Biography
J. F. Harraway, spelled Haraway in the court record, was one of seven Burlington, North Carolina textile workers prosecuted over mill-dynamiting incidents after the September 1934 general textile strike. He received a two-year sentence on December 4, 1934. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed his conviction on November 20, 1935. He was out on an appeal bond in December 1935.
The Daily Worker of February 2, 1935, page 4, reports the International Labor Defense's entry into the Burlington mill-dynamiting case and its plans for a North Carolina Supreme Court appeal by March. Anna Damon announced the defense after an investigation by ILD attorneys. The stated grounds were conviction against the weight of the evidence, allegedly fabricated confessions and judicial prejudice. The article names all seven defendants, including J. F. Harraway, and reports sentencing on December 4, 1934. These are the defense organization's contemporary allegations and plans; the report does not itself establish a successful appeal or any new custody endpoint.
The Daily Worker of November 27, 1935, page 2, prints Harraway as J. F. Haraway among the Burlington defendants and reports the League for Southern Labor's request for unconditional gubernatorial pardons and offer of cooperation to the United Textile Workers' Francis Gorman. Other passages distort the initials or spelling. The established identity is retained. Plans for United States Supreme Court proceedings do not themselves establish a filing, outcome or custody endpoint.
W. T. Couch, in The Carolina Magazine, December 1935, printed pages 21-25 (PDF pages 101-105), describes his investigation of the Burlington dynamite prosecution. He reports a trial from November 28 to December 4, 1934, attacks the inconclusive track evidence and the selection of 15-18 additional talesmen by deputy John Leath at the prosecution's request, and identifies four Uniontown, Pennsylvania investigators: S. E. Howard, D. P. Stewart, K. R. Delph and J. R. (Randy) Jones. He says they kept prosecution witnesses Charlie McCullom, H. F. Pruitt and Jerry Furlough together in one Alamance Hotel room from the Monday before trial through its conclusion. Couch alleges compromised testimony and possible prejudice; he expressly says he did not establish who committed the dynamiting. His March 1935 request to Frances Perkins was referred to Textile Labor Relations Board chairman Walter P. Stacy, from whom he had received no answer. A note dated December 19 reports four defendants on bond, Blaylock still jailed for inability to obtain bond, Overman serving a separate post-trial offense and Kimrey at liberty on a suspended sentence. The defense sought new material evidence for a new trial and contemplated a federal constitutional appeal; these were efforts, not established outcomes. Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Carolina_magazine_%28serial%29_%28IA_carolinamagazine65univ%29.pdf
A March 22 Burlington dispatch described the appeal of six textile-strike defendants arrested in September 1934 and convicted that December. The defense challenged the legality of the grand jury, alleged jury selection by hand, and the trial judge’s handling of defense testimony and speeches. The report is appellate context, not proof of additional measured time served. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1935/v12-n071-NAT-mar-23-1935-DW-Q.pdf#page=3
The editorial names him among the five Burlington textile defendants whose convictions were upheld and who were ordered to surrender December 2, 1935. This issue calls the men out on bail, whereas a later account specifically says Blalock could not obtain bond. The collective wording is preserved as a discrepancy and the surrender order is not recorded as an accomplished readmission. The matching Burlington prosecution identifies the existing defendants despite shortened names and spelling variants. Labor Defender, December 1935, original PDF page 3. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/labordefender/1935/v11n12-dec-1935-orig-LD.pdf#page=3
Daily Worker, May 31, 1935, page 3: The May 30 Raleigh report names the six Burlington textile-strike defendants appealing convictions over the E. M. Holt Plaid Mill dynamiting during the September 1934 strike. It reports this defendant's nominal term as two years and an appeal hearing scheduled for August 27 before the North Carolina Supreme Court. Printed Florence Blaylock and J. F. Haraway are roster variants of the established Burlington identities. John L. Anderson, identified as Piedmont Textile Council president when arrested, was then addressing union locals in Pennsylvania, New York and New England. The announced appeal is prospective and the reported terms are not complete actual service. These date-specific figures do not silently overwrite different terms in later court-based records. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1935/v12-n130-NAT-may-31-1935-DW-Q.pdf
Labor Defender, February 1936, PDF page 3: The Burlington editorial and portrait caption identify him among the five textile-strike defendants now at Raleigh penitentiary. The printed group sentence range of two to ten years is not an individual measured term. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/labordefender/1936/v12-%5B10%5Dn02-feb-1936-orig-LD.pdf#page=3
Labor Defender, February 1935, PDF page 20: The Burlington report individually names the seven textile defendants and alleges beatings and drugging in jail before a jury excluding union members. It identifies Anderson as Piedmont Textile Council president with an imposed eight-to-ten-year hard-labor term. The accusations of planted dynamite and abuse are the defense magazine’s claims; the collective 27-year total is not allocated as individual time served. No new physical release date is supplied. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/labordefender/1935/v11n02-feb-1935-orig-LD.pdf#page=20
Labor Defender, March 1935, PDF page 8: Ericson identifies him as 50 and among three union men initially accused after helping remove a stalled car from a ditch; they were placed under $1,000 bonds. PDF 9 prints a two-year imposed term. Neither the bond amount nor nominal sentence establishes physical release or actual service. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/labordefender/1935/v11n03-mar-1935-orig-LD.pdf#page=8
Walter S. Pickard’s April 30, 1935 account says the Workers Defense Committee obtained bond for the Burlington textile defendants and that the ILD was assisting their appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court. This is the correspondent’s collective description at that date, not an individual release day; it is retained alongside the later court-based distinctions about who could obtain bond. The report identifies the alleged mill incidents as the September 14, 1934 E. M. Holt Plaid Mill explosion and dynamite found the next day at the Holt and Stevens mills. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/new-masses/1935/v15n05-apr-30-1935-NM.pdf#page=15
