’Brien and they met John O’Brien’s wife. She asked them if they had seen Jack. She said, “He didn’t come home.” Lambert said another time he heard John O’Brien say, “What to hell is the matter with you fellows? Harris got the pill; can’t you give Farrell the needle?” Farrell was a strikebreaker, imported from Fredericton. He had also heard O’Brien talk about getting an anchor to put on Harris’s chest. He further corroborated the evidence of the other strikers that Everett Carland had followed Harris home and harassed him on a number of occasions.

Defence Counsel Mullin took Lambert through a lengthily cross-examination. There was some inference that Lambert was working undercover for the police from the very beginning. For instance, Mullin wanted to know about Lambert being seen in Crawford’s shop, talking to master plumbers Crawford and Coughlan at the time he was on strike. Why had he been spending so much time at the police station and why had he accompanied the police when they searched John O’Brien’s house? Lambert said it was to identify Mrs. O’Brien, but then shot back, “I was no spy.” Mullin replied, “We will get to that later, I just wanted to lift the curtain on you a little.”

When the prosecution closed their case, Mr. Mullin submitted that there was no case to go to the jury and requested the Chief Justice to make such a ruling. Chief Justice McKeown said he was not prepared to accept the responsibility of taking the case from the jury and advised Mr. Mullin that his defence might strengthen his contention in the jury’s mind and suggested he should proceed. Mullin replied that he would be more than pleased to do so.

When Robert Harris Jr. and James McAuliffe parted at the corner of Rockland Road and Kitchener Street it was 10:45 p.m. A passer-by found Harris unconscious at approximately 11:00 p.m. As Harris was found about a five minute walk from Kitchener Street, it was estimated that the assault took place at approximately 10:50 p.m. Both O’Brien and Carland claimed to be in their homes at the time of the assault. On the night in question, they left the others on the corner of Union and Charlotte Streets, as Carland was feeling sick. They walked down to Mill Street and from there to the corner of Main Street. There they parted, with Carland going to his home at 664 Main Street, near Long Wharf. John O’Brien intended to take the ferryboat to his home at 43 Duke Street on the west side, but the 10 o’clock streetcar came along and he boarded it. O’Brien claimed he was in his home by 10:30 p.m. and Carland claimed to have arrived home about 10:05 p.m. Both claimed they did not leave their homes until after 8:00 a.m. the following day.

Several witnesses were called to substantiate their contentions. Percy Macaulay, a streetcar conductor, said O’Brien was on his 10:00 p.m. trip that evening. He said O’Brien stood in the vestibule of the car all the way home and was very talkative. He had talked about the strike, telling Macaulay that they had, “Some rat traps out to catch scabs.” Mrs. John O’Brien testified “positively”(20) that her husband arrived home at 10:30 p.m. He went to bed shortly after and was in his bed all night. Her husband got up about 7:45 a.m., went out and chopped some wood, had breakfast with his son and left the house between 8:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. He did not return home that day for dinner or supper. Later that day she had met Jack’s brother, Joe O’Brien, and Lawrence Lambert on Mill Street. She had asked them if they had seen Jack, as he had not been home for dinner. She said it was unusual, as he always showed up for his meals.

John Dwyer, who lived in the upper flat at the same address as the O’Brien’s, told the court that he heard John O’Brien coming home on the evening of 14 June. He said he was very familiar with O’Brien’s voice and remembers as O’Brien was talking louder than he usually did. He said that he remembered it was 10:35 p.m., as he was getting ready to retire and was setting his alarm clock. John O’Brien’s seventeen-year-old son told of seeing his father in bed at 11:00 p.m. He had to pass through his father’s room to get to his own bed and witnessed his father sleeping. A neighbour, Mrs. Vincent Kelly, gave evidence that she saw John O’Brien standing in his doorway the morning of 15 June at approximately 8:30 a.m.

Mrs. Everett Carland said her husband arrived home about 10.05 p.m. She said she was sure of the time, because the clock on the mantle had run down and she asked Everett the time. He replied it was 10:10 p.m. He had been home about five minutes at that point. She was angry with him for drinking and having liquor sent to the house. She told the court that he went to bed at about 10:30 p.m. She said he was in bed all night, except to get up at about 12:30 a.m. to let in his brother-in-law, Roy Dunn. Mrs. Edith Dunn, the sister of Carland and living in the same flat, corroborated her evidence. She testified that she was present when Everett arrived home. She said he appeared to be under the influence of liquor and was given a dressing-down by his wife. She recalled Mrs. Carland asking him the time and setting the clock. The next time she saw him was the following day when he came from his bedroom for breakfast. It was about 8:30 a.m.

All the defence witnesses were subjected to a vigorous cross-examination, but none were shaken from their original testimony. In his closing argument, Mr. Mullin reviewed the evidence at length. He said there was nothing to connect the accused to the murder and the evidence clearly showed that the two men were in their homes when the assault took place. He took the police to task, for spending too much effort in attempting to convict the union officers and not enough on finding the true culprit. He strongly censured the Master Plumbers Association. He said, “Harris’s friends tried to have him cut loose from the master plumbers, who grind down the workmen and then ride around in their car automobiles.”(21) He claimed their whole energies were directed against organized labour, which had been recognized by British Justice, in the Allan vs. Flood Privy Council case (1895).

At 2:05 p.m. on the 31 August the jury retired. In just forty-five minutes they returned to announce that the prisoners were not guilty as charged. The announcement of acquittal was not a surprise. Even Chief Justice McKeown appeared to have concluded that they had the wrong men in the prisoner’s box. In his instructions to the jury, the Chief Justice stated, “Unless you are prepared to find that all the defence witnesses were untruthful you will be justified in finding the accused not guilty.”(22) He said that the witness Lenehan might quite reasonably have been mistaken in seeing the accused at 6:30 a.m. on Mill Street. He instructed the jury that they were required to give the accused the benefit of any doubt.

Following the announcement of their acquittal, Mr. Mullin immediately made an application for the dismissal of the prisoners and a few moments later John O’Brien and Everett Carland left the prisoners box as free men. Family and friends immediately swarmed them and following heartily congratulations to Mr. Mullin, they left the courthouse for home on the arms of their family.(23)

The pending arson charges against Joseph O’Brien and John Hughes also got resolved. In spite of the determination by Attorney General Byrne to proceed with a third trial, when the fall session of the court opened on 25 September the Crown had made no preparations. Council for the defence, J.A. Sinclair, asked for the dismissal of all charges against the accused. The Court agreed, subject to a continuance of the bail bond as a security for their future behaviour.

The acquittal of John O’Brien and Everett Carland appeared to breathe some new life into the strike. At a meeting on 5 September, with President John O’Brien back in the chair, Organizer Bruce received “an attentive and enthusiastic hearing.”(24) Following the address by Bruce, the meeting passed a motion, “To stick with our original demands.” A week later, the local union held a special meeting to discuss the formation of a co-operative shop that would compete against the master plumbers. A committee was established to look into the possibility and set the rules that would be required to run such a shop. They voted to use the union funds to get the shop up and going, “provided there are any.”(25) But the co-operative shop idea never did happen, most likely as the result of another event.

On 6 December the Halifax Explosion took place and many of the striking plumbers left for Halifax as various tradesmen were required to rebuild the city. A few loyal members stayed behind to continue the struggle, but the court activities had had its effect on the members. Many had taken withdrawal cards and moved away. Finally, at a union meeting on 15 June 1918 the members voted to return to work at $4.00 per day, “if we can get it and no agreement to be signed.”(26) At a special meeting on 5 July the union passed the following motion: “That this union declare this strike over.” The motion passed by a vote of 15-5.(27) Junior members were given permission to work for $3.60 per day. After 406 days, the strike was finally over.

The strike had accomplished little in improving the working conditions of the plumbers, but the minute book indicates the union continued to be very active in the Trades and Labour Council and the Building Trades Council. They were also very supportive of other unions, who were attempting to organize. After 1919, however, only a few meetings are recorded in the minute book. The last recorded minutes are of a meeting held on 16 November 1921. At that meeting a motion was made to contact General Organizer John Bruce and ask him to reorganize Local 531. The last cash sheet received in the International office was for December 1921, with just two members listed in good standing.(28) It would take almost a decade to pick up the pieces, but the plumbers would not be denied representation. In 1929 they reorganized as Local 574. That local, however, could not survive the Great Depression and ceased to exist in the early 1930’s. But in October 1937 the Saint John plumbers again reorganized and were granted another Charter—UA, Local 213. Today—seventy years later—the plumbers are still represented by UA, Local 213, one of the best-organized and active locals in the province.

Workers should not be surprised that the legal system—whether it is the courts, labour boards or arbitration boards—will favour the employers and will work contrary to the interest of the workers. Magistrate Ritchie warned the strikers that they could be sent to the penitentiary for five years, for calling someone a scab, hiding tools or causing property damage in excess of twenty dollars. But apparently it was acceptable for the master plumbers to import scabs, starve the strikers out by asking other shops not to hire them and to pressure suppliers into not selling materials to the strikers, except at double the price. These tactics were simply considered to be normal business practice. Workers should understand that all the gains they currently enjoy are the result of worker sacrifice and union solidarity. Current labour climate would suggest that workers should continue to expect little sympathy from the authorities.

The other lesson is that the use of violence never achieves anything for workers. Not only are the workers always the victims of the violence, but also the employer gains from violent activities during a strike. The 1917 plumbers strike is a classic example. The violence rendered the strike activity ineffective, union officers were humiliated and dragged through the courts, the union itself was discredited and there was the tragic episode of a young worker losing his life. In the end, the union itself would cease to exist. On the other hand, the employers gained by the violence. It put public opinion on their side, made it easier for them to recruit scabs, and the issues that caused the strike became pas se. Also, for almost a decade they would be free of the union completely. Perhaps, this explains why almost a century later only two jurisdictions in Canada have adopted anti-scab legislation.

 

George Vair is a former representative with the Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union Local 1065 and a former President of the Saint John District Labour Council and a former Vice-president of the New Brunswick Federation of Labour. He has written a number of articles on the history of the labour movement in Saint John and is the author of one book entitled “The Struggle Against Wage Controls.” He is now retired and living in Saint John.

 

---

 

1.  The words “master plumber” and “employer” are used interchangeably throughout this document.
2.  Local 531 Minute Book
3.  Ibid.
4.  St. John Globe, May 2, 1913
5.  New Year’, Good Friday, Victoria Day, Dominion Day, Labour Day, Thanksgiving & Christmas.
6.  St. John Globe, June 5, 1917
7.  Saint John Globe, June 5, 1917
8.  Ibid.
9.  Local 531 Minute Book
10.  St. John Globe, June 15, 1917
11.  An apprentice could not be a member of the union, but most of them had joined the strike in sympathy. Any gains that the union might make would apply to them when they achieved their journeyman status.
12.  Local 531 Minute Book
13.  The exception being Magistrate Robert J. Ritchie, who was of Catholic faith.
14.  St. John Globe, June 25, 1917
15.  St. John Telegraph and Star, July 24, 1917
16.  Local 531 Minute Book
17.  St. John Standard, August 3, 1917
18.  The matter was taken up at the annual meeting of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada.
19.  St. John Standard, August 29, 1917
20.  St. John Telegraph and Star. August 31, 1917
21.  St. John Globe, August 31, 1917
22.  St. John Standard, September 1, 1917
23.  Ibid.
24.  Local 531 Minute Book
25.  Local 531 Minute Book
26.  Ibid.
27.  Ibid.
28.  History of the plumbers unions in Saint John-by Bob Apperley