UA Library

Deposition No. 2364
Depositions of Frank Quinn and John Hughes for the civil suit Michael Simmons vs. the El Paso and Southwestern Railroad Company.

Special Collections AZ 114 box 2, folder 5, exhibit 12

Some of the exhibits mentioned in the depositions are linked to copies of the exhibits. These include:

12-27 IWW pamphlets,
31-117 mainly correspondence,
125-133 IWW pamphlets,
134-179 stamps and stickers,
180 a photograph.


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF COCHISE.

Michael Simmons
vs.
El Paso & Southwestern Railroad Company, et al
No. 2364.

DEPOSITIONS.

INDEX

Witness Page
Thomas J. Sheehan 7
Maurice Klein 28
Philip James Barry 38
Maurice Klein (resumed) 66
William A. Cahill 93
Frank J. Quinn 150
Walter L. Furbershaw 180
Russell H. Lutz 195
John W. Hughes 267
Burley H. Wilder 346



IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF COCHISE.

MICHAEL SIMMONS,

Plaintiff,

-v-

EL PASO & SOUTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, PHELPS DODGE MERCANTILE COMPANY, a corporation, COPPER QUEEN CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, a corporation, PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION, CALUMET & ARIZONA MINING COMPANY, a corporation, SHATTUCK ARIZONA COPPER COMPANY, a corporation, WALTER DOUGLAS, M. J. CUNNINGHAM, HARRY C. WHEELER, CHARLES W. ALLEN, JAMES R. HENDERSON, BEN FRANKENBERG, SAM FRANKENBERG, MOSE NEWMAN, GRANT H. DOWELL, JOHN ANGIUS, ARTHUR NOTMAN, LEM SHATTUCK, J. E. CURRY and FLORIAN B. KING,

Defendants.

This stipulation between the above named plaintiff and the herein named defendants equally applies to and governs in the above entitled case, and in each of the following styled and numbered cases pending in the above named court in behalf of the plaintiffs hereinafter named, and against the herein defendants, namely:

    1. John B. Campbell
    2. Robert Noble
    3. Oscar Nyland
    4. J. S. Smith
    5. Thomas N. English
    6. John McCormack
    7. J. S. Wofford
    8. James Casey
    9. Homer Cody
    10. William B. Cleary
    11. Isaac Conkey
    12. John Gray
    13. Dan Gorman
    14. George Zuvich
    15. John Porovich
    16. Clint Thomas
    17. Alfred G. Hendrick
    18. W. M. Norris
    19. Sam Brooks
    20. Richard Manner
    21. John Wershay
    22. Michael Mirka
    23. Gust Korhon
    24. Louis Asich
    25. William R. Rogers
    26. Joe L. King
    27. Wallace J. Stephens
    28. J. D. McCoy
    29. John Isaacson
    30. John Hunt
    31. Frank O’Conners
    32. George Benko
    33. H. K. West
    34. Reina Merilo
    35. Charles Tannehill
    36. J. L. Deckery
    37. Frank Carlson
    38. R. A. Waddill
    39. Thomas Fahey
    40. James J. White
    41. Clifford Linn
    42. Charles H. Bentley
    43. John Mufich
    44. Benito Quintos
    45. J. F. Holman
    46. J. W. Eastburn
    47. J. G. Payne
    48. John Sullivan
    49. Richard Langdon
    50. R. W. Webb
    51. Timothy McEnery
    52. W. Skockelich Lawrence
    53. Scott Melville
    54. Peter Toomey
    55. F. S. Moore
    56. Fred Johnson
    57. Thomas Lonergan
    58. Jeremiah McCarthy
    59. Jack F. Norman
    60. William Blackburn
    61. Erick Isaacson
    62. Herman Lindquist
    63. Andrew Spacal
    64. John J. O’Donnell
    65. Robert Richina
    66. John Repoez
    67. Tony Puhar
    68. Dominick Gassino
    69. William Weitzenfeld
    70. Frank Sakrasen
    71. Wilfred Kempthorne
    72. L. Parks
    73. V. B. Carter
    74. Angus Nicholson
    75. G. H. Stollings
    76. D. F. Shine
    77. Robert Hastings
    78. Manuel Fernandez
    79. J. P. Magner
    80. Mike Paravina
    81. Thomas Cunningham
    82. R. Wolfe
    83. Peter Schneller
    84. Sam Maljkovich
    85. John Grandin
    86. Peter Morgan
    87. Matt K. Saari
    88. George Rice
    89. Frank Aldace
    90. John Maki
    91. Bill Kozal
    92. Devdato Marcacci
    93. Fred Hofheins
    94. Antti Golden
    95. John Kennedy
    96. Harry Hagan
    97. H. A. Vaughn
    98. Tom Vucinich
    99. Risto Staloich
    100. Gust Udd
    101. Charles C. Weiss
    102. Francisco Barba
    103. Leonard Wicks
    104. Nestor Sjofeld
    105. Larry Williams
    106. Jacob Hill
    107. Julius Lange
    108. Jack Ringo
    109. Charles Nord
    110. A. Marinello
    111. Ed Grant
    112. Tony Rodriguez
    113. Hugh Soderholm
    114. Frank McAleer
    115. Frank Vucich
    116. Peter Kundrak
    117. Stanley Stonis
    118. A. S. Embree
    119. Harry Handley
    120. Patrick O’Neil
    121. Eli Vukson
    122. L. F. Burgert
    123. Gust Carlson
    124. J. L. Phillips
    125. Oscar Moris
    126. P. L. Delja
    127. Perfecto Cortez
    128. August Otto
    129. Jesse L. Stollings
    130. Ed Grandin
    131. Frank Muhl
    132. Mike Mukavc
    133. John Halloran
    134. John Verbanac
    135. Walter Parker
    136. Andrew Finsit
    137. Markus Shutte
    138. Patrick Sullivan
    139. Gust Selin
    140. Risto Tabakovich
    141. John Krall
    142. Nick Zoro
    143. Robert E. Pastors
    144. Selba Maxwell
    145. Chris Johnson
    146. T. H. Loftus
    147. Oscar Johnson
    148. John Ledue
    149. Joseph Kinkella
    150. John Ercek
    151. Albert Lindkvist
    152. Nick Marcetich
    153. Francis H. Maidment
    154. John McAughey
    155. W. A. Bevan
    156. Victor Pajunen
    157. P. J. Byrne
    158. Julius Leppa
    159. Anton Krall
    160. John Pischevio
    161. John Lehtimen
    162. Joseph Barnis
    163. Lennard Pansor
    164. M. W. Ragan
    165. L. E. Metz

2531 James Hogan

    1. James Reilly
    2. Louis Kutner
    3. T. J. O’Brien
    4. G. W. Wiercinski
    5. John Melnik
    6. Bovo Rilovich
    7. George Levanta
    8. Alphonse Phillips
    9. Thomas Graves
    10. Thomas J. Harvey
    11. Christ Feller
    12. Andria Nikolich
    1. Peter Bozo
    2. William McKargle
    3. John Lyon
    4. Mike Kasun
    5. Tony Tomicich
    6. John R. Conner
    7. John Lempi
    8. Tony Alaga
    9. Andy Sorenson
    10. Robert Ross
    11. William Churchill
    12. Henry Mitchell
    13. John Buchin
    14. Martin Francis
    15. Pete Bakota
    16. Edward J. Johnston
    17. John Bahor
    18. Risto J. Spadier
    19. Charles Wagner
    20. John Heikkila
    21. Edd Dahl
    22. John Olsen
    23. Nick Trosl
    24. William Seppa
    25. James Cowan
    26. Patrick Joyce
    27. Charles M. Wood
    28. Orville Wright
    29. Nick Verbanac
    30. Matt Kasun
    31. Mike Kovich
    32. Tony Tamini
    33. John Raldeich
    1. Chris Allen
    2. Eli Atelovich
    3. Matt Anderson
    4. George Andrich
    5. S. Andrich
    6. V. A. Backlund
    7. Steve Brozicevich
    8. Sam Basich
    9. A. Brunhardt
    10. Patrick Brennan
    11. Mike Bobich
    12. Sevarano Barragan
    13. Ernest Blanchard
    14. Paul Butorac
    15. Mike Butorac
    16. Jack Chokorilo
    17. Adam Cuwpula
    18. John Crowl
    19. Bert Casin
    20. William Casey
    21. M. A. Conrad
    22. A. Chaves
    23. John Carr
    24. Domingo Castro
    25. Roko Cvitkovich
    26. John A. Carlson
    27. Dan M. Diklich
    28. Vuko Delja
    29. Richard Denning
    30. Arthur Dannie
    31. Robert Davis
    32. A. M. Deming
    33. John Dillon
    34. Leo Entner
    35. Harry Evans
    36. Anton Fagon
    37. Sam Filipovich
    38. Manuel Fernandez
    39. John Feeney
    40. Arthur Fitzpatrick
    41. Edward Grinrod
    42. Pedro Garcia
    43. Mike Galovich
    44. Reina Hendrickson
    45. Kay Hanson
    46. R. M. Heath
    47. Jno. Horan
    48. A. Hakka
    49. Felix Hankila
    50. Charles Harkins
    51. Mike Harbas
    52. Uiha Hautamaki
    53. Otto Hasu
    54. Antone Hanson
    55. Nestor Hiltunen
    56. M. Hogan
    57. W. E. Holm
    58. Eric Isaacson
    59. Alex. Jacobson
    60. Robert R. Jones
    61. George Jankovich
    62. John Junter
    63. Sam Kovack
    64. Mike Kason
    65. Bert Kasur
    66. Henry Kelho
    67. Urko Kyto
    68. Otto Kangas
    69. Patrick Kelly
    70. Daniel Kitchak
    71. Vincent Komadine
    72. Oscar Koskala
    73. Matt Korpi
    74. Wm. Lack
    75. O. F. Lacosta
    76. Jno. Laitimen
    77. John Leban
    78. Louis Loncarica
    79. Louis Lipovick
    80. Millo Lumovich
    81. Peter Mestley
    82. George Marovich
    83. Eli Markovich
    84. Martin Matesich
    85. Angelo Martini
    86. Wm. F. Mowatt
    87. Conrado Martinez
    88. Umphrey P. McQueen
    89. Frank McMullin
    90. Dennis Murphy
    91. Fred Morgan
    92. John A. McPherson
    93. Patrick McGuire
    94. Ernest Matson
    95. Ed. Murtha
    96. Jos. Mercer
    97. Sam Mitronovich
    98. Alex Nikolich
    99. Abel Nelson
    100. Frank Nieminen
    101. Alex Niemi
    102. D. C. Nations
    103. Pete Nenad
    104. Arthur O’hagan
    105. Edward O’Donnell
    106. Nikola Obradovich
    107. Jno. O’Donnell
    108. Peter Pleich
    109. Joe Petro
    110. Jno. Pleich
    111. Steve Pavlovich
    112. Tony Pleich
    113. Bert Parlovich
    114. Francisco Palomares
    115. George T. Phillips
    116. Peter Price
    117. Eli Pitkamo
    118. Pete Prila
    119. Vidak Popovich
    120. Gus Paul
    121. John Ranila
    122. John Rova
    123. Dragan Repacich
    124. Jno. Ravlich
    125. B. C. Repp
    126. John Ranta
    127. Frank Smith
    128. Mane Sedar
    129. Antone Stukel
    130. Daniel Sweeney
    131. Timoteo Sanchez
    132. Emil Somers
    133. Eli Studen
    134. Phil Tutavac
    135. Charles Shefchek
    136. F. G. Taylor
    137. Bozo Tabakovitch
    138. Filberto Timkes
    139. Sino Tomich
    140. Manna Thompson
    141. Luka Veinovich
    142. Jno. Veselich
    143. Nick Veselich
    144. Geo. Verbenatz
    145. Milan Vukcovich
    146. George Vicetich
    147. Kurt Wilckens
    148. Moses Williams
    149. Victor Wirkula
    150. W. J. B. Wilson
    151. B. K. Webb
    152. John Wolters
    153. Jim White
    154. Charles F. Wilson
    155. E. L. Williams
    156. Rudolph Zurchich
    157. John Walter
    158. Sam Arneson
    159. R. A. Dorame
    160. Louis Kladar
    161. Joseph Sarar
    162. George Karlo Drazich
    163. William McMonagle
    164. George Ugrin
    165. E. B. Taylor
    166. James McGaffegan.

In all of the above mentioned cases, said defendants have heretofore served notice upon said plaintiffs of their intention to take certain depositions in the City of Chicago, Illinois, beginning on November 3rd, 1919, and certain other depositions at Rockford, Illinois, beginning on November 17th, 1919, copies of which notices are hereunto annexed. It is the intention of said defendants in like manner to notice the taking of certain depositions at Salt Lake City, Utah, and Butte, Montana, immediately following the conclusion of the said depositions at Chicago and Rockford.

It is hereby stipulated that a single taking and return of the depositions of any witness, so noticed to be taken, shall be sufficient for all of the above styled and described cases, and that it will not be necessary for said defendants to take any such deposition separately for use is each of said cases. Any such deposition having been once so taken and returned in the above entitled case may be offered and used by said defendants upon the trial of each or any or said cases as fully and to all intents and purposes as if the same had been separately taken and returned in any such cause, and subject only to such objections or exceptions as might have been interposed if it had been so taken and returned.

It is further stipulated that after said witnesses have been duly sworn, said depositions shall be taken down stenographically and transcribed, and that the same need not be signed by any of the witnesses whose depositions are so taken.

It is further stipulated that in order to enable plaintiff’s counsel in said cause to attend the taking of said depositions at Chicago, Illinois, the same shall commence on November 10th, 1919, at the hour and place mentioned in said notice, unless plaintiff’s counsel shall be able to be in attendance earlier, in which case the same shall commence at such earlier date, but not prior to November 3rd, as shall be agreeable to plaintiff’s counsel. If such postponement shall result in conflict with the date already noticed as aforesaid for taking depositions at Rockford, Illinois, it is hereby stipulated that the taking of those depositions shall be postponed pending the completion of the taking of the depositions in Chicago, and to be taken up upon the conclusion of said Chicago depositions.

DATED this 29th day of October, 1919.

F. C. Struckmeyer

Attorneys for said Plaintiffs.

Ellinwood & Ross

Cleon T. Knaff

Fred Sutter

Clifton Mathews

F. E. Curley

Wm. H. Burges.

Attorneys for said Defendants, El Paso & Southwestern Railroad Company, Phelps Dodge Mercantile Company, Phelps Dodge Corporation, Calumet & Arizona Mining Company, Shattuck Arizona Copper Company, M. J. Cunningham, Charles W. Allen, James R. Henderson, Moses Newman, Grant H. Dowell, John Angius, Arthur Notman, L. C. Shattuck, J. E. Curry and Florian B. King.

COPY

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF COCHISE.

Plaintiff,

v.

EL PASO & SOUTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, PHELPS DODGE MERCANTILE COMPANY, a corporation, COPPER QUEEN CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, a corporation, PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION, CALUMET & ARIZONA MINING COMPANY, a corporation, SHATTUCK ARIZONA COPPER COMPANY, a corporation, WALTER DOUGLAS, M. J. CUNNINGHAM, HARRY C. WHEELER, CHARLES W. ALLEN, JAMES R. HENDERSON, BEN FRANKENBERG, SAM FRANKENBERG, MOSE NEWMAN, GRANT H. DOWELL, JOHN ANGIUS, ARTHUR NOTMAN, LEM SHATTUCK, J. E. CURRY, and FLORIAN B. KING,

Defendants.

NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITIONS

To the above and named Plaintiff, and to Messrs. F. C. Struckmeyer and William B. Cleary, his attorneys of record in said action.

You and each of you will please take notice that commencing on Monday, the seventeenth day of November, A. D. 1919, at ten o’clock A. M., and adjourning from day to day until the examinations are closed, the depositions of the following named witnesses, namely, Elwin Berridge, whose address is 1418 Myott Avenue, Rockford Illinois, David Adamson, whose address is 332 Baker Place, Rockford Illinois, William Johnson, whose address is State’s Attorney’s office, Court House, Rockford, Illinois, G. W. Ginders, whose address is Sheriff’s office, Court House, Rockford, Illinois, Homer Read, Captain of Police, whose address is Police Station, Rockford, Illinois, and F. A. Daniels, Police Officer, whose address is Police Station, Rockford, Illinois, will be taken on behalf of the undersigned Defendants herein, upon oral examination, before Robert M. Gibbony, Notary Public, being an officer authorized to administer an oath under the laws of the State of Illinois, at his office, at room numbered 215, Trust Building, Rockford, Illinois.

Said depositions are to be taken for the reasons that the testimony of each of the said witnesses is wanted by these defendants for use upon the trial of said action and that each of said witnesses is without the State of Arizona and within the State of Illinois.

Ellinwood & Ross,

Fred Sutter,

Cleon T. Knaff,

Clifton Mathews,

Attorneys for Defendants El Paso & Southwestern Railroad Company, Phelps Dodge Mercantile Company, Phelps Dodge Corporation, Calumet & Arizona Mining Company, Shattuck Arizona Copper Company, M. J. Cunningham, Charles W. Allen, James R. Henderson, Moses Newman, Grant H. Dowell, John Angius, Arthur Notman, L. C. Shattuck, J. E. Curry and Florian B. King.

Due to service with copy of above notice is hereby acknowledged on this ___ day of October, 1919.

__________

Attorneys for Plaintiff above named.

[COPY]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF COCHISE.

Plaintiff,

v.

El Paso & Southwestern Railroad Company, a corporation, Phelps Dodge Mercantile Company, a corporation, Copper Queen Consolidated Mining Company, a corporation, Phelps Dodge Corporation, Calumet & Arizona Mining Company, a corporation, Shattuck Arizona Copper Company, a corporation, Walter Douglas, M. J. Cunningham, Harry C. Wheeler, Charles W. Allen, James R. Henderson, Ben Frankenberg, Sam Frankenberg, Mose Newman, Grant H. Dowell, John Angius, Arthur Notman, Lem Shattuck, J. E. Curry and Florian B. King,

Defendants.

Notice of Taking Depositions.

To the above and named Plaintiff, and to Messrs. F. C. Struckmeyer and William B. Cleary, his attorneys of record in said action.

You and each of you will please take notice that commencing on Monday, the third day of November, A. D., 1919, at ten o’clock A. M., and adjourning from day to day until the examinations are closed, the depositions of the following named witnesses, namely, Thomas J. Sheehan and Maurice Klein, whose address is room numbered 804 Federal Building, in the City of Chicago, State of Illinois, W. L. Furbershaw, whose address is room numbered 1101 at No. 208 South LaSalle Street, in said City and State, Russel H. Lutz, whose address is No. 192 North Clark Street, in said City and State, Phillip J. Barry, P. R. Hilliard and John W. Hughes, whose address is room number 588, Federal Building, in said City and State, Frank J. Quinn, William A. Cahill and J. W. Hastie, whose address is No. 210 South Desplaines Street, in said City and State, B. H. Wilder, whose address is suite numbered 700 at No. 30 North Dearborn Street, in said City and State, will be taken on behalf of the undersigned Defendants herein, upon oral examination, before Maurice F. Dunne, Notary Public, being an officer authorized to administer an oath under the laws of the State of Illinois, at his office, at room numbered 722, Rookery Building, at No. 209 South LaSalle Street, in said City of Chicago, State of Illinois.

Said depositions are to be taken for the reasons that the testimony of each of the said witnesses is wanted by these defendants for use upon the trial of said action and that each of said witnesses is without the State of Arizona and within the State of Illinois.

Ellinwood & Ross,

Fred Sutter,

Cleon T. Knaff,

Clifton Mathews,

Attorneys for Defendants El Paso & Southwestern Railroad Company, Phelps Dodge Mercantile Company, Phelps Dodge Corporation, Calumet & Arizona Mining Company, Shattuck Arizona Copper Company, M. J. Cunningham, Charles W. Allen, James R. Henderson, Moses Newman, Grant H. Dowell, John Angius, Arthur Notman, L. C. Shattuck, J. E. Curry and Florian B. King.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF COCHISE.

MICHAEL SIMMONS,

Plaintiff,

-v-

EL PASO & SOUTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, PHELPS DODGE MERCANTILE COMPANY, a corporation, COPPER QUEEN CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, a corporation, PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION, CALUMET & ARIZONA MINING COMPANY, a corporation, SHATTUCK ARIZONA COPPER COMPANY, a corporation, WALTER DOUGLAS, M. J. CUNNINGHAM, HARRY C. WHEELER, CHARLES W. ALLEN, JAMES R. HENDERSON, BEN FRANKENBERG, SAM FRANKENBERG, MOSE NEWMAN, GRANT H. DOWELL, JOHN ANGIUS, ARTHUR NOTMAN, LEM SHATTUCK, J. E. CURRY and FLORIAN B. KING,

Defendants.

No. 2364

FRANK J. QUINN,

a witness of lawful age, produced on behalf of the defendants, having been first duly sworn, deposes as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

by Mr. Neill:

Q What is you name, place of business, and what is the nature of that business?

A Frank J. Quinn. 35 years of age. I live at 4511 Washington Boulevard. Superintendent of the City Department, Western Newspaper Union, 210 South Desplaines Street.

Q Describe the character of their business?

A Well, the concern is engaged in general printing business, that is, pertaining to newspapers and publications, and general pamphlet work.

Q Do you know William D. Haywood and Ralph Chaplin, or either of them, and how long hove you known them?

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial; and does not tend to prove any issue in these cases.

Mr. R. N. French objects, in both the criminal and civil cases on the ground it is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent; and because Mr. William Haywood has nothing to do whatever with any strike, and had nothing whatever to do with any strike at Bisbee, Arizona, out of which the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona occurred, and it seeks to introduce an element of defense into the criminal as well as the civil cases which is wholly and totally disconnected with any issues involved in either the criminal or civil cases, and has nothing whatever to do with any issue in said cases or either of them.

A I do know Mr. William D. Haywood and Mr. Ralph Chaplin; have known them for a period of three years.

Mr. R. N. French moves to strike the answer on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.

Mr. Walker asks that the answer be stricken, on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial; and does not tend to prove or disprove any facts or issue raised by the pleadings in these cases.

MR. NEILL: Q State whether or not you had any business with either or both of them in January or February, 1917, and, if so, the nature and the extent of that business?

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial; and until some connection is shown between the points in issue, the testimony is clearly incompetent.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question in both the criminal and civil cases on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial; and because it seeks to introduce an element of defense which is illegal and untenable, and in no wise connected with the issues either in the criminal or civil cases.

A I have had business relations with Mr. Haywood and Mr. Chaplin in the month of February, 1917; not in January; our business relations started in February. And the nature of the business was arranging for the printing of various pamphlets and publication work for the I. W. W. in Chicago.

Mr. Walker asks that the answer be stricken on the ground it is incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant; and does not tend to prove any issue raised by the pleadings in these cases. And endeavors to inject into these cases matters and things which are in no wise connected with the deportations of miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12th, 1917.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer of the witness and moves to strike the same on the ground that it is irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial. And on the further ground that it seeks to introduce an element of defense which is illegal and has no bearing whatever on any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases.

MR. NEILL: Q State whether or not you were acting as a representative of the Western Newspaper Union at that time?

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial; and seeks to introduce an element of defense which is untenable and illegal; and has no bearing whatever on any issues involved in either the criminal or civil cases.

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial; and does not tend to prove any issue by the pleadings in these cases.

A I was, sir.

Mr. R. N. French moves to strike the answer in both the criminal and civil cases on the ground that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and has nothing whatever to so with and no connection with any issue involved in either the said criminal or civil cases.

Mr. Walker asks that the answer be stricken on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, and does not tend to prove or disprove any issue raised by the pleadings.

MR. NEILL: Q What, if anything, did the Western Newspaper Union do as a result of your negotiations with theses gentlemen?

Mr. Walker objects on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and clearly is wholly without the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases.

MR. R. N. French objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. That the concern inquired about in the question is not connected with any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases.

A We arranged for and did print a number of publications, pamphlets, and also a publication known as "Solidarity."

Mr. Walker asks that the answer be stricken on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; and for the reason that any business transactions the witness has had with the I. W. W. is clearly and wholly without the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer of the witness and moves that it be stricken on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and on the ground that no connection whatever has been shown between any of the defendants indicated in the criminal cases, or who have an interest in the civil cases, and the I. W. W. organization. And that the answer calls for something that is wholly disconnected with any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases.

MR. NEILL: Q I hand you the following pamphlets, and ask you what concerns printed them, and who paid for the printing of them, and in what quantities; to-wit, "Preamble and the Constitution of the Industrial Workers of the World," "The I. W. W. , and its History, Structure and Methods, by Vincent St. John"; "The Advancing Proletariat;" "Proletrarian and Petit Bougeois, by Austin Lewis"; "The General Strike, by William D. Haywood;" "I. W. W. , the One Big Union of all the Workers, the Greatest Thing on Earth;" "Patriotism and the worker, by Gustave Herve"; "The onward Sweep of the Machine Process;" "Industrial Workers of the World, Proceedings, Tenth Convention, 1916;" "I. W. W. Songs to Fan the Flames of Discontent, Joe Hill Memorial Edition, Published by I. W. W. Publishing Bureau, 1001 W. Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A."

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; does no tend to prove any issues raised by the pleadings in these cases. And seeks to inject as matter of defense in this case I. W. W. matters which are clearly and wholly outside of any issue raised by the pleadings in these cases, and not in any way connected with the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917. No pamphlets of this kind by the I. W. W., or any of their literature or propaganda can in any manner be a defense to these suits even through direct connection is shown between the plaintiff and such literature of propaganda of the I. W. W.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And on the further ground that it seeks to introduce the workings and doings of the I. W. W. organization, which cannot be a defense to the kidnapping by the defendants in the criminal cases of the miners from the Warren district July 12, 1917; and is wholly disconnected with the strike at Bisbee, prior to the said deportation of the miners; and seeks to introduce an illegal defense, and one that is not borne out by either the facts in the case or by the law governing the case.

A The City Department, Western Newspaper Union, printed each and everyone of the pamphlets submitted and named. Do you want me, gentlemen, to recall to the best of my knowledge on the question of the amounts printed, or can I refer to a latter submitted to Mr. Haywood, showing the actual amounts?

MR. NEILL: Q Well, go ahead as best you can from your own memory, and if you have to refer to anything –

A On the "Preamble and Constitution we printed on the orders of Mr. Haywood, and delivered or shipped at least seventy thousand copies. On the "I. W. W., its History, Structure and Methods," we printed and delivered or shipped on instruction from Mr. Haywood, at least forty thousand copies. "The Advancing Proletariat," printed, delivered or shipped under orders of Mr. Haywood no less than forty thousand copies. "Proletarian and Petit Bourgeios," we printed, delivered and shipped at least twenty thousand copies. On "The General Strike, by William D. Haywood" and also "The last War" we printed, shipped and delivered at least forty thousand copies. On the "I. W. W., on Big Union of all the Workers, the Greatest Thing on Earth," we printed, shipped or delivered under orders from Mr. Haywood at least twenty thousand copies. "Patriotism and the Worker," we printed, shipped and delivered under orders of Mr. Haywood, I believe, forty thousand copies. "The Onward Sweep of the Machine Process," we printed, shipped and delivered under orders of Mr. Haywood, in excess of twenty thousand copies. "The Industrial Workers of the World, Proceedings, Tenth Convention 1916," we printed and delivered at least five thousand copies. "The I. W. W., Songs to fan the Flames of Discontent, by Joe Hill—"

Q Pardon me. You said "by Joe Hill" doesn’t it say "Joe Hill Memorial?"

A "Joe Hill Memorial Edition," we printed in excess of forty thousand copies, and shipped and delivered same under orders of Mr. Haywood.

Mr. Walker objects to the answer and asks it be stricken on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, is not within any issue raised by the pleadings in these cases. And for the further reason that the printed matter or propaganda or the I. W. W. has no connection whatever with the deportation of the miners Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917, upon which these actions are founded; and if there is a connection, even then, such matters and things are not a defense to the action.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer of the witness and moves to strike it as a whole, and each part thereof, on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; that it seeks to introduce an element of defense and justification in the criminal cases as well as in the civil, for the acts of the defendants in kidnapping and deporting the miners from the Warren district, July 12, 1917. That the pamphlets referred to by the witness were printed in Chicago at the instance of Mr. Haywood, and is in nowise connected with any issue in either the criminal of civil cases. And if the miners who were deported, were guilty of any offense in circulating, or having in possession either of the said pamphlets, or all of them, and such possession or circulation of the same was illegal, they should have been arrested, tried, and punished therefor. But it is no defense, and the defendants cannot justify their acts in kidnapping the miners of Bisbee, July 12, 1917, by showing any such proceeding, which is wholly and entirely disconnected with any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases.

MR. NEILL: Q In your last answer you have spoken of having shipped certain of the pamphlets which you say your firm printed. Please state as near as you can, where and in what quantities you shipped, to whom, and upon whose instructions?

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; and clearly without the issues formed by the pleadings in these cases.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and seeks to introduce an element of defense which is wholly and entirely illegal and disconnected in any manner whatsoever with any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases.

A We shipped them all out under orders of Mr. Haywood of from the office of the I. W. W. As to where they were shipped, without referring to correspondence, I could not definitely state, nor the amounts shipped to any of the various places. I have copies of letters sent to Mr. Haywood acknowledging shipping instructions and where they were shipped and the disposition of the various amounts as per his requests.

Mr. Walker asks that the answer be stricken on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and does no tent to prove or disprove any of the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases.

Mr. R. N. French moves to strike the answer of the witness on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and because it seeks to introduce as a defense something that it entirely unassociated with or unconnected with any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is being taken.

MR. NEILL: Q Well, can you state whether the shipments that you say were made, were confined say, to Cook County, Illinois, or how general were they?

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; and does not tend to prove or disprove any of the issues formed by the pleadings in these cases.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question of the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And on the further ground that it seeks to introduce as an element if defense in these cases a matter wholly disconnected with any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases; and could only result in molding public opinion in favor of the defendants in the criminal cases and also in the civil, and in biasing and prejudicing and jury that may try the defendants in the cases, if introduced. It cannot be urged in justification of the illegal acts charged against the defendants in the criminal cases, to-wit, the kidnapping and deportation of the miners from Bisbee, July 12th, 1917.

A We shipped them to various States in the Union, all over the country.

Mr. Walker asks the answer be stricken on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and not within the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer of the witness and moves it be stricken on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; and not connected in any manner with any of the issues involved in either the criminal or civil cases.

MR. NEILL: Q In a previous answer you spoke of having published "Solidarity." State what "Solidarity" was, when you began to publish it, and at whose instance, and to what extent you printed it?

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; and does not tend to prove or disprove any facts or issues raised in the pleadings; and has no connection in any way with the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12th, 1917, upon which acts of deportation these causes of actions are predicated.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and on the further ground it seeks to introduce an element of defense which is not warranted by the facts, and is wholly illegal and is entirely disconnected with any issue involved in either the said criminal or civil cases.

A Mr. Haywood called upon us and asked us if we would handle the publishing of their weekly paper "Solidarity," which was then being published in Cleveland, Ohio, which publishing bureau and organization was moving to Chicago. He arranged for the printing of a weekly publication, six column newspaper, to be printed and published by us. We stated printing it the latter part of March, 1917. The first issue was 6,700 copies. The last issue was printed in September of 1917. And the circulation from the time we stated until the time we finished averaged from 6,700 to as high as 18,000 during that period. We printed, mailed, and shipped these copies from mailing lists of names sent in by Mr. Haywood and Mr. Chaplin and other parties connected with the organization; they turned in their copy and we set it up, read it once, submitted proofs, making a white proof to the publishers; they made their corrections and we revised them, and it was made under the orders given by Mr. Ralph Chaplin in our establishment every week. The paper was O’K’d by Mr. Chaplin, and orders given by Mr. Haywood as the number of copies to be printed. After being printed it was folded and mailed from mailing lists set up by us under the orders of Mr. Haywood.

Mr. Walker objects to the answer and asks it be stricken on the ground that it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, and does no in any way tend to prove or disprove any of the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases; and no connection has been shown between the paper printed, or any of the printed matter of the I. W. W. and the deportation of miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917. And that this paper "Solidarity" or all the publications and printed matter is not, and cannot be a defense to these actions even though connection between these pamphlets and the miners are Bisbee, Arizona, be afterwards shown.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer of the witness and moves to strike the same on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. Because it has no connection whatever with any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases for which this deposition is being taken. Because it seeks to introduce into the said cases an element of defense or justification which is entirely illegal and uncalled for, to-wit, the I. W. W. organization, which has not bearing upon and cannot be urged as justification for the crimes with which the defendants are charged, to-wit, the kidnapping and the deportation of miners from Bisbee July 12, 1917.

MR. NEILL: Q Mr. Quinn, state as accurately as you can the general extent of that mailing list, that is, as near as you can, how many were mailed, and the general distribution of the mailed copies throughout the country?

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; and clearly without the issues involved in these cases. And it is difficult to see how a mailing list of the I. W. W. paper named "Solidarity" can in any way have any connection with the deportation of miners from Bisbee, Arizona July 12th, 1917.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question as irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent. And because it seeks to introduce as element of defense which is entirely and wholly illegal and untenable in these cases, and has nothing whatever to do with any issue involved in either the said criminal or civil cases.

A With the exception of possibly a few hundred copies, all the copies that were printed were mailed from our establishment, delivered to the United State Post Office here in Chicago, either mailed as what is known as single copies, or as bundles, to various secretaries on their mailing list. And, what we call bundle in the newspaper business is where five or more copies are going to an individual, they are wrapped up and shipped in a bundle with the marking to that particular address. In this case they had a number of galleys consisting of names who were subscribers, and other galleys consisting of names who were supposed to be secretaries, and changed the amount every week or two weeks; the amounts varied to the same party. But all that we printed of "Solidarity" or shipped, I believe, went into the United States Post Office; I don’t think we ever sent "Solidarity" to any place other than through the mails. The paper went all over the country; I would even say that some few copies were of foreign circulation. They were distributed to all the big cities and various States; general distribution.

Mr. Walker asks that the answer be stricken on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; and does not in any way tend to prove to disprove any of the facts raised by the pleadings in these cases; and has no connection whatsoever in any manner with the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer and moves to strike the same on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; and on the further ground that it seeks to introduce an element of defense which is wholly illegal and untenable, and has no bearing whatever on any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which the deposition is being taken.

MR. NEILL: Q Mr. Quinn, in one of your early answers you spoke somewhat of Mr. Haywood, the Secretary and treasurer of the I. W. W., and that organization having a printing plant in Cleveland prior to their moving here. What do you know about that, of your own knowledge?

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; it is clearly not within the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases, and no connection has, or can be shown between the printing plant of the I. W. W. and the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and in nowise connected with any issues involved in either the said criminal or civil cases in which the deposition is taken. That it seeks to introduce an issue of defense of justification which is wholly untenable and illegal, and can have nothing to do with any issue involved in either of the said cases.

A When Mr. Haywood came into our office to inquire whether we were competent and willing to handle the printing of these pamphlets, he told us that the reason for moving their publishing bureau to Chicago – that they were moving it from Cleveland to Chicago, and until such time as they had erected their own plant they would like to have us turn out some of their work, which we agreed to do. Later on the plant was established at 1001 – no, not at 1001, it was next door to 1001; it was connected building, it was all on building; they called it 1001, though, West Madison Street. As soon as possible they started printing their won work. That was as per our request.

Mr. Walker asks that the answer be stricken on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; is hearsay; is uncertain, indefinite, and touching matters and things clearly not within the knowledge of the witness. And does not tend to prove or disprove any fact or issue raised by the pleadings in these cases; and can in nowise have any connection with the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer and moves to strike the same on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial and seeks to introduce an element of defense in justification of the crimes with which the defendants are charged in the criminal cases, and upon which the civil cases herein predicated; and that it is wholly disconnected in any way with the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, July 12, 1917. And on the further grounds that it is absolutely hearsay; what Mr. Haywood told somebody cannot be used as evidence in the case for any purpose whatever.

MR. NEILL: Q When did the Western Newspaper Union stop printing pamphlets, and why?

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; and clearly without the issues formed by the pleadings in these cases.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And on the further ground that it has not been shown that they had stopped printing the circulars; there is no evidence of that fact. And the question is leading in regard thereto. Counsel further objects because it seeks to introduce into these cases, the criminal as well as the civil, an element of justification and defense which is illegal and untenable and has no bearing whatever on any issue involved in either the said criminal or civil cases.

A We stopped printing pamphlets in April, 1917. As stated before, we continued to publish "Solidarity" for them until their newspaper press was erected and in proper running order, and that was not done until September. But none of the pamphlets were printed by us after April, 1917, but we may have shipped out – delivered some of these "Proceedings of the Tenth Convention" copy of which was set for some time before it was printed, on account of revisions and things of that kind in the copy. Our reasons for stopping was that conditions in the country were such, from the newspaper accounts, that we didn’t, no could we, continue to publish matter for anybody that would in any way get the Western Newspaper Union mixed up in any controversy. As soon as war was declared and articles which appeared throughout the country came to my notice, I went to see Mr. Haywood, and told him that we could not do anymore work for him, that we did not feel justified; while we did not fell that he, himself, would do anything detrimental to the interests of the country, we felt that the criticism being heaped on the organization was such that we could not in any way, shape or manner, become involved. Our offices being connected all over the United States were such that if matters of that kind came out it would infer that we took it with our newspaper business, thinking that we were in harmony with their plans and pleadings. And, it was ordered discontinued. Mr. Haywood said " All right, ship whatever you have there in hand; we will square up with you, everything we owe you." And, they were very prompt in their business dealings with us, to be honest with them, Mr. Haywood was A Number 1; and in my talks with him, he always seemed to be a law abiding citizen. When I brought matters to their attention that were about to be published in the paper he invariably said "That is all right, Quinn, if you find anything against your grain to print it, you get in touch with me; I will see it is eliminated." On several occasions we did objects to some things going into the publication. Until the war was on we didn’t feel that these people – that we were doing anything but a commercial line of printing; we didn’t even go so far as to inquire regarding the contents of their various pamphlets.

Mr. Walker asks that the question be stricken on the ground that it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; and nowise tends to prove or disprove any issue raised by the pleadings in these cases. That it is partly hearsay, partly conclusion, and partly a defense of the Western Newspaper Union, which can in nowise affect the issues in theses cases which are founded upon the deportation of miners from Bisbee, Arizona, on July 12th, 1917.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer of the witness and moves that it be stricken on the ground that it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; and because it seeks to introduce the I. W. W. into both the criminal and civil cases, when, as a matter of fact, the said issue has no bearing whatever on any issue involved in either the said criminal or civil cases, and can only prejudice the minds of the jury which tries the cases and mould public opinion in favor of the defendants. The defendants, it is insisted, cannot urge I. W. W.ism either as a defense or a justification to the crime with which they are charged as having committed July 12, 1917 by the kidnapping and deportation of the miners from the Warren district on that date.

MR. NEILL: Q Mr. Quinn, I don’t recall whether you testified or not who paid for all this printing, both of the "Solidarity" and the pamphlets?

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and does not tend to prove any issue raised by the pleadings in these cases. That in no shape or manner can the question as to who paid for these pamphlets, and "Solidarity" tend to prove of disprove any of the issues in these cases.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And on the further ground that it seeks to introduce an element of defense, or a justification, the I. W. W. question which is in no way connected with, and cannot be urged either as a defense or a justification for the kidnapping of deportation of the miners from Bisbee, July 12th, 1917, with which the defendants are charged in the criminal proceedings, and upon which the said civil proceedings are predicated.

A All checks were paid by the I. W. W., and up until the last one or two we got were signed by William D. Haywood, secretary and treasurer. The last one or two we got were signed by Mr. Hardy, I believe. Practically all the checks were handed to me personally; a good many I got right there in their office, where MR. Haywood turned them over to me.

Signature

Frank J. Quinn

Mr. Walker asks that the answer be stricken on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial and does not tend to prove or disprove any of the facts in issue raised by the pleadings, and is not the best evidence of which the transaction is capable.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer of the witness and moves it be stricken on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and because it seeks to introduce the element of I. W. W.ism as a defense of a justification for the kidnapping and deportation of the miners from the Warren district, July 12, 1917, when, as a matter of fact, the I. W. W.ism had nothing to do whatever with the said deportation, had no connection with it; and does not bear on any issue involved in either the said criminal or civil cases.

MR. NEILL: Q Mr. Quinn, please take the pamphlets, ten in number, which you have testified were printed by the Western Newspaper Union, and hand them to the Notary public with the request that they be marked Exhibits 12 to 27, inclusive, and made a part of your deposition, handing them to him in this order: "Preamble and Constitution of the Industrial Workers of the Worlda," Exhibit 18. "The I. W. W., its History, Structure and Methods, by Vincent St. John," Exhibit 19. "The Advancing Proletariat," Exhibit 20. "Proletarian and Petit Bourgeios, by Austin Lewis," Exhibit 21. "The General Strike, by William D. Haywood," Exhibit 22. "I. W. W., One Big Union of all the Workers, the Greatest Thing on Earth," Exhibit 23. "Patriotism and the Worker, by Gustave Herve," Exhibit 24. "The Onward Sweep on the Machine Process," Exhibit 25. "Industrial Workers of the World, Proceedings, Tenth Convention, 1916," Exhibit 26. "I. W. W. Songs to Fan the Flames of Discontent, Joe Hill Memorial Edition, Published by the I. W. W. Publishing Bureau, 1001 West Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois, U. S. A.," Exhibit 27.

(Said document were so marked and are attached to this deposition and made a part hereof.)

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question asked the witness and to the introduction of each and every on of the pamphlets referred to in the said question as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; and because it seeks to introduce the I. W. W. propaganda as a defense or a justification for the kidnapping and deportation of the miners from the Warren District July 12, 1917. That said attempt is illegal and untenable, and that the said literature has no meaning whatever on any issue involved in either the said criminal or civil cases. And because the said pamphlets and documents referred to in the question, have not been properly identified or authenticated.

Mr. Walker objects to the introduction of the ten pamphlets named and the instruction of counsel to the witness, on the ground that they are irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, do not in any manner tend to prove of disprove any of the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases. That no connection has been, or can be shown between the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917, upon which act of deportation the civil suits are predicated. And for the further reason that the introduction of these pamphlets seeks to inject into these cases I. W. W.ism which is entirely foreign to any issue raised by the pleadings in these cases.

MR. NEILL: Cross examine.

Mr. Walker declines to cross examine and objects to all the evidence, the entire deposition of this witness; and asks that the same be stricken, and to each and every question and answer in the deposition of this witness, and asks that each and every one be stricken for the reason that the entire deposition, and each and every part thereof is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, and not within the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases. For the reason that while I do not know the purpose of these exhibits at this time, the inference is that they are introduced for the purpose of setting up as a defense I. W. W.ism, it propaganda and actions, for the purpose of influencing public opinion and for arousing sentiment in the parts of Arizona where these cases will be tried, and perhaps influencing juries that are to try theses cases. No connection has been shown between any of the plaintiffs in these cases and any of the pamphlets or matter published by the witness’ company for the I. W. W., and that if such connection is at any time shown, these pamphlets and propaganda and publications of the I. W. W. cannot be in anywise a defense in any manner whatsoever to the illegal and unheard of action of deporting these miners without any semblance of authority in direct violation of all sense of justice and reason, and in violation of law, form Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917, upon which deportation these civil actions are all predicated.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the entire deposition of the witness and to all of the exhibits filed therewith, both as a whole, and to each and every part thereof, on the ground that they are incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And on the ground that it seeks to introduce I. W. W.ism as an element or justification of defense in the criminal cases, when such is no a legal defense to the said cases, and when I. W. W.ism has no bearing whatever on any issue involved in either the said criminal or civil cases. And further because there has been no connection made between any of the said I. W. W. propaganda and any miner who was deported from the Warren district July 12, 1917. And if such connection has been, or hereafter may be made, that it would not avail the defendants in the criminal cases herein, in particular, or in both the civil and criminal cases in general, a defense to the unwarranted and illegal kidnapping of the miners from Bisbee, July 12, 1917. And Mr. French asks that the whole and each and every part of the said deposition be stricken. And Mr. French decline to cross examine the witness.

JOHN W. HUGHES,

a witness of lawful age, produced on behalf of the defendants, having been first duly sworn, deposes as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

by Mr. Neill:

Q What is your name, place of business, and what official position, if any, do you occupy?

A John W. Hughes. 38 years old. Deputy Clerk, United Stated Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. And Special Agent of the Department of Justice.

Q Are you familiar with the records, files, books, papers, pamphlets, and materials seized at the headquarters of the Industrial Workers of the World at Number 1001 West Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois, under a search warrant dated September 5, 1917; and such other records, files, books, papers, pamphlets, and material seized by virtue of search warrants issued at points other than Chicago, and subsequently removed to the Federal Building in the city of Chicago, and filed as Exhibits in the case of The United States of America vs. William D. Haywood, et al, No. 6125, in the District Court of the United States, for the Northern District of Illinois, and the Eastern Division thereof, that were testified about in the depositions of Russell H. Lutz, Thomas Sheehan, Maurice Klein, W. L. Ferbershaw, and Philip H. Barry?

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground that it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, and not within the issues formed by the pleadings in these cases. It is leading; states conclusions; and seeks to inject into these cases as matters of defense, I. W. W. propaganda, activities, organization, and so forth, which are entirely foreign to the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917. It is indefinite, uncertain, not specific as to time, place, quantity, quality, or persons and in nowise connected with these cases.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question in both the criminal and civil cases, as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And because it has not yet been shown that this witness is familiar or knows what was testified to in the depositions of either of the witnesses who have testified in these cases, and about whose evidence he is asked in the question. And, in the next place, it has no bearing on any issue involved in either the said criminal or civil cases. It seeks to introduce the I. W. W. organization, it propaganda and activities, as an element of defense in the cases, when, as a matter of fact, the said organization was in nowise connected with, and had nothing to do with the kidnapping and deportation of the miners from Bisbee, July 12, 1917; and if it did have anything to do with it, and was connected with it, it would not be a legal defense for the defendants in the criminal cases herein, or the civil cases either. The question is further objected to for the reason that these defendants are indicted for kidnapping in the cases in which this deposition is being taken. The civil cases grew out if the kidnapping of the miners from Bisbee, July 12, 1917. The kidnapping cases are different kind of cases from the cases against William D. Haywood and others, the evidence in which said cases is sought to be introduced as evidence in these cases, for violation of different laws, under different penalties, different States, and are in nowise connected with each other, and have nothing in common with each other, and the one is not pertinent to the other in any respect. And because the question is too indefinite, not sufficiently specific, and is not the best evidence. And the subject of the question has not been properly identified, and the subject matter has not been properly authenticated.

A Yes sir.

Mr. Walker asks that the answer be stricken on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; and does not tend to prove or disprove any fact in issue in these cases; and for the same reasons offered in objecting to the question.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer and moves it be stricken on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And on the further ground that it calls for matters which occurred long subsequent to the kidnapping and deportation of the miners from Bisbee, July 12, 1917; and is in nowise related with any issue and can have no bearing on any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is taken.

MR. NEILL: Q Who is now the custodian of the matters inquired about in the previous interrogatory, and by virtue of what authority is he such custodian?

MR. Walker objects to the question of the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; not within the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question of the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And because it seeks to introduce into this case an element of defense, to-wit, the I. W. W. organization, its activities and its propaganda, when, as a matter of fact, it is in nowise connected with the kidnapping and the deportation of the miners of Bisbee, July 12, 1917; and if it were connected with it, it would be no legal defense for the said kidnapping of the said miners on said last mentioned date.

A I am at present the custodian, appointed by the Clerk of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Walker asks that the answer be stricken on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; does not come within the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases, and is not responsive.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer and moves it be stricken on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; and because it has not bearing whatever on any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases. And because it seeks to introduce the I. W. W. organization, it propaganda and activities, as an element of defense in the case, when such organization and it propaganda, activities or teachings, is not defense in the criminal cases herein, or in the civil cases growing out of the deportation of the miners July 12, 1917, from the Warren District in the State of Arizona.

MR. NEILL: Q Before the question gets out of my mind, Mr. Hughes, I understand that there are several plaintiffs in the civil suits and perhaps defendants in the criminal cases whose name is Hughes. State whether or not you are related to any party to any of these suits?

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and in nowise connected with any issue raised in these cases.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question because it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial.

A No sir; I am not related to anybody in the United States.

Mr. Walker asks that the answer be stricken on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer and moves it be stricken on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.

MR. NEILL: Q Mr. Hughes, when did you first come in charge of the books, records, letters, papers, pamphlets, and other exhibits, and who was your immediate superior at the time?

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; indefinite, uncertain, not specific as to time, place, quantity, quality, or persons; and does not tend to prove or disprove any fact in issue in these cases.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; and has nothing whatever to so with any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which the deposition is taken.

A I became in charge on the 30th of August, 1918. Mr. Russell H. Lutz was my superior.

Mr. Walker asks that the answer be stricken on the ground that it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; and does not tend to prove or disprove any fact in the issue in these cases.

Mr. R. N. French objects, and asks that the answer be stricken, on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; and has nothing whatever to do with, and no bearing upon any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases herein.

MR. NEILL: Q In whose immediate charge and custody have the books, records, letters, pamphlets and other exhibits been since the date you mentioned in your last answer?

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; indefinite, uncertain, and not specific as to material, time, place, quantity, quality, or persons; and in nowise tends to prove or disprove any fact in issue in these cases.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; because it is uncertain and indefinite. Because it shows on its face that from the statement of the witness in his last answer that he has been in charge since the 30th of August, 1918, and that being true, anything that was in his custody at that time, or his custody of papers since the said 30th of August, 1918, is long subsequent to the deportation or kidnapping of the miners from Bisbee, July 12, 1917, and can have no bearing on any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases herein.

A They have been under my charge.

Mr. Walker asks that the answer be stricken on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; in nowise tends to prove or disprove any facts raised by these pleadings.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer and moves it be stricken on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And, further, because it throws no light on, and has no bearing on any issue involved in either the said criminal or civil cases.

MR. NEILL: Q Give us some idea, Mr. Hughes, of how careful you have guarded these exhibits, taken care of them?

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; clearly not within the issues raised by these pleadings I these cases; is indefinite, uncertain, not specific as to time, place, quantity, or quality, no material having been identified.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; and because no specific paper has been referred to in the question. The question is not sufficiently specific; it is too indefinite; it is uncertain. It is not the best evidence, and has no bearing on any issue involved in either the civil or criminal cases.

A The exhibits are all kept in the office in files, and I am the only one that handles those exhibits, and when I am not in the office, the door is locked so no body can get in there; they are under lock and key.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer and moves it be stricken on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and has nothing whatever to do with any issue involved in either the civil or criminal cases; that it is too indefinite, vague and uncertain; that it is not the best evidence.

Mr. Walker objects to the answer and asks it be stricken on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, indefinite, uncertain, not specific; and odes not tend to prove or disprove any fact raised by the pleadings in these cases.

MR. NEILL: Q Where is your office, Mr. Hughes, where these papers are kept?

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; and does not tend to prove or disprove any question of fact raised by the pleadings in these cases.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and has no bearing on any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which the deposition is taken.

A Room 858 Federal Building.

Mr. Walker asks that the answer be stricken on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and has no reference to any matter or thing touched upon in these cases.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer and moves it be stricken on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and has no bearing on any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition in taken.

MR. NEILL: Q Will you attach the records, files, books, papers, pamphlets and materials inquired about in the second interrogatory, to your deposition now being given, and permit them, with the deposition, to be taken to the Superior Court of Cochise County, Arizona?

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; not within the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases; and clearly is incompetent for the reason that the witness’ authority to either refuse them to be taken or to permit them to be taken, has not been shown.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and because it has no bearing whatever on any issue involved in either the civil or criminal cases in which the deposition it taken. And because if the witness agrees to allow the documents referred to to be taken to the Superior Court of Cochise County, they would not be legal evidence, and would have no bearing on any issue involved in the case; if he refuses on his own ipse dixit to let them go, it is not proper accounting for the non-production of the documents referred to in the case; and the whole question is an effort on the part of the defendants’ counsel to bring into the criminal cases, as well as the civil cases, in which the deposition is taken, an issue which is illegal, and which cannot be introduced as a defense in either the said criminal or civil cases.

A The original exhibits at the present time are under the jurisdiction of the Clerk of the United States Circuit Court of appeals, and therefore cannot be removed from the files.

Mr. Walker asks that the answer be stricken on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; does not tend to prove or disprove any issue raised by the pleadings in these cases; states a conclusion of the witness as to its not possible to take the records from the Clerk’s office of the Circuit Court of Appeals; and for the further reason that neither in the question or answer has the authority of deputy Clerk Hughes of the authority of any Clerk of the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Circuit, spoken of in the evidence, been shown or disproved to either permit or to refuse to allow the said records to be taken from their jurisdiction.

Mr. R. N. French moves that the answer be stricken on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; and because there was evidence here that there were tons of that stuff filed away in the archives of the District Court, and they might possibly spare Cochise County a small portion of the immense amount that they had; but , be that as it may, it would be incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial if it were taken there, it would throw no light on, and be foreign to any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases.

[Please click on the Letters page to view the list of the following exhibits that have been digitized.]

MR. NEILL: Q Mr. Hughes, I call your attention to three photostatic pages, the first of which is headed "Exhibit, Number, and title’ and the items upon which are as follows, beginning at the beginning: "Exhibit Number, and Title,"

"401", Letter A. S. Embree to Grover H. Perry, June 26, 1917,(1118-288-289)

401, Letter to Grover Perry from Press Committee 7/4/17 (108-292)

401, Letter to Grover H. Perry form J. MacDonald, Press Committee, 7/6/17 (118-294)

401, Letter to Grover H. Perry from Press Committee, 7/6/17 (118-292)

400, Carbon copy letter to Executive Committee from G. H. P. July 10, 1917 (118-121A)

402, Letter to Grover H. Perry from T. R. Wilson, July 9, 1917 (118-382)

402, Circular letters June 1st, 1917 (118-466A)

410, Letter to Grover H. Perry from Jos. Oates, July 6, 1917 (115-15)

407, Letter to Perry from E. J. McCoshen, June 9, 1917 (107-13)

407, Letter to Perry from E. J. McCoshen, August 6, 1917, (107-12)

407, Letter to Perry from E. J. M, July 1, 1917, (107-10)

407, Letter to Perry from E. J. McCoshen, April 1, 1917, (107-7)

404, Letter William D. Haywood to Grover H. Perry, March 28, 1917, (66-118-55)

411, Letter Rodger S. Culver to Grover H. Perry, April 15, 1917 (29-20)

411. Letter Rodger S. Culver to Grover H. Perry, April 28, 1917 (29-25)

409, Letter to Charles H. MacKinnon, From G. H. P., June 5, 1917 (108-29)

663, Letter Richard Brazier to William D. Haywood and reply, February 4-9-1917 (15 132-133)

741, Letter to William D. Haywood from Jack Shean and reply, August 28-30-1917 (66 74-70-71)

741, Slip, written copy of quotations "Join the Army or Navy" Etc., (66-25)

741, Carbon copy of letter to Sec’y. Workers Defense League from Haywood, and reply, July 9, 1917 (66-121)

741, Carbon copy of letter to Hugh P. Gallagher from Haywood, July 13, 1915 (66-49)

633, 7 telegrams, 12493, 12494, 12496, 12496, 12500, 12504, 12507.

672, Letter to Haywood from J. M. Slovick (no date) and reply February 9, 1917 (66 150-1)

344, Carbon letter to Forest Edwards from W. B. H. January 13, 1916 (66-39-3)

344, Letter Forest Edwards to W. D. H. January 9, 1916 (66-39-2)

344, Carbon letter to Ben H. Williams from W. D. H. January 3, 1916 (66-39-4)

400, Letter to Harrison George from Grover H. Perry, May 21, 1917 (118-172)

404, Letter to William D. Haywood from Grover H. Perry, April 20, 1917 (66-118-71)

404, Telegram to William D. Haywood from Grover H. Perry , June 25, 1917, (118-116)

404, Letter to William D. Hawyood from Grover H. Perry, April 16, 1917, (66-118-65)

805, Carbon letter to Arthur LeSuer from W. D. H. June 13, 1917.

403, Letter to William D. Haywood from Grover H. Perry, February 2, 1917 (66-118-28)

807, Letter to William D. Haywood, signed Solidarity Strike, July 25, 1917.

436, Letter to William D. Haywood from A. C. Christ, and reply, April 24028-1916. (31 35-35A)

808, Letter to Haywood from Workers Socialist, and reply, August 12-13-1917.

331, Letter to Haywood from Margret Rey and reply, July 16-17-1917. (129-179-180)

805, Carbon letter to Joe Gordon from W. D. H. April 13, 1917 (57-3) and reply 4/11/17.

371, Letter to W. D. Haywood from P. McEvoy, 6/3/17, (106-62)

371, Letter to W. D. Haywood from P. McEvoy, 8/30/17, (106-90) and reply 9/4/17.

385, Letter to William D. Haywood form William Weyh, August 1, 1917, (164-40)

385, Membership card of Philip Schmidt (164-40A)

370, Letter to William D. Haywood from Dan Buckley, and reply, July 3-7-1917. (16-21)

287, Statement of General Executive Board on War.

205, Minutes, Meeting General Executive Board, June 29 to July 6, 1917.

653, Minute Book of Local Union 222, Spokane, Washington. Minute Book Bisbee Miners Local Union Number 106.

Page 2, Exhibit, Number and title:

673, Letter Pancener to Haywood, and reply, January 10, 1917, February 14, 1917 (12 171)

440, Letter Miller to Haywood, and reply, (102-19), April 8-12-1917.

741, Letter Litter to Haywood, July 27, 1917 (192-74)

741, Statement of Work of Frank Little, April 14, 1917 (66-81B)

436, Letter of A. C. Christ to Haywood, April 28 (119B-31-36)

443, Letter Haywood to Don Sheridan March 21, 1917 (66-148-10) and reply 3/26/17

356, Letter to J. D. Gould from Charles R. Jacobs July 5, 1917 (75-25)

566, Letter to Haywood from J. Cully, and reply, April 25, 1917

956, Carbon copy of letter Haywood to James Cully, August 31, 1917. Letter to Haywood from J. Cully, August 29, 1917 (105-91-105-92). Letter to Haywood from J. Cully July 7 (105-84).

397, Membership card of Grover H. Perry (118-1)

391, Credentials of Grover H. Perry (118-3A)

741. Letter Leon Shuff to Haywood and reply, 5/29/17, 6/1/17 (120-121A)

741, Letter Eino Kintunen to Haywood and reply, May 29, 1917, June 1, 1917 (66-79-80)

619, Letter Mackinnon to Hary Lloyd and Haywood, June 5, 1917 (A R 76-8)

464, Chemical Prescriptions for Stink-bomb, etc. (131-140), not in evidence.

741, Letter to Haywood from Little, April 16, 1917, (66-104)

484, Letter to Rowan, from Albert Jahn, May 29, 1917, and reply, May 31, 1917 (131-30 31)

400, Letter Grover H. Perry to John Sheridan, April 11, 1917 (118-148), and reply, April 17, 1917.

526, Letter Thomas Whitehead to George Millare, April 27th, 1915.

526, Letter Thomas Whitehead to S. H. Dixon, August 12, 1914.

526, Letter Thomas Whitehead to Richard Smith, August 7th, 1914.

793, Circular "Do you want a contract?"

581, Letter Strike Committee to William D. Haywood, August 2nd, 1917.

627, Letter William D. Haywood to J. A. McDonald, February 6, 1917 (66-109-14)

484, Letter James Long and reply from William Hardy, May 21-23-1917 (131-7-8)

484, Letter to James Long and reply from Joseph J. Ratti, 5/22/17, May 24, 1917 (131 15-16)

568, Letter to William D. Haywood from J. Cully, June 11, 1917.

567, Carbon copy Haywood to J. Cully, July 9, 1917.

420, Minutes Meeting June 23rd, 1917.

462, Chemical Prescriptions " A Few Hints to Saboturs."

741, Telegram F. H. Little to William D. Haywood, (152-66)

798, Telegram Defense Committee to William D. Haywood, June 17, 1917

406, Telegram William D. Haywood to W. H. Lewis, July 26, 1917 (88-12)

801, Telegram to Editor "Solidarity" from J. Cully, June 6, 1917

516, Circular entitled "Workers in the Iron Industry" (933)

416, Minutes, Metal Mine Workers, (7167, 7159, 7158, 7161, 7162, 7171)

422, Minutes, Lumber Workers Convention, Spokane, March 4 to 6, 1917 (6 sheets)

401, Letter to Grover H. Perry from J. McDonald, July 23, 1917 (118-298)

402, Carbon copy letter Haywood to Jack F. Norman, August 24, 1917, (118-376)

402, Letter of Jack Norman to B. V. O’Hair, 8/18/17. (118-378). Letter of Jack Norman to George Maddox 8/17/17 (118-377).

402, Letter of Jack Norman to Grover H. Perry, 7/23/17 (118-375)

402, Letter of Jack Norman to Grover Perry, 7/20/17, (108-373)

401, Letter McDonald to Grover H. Perry (No date) (118-302)

401, Lettr to J. MacDonald of Grover H. Perry 7/2/17. (118-291)

401, Letter J. A. MacDonald to Grover H. Perry June 27, 1917, (118-332)

401, Letter A. S. Embree, to Grover H. Perry, July 26, 1917, (118-30-301)

Third Page, Exhibits, Number and Title:

349, Part of Letter signed by C. L. Lambert (92-77)

349, Letter to Thomas J. Dickson, form C. L. Lambert, 8/15/15, (92-31)

349, Letter to G. J. Bourg from C. L. Lambert, 7/29/15 (92-83A)

441, Letter to William D. Haywood from C. L. Lambert, 6/10/15, (S6-92-15)

441, Letter to C. L. Lambert from W. D. Haywood, July 1, 1915 (66-92-17)

217, Impression of Rubber stamps used in stamping material from the various States (41 impressions).

Who had these photostatic copies made, the items of which I have just read to you, and from what purpose?

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; not within the issues formed by the pleadings in these cases. It seeks to inject in the cases matters of defense touching the I. W. W., its propaganda, activities, and organization, which is entirely foreign to and in nowise connected with the deportation of the miners form Bisbee, July 12, 1917. And, if such connection is hereafter shown, still there is no connection in any way between such propaganda, and the cases in question, and these cases.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and has no bearing whatever on any issue in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is taken. And further because the photostatic copies referred to in the question are only photostatic copies of exhibits, number, and title of certain documents that have not been produced, and until they have been produced, the title of the said exhibits could be no evidence in the case. Either in this case, or in the case in which the papers, the list of which is set forth in the said photostatic exhibit, in the said case, or any other case, as legitimate evidence. That they have not been properly proven; that they are not the best evidence; they are not specific; they are not certain. The contents of the various letters and other matters designated to named in the said photostatic exhibit is not shown, and if it were shown, that it were not pertinent to any issue involved in this case, however pertinent they may have been to the issue involved in the case against William D. Haywood and others, they are not pertinent to any issue involved in either the civil or criminal cases in which this deposition is taken, and which are pending in the Superior Court or Cochise County, Arizona. They seek to bring into these cases the question of the existence of and the activities of, and propaganda of, the I. W. W. organization, which is no defense to the criminal cases or the civil cases growing out of the kidnapping and the deportation of the miners at Bisbee, July 12, 1917.

A I had the photostatic copies made from the original exhibits, said photostatic copies to be used in a case in Arizona.

Mr. Walker objects to the answer and asks that it be stricken on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; does not tend to prove any issue raised by the pleadings in these cases. It is ambiguous, not specific, uncertain, indefinite as to time, places and things. Seeks to introduce photostatic copies which are secondary evidence of originals, and for which no proper foundation has been laid; no showing being made as to where the originals are, or why they are not produced at this hearing. The witness not having himself taken the photographs or seen them taken, or no evidence being given showing that he has compared the photographs with the originals, we cannot determine as to their accuracy. And for the further reason that it seeks to inject into these cases the question of I. W. W.ism, its activities, its propaganda, its organization, all of which things are entirely foreign to, and in no way tend to prove or disprove any issue raised in these cases, out of the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer and moves to strike the same, in both the criminal and civil cases, because it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; because he has had no opportunity to compare the copies mentioned in the question and answer, with the originals, and to see whether they are true copies. The originals have not been produced, their absence has not been properly accounted for. The question is too vague, indefinite, uncertain, and not sufficiently specific. And while the matter referred to in the questions and answers, that is, the documents, letters and other things mentioned in the exhibits, may have been read in evidence on the trial of W. D. Haywood, these defendants are not charged in the criminal cases with a crime of the same nature with that with which Haywood was charged. They are wholly separate and distinct offense against and distinct laws, and what would be relevant in one, or material in one, would not be relevant, and material in the other. Nothing that is inquired of in the question would have any bearing whatever on any issue involved in either the civil or criminal cases pending I the Superior Court of Cochise County, State of Arizona. And because it seeks to introduce as an element of defense into the criminal cases in which the deposition is taken, and the civil cases growing out of them, an element of defense which is no legal defense at all, to-wit, the organization, aims propaganda, and activities of the Industrial Workers of the World, and any reference to said organization, it activities, any propaganda of the said organization, or any evidence used in the trial of any of the members of the organization, is objected to in these cases as wholly irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent, and as not bearing in any way upon any issue involved in either the said civil or criminal cases in which this deposition is taken.

MR. NEILL: Q Please hand the three sheets, beginning "Exhibit, Number, and Title," about which you have just been testifying, to the Notary with a request that he mark same Exhibit 29, as a part of your deposition.

(Said documents was marked Exhibit 29 and is attached to this deposition and made a part hereof.)

Mr. Walker objects to the introduction of the exhibit on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; is not within the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases. That they are photostatic copies of headings of original exhibits in the Haywood case. They were not taken by the witness, and their accuracy has not yet been shown; they are secondary evidence of the headings of the original exhibits, the reason for the non-production of which has not been given, and a proper foundation has not been laid for the introduction of these photostatic copies as secondary evidence. That they are indefinite and uncertain. That while the original exhibits may have been admissible as evidence in the W. D. Haywood trial, they are in nowise connected with these cases, because there is no attempt being made here to convict the plaintiffs of any criminal offense as in the case of W. D. Haywood, where these exhibits were introduced; and even if it may hereafter be shown that the plaintiffs of any criminal offense as in the case of W. D. Haywood, where these exhibits were introduced; and even if it may hereafter be shown that the plaintiffs were not acting within the law, the commission of one crime does not excuse another. And these matter are therefore, under any construction, no defense to any action brought by any one of the miners deported from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the introduction of photostatic "Exhibit, Number, and Title," upon the ground that the same is illegal, incompetent, and irrelevant. On the further ground that whatever may have been the status of the original documents referred to in said photostatic exhibits in the Haywood cases, that the cases in which these depositions are being taken are the cases of the State or Arizona against the defendants on an Arizona statute against kidnapping. That the case of Mr. Haywood is wholly irrelevant and immaterial, and nay evidence offered in said case is wholly incompetent to prove or disprove an issue involve din the said criminal cases or the civil cases growing out of the same transaction. And because the evidence, as referred to, has not been sufficiently proven; foundation for it has not been sufficiently laid; it is not specific; it is not sufficiently definite, and sufficiently certain. And because it seeks to introduce the I. W. W. issue into these cases, when, as a matter of fact, they have no connection with, and throws no light on, and have no bearing upon any issue involved in the said criminal cases in which the deposition is being taken, or in the civil cases growing out of the same transaction.

MR. NEILL: I offered in evidence a certified copy of an Order of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, dated Friday, October 17, 1919, the certificate being dated November 13th, 1919. And I ask the Notary to mark if Exhibit 30.

(Said document was marked Exhibit 30, and is attached to this deposition and made a part hereof.)

Mr. R. N. French objects to the introduction of said Order, on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And on the further ground that any order made by the said Court authorizing the copy to be made and delivered to Robert T. Neill, who is an attorney for the defendants in these cases, was without the knowledge of the prosecuting attorney of Cochise County, Arizona that the same would be asked for, or same would be made. That the fact that it is an order or court adds no weight to its legitimacy as evidence in these cases; it is no an order made in the cases. It is not responsive to any issue that is raised in the pleadings in either the civil or criminal cases in which this deposition is being taken. It was made by a court in a case wholly different from the one in which this deposition is being taken, and in no way is related to it for any violation of a separate distinct law, and it has no bearing, and can have no legal bearing on any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases herein; and any act done in consequence of that order is subject to the same objection

Mr. Walker objects to the introduction of what purports to be a certifies copy of an order of the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit, on the ground that it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; is clearly outside of the issues formed by the pleadings in theses cases; that it appears to be introduced for the purpose of laying the foundation for the introduction of photographic exhibits of the original exhibits in the W. D. Haywood et al, cases, without having first shown the reason for the non-production of the originals. And for the further reason that it seeks to inject into these cases as matters of defense, I. W. W. propaganda, activities, and actions, which cannot in the remotest degree have anything to do with, or tend to prove any of the issues raised in these cases, arising out of the deportation of miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917. But is an effort, apparently, to use the evidence which convicted the said William D. Haywood, for the purpose of influencing or molding public opinion to such an extent as to aid these defendants, to the detriment and against the interest of these plaintiffs. Without at this time questioning the authenticity of the form of the purported court orders sought to be introduced.

MR. NEILL: Q I hand you herewith a certified copy of an order of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, readings follows: "Friday, October 17th, 1919.

Court met pursuant to adjournment and was opened by proclamation of crier.

Present: Honorable Francis E. Baker,

Circuit Judge, Presiding.

Honorable Samuel Alschuler,

Circuit Judge.

Honorable Evan A. Evans,

Circuit Judge.

Honorable George T. Page,

Circuit Judge.

Edward M. Holloway, Clerk

John J. Bradley, Marshal.

Before: Honorable Francis E. Baker, Circuit Judge,

Honorable Evan A. Evans, Circuit Judge,

Honorable George T. Page, Circuit Judge.

WILLIAM D. HAYWOOD, et al ) Error to the District

) Court of the United

-vs- ) No. 2721 States for the

) Northern District of

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Illinois, Eastern Division.

Upon application and good cause shown, it is ordered that the Clerk of this Court be directed to have photostatic copies made of certain exhibits on file in case Number 2721, Haywood, et al, vs. The United States of America, and deliver them to Robert T. Neill, a member of this Bar, upon his paying all expenses connected therewith, to the Clerk of this Court."

To Which is attached the following:

"United States Circuit Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit.

I, Edward M. Holloway, Clerk of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, do hereby certify that the foregoing typewritten page, Numbered form blank to blank, inclusive, contain a true copy of the order entered herein on the 17th day of October, 1919, in the case of William D. Haywood, et al, vs. The United States of America, No. 2721, October term, 1919, as the same remains upon the files and records of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto subscribe my name and affix the seal of the said United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, at the City of Chicago, this 13th day of November, A. D. 1919.

Edward M. Holloway, Clerk of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit."

And bearing a seal, Seventh Circuit, United States Circuit Court of Appeals.

And ask you whether or not you had the photostatic copies to which your attention has been directed, made in obedience to that order?

Whereupon the further taking of these depositions was adjourned and continued until Saturday, November 15, 1919, at nine o’clock A. M.

Saturday, November 15, 1919.

9 o’clock a.m.

Taking of depositions resumed, pursuant to adjournment.

Present:

Mr. Robert T. Neill,

Mr. W. H. Burges,

Mr. Frank E. Curley,

Mr. Guy M. Walker,

Mr. Robert N. French,

Representing their respective parties.

JOHN W. HUGHES,

witness of lawful age, having been produced on behalf of the defendants, and having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand, and deposes as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Cont’d)

by Mr. Neill

MR. NEILL: Read the question asked just before adjournment yesterday.

(Question read)

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question asked the witness, on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; and on the further ground that it has no bearing on any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is taken. It refers to an order made by the court in the case against William D. Haywood and other, and the Haywood trial is in no way connected with the criminal charges against the defendants in these cases. It was for a violation of the espionage and other laws of the United States; and these trials are for a violation of the kidnapping laws of the State of Arizona; wholly disconnected from the trial of William D. Haywood for a violation of the United States laws; and can have no bearing whatever on any issue involved in either the civil or criminal cases growing out of the kidnapping and the deporting of the miners from Bisbee, July 12, 1917. And because the trial of Haywood was a regular legal proceeding and made in accordance with the laws of the land, and on the ground that a man accused of a crime was entitled to a trial of the accusation before a jury of his peers, and it was not an attempt of a mob to take the law into their own hands and execute it; and it was not the attempt of a mob to substitute what they believed to be right o wrong for the law, and to proceed in violation of law. And the trial of the said Haywood and others can have no bearing whatever on the criminal cases on which this deposition is taken except to show that even the United States does not proceed by mob law but proceeds in regular order for violation of its laws, by indictment and trials, and convictions or acquittals as the case may be. The question is further objected to because the proceeding against William D. Haywood was long subsequent to the commission of the crimes with which the defendants are charged in the criminal cases in which this deposition is taken and could have no bearing whatever on the acts of the defendants in deporting the miners from Bisbee, July 12, 1917. The question is further objected to on the ground that no proper foundation has been laid for the evidence. It is not the best evidence; it is indefinite, uncertain, and not sufficiently specific. The order has not been properly identified or authenticated. It is no part of the res gestae, and can have no bearing on the case other than to attempt to mold public opinion in favor of the defendants in the criminal cases in which this deposition is taken, and perhaps to bias and prejudice any jury which may be called to try the said defendants or either of them.

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; not within the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases; and refers to matters and things touching the I. W. W., the trial of the said Haywood, which matters and things are entirely foreign to and not connected with any issue raised in these cases, or any issue of fact to be triad in the trial of these cases. It is indefinite, uncertain, not specific as to time, place, or persons, quality or quantity; and is leading.

A I had the photostatic copies made from the originals, in obedience to that court order.

Mr. Walker asks the answer be stricken on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; does not tend to prove or disprove any issue raised by the pleadings in these cases; and as touching matters clearly without the knowledge of the witness.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer of the witness and moves to strike the same on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And because the evidence referred to by the witness yesterday, contained in the photostatic copies and the items which were read into the question asked the witness, does not purport to be all the evidence introduced in the trial of William D. Haywood and others; and if conviction was had in the case of Haywood there is nothing to show that the evidence, documents, letters and circulars referred to in the witness’ statement on yesterday was the evidence upon which the said Haywood was convicted. And whether this be correct or not, the evidence upon which Mr. Haywood was convicted cannot be considered for any purpose on the rail of the defendants, either in the criminal cases in which this deposition is taken or the civil cases growing out of the same transaction, for the reason that they are wholly disconnected. The trail of Mr. Haywood was long subsequent to the kidnapping and the deportation of the miners from Bisbee on July 12, 1917, had no connection with it, and can have no justification for mob law or the rule or reign of the mob at Bisbee on said last mentioned date; and is wholly disconnected with any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is taken. That it is not specific as to time, or place, or contents of the order, or of anything referred to in the order; that it is uncertain and not the best evidence; and has no bearing whatever on any issue either in the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is taken.

MR. NEILL: Q Who made the photostatic copies, and state whether or not they were actually in your presence; and, if so, whether they were correctly and truly made.

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; does not in any way tend to prove or disprove any issue raised by the pleadings in these cases; and seeks to introduce into these cases, as matters of defense, the evidence used in the trial and conviction of W. D. Haywood, which trial and conviction is entirely foreign to and not connected with the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, July 12, 1917, out of which these suits arose.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant; and because it is wholly disconnected with any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases herein. Because it seeks to introduce evidence which was offered in the case of William D. Haywood and others in the United States Court for a violation of a United States statute, and which has no connection in any way with the kidnapping and the deportation of the miners form Bisbee, July 12, 1917; and cannot be legally urged as an excuse for the acts of a mob which did not proceed under any law, State or Federal, and was nothing but a mob, with no legal excuse whatever for the acts complained of in the information sin the said cases filed against the defendants herein. That the matters and things inquired of occurred long subsequent to the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, July 12, 1917, and can nave no bearing whatever in any way or for any purpose on any issue involve din either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is taken.

A The photostat copies were made by Mr. Wilder, of the Commercial Cameragraph Company, 19 South La Salle Street, Chicago, in my presence; and are exact copies of the original exhibits.

Mr. Walker objects to the answer and asks it be stricken as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; not within the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases. It seeks to introduce evidence which is not of the highest character possible under the circumstances, without first designating where the originals are, why they are not here as evidence, and does not give any reason for their non-production. It further seeks to inject into these cases matters and things touching the trial of the said W. D. Haywood, which is entirely foreign to any issue raised in these cases. Mr. Walker further objects on the ground that the answer states conclusions of the witness, and the photographs are not properly identified, because the witness did not himself take them.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer of the witness and moves to strike the same, on the grounds that it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial. That is has no bearing whatever on any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases. That the trial of William D. Hawyood cannot be urged as a defense for a mob, or the acts of a mob in proceeding without law and without any legal process, without any order or any court, and without any reason but the frenzied inflamed sentiment of a mob. And the trail of Haywood is in no wise connected, and can have no bearing whatever on the trial of the defendants in either the criminal or the civil cases herein, in which this deposition is being taken. And because it is not the best evidence, no proper foundation has been laid for the introduction of such evidence; and it is not certain, it is too indefinite, uncertain, and not sufficiently specific.

MR. NEILL: Q State whether or not said exhibits about which you have been testifying, are part of the records, files, papers, and materials so seized at the headquarters of the Industrial Workers of the World at 1001 West Madison Street, Chicago, under the search warrant of September 5, 1917, and seized at other points aside from Chicago, and subsequently removed to the Federal Building in the City of Chicago, as stated in the deposition of Tom Sheehan, Mr. Furbershaw, Russell H. Lutz, and Philip H. Barry, and subsequently introduced in evidence in the case of United States vs. W. D. Haywood, et al, number 6125.

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial; not within the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases. It is leading, indefinite, uncertain, not specific as to time, place, quantity, quality or persons; and is evidently an effort to introduce into these trials, as matters of defense, issues and things touching the W. D. Haywood trial, which is entirely foreign in all respects to the causes of action which arise out of the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; and because it seeks to justify or excuse the violation of the kidnapping statutes of the State of Arizona, and the kidnapping and the deporting of the miners from the Warren District July 12, 1917, by attempting to show certain legal proceeding, under legal processes and according to legal rules and legal methods by which William D. Haywood was tried for violation of the espionage act or other laws of the United States. And it is urged that the evidence filed against Haywood and others on the trial has nothing whatever to do with any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is being taken; and cannot be urged as an excuse or defense for the kidnapping of the miners and their deportation from the Warren District July 12, 1917. And because the proper foundation has not been laid for the evidence, and because it is not specific, too indefinite and uncertain; it is not the best evidence, and does not pretend to be the whole of the evidence used by the prosecution on the trial of W. D. Haywood and others in the case in which the evidence and various items of evidence were introduced as evidence.

Mr. Walker objects further on the ground that the question was indefinite, uncertain, and not specific as to time, place quantity or quality.

A The said exhibits are photostat copies of the originals that were seized at 1001 West Madison Street and various other states, and introduced in evidence in the case of United States vs. W. D. Haywood, et al, number 6125.

Mr. Walker objects to the answer, and asks it be stricken on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, not within the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases; states conclusions of the witness; is not specific, uncertain, and seeks to inject in these cases the questions of I.W.W.’ism and the trial of W. D. Haywood, which questions are entirely foreign to the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer of the witness, and moves to strike the same on the grounds that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; that the matters inquired of and about which the witness has testified have no connection with and no bearing upon any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases herein. That the trial of William D. Haywood occurred long subsequent to the kidnapping and the deportation of the miners from the Warren District, July 12, 1917. That the question heretofore asked the witness, leading up to the last answer of the witness, which is now objected to, do not pretend that the circulars, letters, and other documents, the list of which is set out in the photostatic copies heretofore filed by the witness, is all the evidence that was offered on the trial of the said W. D. Haywood and others in the United States Court. And if it were all the evidence, that it furnishes no excuse or justification for the violation of a plain statute of the State of Arizona against kidnapping, with which the defendants are charged in the criminal cases in which this deposition is taken, and on which the civil cases are predicated. That the question is too indefinite, uncertain, and not sufficiently specific; that no proper foundation has been laid for it; and that it seeks to introduce I.W.W.’ism as a defense to the acts complained of in the criminal and civil cases, in which this deposition is taken.

MR. NEILL: Q I now hand you what purports to be photostatic copies of such exhibits, and ask you to state whether or not you have compared such photostatic copies now handed you with said exhibits, with a view of determining the accuracy of such photostatic copies.

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; and does not tend to prove or disprove any issue raised by the pleadings in these cases. And seeks to inject in these cases the matters and things used in evidence on the trial of W. D. Haywood; and seeks to inject the question of I.W.W.’ism, its propaganda, actions and activity, which matters and things are entirely foreign and irrelevant to the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question on the grounds it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial; and because the items referred to do not pretend to be all the evidence offered in the case of United States vs. William D. Haywood and others; and because any evidence offered in said cases is wholly incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial to any issue raised or that can be raised in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is taken. And because it has no bearing on any issue involved in either the said criminal or civil cases. And because it seeks to inject the question of the I.W.W. organization, its activities and propaganda, as a defense or justification in the criminal cases as well as the civil cases in which this deposition is taken, which is wholly illegal and has no bearing whatever on any issue involved in said criminal or civil cases. And counsel is also informed that the said Haywood cases have not been finally disposed of and are now pending in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals; and the questions involved on the trial of the said case, the legality of the evidence, and so forth, have never been finally passed upon by any court of competent jurisdiction.

A The photostatic copies are exact duplicates of the Government original exhibits, compared by me and found to be correct.

Mr. Walker objects to the answer and asks it be stricken, on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; and does not tend to prove or disprove any of the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer and moves that it be stricken on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial; has no bearing whatever on any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which the deposition is being taken. Because it has not been properly identified or authenticated; and because it is not the best evidence; and because it seeks to introduce certain documents, letters and other items of evidence which were used in the case against Haywood on his trial, long subsequent to the crime of kidnapping and deportation of the miners from Bisbee, July 12, 1917. Has no connection with any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is being taken; cannot be urged as a defense by the defendants, or as a justification of the crime with which they are charged in the said criminal and civil cases; and is absolutely foreign to any issue involved in either the said criminal or civil cases.

MR. NEILL: Q I now ask you, Mr. Hughes, to hand the photostatic copies, which you have just identified as correct likenesses of the exhibits on file in the case of United States vs. Haywood, to the Notary Public, Mr. Maurice F. Dunne, and ask him to mark them Exhibits 31 to 124, inclusive, and make them a part of your deposition in this case.

(Said documents were marked Exhibits 31 to 124, inclusive, and are attached to this deposition and made a part hereof.)

Mr. Walker objects to the introduction of the exhibits on the ground that they are irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; as clearly not within the issues formed by the pleadings in these cases. They are photostatic copies of originals which were used in the trial of the Haywood case; that no showing has been made as to where the originals are and why they are not here; no effort has been made, apparently, to produce them, and that photostatic copies are not the best evidence under the circumstances. That the identification of the photostatic copies has been indefinite, uncertain, and not specific; and that each and every one of the exhibits so offered seek to inject in these cases, as matters of defense, the Haywood trial and I.W.W. propaganda, activities, organization and so forth, which trial and organization, propaganda, and so forth, is entirely foreign to any of the issues raised in these cases, which grow out of the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917. That the only purpose this evidence can serve is to influence and mold public opinion and prejudice possible jurors, and create sentiment in favor of the defendants in these cases.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; and because the various items of evidence that is shown by the photostatic copies and which are asked to be offered as part of the deposition of the witness, does not pretend to be all the evidence that was offered in the Haywood case and other cases heard therewith. In other words, that there is nothing to show, and there has been no evidence taken or testimony taken to show that they were all the evidence that was introduced in said case upon which the prosecution relied in the case of William D. Haywood and others. They have not been properly identified, the foundation for the introduction of the evidence has not been properly laid; they are too indefinite, uncertain, and not specific; and were introduced in a case which was tried long subsequent to the crimes with which the defendants are charged in the criminal cases herein, and upon which the civil cases are based. That whatever may have been the ruling of the court in the Haywood and other cases, the case has not been finally disposed of but is now pending in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals. The rulings of the trial court in said cases is still a question before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in said cases, and if the rulings of the court admitting the originals of the said photostatic copies were sustained, that they would still have no bearing on any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is taken. The only purpose could be to introduce the organization of the Industrial Worker of the World, its propaganda and its activities, and could be no legal excuse or defense in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is taken; and could only have the effect of biasing and prejudicing the jury who may be called on to try the defendants or either of them; and mold public opinion in their favor; and they are entirely without any connection whatever with any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases.

MR. NEILL: Q Mr. Hughes, I hand you "Preamble and Constitution"; "The I.W.W., Its History, Structure and Methods"; "Proletarian and Petit Bourgeois"; "The Advancing Proletariat"; "I.W.W. Songs to Fan the Flames of Discontent, Joe Hill Memorial Edition"; "The General Strike"; "Patriotism and the Worker"; "Proceedings of the 10th Convention"; "The Onward Sweep of the Machine Process"; "The I.W.W., The Greatest Thing on Earth"; and also I hand you "The Deadly Parallel", a due book, and certain stickerettes, all of which have heretofore been introduced in evidence by the witnesses Frank J. Quinn and William A. Cahill; and I ask you to examine them and state whether or not the same are identical with like books, papers, pamphlets and documents on file and under your immediate custody in the case of the United States vs. William D. Haywood, now in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit as number 2721, William D. Haywood, et al, Plaintiffs in error, vs. United States of America, Defendants in error; and which came into your custody immediately upon your becoming the subordinate of Russell H. Lutz at Room 858 Federal Building, Chicago, Illinois.

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial; does not tend to prove or disprove any of the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases. That it is simply injected for the purpose of molding public opinion, and introducing I.W.W.’ism, its activities and propaganda in the West in these cases as defenses which are entirely foreign to the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; and because the question assumes in fact that all of the circulars enumerated were identified by the witnesses who have heretofore testified in these cases, when, as a matter of fact the I.W.W. Songs was not identified by either Mr. Cahill or the other witness who name is mentioned, and who are the publishers of the I.W.W. literature and whose testimony is given in this case. The question is further excepted to because there is nothing in any or either of the said pamphlets, letters or circulars which in any way bears upon, or affects, or is pertinent to any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is taken. And because they were introduced on the trial of William D. Haywood and others, and that that trial has not been finally disposed of; the rulings of the court in the admission of the evidence in said cases, and particularly in regard to the admissibility of each and every document asked to be introduced in this case, has not yet been finally passed on by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit; and that if passed on, and if their admissibility were sustained, which it has not been, it would not be relevant to any issue in these cases. The trial of Mr. Haywood was long subsequent to the commission of the crimes with which the defendants are charged in the criminal cases herein and upon which the civil cases are predicated; and was for violation of the espionage law and other laws of the United States; and is in no wise connected with the violation of the kidnapping statute of the State of Arizona; and cannot be urged as a legal defense or excuse for the violation of the said kidnapping statute of the State of Arizona. And that the same is not sufficiently specific, that it is not the best evidence, that the proper foundation has not been laid for the introduction of the said evidence; and it is wholly irrelevant, and disconnected with any issue involved in either the said criminal or civil cases. It is further objected to by Mr. R. N. French on the ground that introducing identical evidence is illegal and does not conform to the laws requiring that copies of the originals, when properly proven, may be introduced as evidence; and introducing identical circulars is objected to as uncertain, indefinite, not sufficiently specific; and no foundation has been laid for the introduction of any such identical documents.

Mr. Walker further objects on the ground that the copies sought to be introduced are secondary evidence, and no foundation has been laid for their introduction.

A The pamphlets handed me are exactly identical with the copies introduced by the Government against William D. Haywood, et al, and which I now have in my possession at Room 858, Federal Building; and which have been in my possession since I became custodian August 30, 1918.

Mr. Walker objects to the answer, and asks it be stricken on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; clearly not within his knowledge; and seeks to inject in these cases I.W.W.’ism on the trial of said Haywood, which matters and things are entirely irrelevant and not connected with the deportation of miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer of the witness, and moves it be stricken on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. That it seeks to introduce certain documentary evidence, consisting of circulars, letters and so forth, which it is claimed were identical with copies which were offered in evidence by the Government in the case against William D. Haywood and others, and for the introduction of which at this time no foundation has been properly laid; that they are not specific; they are uncertain; they are not the best evidence; they have not been properly identified or authenticated; and have no bearing whatever on any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is taken. That it is an effort to introduce I.W.W. propaganda and its activities as a defense of a justification for the criminal acts as well as the civil complained of in the criminal and civil cases in which this deposition is taken. And that whatever may have been the relevancy or the legality of the evidence on the trial of Mr. Haywood for violation of the espionage act and other laws of the United States, they have no bearing on any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is taken, and could only serve the purpose of molding public opinion in favor of the defendants and perhaps biasing and prejudicing the juries in their behalf on any trial of the defendants or either of them on the criminal charges in these cases made by the State of Arizona and the plaintiffs in the civil cases.

MR. NEILL: Q I now hand you, Mr. Hughes, the following: "Blank Application for Membership"; "Sabotage, Its History, Philosophy and Function, Walker C. Smith"; "Sabotage, by Emile Pouget, with Introduction by Arturo Giovannitti"; "Sabotage, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn"; "The New Unionism, by Andre Tridon"; "Industrial Unionism"; The I.W.W., by Vincent St. John"; "Industrial Unionism, The Road to Freedom, by Joseph J. Ettor"; "The Revolutionary I.W.W., by Grover H. Perry"; "Sabotage, Its History, Philosophy and Function, by Walker C. Smith", being the 1917 edition, and distinguished from the other "Sabotage" by the same author by the fact that the first one mentioned is in a red back or cover, whereas this has a brown cover with the emblem of a black cat on a money bag. In reference to these I ask you, Mr. Hughes, whether or not they are identical in every respect with the same books and pamphlets now in your custody as a Deputy Clerk of the Circuit Court of Appeals, and whether they are identical with such books and pamphlets that came into your possession immediately upon your employment as a special employee of the Department of Justice at Chicago, on November 26, 1917; and whether they are the same as identically similar ones that were introduced in evidence in the case of United States vs. William D. Haywood, et al. And, hand the same to the Notary Public with the request that he mark them as Exhibits 125 to 133, inclusive, as a part of your deposition.

(Said documents were marked "Exhibits 125 to 133," inclusive, and are attached to this deposition and made a part hereof.)

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; not within the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases. It is indefinite, uncertain, not specific as to time, place, quantity, quality or persons. That no proper foundation has been laid for the introduction of identical exhibits in any respect. That it merely seeks to inject in these cases the questions involved in the Haywood trial, the question of I.W.W.’ism, organization and propaganda, as matters of defense, which are entirely foreign to the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917, and merely being introduced for the purpose of swaying public opinion.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question and to the introduction of the circulars, pamphlets, and folders inquired about, and to each of them, because the evidence is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent; and because they have no bearing upon any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases. Further objecting, counsel says that it is not in accordance with the laws of evidence to introduce identical matter in any form whatsoever; that if there was any identical evidence introduced in the trial of William D. Haywood and the originals cannot be introduced, that copies of same should be introduced instead of identical matters, which may be copies or may not be copies. And that if they were admissible on the trial of Haywood is no evidence that they would be admissible in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is being taken. That as counsel understands it, Mr. Haywood was indicted for violation of the espionage law of the United States, or of other United States laws and rules; and that the defendants in these cases are not charged with the violation of any such laws or rules; and that the miners who were deported from the Warren District July 12, 1917, were not charged with the violation of any such laws or rules and were not proceeded against for such violation. That the whole matter is for the purpose of introducing as an element of defense into these criminal cases, as well as the civil cases connected therewith, the I.W.W. organization, its activities and propaganda, and for the purpose of molding public opinion and perhaps influencing and biasing the minds of any juries that may be called upon to try any or all of the defendants in the criminal and civil cases in which this deposition is being taken; and can serve no legitimate purpose, and cannot be any legal grounds or excuse for the kidnapping of the miners on the 12th of July, 1917, in the Warren District, in the State of Arizona, or for a violation of the kidnapping laws of the State of Arizona. That said items of pamphlets, circulars, folders and other evidence specified in the question has not been properly proven; it has not been shown who published them, for whom they were published, or in whose custody they were found by anyone having any authority in the case. And that no foundation whatever has been laid of the introduction of either of the said pamphlets, books, folders, and so forth, and that their introduction is wholly illegal and improper.

A The pamphlets just handed me are exact copies of those in my possession. And I hereby hand them to the Notary Public and ask him to mark them as exhibits.

Mr. Walker objects to the answer, and asks it be stricken on the ground that it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; clearly without the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases. That the evidence sought to be introduced, as well as the answer, is indefinite, uncertain, not specific as to time, place, quantity or quality, or persons. That it seeks to introduce identical copies of exhibits which were used on the trial of Haywood, without properly laying the foundation for the same. That it seeks to inject into these cases matters of defense – the Haywood trial and the question if I.W.W.’ism, their propaganda, actions, activities, and so forth – merely for the purpose of influencing public opinion and thereby assisting these defendants by the use of matters entirely irrelevant to the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer of the witness and moves to strike the same on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And on the further ground that it has not been properly shown that the exhibits offered by the witness in this answer has been or is identical with the copies offered on the trial of William D. Haywood and others; and it calls for a conclusion of the witness, and the witness simply states his own conclusion as to the identity of the said several items. That nothing in the question or in the answer of the witness or in the exhibits he files as a part of his deposition has in the remotest degree any connection with or any bearing upon any issue involved in either the civil or the criminal cases in which this deposition is taken. That possibly such evidence might have been admissible in the trial of William D. Haywood and others, and the matters are still in litigation; and furthermore, that the trial of W. D. Haywood,- and so far as that is concerned, the authorship of and the printing of the said several pamphlets, books, and leaflets, and so forth, may have been long subsequent to the deportation of the miners from the Warren District on July 12, 1917; and as a matter of fact, the trial of Mr. Haywood was long subsequent to the date of the kidnapping and deportation of said miners from the said Warren District. That the trial of William D. Haywood has nothing whatever to do with the trial of the defendants upon the charge of kidnapping, or of the civil cases growing out of the said kidnapping; and that it is only brought or sough to be brought in, not as a legal defense to the criminal cases for kidnapping, but for the purpose of molding public opinion in favor of the defendants and biasing and prejudicing any juries that may be called upon to try the same. And that the said documents have not been properly identified, are not specific, are too indefinite, vague, and uncertain; that no proper foundation has been laid for them; and they are otherwise objectionable.

MR. NEILL: Q Mr. Hughes, I hand you a number of stickerettes, and ask you to examine the same, and having examined the same state whether or not identical stickerettes are in your custody as Deputy Clerk of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals; and whether the same were introduced in evidence in the United States District Court at the trial of the United States District Court at the trial of the United States vs. William D. Haywood; and if you identify the same, hand them to the Notary Public with the request that he attach them to your deposition, marking them as Exhibits numbers 134 to 179, inclusive. And, in that question I include the request that you state whether they are part of the exhibits that came into your custody as a result of the search warrant served on the headquarters of the Industrial Workers of the World on September 5, 1917.

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial; wholly without the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases. It seeks to introduce identical copies of exhibits heretofore introduced in the Haywood case, without laying a proper foundation therefore. It is uncertain, indefinite, not specific as to time, place, quantity, quality, or persons; and is touching matters clearly not within the knowledge of the witness. Also, it makes an effort to introduce in these cases an element of defense which is entirely foreign to and not concerned with the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917. That these exhibits used in the trial of Haywood might have tended to prove his guilt of a crime under the statutes, but is not in any manner, and cannot be in any manner a defense to these suits, which suits arise out of the forcible deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And on the ground that the papers referred to in the question have not been properly identified or authenticated; that they do not pretend to be certified copies of originals filed in any case whatsoever. That they first seek to introduce them as copies filed in the case of Haywood and because of execution of a search warrant was issued, and in neither case are they competent on any ground whatever in the cases of the State of Arizona against the defendants in the criminal cases in which this deposition is taken or in the civil cases growing out of the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, July 12, 1917. And because no proper foundation has been laid for their introduction; they are too indefinite, not sufficiently specific; and are too uncertain. And the witness does not refresh his memory from the originals or from any list of the originals; and the number of pages which have been referred to by counsel for the defendants and which has been testified to by this witness are multitudinous and impossible for anyone to identify from memory alone without the aid of any memoranda. The introduction of the evidence and the answer of the witness is further objected to because whatever may have been the legality or the illegality of the evidence offered in the Haywood case, the Haywood case has not been finally disposed of, these matters and the ruling of the court in regard to them have not been finally passed upon; the cases are now pending in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. And that if they were legitimate evidence in the Haywood cases that is no reason why they would have any bearing whatever on the violation of a plain statute of the State of Arizona which forbids kidnapping, and under which said statute the defendants are proceeded against criminally, as well as civilly, in the cases in which this deposition is taken. That it seeks to introduce the I.W.W. organization, its activities and propaganda as a defense, which is wholly untenable and illegal and can only serve the purpose of molding public opinion in favor of the defendants and of perhaps biasing or prejudicing any jury called upon to try the defendants or either of them. And the said documents, and the whole of the deposition of the witness, and each and every part thereof is objected to and asked to be stricken because it is wholly disconnected with any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is taken.

A Said stickerettes are exactly duplicate copies of those in my possession. Said copies were used and offered as exhibits in the case of William D. Haywood, et al; and are part of the exhibits now in my custody, said stickerettes having been taken under a search warrant September 5, 1917. And I now tender them to the Notary and ask him to attach them to my deposition.

(Said documents were marked "Exhibits 134 to 179", inclusive, and are attached to this deposition and made a part hereof.)

Mr. Walker objects to the answer and to the introduction of the exhibits; and asks that the answer be stricken on the ground they are irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; not within the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases. That it merely seeks to inject in these cases the question of I.W.W.’ism, its propaganda, it organization and activities, as matters of defense, which are in no wise connected with the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917. That it introduces what purports to be identical copies or identically the same stickerettes as those that were Government exhibits in the trial of William D. Haywood et al, without laying the proper foundation for the introduction of them.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer of the witness and moves it be stricken on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial. And on the further grounds that the items of evidence sought to be introduced by the testimony of this witness have not been properly identified; no proper foundation has been laid for the introduction of the same; they have not been properly authenticated; they have no bearing whatever on any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is taken. They were introduced on the trial of William D. Haywood and others long subsequent to the commission of the crimes with which the defendants are charged in the cases in which this deposition is taken. That the trial of William D. Haywood has nothing to do with or any bearing upon any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases herein, and the only effect could be to mold public opinion in behalf of the defendants or to probably bias juries on the trial of the defendants in the criminal cases herein. And that they are wholly foreign to any issue involved in the criminal or in the civil cases; and cannot be urged in justification of or a defense to the crimes with which the defendants are charged in the criminal cases, and upon which the civil cases are predicated.

MR. NEILL: Q I hand you, Mr. Hughes, a photograph of a flag, having on it the legend, apparently drawn there, "Down with war". I ask you to state whether or not the original is in your custody as Deputy Clerk of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals; whether the original was introduced in evidence in the District Court of the United States, in the trial of the United States vs. William D. Haywood, and, if so, what its exhibit number was; also state its size and color; and, state, if you know, where it came from.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; that no foundation has been laid for the introduction of the evidence. That it is not specific; that it is not certain; that there is nothing on the face of the photograph that in any way affects any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is taken; that it is utterly foreign to anything so involved. And that there is no evidence as to how it came into his possession; he is asked that question. We don’t know whether it was an exhibit in the Haywood case, or not; but if it was, while it may have been pertinent to some issue that was involved in the Haywood or other cases it is not pertinent to any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is taken; and it is wholly disconnected in every way with either of the criminal or civil cases herein.

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; not within the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases. That the exhibit has not been properly identified; no proper foundation has been laid for its introduction. And that it merely seeks to inject the question of I.W.W.’ism as matters of defense into these cases, which matters are entirely foreign to any issue involved in the pleadings in these cases.

A The photograph is an exact reproduction of the original flag, which was used as a government exhibit in the case of United States vs. William D. Haywood et al; said flag was marked "Government Exhibit 451". The flag is 10 feet by 4; color, red; and written on the flag with white chalk are the words "Down with war". This flag came from Butte, Montana; was taken from a defendant out there by the name of John Korpi, who had this flag under his vest. It was taken from him by a police-officer in Butte, Montana, by the name of Patrick Hawe. This flag was taken on June 5, 1917.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer of the witness and moves it be stricken on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; on the ground that the witness does not state that he was present, that he saw the flag taken by an officer or anyone else, or that he ever saw the person from whom it was taken. That it is mere hearsay. The whole of his evidence is evidently hearsay evidence; and that in certain respects it is a conclusion of the witness. And that it is in no way connected with and has no bearing on any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases herein. And is only another evidence of the truthfulness of the old maxim that drowning men catch at straws. That it cannot be introduced as a legal defense for the kidnapping and deportation of the miners from the Warren District July 12, 1917; and it is no defense under the laws of the State of Arizona to a charge of kidnapping; and has nothing to do with any charge of kidnapping, either legally, morally, religiously, or socially, and is entirely irrelevant to any issue involved in either said criminal or civil cases.

Mr. Walker objects to the answer and asks it be stricken, on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; wholly without the issues formed by the pleadings in these cases. That the answer is hearsay, and is touching matters and things clearly not within the knowledge of the witness, who has not been an eye-witness to the transaction to which he testifies. That the proper foundation has not been laid for the introduction of the photograph. That the answer is indefinite, uncertain, not specific as to time, place, quantity, quality, or persons. And merely seeks to inject, for the purpose of swaying public opinion, I.W.W.’ism, its propaganda, activities, and so forth, into these cases, which matters are entirely irrelevant to any issue raised by the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917.

MR. NEILL: Q I ask you to hand this exhibit to the Notary Public with the request that he attach it to your deposition and mark it Exhibit number 180.

(Said document was marked Exhibit number 180, and is attached to this deposition and made a part thereof.)

Mr. R. N. French objects to the introduction of this photograph for the reason it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial; that its history has not been properly traced; its identity has not been properly accounted for; it has not been properly authenticated; no foundation has been laid for its introduction. We cannot tell from the evidence or testimony of this witness whether it was found on the person of an I.W.W. or whether it was found on the person of some religious crank, or what the object of the person who had it in his possession was in wearing it or having it. It may have been worn as kind of a scapular by some fanatic, so far as the testimony in this case is concerned. And it certainly has no bearing whatever upon any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is taken; and could only be offered for the purpose not of serving any legal ends in the case but molding public opinion in favor of the defendants in this case, and perhaps biasing or prejudicing any jury that may be called upon to try the defendants, or either of them, on the charges in the criminal cases herein complained of.

Mr. Walker objects to the introduction of the evidence on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; does not tend to prove or disprove any fact raised in the pleadings in issue in these cases. That no proper foundation has been laid for its introduction; and merely seeks to influence public opinion and possible juries with the introduction of secondary evidence of a red flag, which cannot be in any way material to the question of deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917.

MR. NEILL: Q I hand you two photostatic pages, the first of which has at the top "List of packages together with their contents forwarded by express to Special Agent Clabaugh, Department of Justice, Chicago, Illinois on September 14, 1917". I ask you where is the original, and to explain what the original is, and where it came from, and to what it referred. And, if you identify it, hand it to the Notary with the request that he mark it Exhibit number 181 as a part of your deposition.

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; does not tend to prove or disprove any facts put in issue by the pleadings in these cases. And simply endeavors to inject into these cases the question of I.W.W.’ism, its propaganda, activities, and so forth, to be used as matters of defense in the cases at hand, which matters and things are entirely foreign to the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917. Mr. Walker further objects because it simply is introduced for the purpose of molding public opinion and prejudicing possible jurors in favor of these defendants. Mr. Walker further objects to the introduction of photostatic copies on the ground that proper foundation for their introduction has not been laid.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; and further, that it has no bearing whatever on any issue involved in either of these cases; and cannot be used as a legal excuse or justification for the acts complained of in the said criminal cases herein or in the civil cases growing out of the same transaction; and has only the purpose of introducing into these cases an element which is wholly illegal, to-wit, the I.W.W. organization, its activities and propaganda, which is in no wise in issue in either the said criminal or civil cases. That the identity of said photostatic copies has not been properly shown; they have not been properly identified; and that no foundation has been properly laid for their introduction.

A The original copy of this photostat is in my office, room 858 Federal Building; and is an inventory giving a list of I.W.W. pamphlets, books, office ledgers, bank books, bulletins, and miscellaneous correspondence that were taken at Salt Lake City and sent to the Chicago office. This inventory was made at Salt Lake City by the United States Marshal and a copy sent to the Chicago office with the above mentioned merchandise. And I hand this to the Notary and ask him to make it part of my deposition and mark it exhibit number 181.

(Said document was marked "Exhibit number 181" and is attached to this deposition and made a part hereof.)

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer of the witness and moves to strike it, on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. That it is foreign to any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases; that it is hearsay certainly on the part of the witness insofar as to where it originated, and certainly that portion of his evidence which is prior to the time the documents came into his custody. That it is concerning matters which were subsequent to the commission of the crimes with which the defendants are charged in the criminal cases herein, and out of which acts the civil cases grew and upon which they were predicated. That it only seeks to introduce the I.W.W. organization, its propaganda and its activities as an element of defense in this case, which is wholly illegal and would only serve the purpose of molding public opinion in favor of these defendants and perhaps biasing or prejudicing any jury that is called upon to try the defendants or either of them.

Mr. Walker objects to the answer and asks it be stricken, and objects to the introduction of the photostatic copy, on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; not within the issues raised by the pleadings in these cases. That proper foundation for the introduction of photostatic copies has not been laid. And that it is simply an effort to inject into these cases I.W.W.’ism, its propaganda and activities, which matters are in no wise connected with the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917.

MR. NEILL: Q State whether or not the photostatic copies filed by you herewith as part of your deposition are true and accurate likenesses and reproductions of exhibits introduced by the Government in the case of the United States vs. Haywood, et al, heretofore testified about, and now in your possession as Deputy Clerk of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

Mr. Walker objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; and does not tend to prove or disprove any facts raised by the pleadings in these cases. That the question calls for a mere conclusion by the witness; and does not in any way seem material to the issues involved.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; and because the matters and things referred to in the said question have not been properly identified. That the question is not specific; that no proper foundation has been laid for the introduction of the several pamphlets, leaflets, letters, books, and so forth, referred to in the former questions of counsel, or by the witness in his former answers; and because each and every one of the said documents is wholly irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent to prove or to affect in any way any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is taken. And can only serve the purpose of bringing into the said criminal and civil cases the question of the I.W.W. organization, its propaganda, and its activities, which is not involved in any way in any issue in either the criminal or civil cases.

A They are all exact duplicate copies of original exhibits now in my possession in room 858 Federal Building, as United States Deputy Clerk of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

Signature

John W. Hughes

Mr. Walker objects to the answer and moves to strike the same, on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial. It simply states a conclusion of the witness; and simply injects into these cases I.W.W.’ism, its propaganda, and so forth, which matters and things are entirely foreign to any issue in the matter of the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917.

Mr. R. N. French objects to the answer of the witness, and moves it be stricken, on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; and on the further grounds it is in no way pertinent to any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is taken. That no proper foundation has been laid for the introduction of such evidence; that it is too indefinite; not sufficiently specific; and is too uncertain; and refers to a matter which was long subsequent to the crime of kidnapping the miners and deporting them from the Warren District, July 12, 1917, in the State of Arizona. And that it can only serve the purpose of molding public opinion by introducing the I.W.W. organization, its propaganda and activities in the case, and can serve no legal purpose as evidence or any justification of, or as a matter of defense in the said criminal cases or in the civil cases upon which they are predicated, in which this deposition is taken.

MR. NEILL: Cross-examine.

Mr. Walker declines to cross-examine and objects to the entire deposition, and each and every question and answer thereof; and asks that the same be stricken, on the ground that it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial; does not tend to prove any issue raised by the pleadings in these cases. That all of the testimony given by the witness is touching matters and things the happening of which was subsequent to the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona. That the entire deposition can serve only to influence and mold public opinion and prejudice possible juries that may try these cases, in favor of these defendants. That nothing in the trial or any part of the trial of Haywood in the United States District Court is relevant or material to any issue raised in these cases. That the question of I.W.W.’ism, its actions, propaganda and activities cannot be and is not in any way material or competent as evidence in the cases based upon the deportation of the miners from Bisbee, Arizona, July 12, 1917. And, for other reasons urged on objection and motion to strike to the various questions in said deposition, at the time of the asking of the questions.

Mr. R. N. French declines to cross-examine the witness, and objects to the deposition of this witness as a whole, and to each and every question and answer therein contained; and here renews each and every objection heretofore made to each and every question and answer. And, further objects to the said deposition as a whole and to each and every part thereof on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; and because proper foundations were not laid for the introduction of the several items of evidence therein contained. That it was not sufficiently specific; that it was too uncertain, vague, and indefinite. That while the various items referred to in said deposition might have been used or introduced, at least, in the case of William D. Haywood and others on their trail in the United States Court in Chicago, they cannot be used for any legitimate purpose in the trial of the defendants for the crime of kidnapping and deportation of the miners from the Warren District, July 12, 1917; and have no connection, in the remotest degree, and have no bearing upon any issue involved in either the criminal or civil cases in which this deposition is taken. The deposition of the witness is further objected to on the ground it is unconstitutional and illegal. And Mr. R. N. French moves to strike the whole and every part thereof, for the above mentioned reasons, and for the reasons heretofore assigned to each and every question and answer of the said witness.