FOOTNOTES:
[262] Proceedings, p. 309.
[263] Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention (1906), pp. 65-6.
[264] Report of the General President, Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention (1906), pp. 45-6.
[265] Ibid., p. 423.
[266] Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention (1906), p. 252.
[267] Cf. supra, p. 84. Also, Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention (1905), p. 1
[268] Report of the Secretary-Treasurer, Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention (1906), p. 68. There was no action taken by the convention on Trautmann's suggestion that European propaganda agencies be established.
[269] Bulletin of the Industrial Workers of the World, No. 4, Dec, 1, 1906.
[270] Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention (1906), p. 110.
[271] Ibid.
[272] Report of General Secretary-Treasurer, Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention (1906), p. 61.
[273] Report of the General President, ibid., p. 46.
[274] Cf., e. g., the case of the Tinners and Platers of Youngstown, Ohio, as reported, by Delegate Lundy, Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention (1906), p. 277.
[275] Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention (1906), p. 287. The following clause was added to the constitution: "Mixed locals. No member of a trade that is organized in his locality is qualified for admission into a mixed local in the same locality, and no member of a mixed local can remain a member of the same after his trade has been organized in that locality." Ibid., p. 276. For the discussion of the "mixed local" problem, cf. ibid., pp. 276-288.
[276] I. W. W. Constitution (1905), art. i, sec. 2 (b), cf. supra, p, 98.
[277] Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention (1906), p. 60.
[278] Report of the General Secretary-Treasurer, Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention (1906), p. 62.
[279] Constitution (1905), art. i, sec. 2 (a) and art. vii, sec. 4, cf. supra, p. 96.
[280] Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention (1906), p. 330. Tridon makes this statement concerning departmentalism in 1906: "This system soon appeared impracticable and as the purely industrialist view was beginning to dominate the membership, it was more and more definitely recognized that the New Unionism should organize from below upward. In other words, the local industrial union, not the department, was to be the basis of organization." (The New Unionism, p. 100.) By 1917 the departments had practically vanished from the working structure of the I. W. W. This is shown graphically in the chart diagram of the organization's present structure in Appendix iii.
[281] Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention (1906), p. 463. In September, 1906, the I. W. W. label had been registered in all but three of the states of the Union. Ibid., p. 45.
[282] Vide infra, ch. xiii.
[283] Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention (1906), p. 231.
[284] Ibid., p. 225.
[285] Ibid. The amendment abolishing the presidential office was adopted by a vote of 354½ to 253, ibid., p. 246.
[286] Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention (1906), pp. 567, 420.
[287] Ibid., p. 471.
[288] A recognition of a wider meaning in the term "political action" is evidenced in Delegate Foote's statement that "Every action of every individual in ... organized society is a political action, whether it be as you say on the industrial [political] or on the economic field.... The action of the Industrial Workers of the World as a so-called economic organization is a political action in an organized society." Ibid., p. 311.
[289] Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention (1906), p. 309.
[290] For discussion of the change in the preamble and on political action in general, cf. ibid., pp. 305-313. The amended preamble is printed in full in the Proceedings, p. 614, and in a pamphlet entitled, Industrial Workers of the World—Preamble and Constitution, published by the Detroit faction. Cf., also, appendix ii.
[291] Spargo to the contrary notwithstanding. He writes: "At the second convention, September, 1906, the preamble was amended and all emphasis on the need for political action omitted." Syndicalism, Socialism and Industrial Unionism, p. 208.
[292] Report of the General President, Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention (1906), pp. 44-45.
[293] Ibid., p. 573.
[294] This should be the 19th.
[295] Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention (1906), p. 47.
[296] A term applied to members of and believers in what Samuel Gompers has called the "pure and simple trade union"—the conventional type of unionist who will have nothing to do with radicalism and accepts implicitly the capitalistic régime.
[297] Vincent St. John, who had been organizing for the I. W. W in the Coeur d'Alene district of Idaho, was arrested at about the same time.
[298] In his report to the convention, Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention (1906), pp. 70-1.
[299] Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention (1906), p. 41.
[300] Ibid., p. 411.
[301] Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention (1906), p. 422.
[302] Haywood was acquitted July 28, 1907.
[303] The Miners' Magazine continued to bear the I. W. W. label on its title page until August 1, 1907. As explained elsewhere, the two organizations were virtually divorced as early as January, 1907. Cf. supra, p. 151.
[304] "The World of Labor," International Socialist Review, vol. vii, pp. 31-2.
[CHAPTER VII]
The Fight for Existence
The third convention of the I. W. W. was in session in Chicago for eight days beginning September 16, 1907. This was a much less turbulent gathering than the one of the preceding year. DeLeon's chronicler says that: "At the third convention of the I. W. W.... almost complete harmony prevailed. The organization had so far recuperated from the blow it had received the year before that several organizers were being employed and many new locals had been formed."[305] He admits, however, that there was some friction, explaining that the anarchistic element "sounded the only note of discord." This, he says, was the "shadow cast before by the pure and simple physical force craze that came into full swing a year after."[306]
This, was a congress of the "proletarian rabble"—the DeLeon-St. John-Trautmann faction. The Sherman faction was no longer in existence. The DeLeonites looked upon the Shermanites as having been from the first nothing more than "a bunch of grafting politicians and labor fakirs." Leaders of the (Chicago) I. W. W. now speak of the 1906 and the 1908 conventions as marking the sloughing-off of the Socialist party politicians at the first, and the Socialist Labor party politicians at the second, respectively. St. John says that at this 1907 convention "a slight effort was made to relegate the politician to the rear."[307] The Shermanites seem to have had no really substantial constituency at any time. However, it appears that this group did have a convention in July, 1907. No proceedings or other documentary records of this convention have been discovered by the writer. The Miners' Magazine remarked editorially that "The Sherman faction that held its convention in July (1907) was but a burlesque, while the Trautmann faction that held its convention in September was but a grim joke. The treasury was empty, and both factions are confronted with debts which cannot be met."[308] The Shermanite journal, The Industrial Worker, which had been held by the Sherman group and circulated from Joliet, Ill., appeared in July, 1907, and there seems to be no evidence that any subsequent numbers were issued. Both Shermanites and DeLeonites claimed control of the bulk of those I. W. W. local unions which remained after the breaking away of the Western Federation.[309] Sherman continued to present a brave and optimistic front at the time of the fifteenth convention of the Western Federation. On June 3, 1907, he wrote a letter to the convention urging the miners to re-affiliate with the Industrial Workers of the World (i. e., the Shermanite faction). If they would only agree to that, he declared, it would "require not more than two months when the so-called revolutionary movement will die of its own weight, as it is only existing at this time under false pretenses...."[310]
Neither did the "proletarian rabble" have any very exalted notion of the power of the "reactionaries."
The plain truth is [declared one of the alleged false pretenders] that the Sherman-McCabe Slugging Company has at no time since the [second I. W. W.] convention had the support of more than 1,000 members—something less than 100 in New York, 100 in Chicago, and the rest (reactionary pure and simple unions) lost in the distances between Ahern's saloon at the St. Regis and Motherwell's saloon at Bingham's Canyon.
The Shermanites, however, claimed the Mining Department, and they seem on the whole to have been justified, for the pro-Sherman or "anti-proletarian" faction, so called, eventually dominated the fifteenth convention of the Western Federation of Miners and made what was already a virtual separation from the I. W. W. a formal and complete divorce. The Shermanite organ, the (old) Industrial Worker, in its issue for April, 1907, claimed that the "Mining Department of the Industrial Workers of the World gained nearly 3,000 members during the month of February" (p. 8). The Shermanites also claimed to have chartered ten locals (outside the W. F. M.) in January.[311]
There were present at the first day's session of the September 1907, convention fifty-one delegates representing sixty-five local unions, and before the close of the convention there were 74 local unions represented by 53 delegates having a total of 129 votes. Few delegates had more than two or three votes. The Paterson (N. J.) delegation had 28 votes; George Speed, representing two locals, had twelve; B. H. Williams, eleven and Daniel DeLeon, three. Contests were made on 26 of the delegates. Among the other delegates to this convention were Rudolph Katz. E. J. Foote, Vincent St. John, F. W. Heslewood, Wm. E. Trautmann, M. P. Hagerty, and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn. Mr. Katz was elected temporary chairman.[312]
The organization was not prosperous at this time. It was weakened and almost torn apart by the exhausting internal struggles it had gone though in its two short years of life. It had lost its strongest member—its main body, almost—the Western Federation of Miners, and with the Sherman contingent a considerable number of individual members in local unions even though the locals themselves retained their affiliation. The writer has not seen any definite statement as to the magnitude of the loss in locals and individuals due to the Shermanite defection. The "proletarian rabble," however, claimed that "139 of the local unions declared themselves in favor of all transactions of the convention."[313] At this time, on the same authority, there were 358 locals "carried on the books," but only 181 in good standing.[314] On a basis of locals in good standing the Shermanites took with them less than twenty-five per cent of the locals in the organization, but if we include all locals, the Shermanites must be allowed to have taken with them sixty per cent of the I. W. W. locals. Further evidence of serious decline is found in the very low proportion of I. W. W. local unions which were represented by delegates at the third convention. If we may accept Secretary Trautmann's statement[315] to the convention that there were at the time about 200 local unions in the organization, it appears that but slightly more than one-third of these locals were represented at the convention. The "Wobblies" had very little to say at this time about the membership of the organization. Indeed, there has never at any time been much to say about it. In 1907 they were even less aware of their own numerical strength than they usually are. They knew, of course, that it was small and that it had dwindled much since 1905.
The leaders of the Western Federation of Miners followed the proceedings with no friendly eye. J. M. O'Neil declared that "the Trautmann faction does not dare disclose its membership...."[316] He stated further that "a delegate upon the floor of the September convention asked to know the membership of the organization, but he was curtly told by the chairman of the convention to 'never mind counting noses but [to] go home and organize.'"[317]
Official reports to the fifteenth convention of the Western Federation of Miners held the preceding June, credited the I. W. W. with a membership of 32,000, of which number 8,000 were delinquent.[318] This estimate is presumably exclusive of the Western Federation. Delegate F. W. Heslewood (W. F. M. and I. W. W., later a member of the General Executive Board of the [Chicago] I. W. W.) who was one of the so-called "wage-slave delegates" at the second I. W. W. convention, tells the miners' convention that "in one local in the state of Oregon there are over 3,000 members that travel the streets with red flags and red neckties demanding the full product of their toil...."[319] Professor Barnett puts the membership for 1907 at 6,700.[320] General Secretary St. John places it at 5,931.[321] He estimated the membership for 1905-6 as 23,219. Barnett's figures are: 1905, 14,300; 1906, 10,400.[322] These estimates vary widely, but this at least is evident: there was a marked and progressive decline in membership during the organization's first two years of existence.
During the twelve-month period ending September, 1907, one hundred and eighteen locals were organized.[323] Reports published from time to time in the Miner's Magazine[324] indicate that from the birth of the organization to September 17, 1906, three hundred and ninety-four locals had been organized. A total of 512 locals had, therefore, been organized up to the convening of the third convention in September, 1907. As already noted, there were in the organization at that time about 200 local unions. The necessary inference is that three out of every four locals organized so far in the history of the I. W. W. had either broken away from the organization or simply expired. This condition has been characteristic of the I. W. W. in greater or less degree throughout its brief career. The "turnover" of local unions as well as of individual members has been immense and very irregular. No continuous reports of the new locals chartered have appeared in the I. W. W. press. Weekly reports appeared quite regularly in The Industrial Union Bulletin through the spring of 1907 and showed that four or five new locals were being chartered each week during the three-months period. There is no record of locals disbanded.
In August, 1907, the International Socialist and Labor Congress met at Stuttgart. Both factors of the I. W. W. were represented: the Sherman faction by Hugo Pick and the DeLeon-St. John faction by Fred Heslewood. The latter group in its suspiciously optimistic report claimed that, "... starting out with only 2,000 members in 1905, the Western Federation of Miners not included, the organization has now 362 industrial unions and branches organized in 37 States and 3 Provinces of Canada ... [and] embraces now 28,000 militant workers...."[325]
The Congress devoted considerable attention to the problem of labor organization. The discussion of this problem centered almost exclusively upon two topics: (1) the relations between the political party and the trade union, and (2) the defects of the craft union. The I. W. W., through its representatives, was actively interested in both of these matters. Its sustained opposition to the craft type of union is characteristically displayed in the report[326] which the Socialist Labor party presented to the Congress. It was evidently written by DeLeon and it may be taken fairly to represent the attitude of the I. W. W. One paragraph of this report, which puts very comprehensively the Industrialist's indictment of the old-line union, reads:
The trades-union field [in America] was found by the political movement of socialism to be preëmpted by what is called craft or pure and simple unionism. This system of unionism organizes the crafts, not simply as units but as autonomous and sovereign bodies. The fundamental error of this system of economic organization was soon found to be desirable by the capitalist class. The craft union rendered all economic movement fruitless. If indeed the wages in these unions were ever found higher than among the unorganized, the price that the union paid for such higher wages was to divide the working class hopelessly. In the first place, the craft union deliberately excluded the majority of the members of the trade from participation, by means of apprenticeship regulations, high dues, high initiation fees and other devices. In the second place, each of these craft unions, in turn, could earn its Judas pence only by allying itself with the employer each time that some other craft was at war with the employing class. It is superfluous to enumerate the long catalogue of deliberate acts of treason to the working class at home and abroad, and the shocking corruption that such style of unionism was bound to breed. Suffice it to say, as proof, that these craft unions are found amalgamated with an organization of capitalists, known as the "Civic Federation," the purpose of which is to establish "harmonious relations between labor and capital." These craft unions are mainly organized in the American Federation of Labor.[327]
During the discussion of the relations between the political parties and the trade unions a heated argument took place between representatives of the I. W. W. (DeLeon faction) and of the Socialist party.[328] The Socialist party delegation made a long report in which the I. W. W. was referred to in no complimentary terms. F. W. Heslewood, representing the I. W. W.,[329] retorted that the report was "a tissue of lies and misrepresentations concerning the Industrial Workers of the World in America."[330] He went on to indicate the I. W. W. conceptions of the Socialist party of America in these terms:
This vote-catching machine of which the previous speaker from America (A. M. Simons) is so proud, will stoop to anything and go to any length to secure votes. They have defended a lot of scab unions of the A. F. of L. in California, have endorsed resolutions condemning the Japanese and asking for their exclusion from America, although we find that the Japanese, with very little education in revolutionary unionism, make better union men than the sacred contract scab of the A. F. of L.
At the other end of the continent, in New York, they place their candidates on the same ticket as Randolph Hearst, a Democrat, a trust-buster of the Roosevelt type. I have in my hand here a card ... asking the workers to vote for "Hearst and Hillquit." "Hearst and Hillquit" for good government? "Hearst and Hillquit" for socialism? No. "Hearst and Hillquit" for votes! Hillquit, the "revolutionist," one of the leading stars at this congress, the chief representative of this vote-catching machine: Hillquit, who has fed you on lies concerning the Industrial Workers of the World. If this is the way to get socialism, I hope that such a damnable brand will never be ushered in in my time. What bearing has this criminal work on our grand old slogan, "Workers of the world unite"?
In America we have two kinds of unions, one is known as the American Federation of Labor and the other is the Industrial Workers of the World. One has a million and a half members and the other has over 70,000 members including the Western Federation of Miners, that is 40,000 miners and 30,000 directly chartered members from the headquarters of the Industrial Workers. The larger one is called by the capitalist masters and their agents, "The bulwark of Capitalist Society," and the chiefs at the head of this scab arrangement were classed by Mark Hanna as his "able lieutenants," and that is what they are.[331]
DeLeon and Heslewood endeavored to put through a resolution in condemnation of the general position of neutrality taken by Socialist parties in their relation with labor organizations. They believed that a Socialist party should definitely endorse radical or socialistic trade unions and officially frown upon all reactionary unions, and especially condemn and discourage reaction wherever it might appear among labor organizations. "Neutrality towards trade unions," reads their resolution, "is equivalent to neutrality toward the machinations of the capitalist class."[332]
The resolutions on this subject which were finally adopted by the congress were much less militant in tone than the I. W. W. statement. The prevailing resolution read in part as follows:
To enfranchise the proletariat completely from the bonds of intellectual, political and economic serfdom, the political and the economic struggle are alike necessary. If the activity of the Socialist party is exercised more particularly in the domain of the political struggle of the proletariat, that of the unions displays itself in the domain of the economic struggle of the workers. The unions and the party have therefore an equally important task to perform in the struggle for proletarian emancipation. Each of the two organizations has its distinct domain defined by its nature, and within whose borders it should enjoy independent control of its line of action. But there is an ever-widening domain in the proletarian struggle of the classes in which they can only reap advantages by concerted action and by coöperation between the party and the trade unions.[333]
Further along in the same resolution the Congress declared that the unions could not fully perform their duty in the struggle for the emancipation of the workers unless "a thoroughly socialist spirit inspires their policy" and that it was the duty of the party and the unions to render each other "moral support."[334] The editor of the official organ, however, looked upon these resolutions as being very favorable to the I. W. W., which he declared had forced the Congress to "a recognition of the paramount importance of the economic organization, with the result that the Congress itself stands almost on I. W. W. ground."[335]
The 1907 convention was a gathering of the DeLeon-Trautmann-St. John faction. At the fourth convention the first hyphen was to be smashed, but in 1907 both links held firmly. The general tone was one of harmony. An attempt was made, however, to reëstablish the office of President. After a long debate on a resolution to this effect the proposition was defeated. It was decided, however, to establish the office of General Organizer, the incumbent of which was expected also to act as Assistant General Secretary.
The original preamble of 1905 had weathered the second convention without being modified. The first lines of the second paragraph read: "Between these two classes a struggle must go on until all the toilers come together on the political as well as on the industrial field...." A motion was made at the third convention to strike out the words italicized. It was defeated by vote of 113 to 15.[336]
The "political clause" of the preamble was the subject of extended discussion.[337] At this time all efforts to alter the preamble were unsuccessful. The debate was significant, however, in foreshadowing the much more serious struggle which was to take place a year later when the I. W. W. was literally split in two over the question of the retention or the elimination of the "political clause." Daniel DeLeon was a member of the Committee on Constitution and made a long speech in opposition to the motion to eliminate from the preamble all reference to the "political field," declaring that "the position of the I. W. W. is that when the day [der Tag of the socialists, the day of the Revolution] shall come it shall itself project its own political party."[338] DeLeon was supported in his position by George Speed, who later became a member of the General Executive Board of the so-called anti-political—or Chicago—faction and who has been prominent in the activities of the I. W. W. on the Pacific Coast.[339] Delegate E. J. Foote took the same stand and made a cogent argument for retaining the political clause.
[The word] "political" [he said] does have a meaning.... The point is raised that the working class will not have a "government." With that I might agree, but they will have an industrial administration ... and that administration must be political in the sense that it is controlled by the ballot on the inside of your own organization.[340]
The constitution committee presented a resolution declaring that "the I. W. W. seeks its political expression only in its own industrial administration." This is vague, and it may have been made designedly so. It might have been brought in to appease those who feared that the I. W. W. would be made the tail to some political party kite.[341]