FOOTNOTES:

[120] Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, pp. 1-2.

[121] Ibid., p. 153.

[122] Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 1.

[123] Report of Committee on Press and Literature, Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, pp. 4-5.

[124] Speech at the ratification meeting, Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 577.

[125] Speech at Minneapolis, July 10, 1905, on "The Preamble of the Industrial Workers of the World." Published in pamphlet form under this title by N. Y. Labor News Co., 1905, pp. 26-27.

[126] Address on "Revolutionary Unionism," Chicago, Nov., 1905. (Published in pamphlet form under this title by C. H. Kerr Company. Chicago.)

[127] Speech at ratification meeting, Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, pp. 575-576.

[128] Ibid., p. 586. The idea of the general strike was not at all prominent at this convention, but was expressed in one resolution. Infra, p. 91.

[129] Trautmann on the reasons for the manifesto, Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 118.

[130] Proceedings, Tenth Annual Convention S. L. P., p. 211.

[131] Ibid., p. 211.

[132] DeLeon-Harriman Debate (New York: N. Y. Labor News Co., 1900), p. 14.

[133] Delegate Dalton, Tenth Annual Convention Proceedings, Socialist Labor Party, p. 217.

[134] Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 143.

[135] Cf. infra, ch. ix.

[136] American Federationist, vol. xii, p. 214 (April, 1905).

[137] International Socialist Review, vol. vi, p. 75, Aug., 1905.

[138] For full text of the report vide Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, pp. 180, et seq., 193, and 213 et seq.

[139] For the preamble vide Appendix ii. For the constitution as originally presented by the committee and discussions of the same, vide Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, pp. 295-512. The amended but unrevised constitution, as adopted at this constituent meeting, is reprinted in condensed form in the author's Launching of the I. W. W., pp. 49-53.

[140] Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, pp. 231-232.

[141] Ibid., p. 224.

[142] Ibid., p. 225.

[143] Ibid., p. 227.

[144] Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 231.

[145] Proceedings, Tenth Annual Convention S. L. P., pp. 198-199.

[146] "Father" Hagerty, Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 152.

[147] Ibid., p. 228.

[148] "Concerning the Chicago Manifesto," International Socialist Review, vol. v, pp. 588-9, April, 1905.

[149] Ibid., p. 591, April, 1905.

[150] In 1915 the DeLeonite wing changed its name to "The Workers International Industrial Union." Vide infra, p. 253.

[151] Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, pp. 299-300. This classification was amended and re-arranged at the Second Convention. Proceedings, p. 207.

[152] Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 300, et seq.

[153] This objection was, in part, the cause of the refusal of the delegate of the Longshoremen's Union to install his local. Cf. infra, p. 102.

[154] Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 427.

[155] Ibid., p. 496.

[156] Vide I. W. W. Constitution, 1911, art. i, sec. 4, and Trautmann, One Great Union, Detroit, I. W. W. Literary Bureau, n. d. (Chart insert).

[157] Art. vii, sec. 4, Constitution (1905), "So soon as there are ten locals with not less than 3,000 members in one industry, the General Executive Board shall immediately proceed to call a convention of that industry and proceed to organize it as an international industrial division of the Industrial Workers of the World."

[158] The office of general president was abolished at the second convention. Vide infra, p. 143.

[159] Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 504.

[160] Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 455.

[161] 42,719 to 6,998. Proceedings, First I. W. W Convention, pp. 609-614.

[162] The six locals were the United Mine Workers local union of Pittsburg, Kans. (A. F. of L.); Punch Press Operators of Schenectady, N. Y.; Journeymen Tailors Benevolent and Protective Union of San Francisco (A. F. of L.); Industrial Workers Club of Chicago; Industrial Workers Club of Cincinnati; Workers Industrial and Educational Union of Pueblo, Colo. (Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 614). For detailed vote on installation, vide Brissenden, Launching of the I. W. W., p. 43.

[163] Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 527.

[164] International Socialist Review, vol. v, p. 563 (March, 1905).

[165] Private Correspondence, March, 1912.

[166] International Socialist Review, vol. vi, p. 66 (Aug., 1905).

[167] Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 447.

[168] "The Industrial Convention," International Socialist Review, vol. vi, p. 86.

[169] Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 147.

[170] "The I. W. W., Retrospects and Prospects," Industrial Union News, vol. i, no. 1 (Jan., 1912).

[171] American Federationist, vol. xii, pp. 514-516.

[172] Quoted in Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 252.

[173] Ibid.

[174] Ibid.

[175] International Socialist Review, vol. vi, p. 66 (Aug., 1905).

[176] Private Correspondence, October 5, 1911.

[177] F. T. Carlton, History and Problems of Organized Labor (New York, 1911), p. 82.

[178] This clause was inserted in the preamble at the 1906 convention. Cf. Constitution I. W. W. as amended to 1908.

[179] "C'était la première préparation pratique en Amérique à la révolution qui doit conduire la société de la tempête économique au port de la république coopérative." L'Internationale ouvrière et socialiste (ed. française), vol. i, p. 63, Stuttgart, 1907 (Report of the Socialist Labor Party of America to the Congress).

[PART II]
THE "ORIGINAL" I. W. W.

[CHAPTER IV]
Maiden Efforts on the Economic Field

The adjournment of the organizing convention in July, 1905, left the body it had created in a very chaotic condition. The time and attention of the delegates was so exclusively taken up with the problem of building up "one big union" out of many little unions and the task of working out a harmony platform of law and policy on which all could come together, that the matter of business management was almost entirely neglected. Indeed some of the circumstances surrounding the I. W. W. at its inception quite precluded the ordered and efficient procedure possible to a well manned and adequately financed organization. The I. W. W. was not well manned and was practically destitute of financial resources. The dearth of ability and especially the want of honesty in its managing personnel were to become all too evident long before the second convention had come to a close, as was also its practically bankrupt financial status. Although there were three rather formidable-looking departments nominally organized as such—viz.: mining, metal and machinery, and transportation—none of these except the mining department represented material accessions either numerically or financially, and the early defection of the Western Federation of Miners quite broke down this one and, what was even more important, cut off from the Industrial Workers of the World the great bulk of its financial resources.

The industrial-union idea made marked headway among the trade unions of the United States during the first year of the existence of the I. W. W., and this was very largely due to the influence and example of that organization. Organizers were sent to those places where serious friction existed between trade-unionists and employers, or between trade-unionists and the American Federation of Labor. The I. W. W. devoted very little attention at that time to the unorganized; its energy was chiefly centered on the reformation of the craft unions—a policy of dual unionism. The Federation lost rather heavily in some quarters to the I. W. W., the disaffection proving most marked among the brewers and machinists. Max S. Hayes, in reviewing the situation at the end of the year 1905, wrote as follows:

The elements that are dissatisfied with the A. F. of L. are naturally looking askance at the I. W. W., which body appears to be gaining strength in New York, Chicago, and smaller places, especially in the West. A national officer of the brewers told me a few week ago that the rank and file in many parts of the country are clamoring to cut loose from the Federation and join the Industrialists.... Still another national officer, a Socialist, by the way, said he had visited the little city of Schenectady, N. Y., recently and found the machinists, metal polishers and several other trades unions in open revolt against their national organization and going into the camp of the Industrial Workers. Some of the garment working crafts and textile workers are also affected. It begins to look as though we are to have another war similar to the struggle between the old Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor.[180]

This same unrest and dissatisfaction with the condition of trade-union organization was evident among many local unions of the United Mine Workers of America. Only two local unions of the Mine Workers had finally joined the Industrial Workers of the World at the first convention,[181] but before the end of the year there were several others desiring admission. In many cases, however, they were unable to go into the I. W. W. because they had contracts signed up with the mine operators, and must perforce await their expiration before any action could be taken. The Mine Workers' locals at Barrow, Muddy Valley, and Elkville (Ill.) were in precisely this situation. They reported themselves at the second convention as desirous of admission, but that immediate transfer of allegiance was impossible because they had two-year contracts with the operators which did not expire until April, 1908.[182] Although in these instances the contracts were respected and the locals did not join the I. W. W., that result was not due to any moral influence emanating from the Industrial Workers of the World, who, of course, repudiated the validity of contracts with employers. They believed that, as Haywood expressed it, "as all is fair in love and war, industrial unionists should abrogate all agreements which would compel them to violate the principles of unionism."[183]

Friction between the Industrial Workers of the World and the American Federation of Labor continued, of course, to be in evidence. The nominal possession of a defense fund by the I. W. W., and the want of such a feature in the Federation, doubtless appealed to craft unions in time of need. For that reason, if for no other, many craft unionists have felt that Haywood had some reason for saying that "the only function which the American Federation of Labor can assume is to act as an advisory board of the trade-union movement," and that "the ideas of Mr. Gompers are hoary, aged, moss-covered relics of the days of the ox-team and the pony express, when the craftsmen owned or controlled the tools of production."[184]

There were a few trade unions which joined the Industrial Workers of the World as a last resort or merely to spite the American Federation. Such was the case with the Stogie Makers, who constituted an independent organization in January, 1906, and who, having been for some reason denied a charter in the American Federation of Labor, finally, and with noisy repudiation of the principles of the Federation, joined the I. W. W.[185]

Trouble most commonly arose between the Industrial Workers and the Federation in time of strike. The Industrial Workers objected to what they called the "unfair interference of the A. F. of L. in I. W. W. strikes." Numerous protests against this alleged meddlesomeness of the Federation were made on the floor of the second convention. The following excerpt from the report of General-Secretary Trautmann to the convention will serve for illustration:

... strike-breakers were engaged by the American Federation of Labor officers to take the places of members of the I. W. W. In Youngstown, Ohio, in San Pedro [Cal.], in Yonkers and in many other places committees were sent to employers demanding the discharge of I. W. W. supporters; special boycotts have been declared against the goods made in factories where members of the Industrial Workers of the World are employed, as, for instance, in St. Louis, Mo., and Butte, Mont.... In Schenectady, where the I. W. W. efforts gained advantages for others, too; in Cleveland, Ohio, where the I. W. W. bricklayers walked out on strike in sympathy with striking hod-carriers, members of the A. F. of L., and refused an offer of ten per cent increase in wages and a closed shop contract, if they would desert the building laborers, which they refused to do; in Newark, N. J., where the I. W. W. shoemakers refused to work with the strike-breakers engaged to defeat strikers of another organization not in the I. W. W., and similar cases can be recorded to show that the I. W. W. members are not organized for the purpose of retaliation against members of their class....[186]

The American Federation of Labor was undoubtedly often guilty of attempts of the kind just mentioned—activities which were looked upon by the "Wobblies" as crafty methods of undermining and antagonizing the work of their organization. It happened more than once during that first year of the younger organization's existence, and has happened on the occasion of many an industrial conflict since that time. However, the blame lies not entirely at the door of the Federation, nor has it alone been guilty of such practices. It is, in fact, quite likely that the first provocation to interference arose from the persistence of the I. W. W. in the policy of organizing—or rather of annexing to itself—unions already organized, and usually so organized in the American Federation of Labor itself. This policy of double affiliation was warmly discussed at the first convention, but no definite official decision of the convention appears in the stenographic report of proceedings. The I. W. W. has been accused of deliberately agitating among unions already organized, and that in the face of open declarations that the I. W. W. does not believe in dual organization. It is true that such declarations of policy may have been made by I. W. W. speakers, but it has not been officially declared to be the policy of the organization. A sharp distinction should be drawn here between reorganizing, or attempting to reorganize, already organized bodies—dual organizing activities—which are not expressly approved or condemned, and the condition of dual organism—or dual membership—which last is expressly forbidden. No local union of the I. W. W. may belong to the American Federation of Labor or to any other national organization.[187]

The I. W. W. has constantly been guilty of agitating in and building from the old craft unions, and in the earlier days of its history most of its work consisted in thus "boring from within" the established unions. It is only in later years that it has even approximately lived up to its avowed policy of organizing the unorganized—the unskilled—the floating laborer. Consequently the provocation of the American Federation of Labor, and craft unions generally, to retaliate for the alleged meddlesomeness of the I. W. W. was even greater then than it is now.

The vigor of this retaliation on the part of the craft unions was evidenced by the action taken by such organizations as the International Association of Machinists, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, the United Cloth Cap and Hat Makers, the United Brotherhood of Leather Workers, and others, which "decreed that the mere joining of the Industrial Workers of the World would deprive any man or woman of the right to work in industries controlled by these combinations."[188]

This strenuous opposition was largely the cause of more or less compromising on the part of the Industrial Workers of the World with the craft-union idea, though, of course, the very weakness of the new movement and the hard-fixed habit of years of life and work under the old craft form was a potent factor here. This much is plain from the record of those early days of I. W. W. history. Many of its constituent unions retained to a considerable degree the characteristics of craft unions, and more than that—some of the I. W. W. locals (boasted types and rallying centers for industrial unionism) were nothing more or less than craft locals. Even this extremity was no doubt forced upon many locals on account of the lack of knowledge of industrial unionism among workingmen, and this made necessary that rather ambiguous phenomenon of a revolutionary industrial union largely composed of craft or pseudo-craft units. The delegates to the second convention had to face this very impossible situation. A typical one was that of the Bartenders and Waiters Local Union No. 83 of Chicago, concerning which Delegate Shenkan of San Francisco said:

[This] local is a craft organization whose members do not even follow the vocation their charter would designate. Most of their members work in other lines of industry, such as cigar-making, shoemaking, painting, and quite a number of diversified kinds of work during week days, while on Sundays they work as bartenders and waiters at picnics, balls, etc. ...[189]

The convention was very desirous that this condition be remedied as soon as possible, and a resolution was finally passed stipulating that the General Executive Board must always organize so far as possible on industrial lines: "The incoming General Executive Board is hereby directed to organize the new recruits in and by industries, and to promote the education in industrialism among those men to whom charters may have been issued upon a craft system before they could be enrolled in the I. W. W."[190] In his report to the convention General Secretary Trautmann recommended that

as a safeguard against the possible drifting of such [craft] unions into permanent craft organizations, it should be understood and made mandatory that as soon as a union of employees in any given industry is formed, all those in such craft unions must transfer to the respective industrial body.... But all recruiting craft unions should be chartered directly from the general administration, so that constant control can be kept over the affairs of such organizations, and the proper alignment be directed as soon as such [action] appears to be opportune and necessary.[191]

However, this antagonism from outside craft unions, and these involuntary internal compromises with the craft-union idea were not the most serious difficulties which now beset the Industrial Workers of the World. The organization was threatened with wholesale defection and very soon actually suffered it in some quarters. During the spring of 1906 it became evident that a movement was afoot in the lumber camps of the northwest to organize the lumber workers in a general union outside of the I. W. W. Moreover, it appeared that the moving spirit in the agitation was one Daniel MacDonald—charter member of the Industrial Workers of the World from the old American Labor Union—a man who had not long since been an organizer for the I. W. W., and who must at the time have been a member of that organization, since he was sent as a delegate to the second convention. Mr. MacDonald explained the nature of the proposed organization in a letter to Mr. James Brookfield of Crescent City, California, dated at Butte, Montana, March 27, 1906. He does not mention the I. W. W. He writes that

there is a movement on foot now in this state [Montana] and throughout the western country to organize a United Lumber Workers' general organization, to be composed of all men engaged in the lumber industry.... This organization is to be constructed on lines broad enough and having sufficient scope to meet every essential requirement of the men engaged in the lumber industry, and to give them general support, uniform benefits and the universal respect and protection so woefully needed.[192]

The attempt was not successful. The lumber industry was destined to be one of the most fertile fields for the propaganda of the I. W. W. and to be one of its most solidly established divisions. This disloyal agitation on the outside in 1906 was a comparatively insignificant movement. It merely deprived the organization of a few individual members, and delayed somewhat the I. W. W. invasion of the lumber industries.

The most serious defections occurred in the Metals and Machinery, and the Mining Departments. The former department at the outset comprised two groups of metal workers: the United Metal Workers International Union and the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. The United Metal Workers had been a part of the American Federation of Labor until shortly before the first I. W. W. convention, and was on its adjournment installed as a part of the Metals and Machinery Department of the I. W. W. The Amalgamated Society of Engineers had also been a part of the American Federation of Labor.

On account of the somewhat industrial structure of that organization, as different kinds of workers in the metal industry comprised its membership, said society had been suspended ... from the American Federation of Labor, but by a referendum vote of the members living in the United States and Canada it was decided to become an integral part of the American Labor Union....[193]

On the merging of the American Labor Union in the Industrial Workers of the World, the Metal Workers of that union organized in the Amalgamated Society of Engineers were naturally installed with the United Metal Workers in the Metals and Machinery Department. Mutual hostility and friction between these two groups thus arbitrarily forced into one department, added to a deplorable lack of coöperation and assistance from the General Headquarters, finally resulted in the breaking away of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, and the consequent loss to the I. W. W. of about four thousand wage-earners in this one department during the first year of its existence. This left the Metals and Machinery Department, about three thousand strong, practically limited in membership to the United Metal Workers International Union.[194]

The most paralyzing blow of all came with the loss of the whole of the Mining Department in the defection of the Western Federation of Miners in 1907. Indeed, the Federation really ceased to be an active member of the I. W. W. after the second convention of the latter organization in September, 1906. The W. F. of M. defection was so intimately connected with other dark troubles which came to light at the second convention that the subject will best be treated in that connection.[195]

The strikes conducted by the Industrial Workers of the World during the first fifteen months of its existence were almost uniformly unsuccessful. Its strike activities were, however, quite widespread and pushed in most cases with energy and enthusiasm. The following groups of workers were involved: the Stogie Workers of Cleveland, Ohio; Hotel and Restaurant Workers of Goldfield, Nevada; the Window Washers of Chicago; the Marble Workers of Cincinnati; the Miners of Tonopah and Goldfield, Nev.; the Silk Workers of Trenton (N. J.) and Staten Island (N. Y.); and the Saw Mill and Lumber Workers of Lake Charles, Louisiana. The Stogie Workers were on strike from January 1 to October 1, 1906. They demanded a ten per cent wage increase, abolition of the black list, and one apprentice to every ten employees.[196] Although the strikers were unable to get the aid they needed from the General Organization, the strike seems to have been quite successful.[197]

In Goldfield, Nevada, strikes were conducted by two different locals. The demand of the Hotel and Restaurant Workers for the eight-hour day was finally acceded to. The Miners were on Strike both in Goldfield and Tonopah. They were bitterly opposed by the Allied Printing Trades Council of the American Federation of Labor, and seem not to have reached a settlement until late in 1907.

The Window Washers' strike in Chicago began August 1, 1906, and was on at the time of the second convention. Members of the Window Washers' Union quit work in thirty-five buildings in the down-town district of Chicago. The General Executive Board advised that the striking men be kept at work in other occupations so far as possible in order to keep down expenses. The Marble Workers of Cincinnati demanded a nine-hour day and a Saturday half-holiday. There appears to be no record of the result of their efforts.

The strikes of the Silk Workers at Trenton, N. J., and

Staten Island, N. Y., were both lost, the cause assigned by the strikers for their defeat being the fact that they could get no support from the General Organization.[198]

There was a disproportionate amount of energy given to strikes at this time. Moreover, most of this energy was misdirected. President Sherman, in his report to the convention, said: "There has been no time since August, 1905, but what we have had one or more strikes to contend with, which has been more or less responsible for our organization not being in a position to place more organizers in the field than what it has maintained."[199]

In discussing the I. W. W. strike record, Secretary Trautmann declared that "there was not a single solitary strike that the I. W. W. won." They were not rightly conducted, nor called at the right time.

Those organizations [he explained] formed in the last year on a strict observance of the laws and principles of the I. W. W. did not have a strike while those organizations organized on the craft union principle of immediate gains without voluntary coöperation of the membership, those organizations were the only ones that were plunged into a fight immediately after we were organized.[200]

There was certainly little or no coöperative planning of strikes, especially no careful timing of them, between the local unions and the general administration. Often during the first year "strikes were called in times when the general organization was least prepared, and when it required strenuous efforts to meet the requirements of such a conflict with the employers."[201]

President Sherman believed that the strike activities had been too exclusively confined to the eastern states, and even suggested that it might be better for the time being to conduct strikes only in the West. He explained his position as follows:

Nearly all the strikes which have taken place during the life of the organization have been in the eastern States. The workers at those points, being so poorly paid, it has been necessary for them to immediately appeal for benefits, which demonstrates the fact that we must prepare for war before war is declared. Many of our strikes ... have taken place immediately after the local union was organized, before the members involved in such strikes were hardened and drilled in the principles of industrial unionism.... One local union in the East ... becomes a greater responsibility to the general organization than three local unions in the West.[202]

At the same time that the industrial unionists were pushing their strike propaganda some of them who were also members of the radical political parties were trying to bring those parties (viz., the Socialist party and the Socialist Labor party) together. To do this they realized that the two parties must agree upon a policy in regard to the attitude which the party should assume toward the trade unions. With this object in view representatives of the two socialist parties called a conference which was afterwards known as the New Jersey Socialist Unity Conference. The sessions of this conference were held in various New Jersey towns—Orange, Paterson, West Hoboken, Newark—at irregular times between September 10, 1905, and March 4, 1906. The purpose of the conference, as expressed in the Manifesto issued at the close of its sessions, was "to consider the causes of the division between the two [socialist] camps and ascertain, if possible, whether solid grounds could be found for a union of the militant socialist forces ... of the State...."[203]

The conference believed that any union between the revolutionary groups in America depended upon a proper solution of two problems: "First, the proper attitude for a political party of socialism to assume toward the burning question of trades unionism; and second, the proper attitude for a political party of socialism to assume toward the ownership of its press, the voice of the movement."[204]

The first of these two problems took up the greater part of the attention of the conference, and it is the only one which was of special import in the development of industrial unionism. The very fact of such a conference indicates that there was at least that harmony between the two camps which was necessary to enable them to get together to discuss differences. Members of both parties, too, believed that a harmony platform was actually in process of successful application, so far as the economic or labor-union policy of both parties was concerned. For—behold the I. W. W.! "Such a conference," said the secretary of the State Executive Committee of the Socialist Labor party, "taking place at a time when the hitherto divided socialists are approaching one another and joining hands on the basis of the Industrial Workers of the World—such a conference we feel confident, at least feel hopeful, will promote the desired end of socialist unity."[205]

Shall the political party, the radical political party, be neutral in its attitude towards the economic organization of the working class? This was the real question at issue. The prevailing sentiment at this conference was in the negative.

A socialist political movement [declared one delegate] cannot be neutral with regard to economic movements. The Socialist party itself, on the speakers' banners, says to the workers, "Join the union of your craft. Join the party of your class." Evolution forced the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, the class conscious, economic organization of labor. It was not a mistake. It organized with 25,000 men and today we have the Industrial Workers of the World with 100,000 men, organized on class conscious lines. If it was a mistake, it was the kind of a mistake that helps. Neutrality is nonsense.[206]

Some of the delegates were more hesitant about such a proposition as the unqualified endorsement of the I. W. W. One of the Socialist party representatives expressed his opposition to such support in these words:

The I. W. W. may be good enough now [he said] but it may drift, may become bad. Should the Socialist movement base itself on the I. W. W. and that organization fall, the party would fall with it. I am opposed to recognizing that organization until it has proved itself to be of use. In Colorado the Western Federation of Miners adopted declarations similar to those of the I. W. W., endorsed the Socialist party, then went to the polls, not to cast their ballot for the Socialist candidate, but for a reactionary Democrat. We have nothing definite to show that the I. W. W. would not do the same thing.[207]

The I. W. W. has changed—shifted very decidedly—and in that the delegate proved himself something of a prophet, but its new position is anything but that of a reactionary labor organization voting for a Democratic—or Republican—candidate!

The majority were emphatically for a recognition of the principle of industrial unionism, but there was some difference of opinion as to whether any particular organization should be endorsed. A number of the conferees felt that the I. W. W. should simply be commended as useful for working out the industrial-union idea, rather than given an unreserved endorsement. The final conclusions of the conference were embodied in a series of resolutions, and also expressed in detail in the Manifesto already referred to. The resolutions pertaining to the question of political-economic relations were as follows:

I. Resolved, that the Socialist political movement of the working class cannot remain neutral to the organized effort of the working class to better their economic conditions on class-conscious, revolutionary lines.

II. Resolved, that the A. F. of L. form of organization and its principles are an obstacle to working class emancipation.

III. Resolved, that the Conference places itself on record as recognizing the usefulness of the Industrial Workers of the World to the proletarian movement....

X. Resolved, ... that ... steps be taken to bring about a national conference between the two organizations in order to bring about unity on a national basis.[208]

The Conference holds [reads this Manifesto] that without the political movement backed by a class-conscious ... economic organization, ready to take and hold and conduct the productive power of the land, and thereby ready ... to enforce if ... and when need be, the fiat of the socialist ballot of the working class; that without such a body in existence, the socialist political movement will be but a flash in the pan ...; that a political party of Socialism which marches to the polls unarmed by such [an] organization, but invites a catastrophe over the land in the measure that it strains for [and achieves] political success.... It must be an obvious fact to all serious observers of the times, that the day of the political success of such a party in America would be the day of its defeat, immediately followed by an industrial and financial crisis, from which none would suffer more than the working class itself.... By its own declarations and acts the American Federation of Labor shows that it accepts wage-slavery as a finality ... holding that there is identity of interest between employer and employee.... Consequently [the Conference] ... rejects as impracticable, vicious, and productive only of corruption the theory of neutrality on the economic field ..., condemns the American Federation of Labor as an obstacle to the emancipation of the working class ... [and] commends as useful to the emancipation of the working class the Industrial Workers of the World, which instead of running away from the class struggle bases itself squarely upon it, and boldly and correctly sets out the socialist principle "that the working class and the employing class have nothing in common...."[209]

The second I. W. W. convention met on September 17, 1906, with ninety-three delegates. The sessions continued for sixteen days. It had been predicted at the first convention that the Industrial Workers of the World would within a year be one hundred thousand strong. This forecast was, according to Secretary Trautmann's report to the second convention, very much too sanguine. This report indicated that there were some sixty thousand members (including 27,000 in the Western Federation of Miners) at the opening of the second convention. The following tabulation of the growth of the membership during the first year is arranged from the data given in Mr. Trautmann's report:

I. W. W. Membership—First Year[210]

DateUnions directly attachedTransportation Dept.Metal Dept.Total Membership
1905
Aug. 11,900
Sept. 14,247[211]
Oct. 11,0008405,078
Nov. 18405,482
Dec. 18407,971
1906
Jan. 18408,200
Feb. 17,817
Mar. 19,2751,50010,775
Apr. 110,2883,00013,228
May 113,5201953,00016,715
June 121,000
July 122,500
Aug. 145,000
Sept. 160,000

The data, it will be noticed, is very fragmentary in regard to the growth of the various departments, and even the figures representing total membership can be considered by no means conservative. Mr. St. John, until recently Secretary-Treasurer of the organization, wrote "that the Second Annual Convention reports claim 60,000 members, but the books of the organization did not justify any such claims; in fact, the average paid-up membership with the W. F. of M. for the first year of the organization was 14,000 members in round numbers."[212]

As has already been intimated, the Mining Department was from the first not very securely held in the bonds of the general organization, and it is very doubtful whether the 27,000 miners should be included in I. W. W. membership estimates even during the period while the Western Federation was nominally a department of the Industrial Workers of the World. According to Secretary Trautmann, it was evident "on August 1, 1905, that those brave men of the American Labor Union, numbered then 1,100, and approximately 700 in the Metal Department, [and] could not be swayed by the denunciation of the opposition in the West, those under cover as friends, often more dangerous than those openly fighting the I. W. W." "These 1900 [1800]," continued Mr. Trautmann, "constituted the only force with which the constructive work was begun."[213]

President Sherman reported that on September 10, 1906, the locals holding charters in the Industrial Workers of the World numbered 394, of which number 120 were not at that time in good standing, so that there were at the time of the second convention 274 active locals enrolled.[214] The greater part of this number consisted of local unions directly attached to the general organization without any intervening subordinate division or subdivision. A considerable minority of the total, however, comprised local unions which were only indirectly attached to the general organization, such locals being enrolled in District Councils or National Industrial Unions, or even Industrial Departments and being directly responsible to that council, national union, or department.

There were but three departments actually organized as such during the first twelve months. These were the Transportation Department, the Metals and Machinery Department, and the Mining Department. The Mining Department was the only one of the three having the members necessary to justify existence as a separate autonomous department, and it was finally the only department recognized as such at the second convention. The Western Federation of Miners was thus the I. W, W.'s only genuine department—and a department, moreover, which was agitating sub rosa all the while against the general organization of which it was even a nominal department for but a few months.

Concerning the Transportation Department, Secretary Trautmann reported to the convention that, "the United Brotherhood of Railway Employees ... installed itself as the Transportation Department of the I. W. W., it being accepted as a fact that said Brotherhood was an integral part of the American Labor Union and had at the time of installment 2,087 members...."

... this so-called department [he said] proved to be a constant drain on the general treasury.... While the Transportation Department has paid in taxes to the Industrial Workers of the World the sum of $130.75, the main organization was constantly paying more into that department in the vain hope that eventually the workers in that industry would rally around the banner of industrial unionism....[215]

Although the convention decided not to recognize the Transportation Department, it did endorse a resolution providing "that the credentials of all local unions of transportation workers who are sending delegates, be recognized and the delegates seated."[216] The break-up of the Metal and Machinery Department and the bolting of that (chief) subdivision of it which was formerly and now again became the Amalgamated Society of Engineers has been referred to above.[217] The convention took the same action in regard to this as in the case of the Transportation Department, denying recognition to the Department but granting it to those local unions (the United Metal Workers Union in this case) which had sent delegates to the convention.

It was claimed that seven international unions voluntarily joined the Industrial Workers of the World, "even though they were forced by the power of the capitalist combinations to remain ... attached to the American Federation of Labor."[218] The seven "international" industrial unions are nowhere specifically mentioned but must presumably have included unions belonging to the three departments mentioned above and which were organized during the first year. The International Musical Union was one of these so-called international unions. This organization was not even satisfied to be an international industrial union—it insisted on being a Department as well—and claimed the title of

the International Musical and Theatrical Union, Subdivision of the Public Service Department of the Industrial Workers of the World ... [all this] on the grounds ... that organizations comprising 1000 and even less members were allowed autonomous department administration and department executive boards; and so that organization has since been using the prestige of the I. W. W. to justify its existence as a part of a department not at all organized.[219]

There is not now and never has been a genuine, that is to say a constitutional, Public Service Department in the I. W. W., and of course the convention could not recognize a mere fragment of what might some day become a Public Service Department.

Since 1906 there have been no Industrial Departments (i. e., no divisions larger in scope than the National Industrial Union) in the I. W. W. Nevertheless, the Constitution continued, up to the tenth convention in 1916, to speak of the organization as being composed of National Industrial Departments, National Industrial Unions, etc.[220] The Agricultural Workers' Organization (the "A. W. O."), organized in 1914, which now constitutes a large and increasingly important division of the I. W. W., is akin to what the founders wanted to have in the I. W. W. in 1905. There is more body to it today than there was to any of the so-called International Industrial Departments of the earlier period. It is to be noted that in all the editions of the Constitution since 1906 the word "International" has been replaced wherever it occurred by the word "National."

Throughout the whole of its history the Industrial Workers of the World has been composed almost entirely of local unions scattered throughout the United States and Canada, all directly connected with the central office or what is called the General Organization. The development of subdivisions (such as Industrial District Councils, International Industrial Unions, and Industrial Departments), between the general organization and the local union has not been appreciable until within the last two or three years.[221]