Interview: Ron Yengich A widely recognized Salt Lake City criminal defense attorney, Ron Yengich also is an adjunct instructor at the University of Utah where he teaches an honors course on the case of Joe Hill as a study of justice. Following is the full transcript of producer Ken Verdoia's interview with Yengich: Q: Most Americans have a warm image of what the immigration experience was like. They came to the new country and the streets were paved with gold. Very quickly they were upwardly mobile. How accurate are those broad brush strokes about a romantic immigrant experience? A: I think so and I think that it's romanticized by second generation Americans primarily. People in my situation. But the reality is was life was tough for them, across the boards, a- all the immigrants. Germans, Irish, Italians, a Japanese a- everybody had a difficult time of it and most of the people that came here found that the dreams of the streets lined with gold were a shimura. They were like the seven cities that everybody sought but could never find. Q: Let's let's talk about the jobs that many of the immigrants naturally found themselves steered towards as a laboring force. And this usually is large industries like mining, textiles and manufacturing. How was the immigrant labor force viewed? A: I think in many instances they weren't valued at all. A, they were disposable even in a sense that we don't dispose of a recyclable garbage in the sense that they weren't recycled. They, if they were injured in a mining accident, there wasn't insurance to take care of them. A- An interesting story for people such as my grandfather on my dad's side who came here from Croatia. There was a joke in the mines that if there was a cave in, save the mule. A, and a- because it's hard to train a mule to go into a hole but there--there are always plenty of bohunks, which was the pejorative term for Croatians. There are always plenty of them to go into the hole, so save the mule because they're difficult to train. That was the attitude. Not only in the mines, it was the attitude on the railroads, it was the attitude in the timber industry. And it was that attitude in a large part that lead to the formation of unions and the support that many of the immigrants had for unions. Q: I want to touch on something we were talking about before we started rolling. The sense that the immigrant perceived themselves as being "Other." In kind of an anthropological sense, apart from the American experience, they considered themselves almost in another class of humanity. A: Well, there was obviously and throughout American history, it isn't just the immigrants at the turn of the century that felt this way. But there was an us and them quality to life in America. The melting pot that we had, had the-- to be become part of it, you had to go through a very stern and difficult process and the heat that was turned up under the pot was very hot for many of these people. An interesting example is here in Utah, in Bingham canyon, the area where my family is from or Carbon County, it was not uncommon for eastern European immigrants, immigrants from Europe. It, it wasn't, it wasn't unusual for immigrants from Italy and eastern Europe to refer to the Americans as the "white people." And they kind of classified themselves that way. That was a phrase my father even employed at times a when he would talk about growing up a because a they were in a sense. They felt themselves in a sense as indentured servants and although not consciously, subconsciously felt as though they were slaves to the people that they worked for. Q: There could be a tendency for people to think that there were never issues related to labor relations in Utah. I want to focus right in that era around 1910, 1912. That there was no issue in labor relations, that somehow everybody got along. Was this a quiet time that some people might assume? A: Oh no, it was a the Western Federation of Miners, Bill Haywood, a Utah native by the way, and the western federation of miners were involved heavily in organizing a the mines here in the west, and there was a lot of labor unrest. In the mines, on the railroads, and other places, in the timber industry, in the northwest, but even in Utah, there was a great deal of labor unrest. There was a strike in 1912 that Governor Spry assisted in resolving with the use of troops. And of course that was not uncommon. We have Cripple Creek in Colorado and other places like that which had similar resolutions. There was not quite the violence here in Utah, but that was a time of great labor unrest and it was a time of labor unrest particularly in the mining industry. Q: How were these early unions viewed by the social and economic pillars of society? How were unions viewed in Utah during this period? A: Well there was a, there was an antipathy to unions because in large part many of the people that were in unions were immigrants. They were those "other people." They were people that were attempting to better themselves, and they were looked down on. The unions themselves were looked down on because the manufacturers, the people with money, a as is the way with capitalism even today, that the profit motive was great. The more that they could make and the less that they could pay their workers was a the avenue that they always followed and so there was a great a attitude of dislike or distrust to unions. Unions were never accepted here in this state at the turn of the century. A, or even through the twenties or forties. Kennecott Copper Corporation was one of the last mines organized in the United States after World War Two. . . Or during world war two actually. Q: Okay, we've talked about the western federation of miners and certainly there are a number of unions, teamsters unions, even street car unions. But then there's this unique gathering of organized labor, the Industrial Workers of the World. How were the Wobblies viewed? A: There was a different attitude, but that was brought on by the I.W.W. itself. The I.W.W. was really unique in many ways in the sense that they were not a trade union. They didn't focus on a particular industry. They organized across the board and they, and surprisingly enough for that time, they invited everybody into the union. Nobody was excluded in the sense of race or creed or national origin. That had not been the case with the A.F.L. and it certainly wasn't the case with any of the trade unions. And so they were even looked down on by other unions and other union leaders because they had this real attitude of democracy in the sense that they wanted everybody involved and the lowest person, the person that had the worst job, that no one ever thought would be organized were invited in the- into the I.W.W. The society at large did not like them because they were really intent on giving a voice to that person, the immigrant, the person that cleaned the stables if you will, the person that had the worst job. And so they organized free speech fights as they referred to them around the country where they would go in and they would a take over a park for example and somebody would get on a soap box to speak, they would be arrested, somebody else would take their place. It was their means of arguing for a voice for these people. And recognizing this at the time when the captains of industry are controlling everything, and have great control over the political mechanisms in this country, and the political power in this country. They looked down on it. We're also moving into the conflict in Europe, and the conflict in Russia about this time, and there is a concern with labeling people a Bolshevik and all of the rest that goes with that. We begin to paint these people with an anti-American brush. And that's how the media and the people in power painted them. Q: But, doesn't the I.W.W. really contribute to their own pejorative sense because they say in their preamble, we're gonna tear down the system. A: I mean their attitude was one of a siege mentality. I mean, they did not believe in anything but overthrowing the capitalist system. They did not want to replace it, however, with another system where there was another greater power to control their lives. If anything, at least in my judgment, their philosophy was more akin to the philosophy of anarchism in the sense that they did not want anybody telling them what to do. I am told and I have read that their conferences were quite often totally out of control because nobody had control over any of the individual members. It may be one of the reasons that it was a union that never really saw any genuine potential for success because nobody could control them, but that was their attitude. They also hurt themselves because one of their symbols was the black cat or the wooden shoe which was representative of the idea that you could harm industry by destroying it quite literally. They would. . . Q: Encourage sabotage? A: Oh, they d-- did it all the time. Sabotage was something that was an acceptable means of fighting the establishment. And of course for people who were attempting to make their life better, which many of the immigrants and many of the poor Americans were attempting to do, this was something that wasn't ultimately gonna work for them, and so they lead to their own demise for that reason, at least in my judgment. Q: It sounds like your describing a time where that chasm between have and have not is pretty dramatic, pretty wide in America's annals. A: Oh, we recognized that again this was the era where enormous mansions were built. And not only across the country, but here in Utah, Brigham Street, the Kearns mansion, the McCune Mansion, up on Capital Hill, were all built with the money from mining and other interests. And they, these people lead a lifestyle which was really stunning when you compare it to the people upon whom they made their money in that they were the workers, the people that worked for pennies. They, they quite literally in some instances, they worked without a safety net as we use the phrase today. There was no safety net if they were hurt. There was no safety net if there was an economic down turn. There indeed was nothing to save them and yet the people that had the money, the people that made the investments, lived as a term of the day was used "high off the hog." Q: If we look at Utah in the pre-World War One period, what were the leading institutions that were the sources of power here in the state? A: Well of course the Mormon church was probably the leading institution in and it had great control. We all know the stories about the decisions, even in political process as to who would be a democrat and who would be a republican within the church's decision making process. The church controlled a great deal. There were non-LDS a members of our society who had some power, but they did so, again this is my historical assessment, generally with the approval, either tacit or implicit from the church hierarchy. That was the power in the state of Utah. It was combined with this alliance with outside interests which controlled mining, which controlled the railroads, but there was clearly an agreement, again maybe passive agreement, between them as to who would control certain institutions and who would control the sources of capitalism in this state. Q: Could they agree on the Wobblies? A: Yeah, everybody agreed on that. Everybody. Most of the people that we would refer to as stable individuals, home, farm, business, small or large, they were opposed to this idea of everybody being equal, everybody having a fair shake, everybody having access to not the pie in the sky after they die, but what what occurred here on earth, and what was going to happen here to them individually. You remember that there, this was not something that the man on the street who read the newspaper was not aware of. There had been serious strikes in other part of the countries. Lawrence, Massachusetts being a prime example, where the I.W.W. was involved. And they were aware of in their judgment. the danger of organizing unions and the danger of this type of attitude or atmosphere, and on top of that, here in Utah, there were free speech fights that happened here. And, and the media never, at that time newspapers, never really gave a fair view in my opinion as to what these people were trying to achieve. And understand though, that the Wobblies really didn't in my judgment. mind being cast in that light in a sense. They wanted to be the outcast. They wanted to be the agitators. They were concerned genuinely with the plight of the common person, but it did not bother them in my judgment. to be cast in the light of the agitator. That's what they were. Q: Let's skip ahead a little bit in time now to January of 1914. I'm gonna have you go through the mechanisms of Hill being here, how he got here. So let's pick up with the the shooting deaths of John and John A. Morrison. In the immediate hours, right after these horrible killings take place. Do investigators offer up opinions to the press about what they think are the motives behind the killings? A: Oh yeah, reading the newspapers is really interesting. Of course John Morrison had been a police officer, before he became a store owner. He had told individuals that there was someone in the neighborhood that was out to get him. Indeed there was one and at that time prime suspect. In my mind still the prime suspect, a man named Frank Z. Wilson, who had been recently released from the Utah State Prison. A man that Morrison had arrested, and who had a vendetta and had apparently sworn it out against Morrison. So Morrison as a former police officer, there was concern that this was a strike against him for that reason. Wilson was a suspect. Q: How does Joe Hill, Joseph Hillstrom, Joel Haggland, let's call him Joe Hill. A: Okay. Q: How does he come into this picture? A: Well, he really becomes a focus because of Doctor Frank McHugh, the man that treated him, and the fact that Joe Hill had a wound for which he did not have, even in my experience as a defense attorney, he did not have a very good excuse for that wound. Um, and McHugh basically fingered him, and then Hill became the suspect. And of course he did have ties to the I.W.W. He was an immigrant, he was a a vagabond, he was a hobo if you will, he was somebody that had no visible means of support. He became a very good suspect at that time when you also factor in, he had this gunshot wound and he really did not give a very good ex- explanation of it. Q: How important is that wound? A: That wound, and I speak now as someone who has tried many, many murder cases, that wound is what convicted Joe Hill in my judgment. Not simply the wound but his explanation -- or lack of explanation -- for the wound. Q: And what does Joe Hill say about the wound when the doctor questions him? A: Joe says that he got it in a fight over a woman. And he implies that he was defending the virtue of a woman at the time and that's how he got the wound. Of course, there were women in Joe Hill's life. In the sense that he was staying at a friend's house and there were daughters and a there were other people Joe Hill knew in Salt Lake, we believe because he had been here before certainly. But the explanation itself did not come with any names. There, there was no alibi, no exonerating witness per se. His friend Otto Applequist, ultimately they find has fled the area of Utah. The police determine that Joe Hill himself had planned to leave Utah the day after the Morrisons were killed. And so those circumstances began to add on top of this lack of explanation to really have them focus on Hill. And then you factor in the other a non-legal facts which are his I.W.W. membership, his immigrant status, his vagabond attitude. Continue                   About the Program || Joe Hill Home || PBS Home