[450] Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor, Annual Reports on Labor Organisations, 1909-1914. Cf. also Appendix iv (Table A).
[451] Letter to the author, Feb. 17, 1915.
[452] Vide Preamble and Constitution of the W. I. I. U. (1915), pp. 3-4.
[453] Syndicalisme révolutionnaire et syndicalisme réformiste, pp. 13-14.
[454] Revolution and Counter-Revolution (2nd ed., 1904), pp. 109-10.
[455] Cf. infra, ch. xiii, where the controversy at the seventh and eighth conventions between the "Centralizers" and the "Decentralizers" is described.
[456] DeLeon, Industrial Unionism (New York: N. Y. Labor News Co., 1918), pp. 8-9.
[457] The author wishes to take this opportunity to express his indebtedness to Emil J. Kern, of the Socialist Labor party, for many suggestive ideas, especially in connection with the DeLeon-St. John controversy. Whatever merit there may be in the above comparison is due to him. On the second point, however, Mr. Kern simply states that the difference was merely a difference of views in regard to stealing. St. John, he says, approved of it. (Not per se, of course, but because, as he assumed—[on Kern's hypothesis], it helped the interests of the workers.) DeLeon disapproved of it, not on moral grounds, but for the reasons given above in paragraph 2. The author does not know whether St. John approves of stealing or not. Some color may be given to Mr. Kern's contention by the charges which were circulated in Goldfield, Nev., that the W. F. M. sanctioned the wholesale stealing of ore by its members. Cf. supra, p. 198. and E. J. Kern, "Socialism and Direct Action" (San Francisco Labor Clarion, May 31, 1912).
[458] Louis Levine, "The Development of Syndicalism in America," Political Science Quarterly, vol. xxviii, p. 474 (Sept., 1913). This is perhaps the best short record and general description of the career of the I. W. W. as a whole.
[459] Herman Richter, private correspondence, March 30, 1912.