People :
Author : The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW)
Sections (TOC) :
• Publisher's Note and Transcriber's Note
432 Words; 2,593 Characters
• Day 1, Morning Session : Tuesday, June 27, 1905
2,756 Words; 18,276 Characters
• Day 1, Afternoon Session : Tuesday, June 27, 1905
4,152 Words; 25,244 Characters
• Day 2, Morning Session : Wednesday, June 28
18,730 Words; 109,716 Characters
• Day 2, Afternoon Session : Wednesday, June 28
21,741 Words; 130,952 Characters
• Day 3, Morning Session : Thursday, June 29
12,153 Words; 72,758 Characters
• Day 3, Afternoon Session : Thursday, June 29
27,316 Words; 155,015 Characters
• Day 4, Morning Session : Friday, June 30
6,697 Words; 39,813 Characters
• Day 5, Morning Session : Saturday, July 1
14,059 Words; 81,597 Characters
• Day 6, Morning Session : Monday, July 3
16,219 Words; 92,867 Characters
• Day 6, Afternoon Session : Monday, July 3
10,141 Words; 60,050 Characters
• Day 7, Morning Session : Tuesday, July 4
12,957 Words; 77,772 Characters
• Day 7, Afternoon Session : Tuesday, July 4
13,945 Words; 81,055 Characters
• Day 8, Morning Session : Wednesday, July 5
15,742 Words; 89,084 Characters
• Day 8, Afternoon Session : Wednesday, July 5
31,952 Words; 185,104 Characters
• Day 9, Morning Session : Thursday, July 6
13,220 Words; 75,201 Characters
• Day 9, Afternoon Session : Thursday, July 6
24,961 Words; 147,430 Characters
• Day 10, Morning Session : Friday, July 7
7,854 Words; 46,765 Characters
• Day 10, Afternoon Session : Friday, July 7
12,680 Words; 76,706 Characters
• Day 11, Morning Session : Saturday, July 8
22,966 Words; 132,740 Characters
• Appendix, Part 1
14,173 Words; 78,330 Characters
Sections (Content) :
• Publisher's Note and Transcriber's Note
It is, we think, with pardonable pride, that we present this book to the reader—pride, not only in our share of the work of producing the book, which the elaborate index renders all the more useful, but pride in the zeal of all those who have helped us preserve to the Labor Movement of the world a great historic document, the importance of which will grow by the day. But, greater by far, is our joy, that at last there has been organized a great class conscious economic organization of the Working Class.
In the years to come, the student of economics and sociology will find the record of the first convention of the Industrial Workers of the World a landmark, from which to date the great forward movement of the Labor Movement in America. Heretofore, in the economic field, there has been more or less recognition of the class interests of Labor, but the unionism hitherto dominant craft unionism—denies the class struggle; it pronounces the interest of capitalist and worker identical, and where it is not quite so frank, it acts up to the principle. This false principle, and the wrong tactics flowing from it, have led to the disruption of the Labor Movement. It is against this denial of the class struggle, and against the impotence, to which such denial condemns the Working Class in its conflict with capitalism that the Industrialists have unfurled the banner of revolt. The I. W. W. stands upon the basic principle that the way to unite the workers is to organize them as a class, upon their class interests, and not for the purpose of securing for the present a few paltry crumbs from the table of Capitalism to a privileged few within the pure and simple unions, but that all may enjoy the fruits of their industry and the fullness thereof.
The arduous labors of the convention that brought forth the organization of the Industrial Workers, are recorded in full in this volume. Men and matters there appearing, will be re appearing continuously henceforth. Both, together with the new ones that will arise, will be better understood by this stenographic report, now given to the public.
THE PUBLISHERS
In transcribing this massive document, we have kept the spelling used in early 20th Century America as it was presented in the stenographic record of the Proceedings. Only in some minor areas of punctuation were any changes made, such as the use of punctuation in a section's title or subhead, something that is no longer done in modern publishing.
The transcribers
• Day 1, Morning Session : Tuesday, June 27, 1905
The convention called in accordance with the terms of the Manifesto issued by the Chicago Conference, January 2, 3, 4, 1905, and which before final adjournment organized the Industrial Workers of the World, met at Brand’s Hall, Chicago, Tuesday, June 27, 1905, at ten o’clock A. M. The convention was called to order by William D. Haywood, in the following words:
MR. HAYWOOD: Fellow Workers: In calling this convention to order I do so with a sense of the responsibility that rests upon me and rests upon every delegate that is here assembled. This is the Continental Congress of the working class. We are here to confederate the workers of this country into a working class movement that shall have for its purpose the emancipation of the working class from the slave bondage of capitalism. (Applause). There is no organization, or there seems to be no labor organization, that has for its purpose the same object as that for which you are called together to-day. The aims and objects of this organization should be to put the working class in possession of the economic power, the means of life, in control of the machinery of production and distribution, without regard to capitalist masters. (Applause). The American Federation of Labor, which presumes to be the labor movement of this country, is not a working class movement. It does not represent the working class. There are organizations that are affiliated, but loosely affiliated with the A. F. of L., which in their constitution and by-laws prohibit the initiation of or conferring the obligation on a colored man; that prohibit the conferring of the obligation on foreigners. What we want to establish at this time is a labor organization that will open wide its doors to every man that earns his livelihood either by his brain or his muscle. There is a great work to be accomplished at this convention, and every one of you must recognize the responsibility that rests upon you.
When the corporations and the capitalists understand that you are organized for the express purpose of placing the supervision of industry in the hands of those who do the work, you are going to be harassed and you are going to be subjected to every indignity and cruelty that their minds can invent. You are also going to be confronted with the so-called labor leader, the man who will tell you and other workers that the interests of the capitalist and the workingman are identical. (Applause). I want to say that a man who makes that assertion is a worse foe to the working class than is D. M. Parry or August Belmont. (Applause). There is no man who has an ounce of honesty in his make-up but recognizes the fact that there is a continuous struggle between the two classes, and this organization will be formed, based and founded on the class struggle (applause), having in view no compromise and no surrender, and but one object and one purpose and that is to bring the workers of this country into the possession of the full value of the product of their toil. (Applause). The Secretary will read the temporary rules of the convention.
TEMPORARY CONVENTION RULES.
MR. W. E. TRAUTMANN, SECRETARY: The temporary Executive Board of the January conferees proposes to this convention the following rules:
1:—Convention to open at ten o’clock Tuesday, June 27, by Chairman W. D. Haywood.
2:—Secretary of the temporary Executive Board to act as temporary Secretary of the preliminary meeting and read rules governing formation of the convention.
3:—Original conferees to constitute temporary Credential Committee to act upon the credentials of those delegates who are clothed with full power to install international, national or local unions, assemblies or alliances as working parts of the proposed economic organization.
4:—The Convention, as then constituted, shall elect a Credential Committee to pass upon the credentials of such of the original conferees as represent only themselves as individuals.
5:—The Convention, as then constituted, shall elect a final Credential Committee to examine the credentials of those delegates who, while they represent international, national or local unions, assemblies or alliances, are not authorized to install their respective organizations as working parts of the proposed economic organization.
6:—This final Credential Committee shall then act upon the credentials of general individual delegates.
7:—Election of chairman of Convention.
8:—Election of permanent Secretary and Assistant Secretary of the Convention.
9:—Election of a Committee on Rules.
MR. TRAUTMANN: The original conferees of January who are here seated upon the stage will constitute the first Credential Committee to act upon the credentials of those delegates who have the power to install their respective local organizations, national or international organizations or alliances, into this economic organization to be formed.
MR. HAYWOOD: We will now have the reading of the Manifesto issuing the call for this convention.
MR. D. C. COATES, COLORADO: Just a moment, please, before we proceed any further. Do I understand that those rules that have just been read are the rules of the convention?
MR. HAYWOOD: No, sir. Those are simply the temporary rules, which are subject to this convention after the convention is organized.
MR. COATES: Well, I understand that. What I meant was that they are now in force until other rules are adopted by the convention?
MR. HAYWOOD: I so understand, yes.
MR. COATES: Don’t you think, Mr. Chairman, that they ought to be open to discussion?
MR. HAYWOOD: Well, not before the Credential Committee acts. The original members of the Conference Committee, the signers of the Manifesto, will act as herein stated on the organizations that are instructed with full power to install their unions, international, local or national organizations. Then the convention will be organized, and the rules will be subject to any change that the convention desires.
MR. COATES: Now, Mr. Chairman, to get the thing clear, as I understand it now there will be nothing done except to have the report of this provisional Credential Committee under these rules?
MR. HAYWOOD: That is all; the reading of the Manifesto calling for this convention and the action of the Credentials Committee.
MR. DE LEON: Under that ruling I would understand that there is nothing to be done now except to present the credentials.
MR. HAYWOOD: That is all.
MR. DE LEON: The reading of the credentials should come before the organization of the house, under your ruling.
MR. HAYWOOD: The reading of the Manifesto will take place at this time.
MR. A. M. SIMONS, OF CHICAGO, then read the Manifesto calling for the convention, as follows:
MANIFESTO.
Social relations and groupings only reflect mechanical and industrial conditions. The great facts of present industry are the displacement of human skill by machines and the increase of capitalist power through concentration in the possession of the tools with which wealth is produced and distributed.
Because of these facts trade divisions among laborers and competition among capitalists are alike disappearing. Class divisions grow ever more fixed and class antagonisms more sharp. Trade lines have been swallowed up in a common servitude of all workers to the machines which they tend. New machines, ever replacing less productive ones, wipe out whole trades and plunge new bodies of workers into the ever-growing army of tradeless, hopeless unemployed. As human beings and human skill are displaced by mechanical progress, the capitalists need use the workers only during that brief period when muscles and nerves respond most intensely. The moment the laborer no longer yields the maximum of profits, he is thrown upon the scrap pile, to starve alongside the discarded machine. A dead line has been drawn, and an age-limit established, to cross which, in this world of monopolized opportunities, means condemnation to industrial death.
The worker, wholly separated from the land and the tools, with his skill of craftsmenship rendered useless, is sunk in the uniform mass of wage slaves. He sees his power of resistance broken by craft divisions, perpetuated from out-grown industrial stages. His wages constantly grow less as his hours grow longer and monopolized prices grow higher. Shifted hither and thither by the demands of profit-takers the laborer’s home no longer exists. In this helpless condition he is forced to accept whatever humiliating conditions his master may impose. He is submitted to a physical and intellectual examination more searching than was the chattel slave when sold from the auction block. Laborers are no longer classified by differences in trade skill, but the employer assigns them according to the machines to which they are attached. These divisions, far from representing differences in skill or interests among the laborers, are imposed by the employers that workers may be pitted against one another and spurred to greater exertion in the shop, and that all resistance to capitalist tyranny may be weakened by artificial distinctions.
While encouraging these outgrown divisions among the workers the capitalists carefully adjust themselves to the new conditions. They wipe out all differences among themselves and present a united front in their war upon labor. Through employers’ associations, they seek to crush, with brutal force, by the injunctions of the judiciary, and the use of military power, all efforts at resistance. Or when the other policy seems more profitable, they conceal their daggers beneath the Civic Federation and hoodwink and betray those whom they would rule and exploit. Both methods depend for success upon the blindness and internal dissensions of the working class. The employers’ line of battle and methods of warfare correspond to the solidarity of the mechanical and industrial concentration, while laborers still form their fighting organizations on lines of long-gone trade divisions. The battles of the past emphasize this lesson. The textile workers of Lowell, Philadelphia and Fall River; the butchers of Chicago, weakened by the disintegrating effects of trade divisions; the machinists on the Santa Fe, unsupported by their fellow-workers subject to the same masters; the long-struggling miners of Colorado, hampered by lack of unity and solidarity upon the industrial battlefield, all bear witness to the helplessness and impotency of labor as at present organized.
This worn-out and corrupt system offers no promise of improvement and adaptation. There is no silver lining to the clouds of darkness and despair settling down upon the world of labor.
This system offers only a perpetual struggle for slight relief within wage slavery. It is blind to the possibility of establishing an industrial democracy, wherein there shall be no wage slavery, but where the workers will own the tools which they operate, and the product of which they alone will enjoy.
It shatters the ranks of the workers into fragments, rendering them helpless and impotent on the industrial battlefield.
Separation of craft from craft renders industrial and financial solidarity impossible.
Union men scab upon union men; hatred of worker for worker is engendered, and the workers are delivered helpless and disintegrated into the hands of the capitalists.
Craft jealousy leads to the attempt to create trade monopolies.
Prohibitive initiation fees are established that force men to become scabs against their will. Men whom manliness or circumstances have driven from one trade are thereby fined when they seek to transfer membership to the union of a new craft.
Craft divisions foster political ignorance among the workers, thus dividing their class at the ballot box, as well as in the shop, mine and factory.
Craft unions may be and have been used to assist employers in the establishment of monopolies and the raising of prices. One set of workers are thus used to make harder the conditions of life of another body of laborers.
Craft divisions hinder the growth of class consciousness of the workers, foster the idea of harmony of interests between employing exploiter and employed slave. They permit the association of the misleaders of the workers with the capitalists in the Civic Federations, where plans are made for the perpetuation of capitalism, and the permanent enslavement of the workers through the wage system.
Previous efforts for the betterment of the working class have proven abortive because limited in scope and disconnected in action.
Universal economic evils afflicting the working class can be eradicated only by a universal working class movement. Such a movement of the working class is impossible while separate craft and wage agreements are made favoring the employer against other crafts in the same industry, and while energies are wasted in fruitless jurisdiction struggles which serve only to further the personal aggrandizement of union officials.
A movement to fulfill these conditions must consist of one great industrial union embracing all industries, providing for craft autonomy locally, industrial autonomy internationally, and working class unity generally.
It must be founded on the class struggle, and its general administration must be conducted in harmony with the recognition of the irrepressible conflict between the capitalist class and the working class.
It should be established as the economic organization of the working class, without affiliation with any political party.
All power should rest in a collective membership.
Local, national and general administration, including union labels, buttons, badges, transfer cards, initiation fees, and per capita tax should be uniform throughout.
All members must hold membership in the local, national or international union covering the industry in which they are employed, but transfers of membership between unions, local, national or international, should be universal.
Workingmen bringing union cards from industrial unions in foreign countries should be freely admitted into the organization.
The general administration should issue a publication representing the entire union and its principles which should reach all members in every industry at regular intervals.
A central defense fund, to which all members contribute equally, should be established and maintained.
All workers, therefore, who agree with the principles herein set forth, will meet in convention at Chicago the 27th day of June, 1905, for the purpose of forming an economic organization of the working class along the lines marked out in this Manifesto.
Representation in the convention shall be based upon the number of workers whom the delegate represents. No delegate, however, shall be given representation in the convention on the numerical basis of an organization unless he has credentials—bearing the seal of his union, local, national or international, and the signatures of the officers thereof—authorizing him to install his union as a working part of the proposed economic organization in the industrial department in which it logically belongs in the general plan of organization. Lacking this authority, the delegate shall represent himself as an individual.
Adopted at Chicago, January 2, 3 and 4, 1905.
A. G. SWING,
A. M. SIMONS,
W. SHURTLEFF,
FRANK M. McCABE,
JOHN M. O’NEIL,
GEO. ESTES,
WM. D. HAYWOOD,
MOTHER JONES,
ERNEST UNTERMANN,
W. L HALL,
CHAS. H. MOYER,
CLARENCE SMITH,
WILLIAM ERNEST TRAUTMANN,
JOS. SCHMIDT,
JOHN GUILD,
DANIEL McDONALD,
EUGENE DEBS,
THOS. J. De YOUNG,
THOS. J. HAGERTY,
FERD D. HENION,
W. J. BRADLEY,
CHAS. O. SHERMAN,
M. E. WHITE,
WM. J. PINKERTON,
FRANK KRAFFS,
J. E. FITZGERALD,
FRANK BORN,
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION OF THE WORKERS.
A labor organization to correctly represent the working class must have two things in view.
First—It must combine the wage workers in such a way that it can most successfully fight the battles and protect the interests of the working people of to-day in their struggle for fewer hours, more wages and better conditions.
Secondly—It must offer a final solution of the labor problem—an emancipation from strikes, injunctions and bull-pens.
Study the Chart and observe how this organization will give recognition to trade and craft divisions; yet provide perfect Industrial Unionism and converge the strength of all organized workers to a common center, from which any weak point can be strengthened and protected.
Observe, also, how the growth and development of this organization will build up within itself the structure of an Industrial Democracy—a Workers’ Co-Operative Republic—which must finally burst the shell of capitalist government, and be the agency by which the working people will operate the industries, and appropriate the products to themselves.
One obligation for all.
A union man once and in one industry, a union man always and in all industries.
Universal transfers.
Universal label.
An open union and a closed shop.
MR. HAYWOOD: Delegates will now please pass in their credentials to the Committee. The convention will then stand adjourned until two o’clock this afternoon.
• Day 1, Afternoon Session : Tuesday, June 27, 1905
The convention was called to order at two o’clock, W. D. Haywood in the chair.
The report of the Credentials Committee was called for, but the Committee not being ready to report a recess was taken.
At 2.35 P. M. the convention re-assembled, and W. E. Trautmann read the following report of the Committee on Credentials:
The following delegates or unions with full power to install have submitted credentials to the Conference Credentials Committee:
Bakers’ and Confectioners’ Union No. 48, Montreal, Canada, represented by R. J. Kerrigan and W. T. Leach, thirty-five votes.
United Mine Workers’ Union No. 171, forty-three votes.
Industrial Workers Club, Cincinnati, Max Eisenberg, seventy-eight votes.
Industrial Workers Club, Chicago, fifty-four votes.
Workers’ Industrial and Educational Union, Pueblo, Colo., thirty votes.
United Mine Workers of America, Pittsburg, Kan., forty votes.
Western Federation of Miners, 27,000 votes, represented by W. D. Haywood, Chas. H. Moyer, Chas. H. McKinnon, Albert Ryan and J. A. Baker.
United Brotherhood of Railway Employes, represented by J. Fitzgerald, Thos. De Young, E. T. Eastman, A. H. Williamson, J. Churchfield, J. S. McDonald, Ferd Dean, M. E. White, Ferd Hopkins, Frank McCabe, William Hickey, A. W. Morrow, H. M. Kyle, Wm. Denning, Thos. Hansberry, W. L. Hall, W. L. Bradley, Ferd Henion and John Plummer, 2,087 votes.
Journeyman Tailors’ Union of America, No. 102, Pueblo, Colo., ten votes.
United Metal Workers’ International Union of America, 3,000 votes.
Journeyman Tailors’ Protective and Benevolent Union, San Francisco, 400 votes.
American Labor Union, 16,750 votes, represented by Daniel McDonald, William Shurtleff, W. D. Haywood, David C. Coates, John Riordan, Henry S. Davis, Clarence Smith, Charles H. Moyer, F. W. Cronin, Ferd Clemens.
Punch Press Operators’ Union, No. 224, Schenectady, N. Y., J. W. Roff, 168 votes.
Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance, 1,450 votes, represented by Duncan McEachren, August Gilihaus, Samuel French. Thos. J. Powers, H. Jackson, Paul Dinger, Theodore Bernine, H. J. Brimble, John T. J. Remley, Joseph Scheidler, Octave M. Held, Daniel De Leon, Carl U. Starkenberg, Walter Goss.
Flat Janitors’ Local Union, Chicago, No. 502, 165 votes, represented by Andrew Anderson and George A. Newmiller.
These are all the delegates with accredited credentials with power to install their respective organizations into this new economic organization.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the report of your Committee on Credentials on the organizations that are empowered to install their national, international and local unions into this industrial movement. What is the pleasure of the convention?
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: I did not hear anything in the report of the Committee about the Mine Workers of Illinois. I would like to ask what is the recommendation of the Committee in reference to the United Mine Workers of Illinois?
DEL. TRAUTMANN: The United Mine Workers of Illinois have no power to install their respective organization, and consequently under the ruling or order of business adopted or suggested by the conferees of January the credentials of the United Mine Workers of Illinois will go to the Committee on Credentials which is finally to be elected by; this convention after the convention constitutes itself as a constitutional body.
DEL. RYAN: After permanent organization?
DEL. TRAUTMANN: After you have a permanent Credential Committee.
Delegate C. W. Sunagel asked a question about some organization, but the question was inaudible at the reporter’s table.
DEL. TRAUTMANN: The credentials from representatives of central bodies will be presented to the permanent committee. We have no power to act because these delegates from the various central bodies either do not represent respective central organizations with power to install or they have no power to install the unions affiliated as a body. For that reason the Committee could not act on their credentials.
DEL. SUNAGEL: The credentials are here and they are entrusted with full power.
DEL. TRAUTMANN: That is understood,, but the American Labor Union is represented by International delegates.
DEL. SUNAGEL: It is the Central Labor Union, I beg your pardon.
DEL. TRAUTMANN: Your credentials will be referred to the permanent Committee that will be selected by this convention. We cannot act upon them.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the report of your Committee on Credentials. What is the pleasure of the convention?
DEL. KLEMENSIC: I move that it be adopted. (Seconded.)
The Chairman: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the report of the Committee on Credentials be adopted. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. H. S. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, what I want to know is this Supposing this motion now prevails, is it the understanding of the Chairman of this meeting that the American Labor Union then should practically install in the industrial union movement? I want a ruling on that point.
THE CHAIRMAN: Inasmuch as the credentials of the American Labor Union delegates announce that they are instructed to install, the action of the convention at this time will make them a working part of the industrial movement.
DEL. A. M. SIMONS: I think there is a little misunderstanding, and perhaps I may clear it up and may not; but the Committee on Credentials has felt that it itself was a body of persons left over from the old conference, and therefore desires to be very careful about making any decision with regard to those cases that the convention itself might think differently upon, and no person or organization that is not mentioned should consider himself or itself in any way slighted, or consider that the Conference Committee did not consider them equally entitled with other individuals, but simply that we felt that there must be somebody which would make a temporary organization for the purpose of passing on the credentials, and accordingly we arbitrarily decided—I think it was perhaps a little arbitrarily—that those who come here with full power to act were the best persons to take up that first preliminary step in the organization when we are called to order, and all that will be done will be to appoint a committee to which perhaps seventy-five per cent. of the credentials will be presented and on which they can pass. There will be no business done, in all probability, until those other credentials are passed upon. For instance, I myself have no right in this convention at this minute. I am speaking entirely by sufferance. I have to present my credentials and have them passed on the same as anybody else. The same way with Comrades Debs, Trautmann and numerous others. We are still outside of the convention along with you fellows, so don’t worry.
Question called for.
The Chairman: It has been moved and seconded that the report be adopted.
DEL. CRITCHLOW: Do I understand by this proceeding that those who are mentioned as recommended by the Committee have a vote upon this question?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think that the convention will vote upon this question.
DEL. CRITCHLOW: As a whole?
THE CHAIRMAN: As a whole. Those in favor of the motion will signify it by the uplifted right hand. Contrary by the same sign. No votes in opposition. The motion is carried.
At the suggestion of the Chairman, the delegates representing the various organizations favorably passed upon by the Committee on Credentials then seated themselves at the two center tables in order that the active working body of the convention might be distinguished from those persons not yet entitled to seats as delegates.
THE CHAIRMAN: The next order of business will be the action of the unions that have already been installed in regard to the signers of the Manifesto who are not regularly elected delegates. The Secretary will read the names.
Secretary Trautmann: A. M. Simons has handed in his credentials; John M. O’Neil, Mother Jones, W. E. Trautmann, and Eugene V. Debs.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is the pleasure of the delegates in regard to the names as read?
DEL. KIEMENSIC: I move you that all these delegates be accepted by acclamation. (Seconded.)
MR. BARTON, CHICAGO: I make an amendment to that motion, that a Committee be appointed to ascertain who of that number are wage workers, and that those that are not wage workers are not to be accepted. (Seconded.)
A DELEGATE: I rise to a point of order. The gentleman is not a delegate.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is a matter that will be confined to the delegates that have been installed: The amendment to the motion is ruled out of order. The motion is that the names as read be adopted by acclamation. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). All those seated at these two center tables who are in favor of the motion will signify it by raising their right hands. Contrary by the same sign. One opposing vote. The motion is carried. You will now elect or appoint a Credentials Committee to act on the credentials of the remaining delegates of this convention. What is your pleasure?
DEL. WHITE: I move you that a committee of five be elected to act as a Committee on Credentials of this organization. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that a committee of five be elected as a Credentials Committee. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. COATES: I want to amend the motion to make it “appoint.”
DEL. WHITE: I will accept the amendment. (Amendment seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Those in favor of the motion will signify it by the voting sign. Contrary by the same sign. Carried.
THE CHAIRMAN: I will appoint as that Committee Delegates White, Clemens, Goss, McKinnon, and Knight.
DEL. SCHATSKI: May I ask what is the duty of this Committee? There are a great many people here; this motion has been passed and they don’t know what the duty of the Committee is. Therefore, I would like the chairman or the man who made the motion to state what is the duty of this Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: This is a standing Committee of this convention. The duty of the Committee is to act on the delegates that are here representing themselves as individuals, and those who may be fraternal delegates. The Credentials Committee will please come to the platform.
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: I would like to say this: It is a fact that is apparent to all members in this convention that the acoustic properties of this hall are so defective that we cannot properly participate in the action of this convention, which I think is the most important one in the history of labor and the working class. Now sir, I would like to offer you a suggestion that some effort be made whereby every person in attendance at this convention will have the privilege and the opportunity to hear what is being said during our discussions. As the hall is situated to-day we cannot have that privilege. Therefore, I would like to offer a suggestion if it is agreeable to this convention, and that is this, that those who are in the extreme end would move forward a little further and that you drop the curtain and close the doors and exclude anybody not belonging on the floor of this convention, so as to enable everybody to hear what is said or done here. There are very few of those not seated very near the rostrum that can hear what is being said or take an active part in the work coming before us. I therefore offer that as a motion, and if it meets with the approval of any of the delegates here we can do that and won’t have to get up here and holler and strain ourselves all the time.
DEL. KREMLER: So far I have not heard a single word that any of these speakers have said, and I think it is a wise move of these people to raise their voices a little higher so that we can hear. I have not heard a single word of any of those speakers who have spoken.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do I hear a second to that motion? (Motion seconded). It has been moved and seconded that we pull down the curtain. Those in favor of the motion will signify it by the voting sign. Contrary by the same sign. The motion is carried.
Delegate Davis protested against private conversations being carried on on the floor of the convention, preventing delegates from listening to the proceedings. The Chairman requested that as perfect quiet as possible be maintained.
THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection, there are a number of telegrams on the Secretary’s desk which he will read at this time.
Secretary Trautmann read a telegram from the Excelsior Educational Society of New York, extending fraternal greetings to the convention.
A motion was made and seconded that the telegram be received and placed on file. There being no objection it was so ordered.
Secretary Trautmann then read a telegram from John J. Kinneally, General Secretary of the Socialist Trades & Labor Alliance, as follows:
New York, June 27.
Mr. Wm. Trautmann, Industrial Union Convention. Corner Clark and Erie Sts.
Dear Sir:—The Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance sends to the Industrial Union convention at Chicago fraternal greetings,, wishing to the convention every measure of success. Industrial unionism must be the unification of the working class, class conscious for the overthrow of the capitalist system, and a death blow to fakirdom and all traitors to the working class. No compromise, but the unconditional surrender of the capitalist class. Yours for the revolution,
John J. Kinneally, Gen. Sec., G. E. B., S. T. & L. A.
On motion the telegram was received and laid over to future business.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is the pleasure of the convention at the present time?
DEL. M. P. HAGGERTY, REPRESENTING MILL AND SMELTERMEN’S UNION NO. 74, BUTTE, MONT.: I desire to have my credentials read from my union and let this convention pass upon them. I have been selected by my union to represent it here with full power to place it in the industrial movement. Consequently, I want my credentials read for the deliberation of this body to see whether I am a delegate here or not.
DEL. SIMONS: I object to it coming before the convention at this time. There will be a chance to have it come before the Credentials Committee. I do not know anything about the merits of the question, and do not care anything about the merits. I may want to vote directly for the man, but whether I want to vote for you or not, now is not the time to do it. There are a dozen or fifty others to come up just the same. We are going to have a Credentials Committee. Let them pass on it, and then let him come before the convention if he wants to, along with the others, but we cannot stop here and take time over credentials in this form.
DEL. M. P. HAGGERTY: I desire to say that I have been regularly elected by my union, and my credentials should have been read with the first lot presented here. There is no question about this. I am not here as an individual.
DEL. H. S. DAVIS: I take exception to the gentleman’s (Delegate Simons) remark. The Chairman put this question to this body: “What is the pleasure of the convention at the present time?” Delegate Haggerty of the Mill and Smeltermens’ Union No. 74, Butte City, Mont., made a request of this body that his credentials be read. That resolution was adopted, as I am informed, unanimously by his body at their last regular meeting which was held only a few days preceding this meeting, and that body certainly intended that that resolution should be presented here for action.
Now let us have the resolution read and acted upon; either throw it in the waste paper basket or do something with it. Extend to the local, No. 74, Western Federation, the courtesy that is due to that organization. The most progressive body of men in the world, so far as my knowledge goes, is the Western Federation of Miners. They have given their time and their money not only for industrial unionism, but for the emancipation of mankind from one end of this land to the other, and all over the world of industry, in the interest of Socialism and the Co-Operative Commonwealth. That is the body of men that sent Brother Haggerty here with this resolution in his pocket, and I do not see that we can do anything else but have it read and acted upon. Inasmuch as there is nothing else before the house at the present time let us act upon it now, the ever-living question that confronts us.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a moment. I will ask that no other delegate will take the floor unless there is something before the convention. The brother spoke at some considerable length, by sufferance, and it was with the expectation on my part that he was going to make a motion. He sat down, and there is still nothing before the convention.
DEL. DAVIS: Then I will make a motion. and you can rule it out. I move that the resolution be read and acted upon by this convention at this time.
The motion was seconded and carried, and the Secretary read the credentials in question, as follows:
“Credentials of Delegates to Industrial Conference.
“To Whom It May Concern: This is to certify that at a regular meeting of Mill and Smeltermens’ Union No. 74, Western Federation of Miners, located at Butte, Mont., Brother Michael P. Haggerty, a member of this union in good standing, was elected as an instructed delegate to represent the above-named union at the Industrial Convention to be held in the City of Chicago, June 27, 1905, and is authorized to place said union in the industrial organization. It is hereby further certified that Brother John P. Mahoney was elected as alternate to Brother Michael P. Haggerty.
“In Testimony Whereof, the seal of the union is affixed and the signatures of the officers attached thereto.
“Dated at Butte, Mont., this 17th day of June, 1905.
“C. B. Mahoney, Secretary,
“H. F. Schurtz, President.”
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the reading of this credential. What is the pleasure of the convention?
DEL. DE LEON: In view of the fact that the rules under which we are called provide that all the delegates who have been instructed to unite in this body shall be seated in the convention, I am at a loss to understand why the delegate’s name was not read at first and he seated at this middle table. Therefore I move you that the delegate be seated. (Motion seconded.)
Motion put and carried.
DEL. M. P. HAGGERTY: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I desire to thank you sincerely. It shows that you are disposed to be fair.
A Delegate: To show you how we are disposed to be fair, we have given the gentleman two votes, one in the general organization and one in the union.
DEL. M. P. HAGGERTY: I hope it will be used all right.
A DELEGATE: A point of information. I understand that Brother Haggerty has been seated as a delegate in this convention. Isn’t that the action?
THE CHAIRMAN: By your votes you have seated Brother Haggerty as a delegate in this convention.
DEL. HALL: I would like to ask for information: is the vote of this union to be cast by him and be still represented in the vote cast by the general Western Federation of Miners?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is a question to be determined by this convention. The question has been asked of the chair as to whether or not the delegate whom you have just seated will cast the vote of his union, and if the delegates of the Western Federation of Miners will duplicate that vote. Now that is a question for the convention to determine. In the opinion of the chair this number of votes that is represented by No. 74 should be deducted from the total number of votes that will be cast by the general delegation of the Western Federation of Miners.
DEL. MARTIN: I move that the number of votes that he represents as a delegate be deducted from the total of 27,000 of the Western Federation of Miners. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: While the motion is in order, it occurs to me that that is a question that might properly be settled after all of the delegates come into the convention. There are quite a number of delegates that are here to be admitted. However, if you wish him at the middle tables, we can dispose of him at this time.
A DELEGATE: I believe the chair’s decision is correct on that question.
DEL. SULLIVAN: I move that it is the sense of this convention that the Credentials Committee be instructed to deduct the number of votes that No. 74, Western Federation of Miners, is entitled to, from the total stated in the general credentials, and that 74’s vote be accredited to Brother Haggerty.
THE CHAIRMAN: Brother Sullivan, you place me under the painful necessity of ruling you out of order, inasmuch as your credentials have not yet been acted on by the Credentials Committee. (Laughter.)
DEL. SULLIVAN: Is the convention organized?
THE CHAIRMAN: The convention is organized as far as the unions that have been instructed to install their organizations are concerned, and these unions are now acting on you folks on this side and that side (indicating the outer tables). If there are any motions to be made until the report of this Credential Committee, they will only be considered from those selected and accredited right in the middle.
DEL. SULLIVAN: Then it rests with the convention until their credentials have been accepted?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
DEL. SULLIVAN: Very well.
DEL. HOPKINS: I move that this motion that has been made in regard to the deduction of Brother Haggerty’s vote from the Western Federation of Miners be laid over until we form a permanent organization; that is, until the credentials on the other side have been acted upon, and we can settle it then. (Seconded.)
DEL. FRENCH: I understand that motion to mean that we will leave the question of deciding the position of Brother Haggerty, and whether he shall cast a single vote or whether he shall cast the vote of his union, or whether the vote of his union shall be cast by the national delegates, until the convention is fully organized. If that is the sense of the motion I will second it.
DEL. SCHATSKI: I believe that this convention ought to start out on the Manifesto just the way it is here.
DEL. FRENCH: I rise to a point of order. I suggest that the proceedings be confined to the delegates.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a moment. The question before the convention at this time is that the matter of deciding where the vote of Delegate Haggerty will be placed shall be left in abeyance until such time as the organization is perfected. You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for.) All those in favor of the motion will signify it by saying aye. Contrary, no. The motion is carried.
Delegate Schatski remained standing.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, Brother Schatski, if it is the sense of the convention, that is that much of the convention as is already organized, that you should discuss any proposition, I would have no hesitancy in permitting you to do so. But I think not, and I would rule you out of order until this much of the convention grants you permission.
DEL. SCHATSKI: That may probably be, but I want to say a few words, as this is a thing—
THE CHAIRMAN: Just take your seat a moment. To avoid any unnecessary wrangling, as there is but very little business that can be accomplished by the convention, the chair will declare a recess until the Committee is ready to report.
The convention then at 3.30 P. M. took a recess.
At 4.25 the convention was called to order again and the Chairman announced that the Credentials Committee would not be ready to report for at least an hour.
The following telegram was read from San Francisco:
“To Chairman Industrial Convention: At a mass meeting held under the auspices of the S. L. P., 500 workers send greeting and their support. (Signed) Siebert.”
The reading of the telegram was greeted with applause.
On motion the convention then adjourned until to-morrow (Wednesday) morning at nine o’clock.
• Day 2, Morning Session : Wednesday, June 28
The convention was called to order at nine A. M. by Chairman Haywood.
Delegate White, of the Committee on Credentials, presented a report, in connection with which certain delegates were requested to appear before the Credentials Committee and explain their credentials. The committee recommended that J. W. Sunagel, representing the German Central Labor Union, Chicago, be given one vote, and that the case of that organization be referred to the convention to take such action as might be deemed proper. The report was acted on a little later in the session, in detail, and will be found
in full at that place in this report.
DEL. WHITE: In connection with C. C. Ross’ credentials the Committee begs to have his credentials read before the convention: “C. C. Ross, native of Virginia; occupation, railroad employee, thirty-five years, first a machinist, second, a shop foreman, and third, locomotive engineer; labor agitator; Socialist lecturer, with the world as my field and humanity as my theme.”
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the report of your Committee on Credentials. What is the pleasure of the convention?
DEL. HALL: I move you that with the exception of the delegates representing the German Central Council of Chicago the report of the Committee on Credentials be accepted, and that the credentials of the delegates representing the Central Council be taken up separately and acted upon. (Seconded.)
DEL. PHILLIP VEAL : Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates : In accordance with the Manifesto, every one who is to participate in this convention is supposed to be in a position to recognize the class struggle from the standpoint that the working class must be true to their economic interests and the delegates who are sent here. I do not want to go on record to begin with fighting in this convention, but I want you delegates to understand something about some of the individuals who are here and how they conduct themselves when they are among the slaves of the mines. I know that this convention is prepared by the Manifesto to be so strong as to put these men outside of being in a position to direct or in any way to control this convention. You showed that yesterday when you became a working power. As a member of the United Mine Workers who has advocated the class struggle and the idea of a class union for seven years, and especially in the Belleville district for the last three years, I want to enter a protest against certain persons being received here. Last fall in that district two members of the United Mine Workers were arrested in the City of Belleville and taken to prison, and a member of the United Mine Workers’ organization in that same district sat on a jury and brought in a verdict of guilty against them, and not a member, not a district officer, dared raise his voice as a protest against that abominable outrage perpetrated upon the members of the working class. Would you seat in your body a member of the Western Federation of Miners who has sat on a jury and on that jury became a pliant tool of the capitalist class? I say no. When the Western Federation of Miners was on trial in the Telluride and Victor strike the question came up and one of the men, Sam Carter, was asked what he meant to do, he says, “It is for you to find guilt”; and be absolutely refused to answer that question. The result was—
A DELEGATE: A point of order.
Del. Veal: I am coming to the point of order.
A DELEGATE: What is the question before the house?
THE CHAIRMAN: The question before the house is the adoption of the report of the Committee on Credentials.
DEL. VEAL: Am I out of order?
THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. Go ahead.
Del. Veal: Now then, the United Mine Workers’ officers refused absolutely to take action, but by remaining silent they sanctioned the action of those men, and for that reason one of them to-day has a job at $3 a day, and the other has a policeman’s club to use on the heads of the slaves. The strong point which I am going to make here is this. Here is a communication from Local Union No. 304. A notice was served on William Andreas, an advocate of the industrial union idea in the Belleville district, as follows:
“Dear Sir and Brother: I am instructed by Local Union 304, United Mine Workers of America, to request you to appear at our next regular meeting on May 31, 1905, to answer to the charge preferred against you by the German Local. The charge is that you called our International President, John Mitchell, a traitor and a labor fakir, and that he was a union man because he had to be; also that the present unions were no good and saying that they ought to be broken down in your industrial movement. Most respectfully, Edward Owens, Recording Secretary.”
That man was given a trial before Local 304 last week. Over 304 men refused to vote. Thirty-eight men decided that the case ought to be dropped. Thirty-six of those men, under the influence of the Citizens’ Alliance, said that he ought to be ousted the same as Robert Randell. That white-headed old labor leader over there, John Green, was the character who got up and said that they ought to do the same to Andreas as they did with Robert Randell, and that is why the slaves of the mine have sent me here to put these labor fakirs on record. (Applause.)
Now, another one who sits in this convention. You know something about Robert Randell. The New York Labor News Company has seen fit and the A. L. U. have seen fit to send that pamphlet, “Mitchell Exposed,” into every miners’ camp and in every industry in this country to show where Robert Randell,, a slave of the mines, appeared in Indianapolis and on the floor of the convention charged John Mitchell with being a member of the capitalist class, of wearing diamonds, and with receiving money, $5,000, from R. L. Robinson, and he admitted that he received it. What do the operators of America give their money for? To keep one part of the slaves working and scabbing on the other. And in spite of that, that convention expelled Robert Randell. In spite of that fact we, as slaves of the mines’ recognize the fact that the United Mine Workers of America is not the expression of the united mine workers’ rank and file, nor the expression of the working class of this country. (Applause.)
The delegate who moved to expell Randell is here. Delegate Walker, and he has the audacity to come in front of a body of representative men who understand the class struggle. To me it shows that the man is an arrogant fool or he has no sense of propriety whatever, or he would never be in a place like this where we can get recognition. (Applause). Yes, they are among the miners to-day telling them that they believe in industrial unionism, and they think they have the whole machine here from the top down. But that machine hasn’t got the oil in it; it can’t operate like it did in Indianapolis’ because this is a slaves’ movement and the slaves are going to keep it straight no matter whether it is a mistake or not. (Applause). And I want to tell you labor fakirs how I am here. One of them coming up on the cars says to me, “Veal, you are inconsistent to the United Mine Workers.” I says, “I have not been in the United Mine Workers’ Local for two years.” But do you know what they did in my district? They said, “We want you to take your card out of that conservative local and put it in a fighting one,” and I put it in here, and they sent for me to come and represent the Edgemont Local. They said, “We want you to go to that convention and show up these fellows who sit as wall flowers in the convention. Show them up, and if that convention won’t send them back and condemn them as parasites, we, as members of the working class who are class conscious, are going to stand by you.” And I am not here as a representative of the United Mine Workers, but a representative of the working class and a revolutionist who never can get these fellows to face us before the rank and file. Now we are here, face to face. This is the place where we can meet face to face, and I want to say that I know that from Ryan down they dare not come before you; they dare not. And the industrial union idea that they are talking, what is it? They go out and tell these workingmen that they believe—
THE CHAIRMAN: Brother Veal,, will you kindly confine yourself to the question as to the adoption of the report of the Credentials Committee?
DEL. VEAL: Fellow Delegates, I am not going to say whether they are to be seated or not. That remains with you. But these are the men who are claiming that they are in favor of industrial unionism. These are their actions, and they stand with the Mitchell machine and always have, ever since the Manifesto and before the Manifesto. Now they are talking about industrial unionism.
DEL. DE LEON: I rise to make an amendment to the motion. I understand that the motion is that the report of the Committee be accepted and those delegates seated. Is that the motion?
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the report of the Credentials Committee be accepted with the exception of the German Local, which will be acted on separately.
DEL. DE LEON: My amendment is that the Secretary read one organization after another and that the convention take action upon them.
THE CHAIRMAN: That the report be acted upon seriatim?
DEL. DE LEON: Seriatim. Will you allow me to explain? It is very clear from this that already there are objections regarding one local or one set of delegates, and there may be more. I cannot remember them all. They are a lump. Let us act upon them seriatim.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the amendment. Are you ready for the question?
(Question called for). Delegate Clark claimed recognition.
THE CHAIRMAN: Brother, we will get along faster if you permit us to put this amendment.
Del. Clark: There are more of them here like that.
THE CHAIRMAN: I understand, but they are in a peculiar position, as not having a voice in the convention. (Question called for.) The amendment is that the report of the Committee on Credentials be taken up seriatim. Brother Hall has the floor.
DEL. HALL: It occurred to me that the matter can wisely be left to the Credentials Committee with power to examine witnesses and make a report on any cases where there are charges preferred. It seems unnecessary to waste the time of the convention in trying cases of this character. There isn’t any arranged method of procedure except under parliamentary laws which are rather tedious, and as the gentleman suggests, that we take up the consideration of these individuals that are not representing organizations, if we take up a consideration and discussion of these individuals applying for seats in this convention, seriatim, it is going to occupy the time of this convention for the next two days in trials. I think these trials should be had by the Committee and that the report on these trials should be presented to the convention, and when it comes here it will be concise and not occupy the time of the convention. Now it seems to me that the charges could be preferred where they should have been preferred to the Credentials Committee. These men that are here opposing the seating of these delegates should have had these charges preferred before the Credentials Committee, and they have wasted time in not doing this before. It occurs to me that we can make up now by appointing a trial board or Credentials Board and let them consider the charges before that Committee and let the Committee report to the convention in a condensed form. That will permit us to act upon it in the quickest possible manner. Therefore I move a substitute. Well, I may be a little out of order, but I would like to see a substitute for the motion and the amendment offered by some one, that would permit the matter to go before a special committee.
DEL. DE LEON: I think my motion implies that. There is nothing in my motion to exclude the idea of having such matters referred to the Committee on Credentials. The adoption of the report of the Credentials Committee would imply that everybody is to be seated except the organization that is objected to. Then after sustained charges would have to be brought, and if the charges are sustained the men would have to be ousted after being seated. I think this is cumbersome. The best way to do it is to go through here with these names one after another, and if there is any objection raised, refer them back to the Committee and act upon them in that way. For instance, I cannot hold myself blamable if a certain name that I believe I have heard is presented here as a delegate. I did not imagine that he would have the audacity to come to this convention as a delegate. It seems to me I have heard his name mentioned. Shall I go before the Committee on Credentials with charges against any man who did not present himself as a delegate? I have to wait, and I will wait. I believe we should act seriatim and let the names be read, and if there is no objection the man or organization is seated. If there is objection the matter is referred back to the Committee on Credentials. That is all implied in my motion, that we take them up seriatim.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: If we adopt this as a whole we are doing a wrong to men who are here representing local unions, for the simple reason that we would give Mr. Haggerty, of Butte, the power to represent his local and cast the vote of the entire local.
A DELEGATE: No, no.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: Yes, you do. Now, by the report of your Committee here you are tying these men down to one single thing. You would be doing these men whom the Committee have reported on this morning, a wrong in doing that. If it is right to give one man that many votes, then it is right to give the men and women who are here representing A. L. U. Locals and Western Federation of Miners Locals, the same privilege you gave him. I move that we take it up seriatim and pass upon it. If we could do it yesterday we can do it this morning.
THE CHAIRMAN: Permit me to correct your impression with regard to what was done with Brother Haggerty. His credentials were read and accepted. He would cast the number of votes stated until such time as we become permanently organized. The motion is on the amendment to take up the report of the Credentials Committee seriatim. Are you ready for the question?
The question was called for, and was put and carried.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion occurs now upon the original motion as amended, to adopt the report of the Credentials Committee, and that it be taken up seriatim. Are you ready for the question ?
(Question called for, and motion put and carried.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will commence the reading of the report.
A DELEGATE: I would like to offer a motion before we enter upon any other business.
THE CHAIRMAN: No motion will be accepted at this time.
THE DELEGATE: Brothers, there is a letter before this convention. It is something in my opinion of the greatest Importance.
Objection was raised on a point of order.
THE DELEGATE: I am interested in this. There is a letter—
The point of order was again raised.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a moment. We will have the reading of the report of the Credentials Committee before the reading of any letters or any other business.
Delegate White, of the Committee on Credentials, then presented the following report:
REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON CREDENTIALS.
We, your Committee on Credentials, beg leave to submit the following report: We recommend
J. S. Ayers, J. N. Vail, F. D. Pryor, representing Paper Hangers and Decorators’ Union No. 584, Chicago, eighty-seven votes.
THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection to these delegates the Secretary will continue to read.
(The reading of the report was continued as follows)
Lorenz Kleinherz, Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance, Louisville, Ky.
W. C. Critchlow. International Protective Laborers’ Union, Dayton, Ohio.
Emma F. Langdon, Typographical Union No. 49, Denver.
J. Clossey, Central Labor Union, North Adams, Mass.
Theodore N. Ricke, District Lodge No. 8, Machinists, Chicago.
Charles Frey, District Lodge, Machinists.
DEL. FREY: I understand that those names that are read off there are to be voted on in this convention?
The Chairman. Yes.
DEL. FREY: My name is Frey. I am a machinist. We are here to investigate and go back to the District Council. If we have a vote I want it understood.
THE CHAIRMAN: According to the report of the Credentials Committee you are entitled to one vote. You are entitled to all the privileges and courtesies of the floor of this convention. If you object to taking that vote it will be so recorded and referred back to the Credentials Committee.
DEL. FREY: Then I will understand it that way.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will make a note of that fact.
(The reading of the report of the Committee on Credentials was continued as follows)
J. C. Sullivan, Miners, Victor, Colo.
J. Pollard. Council of Miners, Colorado, nineteen.
Charles Kiehn, International Longshoremens’ Union, No. 271, Hoboken, N. J.
Frank McCormick, Blue Island Lodge, Switchmens’ Union, No. 29, Chicago.
Wm. F. Weber, Iron and Brass Molders’ Union, Schenectady, N. Y.
Chas. McKay, Metal Polishers, Buffers and Platers, No. 6. Chicago.
A. Jorgensen, Carpenters and Joiners, No. 181, Chicago.
J. W. Saunders, Scandinavian Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers, Chicago; M. Glasgow, J. J. Johnson, Otto Ulrich, Robert Nelson.
Mark Ord, United Mine Workers, No. 503, Westville, Ill.
Lincoln Wright, T. J. Hitchings, United Mine Workers of America, No. 99, Belleville, Ill., 425 members.
F. P. Cranston, Central Council, A. L. U., Chicago.
J. A. Sturgis, Barbers’ Union, No. 275, Sharon, Pa., and United Labor League, Sharon, Pa.
C. L. Spiegel, Utah Federation of Labor, Salt Lake City, Utah.
L. L. Thompson, Carpenters and Joiners, No. 181, Chicago.
F. W. Davis, No. 22o, Goldfield, Western Federation of Miners; A. L. U. No. 510, Goldfield, Nev.; L. U. No. 235, W. F. M.; Newsboys’ Union, No. 555.
Ed. Payment, John Brown, International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths and Helpers, No. 110, Chicago.
Miss Luella Twining, Federal Union of A. L U., No. 252, Denver, thirty wage earners.
Chas. Hibbard, Edward Rody, International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, No. 324, Pullman, Ill.
J. Peukert, A. Arnold, Journeyman Painters and Decorators, No. 257, Chicago.
Chas. Nickolaus, Brewery Workers, No. 9, Milwaukee, 850 members.
Joe Corna, United Mine Workers, No. 2, Spring Valley.
Marion Brown, United Mine Workers, No. 320, Westville, Ill.
Anton Andra, No. 43, United Mine Workers, Dist. No. 12, Spring Valley.
Phil. Veal, Local o8, Miners, French Village, Ill.
Edward Evans, John E. Walker, Peter N. Christenson, No. 12, District No. 3, United Mine Workers, Westville, Ill., headquarters,
John Green, Phil Voegtle, Local 304, United Mine Workers, Ill., Belvile.
H. C. Perry, Thomas Burke, W. D. Ryan, Duncan McDonald, District 12 of lllinois United Mine Workers.
W. T. Leach, R. J. Kerrigan, Federation Canadienne des Cordonniers de Canada, and Cloakmakers and Tailors, Montreal.
T. W. Rowe, W. P. Clarke, American Flint Glass Workers’ Union, Toledo, Ohio.
Alex. Haenny, A. F. Germer, Local 728, United Mine Workers, Mount Olive, Ill.
M. Rappaport, Journeyman Tailors, No. 5, Chicago.
Frank Kremer, Tanner and Currier, Chicago.
Gustav Harwarth, Herman Richter, No. 2161, S. T. & L. A., Detroit, Mich.
Ben Frankford, Local 103, S. T. & L. A., East St. Louis, Ill.
J. W. Johnson, Local 3, S. T. & L. A., St. Louis, Mo.
W. H. Ferber, Commercial Men’s Association, Court No. 1093, Milwaukee.
A. Wrink, Electrical Worker, Chicago; Rosa Sullway, Chicago; Daniel T. Hart, Laboring Man, Chicago; Wade Roscoe Parks, Laborer, Bonita, Kan., and J. Ferguson, Cigarmaker, Helena, Mont.
R. J. Robinson, Local 87, United Brotherhood of Railway Employes.
Ferd Shotak, Bohemian International Musicians’ Union, No. 26, Chicago.
Adolph S. Cornm, Bakery Worker, Chicago.
Joseph J. O’Brien, Hotel and Restaurant Workers, Chicago.
J. R. Fitts, East St. Louis.
Florencio Basora, Iron Molder, St. Louis, Mo.; J. Fox, Wood Worker, Chicago; Carl Koechlin, Peoria, Ill.; Wm. Tunningly, Carpenter, Cleveland, Ohio; Ferd Ricke, Topeka, Kaiis., and A. Hanan, Teacher, Sakund, Ohio.
E. J, Morrow, Amalgamated Association of Street Railway Employes, Division No. 288, Chicago.
Frank R. Wilke, Printing Press Union, Milwaukee.
Guy E. Miller, Miner, Telluride, Col.; F. H. Phalen, Electrical Worker, Terre Haute, Ind.; J. T. Mac, Electrical Worker, Chicago; R. D. Tobias, Tradesman, Chicago; E. D. Hammond, Machinist, Chicago; Lucy E. Parsons, Chicago; Tobias Kleinman, Printer, Chicago; Joseph Gilbert, Salt Lake City, Utah; W. F. Morrison, Houston, Tex., Blacksmith; Julie Mechanic, Garment Worker, Chicago; Mrs. E. C. Cogswell, Kansas; Albert S. Cogswell, Kansas. Cigarmaker; Jos. S. Schatski, Denver, Colo., and C. C. Ross , Railroad Employee.
R. N. Scutt. M. E. Scoggan, C. T. Martin, 15 Unions from Lead City, South Dakota.
J. W. Sunagel, German Central Labor Union, Chicago.
George N. Young, Longshoreman, Detroit, Mich.; C. E. Payne Laborer, North Dakota; Evan J. Dillon, Glass Worker, Marion, Ind.; D. Burgess, Mary H. Breckon, Chicago; W. Harry Spears.
DEL. VEAL: Mr. Chairman: I object to Mr. Wright, of 29 Local, John Green of, 304 Local of the United Mine Workers of America, and Philip Jackson, Local 304 of the United Mine Workers of America, and J. H. Walker, of West Belleville, and the delegate from Mount Olive, on the ground that they are not—
THE CHAIRMAN: Which delegate from Mount Olive? There are two I think. What is his name?
DEL. VEAL: This young man that sits right over here? (Indicating a delegate). What is his name? State your name, will you please, to the convention? I don’t know his name. I want to state the grounds. I object to them on the grounds that these men are untrue to the economic interests of the working class.
THE CHAIRMAN: That matter will be referred to the Credentials Committee. Just hand in the names.
DEL. FREY: I would like to ask if that report goes to the press that was read over there?
THE CHAIRMAN: It becomes a part of the printed proceedings.
DEL. FREY: My idea in asking that question is this. As I said before. I am simply here to investigate the proceedings of this convention. I am not acquainted with this idea as yet, but if it appears favorable to us we are willing to go back to our District Council and report favorably and recommend them to come into this body. But in the meantime we don’t want to take any action or go on record if it is going to jeopardize our position with them. If it appears that we can get better conditions and better wages, perhaps they will adopt the idea. In the meantime I don’t want to jeopardize our position with them and I don’t want it to go out that we are approving this body.
THE CHAIRMAN: A protest has been entered against the following names of delegates: John Green, Phil Jackson, Mr. Wright, Mr. Walker of Westville, and Mr. Ryan, Secretary of the U. M. W. A. You have heard the reading of the report of your Committee on Credentials.
Del. Kremer: I understood that my name was on that list.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is not on the list.
DEL. VEAL: Include that in the list, too.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the reading of the report of your Committee on Credentials. If adopted it will be with, the exception of the names just read. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). Those in favor of the adoption of the Committee’s report will signify it by the uplifted right hand. Contrary by the same sign. The motion is carried. The delegates whose names have been objected to will please appear before the Credentials Committee.
DEL. CRITCHLOW: I would like to have the Secretary make a record in his minutes of the fact that our organization as an organization have decided to send a representative here, not for the purpose of installing the union as such into the organization, but simply for the purpose of making a searching investigation of this proposed organization, for the purpose of seeing how the I. R. U. can be fitted into the industrial organization. If we decide to become a part of it we are not afraid to take the stand. We are not afraid to be known as participating in this convention, because our organization as such has been an independent organization since its inception and has had to fight every inch of its way in the face of opposition from all sources, and has built up its present membership through the fights that have been waged on behalf of us men. But still those who are not in touch with the Laborers cannot probably be alive to the fact that the laborers are unduly suspicious of any proposal that was made to them, because of the class or craft hatred, because of the abuse that has been heaped upon them by other trades in the past. Consequently they will take an opportunity to look into this carefully. They are like the fellow from Missouri, they have to be shown, but after they are shown and convinced then they are ready to act. Of course, I would not take any advantage of the privilege of voting in the convention because it would be contrary to the understanding of the organization in sending me. But still we want to take part in an advisory capacity, and after the convention is ended and the organization makes up the report, then if they want to become a part of this organization they have an opportunity to do it. I simply want to make that explanation so that it will he understood, as we occupy practically the same position as the delegates from the machinists’ organization who have just previously made their statement.
DEL. WHITE: We have a further report to make.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Credentials Committee has a further report.
DEL. WHITE, ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE: We recommend James Smith, New York, representing 29 A. L. U., with one vote. I would like to ask if E. Bosky is in the house and whether he is from New Ulm.
DEL. BOSKY: Yes.
DEL. WHITE: Is C. Boudin from New York, in the house?
MR. BOUDIN: Here.
DEL. WHITE: I will say that a protest has been filed by some one with the Committee against that name. We wanted to know whether he was from New York. We recommend J. W. Ryan, printer, Lowell, Mass., one vote; Michael Tracy, shoe worker, Massachusetts, one vote; George Forbes, newspaper man; Wilbur M. Wolf, laborer, Chicago; James Murtaugh, representing the following Iron Molders’ Unions of St. Louis district: Iron Molders No. 59, St. Louis; 119, East St. Louis; 182, Belleville; 412, Granite City; 406, St. Louis; total membership, 464, one vote; Pat O’Neil.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the further report of your Committee on Credentials.
DEL. DE LEON: The names that have been read by the Secretary, are they accepted?
THE CHAIRMAN: With the exception of the name of Boudin, from New York.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I heard the Secretary read the Iron Molders, and they are given one vote.
THE CHAIRMAN: They have been given one vote.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: Is that right?
THE CHAIRMAN: They are not with power to install.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: Oh, I see.
Del. Pat O’Neil, Arkansas: My name was read just a moment ago. I want to make a statement, and the Committee can do as they like. When I left home on Monday morning my train went in the ditch—
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a moment. Appear before the Credentials Committee and don’t take up the time of this convention.
DEL. MURTAUGH: The Secretary read a report including delegates with eighty-seven votes. After that he read names without including the number of votes, and the last names read he mentioned one vote. I would like to know whether all of those names read just after the names that represented eighty-seven votes were names with one vote each?
DEL. WHITE: I desire to state that it includes one vote for each delegate. The rest had the privilege of installing their unions. There are members here from unions with 1,500 votes, but they have no power to install them. Where the organization has full power the Committee on Credentials have given the amount of votes that they represent in the organization.
DEL. KERRIGAN: I move you that the Secretary be instructed to call the roll of delegates who are entitled to sit and who have already been voted upon. I understand that those other names have been referred back to the Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the report of the Credentials Committee that has just been read. What is your pleasure?
DEL. STARKENBERG: I move that the delegates be seated except the ones that protests have been entered against (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded that the delegates whose names have been read be seated, except the ones against whom protests have been entered. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for.) Now, remember that all you folks are all the same; you are as much entitled to the inside tables as the other delegates. Those in favor of the motion will signify it by raising their right hands. Contrary by the same sign. The motion is carried; you have accepted the report of your Credentials Committee and your organization is perfected. The next order of business is the election of permanent Chairman. Nominations are in order.
DEL. DE YOUNG: I nominate Brother Haywood.
DEL. POWERS: I move that the nominations for Chairman now close. (Seconded.)
DEL. DANIEL MCDONALD: I wish to place in nomination a man well known throughout the trade union movement, especially in the west; a man known to be. fair and honorable in all his dealings; a man who has had experience in handling large bogeys and presiding over them. I take pleasure therefore in nominating David C. Coates, President of the American Labor Union.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: I rise to second the nomination of W. D. Haywood.
THE CHAIRMAN: D. C. Coates and W. D. Haywood have been placed in nomination for permanent Chairman.
DEL. COATES: I am obliged to the delegate that mentioned my name. I want to make a motion that W. D. Haywood be elected Chairman by acclamation.
Motion seconded with applause.
DEL. COATES: Is the convention ready for the question? (Question called for). All those in favor of the motion will say aye. Contrary no. Brother Haywood is Chairman of the convention. (Applause.)
DEL. HAYWOOD: Brothers and Sisters, in accepting the chairmanship of this convention I am going to ask that every delegate will assist me as much as is in your power by keeping order and by not asking too much in the way of parliamentary law from your presiding officer. I haven’t either Robert’s Rules or Cushing’s Manual nor any other volumes of rules, but with a convention such as this where there is or should be no factions and where you are all in hearty accord and are working for the same purpose, there should be no reason for any wranglings or any personalities, and I hope that there will be none indulged in, because in so far as it is within the power of the chair they will not be tolerated. (Applause). The election of a permanent Secretary is now in order.
DEL. SCHATSKI: What do I understand by permanent Secretary? A permanent Secretary just for the convention or for all the time of the Industrial Union?
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary is simply for this convention until the election of your regular officers.
Del. Eisenberg: I nominate Comrade Trautmann. (Seconded.)
DEL. SCHATSKI: I nominate Brother T. J. Hagerty.
Del. De Young: I move that Brother Hagerty be elected by acclamation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any more nominations?
DEL. RIORDAN: I wish to place in nomination Brother Hall, of the United Brotherhood of Railway Employes.
DEL. HALL: Since we have already established a precedent for this mode of procedure I move that Brother Trautmann be elected by acclamation. (Seconded). All in favor of that signify it by saying aye. Contrary. Carried.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a moment. That was tolerated, but—(laughter). Just a moment, brother delegates. Permit me to say that that might be tolerated if there were only one in the race, but there is Comrade Hagerty here, who may object to your putting him out of the field altogether.
DEL. HALL: Just a point of personal privilege. It is recognized that I am out of order. I simply spoke upon the precedent set just now. I wish to apologize for the action I have taken. I didn’t mean it in that way. I simply meant it as following out the precedent established. Now I offer an apology and ask that my motion be put by the chair, that Comrade Trautmann act as permanent Secretary of the convention.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is impossible for me to do that. Don’t you recognize the fact that there are two other nominees, one T. J. Hagerty and the other W. L. Hall? Assuming that one withdrew, there are still two, and neither of them has withdrawn.
DEL. WILKE: I move that the nominations be closed and that we proceed to ballot. (Seconded.)
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: Do I understand that I have been nominated?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Have you been in the convention hall?
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: I have, but I thought it was the other man with the additional “G” in his name, from Montana. I withdraw in favor of Comrade Trautmann.
DEL. JORGENSEN: I object to Comrade Hagerty withdrawing. He was in the room, and I have a suspicion that he heard his name. I think he ought to stay.
THE CHAIRMAN: The convention will proceed to ballot. I will appoint as tellers—
DEL. ROWE: I move that Del. Hagerty be permitted to withdraw his name from the race. (Seconded.)
The motion was put and carried.
A motion was mane and seconded that Delegate Trautmann be elected Secretary by acclamation. Motion carried.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, the accumulation of work on the Secretary’s desk will make it necessary to have an assistant secretary.
DEL. O’BRIEN: I move that the chair appoint an assistant. (Seconded.)
DEL. MOTHER JONES: I would place before the convention the name of Mrs. Emma F. Langdon, of Denver. (Seconded.)
The motion that the chair appoint an assistant secretary was put and carried.
THE CHAIRMAN: A suggestion has been offered that Mrs. Langdon be appointed. That meets with the approval of the chair. Mrs. Langdon is appointed as assistant secretary.
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: I would like to ask what is the business before the convention at this time?
THE CHAIRMAN: The reading of the additional credentials that have been handed in.
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: I would like to ask first, as a point of information, have we got any official record of the proceedings of this convention up to this time?
THE CHAIRMAN: We have an official record, yes; I believe it is being taken down by the stenographer—
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: Is he in the employ of this convention?
THE CHAIRMAN: —or by your Secretary.
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: Is he in the employ of this convention, this official stenographer?
THE CHAIRMAN: No.
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: Well, there is a point I wish to raise at this time. I believe the proceedings of this convention are of sufficient importance that they should go on permanent record. As I understand it, the stenographic report here does not belong to this convention. I believe the stenographer is in the employ of the S. T. & L. A. or the S. L. P. While I have no objection in the world to that, I believe that this convention should choose a person as official recorder of the proceedings of the convention. As I understand it, all the notes that he is making here will belong to the parties who employ him, and while I have no objection to it as I stated before, I believe this convention ought also to have its own official recorder. I therefore move, if I can find a second, that this convention do here and now employ a stenographer. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Now to avoid any complications and any unnecessary debate, I will call the attention of the delegate that has offered the motion to the effect that there be an official stenographer appointed, to the fact that there must first be arrangements made for a Ways and Means Committee.
A DELEGATE: Well, if I am in order I wish to say that so far as ways and means are concerned, I as one, and I am sure there are many others in this hall, that are perfectly willing to go down in their jeans and raise the expense.
DEL. DE LEON: We realized that a stenographer was necessary, and when I came to Chicago I endeavored to obtain one. Before that I had put myself into communication with our Secretary Trautmann, and we found out pretty soon that the expenditure necessary to secure a reliable stenographic report would be an expensive affair. After several conferences held at the A. L. U. headquarters with Brother Smith, Brother Hagerty, Brother Trautmann and some others, whom you may refresh my memory upon, we decided upon this method: that a stenographer should be engaged at the rate of $7.50 a day, and that he was to be paid besides thirty-five cents per page for the transcript. We figured that it would take about 1,500 pages, and that consequently, what with the stenographic notes and the transcribing, the cost would amount to about $600. We, of the Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance, had established a fund and had been collecting moneys to this end. The amount of money that I was authorized to pledge did not come very near that figure. I was authorized to pledge $200 towards the stenographic expense so as to have this convention’s actions recorded in order that every man interested in the movement who could not attend would be given an opportunity to do the next best thing and find out exactly what happened, as soon as it can be done. Therefore, we agreed that this ought to be presented to the convention by the Secretary and to ask the convention whether it cares to have a stenographic report, in which case the other organizations should be asked to contribute the difference, which would be about $400. Those are the figures of the stenographer. So as to make sure that we would have a stenographic report in case the convention decided to pay for it, he has been engaged by us; he has been engaged to take the stenographic notes, and it now depends upon the convention whether it cares to have the transcript made of the stenographic report, in which case they will have to contribute $400 in addition.
DEL. SIMONS: I rise to a point of information. I would like to know whether, if we pay this $400, the stenographic notes become the property of the convention or the property of the S. T. & L. A.
DEL. DE LEON: I understand that they become the property of the convention. The S. T. & L. A. only engages to reduce the expense. The notes so far are contributed gratis, and when they are transcribed and edited by the Secretary and considered to be correct they are to be published and become the property of the convention. I stated to Brother Smith that if it is his wish to supplement it in any particular that some arrangement would have to be made by which the work could be done, because the burden of handling and expediting it is rather cumbersome.
DEL. SIMONS: I want to know whether if any other paper should wish it, it could have the report by paying for it.
DEL. DE LEON: We never copyright anything of this kind.
SECRETARY TRAUTMANN: I was written a while ago as to whether any arrangement had been made for a stenographer. I wrote back that we were short of funds. In fact, the committee making preparatory arrangements went into debt about $150, but I suggested to the manager of The People that we take it up with our Executive Committee and perhaps some arrangement could be made. Four weeks before the convention I came to Chicago, and the committee members who were present agreed that we would co-operate with the Daily People of New York, providing the stenographic report becomes the property of the convention, and then a recommendation would be made by the temporary committee that part of the expense be defrayed by the new organization. If the new organization will become responsible and if we can perfect the arrangements, then the stenographic report becomes the property of the new organization. That was the understanding, and the letters of Comrade Chase, manager of the Daily People, will bear me out, that the arrangement was satisfactory to The People. I believe that is correct, so that the arrangement is in black and white that in case the convention assumes the responsibility for paying the stenographer the records of this convention will be the property of the new organization.
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: I would like to ask Comrade De Leon one plain question that will set me clear on the matter, and that is whether, up to the present stage, all the proceedings of the convention as recorded by your stenographer are the property of the convention.
DEL. DE LEON: I hope they may become the property of the convention.
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: I mean pending action by the convention, up to the present time.
DEL. DE LEON: Strictly speaking, technically speaking, they are our own property until the convention acts. But if we did not engage some one in advance the stenographic report would not be made, and it would be virtually useless to us unless you raise the $400 in addition to the $200 that we raise, making the $6oo. That is to say, upon the theory that there will be 1,500 pages. If it should be fewer the amount would be reduced. The funds that we have may be left in the hands of a responsible person, an officer of this convention, and then this stenographic report becomes the property of this convention.
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: I have not had an answer to the question yet, who owns the record at this time? Is there any person in this hall vow who can say that this record is owned now by any one?
DEL. DE LEON: The person making the record will recognize the Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance, because nobody else has made any arrangement with him, but that can be taken out of our hands when you make the arrangement. Is the question answered?
DEL. RYAN: Yes, the answer is satisfactory.
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: The temporary committee was written a letter by the Daily People asking if arrangements for a stenographic report of the convention had been made. The committee replied that no arrangement of that kind could be provided by the committee for want of funds. The proposition then came from the Daily People that they would guarantee $200, which would more than pay for taking the notes of this convention, provided the committee would recommend to the convention that the balance of the fund necessary to have the notes transcribed would be defrayed by the convention. Understand this clearly now. They guaranteed $200, providing the committee would simply recommend to the convention that the further amount necessary be raised to transcribe the notes. As to the ownership of the notes, if no further fund is provided by the convention, we understand that the notes are paid for by the Daily People and will become the property of the Daily People. If the notes are paid for, if the transcription is paid for by the convention, it is the understanding of the committee with the Daily People that the notes and the transcript will become the property of the convention and of the organization, and the only thing in addition to that is that the Daily People has the privilege of using one of the transcripts for publication. That, I think, is the whole truth of the matter in a nutshell.
SECRETARY TRAUTMANN: That is correct.
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: I understand that this convention has no funds and can guarantee nothing at this time. I therefore make a motion that it is the sense of this convention that it desires a stenographic report of the proceedings of this convention.
Motion seconded by Delegate White.
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: I have a motion pending.
THE CHAIRMAN: Then this will be an amendment.
DEL. SCHATSKI: Fellow Delegates, the motto of the Standard Oil is secrecy. They don’t keep any records. Their conventions are secret, to crush labor and suck the last drop of blood out of you. But this convention has been called to represent labor all over the world. The delegates here are workingmen united under one banner, the banner of opposition to privilege on the part of those who take what we produce. Therefore, I say, let that money question go. We need a report of everything that is going on in this convention. We need it and we have got to have it. I make a motion that we have it.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the amendment The motion is that we have an official stenographer. The amendment is that it is the sense of this convention that we should have a stenographic report of the proceedings.
DEL. MURTAUGH: If I understand correctly, we are to have a stenographic report, whether or no the convention votes for it. If I understand correctly, the stenographic report is to be taken for the New York People, and in the event there is a new organization formed, if this convention sees fit to let that organization for $400 take that stenographic report, it then becomes the property of this convention. If I understand correctly it means that and nothing else, that it is the sense of this convention that we have a stenographic report. If that is carried, I understand somebody is responsible for the cost of that stenographic report. Who that is, I don’t know, but it seems to me that we cannot pledge any amount of money here until such time as the new organization is formed, if one is formed.
DEL. MORRISON, HOUSTON, TEXAS: I fully concur in what the gentleman has just said. I believe I realize the responsibility that the amendment to the motion devolves upon the individuals of this convention, and as a substitute for the whole I desire to make a motion that the chair appoint a committee of five to provide ways and means and to report to-morrow morning a system by which the funds can be raised for this purpose. Now, there will be some method suggested by which it can be done. As was suggested by one of the comrades on the floor, if this could be distributed among other papers for publication and for other uses it would return a revenue to this convention, and as we have no funds at our disposal we cannot pledge anything. Therefore we cannot hold out a false inducement to the stenographer. I will offer that as a substitute.
DEL. COATES: Will a motion now be in order on the amendment?
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment that was offered by Brother Smith is now the original motion. That is that it be the sense of this convention that we have a stenographic report. That amendment takes the places of the original motion that was withdrawn by Brother Ryan and his second. The motion offered by this brother (Del. Morrison) as a substitute has received no second.
DEL. COATES: Mr. Chairman, just as a point of information, before I vote. Do I understand that if the motion is carried it will involve this convention to the extent of six or seven or eight hundred dollars to take the stenographic report?
THE CHAIRMAN: It is my understanding that it does not involve the convention to any extent unless such arrangements can be made. The motion is that it is the sense of this convention that we have a stenographic report. Now, I would take it that if there were no ways and means provided by which you could pay for it, that it would not make any difference whether it was the sense of this convention or not that we have a report.
DEL. COATES: The only reason I ask is that I want to get a Motion before the convention. It seems to me the motion now fore the convention is not the proper motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: An amendment will be in order.
DEL. COATES: If we are going to have a stenographic report, for heaven’s sake let us raise the money first, and let us not get the cart before the horse. That is all there is to this proposition. The motion I want to make is simply this—but I want to make a few remarks before I make the motion. I have had some little experience in this stenographic report business as far as a general convention is concerned. There is no one on this floor, perhaps, who would more prefer a stenographic report and a record of every utterance upon the floor of this convention than I, and if there is any one here that is able to do that, they have my consent, and I would be very glad indeed if they would do it; but as a delegate on this floor, as a part of this convention, I want to oppose a stenographic report, solely on the point of expense. To the delegates of this convention or to the laboring people of this country it means an expense anywhere from two to three or four thousand dollars; that is what it means. If we are to have any benefit, if we are to have any use of this stenographic report, it means its publication by this convention; that is what it means. It does not mean simply six or seven or eight hundred dollars to take it and transcribe it. It means another thousand or two thousand to publish it and circulate it throughout this country if it is to be of any use. I want to say, Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates, that before this new movement will get into a position where it can afford to spend two or three or four thousand dollars to send out this information the information will be absolutely too old, and it will never get the returns back for the expenditure of that amount of money. I do not believe that we ought to put that millstone around this new organization that we are going to create at this time. The Secretary will take absolutely everything that is essential. We will get an official record of this convention as far as its acts are concerned, and that is all that will be of any use sixty days from now. I would like to read a stenographic report of this convention every day, either in the Daily People or some other avenue of information, but I want to say I think we are making a mistake at the very beginning when we try to saddle upon this new organization without authority two or three or four—yes, even five thousand dollars before this information can be gotten to the people, and then not gotten to them within six months or a year or year and a half after this convention has adjourned. I move you that as far as this convention is concerned we do not make an arrangement to have a stenographic report and add the expense to this body. (Motion seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The original motion is that it be the sense of this convention that we have a stenographic report. Do you offer that as an amendment or substitute?
DEL. COATES: It ought to come properly as an amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: As an amendment?
DEL. COATES: Yes, a substitute is merely an amendment, that is all. It acts as a substitute, however.
THE CHAIRMAN: That it be not the sense of this convention?
DEL. COATES: Mr. President, I do not want the idea to go out that I have any objection to anybody else taking a stenographic report at all. If somebody else wants to modify the motion he. has my consent. I simply do not want to saddle this organization with such an expense, that is all.
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: My motion is that it is the sense of this convention that it desires a stenographic report. I will be as brief as possible, yet I want it clearly understood by the delegates present that that motion does not involve this convention or the organization proposed to be formed in any expense whatever. It seems to me that the persons who have employed a stenographer to take the notes, at an expense of $200, have done so upon the understanding or with the expectation that the notes might be transcribed by the organization afterwards; and it seems to me that if we do decide right now that the convention does not desire a stenographic report at all, the persons who have arranged for the notes being taken might stop the contract right now and end the expense, and that was my purpose in putting the motion to this convention. I am not going to make any argument as to what it will cost to get this report printed, but I am going to say that it won’t cost anything like the expense that has been stated to this convention. I am not going into an argument now, but I believe a stenographic report should be bad, and so long as this motion does commit the convention to any expense, but simply indicates that the delegates present desire a stenographic report, it may serve as an encouragement to have the notes taken at this time, and when the funds are available the organization might decide for itself whether it wants a stenographic report or not.
DEL. WILKE, MILWAUKEE: I do not see where this convention will be benefited one iota by endeavoring to hide its light under a bushel. (Applause). To-day the proletarians of America are spellbound in their expectations of the actions that are to be taken here. They want information. I want to say that a stenographic report is absolutely essential to place before the workingmen of this country our acts and deeds as we have done them here. (Applause.) I am not ashamed of what I am going to do here, and the man that is would not, of course, like to see a stenographic report. As regards the expense incurred in publishing this report, you lose sight of the fact that the Daily People of New York is furnishing you with the composition virtually at cost, because the matter is retained as live matter in the printing office and can be bought almost for what it cost in the way of metal. Now, then, I say that in order to interest workingmen in this new movement, I must show them what the actions of this convention have been, and the only way that I can do that is to let him know what my colleague from Colorado said and what my coworker from New York thought about it. When you place before him a verbatim report of all the deeds and actions of this convention you have placed before him a clean case, and I want him to be the judge whether the merits of our action warrant him in giving us his cooperation. I thank you. (Applause.)
DEL. M. P. HAGGERTY, BUTTE.: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Industrial Union, I certainly am in favor of a detailed report of every utterance that sounds in this hail. What for? So that the great mass of the working people everywhere may know in detail what we are doing. You cannot get from a Secretary’s report the real sense and the real meaning of a gathering of this kind; far from it. Where does this great expense come from? You would think you were in one of the corrupt municipalities. Talking about printing the addresses, we don’t propose to get this out and send it all over this country, but we do propose, and I think I can assert that we have got plenty of papers to print the proceedings: the New York People, the Salt Lake Crisis, the Socialist and the Herald, and all those publications that you men are issuing here in Chicago to carry the tidings and carry everything that comes from this convention to the common people. The estimate of expense is preposterous. Five hundred dollars will do it. I know what this kind of work costs. Don’t get frightened, don’t get intimidated by a great colossal show of cost. It is nothing of the kind. See and mark the magnificent effort made by those few men here. Already they have raised $200, and the great body outside is asked to raise a paltry three or four hundred more, and we shuffle and shake and get frightened. I know besides that there is spirit enough here, that there is generosity enough here among the delegates to raise the balance that is necessary to pay for it. (Applause). None of us are rich. We are not giving from our abundance, but we can make up a balance of that kind. Let us have a detailed statement of every utterance here, so that when we go from this hail and go back to our locals every member of every organization, when it is printed, may lay it out before him and go over it quietly and steadily and soberly, and then if any man wishes to make a false statement as to what this convention is or has done, here is the proof, verified by the officers of the organization, and sworn to by your stenographer if necessary, and there is no man that will be able to draw to himself or appropriate to himself unduly that which he is not entitled to. Let every man here go before the working people of this country upon his true merits. If he is afraid to do that, let him convert himself into a good man and let him do something for the people. (Applause.)
Del. Schatski: If every member of this new organization will give the price of one meal we can have this report. I move that we shall have this report.
DEL. GUY MILLER: A statement has been made here that this is a very generous convention. That is undoubtedly true. We are long on generosity, but we are short on cash. Now, when it comes to getting the report of this convention before the people, you and I who don’t talk any bunkum know perfectly well that the great mass of the people will never wade through a stenographic report of the proceedings of this convention. You know that the knowledge of the proceedings will practically be confined to a few. It is a question of in what manner we can best use the limited funds that can be raised for the propagation of the unionism of the new industrial movement. I insist that when we view the question from that practical standpoint we will consider that the expense is beyond our reach. It is going to cost more than it is worth to us. We must husband our funds; we need those. Therefore, it seems to me that the motion of the gentleman from Idaho is the one that should find support in this convention.
DEL. THOS. J. HAGERTY: Mr. Chairman—
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not believe that there is a delegate on this floor but what knows whether he or she wants this report, without taking up any further time. The substitute is that we do not have a stenographic report of the proceedings of this convention. Those in favor—
DEL. COATES: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to stand for any precedent like that. As long as any delegate wants to be heard on this or any other question, he has a right to be heard. I object to the Chairman shutting off the debate.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have already spoken on this question.
DEL. COATES: Yes, but I simply don’t want to prevent this question being fully debated before this convention.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have been heard. If there is any other delegate that has not been heard who takes exception to the decision of the chair, he should be allowed to speak.
A DELEGATE: I take exception.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY, CHICAGO: I want to say a word. I am in favor of publishing this report, not in the interest of the few who are here, but in the interest of the great working class at large who cannot come here. They have a right to be heard here. They have expressed through the Daily People their desire to have a report. They have expressed that desire in the form of $200. That does not mean 200 men; it means 2,000, or perhaps ten times that number of working men. They have a right to know what this convention has done, and they have a right to judge this economic organization that is proposed by the things that have transpired here. They cannot judge it simply by a summed-up report of a secretary, which is always colored by the personality of the secretary, and which may very often be colored against the interest of the working people. We know the reports of some conventions that have been held pretendedly of working men, and we know whether they were correct. (Applause.) We know how their reports have been tampered with, although they were supposed to be stenographic, and I want to go on record here personally as in favor of a stenographic report. I know that the Mill and Smeltermen’s Union of Butte, Mont., that my worthy namesake represents on this floor, itself alone, if this question were up to it, would stand for the whole thing. (Applause.) They raised $500 for Texas. The people want literature. The working men do read these things, and they want to read them, and they want to know what is going on. I want to go on record as favoring a stenographic report, and as personally expressing my gratitude to the Socialist Trades and Labor Alliance for bringing this thing up, and for contributing $200 toward putting it out before the working class of this country.
Question called for.
DEL. DEAN: I have a substitute for that—
THE CHAIRMAN: There is already a substitute before the convention.
DEL. DEAN: I offer an amendment to the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: There is already a substitute before the convention. The question has been called for.
A DELEGATE: I move the previous question. (No second.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The substitute is that we do not have a stenographic report of the proceedings of this convention. Those in favor of the substitute will signify it by saying aye. Contrary by the same sign, The substitute is lost. What is now the original motion, the amendment of Delegate Smith, is before the convention, that it be the sense of this convention that we have a stenographic report. Those in favor of that motion will signify it by the voting sign. Contrary by the same sign. The motion is carried.
DEL. DE LEON: I move you that the Chair be empowered to appoint a committee of five on ways and means to raise the balance necessary so as to transcribe and publish this stenographic report. (Motion seconded.) The stenographer informs me, in figuring it together with Delegate Smith, that it will cost $600 to get his stenographic notes finally transcribed, with two copies, one for us and one for your use. We contribute $200, and $400 more as a maximum will be needed. I move you that the Chair appoint a committee of five on ways and means to raise the $400. (Motion again seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the Chair appoint a committee of five as a committee on ways and means to raise the balance of the fund necessary to have this report made.
A DELEGATE: I move as an amendment that the committee be instructed to engage a stenographer in connection with this body. A stenographer has not been selected by this body yet. If we select a stenographer he should be selected officially by the Executive Committee or by the action of this body. My motion is to engage a stenographer, so that the stenographer who makes the stenographic report is an official stenographer.
DEL. SHERMAN: I make an amendment that the Chair appoint on the committee delegates who have spoken in favor of this report. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It would not be necessary to put that motion, because the Chair has already got the committee selected. There is an amendment to the motion, that the Chair select the delegates who have spoken in favor of the report. Do you want to hear the motion? (No call for the motion.) All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. Contrary no. Carried. The motion is that a committee of five be appointed to provide ways and means for the making of this report. Those in favor of the motion will signify it by the voting sign, raising their hands. Contrary by the same sign. The motion is carried. I will appoint Brother Albert Ryan, Brother Rowe of the Flint Glass Workers, Brother Clarence Smith and Brother Schatzki. The Secretary will proceed with the reading of credentials.
DEL. LUCY PARSONS: I suggest that the Chair ought to appoint a woman to the committee, as women are usually very good beggars in cases of this kind. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection on the part of the convention, a lady will he added to the committee, and this sister will act in that capacity, Mrs. Lucy Parsons.
No objection was heard.
Secretary Trautmann then presented the following report on credentials, and it was ordered received and placed on file:
The report presented credentials of C. W. Roff, representing the Punch Press Operators’ Union, with power to install, and three or four other organizations without power to install. Also credentials of F. W. Weber, from the Electrical Workers’ Union, and four or five other organizations, all without power to install. Also communications from four or five other Schenectady organizations stating that they were in favor of the new movement, and had taken a referendum on the question of joining it, and were awaiting the outcome of the referendum, one of the unions making a donation of $20 toward the new organization.
The report was taken from the Secretary’s desk and has been lost, therefore cannot be presented here in full.
A communication was received in Italian from the Italian Progressive Society of the Socialist Labor Party of New York City. Delegate Kiemensic, by request, presented the following translation to the convention:
“To the Laboring Men Who Are United in Chicago for the Purpose of Organizing an Industrial Union: This Socialist circle of the lower city of New York of the Socialist Federation of Italians in the United States, has not means enough to send a delegate to represent it here. They express their sincere hopes that this organization will be strictly on industrial lines. They state that their own organization is on political lines, but they see that the economic is more necessary even than the political, because they see that the man who controls our bread will control our politics, and that we all have to work for our bread. They call attention of this convention to the necessity of paying particular attention to foreign speaking tongues, to the French, Germans, and Italians and all those that are unable to speak the English language. They hope that some steps along that line may be taken here in this convention in order to diffuse the literature on a proper scale and in order to make understood the revolutionary condition and the sentiment of this body. The great importance which Italians are attaching to this comes from the simple fact that this industrial union is willing to co-operate with the revolutionary organizations throughout Italy and France, and in this way a brotherhood feeling for the condition of workingmen everywhere may be shown by the fact that we are united not only in theory but by acts and deeds. It is one of their wishes that this organization will start an official organ in the Italian language so that they may be able to read in their own paper the important doings of this organization. They will give it their whole support and promise to organize and educate and co-operate in every particular as far as this group is concerned, and will give their aid, material and financial and moral, to organize trade unions throughout the United States in sympathy with the new idea; and while they are doing this they want us to come there and start the work and they will push it forward. Finally they are for revolutionary Socialism and the international brotherhood of the working people.” (Applause.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The election or selection of a Committee on Rules of Order will be the next business of the convention.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I move that the chair be empowered to appoint a Committee of five on Rules of Order. (Seconded.)
Motion put and carried.
THE CHAIRMAN: The chair will appoint on that committee Brothers Fairgrieve, Spiegel, Simons, Kerrigan, and Guy Miller.
DEL. DE LEON: Mr. Chairman, is there any reason why the other standing Committees should not be appointed now?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, I see no reason why that cannot be done at this time.
DEL. DE LEON: Then I move you that we proceed to the appointment of the remaining standing Committees. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection on the part of the convention the chair would very much prefer to defer the appointment or election of Committees until such time as the Committee on Rules of Order reports, suggesting the various committees that should be appointed or elected by the convention.
DEL. DE LEON: Then you would postpone action upon that?
THE CHAIRMAN: I would postpone action.
DEL. DE LEON: All right.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else to come before the convention?
DEL. RICHTER: I want to ask a question of information. One of the paragraphs of the Manifesto says, “all power shall rest in. the collective membership.” Now it seems to me that the mode of appointment of committees by leaving it to the chair is not in accordance with the declaration of this Manifesto. It seems to me the delegates to this convention should have a chance to say who they will have upon the Committee. (Applause.) No matter how fair the chair may be, or how far his knowledge may reach as to the proper qualifications of those acting on those Committees, it is certain that in line with the principle of this Manifesto the Committees should be elected instead of appointed.
THE CHAIRMAN: I agree with the delegate that all Committees should be elected from the floor, and the convention would confer a favor on the chair and relieve him of a good deal of embarrassment if you would elect your own Committees.
DEL. DE LEON: I regret to see that the chair agrees with that. That statement that was quoted was made for the benefit of the organization, and the organization is not there for the benefit of that statement.
THE CHAIRMAN: I understand.
DEL. DE LEON: We want Committees that will be able to proceed to work within a reasonable time. Now, if the membership of this body is to elect the Committees I think it is safe to say that there will be no Committee in existence with the expenditure of less than two hours, and the moment we do that we sacrifice the substance to the shadow. As to the objection raised by the delegate that the convention should have something to say, that goes without saying. I do not believe that if the chair appoints a person on a Committee that is objectionable the convention is deprived of the opportunity of objecting. I think that any individual can rise here and object and make a motion to exclude a certain person appointed by the chair, so that all that the delegate states is covered by a common sense interpretation of that; whereas his literal interpretation would simply tie us down and we would not be able to do anything within the next ten days.
DEL. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman—
THE CHAIRMAN: There is nothing before the house. What is it? A point of information?
DEL. SAUNDERS: No, I want to make a motion. I move that all committees be elected instead of appointed. (Motion seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that all committees be elected instead of appointed. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. SAUNDERS: I wish to say that my reason for making the motion is this: First of all’ to be in accord with that declaration, not only with the spirit of the organization as it may be formed, but to go along right from the inception; and further, that the chair, no matter how fair he is—not that he maybe, but that he is—does not know all the delegates in the convention, and that the delegation as a whole know more about the delegates themselves, and therefore I think that notwithstanding the time that it might take up, it should be left to the convention instead of to the chair.
DEL. HALL: The appointment of a committee to work on constitutional work being such an important proposition, I do not think that it could be left safely to the general convention. Neither do I think it could be left safely to the Chairman of the convention and have all the departments represented on the committee. I am going to offer as a suggestion in the shape of a motion that the organizations, bona fide organizations that are represented by delegates in this convention be permitted through their delegations to elect their representatives on the Constitutional Committee and act on the Constitutional Committee as an organized body instead of individuals. I think that by that means we can get a general expression from all departments represented in the convention, and then if necessary we can provide that individuals be admitted to the Constitutional Committee by consent of the delegates seated in accordance with the plan that I have suggested. That is, that each organization represented in this body be permitted to elect its own representatives on the Constitutional Committee, and not leave it to the general convention and those members. The Committee thus formed may, if they decide it wise, select individuals to assist them in this work. I offer that as a motion. (Motion seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Will you kindly state the motion?
DEL. HALL: The motion is that the organizations represented by delegates in the convention be permitted to select through their delegations their representatives on the Constitutional Committee. I understand that the Western Federation of Miners is represented here as an entire organization, and I think the Western Federation of Miners should select their representatives on the Constitutional Committee. The United Brotherhood of Railway Employes is represented here by several delegates, and I think they should be permitted to select their representatives on the Constitutional Committee. There cannot be any objection offered to that idea, for all departments will then be represented, and I think that is the only way that we can get a general representation on the Constitutional Committee. If the chair appoints he does not know who to select from the various delegations to act as a representative member of the organization. If the convention elect they do not know who wants to be represented on those committees, so I think the wisest way is the suggestion that I have made.
THE CHAIRMAN: Brother Hall, will you please state your motion? I am not going to make a speech when I put the question.
Del. Hall: I made the motion at first. I think the chair was not listening. My motion is that the organizations represented by delegates in the convention select their own members of the Constitutional Committee.
A DELEGATE: How many? One?
THE CHAIRMAN: Do I hear a second to the motion?
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: I desire to second the motion that one member from each department form the body to make the Constitution, and that the delegates representing that department make that selection. I rise to second the motion that this gentleman has made.
DEL. DE LEON: I rise to make an amendment to Brother Hall’s motion. There is a motion, I understand, that Committees be elected by the body of the convention, and there is Brother Hall’s amendment that the Committee on Constitution consist of one man elected by each delegation. Is that the motion?
Del. Hall: Yes.
DEL. DE LEON: My amendment is that the same system apply with regard to the Committee on Resolutions and the Committee on Preamble. If I understand the Hall amendment correctly it is wise. It is an assistance to the chair. It removes the mob feature of the original motion, and enables the organization—not individuals, but the organizations represented here by delegates, to select the members. They are here and know the delegates and the men who are fitted for that particular function. I presume that Brother Hall has the constitution at heart, but he has overlooked the fact that there are other things that should be at heart as well, and I consider that the Resolution Committee and the Committee on Preamble are of that nature. So my amendment is to the amendment, that the same system shall prevail with regard to the Committee on Preamble and the Committee on Resolutions. I believe that I am right when I say that you reported a proposed plan to that effect, that there should, be a Committee on Preamble. I wish to be corrected by the Secretary. My recollection is that the original conferees reported, a Committee on Preamble.
DEL. TRAUTMANN: Yes, we did.
DEL. DE LEON: And also a Committee on Resolutions?
DEL. TRAUTMANN: Yes.
DEL. DE LEON: My amendment is to extend the Hall amendment to all the standing Committees.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is that? Your amendment is that the Committee on Resolutions and Committee on Preamble be included in the same manner as provided in the amendment of Brother Hall?
DEL. DE LEON: Be provided according to the same system.
Delegate Do Leon’s amendment was seconded.
THE CHAIRMAN: I want to say to the delegates making the motion and the amendment that the chair does not feel that the amendment to the amendment nor the amendment can be entertained. My position is this, that there are a large number of delegates here who are here as individual members and who should be permitted an expression on the Committee on Preamble, the Committee on Resolutions and the Committee on Constitution. I do not believe that the largest delegation nor the smallest delegation in this convention should prohibit any individual member from having an opportunity to express himself on the most important committees. (Applause). Unless some arrangement is made whereby the individual members that are here—it may be only as fraternal delegates at this time—unless some arrangement is made by which they can be given an opportunity of expression on those committees the chair will not entertain either the amendment to the amendment or the amendment.
DEL. DE LEON: In order to give the amendment and the amendment to the amendment a chance, I want to remind the chair that every objection which he has to the method proposed by the amender and the amender to the amender would exist in the other case. Supposing this whole convention elects five men, would the others be excluded likewise?
THE CHAIRMAN: I don’t think so.
DEL. DE LEON: Why not?
THE CHAIRMAN: They will have an opportunity of being nominated.
DEL. DE LEON: Very well, but that is what the capitalist class tell us, that we have an opportunity of voting for a candidate that they put up for us, and the result of it is that small minorities can carry the day. Now, the point that my question aims at is this, that it stands to reason in parliamentary practice that no committee in the measure of its importance will presume to close the door to anybody who wants to appear before it and be heard upon what he has to say. The idea of Committees is to present a digested thing before a body. Consequently we want those men who are known by their delegations to do the digesting. But they should have something to digest, and consequently they will invite all those who have ideas on the subject to appear before them. I do not believe that a committee, however you appoint it, should exclude them, and consequently anybody who has any ideas upon these matters would have an opportunity to be heard in the Committee, and a second opportunity to be heard on the floor in case his views do not prevail, or in case they do prevail and he wants to emphasize them by a speech. If my point has been made clear I hope the chair will re-consider its decision. These men would have ample opportunities to be heard. The Committees would listen to them and they can be heard in Committee and out of Committee. It is a method of expediting business. I presume that all of us at this convention have been at conventions before, and you know what it means when a body of men are to vote upon a ballot, containing many names: it means all-day work. We want to have justice and democracy, but we surely don’t want to sacrifice the essence to the shadow, seeing that all the essence can be obtained together with the shadow by the experience of the human race upon such matters.
DEL. HALL: In making the motion, while I recognize the final principle that has been brought out by Brother De Leon in his argument, the principle that animated me in making the motion was this, that the organizations which have delegates in the convention are the ones that express the largest force in the convention, in the appointment of the committee to form a Constitution, and when it would come in to the convention the vote that would determine the acceptance of that Constitution or that report would be the membership who are not here. This convention is not a matter of individuals. It is a matter of units made up by individuals who are representing a membership that is not here, and they are the real force of the convention. It is the absent member and not the present member that we must consider. Now I say that any other method adopted to elect the Committee on Constitution might leave out a delegate who was representing a number of people away from the convention. Now, as Brother De Leon says, if an individual wishes to be heard he can be heard by the Committee at any time. I am pretty sure they will make provision for that.
DEL. DE LEON: And on the floor.
DEL. HALL: I am sure the Committee will give such individuals an opportunity to come and be heard; but on vital principles before the convention it is the weight of the membership represented and not the individuals that will determine the acceptance of the report. For that reason I think we could reach a report that would be acceptable to the convention quicker by letting those men who are the real force in the convention determine through their delegation the character of Constitution that they want to adopt.
DEL. DE LEON: I would like to make another suggestion in line with this.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just permit me to state that I again reassert the position that I have taken, that when the organizations that come here with delegations presume to select a member from their delegations on the Resolution Committee and the Committee on Preamble, and to confine it within the representations that are here by delegation, the chair objects to it. I do not believe that it is democratic. I believe that every individual member of this convention should be allowed a voice and vote and place on any committee. (Applause.)
DEL. DE LEON: I desire information. How are those Committees to be elected? By individuals or by the number of votes represented by the individuals who vote?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is a matter to be determined.
DEL. DE LEON: All right; you will have to settle that if you want to have democracy.
DEL. KERRIGAN: I understand that this convention is to be based on the class struggle. Hence it is essential to make the working class class-conscious, and if we are going to proceed along those lines we cannot be pestered with all kinds of sentiments such as democracy and discussions on psychology and theosophy and other little questions that may be considered of importance by the various delegates to the convention. You must understand that you have to proceed along revolutionary lines, and the revolutionary pathway does not always make concessions to sentiments that may surround its field, and this democratic sentiment we will have to overlook for the time being until you get organized. We don’t want to come here to preach democracy, but we come here to preach working class interests, as I understand. I came too far to be thrown off the track by a pandering to democratic sentiment or to the sentiment of fraternity, equality and all those other issues that may be raised by the various freak delegates to this convention. The working class is not interested in those freakish movements. I am in a hurry to get home to work, and hence I want to place myself on record in support of the motion offered by the delegate that you appoint a committee, even the chair shall appoint a committee. It is all open to question afterwards when it is presented before the convention. All the work of that committee should he open to question again, and then if you desire to tolerate a whole lot of talk and raise constitutional objections and so on and fritter away the time of the convention about those matters, you can do so, but don’t fritter it away right here at the outset. Appoint a committee; take some member here in your own midst as chairman, and then if you are not sustained it is up to the convention to decide. But I for one feel that I can’t waste much time here listening to what I know will be sprung on this convention. What I would like to know is if everybody here is in favor of the class struggle, and I don’t propose to waste much more time to find out whether they are or not. There may be delegates here who are trying to advocate the cause of any “opathy” in which I am not interested.
A DELEGATE: Or osteopathy.
DEL. KERRIGAN: I shall not go any further because I find that I am taking up some of your time myself, but I am drawing this to your attention to show that we cannot take up our time with democratic sentiments and things of that character.
A DELEGATE: What is the motion now before the house?
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion before the house is that Committees be elected from the delegations.
DEL. DE LEON: Then you rule the amendments out of order?
DEL. ROSS: I move as a substitute that each faction represented in this convention select one member on the Committee on Constitution and By Laws to govern this organization, and the same to constitute the Committee as a whole.
A DELEGATE: That is the same motion as Brother Hall’s.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is practically the same.
Del. Ross: Yes; I put it plain, that is all.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is practically the same as the original motion.
Motion seconded.
DEL. ROWE: Do I understand now that the motion before the house is that this convention elect a committee of five as the Constitutional Committee?
THE CHAIRMAN: No motion of that kind has been made. The motion was that the Committee be elected from the delegates.
A DELEGATE: All committees. That was the original motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: That all Committees be elected by the delegates.
DEL. ROWE: I would like to make an amendment to that motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: An amendment has already been offered by the delegate here that each delegation be represented on the Constitutional Committee.
Del. Rowe: I understand that you ruled that out of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: Not this motion. The two motions that have been made by Delegates Hall and De Leon were ruled out of order.
DEL. SCHATSKI: It seems to me that the motion is as plain as can be, and I do not see why any delegate present cannot understand it. The convention should sustain the ruling of the chair on this matter. The motion plainly calls attention to the principle that should underlie this movement if it is to be successful after this convention. I regret very much the remark of one of the delegates that it would give the proceedings a mob feature. Certainly all action by the working class for some time to come will contain the features of the mob until it has freed itself from some things that surround it and until they can act as men of intelligence and as understanding will dictate. But in order to do this a certain time is essential for development and growth that will make their action manlike and not as a mob. This convention, if it is to be of the importance it is proposed to be, should at once discard the idea that some men have been endowed by nature to predigest the mental is essential for development and growth that will make their action food which the working class requires in the various lines of information and give it to them just in doses sufficient as the condition permits. We must recognize that the lack of proper action on the part of the working class is because they are prevented from enjoying those advantages which enable them to act as men, and this convention should make provision if it is possible and not force on this country anything that will prevent its success. Therefore the motion should be carried.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hour of 12 o’clock having arrived, a motion to adjourn is in order.
A motion to adjourn was made.
DEL. GOODWIN: I want to ask this question: If each organization and each union shall select its own representative, what about the individual delegates here?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is not the question before the house at all.
DEL. GOODWIN: I think that was the substitute.
THE CHAIRMAN: There is no such substitute.
DEL. GOODWIN: Was that ruled out of order?
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment is that the various factions represented on the floor of this convention practically place every delegate on the floor on the Constitutional Committee.
DEL. SAUNDERS: A point of information. Didn’t I understand the substitute would take in each and every individual faction? I would like to ask, am I not right?
DELEGATES: Yes.
DEL. SAUNDERS: Therefore the brother would be in order, provided that is so.
DEL. DINGER: I desire to appeal from the decision of the chair. (Seconded). I desire to appeal from the decision of the chair that the motion made by the brother over there is out of order, and I wish to state my reasons therefor.
THE CHAIRMAN: State your reasons.
DEL. DINGER: I believe that those of us who have been sent here to represent a body are empowered to install that body in the new organization. The chair has referred to the individual delegates who come here to represent themselves, as individuals. He decided against this motion made by the brother on the ground that it would be undemocratic. Now, remember what you are doing. We are empowered to install those whom we represent in this organization, and those few men who come here as individuals are not so empowered. They come here, as you have just heard from a member, simply to investigate. It would be doing an injustice to the members of the working class that we represent to give them an equal voice, each one of them, with those that represent a large body. Therefore, I believe that the decision of the chair is unjust.
DEL. ROWE: I rise to a point of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: The decision of the chair has been appealed from. The Secretary will—
DEL. COATES: Just a moment. I was just going to appeal to the members of the convention not to vote on the appeal, if you will just allow me a moment.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is a matter of privilege.
DEL. COATES: The matter is muddled, and I am going to try to clear it up. Some member made a motion to elect from the floor of the convention with the idea that that is going to give a democratic organization. I want to tell that brother that there are about six or eight of us in this convention that can knock all this democratic idea galley west when you go to mention theory. I have got about 1,600 votes, and when you go to elect delegates it means simply that five or six hours will be consumed in casting votes, when the result rests with twenty or twenty-five men sitting on this floor. I simply want to point out that feature, that is all. You are making a mistake in trying to say that you are going to select and that everybody is going to have a chance in selecting the committees from this floor. I have got about 1,600 votes, I think; I don’t remember, as I haven’t read the credentials lately, but when it comes to voting I am going to have every vote, not one vote, but 1,600. There are five delegates from the Western Federation of Miners that cast something like four or five thousand apiece. I tell you there are fifteen or twenty of these men, and we might as well realize it now as later on in the convention. It is a mistake and it is a waste of time in the convention to attempt to select delegates in that manner. You might as well say to four or five organizations on the floor to go back on the stage and select the Committees of this convention, because that is all the motion means. I want to ask the brother over here to withdraw his appeal and see if we can’t straighten this out in a simple manner that will be satisfactory to everybody. I would ask the Secretary how many organizations are represented here with more than one delegate.
THE SECRETARY: Seventeen.
DEL. COATES: Something like seventeen; that is about the way I estimated. I am going to make a motion that those seventeen bodies or units of men select their representation on this Committee—I mean all Committees now. My motion is that these bodies of men representing organizations other than themselves shall select a member of all Committees named by this convention.
DEL. SAUNDERS: A point of order.
DEL. COATES: Just a moment. I will give the brother a chance when I get through.
DEL. SAUNDERS: The point of order is this: The brother has no right to make a motion when he has been given the privilege of the floor on a question of appeal from the decision of the chair.
DEL. COATES: No, I am trying to straighten this thing out, that is all I meant. You just wait till I get through, will you? Now, Mr. Chairman, he doesn’t know what I am going to include. He didn’t wait till I got through.
DEL. SAUNDERS: Make the motion.
DEL. COATES: Wait until you know what the motion is.
THE CHAIRMAN: You understand that unless this brother withdraws his appeal this motion will not be put.
DEL. COATES: I know it. My motion is this: That each one of these delegates select member of all Committees appointed by this convention, and that the chair appoint three from the individual delegates in this convention to each one of these Committees.
DEL. SAUNDERS: Do you withdraw your appeal?
Del. Dinger: I withdraw my appeal on condition that that motion will be sustained by the chair.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you offer that as a substitute?
DEL. COATES: Yes, that the chair add three individual delegates to each one of these Committees, making the Committees twenty members, or whatever number it is.
THE SECRETARY: Suppose you reduce that to writing.
The motion of Delegate Coates was seconded.
DEL. DE LEON: What is the chair’s ruling on that motion?
THE CHAIRMAN: The chair’s ruling is that this motion will be in order.
DEL. DE LEON: All right,
Question called for.
DEL. SAUNDERS: The argument that Brother Coates made in regard to having 1,600 votes in one mass to cast for this particular resolution or this particular motion, would apply to any other motion that might come up in this convention. Therefore it would exclude these delegates on the opposite side of any motion that the delegate should support.
A DELEGATE: I object. The question has been called for and the delegate is out of order. He has no right to debate the question at all; when the question is called for, you must always put it.
DEL SAUNDERS: I will say this: If the original motion to elect instead of appoint prevails, it will give an opportunity at least to those delegates who are only individual delegates and fraternal delegates to see how these men that represent 1,600 votes are going to deposit their votes. It would at least do that. Therefore that is the only purpose of the motion. But if you are going to run on the idea that there is no need of this democratic business at all, if you have everything cut and dried, saying that “I have 1,600 members in my possession and there are half a dozen other delegates in the same fix,” why should we delegates have a vote on any question?
Question called for.
DELEGATE HALL: I rise to a point of information. What is the difference between the motion accepted by the chair and the motion offered which he ruled against? Does it lie in the fact that the Committee is all to be selected from the floor by the convention, only one member from each department, or does it mean that each department has the right to elect its Committee? That is what I want a ruling on.
THE CHAIRMAN: The only difference between the amendment that you made and which the chair did not entertain and the substitute as offered by Delegate Coates, is this: That Delegate Coates provides that the chair appoint or give the outside delegates an opportunity to have three members on each Committee that is appointed, and you provide that only the delegates that are selected by the delegation shall be represented on Committees.
DEL. DE LEON: I desire information —
DEL. SCHATZKI: Has it been decided that the delegates shall have as many votes as the unions have?
THE CHAIRMAN: The rules provide that the delegates shall represent the entire organization.
DEL. SCHATZKI: Does that mean that he shall cast as many votes?
THE CHAIRMAN: He casts as many votes as he represents individually. If he is an individual he casts one vote. If he represents a union with ten members he casts ten votes. If there are 10,000 members of his organization he casts that many votes.
DEL. DE LEON: I wish to ask Delegate Saunders through the chair whether he was not present here when these various delegations voting more than one individual vote was seated, and whether he himself did not vote for them being seated with those additional votes; in other words, whether he did not himself vote for the admission of men with more than one vote.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I will answer that no, because we wanted—
DEL. SCHATZKI: A point of information. I want to find out, if this motion is carried, whether only those who are representing certain organizations have got all the right here. If so, let all the individual members attending here that cannot have a voice here, let them take their satchels and go home right now.
DEL. MORRISON: I would like to have that motion read that was reduced to writing.
THE SECRETARY: “Each delegation to select one member of each Committee elected by the convention, and that the chair appoint from the individual members three other members of the Committee.”
DEL. MORRISON: That changes the matter somewhat. We did not understand it here when Comrade Coates was making his motion. I want to say that some of the organizations which are numerically—
A DELEGATE: How do you know? What is your organization? [line missing from original transcript] represented here by delegations overlook one important feature that seems to me essential in this grand movement that we are here to inaugurate, and that is that of all the organizations of labor unions in the United States there are only about 240,000 members represented, while in the whole industrial group that is seeking for redress there are twenty millions, and those who come here come to represent the twenty millions as a whole, and not any special group. (Applause). Therefore, in the selection of your Committee to draft a constitution you are not allowing these people representation. I do not say that you do it intentionally, but I feel that you are making a mistake in thinking only of your own organization. These other men are sufferers just the same as all other organizations. It seems to me that those who represent only organizations are not seeking the support of the entire class of workingmen.
A motion was made to adjourn.
DEL. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman—
DEL. HALL: I have a privileged motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sullivan has the floor.
DEL. HALL: I have a privileged motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have asked for a question of privilege?
DEL. HALL: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is it?
DEL. SULLIVAN: Just a moment. The brother there got on the floor, but it is not on this question, and I claim the right to be heard.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sullivan, the brother will not be permitted to speak on this question. He asks a question of privilege.
DEL. HALL: I move that we take a recess until 5.30. (Motion seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: A motion to adjourn is always in order. Delegate Sullivan has the floor. Those in favor of the motion will say aye. Contrary no. The motion is lost. Brother Sullivan has the floor.
DEL. SULLIVAN: In the first place, I want to take exception to the ruling. Delegate Sullivan did not yield the floor, and when a delegate does not yield the floor a motion to adjourn is not in order. (Applause). The question seems to be centered around one point only: Are individual delegates here to be delegates in theory only, or delegates in fact? If you deny them a right to participate in the work of this convention they have no business here. They are here at their own expense, their individual expense, and if they were not interested I presume that they would not be here. The vast majority of them at least can ill afford to bear their own personal expense, for they are wage slaves to-day. Now, if they are to participate in this convention let us settle this question. If they are not, let us say so, so that they can curtail that expense and go their way rejoicing. I move you the previous question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Permit me to say that when the delegate takes exception to presenting a motion and then makes a speech himself, it will not be entertained.
DEL. POWERS: I propose to speak on the motion. I do not come here to represent myself. I come here to represent the working class. I have never found an organization yet but what deserved some support. If the members of that organization were not up to my standard it would become my duty to go into that organization and bring them up to my standard. And that explains the reason why I am one of those who are going to vote for principle. It would appear from the discussion of the gentlemen on this side that in order to be democratic the thing we ought to do is simply to resolve ourselves—those of us who have been unfortunate enough to come here as the representatives of organized labor—to resolve ourselves into a body and surrender and submit the whole thing to you who are members of no organizations.
DEL. POWERS: Now, Comrades, here is a situation that cannot be avoided. If there is anything disagreeable about it we are not responsible for it. The proceeding is exactly in accordance with the call and in accordance with all previous labor organizations. The only thing that we can do if we would become democratic in the way you would have us to is to make each representative here consider his vote one vote. That is all we can do. Now I am not opposed to that at all. Now I want to say here to you gentlemen who come here to represent yourselves and you ladies who come here to represent yourselves, and who come here to give this convention the best that you know of, will you, when this convention is over, put your names individually on the files of this organization? Will each one of you, as soon as this convention is over, find a place where you can go and become a member of this order? Will each of you individually form an organization of your own craft? What proof have we that when this meeting is over you will contribute anything towards its support? And another thing: Are you afraid that these men who are here from the mines, many of them crippled; are you afraid that these men who come here from the close atmosphere of the cotton mill, are not aware of the slavish conditions of the working class? Are you afraid that they have not sand enough to fight? What are you afraid of?
A DELEGATE: What are you afraid of?
DEL. POWERS: What occasion have you to be afraid to put the deciding power of this convention into the hands of such a man as this (pointing to Delegate Veal), who bears on his body the marks of capitalist oppression? What occasion have you to be afraid? You are guilty of an expression of narrow mindedness that you ought to be ashamed of. That is the situation, and those men ought to prevail. It is perfectly fair, and I do not see any reason why there should come from this side of the house a breath of suspicion that we will do something undemocratic. And then one claimed to represent the twenty millions. Why, among that twenty millions there are men who care absolutely nothing about the working class. The men who are here are men who have been in this movement for years. I myself have been in it twenty-one years. The men that are here are men who are to be trusted, and it is not fair on the part of those other men to insinuate that we are trying to narrow this thing down or that we are trying to shut you out from taking any part here. Why should we do it? We have no desire to do it. The situation is such that we must rise or fall with you. Now I say the only way that we can make this thing democratic is as we are doing. There isn’t any one that can find any fault with it. It is unfair to say to a member who represents 5,000 to 20,000, that his vote shall count one, the same as the member who only represents himself and his vote. And that is called patriotic and fair. Why, there are men here who have given this movement the best years of their lives. Comrades, we are proceeding perfectly patriotic and democratic. We are proceeding consistently in the way that the convention originated, and I do not think it is fair on the part of those men to insinuate that we are trying to narrow the thing down and that we are trying to make it undemocratic. And I want to say to you men, you intellectuals if there may be any here, if you don’t belong to an economic organization then that is a proof of one of two things: That you are either so intelligent that the company of the average workingman is distasteful to you, or you have not the sand to get up and show your colors. (Applause.)
DEL. MORRISON: I rise to a question of personal privilege.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hour of 12.30 having arrived, the convention stands adjourned until 2 o’clock.
Adjourned until 2 o’clock P.M.
• Day 2, Afternoon Session : Wednesday, June 28
The convention was called to order at 2 M.
THE CHAIRMAN: When the convention adjourned the status of delegates was under discussion. Delegate Hagerty has the floor.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: I wish to call the attention of those who have been discussing this question of representation to the paragraph in the call for this convention which sets forth in ummistakable terms the conditions upon which representation in this gathering is to be based, to wit: “Representation in the convention shall be based upon the number of workers whom the delegate represents. No delegate, however, shall be given representation in the convention on the numerical basis of the organization unless he has credentials bearing the seal of his union, local, national or international and the signatures of the officers thereof authorizing him to install his union as a working part of the proposed economic organization in the industrial department in which it logically belongs in the general plan of organization. Lacking this authority, the delegate shall represent himself as an individual.” There is some question only, as far as I can learn, in regard to the interpretation of the last clause of that paragraph, namely, “Lacking this authority, the delegate shall represent himself as an individual.” One or two men with whom I have talked seem to think that they can represent themselves as individuals without binding themselves to become members of the new economic organization. It strikes me that the simplest intellectual honesty would permit of no other interpretation than that the individual who takes part in the deliberations of this convention should pledge himself to become a part of the proposed revolutionary economic organization. If he does not so pledge himself, then he is here under false pretenses. (Applause).
If he does not so pledge himself because of fear of losing his daily wage, because of the pressure of the craft to which he belongs, then certainly he ought to have no right to vote upon these vital matters. Some arrangement, of course, may be made by which he can become a member-at-large, and if conditions require he may also remain in his craft; but it strikes me that this representation on the numerical basis should be interpreted in regard to those delegates here who may possibly give, by reason of the delegated votes which they control, an appearance of cesarism to this convention, which would be most undesirable, and that this clause should be interpreted by the convention as limiting these delegates to the actual number which they represent.
DEL. ARNOLD: I am here representing 850 members of the Journeyman Painters’ Union of Chicago. We were sent here for the purpose of finding out what this convention is going to do in the way of installing a new organization. We come here dissatisfied with many things in the American Federation of Labor. We would not be here if we were satisfied with the American Federation of Labor; we would stay away from here. We came to this convention to do all in our power to help this movement along, and as representing this organization with power to install our organization in this new movement. I am here to find out and do all in my power to help the movement along. If you don’t allow individual delegates to take part in it, what is the use of being here? Some men might be here for the purpose of creating a political organization. Some men might be here for the purpose of creating only an economic organization and nothing else. We are here to find out what is going to be done here. I know there are men here for political purposes. I know it for I have seen it. There are men here that are for a radical labor movement. That is what I am here for, not for politics at all. If this movement is going to be a political movement I will stay out of it. (Applause). If this movement is going to be a trades union movement, as radical as can be, a revolutionary movement with the intention to go out and fight capital with all the power we have got, to fight capital to the last and to keep politics out of it entirely, I promise right here to be with you, and I will stay with you to the finish. (Applause). I know there are delegates here from unions in Chicago comprising 1,600 members. We have pretty near 3,000 painters represented here now; Over 2,500. Now, we are here to see what this convention is going to do, and if you don’t allow us to have any voice or vote in this convention it is no use to be here. I don’t believe in individual delegates. I believe we have got the interests of this movement at heart as much as the individuals. We have an organization that has got power to install, but it is not installed yet, but should have more power than any individual delegates who have no power to be installed. Suppose there are some delegates in here that have power to install, and the convention turns out different than they expected, do you think they would join this movement? I think not. Up till now they are not a part of this organization; they are not members of this movement until they are installed, and they are not installed yet. There are none more than we are entitled to be delegates, and I am sure that the delegates that represent these unions that have power to act, if they find out that it is not going their way they will withdraw and the individual delegates can stay with you to the finish. (Applause.)
DEL. LUCY E. PARSONS: A great deal has been said here about the number of votes that the different delegates carry around in their pockets. I am not here for the purpose of raising a note of inharmony or disunion among these delegates. I am simply here in the interest of truth as I see it. Now, this idea of mere force of numbers sounds too much to me like “Might makes Right.” Mere force of numbers never made a right on earth, and, thanks to justice, never can. What is right, what is just and justice, is simply the result of the best minds of all the ages. Whatever right we have in society is simply a heritage handed down to us by those who had only disinterested motives. Now, I am one of those who entered my name as an individual delegate. I had to do so because I had to subscribe to the technicality of the clause that has been read by the delegate before the last. I entered myself as an individual delegate, but let me assure you that I for one had no such idea of entering my name as an individual delegate. Now, a great many of you represent your unions, and I certainly do believe in organized labor or I would not be here; organization of a purely economic nature. I entered my name believing that I did not represent a mere body that met within the four walls of any hall, but that I represent that great body that has its face to the foremost ends of the earth. Now, I entered my name here, and I think others did, because we had eyes to see misery, we had ears to hear the cry of the downcast and miserable of the earth, we had a heart that was sympathetic, and we believed that we could come here and raise our voice and mingle it with yours in the interest of humanity. So that is the great audience that I represent. I represent those people, those little children who, after my twenty-five years residence in Chicago, I know are in the factories. I entered here as a delegate to represent that great mass of outraged humanity, my sisters whom I can see in the night when I go out in Chicago, who are young and fair and beautiful, but who are compelled to sell the holy name of womanhood for a night’s lodging. I am here to raise my voice with them, and ask you to put forth from this organization a declaration of principles and a constitution that shall give them hope in the future, that they shall be enrolled under the banner of this organization. Had I simply come here to represent myself, I might as well have remained at home and not taken up the time of your deliberative body. Let me say to you—I will take but a few moments of your time—that it matters not to me personally what you shall finally decide. I am perfectly willing to leave my case in the hands of this convention as to whether I and the rest of the individual delegates shall be admitted. I wish simply to say to you, God speed you in your effort, and that there might come some good at least from your organization. I wish to state in conclusion that some of the delegates seem to lay some capital up or put some stress upon what some delegate or some people here have lost in the interest of labor. Let me say to you that I think that is the last stock in trade that any delegate should talk about in this hall. It matters not if there is a man in this hall who has lost a limb in the interest of labor, he has not lived in vain. If there are some here who have lost their liberty temporarily in the interest of labor, they have not spent their time in vain. And if there are some who have lost their dearest gift of all, life, in the interest of labor, that cause is justified and their lives have not been sacrificed in vain. And so let me say to you brothers and sisters, don’t engage in any personalities, but simply remember that we are here as one brotherhood and one sisterhood, as one humanity, with a responsibility to the down-trodden and the oppressed of all humanity, it matters not under what flag or in what country they happened to be born. Let us have that idea of Thomas Paine, that “The world is my country, and mankind are my countrymen.” (Applause.)
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: A point of information. Is there any question at all before the house to debar individuals as delegates from voting at all, except such as have been objected to by the Credentials Committee or by the convention?
THE CHAIRMAN: None at all. This motion does not bar any delegates in this convention. The motion before the house is: Moved and seconded that each delegation shall select a member of each Committee named by the convention, and that the chair shall appoint three other members from the individual representatives to each committee.
DEL. SAUNDERS: What is the original motion?
THE CHAIRMAN: The original motion was made, I believe, by a person on the floor who was not a delegate.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I beg your pardon; I was the man that made the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you a delegate?
DEL. SAUNDERS: I represent 1,600 painters.
THE CHAIRMAN: What organization?
DEL. SAUNDERS: No. 194 of the Painters and Decorators of America.
THE CHAIRMAN: The original motion was that each committee be elected from the floor.
A delegate moved the previous question; no second.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: You appointed a Committee on Rules about half past ten o’clock, and then it seems you went on to establish rules before that committee had a chance to make a report on what they would recommend to the convention. Now you are getting the cart before the horse again, and I think it would have been a matter of courtesy to wait till they had time to report and see what they were going to report, and then adopt the report or reject it. You ought to have given the committee a chance to make a report before you were so far ahead with your work, and then if you wanted to quarrel over it do so. I desire to make a report from that committee if you will allow me to do it.
Previous question called for.
THE CHAIRMAN: The previous question has been called for.
DEL. NELSON: I am here as a delegate from No. 594, Painters of Chicago. We represent 1,700 members. I want to know as to some original delegates that claim to have been given power to install their bodies, if it is nevertheless true that they were instructed to report and a discussion to follow, and very likely that will be the end of it. As long as we are classed as individual delegates and not permitted to exercise the right to move, I don’t see what is the use of us being here. I would like to know as a point of information whether delegates sent from unions that you might say had instructions to investigate and report are classed as individuals.
THE CHAIRMAN: I would say in reply to that question that if you are not prepared to install your organization you would be classed as an individual delegate. The previous question has been called for. Those in favor of the motion will signify it by the voting sign. Contrary by the same sign. Gentlemen, you are voting on the previous question. The motion is carried.
Question called for.
THE CHAIRMAN: This is the substitute to the original motion that committees be elected from the floor, and reads as follows: The original motion is that committees be elected from the floor. The substitute is that each delegation select a member on each committee named by the convention and that the Chairman appoint three additional members as individual representatives on each committee. Those in favor of the substitute will signify it by the voting sign of the convention. Contrary by the same sign. The substitute is carried.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: Do I understand by that motion just now passed that each committee shall be elected from the floor of the convention?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, sir.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: What is it?
THE CHAIRMAN: The several delegations shall select a number of each committee from their delegations, and the chair shall appoint from the individual members three members on each committee that may be chosen by this convention.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: Well, then, we have got to go back into session again so as to fix our rules to suit yours. Sure we have. We have got it all different from that here in this report. I ain’t going to report on anything of that kind. Will the Committee on Rules of Order and Business step up on the platform again?
After a short delay the Committee on Rules, through Delegate Fairgrieve, made the following report:
RULES OF CONVENTION.
i. Three sessions shall be held daily, as follows: From 9.00 A. M. to 12.00 M.; from 2.00 P. M. to 6.00 P. M.; from 8.00 P. M. to 9.30 P. M. (Note:—See amendment.)
2. The following standing committees shall be constituted: (a) Constitution; (b) Resolutions; (c) Ways and Means; (d) Literature.
3. All committees shall consist of one member of each delegation named by the convention, and the chair to appoint to each committee three members from the individual representatives.
(Note by reporter:—In the original draft the portion on committees was as follows: “The Committee on Constitution shall consist of eleven members and be elected by the convention. 4. All other committees shall consist of five members and be appointed by the chairman.”)
4. All motions shall be submitted in writing with name of mover. (Note:—See amendment.)
5. On all general motions from the floor each speaker may speak but five minutes, and no person shall speak twice on the same subject until all others who desire have spoken.
6. In discussion of reports of committees and resolutions each speaker may speak ten minutes, but no speaker shall speak twice on the same subject until all others who wish shall have spoken.
7. A person who has introduced a resolution may speak ten minutes on his resolution when the same shall come before the convention for action, with privilege of closing the debate.
8. Thursday, July 29 shall be devoted to a discussion of the following topics, providing the standing committees shall first have been selected: (a) Name of organization (b) tactics and details; (c) first of May as International Labor Day; (d) agreements vs. contracts; (e) international relations. (Note:—See amendment as to Manifesto.)
9. Immediately after the adoption of the constitution shall come, first, formal installation of unions and individuals into the new organization; (b) election of permanent officers; (c) selection of general headquarters; (d) selection of place and date of next general convention.
10. On all points not covered by these rules, Robert’s Rules of Order shall be in force.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: In drawing up these rules we concluded that we were here for business, and that our duty to the people who sent us here is to devise ways and means to carry their work out, so we have made the hours eight and a half instead of eight.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the reading of the report of your Committee on Rules. What is the pleasure of the convention?
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: We discussed the matter of forming a committee on Preamble and a declaration of principles, and we thought it best to leave that with the Constitutional Committee, because when they were constructing the constitution they would know what to put in the Preamble and declaration of principles, and the balance appertaining to it you people might change if you wanted to.
DEL. SAINER: I move that this be taken up in detail and discussed by the house. (Motion seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: A motion is made that this report be taken up in detail and discussed by the house. You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. WOLFE: I move that we adopt the report as read. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is out of order, inasmuch as it conflicts with the preceding motion.
DEL. WOLFE: It is an amendment to that motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: But you have just immediately before the report of your Committee on Rules adopted a method by which we are going to select committees. Now you must either re-consider that action or you must make that conform to the report of your committee.
DEL. SULLIVAN: I move you that the report of the Committee on Rules and Order of Business, that is that portion pertaining to the committees, be so amended as to conform to the previous action of this convention. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: That will be accepted as an amendment. It has been moved and seconded that the report of the committee be made to conform with the action of the convention;—and that that work be done by the committee?
DEL. SULLIVAN: Well, that the report be so changed as to conform to the action just had by the convention in the make-up of committees. In place of saying seven members, have it read that it is made up in accordance with the motion that was just carried.
DEL. SIMONS: I would like to make a motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: There is a motion before the house and an amendment to the motion.
DEL. SIMONS: I wish to make an amendment to the amendment, to strike out all after the third section naming the committees, and insert these words: “The committees to be elected by the various delegations as previously provided, and with the three individual members likewise.”
THE CHAIRMAN: That is the sense of this amendment, to include that. The original motion is that the report of this committee be taken up in detail and discussed by the convention. The amendment is that the report of the committee be accepted and made to conform with the action of the convention. The amendment is before the convention. Brother McDonald has the floor.
DEL. DANIEL MCDONALD: I think the original motion made for the adoption of the report of the committee is the proper motion to be made by this convention and discussed by this convention. You are acting upon the report of the committee. This convention is not prepared to adopt the report of the committee, but this convention has the right to move the acceptance of the report of the committee, and then that report of the committee becomes the property of this convention, and then this convention changes anything in the report that is not in accordance with the wishes of the convention. That is the only way that I see that the report of the committee can properly be disposed of. A motion to accept the report of the committee does not adopt the report of the committee; it simply makes the report of the committee the property of this convention; it gives this convention material to work with, you understand. Then this committee can change the report of the committee to suit and in conformity with the action already taken by this convention. If that is not done, then it would be impossible for us to amend or change, annul or modify any suggestion made by the report of the committee. It seems to me that is the only proper way that the proposition can be handled. The idea of making motions to receive the report of the committee and adopt the report of the committee in conformity with something that has already been done, is simply going to tangle the convention in such a manner that the convention can spend all the afternoon in doing nothing but unraveling the entanglements. By taking up every suggestion made by the committee separately, the convention can dispose of the matter promptly and intelligently and to the satisfaction of every member or of the majority of the members of this convention. Without that is done it would be absolutely impossible for you to change any suggestion that is made in the report of the committee.
DEL. KERRIGAN: I move that the committee’s report be accepted.
Motion declared out of order by delegates.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is out of order.
DEL. SAUNDERS: To expedite matters, it seems that the last motion carried in regard to the forming of committees, and as long as no delegate is opposed to the rest of the report of this committee, it seems to me that the motion to adopt the report, amending it so as to conform with the former action, would be the proper course to pursue. Therefore, I think it would be in order for any delegate opposed to this motion to get up and make his objections to the different parts or any part that he sees objection to in this report. Otherwise, it seems to me the best method to pursue would be to adopt that motion whereby it was amended to cover the last action.
DEL. MCDONALD: I believe the suggestion I made would bring the report before the convention and have the convention act seriatim on that proposition. Otherwise you cannot do it. I am satisfied if this convention desires to act seriatim on the report of the committee.
Question called for.
DEL. COATES: I simply want to ask for a point of information. The motion before the house, Del. Sullivan’s motion, is to make the report conform with the action of the convention and then adopt the rest. Do you hold that no other part of that report could be changed?
THE CHAIRMAN: I would not so hold, no. I hold that the report of the committee is still in the hands of the convention.
DEL. COATES: Even if Delegate Sullivan’s motion is carried?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sullivan’s motion is that the report of the committee be accepted and that it be made to conform to the previous action of the convention.
DEL. COATES: Let me ask through you what Delegate Sullivan thinks about it?
THE CHAIRMAN: Isn’t that your notion, Brother Sullivan?
DEL. SULLIVAN: My intent was to amend the report of the Committee on Rules as to conform with the action that was previously had in the formation of the committees. It does not carry with it the adoption of the amended report if it is so amended. It would simply change that where it says that the Constitution Committee shall be seven, and cause it to be formed as provided for in the previous motion.
DEL. COATES: Then you don’t mean to adopt the committee’s report.
DEL. SULLIVAN: It should say that that would require another action on the report, to adopt the report.
DEL. COATES: Then wouldn’t it be best to take it up seriatim at the beginning and act on every rule? We are simply getting this all mixed up. The only reason I asked that question is that I wanted to amend two of the rules.
DEL. COATES: I want to do that.
DEL. SULLIVAN: Brother Coates, the convention has by its action said how the committees shall be formulated. The Committee on Rules and Order of Business has submitted a report stating how the committees shall be formulated. Now, the convention is the creator of this committee, and it has spoken. I want to make this report read in conformity with the action which we have had.
DEL. SULLIVAN: Then if there are other objections to the report, take them up.
DEL. COATES: I want to do that, but let us do it when we get it in the report. Let us not mix the thing up. Let us act first on Rule No. 1, dispose of the matter and know what we want. I think that is the only proper way to do.
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment is that the report of the committee be accepted and made to conform with the previous action of the convention. Those in favor of the amendment will signify it by the voting sign. Contrary by the same sign. The amendment is lost. The original motion is that the report of the committee be taken up seriatim. Those in favor of the motion will signify it by the voting sign. Contrary by the same sign. The motion is carried. The Secretary will please read.
Secretary White read the next rule, as follows: “Three sessions shall be held daily, as follows: From 9 A. M. to 12 M.; from 2 P. M. to 6 P. M.; from 8 P. M. to 9.30 P. M.”
A delegate moved the adoption of the rule.
DEL. COATES: I want to offer an amendment to the motion, and that is that the section be stricken out. Mr. Chairman, I do that for this reason. I well remember the statement of the member of that committee who made the report, that we are here in the interest of the people who sent us, and we ought to cut out the theaters and so on. I want to say this, that a good part of the work of this convention in the next few days is going to devolve upon the committees of this convention, and I am opposed to the committees working while the convention is in session. We have provided for something like half a dozen committees, as I understand the report, and half a dozen times twenty will take a great body from this convention. I do not believe, Mr. Chairman and fellow delegates, that we ought to sit here from 9 o’clock in the morning to 12, from 2 o’clock till 6, and from 8 o’clock till 9.30, and then expect the committees to work from 9.30 till 9 o’clock the next morning. I do not think that is fair, I do not think it is just, I do not think it will expedite the business of this convention, and I move that that be stricken out. (Seconded.)
DEL. SAUNDERS: A question of information. I would like to ask if it is correct for any one to make a motion and then proceed to argue it before it is even seconded and put to the body.
DEL. COATES: Cut my argument out.
THE CHAIRMAN: I will state for the benefit of the delegate here (Delegate Saunders) that Delegate Coates has not said a word. (Laughter). The motion is that that section be stricken out. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). Those in favor of the motion will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried. Now a motion would be in order to adopt Rule one as amended.
DEL. WILKE: I make a motion that this rule be adopted as amended. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It is regularly moved and seconded that clause one be adopted as amended. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for.)
DEL. ROWE: I move to amend that we strike out “9 A. M.” and insert “8 A. M.” for the morning session. (Motion seconded.)
DEL. SUNAGEL: That is out of order. When a motion is before the house, is it in order to amend something?
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion has not been placed before the house. The question before the house is the adoption of Rule one as amended. Before any other amendment can be offered it will be necessary to vote this down.
DEL. ROWE: We have just stricken out the section. According to the report of the committee our morning sessions begin at 9 A. M. and the afternoon sessions run from 2 to 6 P. M., making seven hours a day, not including the night session. I should judge by the progress that this convention has made that we are going to be compelled to remain here for several days. This is very valuable time to some of the organizations represented at this convention. We are delegates from the American Flint Glass Workers’ Union. July 10 we meet in annual convention in Martin’s Ferry, Ohio. If the work of this convention is to be dragged on until a late day it will simply be impossible for the representatives from the American Flint Glass Workers’ Union to remain over.
We want to stay here if possible until this convention completes its work, but if we are going to continue moving with this snaillike progress it will be impossible for us to stay. I consider from 8 o’clock in the morning till 12 noon and from 2 o’clock till 6 P. M. is no unreasonable hours for us to serve in this convention, and I believe that every delegate here to-day that has the proletarian cause at heart won’t object or hesitate to agree to remain in this hall eight hours a day for the purpose of completing the work of placing this organization on a proper and substantial foundation. My remarks regarding the valuable time may appear strange to those who have ample time to remain here, but I want you to consider this one important fact: We are laying the foundation for a new industrial organization, and in laying that foundation we want to be sure that we lay it right. Those who are sympathetic with this movement do not want to be discouraged. The American Flint Glass Workers’ Union, by a vote of two to one, voted to send representatives to this convention, and all we need is a little more light and a little clearness on this matter, and I promise you the American Flint Glass Workers’ Union will form itself one part of this new industrial body. (Applause). I hope you will consider our time. We have got an enormous amount of work to perform in the succeeding week in order to get ready for our national convention, and you members of labor organizations who have prepared for annual conventions such as we are compelled to prepare far, I am sure you will appreciate the magnitude of the work that we have got to perform during the ensuing week. I hope you will consider our position in this matter and change that rule to read from 8 to 12 and from 2 to 6, in order that we may be able to complete our work just as hastily and as successfully as we can possibly do it.
DEL. WHITE: The Committee on Credentials desire to make a report.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question before the convention is the adoption of Rule one as amended. Those in favor will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is lost.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I make an amendment to make the sessions from 8 o’clock A. M. to 12 M.; recess from 12 till 2; session from 2 P. M. to 6 P. M. (Seconded.)
DEL. ROWE: I move that we amend that rule to read from 8 A. M. to 12 M. and from 2 to 6 P. M. for our daylight sessions. (Seconded.)
Del. Sherman: I make an amendment as follows: “Sessions will convene at 9 A. M. and continue until 12 o’clock; reconvene at one o’clock and adjourn at 6 o’clock.” (Seconded.)
Del. Rowe: Any way so we can put in eight hours. I am satisfied to begin at 9
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). Those in favor of having the sessions from A. M. till 12 and from 1 till 6, will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee on Credentials have a report to make. Are you willing to listen to it at this time or do you wish to proceed with the report of the Committee on Rules?
A DELEGATE: Is the first rule adopted as amended?
THE CHAIRMAN: The first rule has been defeated, and an amendment to the rule adopted.
Del. White, of the committee: There has been no vote taken on that, and I want to say that there are delegates entitled to seats in this convention, and the committee is ready to report to this convention. It only takes a minute, and I believe those delegates are entitled to seats in this convention as much as any other men.
THE CHAIRMAN: Unless a motion is made now to listen to the report of the Committee on Credentials, we will proceed with the report of the Committee on Rules.
It was moved and seconded that the convention proceed with the report of the Committee on Credentials. Motion carried.
The Committee on Credentials, through Secretary White, made the following report:
In the case of the coal miners from Illinois whose status was contested and protest filed against, the committee asked every one of them whether they were believers in the Manifesto. Every one of them stated that they are firm believers in the Manifesto, and the committee could only be guided by the provisions of the Manifesto, which provide that all wage earners who believe in those principles are eligible to a seat. The Committee on Credentials could not go back to see what happened a year or two or four days ago, when those men said that they are believers in the Manifesto. Therefore, the Committee on Credentials recommend that these five men, against whom a protest was filed, be seated with one vote each.
In the case of C. B. Boudin, the attorney from New York, who also claims that he writes for different papers, a protest was filed, and the committee after inquiring of him found that he was also a “friend and sympathizer” of labor. Your committee recommends him as a fraternal delegate to this convention.
Your committee further reports and recommends that Robert Rives LaMonte be seated as a delegate with one vote.
The committee recommends that Charles Shuler, delegate from the Amalgamated Glass Workers, No. 1, Chicago, Ill., be seated with one vote.
Also Pat O’Neil, Neelly, Ark., one vote.
Also W. Harry Spears. Chicago, one vote.
THE CHAIRMAN:—You have heard the report of the committee. What is the pleasure of the convention?
DEL. SAUNDERS, CHICAGO: I move that the report be received and concurred in, except in that part stating that the attorney was a friend of labor. I move that that part be stricken out and be not concurred in, and that he be not seated. (Motion seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question?
MR. BOUDIN: I am the attorney referred to.
DEL. SAUNDERS: A point of order. We are in a delegate body here.
MR. BOUDIN: I know. I was the individual, and I was misrepresented by being called a “friend of labor.” I am not a friend of labor; I have been in the labor movement for the last fourteen years.
DEL. SAUNDERS: Question.
MR. BOUDIN: I ask for the floor:
THE CHAIRMAN: You are not entitled to the floor until your case is disposed of.
MR. BOUDIN: It seems to me that the delegates ought to know the case.
DEL. W. T. HALL: I move that the delegate—
THE CHAIRMAN: There is a motion already before the convention, and that is that the report of the committee be concurred in with the exception of that part that refers to the attorney. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). Delegate Hall has the floor.
Delegate Hall arose.
DEL. O’BRIEN: I think the gentleman is entitled to a seat if he is a sincere supporter of the cause of the working class. He has a brother in a prominent position in one of the strongest international unions. I have information that he is a correspondent for certain international labor papers, and I believe that the showing entitles him to be a delegate here. Our general antipathy and hatred to attorneys would not offer any good reason in this matter.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I do not know the gentleman in question at all. I haven’t anything against him whatsoever as a man, but J believe that this convention here is for the purpose of inaugurating an organization built on better lines than previous organizations of its kind have been built on. I believe the first lesson should be taught by the working class of America proving themselves to be able to successfully inaugurate a movement—and I suppose it will be teaching for the first time in the history of America that a trades union shall be composed of workingmen or wage earners (applause) and that we are ready and that we may be ready at any time to accept assistance from any “friends of labor”—but from the outside. (Applause). I do believe that this is a question which, if it is voted in the negative and we admit this attorney, simply will open the door for some other attorneys that are not so friendly. Therefore, I believe that if this attorney is sincere in his friendship, he will not force us to accept him.
DEL. WHITE: As Secretary of the Committee on Credentials, I want to say that I forgot to read the name of D: Burgess, who was passed on by the committee last night. The committee recommend that this man he given one vote and a seat in the convention.
THE CHAIRMAN: Has the mover of the motion any objection to adding the name of D. Burgess?
DEL. SAUNDERS: Who is he? What is his vocation?
DEL. WHITE: A metal worker.
DEL. SAUNDERS: No. I accept that addition.
DEL. MRS. LILIAN FORBERG: Comrade Chairman and Fellow Delegates: I want to speak just a few words in support of the motion that says that we should not accept an attorney at law as a delegate in this convention. This is the first convention, to my knowledge, that has ever been called to organize the working class into an organization by which they can fight the capitalist class. The only thing that an attorney ever did in this world was to support the capitalist class. (Applause). The only way in which attorneys at law ever express their friendship to the working class is by fighting for injunctions before the courts of law against the working class. (Applause). I think it is a well-known fact that no attorney at law could be anything else but a parasite. We are here to fight the whole parasitical class and to organize the working class. (Applause.)
DEL. SCHWARTZ: As I understood, this convention is to organize all men who work for wages, all men who are employed at anything in any line of work, clerks or cashiers, anybody who is working. What we mean to exclude from this convention are those who live on interest or profit where somebody else works for them. But where somebody else lives and personally does any work, either is a judge or a lawyer at the bar, he is under the present system the same as those men who are toiling at other work: and because he has chosen that work he was forced to it, and he has just the same right, I maintain, to be admitted in this convention. This gentleman at heart is just as honest and true as that of any other man who works in any industry, I claim. The fact that he is here shows that he has spent his own money to defend our cause. I know him, and I tell you that he would never take a case against any workingmen to crush them down. For that reason I claim that he ought to be admitted in this convention.
DEL. DE LEON: As I was the one who brought the protest against this applicant, I ask the courtesy of the floor for a moment. I would not have asked for the floor if it had not been that some would think it necessary to offer a reason for my opposition. I recognize all that is at stake in this movement, and I am sorry that I have to take up time with a thing of this sort, but I consider that when I go home I have to report to a constituency; and I cannot stand before the looking glass and report to myself, not being an individual delegate here, and I cannot allow this thing to go by without expressing myself in the interest of my constituency. I greatly regret the language of the last speaker who brought in the personal equation of the individual in question. I hope the question will he kept upon that field upon which it was placed by the mover of the motion and by the lady who supported him. The gentleman who spoke last sought to place himself upon principle when he said that any one who works and does not derive interest or profit is admissible to this body. I consider that to be a serious error. Not only must we exclude people who are themselves living on interest that they draw directly, but we must exclude those who live as parasites upon those who draw interest. (Applause). If you admit a lawyer because he nominally works and does not derive interest though every dollar that goes into his pocket is tainted with the blood of workingmen in some way or other, because he lives upon interest indirectly—if you allow such a man in here, by what process of reasoning can you exclude the detective? By what process of reasoning can you exclude the policeman? By what process of reasoning can you exclude many a fellow whom I would sooner receive in a body of this sort than a lawyer? (Applause). I hope the gentlemen of the committee will give me credit for having abstained from going into the personal character of this applicant. I shall therefore not now cross the praise bestowed upon the applicant by the gentleman who spoke last. If I were to cross him, as I could, I would introduce the question; I prefer not to have this thing settled by that method; if this man is accepted or rejected upon his character, the principle would not be established. He is of importance to me only on account of the principle by which he seeks admission here. I consider that a lawyer is a parasite upon parasites, and that as we are opposed to parasitism we must decapitate the lawyer from our ranks. (Applause). I have had experience with this man. I have known men for whom at one time I had friendship, but I found it necessary to break with them because the breath of their nostrils is a crime upon society. (Applause). I would say that I know no lawyer who deserves any place in the labor movement. Are we standing upon the class struggle? Shall we denounce in one corner of our mouths that which we by our votes approve of in the other corner? What does the class struggle mean but that the material necessities of a man control his action? And will you deny that the material necessities of the lawyer will compel him to commit the crimes against the working class that every lawyer in the country commits to-day? (Applause). For these reasons I abstain from going into the character of the man, and I hope that he will be excluded absolutely and with no fraternal seat. If he or any other lawyer is a decent man, if he or any other lawyer really stands upon the principles of the class struggle, if he or any other lawyer realizes the necessities of the movement, he would himself vote for this motion. I would, therefore, think that if this man’s friends believe him to be decent, they should urge him to withdraw before an opportunity was given for a vote; his application for admission here does in itself stand upon a wrong foundation. (Applause.)
DEL. MCEACHREN: I hold that this convention of workingmen and women cannot do other than exclude this man who has applied for admission and has given his vocation as that of a lawyer. I believe that this organization that we are to form, which is going to be based as we hope upon the lines of the class struggle, cannot by any process of reasoning admit this individual, whether he claims to be a friend of labor or not; for the man or the individual that would insist and appeal to this convention for a seat on the ground that he is a friend of labor, by the very fact that he does that, disproves his position as being a friend of labor. (Applause). That is about all that I have to say. As to the man’s character, I care not what it is. His character may be vastly superior to that of many workingmen who will join and belong to this organization. The man’s character is not in question, but the lines of the class struggle organization. The S. T. & L. A., which has made this main protest [line missing from original transcript] are in question, and I hope you will not obscure them. (Applause.)
Question called for in many parts of the hall.
DEL. A. M. SIMONS: I want this convention to understand the sincerity of the objections which have been made by the men that have spoken with regard to the position of lawyers within this or[line missing from original transcript] not only admits lawyers to its organization, but had this particular man not only as a member, but a member of their national executive board.
Confusion in the hall, and cries of “Order,” and “Sit down.”
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: A point of order—
DEL. SIMONS: I have got the floor.
THE CHAIRMAN: You will not be permitted to go on that way, brothers.
DEL. SIMON: Are we to permit those men to pour their vomit on us? Will we sit here quietly and stand for this?
Cries of “Sit down.”
DEL. SIMONS: I ask the convention are we to stand for this or not? I am simply stating a fact on the floor.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question before the convention is a motion that we concur in the report of the Credentials Committee with the exception of that portion of it that refers to attorneys. Now, delegates, in the discussion, notwithstanding what may have preceded—and I have not heard any personalities against this brother who asks to be a delegate—we will cut out all personalities and confine the debate to the question at issue.
DEL. SIMONS: I am very glad to accept that. May we not take that then as a precedent, that from now on all personalities will be kept out of these discussions? If so, no man will yield quicker to it than I.
THE CHAIRMAN: They must yield.
DEL. SIMONS: If that is true, all right. Then I want to say this: With the principle that attorneys are to be excluded from this convention, with the principle that they are to be excluded from the organization that is to be formed, I am in accord, and I have no desire to get upon the floor except for the purpose for which I was up here before. But I felt that the attempt to draw the same line that has been drawn here, to draw the line on a man because of his occupation, is something that we cannot respect. We have got to make up our minds here that the man who comes and brings with him a determination to work for and support this organization, that that man must be taken at his word here until he proves to be false. But we don’t want to go back into the records. We don’t want to drag up those matters. If we do we shall find that it is a sword that cuts both ways. I want to object to that sort of work, and I am glad of your ruling. (Applause.)
DEL. GOODWIN: This convention is called for the purpose of bringing about more harmony in the ranks of labor, and it is not fair before a convention of workingmen to get up and quarrel over whether or not one particular individual ought to be kept out or not. We must proceed upon our knowledge of what this movement consists in. We cannot say that one particular individual in society does not belong to the working class or capitalist class. We must take certain central characteristics of the system and proceed from them outward. I know of lawyers and politicians that would come into this movement and bring it to ruin. We have come here to see that the working class controls the working class movement. If that is to be the central characteristic of this movement, let us set a precedent. If any one who belongs to the class that is the enemy of the working class movement persists and insists on coming in here, if he is so great a friend, let him show his friendship by getting up and declining.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let it be understood that the report of your Credentials Committee does not confer a vote on this delegate. He will be a fraternal delegate only, and not with a vote. The motion is that the report of the committee be adopted with the exception of that portion that refers to the attorney. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). Those in favor will signify it by saying aye. Contrary, no. The ayes seem to have it. The motion is adopted.
DEL. DE LEON: I understand it is parliamentary practice after a motion is carried to make a personal explanation. It has been said that this Boudin as a lawyer was a member of the Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance. I wish to say that there is no truth in that statement.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is not necessary. There is nothing before the convention.
Following disposition of the report of the Committee on Credentials, consideration of the report of the Committee on Rules was resumed.
A DELEGATE: Mr. Chairman, is a motion in order?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, the matter before the house is the report of the Committee on Rules of Order.
Secretary Trautmann, reading report: “The following standing committees shall be constituted: (a) Constitution; (b) Resolutions; (c) Ways and Means; (d) Literature.”
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the report of the Committee on Rules. What is the pleasure of the convention?
DEL. KIEHN: I move that a Committee on Organization be added to those. (Motion seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). It is moved and seconded that a Committee on Organization be added to the number of committees provided for by the report of the committees. Those in favor of the motion will signify it by the voting sign. Contrary by the same sign. The motion is carried. Are you ready for the report of the committee as amended?
DEL. EISENBERG: I move that that paragraph be adopted.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I move that the report be adopted as amended. (Motion seconded.)
DEL. O’BRIEN: I move that the Committee on Literature act as a Press and Literature Committee. That is a very important committee. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It is moved that the Committee on Literature act as a Press and Literature Committee. Are you ready for the question?
The question was called for, and being put, the motion was carried.
The motion to adopt the report of the committee as amended was then put and carried.
Here the Chairman called Delegate Coates to the chair, to preside in the absence of Chairman Haywood.
SECRETARY TRAUTMANN, reading: “The Committee on Constitution shall consist of eleven members and be elected by the convention.”
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: That was amended by the convention. In reading I inserted the change.
SECRETARY TRAUTMANN: I know.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will proceed with the reading.
DEL. BARTLETT: We have to change Article 3 to conform with the action of the convention.
THE CHAIRMAN: It does not seem to the chair that that will be necessary. All referring to how it shall be appointed should be stricken out. The convention has already decided the method.
A DELEGATE: A point of information. Does that mean that there will be three and the chair will appoint one, making four on each committee?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, sir. There will be one person from each delegation, making something like twenty on each committee.
Secretary Trautmann continued the reading of the report, as follows: “All motions shall be submitted in writing, with name of mover.”
THE CHAIRMAN: What is the pleasure of the convention on this rule?
It was moved that the rule be adopted.
DEL. KIEHN: I move that this rule be stricken out. (Motion seconded.)
DEL. SAUNDERS: I am in favor of the motion, but the way the motion reads there it will simply take in every motion. It does not specify there, and consequently it would make an endless chain. I understand that certain brothers wanted to get away to certain conventions, and therefore I move to lay on the table. (Motion seconded.)
DEL. GUY MILLER: I move to amend that at the request of the Chairman all motions shall be submitted in writing, accompanied by the name of the mover. (Motion seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The delegate makes an amendment that at the request of the chair all motions shall be submitted by the mover in writing. Any remarks on the motion? If not, all those in favor of the motion will say aye. Contrary no. The amendment is adopted.
The next section of the rules was read, as follows: “On general motions from the floor each speaker may speak for five minutes, and no speaker shall speak twice on the same subject until all others who desire have spoken.”
Del. Saunders moved the adoption of the rule. Seconded and carried.
The next section was read, as follows: “6. In discussions of reports of Committee on Resolutions each speaker may speak ten minutes, but no speaker shall speak twice on the same subject until all others who wish shall have spoken.”
It was moved and seconded that the section be adopted.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I move to amend to make it five minutes. (Amendment seconded.)
The amendment being put, was lost, and the rule as reported was adopted.
The next rule was read, as follows: “A person who has introduced a resolution may speak ten minutes on his resolution when the same shall come before the convention for action, with privilege of closing the debate.”
On motion duly seconded, the rule was adopted.
The next rule was read, as follows: “Thursday, June 29, shall be devoted to a discussion of the following topics, providing the standing committees shall first have been selected: (a) Name of organization; (b) tactics and details; (c) First of May as international labor day; (d) agreements vs. contracts; (e) international relations.”
DEL. DE LEON: I would like to know what became of the proposition of having some of the members, of the original conferees, state the reason for the Manifesto. What became of that? Has that been abolished?
DEL. TRAUTMANN: That has been suggested to the committee, but the committee has not found it necessary to embody it.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I believe it was the intention to have that part inserted in there.
THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection let it be added to the report that if this is adopted it shall include a history of this movement. I think that it includes that.
DEL. DE LEON: The reasons for the Manifesto, then, precede that special order of business?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. First the reasons for this movement and the practical conditions that bring this condition about. That should be added.
Del. Rowe: I move its adoption as read. (Seconded.)
A DELEGATE: Is that to adopt the whole report of the committee?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, it is only that that section be adopted. Are there any remarks? If not, those in favor will say aye. Contrary no. It is so adopted.
Delegate Trautmann continued the reading of the report, as follows: “Immediately after the adoption of the. constitution shall come, first, formal installation of unions and individuals into the new organization; (b) election of permanent officers; (c) selection of general headquarters; (d) selection of place and date of next general convention.”
THE CHAIRMAN: What is your pleasure on this rule?
It was moved and seconded that the rule be adopted. Motion carried.
The next rule was read, as follows: “On all points not covered by these rules, Robert’s Rules of Order shall be in force.”
It was moved and seconded that the rule be adopted. Motion carried.
DEL. FRENCH: Mr. Chairman, I have been intending since noontime to draw the attention of the chair to a matter that was drawn to my attention at noontime, that in this body seated around among the delegates there were persons who are not delegates, and I was told that some of them even voted, and it was suggested that there be some method of separating the actual delegates from visitors or persons who may be among us. The convention is organized. When it was organized we gave all delegates who are actual delegates seats along the tables in the body of the hall, and let those who are visitors, who came in to look on what is going on here, separate themselves so that when a vote is taken we will know that nobody is voting or raising a hand when a vote is taken that is not entitled to vote in this convention. I move that that request be made of all those not regularly seated as delegates. (Seconded.)
DEL. SHERMAN: I move that we proceed at once to distribute the badges to those who are entitled to them, and in that way we shall know who they are.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let the chair explain. The committee has not yet got its work perfected, and just as soon as it has, which will likely he to-morrow morning, each delegate will be given a badge and we will settle that matter then. I want to say to all visitors in this hall that the position of the present chairman will be this: that all visitors in this convention are welcome to the gallery. As far as possible we will exclude visitors entirely from the lower floor. (Applause.)
DEL. SAUNDERS: I think there are only a few here, and when we have the badges it will not be necessary to exclude them.
THE CHAIRMAN: I will ask at least that no visitors occupy seats at the tables.
(Here the visitors retired to the gallery.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will proceed.
The next section was read, as follows: “Order of business: Calling to order; roll call of delegates; reading of minutes; reading of communications; report of Credential Committee and seating of new delegates; reports of special committees; report of standing committees in the following order: Constitution, Resolutions, Ways and Means, Literature; unfinished business; new business; adjournment.” (Signed by the committee.)
THE CHAIRMAN: What is your pleasure as to this order of business?
It was moved and seconded that it be adopted.
A DELEGATE: I move that a Committee on Organization be provided for.
THE CHAIRMAN: That was already included. Are there any remarks on the motion to adopt this rule?
There being no remarks, the motion to adopt was put and carried.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the report of the Committee on Rules as amended and adopted, by sections, so that if there are any errors they can be corrected.
DEL. WILKE: I move you that we now adopt the rules or report of the Committee on Rules as a whole.
THE CHAIRMAN: I asked him to read it before you made that motion.
DEL. WILKE: All right.
The report of the Committee on Rules, as amended, was then read by the Secretary, as a whole.
A delegate asked if the Press Committee was included in the report. The Chairman replied that the Press and Literature Committee was in there.
The delegate called attention to the importance of the Press Committee, in view of reports that had appeared in the Chicago papers in regard to this convention, and requested that no delegates but members of the Press Committee give any information to newspaper reporters.
THE CHAIRMAN: I can only say that the convention is wide open to anybody and everybody to hear the proceedings until you act otherwise, but I want to say to any reporters that they are very uncomfortable down there taking notes (indicating the back end of the hall). I would be very glad to have you up in front. Is there a motion to adopt the report of the committee as amended?
It was moved and seconded that the report as a whole as amended be adopted.
DEL. KERRIGAN: A point strikes me, that five minutes might not be enough to enable a point to be clearly explained. Now, could additional time be given to delegate by somebody, who would be interested enough in having the matter cleared up, or could we amend the rules to that effect?
THE CHAIRMAN: If you ask the question of the chair, I would say this, that no man can give away the time of this convention. It is not his time to give away, in the first place.
DEL. KERRIGAN: Well, it is his to that extent; it is his to the extent of five minutes.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am satisfied that just as soon as any delegate completes his five minutes a vote of the convention will be necessary, and all that will be necessary, to extend his time.
DEL. KERRIGAN: That can be accomplished in that way?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I should think so.
The question was called for.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is to adopt the report of the committee as a whole as amended. All those in favor of the motion will say aye. Contrary no. It is so adopted. Before we get away from this report I want to impress upon the minds of the delegates the fact that you have just adopted a rule which sets aside practically the entire day to-morrow to the discussion of various topics relative to the organization, its features, name, and so on. I trust that all delegates will come prepared to discuss those things at that time, and get through with them just as promptly as possible. Practically no other business will be entertained, I should judge from this rule adopted, until that has been disposed of tomorrow.
DEL. HALL: I move that the Secretary take steps to have a sufficient number of copies of the rules prepared by mimeograph or otherwise, so that each delegate can have a copy.
THE CHAIRMAN: Of the entire rules?
DEL. HALL: Yes, of the entire rules, and each delegate should have a copy if it can be done.
Motion seconded.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the Secretary prepare a set of these rules for each delegate on this floor.
DEL. SULLIVAN: A point of information. Is the money available to do so?
THE CHAIRMAN: It certainly is not.
DEL. SULLIVAN: I move to lay it on the table.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any remarks on the motion? If not, all those in favor of the motion will say aye. Contrary no. The motion is lost.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I wish to correct a mistaken impression. There is a proviso that provides that those committees that are not appointed yet are to be appointed to-morrow.
THE CHAIRMAN: I take that into consideration. The special order will begin after the committees are complete.
DEL. JACKSON: I move that we go into the election of those committees now. It is four o’clock.
THE CHAIRMAN: The chair will consider the order of business and see if we can’t get down to it right away.
DEL. DE LEON: I desire information. I see one of the standing committees is a Committee on Ways and Means. Is that the same committee that the Chairman of this convention has already appointed?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, that is a special committee for a special purpose, as I understand it.
A DELEGATE: In view of the fact that the report is going to take up some time, I believe it will expedite business to take a recess now until such time as the committees are ready to be announced. I make that motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: The chair was going to make this suggestion about that matter, to save as much time as I possibly could: that on adjournment to-night each delegation get together that know what they want, and to-morrow morning have the names of your delegates, and that will avoid any of the time of the convention being taken up. In the meantime the Chairman can pick out his three individual members of the committee. That will give him time. Unless the delegate insists on his motion that will be the procedure. Do you insist on your motion?
THE DELEGATE: I was interrupted and didn’t hear. Please repeat.
THE CHAIRMAN: The chair suggested that on the adjournment of this convention each of the delegates select their member of each one of the committees, and at the same time let the permanent Chairman select three individual representatives for each of the committees, simply having them here to-morrow morning at 9 o’clock. That will save a recess, and fifteen minutes would settle it.
THE DELEGATE: I withdraw the motion.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: Do I understand that each national body shall have one member of each committee from it?
THE CHAIRMAN: Each body that has a delegation shall select one of their number on this floor.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: And those local unions represented by one delegate will have power to appoint?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, the chair then selects three members of each committee.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: The individual members and local bodies of different classes. There are perhaps men here that represent 500 men in their unions, and there are men representing themselves. Who designates or decides whether that man shall be from the local bodies representing several hundred votes?
THE CHAIRMAN: The opinion of the chair is this, that each of the delegations appoints one on each committee, and the chair appoints three.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I represent twenty-three votes in this convention by myself. How am I to do? To get together with somebody else, or appoint myself?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think that if you are given twenty-three votes by this convention you are entitled to representation on each one of these committees.
DEL. SAUNDERS: It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding in another direction. My understanding is this: that each delegation, no matter whether they are permitted to install or not, have a right to select one from their delegation to each committee, and the Chairman is to select three members from the individual delegates.
THE CHAIRMAN: The decision of the chair is that every group that has been given votes in this convention is entitled to representation on the committee.
DEL. ROWE: I rise to make a motion, but I would like to preface it with a few remarks. A few moments ago we voted down a proposition to have rules of this convention printed so that each delegate in the convention would have a copy of those rules. There are two delegates seated right close here that will copy those rules on the neostyle or mimeograph free of cost, so that every delegate in this convention can have a copy of the rules adopted by this convention without cost to the delegates or to the organization. I therefore move that we reconsider the motion by which this convention decided not to get the rules adopted by this convention printed.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me say to the delegate that I do not think a motion is necessary. If the delegate wants to furnish copies, well and good, and we will thank him for it, but I do not think it is necessary to make a motion.
DEL. ROWE: You just voted it down.
THE CHAIRMAN: That does not prevent any delegate from making copies.
A DELEGATE: He wants authority to do it.
THE CHAIRMAN: He wants authority to do it?
Del. Rowe: Yes, because the convention has decided not to do this, and if the Secretary of this organization gave the minutes of this organization to some person that he was not authorized to, there might be some fault found with him; and in order to prevent any dissatisfaction, discontent or complaint, I believe it is best to go on record in a matter of that kind.
Motion seconded.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is that we reconsider the motion to make a copy of the rules for each delegate. Any remarks? (Question called for). All those in favor will say aye. Contrary no. It is so ordered. The motion now is to adopt a motion to instruct the Secretary to prepare a set of rules for each delegate. Any remarks on the motion?
DEL. SAUNDERS: Do we understand that they are to be free of cost?
THE CHAIRMAN: He can turn them over to anybody he pleases. All in favor of the motion will say aye. Contrary no. It is so ordered.
DEL. ROSS: I move that each union or organization have its delegates for committee work selected and ready for work by 9 o’clock Thursday morning. (Motion seconded.)
Delegate Schatzki spoke about the undue prominence and power that would be given under the voting plan to a delegate representing 20,000 or 40,000 people, as compared with the position of the individual delegates, but the Chairman ruled the remarks out of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion before the house is that each group and the Chairman of this convention shall have the committees prepared to announce at 9 o’clock to-morrow morning.
DEL. DINGER: Does “each group” mean each group of men that are entitled to come into this body?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, sir, the convention has repeatedly taken action. The convention itself has said what are the groups in this body. The motion is that the Chairman be ready to announce the committees at 9 o’clock to-morrow. All in favor say aye. Contrary no. It is so ordered.
DEL. DE LEON: I suggest that the Secretary be instructed to read out the names of the organizations that come under the head of groups.
THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection that will be the procedure.
DEL. O’NEIL, ARKANSAS: The idea that I have gathered from what has taken place, is this, and I wish to know whether it is correct. There are delegates who represent locals of the Western Federation of Miners say, that have nine members. Those nine men select one man to act on the committee. There are five or six men that represent the different locals of the U. F. W. A. Those men get together and elect a man. There may be five or six members of the Paper Hangers, and they also elect a member. Is that the idea?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, sir, the idea is that whatever comes from the individual votes must come through the Chairman of this convention.
DEL. O’NEIL: You misunderstand the meaning of what I was trying to get at.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right.
DEL. O’NEIL: I understand that each one of these groups is to elect a member to act on the committee. Isn’t that true?
THE CHAIRMAN: The delegation representing the Western Federation of Miners will choose a member of the various committees; the delegates of the S. T. & L. A. will choose representatives on the various committees. That has been stated here a good many times.
DEL. GLASGOW: I am from No. 194, Painters. They send five fraternal delegates, and I want to know whether that organization or delegation is entitled to one member on these various committees.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the memory of the chair is correct, the convention gave those delegates one vote, and if they get on the committees they will have to go on by appointment of the chair.
DEL. JAMES SMITH: It seems to me the convention is drifting away from the issue. I represent nine locals of New York. They recognize the fact that they have only one vote.
THE CHAIRMAN: One vote is what you have, Brother Smith.
DEL. SWARTZ: I want to ask the Chairman in regard to those groups, if the credentials read that they are authorized to install their unions in this organization.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think every group that has been seated by the convention was authorized to install. I think that is the report of the Committee on Credentials.
A DELEGATE: Have it read.
THE CHAIRMAN: We can have it read.
DEL. SWARTZ: I make a motion to have read each credential.
THE CHAIRMAN: We will do that.
DEL. KNIGHT, PUEBLO: I come from a town out in the West and represent merely an individual union with thirty members, and I believe I have been given that number of votes in the convention. However, I recognize the fact that we will have to stay here probably ten or fifteen days if every individual who represents a union like this demands that he have a place on the committee. As for me, I have seen enough of this convention so far that I believe there are men on these group who are ready to affiliate with this convention who possess the capacity and the ability and the earnestness to fix this constitution and to fix the declaration of principles to suit me, so that I am willing to trust some of them, and I think these fellows who are merely individual delegates, should give these groups a chance, and then we will all have a chance when they have rendered their report.
A DELEGATE: I am not clear on this point yet, although there has been much said about it. I want to ask a question of the chair. What is the difference in standing here in this convention as between groups that are sent here from labor bodies and individuals that merely represent themselves, in recognition on this committee? I would like to know this so as to know where we are at.
THE CHAIRMAN: The groups that are representing bodies in this convention have been given a vote for each member of the organization they represent. The individual simply represents himself.
THE DELEGATE: There is any amount of individuals, but now there are five of us and we represent 1,700 men, although we don’t claim to vote because we are not here with full power to act, but I merely would like to know whether there is a likelihood that such a proceeding will take place afterwards.
THE CHAIRMAN: We cannot give your organization representation until it becomes a part of this organization.
THE DELEGATE: Then according to your ruling there is no difference in the standing in this convention between groups and individual members.
THE CHAIRMAN: Not except those that have allied themselves with the movement. The Secretary read the list of groups, as follows:
Western Federation of Miners, five delegates, 27,000 votes.
Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance, 1,450 votes.
Industrial Workers Club, Cincinnati, 78 votes.
Industrial Workers Club, Chicago, 54 votes.
Workers’ Industrial Educational Union, Pueblo, 30 votes.
United Metal Workers, 3,000 votes.
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners.
Montreal, Can., Bakers and Confectioners.
United Mine Workers of America, 27 votes.
Flat Janitors’ Local, Chicago.
Journeyman Tailors’ Union.
Metal Polishers’ and Buffers’ Union.
Journeyman Tailors’ Protective and Benevolent Union, San Francisco, 400 votes.
American Labor Union, 16,780 votes.
Punch Press Operators’ Union, 242, Schenectady, 160 votes.
Tailors of Montreal, 22 votes.
Paper Hangers’ Union No. 584, Chicago, 87 votes.
United Mine Workers, Pittsburg, Kas.
DEL. SCHATZKI: How many votes are there altogether, I would like to know?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is going to take up too much time. What is the difference what the total membership is? There are eighteen different groups. That will make the membership of each committee twenty-one.
A DELEGATE: A point of information. Will new delegations likewise have representation?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, surely. What is the pleasure of the convention?
DEL. MURTAUGH: It seems to me it might be possible for delegates to be on each one of these committees. I understood that was the case as the chair has ruled, but it seems to me that is pushing it too far, and that some other arrangement should be made if each and every individual member desires to attend the sessions of each and every committee, so that you can understand that it is going to take considerable time to get through with the business of this convention. For instance, I desire to act upon five or six committees, each and every one of them.
THE CHAIRMAN: You will have to figure on the meetings of the committee. The majority of the committee will decide.
DEL. RICHTER: I move that this convention resolve itself into a committee of the whole and begin the consideration of the principles and the platform of the new organization. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor of the motion that we now go into Committee of the Whole to discuss the principles and program of the organization, will say aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried. Whom will you have as chairman?
The following nominations were made for Chairman of the Committee of the Whole: Delegates Goodwin, T. J. Hagerty, Coates, Haywood, John C. Sullivan, J. W. Saunders, Moyer, Vail. Delegate Moyer declined.
The Chairman (Delegate Coates) : I am going to make a proposition to the convention. The proposition is that we all withdraw in favor of Brother Haywood. (Seconded). All those in favor of William D. Haywood acting as chairman of the committee will say aye. Contrary no. Carried.
The convention then went into Committee of the Whole, Delegate Haywood in the chair, at 4.55 P. M.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is the pleasure of the committee? The first topic for discussion that was suggested by your committee, I believe, is the name of the organization—or rather, reasons for issuing the Manifesto.
DEL. COATES: I would suggest in this matter that this would be a pretty good opportunity for a paper on the origin and the cause of this convention. It seems to me it would be a very opportune time. We will save that much to-morrow, and it would tend to the cleaning up of this discussion.
DEL. ROSS: I move that Brother Moyer give us a twenty-minute talk.
Del. Clarence Smith was called for, but was not present.
DEL. SCHATZKI: Is this discussion now on the reason why the Manifesto was issued? Shall we speak now on this?
THE CHAIRMAN: We now await the pleasure of the committee. Is Brother Ross, of the Press Operators, here? He will please come forward.
DELEGATE LUCY E. PARSONS: I would like to move that some limit be placed to the length of time that each delegate can speak.
A DELEGATE: It is five minutes.
DEL. DE LEON: Aren’t we working under the rules as a Committee of the Whole?
THE CHAIRMAN: We are in Committee of the Whole.
DEL. DE LEON: Then the time is unlimited.
A DELEGATE: There was a motion made and seconded that Brother Moyer give us a twenty-minute talk.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not believe that any delegate has a right to impose that upon the convention.
A DELEGATE: Did you hear that?
THE CHAIRMAN: I heard that. I did not hear a second. I heard the motion. Brother Clarence Smith, the delegates here would like to hear something about the origin and the call for the Manifesto.
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: Mr. Chairman and Brother Delegates:
I am not reading this because I am best qualified to write it or read it, but simply because it has been insisted upon that I do so.
For a long time the conviction has grown that present organizations professing to represent industrial unionism were not securing the strength or doing the work that might be done by a properly organized and vigorously administered organization of American wage workers.
Although founded upon a plan that was endorsed in spirit by a majority of the organized workers of this country, as well as many of the unorganized, little progress was made by these organizations professing to represent the class conscious workers to bring the great mass of sympathetic working people actually within the ranks of organized workers for the movement.
And while providing the way for perfect solidarity and entirely harmonious action within itself, this solidarity and harmony was not actual in the relationship of the organized bodies comprising the American Labor Union.
This conviction of ineffectiveness in the face of opportunities for effective work, was strengthened at the General Convention of the International Union of United Brewery Workmen last September. It seemed clear that a united, harmonious and consistent request from all unions and organizations of the A. L. U., backed by an administration in whom the rank and file of the brewery workers had confidence, would have brought the brewery workmen into the A. L. U. at that time. And what would have been true of the brewery workmen, would have been true also of other organizations of an industrial character.
It, therefore, seemed the first duty of conscientious union men, regardless of affiliation, prejudice or personal interest, to lay the foundation upon which all the working people, many of whom are now organized, might unite upon a common ground, to build a labor organization that would correspond to modern industrial conditions, and through which they might finally secure complete emancipation from wage slavery for all wage workers.
November 29, 1904, the following letter, inspired by others as well as those who signed it, was sent to about thirty men, inviting them to meet in Chicago, January 2, 1905, to discuss this question:
Chicago, Ill., Nov. 29, 1904.
Dear Brother:
Developments of the past year have convinced us that craft division and political ignorance are doomed to speedily end.
Asserting our confidence in the ability of the working class, if correctly organized, on both industrial and political lines, to take possession of and operate successfully for their own interests the industries of the country;
Believing that working class political expression, through the Socialist ballot, in order to be sound, must have its economic counterpart in a labor organization builded as the structure of Socialist society, embracing within itself the working class in approximately the same groups and departments and industries that the workers would assume in the working class administration of the Co-Operative Commonwealth;
Realizing that to wisely inaugurate such a movement will require the putting aside of every selfish consideration by those who undertake the tremendous task;
We invite you to meet with us at Chicago, Monday, January 2, 1905, in secret conference, to discuss ways and means of uniting the working people of America on correct revolutionary principles, regardless of any general labor organization of past or present, and only restricted by such basic principles as will insure its integrity as a real protector of the interests of the workers.
You are to notify the Committee, through the Secretary, W. L. Hall, No. 3 Haymarket Building, Chicago, of your compliance with this invitation.
Names on enclosed list are of those invited to participate in the conference.
Fraternally yours,
WILLIAM E. TRAUTMANN,
(Editor Brewers’ Journal.)
GEORGE ESTES,
W. L. HALL,
EUGENE V. DEBS,
CLARENCE SMITH,
CHARLES O. SHERMAN.
The invitation was accepted by nearly all who were invited, and the conference met, as called, January 2, last. The proceedings of the conference, including the action of the conference, is submitted herewith, for the consideration of this convention:
THE CHAIRMAN: Is it the wish of the convention to hear the proceedings of the January conference?
A DELEGATE: Give us a summary.
The proceedings of the conference were then read by Delegate Clarence Smith. During the reading, when the letter from Max Hayes was read, it was received with manifestations of displeasure. The paper is as follows:
CHICAGO, ILL., JANUARY 2, 1905.
A conference of industrial unionists was held at 122 Lake street, Chicago, on this date.
The meeting was called to order by W. E. Trautmann, Editor of the “Brauer Zeitung,” at 10.30 A. M.
Wm. D. Haywood elected permanent Chairman and Geo. Estes permanent Secretary.
Roll call disclosed twenty-two persons present, as follows:
Daniel McDonald, President A. L. U., Chicago, Room 3, Haymarket Building.
Clarence Smith, General Secretary-Treasurer A. L. U., Chicago. Room 3, Haymarket Building.
Chas. Moyer, President W. F. of M., Denver, Room 3, Pioneer Building.
W. D. Haywood, Secretary, W. F. of M. Denver, Room 3, Pioneer Building.
John M. O’Neil, Editor Miners’ Magazine, Denver, Room 3, Pioneer Building.
W. L. Hall, General Secretary-Treasurer U. B. R. E., Chicago, Room 3, Haymarket Building.
Frank McCabe, First Vice-President U. B. R. E., Chicago, Room 3, Haymarket Building.
W. J. Bradley, Third Vice-President U. B. R. E., Minneapolis, 25 Central avenue.
J. E. Fitzgerald, Fourth Vice-President U. B. R. E., Ft. Worth, General Delivery.
W. E. Trautmann, Editor “Brauer Zeitung,” Cincinnati, Ohio, Odd Fellows Temple.
Frank Krafft, member of the Brewery Workers’ Union, Chicago, 226 East North avenue.
A. M. Simons, Editor International Socialist Review, Chicago, 6 Fifth avenue.
W. J. Pinkerton, of the Switchmen’s Union, Kansas City.
Frank Bohn, Organizer S. L. P. and S. T. & L. A., New York.
John Guild, of the Bakers’ Union, Chicago.
Thomas J. Hagerty, of the A. L. U., Chicago, Room 3, Haymarket Building.
Chas. O. Sherman, General Secretary United Metal Workers, Chicago, 148 W. Madison street.
Thomas De Young, member General Executive Board, U. B. R. E., Houston, 1314 Bingham.
Dr. A. J. Swing, of the A. F. of M., Cincinnati.
F. D. Henion, member U. B. R. E., Minneapolis, 1115 Adams street, N. E. Minneapolis.
C. G. Kirkpatrick, of the United Metal Workers, Chicago.
Geo. Estes, of the U. B. R. E., Chicago.
W. J. Bradley appointed Sergeant-at-Arms.
W. E. Trautmann stated the purpose for which the conference was called.
The Secretary read communications from the following-named persons, not present, all of whom favored the purposes of the conference:
E. V. Debs, M. E. White, J. W. Slayton, A. V. Raley, J. A. Wayland, J. W. Vincent, W. G. Critchiow, E. N. Richardson, D. C. Coates, W. C. Walsh, Julius Zorn and Edward Boyce, and from the following named person not present who was unfavorable to the purposes of the meeting: Max S. Hayes.
C. O. Sherman and W. E. Trautmann reported the result of their conference with E. V. Debs at Terre Haute, and stated that he was entirely in accord with the objects and purposes of the meeting.
Pass word disseminated by the Chairman.
Recess at 12.05 until 1 P. M.
Called to order at 1.20 P. M., W. D. Haywood in the chair.
W. G. Critchlow, General Secretary International Laborers’ Union, admitted to the conference as a member thereof.
Moved by Trautmann, seconded by Guild, that Schmidt, of the Bakers’ Journal, be invited to become a member of the conference. Carried.
Hagerty, Hall, Sherman, Smith and Estes explained the purposes for which the conference was called.
W. Shurtleff, Secretary of the International Musical Union, and M. E. White, member of the General Executive Board, A. L. U., were admitted to the conference as members thereof.
Joseph Schmitt, Editor of the Bakers’ Journal, admitted to the conference as a member thereof.
Moved by Simons, seconded by Henion, that a committee be appointed to draw up and submit a plan of procedure for the conference. O’Neil moved to amend by referring the matter to the original committee that called the conference together. Seconded. Hall offered an amendment to the amendment calling for a committee of ten and naming Simons, Haywood, O’Neil, Trautmann and Bohn as five thereof. Seconded by Bradley. Critchlow moved as a substitute for the whole that a committee of ten be elected. Seconded by Estes and carried.
Nominations for this committee were Trautmann, Simons, Bradley, O’Neil, Hagerty, Haywood, Smith, Moyer, De Young, Sherman Fitzgerald, Pinkerton, Hall and Estes.
Moved by Hall, seconded by O’Neil, that when the conference adjourned it adjourn until 12.30 P. M., January 3. Carried.
Moved by Smith, seconded by Critchlow, that nominations close. Carried.
The chair appointed Critchiow and Shurtleff tellers.
The ballot was spread, closed and counted, resulting as follows:
Simons, 22; O’Neil, 22, Trauinann, 21, Hagerty, 20, Haywood, 19, Sherman, 18, Estes, 18, Moyer, 17, Smith, 15, Hall, 13, Bohn, 13, Pinkerton, 9, Bradley, 9, De Young, 7. Fitzgerald, 4.
Sirnons, O’Neil, Trautmann, Hagerty, Haywood, Sherman, Estes, Moyer and Smith were declared duly elected.
Second ballot on Hall and Bohn resulted in 11 votes for Hall and 9 for Bohn. Hall declared duly elected.
Conference adjourned at 6.30 P. M. until 12.30 P. M., January 3.
GEO. ESTES, Secretary of Conference.
Called to order at 1.50 P. M., W. D. Haywood in the chair. Pass word taken up.
Mother Jones present in addition to those specified heretofore.
Minutes of previous meeting read and approved. Report of Committee on Procedure read. (Report attached.)
Moved by Bradley, seconded by Bohn, that the report be accepted and debated. Carried.
Moved by Swing, seconded by Bohn, that the report be debated seriatim. Carried.
Moved by Simons, seconded by Bohn, that the words “The” and “Of the World” in first paragraph be stricken out. Carried.
Moved by Bohn, seconded by Trautmann, that the first paragraph be adopted as amended. Carried.
Moved by Bohn, seconded by Simons, that the second paragraph be adopted as read. Carried.
Moved by Simons, seconded by Bohn, that the third paragraph be adopted as read. Carried.
Moved by Hagerty, seconded by Simons, that the following be made the fourth paragraph:
“That this Union be established as the economic organization of the working class without affiliation with any political party.” Carried.
Moved by Shurtleff, seconded by Bradley, that clause five be adopted. Carried.
Moved by Bradley, seconded by Hagerty, that clause six be adopted. Carried.
Moved by White that clause seven be adopted as read; seconded and carried.
Moved by Hagerty, seconded by Trautmann, that clause eight be adopted as read. Carried.
Moved by Swing, seconded by Shurtleff, that clause nine be adopted as read. Carried.
Moved by Bradley, seconded by Shurtleff, that clause ten be adopted as read. Carried.
Moved by Bohn, seconded by Trautmann, that clause eleven be adopted as read. Carried.
Moved by Sherman, seconded by Swing, that clause twelve be adopted as read. Carried.
Moved by Hall, seconded by White, that the date of the convention be the fourth Monday in June, 1905. Carried.
Place for holding the convention being under consideration, Hall nominated Chicago; Sherman nominated Milwaukee, White nominated Omaha. Vote resulted as follows: Chicago, fifteen; Milwaukee, six; Omaha, three. Chicago declared as the city selected for the convention.
Hall moved the election of a committee of twelve, Chairman Haywood to be ex-officio an additional member thereof, to draw up the Manifesto. Seconded.
Amended by Swing that the Committee on Procedure with two additional members draw up the Manifesto. Seconded by Hagerty. Amendment carried.
O’Neil nominated Bohn, Haywood nominated Mother Jones; both elected by acclamation.
Moved by O’Neil, seconded by Bohn, that the committee meet in Wostas Hall at 8 o’clock A. M., January 4. Carried.
Moved by Smith, seconded by Hagerty, that the conference adjourn until 5.30 P. M., January 4. Carried.
Adjourned.
Chicago, Ill., January 3, 1905.
The Committee on Methods and Procedure to be adopted by the Chicago conference of Industrial Unionists called to order at 9 A. M. in Wostas Hall, 122 Lake street. W. D. Haywood elected Chairman, Geo. Estes, Secretary.
Moved by Simons, seconded by Hagerty, that the committee recommend the creation of a General Industrial Union, embracing all industries. Carried.
Moved by Smith that the proposed organization shall in form embrace the following principles: Craft autonomy locally; industrial autonomy internationally; working class unity generally. Seconded by Hagerty. Carried.
Moved by Hagerty, seconded by Hall, that the plan of organization be founded on the recognition of the class struggle and that the General Administration thereof be conducted in agreement with this recognition of the irrepressible conflict between the working class and the capitalist class. Carried.
Moved by Hall, seconded by Hagerty, that all power rest in the collective membership. Carried.
Moved by Hall, seconded by Trautmann, that local, national and general administration, including transfers, labels, buttons, badges, initiation fees and per capita tax shall be uniform. Carried.
Moved by Moyer, seconded by Simons, that transfers of membership between all unions, local, national and international shall be universal. Carried.
Moved by Simons, seconded by Trautmann, that all members shall hold membership in the local national or international union having jurisdiction over the industry in which they are employed. Carried.
Moved by Trautmann, seconded by Hall, that the General Administration issue a publication at regular intervals to all members representing the organization and its principles. Carried.
Moved by Hagerty, seconded by Estes, that a central defense fund to which all members contribute equally, shall be established and maintained. Carried.
Moved by Haywood, seconded by Trautmann, that a general convention be called at a date and place to be fixed by this conference for the purpose of organizing a movement along the lines herein set forth. Carried.
Moved by Trautmann, seconded by Moyer, that eligibility to participation in the convention include all who subscribe to the plans and principles set forth in the declaration accompanying the call. Carried.
Adjourned.
Chicago, July 3, 1905.
First—The committee recommends the creation of a general industrial union, embracing all industries.
Second—That the proposed organization shall embrace the following principles: Craft autonomy, locally; industrial autonomy, internationally; working class unity, generally.
Third—That the plan of organization be founded on the recognition of the class struggle, and that the general administration thereof be conducted in agreement with the recognition of the irrepressible conflict between the working class and the capitalist class.
Fifth—That all power rest in the collective membership.
Sixth—That local, national and general administration, including transfers, labels, buttons, badges, initiation fees and per capita tax shall be uniform.
Seventh—That transfers of membership without additional initiation fee, between all unions, local, national or international, shall be universal.
Eighth—That all members shall hold membership in the local, national or international unions having jurisdiction over the industry in which they are employed.
Ninth—That the general administration issue a publication at regular intervals to all members, representing the organization and its principles.
Tenth—That a central defense fund, to which all members contribute equally, shall be established and maintained.
Eleventh—That a general convention be called at a date and place to be fixed by this conference for the purpose of organizing a movement along lines herein set forth.
Twelfth—That eligibility to participation in the convention include all who subscribe to the plans and principles set forth in the declaration accompanying the call.
GEO. ESTES,
Secretary of Convention.
Called to order 1.30 P. M., W. D. Haywood in the chair. Minutes of the previous day read and approved. Committee on Manifesto reported.
Moved by Smith, seconded by Bohn, that a committee of three be appointed to re-write the Manifesto. Carried.
The chair appointed Simons, Trautmann and O’Neil for the committee.
Moved by Hagerty that the conference constitute itself an organized bureau with committees and a Secretary to conduct the necessary business incident to the calling of the coming convention in June. Committees to be appointed by the chair. The Secretary to be elected by the conference. Seconded by De Young.
Amended by Smith that an executive committee of five to conduct all the work incident to the calling of the convention, be elected. Seconded and carried.
Nominations for the Executive Committee were as follows: Trautmann, Smith, Hall, Moyer, Bohn, Hagerty, Estes, Haywood, and Sherman. Vote resulted in the election of Haywood, Hall, Simons, Trautmann and Smith.
Moved by Smith that the expenses of this conference be borne by the members of the conference and that the Executive Committee be instructed to find ways and means to provide the funds for the administration of its work incident to calling the convention. Seconded by Hagerty. Carried.
Moved by Moyer, seconded by O’Neil, that the Manifesto as rewritten be adopted. Hagerty amended the paragraphs of the Manifesto relating to transfers to include workingmen holding union cards from foreign countries. Seconded by Trautmann. Carried. Amended by Sherman to add the words, “Military and judiciary,” seconded by De Young. Carried. Motion to adopt the Manifesto as amended carried.
Moved by Trautmann, seconded by Sherman, that an invitation be extended to the continental Industrial Unions of Europe to send a representative to the convention in Chicago in June. Carried. The chair then announced that the matter of making and forwarding the invitation would be left in the hands of the Executive Committee.
The following persons then contributed fifty cents apiece toward the expenses of the conference: Haywood, Trautmann, Mother Jones, O’Neil Sherman, Hagerty, De Young, Moyer, White, Smith, Unterman, Krafft, Bradley, Pinkerton, Shurtleff, Hail and Estes. Adjourned sine die.
Chas. Moyer, A. M. Simons, David C. Coates, William E. Trautmann, Isaac Cowen, Victor Berger, Eugene V. Debs, J. W. Vincent, W. J. Pinkerton, J. E. Fitzgerald, W. J. Bradley, John L. Murphy, William D. Haywood, Thomas J. Hagerty, Clarence Smith, Joseph Proebstel, M. E. White, Max Hayes, Chas. O. Sherman, Michael Berry, Daniel McDonald, A. V. Raley, W. C. Walsh, W. F. Fox, John M. O’Neil, J. A. Wayland, Geo. Estes, Julius Zorn, W. L. Hall, J. W. Slayton, Edward Boyce, Mother Jones, Wade Shurtleff, Thomas De Young, O. Lorenzo, Dr. A. J. Swing, Frank Bohn, Frank McCabe, F. D. Henion, John Guild, Frank Krafft, C. G. Kirkpatrick.
W. G. Critchiow, President International Labor Union, arrived at the afternoon session.
W, Shurtleff came in late.
M. E. White came in at 3.05 P. M. Chicago, Ill., December 22, 1904.
My Dear Sir and Brother:
The developments of the past year have convinced us that craft divisions and political ignorance are doomed to speedily end.
Asserting our confidence in the ability of the working class, if correctly organized on both industrial and political fields, to take possession of and operate successfully for their own interests the industries of this country;
Believing the working class political expression, through the Socialist ballot, in order to be sound must have its economic counterpart in a labor organization builded as the structure of Socialist society, embracing within itself the working class in approximately the same groups and departments and industries the workers would assume in the working class administration of the Cooperative Commonwealth;
Realizing that to wisely inaugurate such a movement will require the putting aside of every selfish consideration by those who undertake the tremendous task;
We invite you to meet with us at Chicago, Monday, January 2, 1905, in secret conference, to discuss ways and means of uniting the working people of America on correct revolutionary principles, regardless of any general labor organization, past or present, and only restricted by such basic principles as will insure its integrity as a real protector of the interests of the workers.
You are requested to notify the committee, through the Secretary, W. L. Hall, Room 3, Haymarket Building, Chicago, Ill., of your compliance with this invitation.
Names on enclosed list are of those invited to participate in the conference.
Fraternally yours,
WILLIAM E. TRAUTMANN,
GEORGE ESTES,
W. L. HALL,
EUGENE V. DEBS,
CLARENCE SMITH,
CHAS. O. SHERMAN,
W. L. Hall. Esq.
Denver, Colo., Dec. , 1904.
Secretary Committee on Conference, January 2.
Dear Sir and Brother:
The committee’s notification at hand. Believe the move a right one! Will accept the invitation and be in Chicago, January 2, 1905.
In case of any change kindly notify me at once.
Fraternally,
M. E. WHITE.
Youngstown, Ohio, Dec. 8, 1904.
Dear Comrade Hall:
Your letter sent by “special delivery” just reached me, and I am more sorry than I can express that I am not able (financially) to be with those named for the purposes indicated, or at least to learn what they are in detail. You may know that I am one of those wage slaves that has quite a family and as a rule am always near the last dollar. Something may occur in the meantime to make it possible for me to be with you and if it does I surely will be there. If arrangements could be made for an agitation meeting for the Saturday and Sunday preceding the date you name it would help matters. I will hope and try. Let me hear from you again in the matter, telling me where the meeting is to be held, that is, building, and room, etc., and if possible I will be on hand.
Fraternally,
J. W. SLAYTON,
Youngstown, O., Dec. 13, 1904.
Comrade Hall:
I think you can count on me being at the conference to which I have been invited. I wrote you a few days ago and stated that it was quite a question on account of financial matters, but I think that phase of the matter can be overcome and now feel I will be there.
If anything turns up to prevent, will let you know. In the meantime let me know where the conference will be held so I will know just where to look for the comrades.
Fraternally,
J. W. SLAYTON.
J.W. Slayton
Youngstown, Ohio.
My Dear Sir and Comrade:
Your communication of the 13th inst., received. It affords us much gratification to know that you can shape your affairs to be with us in conference on the second of January.
This conference will meet at 10 o’clock on the morning of the second, in the Haymarket Theater, 161 W. Madison street, this city.
With the compliments of the season and highest personal regards,
I remain yours fraternally, Secretary.
Chicago, Ill., Dec. 15, 1904.
Langtry, Texas, Dec. 9, 1904.
Mr. W. L. Hall, Gen. Sec-Treas, Chicago, My Dear Brother Hall:
Your letter of recent date duly to hand, relative to the meeting, etc., and have since received the formal letter of invitation. Please accept thanks for the honor conveyed. I cannot say before the twentieth whether or not I shall be able to attend, but I will advise you about that time one way or the other. If not permitted to be with you in the flesh, I shall be in spirit, for as I wrote Comrade Fitz yesterday: “It will be an inspiration to sit in the presence of these ’destined to be’ historic men—men whom I feel are yet to be heard in the affairs of nations.” Excuse my seeming brevity as I am working “night and day,” my partner “at the key” being sick, hence I am rushed for time and not fit for letter writing. I am, as down the ages, your comrade,
ART. V. RALEY.
Langtry, Texas, Dec. 30, 1904.
Mr. W. L. Hall,
Room 3, Haymarket Building, Chicago, My Dear Brother Hall:
I write you to regretfully state that on account of financial circumstances I will not be in Chicago January 2, as I had hoped for. But I send you my message: “Every intelligent Socialist knows that with freedom of press and speech the cause must eventually win and by peaceful means. To continue to enjoy this degree of freedom (I cannot say we have real freedom of press or speech) is the hope of Socialism—to defeat even this present degree, the plan of capitalism. Capitalism owes its very existence now and hope for the future to the continued ignorance of the majority. This ignorance cannot continue to obtain unless a radical change of tactics is inaugurated by capitalism. The Socialist realizes this, so does the capitalist, and I say to you that with four years more of the present degree of freedom of propaganda, the awakening of the masses will have gained such proportions—reached that stage that the situation will have passed beyond the hope of their power to control by force. To me the coming four years hold the real crisis. The declared purpose of the Chicago meeting is noble, grand, and if in addition to adopting certain definite steps for the collective ownership and control of the means of life—some equally feasible plan be adopted for the systematic and universal dissemination of Socialist truths, that meeting will have been most opportune. There is nothing so important as this. Already we may see the hands of love working with definiteness, if we but look with
faith observing the outward manifestation of these irresistible unseen forces. So let us have faith and do our part and these negative powers of darkness now so threatening will vanish like evil shadows as before the sunrise of this now swiftly approaching day of universal peace.” Your friend,
A. V. RALEY.
Girard, Kansas, Dec. 12, 1904.
Comrade W. L. Hall:
If conditions will permit I may be in at the appointment. But I wouldn’t be worth anything in council. Fraternally,
J. A. WAYLAND.
Mr. W. L. Hall,
Chicago. Ill..
Burke, Ida., Dec. 54, 1904.
Dear Sir and Brother:
Your invitation to hand, and in pursuance of the request contained therein, I write you to let you know that it will be impossible for me to attend on account of lack of finances. No other reason would keep me away from the conference, which means so much in the labor movement. Though absent in person I will he with you in spirit and will try and do my share of all the work in the future.
With regard to all who can meet with you, and hoping for success, I remain, fraternally yours,
J. W. VINCENT.
W. L. Hall, Secretary,
Hayinarket Building, Chicago, Ill. Dear Sir and Brother:
Dayton, Ohio, Dec. ’5, 1904.
Replying to communication dated November 29, but which arrived in this morning’s mail, will say that at the present moment it appears as though the conference proposed can be of much good if even a part of the invited ones take part therein.
For myself, will say, that should a sufficient number exhibit a desire to be present, it will give me pleasure to be present and take part in the deliberations of the conference for purposes as outlined.
My proviso is necessary owing to the volume of work which is at hand for my attention in my regular line of routine work.
Wishing you success in the attempt, I remain,
Fraternally yours,
International Laborers’ Union,
Per W. G. CRITCHLOW, General President.
Chicago, Ill., Dec. 16, 1904.
W. C. Critchiow, Esq.,
General President, I. L. U., Dayton, O. My Dear Sir and Brother:
Your communication of yesterday saying: “For myself, will say, that should a sufficient number exhibit a desire to be present, it will give me pleasure to be present and take part in the deliberations of the conference, for the purposes outlined,” has been received. Replying, I am pleased to inform you that we have received assurance from twenty-five of the thirty men to whom we have issued invitations, that they will be present at this conference, which assures its success.
As you suggest in your letter, conditions are such that great good can be accomplished, just at this time, through a conference of the men whom we have selected to be present; and I am satisfied that great good will result.
The subject is of too broad a scope to outline to you by letter the subject matter that will come up for discussion in this convention. It is sufficient to suggest to you that the time is ripe for an economic organization of the world’s workers on lines, as near as possible, like those that would prevail under the Cooperative Commonwealth; which would represent class conscious, revolutionary principles.
One of the aims of the convention is to harmonize the warring factions in the various divisions of the progressive forces in the United States; and such other matter as might be suggested.
The convention is to be called at 10 o’clock on the morning of January 2, in the Haymarket Theater, 167 W. Madison street, in this city, and I trust that you will be able to shape affairs to be present.
With highest personal regards and compliments of the season, I
remain, yours fraternally, Secretary.
Mr. W. L. Hall, Secretary,
No. 3 Haymarket Building, Chicago, Ill. Dear Sir and Brother:
Your letter of the 16th bearing upon the proposed conference at Chicago, January 2, at hand this morning and carefully noted.
Accepting your statements, under the circumstances, you can count on my presence at the specified place and time.
Two members of our Executive Board and myself will also arrive in Chicago Tuesday evening, the 20th, and expect to have a conference with A. L. U. that evening. Since writing Smith have seen where he is in Denver, but we cannot alter our arrangements now. Perhaps he will return by the 20th though. It might be well for you to have the letter read to you in the A. L. U. office which he wrote on the 16th.
Dayton, Ohio, Dec. 18, 1904.
Will probably see you Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning,
anyway—hope so at least
Fraternally yours,
International Laborers’ Union,
Per W. G. CRITCHLOW, General President
Girard, Kansas, Dec. 17, 1904
W. L. Hall,
No. 3 Haymarket Theater Building, Chicago, Ill. Dear Sir and Brother:
Invitation to meet a number of the brothers interested in the labor movement at Chicago, January 2, 1905, received, and I regret more than I can express my inability to attend and take part in this discussion upon which I fully realize much depends.
I have engagements, which I cannot postpone, that will fully occupy all my time for the next thirty days.
However, in looking over the names of those invited I see so many who, like myself, stand for industrial unionism that I feel my absence will in no way interfere with the success of the meeting.
As Brother McDonald will tell you, I’m with you to the last ditch. Yours fraternally,
E. N. RICHARDSON.
December 18, 1904.
Mr. W. L. Hall,
Chicago, Ill.
Dear Sir and Brother:
The invitation to meet in conference in Chicago on January 2, 1905, with some of the noble souls of the labor movement, reached me in due time.
Nothing in this world would give me greater pleasure than to comply with that invitation, as I appreciate the importance and necessity for such a conference, and the men composing it are the men whom labor can depend upon with their whole heart and soul to do the right thing in their interest.
Under these circumstances, it makes me almost weep when I confess to you that my present circumstances will not permit me being present. It is a long ways from here to Chicago and I have not the means nor dare I spare the time at present to make the trip. So I will not be with you in flesh, but will be in spirit. My heart beats as strongly as ever for humanity’s cause, and I only wish I could grasp the hand of each one of the proposed conferees and start the battle anew.
I approve of the course the invitation outlines, and I appreciate the necessity for it, and I trust the conference will result in such cry of the wage slave.
Count me with you in voice and action as far as in my power lies. Count me one of you, and perhaps the day is not far distant when I can take an active part in whatever plan is outlined.
Give my kindest wishes to all who participate as I count them accomplishments as will make America ring with the emancipating all my friends, for they are the friends of all humanity.
Give me whatever work I can perform after the conference is over and I shall perform to the best of my ability and opportunity.
Yours for emancipation and with best wishes for the work of
the conference, D. C. COATES.
Minneapolis, Minn., Dec. 26, 1904.
W. L. Hall,
Room No. 3, Haymarket Building, Chicago, Ill. Dear Sir and Brother:
Replying to your favor of December 24, permit me to assure you that it is with the deepest sense of appreciation I accept the kind invitation to be present January 2, 1905.
At present I am unable to leave the house owing to an old wound which has completely incapacitated me for the past three weeks. Yet I assure you that I will be present if it is possible for me to travel at all, for to me it would be the pleasure of a lifetime to live for a day in the presence of the men you have mentioned in list. I being a railroad man it is almost needless for me to state that I was one of our worthy Brother E. V. Debs’ admirers as well as supporter in 1894, and will hail with joy the opportunity of once more grasping the hand of our noble chief. And while I have been for years associated with labor unions, my contentions are that permanent relief must come through Socialism. Thus, in my humble opinion, the star of our hopes, instead of being unionism, is Socialism.
Yet it is very necessary that labor unions be strengthened to the utmost until such times as Socialism has acquired strength to properly defend the wealth producer against the encroachments of the trusts and combines of greedy capital, thus hoping, as you say, that craft divisions and political ignorance are doomed to a speedy end.
I remain with earnest wishes for the success of meeting, also for future welfare of the wealth producer of America.
Truly yours,
W. C. WALSH.
Minneapolis, Minn., Dec. 31, 1904
Mr. W. L. Hall,
Chicago, Ill.
My Dear Sir and Brother:
It would be utterly impossible for me to express the regret I feel at finding myself unable to attend meeting on Monday next, but my affliction is such that I am unable to walk the wound referred to has resolved itself into a very painful ulcer.
However, it does not prevent me from wishing you and all my noble brethren a God speed in your undertaking in behalf of toiling humanity, and I hasten to say to you that upon my word and honor as a man and citizen of the United States to do all within my power to assist in this noble work; and again wishing for our future success, I remain, truly yours,
W. C. WALSH.
Cincinnati, Ohio, Dec. 21, 1904.
Mr. W. L. Hall,
Room No. 3, Haymarket Theater Building, Chicago, Ill. Dear Sir and Comrade:
Your invitation of recent date to attend a conference to beheld in the City of Chicago on January 2, 1905, by a number of prominent men active in the labor movement and a number of Socialists, is to hand. In reply will say that you must excuse me for not answering sooner, but circumstances did not permit it.
The main reasons for holding this conference, as I understand them, are to find ways and means to bring new life into the trades union movement of the country particularly, and, if possible, to change the present tactics of this movement and make same more progressive, more effective and more beneficiary to the wage workers of this country; also to build up a great class conscious organization.
It affords me great pleasure to be one of the invited comrades, but am sorry to say that for the following reasons I am unable to attend, and no doubt my colleague, Comrade Trautmann, who suggested my name, will corroborate my statement and my reasons:
First, my term of office as international secretary-treasurer expires on January 1, 1905, on which date my successor, Comrade Adam Huebner, will take charge of my office, and as Comrade Huebner is not acquainted with the work and as this work must be done very carefully, bookkeeping and finances being involved, therefore it is not very convenient for me to go, especially not, as Brother Huebner would undoubtedly feel slighted if I should absent myself without first having made him acquainted with his work. Further, it would not relieve me of my responsibilities.
Second, I am not well enough acquainted with the English language to take such part in the debates and discussions as I would like to take.
Third, I am not in the best of health and must take care of myself.
You can rest assured that I regret my inability to be present, as I am deeply interested in any movement that would bring about a more powerful and a more perfect organization, which would benefit the wage workers of this country, and would hasten the time of the emancipation of the wage workers from wage slavery.
My ideal of a genuine and good labor movement always was and is to-day, first, industrial organizations; that is, all employes of a certain industry to be organized under one great International Union, which should be affiliated with one gigantic national body, and then with an international alliance.
Second, we must not allow one industrial organization to build a Chinese wall around itself. Free transfers must be given by and accepted by one organization from another organization for members in good standing.
Third, we must get the control of not only the Government of this country, but of all civilized countries, and establish the Cooperative Commonwealth. This must be brought about by the use of the ballot box as taught by international Socialism.
Trusting that you will excuse my nonattendance, wishing you the best of success, and hoping that your work may be of everlasting benefit to the wage workers of this country, I remain,
Fraternally yours,
JUL. ZORN, International Secretary.
Wallace, Idaho, Dec. 27, 1904.
Mr. W. L. Hall,
Chicago, Ill.
Dear Sir and Brother:
Reply to your favor concerning the conference to be held in Chicago January 2, 1905, will say that I reached home Christmas Day after journeying from Boston, and owing to how I feel at this time I would not like to undertake another long trip. Therefore, I will be unable to be at your conference however much I would like to. In your deliberations I will be with you in spirit, and wish you the greatest measure of success in your deliberations.
Fraternally yours,
EDWARD BOYCE.
Terre Haute, Ind., Dec. 23, 1904.
Mr. Clarence Smith,
Chicago, Ill.
My Dear Comrade:
Your several favors have been received and noted. I have been unable to answer sooner, on account of illness which has kept me confined to my room during the last several weeks and from which I am but slowly recovering. The doctor has just informed me that I shall probably have to go South before there will be any appreciable recuperation of my strength. I shall not be able to attend the meeting on the second. I keenly regret this for I had counted on being with you and in giving such assistance as I could to the work of organizing that is to be undertaken along new and progressive lines. In spite of my best will this is now impossible. For a good many years I have been working without regard to myself and in all my life I have never known what it is to have a rest. The last year’s work was in many respects the hardest of my life. I spent myself too freely and have now reached the point when I must give up for a time as the doctor warned me that my nerves are worn down and that I am threatened with collapse. There is nothing the matter with me except that I am compelled to let go for a time and so I have had to cancel all my engagements for the immediate future. How soon I may be able to resume I do not know, but I think I shall have to quit the public platform entirely, or almost so, for a year or such matter. There are too many demands constantly upon me and I shall have to turn them aside until I can get myself in physical condition to resume my activities. Under any other circumstances I should have considered it a privilege as well as a pleasure to attend your meeting.
Please find draft enclosed covering the amount you were kind enough to advance to me. Please accept my warm thanks for the favor.
Profoundly regretting my inability to be with you and hoping the meeting may be fruitful of all the good results anticipated, I remain, yours faithfully,
E. V. DEBS.
Cleveland, O., Dec. 30, 1904.
W. L. Hall:
Dear Sir and Brother:
For two important reasons I will be unable to be present at the conference to which you have so kindly invited me, viz: “financial embarrassment, and, secondly, I am not altogether clear, as to what can be done or what it is proposed to do. You say, in the third paragraph, in substance, that the Socialist party must have its “economic counterpart,” etc., and in the fifth paragraph that it is your purpose to unite the workers on correct, revolutionary principles “regardless of any general labor organization of past or present.” This sounds to me as though we are to have another S. T. & L. A. experiment over again; that we, who are in the trade unions as at present constituted, are to cut loose and flock by ourselves. If I am correct in my surmises it means another running fight between Socialists on the one side and all other partizans on the other. Let me say frankly that under no circumstances will I permit myself to be dragged into any more secession movements or fratricidal wars between factors of workers because they are not of one mind at this juncture. If there is any fighting to be done I intend to use my energies and whatever ability I may possess to bombard the common enemy—capitalism. Moreover, I intend to put in whatever time and means that I have to agitate on the inside of the organizations now in existence to dump conservatism overboard and prepare to take their places “in the working class administration of the Cooperative Commonwealth.” Unless I am very much mistaken the rank and file of the trade unions are awakening as never before, and as soon as even a good-sized minority become thoroughly class conscious, the fossilized leaders will “go up in the air.”
From a strategic standpoint I would rather be inside the fort and take chances to secure the adoption of my plans than to be outside and regarded as an enemy. If the leaders of the S. L. P., so-called, had not made a number of glaring mistakes (as time has proven they did) the workers would have been won open to conviction long ago, and those of us who are active would not have been compelled to fight on the defensive. While not denying the right of men to secede, I question the tactics and especially when circumstances do not warrant such a move. At the present time the so-called pure and simple unions are throwing open their doors to a full and free discussion of all economic questions. I do not see that a purely Socialist union could do any more. And even if the present organizations changed their names next week and adopted high-sounding resolutions it would not mean any more Socialist votes unless the members understood our principles and changed their opinions.
Personally, I have absolutely no fear for the future as far as the present trade unions are concerned. While a few of the leaders are now “jagged” with power and a sense of their own importance, their peculiar performances makes their position insecure. If I am mistaken in my surmises and those who gather at your conference adopt ways and means to increase the activity and agitation in the trade unions in favor of progressive measures, and formulate plans to join and assist in the battle, nothing would please me more. In fact, I am sure that the conservative leaders would be more pleased to learn that they are to have opposition from the outside than that such opposition was becoming more formidable on the inside. I happen to know, for instance, that at every Federation convention there is more speculation and worrying about what the twenty or thirty odd Socialists intend doing than any equal number of men. Suppose the number of Socialist delegates were doubled or trebled?
Sincerely hoping that your conference will be able to grasp the full significance of the opportunities that confront our movement, and thanking you for the invitation extended, I am,
Yours fraternally,
MAX S. HAYES.
A DELEGATE: I should like to hear from Mother Jones on this question.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Mother says she is not ready to be heard from yet. What is the pleasure of the committee?
A DELEGATE: I move that the committee rise and report progress. (No second.)
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: Before adjournment I would like to make an announcement, that the special committee that was appointed this forenoon in reference to the stenographic report will meet on the stage immediately after adjournment.
The motion to rise and report progress was seconded.
THE CHAIRMAN: A motion has been made that the committee now rise and report progress. Are you ready for the motion?
A DELEGATE: As long as we have an hour’s time at our disposal, I think it ought to be devoted to the purpose for which we first went into Committee of the Whole. I hope that the motion will be voted down.
The motion that the committee rise and report progress was then put and carried, and the committee rose.
DEL. COATES: I move that the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole be made a part of the proceedings of the convention.
The motion was seconded and carried.
Del. Clarence Smith: I move that the Chairman appoint a committee of three to inspect and audit the accounts of the Executive Committee up to this convention and report to the convention.
The motion was seconded and carried. The Chairman appointed as the Auditing Committee Delegates Powers, Saunders and Twining.
The Credentials Committee then distributed badges to the delegates as the names were called.
There being no further business brought before the convention, an adjournment was then, at 5.10 P. M., taken until A. M. Thursday.
• Day 3, Morning Session : Thursday, June 29
The convention was called to order at 9.20 A. M. by Chairman Haywood.
The Secretary called the roll of delegates.
The minutes of the first day’s session were read by the Secretary, and there being no corrections, were declared approved.
The minutes of the second day’s session were then read.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the reading of the second day’s minutes. Are there any corrections?
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: The minutes as read do not show that the motion with regard to the convention desiring a stenographic report was adopted.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will note the correction. Are there any other corrections? If not, the minutes will stand approved as corrected. They are approved.
The Secretary read a number of communications from the following bodies and places:
L. A. 412, S. T. & L. A. (Garment Workers), New York City.
N. A. Francis, Cincinnati.
Emancipation Club, of Los Angeles, Cal.
General Executive Board of Brotherhood of Metal Workers of North America, New York.
Amalgamated Metal Workers’ Union, New York.
Lawrence & Co., photographer (two communications), in reference to flash-light photographs of delegates.
On motion the communications were received and placed on file. The communications are as follows:
New York, June 28.
Mr. Wm. E. Trautmann,
Industrial Union Convention Hall,
Corner Clark and Erie Streets.
We beg to express our wishes that this convention will accomplish the honest principles of new trade unionism based on the class struggle.
Amalgamated Garment Workers’ Union of Greater New York, L. A. 412, S. T. & L. A.
Cincinnati, O., June 27, 1905.
class="quote">Mr. W. E. Trautmann,
Cincinnati, O.
Dear Sir:
Your letter and bundle of Manifestoes at hand. I have distributed a number of them and wherever they were shown they inspired interest and enthusiasm. I am confident that from thirty to fifty charter members can be organized in East Cincinnati at an early date.
Please forward to my address as soon as convenient the necessary application blanks together with full information as to fees, about when an organization can be effected, etc.
Very truly yours,
N. A. FRANCIS.
JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF CHANDELIER, BRASS AND METAL WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA.
New York, June 20, 1905.
Executive Committee of the Industrial Organization of the Workers,
Mr. Wm. E. Trautmann, Secretary,
Dear Sir
Wish to state that our Board coincides with the principle of your movement but do not feel inclined to send delegates at this early date to your convention.
Wishing you success and hoping to hear from you in the future, I remain, yours respectfully,
C. BERTRAN, Secretary.
To Wm. E. Trautmann,
Dear Comrade
We, the undersigned special committee of the Emancipation Club of Los Angeles, Cal., are hereby authorized to forward the following communication to you, to be read in the convention, and which will serve us instead of a delegate, as we are at present unable to send one:
The Emancipation Club of Los Angeles is an organization formed for the purpose of educating the working class along the lines of purely revolutionary Socialism.
It has for its object the organization of the working class into a proletarian, revolutionary body, both economic and political, having as its sole purpose the complete overthrow of the capitalist system of production and distribution, and the establishment of the Socialist Republic.
From the vitals of such an organization would naturally spring a purely proletarian, revolutionary, political body fully equipped to carry the battle into the camp of the capitalist enemy.
We hold that the existing craft unionism is hopelessly dividing the working class on both the economic and political fields, and constitutes itself, by virtue of its tactics, the greatest obstacle to the unification of the workers.
Therefore we believe that the only hope for the working class, is to unite them all into one collective union based upon the clear lines of the uncompromising class struggle, having in every way the immediate and future best interest of the whole working class as its basic purpose.
We firmly believe that, consequent upon the present phase of capitalist evolution, the time and conditions are fully ripe for the organization of just such a union as we have thus briefly outlined, and do sincerely hope that our comrades in convention assembled, will be moved by the truly revolutionary spirit to repudiate all the old and worthless forms of organization.
We hope that the structure which will then be projected into being, will contain methods which will admit of such practical benefits, as will infuse hope into the minds of the enslaved toilers of America, and give them courage and assurance of success in their final struggle for their permanent emancipation.
Signed
CHAS. F. PURDY,
N. C. MADSEN, ANDREW M. JOSEPH.
June 27, 1905.
Mr. W. E. Trautman, Sec’y.,
Industrial Union Convention,
Room 3 Haymarket Theater Bldg., City.
Dear Sir:
At the request of Mr. William D. Haywood, I am sending you herewith a written proposal for making a large flashlight interior photograph of the convention now being held.
Will you kindly read this to the members present to-morrow and take the names of those promising to take a photograph and kindly notify us?
We can arrange to make the photograph on Wednesday or Thursday.
Thanking you in advance for this favor, we remain,
Yours very truly,
THE GEO. R. LAWRENCE CO., GEO. R. DUCE, Secretary.
June 27, 1905. To the Delegates of the Industrial Union Convention.
Gentlemen:—We would be pleased to make a large size photograph of the convention while in session. It will be made by our patented flashlight process and we fully guarantee that a perfect likeness will be made of every person in the room.
We shall make this photograph upon a guarantee of the sale of 2d copies at $2 each. Photographs will be suitably engraved and will be a valuable souvenir of this initial convention.
Those who will promise to subscribe for one or more copies will kindly give their names to Mr. W. E. Trautmann.
Yours very truly,
THE GEO. R. LAWRENCE CO., GEO R. DUCE, Secretary.
The Committee on Credentials reported, recommending the seating of the following delegates, with one vote each:
N. C. Marlatt, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Chicago ; H. Arthur Morgan, Local 233, Cleveland, Ohio, Machinists; P. Samuels, journeymen Tailors, No. 359, Chicago.
On motion of Delegate Dinger, the report was concurred in and the delegates seated.
Delegate Clarence Smith read the following report from the special committee on ways and means to provide for a stenographic report of the proceedings of the convention:
Chicago, June 28, 1905.
Your committee to provide ways and means for a stenographic report recommends that each delegate in this convention who is being paid for representation in this convention be assessed four dollars to defray the expense of a stenographic report, and that all other delegates be urged to contribute voluntarily as liberally as they can afford.
(Signed by the Committee.)
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the report of the committee.
DEL. EVANS: I move to concur in the recommendation of the committee. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that we concur in the recommendation of the committee.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: Does that mean that each S. T. & L. A. delegate shall be assessed $4 also? They have already contributed $200 towards providing for the expense, and I do not think it is necessary to impose $4 additional on each delegate here.
DEL. ROWE: I think the convention is aware of the fact that the committee that formulated those plans are heartily in favor of having a stenographic report of this convention printed, and in order to encourage the representatives from the S. T. & L. A. who started this movement by creating a $200 fund, we felt that it was absolutely essential that we raise the money immediately in order that they could feel assured of perfecting and finishing the good work started by that organization. The thought struck the committee that it might be an injustice to place an additional assessment upon that delegation after they had contributed the sum of $200, or an equivalent of $20 each for the ten representatives to this convention, but before making any provision on that matter we thought that it might be best to leave that question to this convention to be settled. Personally I feel that we should not again request those representatives to contribute, as I feel that they have done their share towards the completion of this work; but I do feel this way, that we should have a stenographic report, and that it is absolutely necessary to raise the money immediately. There are a large number of representatives to this convention who represent themselves as individuals, and they are not in a position to contribute the sum of $4 towards completing this work, but delegates who represent organizations can comply with this committee’s request, and if they do comply, I believe we will be able to go ahead and complete a stenographic report of this convention, according to the sense of the convention as adopted by the motion a few days ago. Now, it is up to the convention to say, and it is up to the representatives from the S. T. & L. A. to state whether or not they feel able to meet this assessment at this particular time. If they do not, I am one who is in favor of excusing them from contributing according to the report of that committee.
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: It seems to me that the delegates from the S. T. & L. A. cannot properly ask to be excused from this assessment. It is true that that organization has contributed $200 toward this fund, but it is not true that the $200 is being contributed by the delegates from the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance. It is very possible—in fact, I know it to be a fact—that persons who are not connected with that organization at all have contributed to that fund. I take it for granted that each of the delegates from that organization has contributed something. I however, do not know that any of the delegates has contributed anything, and I therefore do not see why the delegation should be excused from this assessment.
DEL. MURTAUGH: It is not entirely clear to my mind what is meant by the report of the committee. I do not believe that the explanation made by a member of the committee has made it as clear as it should be to the minds of those who are presumably assessed. I want to say as an individual that I care very little for the $4. I believe I am amply able to contribute. But the report says those who are being paid to come to this convention and I, perhaps, am being paid to come to this convention. My mileage is paid, nothing else. The convention seats me as an individual, of which I have no complaint to make, because it is in accordance with the Manifesto issued; but yet in this report, seating me as an individual, there seems to be an attempt made to assess me as the representative of an organization that is not represented in the convention. Mr. President, I wish to say further that when this matter was debated yesterday the question of expense came up, and there seemed to be a likelihood of the question being defeated upon that question of expense. There seemed to be also a probability of a stenographic report of the proceedings of this convention being taken whether or not the convention decided in favor of paying for that stenographic report. (Applause.) A motion was passed, if I remember right, that it be the sense of this convention; that a stenographic report be taken, and the inference was that it would be taken without expense to this convention. That was not stated plainly, but it was an inference. Immediately after that a delegate made a motion to appoint a committee on ways and means, for providing the means for meeting the expense of this stenographic report. Another delegate moved that upon that committee should be placed only those delegates to this convention who favored the stenographic report being made, and the Chairman, in endeavoring to be fair, announced that none but such would be placed upon that committee. Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to repeat that in so far as I am personally concerned, the $4 makes very little difference to me, but I say, Mr. Chairman, openly and above board, that if that was a piece of parliamentary trickery, that I for one absolutely refuse to be assessed in that manner by this convention.
THE CHAIRMAN: Will you permit the Chair to express his opinion?
DEL. MURTAUGH: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: That only the members of this convention who are receiving per diem while in attendance will come under the head of this assessment. Inasmuch as you have only received transportation and are not being paid for your time at the convention, you are not liable to this assessment.
DEL. MURTAUGH: I wish to correct a mistake, perhaps. While present I am receiving a little per diem as the business agent of the organization that I represent; nothing in connection with this.
A DELEGATE: Charge him $4.
DEL. GOODWIN: Mr. President and fellow delegates, I think I understand this proposition. The Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance has brought $200 here to help make up a fund for a stenographic report. Now, then, my suggestion is this: it struck me just a moment ago. In the event of a new organization being formed at this convention, it strikes me it would be a pretty good proposition to donate the $200 to guarantee the stenographer his per diem, and after the report is transcribed at his own expense the organization can stand per capita the expense. We have the $200 on hand now, and after the organization comes into existence it can assess its members per capita for the balance.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegates are requested to confine their remarks to the motion before the convention, that we concur in the recommendation of the committee.
DEL. GOODWIN: Well, I make that as an amendment to that.
THE CHAIRMAN: I did not catch your amendment. You did not make any amendment while you had the floor.
DEL. SCHATZKE: I will try to explain to him more distinctly than Brother Smith, as to all those delegates who are here that are paid. This delegate says he gets paid only as a b-u-s-i-n-e-s-s agent. That means that he does not get paid $10 a day for sitting here. Now, the committee has found it necessary that all those delegates who are being paid here through an organization shall pay an assessment of $4. If they cannot pay from their b-u-s-i-n-e-s-s agent’s salary they could ask their organization to help them to pay the $4, if they like to do so. All others who are here, are here because we know they, have got a certain interest, and they should contribute as much as possible voluntarily. In coming here, I am a poor man and live in Denver in two little rooms, and I came here, and it costs me $200 in this convention, and I don’t get paid as a b-u-s-in-e-s-s agent. (Laughter and applause.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that we concur in the recommendation of the committee. Those in favor of the motion will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The Chair is in doubt.
A roll call was asked for.
THE CHAIRMAN: I would ask for the uplifted right hand. Those in favor will signify it by raising their right hands. The motion is that the recommendation of the committee be concurred in. Contrary by the same sign. The motion is lost.
DEL. W. L. HALL: I move you that the matter of finances be again referred to the committee that has in charge the stenographic report.
A DELEGATE: Louder.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the delegates insist on holding private conversations it would be useless for him to speak any louder. It is impossible to conduct the business of the convention and at the same time to carry on innumerable conversations around the hall. Delegate Hall has the floor.
DEL. HALL: I move you that the matter of finances at present under consideration be referred to the same committee that reported, to bring in a different report from the one they have just made to the convention.
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: What is the use of wasting the time of the convention in this way?
THE CHAIRMAN: There is no second to this motion. There is nothing before the convention.
DEL. RYAN: I second it.
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the matter of financing the expense of a stenographic report be referred back to the committee. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. RYAN: I would like to say, as a member of that committee to which this matter was referred, that I do not believe it is proper on the part of the convention at this time to refer it back to the committee for them to make a still further recommendation. The recommendation that they made was the best one they could come to at that time. Now, then, it is up to you. By a vote of something like 100 to 27 you decided that you don’t like to go down in your jeans according to our recommendation. Therefore we think it better to leave it to the convention right now and settle it one way or the other. I don’t see how your committee can go back and frame a further recommendation. What that committee did was to the best of their ability. You practically passed it up to them, and you have their report.
DEL. SPIEGEL: I offer an amendment to the motion, that the committee canvass personally the delegations for contributions, and then if there is any lacking, assess these various groups that we have represented here. I will head that list for the Idaho State Federation with a contribution of $25. (Applause). (Amendment seconded.)
DEL. COATES: I make a motion that the special committee on this matter be discharged, and the entire matter referred to the permanent Ways and Means Committee of this convention, and let them bring in a proper plan. (Seconded).
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you offer that as an amendment?
DEL. COATES: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the amendment. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for).
DEL. DAVIS: Brother Chairman and Fellow Delegates all, by a large majority yesterday we signified our willingness to assume a certain money obligation. When we gave the assurance to the stenographer here that a certain sum of money would be raised we voluntarily placed ourselves in a position to assume the obligation that the words implied. Now, here to-day, when our committee brings in a report, we endeavor to saddle our own personal money obligations off onto some one else. It is neither fair nor just. The committee in their report made ample provision, I presume, by which the money could be raised. Now, instead of trying to carry out the committee’s report and raise that amount of money, we do like many people in all spheres of life do—try to postpone the evil hour in which we are called upon to raise this sum, and want to saddle our honest debts off upon some one else at some future time. Are you not ashamed of yourselves? I for one am ashamed to look an honest man in the face, when I voluntarily assume an obligation and then try to saddle it off onto some one else or to some future time. Let us find out right here and now, while we have got the matter before us, if there is some way to raise that money. Your Permanent Ways and Means Committee, I do not doubt, will have a report to offer.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is not a question of raising the money now. The question before this convention is whether or not this matter shall be referred to the permanent Ways and Means Committee.
DEL. DAVIS: That is all right. I will try to confine my remarks strictly to that. Now, I do not wish to have this matter referred back again. Being personally acquainted with one member of that special Ways and Means Committee, I am satisfied that the report that it will bring in again will be practically if not identically the same. I refer to Delegate Smith. Now, there is no reason in the world, in my opinion, for prolonging this matter whatsoever. I hope the motion that is now before the house will be voted down, and I for one shall vote against it.
DEL. JORGENSEN: I think the first motion that was made, to refer it back to the same committee, is the best one. Inasmuch as the recommendation of the committee was not adopted, the committee might make a better effort to suit the majority when they bring in a second report. I do not think there would be anything wrong in sending out the committee a second time. It very often happens that a judge will send out a jury a second time to determine whether they shall hang a man or not. This is not as serious a matter as that. But it seems to me that the present bill that is to be paid, ought to be paid, perhaps, for a little less than the $4 as recommended. Now, I represent the carpenters’ organizations that I belong to as an individual. They pay my expenses here and pay me my wages. Now, I am not instructed to vote even to run that organization into debt, but I know that that organization would never kick over as small a matter as $4 for such a purpose. And I think the case is likewise with other organizations that are represented here by individuals.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY, CHICAGO: As a member of that committee, I would like to call the attention of the convention to a suggestion made in the meeting of the committee as a substitute, that all the delegations here that have power to install their unions assess their membership one cent. That would make $550, and would settle the whole question.
DEL. ROWE: I have no objection to the amendment to the motion, but I would like to know if this committee, Brother Schatzke and all, are going to be honorably or dishonorably discharged.
A DELEGATE: Honorably.
DEL. FRANK KREMER: Mr. Chairman, I gained credentials in this convention because I am a revolutionist. I don’t believe in politics, and don’t suppose that this convention is going to be run by any faction, no matter what it may be, socialistic or anarchistic, trades unionist or anything else. I want to state the fact that I am here as an individual, and I am willing to pay anything that may be decided on to help this movement, and if it is required to pay one cent or ten dollars I am willing to do so. Now, this ought to give me enough reasons to speak before a convention of slaves, because slaves you are, all of you, no matter what you are; if you are handling a pick or shoving a pen, it don’t make any difference.
Calls of order, and that the delegate was not speaking to the motion.
DEL. KREMER: I am speaking to the motion, and the motion is that we should pay $4, and I am willing to pay that and a good many times more.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is not the question.
DEL. KREMER: It don’t make any difference what it may be. Mr. Chairman, if you will permit me—
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a moment.. If you will permit me to state, the motion before the house at this time is the amendment offered by Delegate Coates that this matter be referred to the standing Ways and Means Committee. Now, confine your remarks to the question at issue.
DEL. KREMER: Well, the standing Ways and Means Committee ought to go to work and decide what a man ought to pay. If we have no money, let us raise it; if we don’t have the money, let us raise it. If the standing Ways and Means Committee is to decide whether we ought to pay $4, let us pay it. I am willing to do so, and anybody else will be willing to pay the proper amount to make this thing a success. If this thing is going to be run by some political means, all right; I am willing to get out. I am not a member of any political organization, and I don’t want any political organization to run it. And if the laborers gathering in this hall—
Calls of “Order,” and “Sit down.”
DEL. KREMER: Well, if you will tell me the reason why I should sit down, I am willing to do so. I am willing to sit down if you will tell me why I should sit down.
A DELEGATE: I rise to a point of order. The gentleman is not speaking to the motion. He is speaking about his individual intentions. We don’t care about them.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chairman has requested that the delegate confine himself to the question before the convention. The chair will insist that you speak to the motion. The amendment is that this matter be referred to the Ways and Means Committee. If you are opposed to referring it, you will confine your remarks in that direction. If in the affirmative, speak in the affirmative.
DEL. KREMER: If that question is referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, then I would like to ask that committee to consider the matter very seriously, because there is not a cent in the bunch as you are all gathered here; none of us has a penny. You are all slaves. But when it comes to the point to raise enough to make this convention a success, let us do it; let us do it.
A DELEGATE: That is good; that is all right.
DEL. KREMER: I mean to say this, if the Committee on Ways and Means can tell us how to raise this fund to make this convention a success, let us do it. That is all I have got to say, and I am willing to say no more.
A DELEGATE: Good boy.
DEL. PAYMENT: Brothers, I think this question ought to be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, but I also think and I know that there are delegates here that have not got the money; but I know that there are some that have the money, and I know that this money will be raised here. I myself, as an individual, will give $10; not that I intend that the local that sent me here shall pay that.
A DELEGATE: I rise to a point or order. The gentleman is not speaking to the motion.
DEL. PAYMENT: I am.
The interrupting delegate: He is talking about his personal finances. We want to get through with this business some time.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question is whether or not this matter shall be referred to the standing Ways and Means Committee.
DEL. PAYMENT: I was not here yesterday; I was working. I do not doubt but what the Committee on Ways and Means that this body has appointed is an honest committee. Let us leave it to the Committee on Ways and Means, and then if somebody wants to donate something let them have the privilege of doing so.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question has been called for.
A DELEGATE: A point of information. I would like to ask if this business be urgent and must be debated immediately.
THE CHAIRMAN: We haven’t got any bill yet. We don’t owe any one a cent. It is just a question of raising the money to carry out the sense of the convention with regard to having a stenographic report.
The previous question was called for.
DEL. SHERMAN: I am in favor of the amendment as made by Delegate Coates, that the committee be discharged and the matter referred to the regular committee. I want to state my reasons. I believe that every delegate here is heartily in accord with the good and welfare of this movement, but I believe there are those here who do not realize what this proposition means. I believe that the committee that this should be referred to is a committee who realize the responsibility of the work of this convention, realizing the responsibility of the ways and means and what the ways and means are to be used for and how it is to be paid, and I believe they are better fitted to judge the ways and means in which this fund should be raised or better fitted to make a recommendation to this convention as to whether this report should be got out or not. Many in this convention, I think; believe that this assessment that has been offered here by this committee would meet the expenditure of getting out this report and printing it. I want to say to you, sisters and brothers, that it would simply mean the expense of taking it off on the typewriter, and in order to get it into printed form you will have to make an assessment on somebody and raise from $2,500 to $3,500. Before that is done the New York Daily People will undoubtedly print the greatest part of it, and it will go into history, and most of the people who are interested in it will have read it, and consequently it will have become a dead issue. For that reason I believe that we should stop and consider what debt this means. This means only a part of the. debt that is going to be raised. There are millions in this country that we want to organize, and if we have got any money let us send the agitator and the organizer among the rank and file that is not organized and organize them, rather than print a report that will not be read by anybody. (Applause.)
Question called for.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question has been called for. The amendment is that the special committee be discharged and this matter be referred to the standing Ways and Means Committee. Those in favor will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The ayes seem to have it.
Division called for.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is carried, the substitute. When the convention adjourned—
DEL. SUNAGEL: I got here late. I would like to have a rising vote on that.
THE CHAIRMAN: I can’t understand a word you say.
DEL. SUNAGEL: I would like to know whether I have a right to vote.
THE CHAIRMAN: The subject has already been disposed of.
THE CHAIRMAN: When the convention adjourned you had adopted the report of your Committee on Rules of Order, which provides that this day shall be set aside for the discussion of different topics, providing that the appointments of the regular committees had been made. In the opinion of the chair the convention should at this time proceed to the election of the permanent committees, so that as much of this day as has been set apart by your Committee on Rules of Order can be used for the purpose indicated. Therefore the several groups will announce their appointments for committeemen on constitution. It will be necessary for you to reduce it to writing and lay the same on the Secretary’s desk.
DEL. SCHATZKE: A point of information. There are a good many delegates, I believe, who did not know anything about it, and it takes time to think about those matters, and I believe that it would be a good idea
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you ask for a point of information?
DEL. SCHATZKE: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is it that you desire?
DEL. SCHATZKE: I would like to ask whether it would not be better to have the convention now appoint a Constitution Committee ; then a delegate will know what he has got to do, and can come back with the idea of what he thinks is best to be in the constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: I agree with you, yes. Now we want to get a committee so that that committee will know something about it. I think it would be well to permit the Secretary to call the roll of the different organizations that are in groups, so that we can get the positions of all’ their committeemen, and then I will announce the different committeemen from the different groups.
The roll was called as suggested by the Chairman, after which the Chairman announced the composition of the following committees:
Western Federation of Miners—Charles H. Moyer.
S. T. & L. A.—Thomas J. Powers.
Paper Hangers’ Union—John M. Vail.
U. B. R. E.—E. H. Williamson.
American Labor Union—John Riordan.
United Metal Workers—C. O. Sherman.
Industrial Workers’ Club, Chicago—T. J. Hagerty.
Red Lodge Miners’ Union—Alex. Fairgrieve.
Punch Press Operators, Schenectady—C. W. Roff.
Industrial Club, Cincinnati—Max Eisenberg.
Cloak Makers, Montreal—R. J. Kerrigan.
Flat Janitors’ Union, Chicago—C. H. Cranston.
Individuals appointed by Chairman—T. W. Rowe, Flint Glass Workers; W. C. Critchlow, Laborers; J. C. Sullivan, Miners’ Union, Victor.
Western Federation of Miners—Albert Ryan.
S. T. & L. A.—Paul Dinger.
Paper Hangers’ Union—No selection.
U. B. R. E.—J. P. Fitzgerald.
A. L. U.—D. C. Coates.
United Metal Workers—James Smith.
Flat Janitors—C. H. Cranston.
Cloak Makers—R. J. Kerrigan.
Industrial Workers’ Club, Cincinnati—Max Eisenberg.
Punch Press Operators—C. W. Roff.
Industrial Workers’ Club, Chicago—R. C. Goodwin.
Individuals—Eugene V. Debs, Frank R. Wilke, W. F. Weber.
Del. Eisenberg: As I am the only one from Cincinnati, I cannot be on all those committees. Being on another committee, you can fill that with some one else.
Western Federation of Miners—J. A. Baker.
S. T. & L. A.—J. T. L. Remley.
U. B. R. E.—Ferd H. Hopkins.
A. L. U.—D. McDonald.
United Metal Workers—C. Kirkpatrick.
Flat Janitors—C. H. Cranston.
Cloak Makers—R. J. Kerrigan.
Punch Press Operators—C. W. Roff.
Paper Hangers—John A. Ayers.
Individuals—A. F. Germer, Mother Jones.
Western Federation of Miners—C. H. McKinnon.
S. T. & L. A.—Octave Held.
U. B. R. E.-A. W. Morrow.
A. L. U.—H. S. Davis.
United Metal Workers—J. W. Rowe.
Industrial Workers’ Club, Chicago—Mrs. Bohlmann.
Flat Janitors—Charles McKay.
Punch Press Operators—C. W. Roff.
Cloak Makers—R. J. Kerrigan.
Western Federation of Miners—W. D. Haywood.
S. T. & L. A.—H. J. Brimble.
U. B. R. E.—Ferd Henion.
A. L. U.—Clarence Smith.
United Metal Workers—C. McKay.
Industrial Workers’ Club, Chicago—Mrs. Lillian Forberg.
Pueblo Tailors—A. Klemensic.
Cloak Makers, Montreal—R. J. Kerrigan.
Punch Press Operators—C. W. Roff.
Flat Janitors—Chas. McKay.
Paper Hangers, Chicago—F. D. Pryor.
Tailors—J. Samuels.
Individuals—A. M. Simons, Pat O’Neil, Ferd R. Shotak.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is all of the standing committees as provided for by your Committee on Rules. The chair would suggest that there is one other very important committee that should be appointed by this convention, and that is a Label and Emblem Committee.
DEL. SPIEGEL: Being a member of the Committee on Rules, I make a motion that we now appoint or let the chair appoint a committee of five, known as a Label and Emblem Committee, limited to five.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion could not be entertained by the chair unless the convention reconsiders its action of yesterday wherein it was provided that each one of the groups appoint a member on each committee selected by this convention.
DEL. SPIEGEL: All right, I will withdraw that.
DEL. GLASGOW: I make a motion that this convention reconsider its former action in selecting these committees by the various groups and that the Chairman appoint a Committee on Label and Emblem. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I would ask if the brother here voted in the affirmative. Did you vote in the affirmative on the method of appointing committees yesterday?
DEL. GLASGOW: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is that we now reconsider this action and that the chair appoint a Label and Emblem Committee. The motion is to reconsider the action that you have taken on the method of appointing committees. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. SAINER: I think it is best at the inception of this movement to recognize the fact that to make this organization practical depends upon the character of the members of the organization. I think that following out this line, we ought to vote down anything of that kind.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: As the mover of that motion, I favored heartily the action taken yesterday in giving to the groups the selection of the committees, as that was the proper course. But now, after having done that, and this committee being of such grave importance, and believing that the Chairman is one who has had sufficient importance, and relying on his judgment in selecting a committee of this kind, I think it would be wise now, in order to save valuable time, that we reconsider that action and place in the hands of the Chairman the appointment of that Committee on Emblem and Label.
The question was called for.
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded that we reconsider the action of yesterday as to the method of appointing committees. The question has been called for. Those in favor of the motion will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is lost.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I move you that there be a special committee of five on Label and Emblem appointed, and that that committee be appointed by the chair. (Seconded.)
A DELEGATE: That was the same motion.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: No, the other was a special committee of ten.
DEL. COATES: I move you that such a committee be added to the regular list of committees, and that a list of the members be handed to the Chairman, selected as the other committees of the convention. (Seconded.)
The motion was put and carried.
THE CHAIRMAN: The several groups will take notice and appoint their members on the Committee on Label and Emblem.
THE CHAIRMAN: The business before the convention at this time, inasmuch as the standing committees have been disposed of, is the discussion as provided for by your Committee on Rules of Order And Business. Your committee suggests that the following topics be taken up: Reasons for the Manifesto; name of organization; tactics and methods; the first of May as International Labor Day; agreements vs. contracts; international relations. Reasons for the Manifesto will be the first topic tinder discussion, and the chair will not confine the delegates to the topics set forth in the rules of order; that is to say, the convention will not be closely confined to any particular topic during this discussion.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I understand I was appointed on a committee from a group representing an organization that I do not belong to. I want to know if any group having the power to appoint committeemen have a right to go outside of their group and appoint any one on any committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: They would not have a right to go outside of their group and select any one for any committee.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I understand my name was placed on a committee that has been appointed by representatives of an organization or group that I do not belong to.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have no place on that committee. The convention is now open for the discussion of the topics as suggested.
DEL. SCHATZKE: How much time is allowed? Is it only five minutes?
THE CHAIRMAN: Ten minutes is allowed to each speaker.
DEL. WILKE: A point of information. Did I understand you to say that under this head no speaker would be confined to a certain topic?
THE CHAIRMAN: I said that no speaker would be confined closely to the topic set forth. The reasons for the Manifesto cover a broad field for discussion.
DEL. WILKE: My idea is this, that we take up these various phases that are to be discussed, seriatim, and thrash them out one at a time. Otherwise we will find somebody jumping over onto “organization” before we get through.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is the idea. Secretary Trautmann has the floor.
Address of W. E. TRAUTMANN.
Comrade Chairman and Delegates: When the general conference was called, it was not so much owing to the form of organization prior to that; it was not so much the methods of the past and the inadequacy of the craft unionism of the American Federation of Labor and the Knights of Labor. It was far more—the conception of the corruption and the crimes that have been perpetrated by capitalist henchmen in the ranks of labor against the toilers of this land (applause) ; realizing this one fact, that the old unions have been established to promote harmony between the masters of the tools and those who toil to bring profit to the few. Knowing very well that under that construction of the trades and crafts union movement these crimes have been perpetrated to perpetuate the system of capitalist robbery, we came together and issued that Manifesto, well aware of the fact that the toilers of this land do not know to the extent that they ought to know the crimes that have been perpetrated in the last fifteen years, and even more. All those who know the history of the fight of the Knights of Labor and have seen the downfall of that once great order; all those who have come into the American Federation of Labor, believing that that organization after the 1886 convention at St. Louis would become an instrument of the class struggle to bring about the emancipation of the working class on the economic field, and have seen how that organization has been debauched and corrupted by the labor leaders; all those who realized that some other methods and some other forms had to be established in order to open the eyes of the working class,—came together and issued the Manifesto with the indictment against the old form of organization. (Applause). It was charged against the issuers of the Manifesto, in some industrial union papers of Europe, as I can prove, that those who issued the Manifesto could not prove that such a thing existed as a collusion between the owners of the tools and the labor leaders of this country. If you file information and charges, you have to prove them, and before this convention we stand to-day ready to prove most of the charges that to-day the trade union movement has become an auxiliary to the capitalist class in order to hold down the toilers of the land. (Applause). All that has been said, all that has been charged against individuals in the trade union movement is absolutely nonsensical if we do not go down to the bottom from which these crimes arise. If you realize the harmony between capital and labor; if you recognize such a thing to exist, then you should not wonder that labor leaders become the labor lieutenants of capitalism, in order, as Mark Hanna stated in his address in Columbus three years ago, and which is in my possession, that “we must try to Americanize the trades unions,” and in order to accomplish that the labor lieutenant of capitalism and the labor lieutenant of the captain of industry must work hand in hand with the labor lieutenant of the working class. I intended before I came to this convention to compile from my own bitter experience in the trades union movement, from the fights and quarrels and battles and tribulations a synopsis so that it might go before the world and prove from the trades union journals and from the documents of the trades unions that they cannot act otherwise and be consistent because they are and recognize that they are under the management of the capitalist class. I bring such as I have already got completed; I bring that in a concise and brief form, with all the documents whereby from the trades union journals to prove that such indictments were in order, and that the world should know that not so much the forms, whether it be industrial or craft unionism, not so much the process that we have seen going on of accumulation of capital in the hands of the few and the concentration of the workers in other lands has so much to do with the coming revolution in the trade union movement, but the fact that we have never, or those who are in the American Federation of Labor have never recognized the fact that an economic organization of the working class must be based upon the recognition of the class conflict, and upon that recognition alone will rest the guidance and emancipation of the workers and the actions of those who are entrusted as its officers. If they recognize those axioms and those laws, then their actions will be governed thereby, and such things as Civic Federation banquets with scab bread and scab cigars will never happen again among those who are enlightened as to the causes of all these debaucheries and all this corruption in the union movement of this land.
In the arguments and indictments against the old form of labor organization and its methods reference must be made to certain persons intimately connected with the American Federation of Labor. In so far as the nature of my task requires me to deal with individuals I shall be guided by the rule which Karl Marx lays down in the preface to his work on Capitalist Production, to wit: “Here individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class-interests.” In this view the harmful actions of officers of the American Federation of Labor must be understood as the natural outcome of their attitude toward the problems of capital and labor.
Since, then, most of the organizations chartered by the A. F. of L. are based upon a presumed agreement of interests between the capitalist class and the working class, the general trend of their official administration is more or less consciously in the direction of capitalist supremacy with all its evils and the corruption which marks its sway.
You are gathered here to hear the proofs which warrant the general indictment of craft unionism as set forth in the Manifesto. With you rests the decision as to whether or not the facts which I am about to relate are strong enough in number and significance to justify the formation of a new organization rooted in the class struggle and the adoption of new methods to promote the interests of the working class.
In the days of the small manufacturer trades unions were able to wrest from the owner of the tools certain rights and concessions without, however, any protest against the basic principles of profitmaking. Here and there, workingmen made demands which invaded the inner sanctuary of exploitation and, as a result of strikes and lockouts, the machinery of capitalism was threatened with serious damage. Many of the far-seeing members of the capitalist class perceived the importance of making the craft unions serve the purposes of commerce by keeping them within the bounds of capitalist economics. To accomplish this end it is plain that the workers must be held in ignorance of the true reasons which draw them together into unions. The very nature of craft unionism made this end easy of achievement, and developed unscrupulous men who performed the service for the capitalist class of keeping the laboring class divided by trade aristocracies and endless jurisdiction quarrels and by preaching, in season and out of season, the doctrine of the community of interests— between the workers and the shirkers.
Thus, in the official publication of the St. Louis, Mo., Exposition, 1904, of the American Federation of Labor Exhibit in Social Economy Building, Samuel Gompers, president of the A. F. of L., argues:
“It is not without reason that the members of this vast federation have been inspired with confidence in the ability and devotion of their officers, All of these latter are working officers of the most successful national unions, and as such have proved their capacity before being promoted to their present positions. It should be remembered that it was the council of the American Federation of Labor, acting in conjunction with the chiefs of the railway brotherhoods, which refused to participate in the great strike on the railroads centering in Chicago in 1894, and thus averted a bloody and disastrous conflict with the military forces of the United States. It was this same council that in refusing to affiliate with the Central Federation of New York, with its fifty-nine local unions and some 18,ooo members, because it included a branch of the Socialist Labor Party, struck the key-note of resistance against the dangerous delusion that the emancipation of the working class can be achieved by placing in the hands of shallow politicians the business enterprises now conducted by private persons. And it was the same council whose policy after an envenomed conflict of five years’ duration, was vindicated in open convention by a decisive vote of 1,796 against 274 and the program of the common ownership of all the means of production and distribution was declared alien to the trade union movement.”
And here is the document (holding up printed report). And it is the same story in the railway strike of 1894. So you men who were in the battles then, you have it under the seal of the American Federation of Labor, with the signature of Samuel Gompers attached, that he was one of the lieutenants of capitalism who broke the strike.
“By the systematic pursuit of a policy as above illustrated, the American Federation of Labor has demonstrated to the world that the spirit of the trade union is essentially conservative, and that in the measure of its conservation it has become the most valuable agent of social progress. This is a truth only grasped by the most capable minds, and it is the recognition of this truth, and its practical application in the industrial world, that has enabled the American Federation of Labor to transform the old-time trade union forces and tactics into a disciplined army, only engaging in industrial war when diplomacy has utterly failed.”
In this statement Mr. Gompers outlines what has been evidently agreed upon between him and his colleagues in the National Civic Federation: namely, that the craft union movement is to act as the Pretorian Guard of the capitalist system. Indeed, the very purpose of the National Civic Federation and the reason of its existence is to use, and in the using to corrupt, the labor movement to the lasting enslavement of the working class.
Out of the great mass of evidence which I have gathered to show the practical operation of craft unionism along the lines of capitalist exploitation I have selected first that pertaining to the Cigar Makers’ International Union of America. Its constitution establishes an aristocracy of labor and discriminates against workingmen because of their race and the poverty of their circumstances.
Section 64, page 17 of the tenth edition of the constitution, provides that “All persons engaged in the cigar industry, except Chinese coolies and tenement-house workers, shall be eligible to membership; this shall include manufacturers who employ no journeymen cigar makers, and foremen who have less than six members of the union working under them.” It is further specified that “the acceptance of rollers and filler breakers as members by initiation or by card shall be optional with local unions, except in places where the system has already been introduced.” This section is manifestly designed to foster a monopoly of a few craftsmen in collusion with a certain class of manufacturers against outsiders. Section 154, page 39, reveals additional evidence in the clause that “no union shall be allowed to furnish the labels for cigars made in whole or in part by machinery.” Thus the blue label of the Cigar Makers’ International Union of America, instead of being a mark of improved conditions for all workers in the cigar industry, is merely the medium whereby a small proportion of trades unionists, by mutual agreement with employers on the selling price of cigars, preserve some rights which they refuse to extend to those of their craft who work in shops where machinery is used and to those whose employers cannot be forced to sell their goods at the prices stipulated by the union. Yet in spite of these restrictions and notwithstanding membership discrimination against Chinese and tenement-house workers, section 154 of the constitution provides that “where the manufacturer deals in Chinese, tenement-house or scab cigars, it shall be optional with local unions to withhold the label from such a firm.”
Stogie-makers and common workers in cigar factories and employes of the Cigar Trust are absolutely debarred from the union, and when they tried to organize under the American Federation of Labor they were refused a charter because the Cigar Makers’ International Union of America objected to its issuance. (See Proceedings of A. F. of L. Convention, held in Detroit, 1899). This is also true of the Tobacco Workers’ International Union into whose membership no employes of the Tobacco Trust may be admitted and whose regulations provide that whenever an independent union factory becomes absorbed by the trust the label shall be withdrawn and the employes either leave the factory or the union.
That the Cigar Makers’ International Union of America have the support of some manufacturers to the extent of the latter’s readiness to assist them in a strike against rival manufacturers is borne out by a statement in the Cigar Makers’ Official Journal, March, 1905, page 5, namely: Daniel S. Jacobs, writing from New York, sums up the method for fighting the trust through a strike of their employes and affirms that “the independent manufacturers would encourage the strike in every way. They could be relied upon for every possible support.”
The Cigar Makers’ Official Journal, December, 1903, publishes without editorial protest a letter from a cigar maker named David Goldstein in which the writer upholds the Boot and Shoe Workers’ Union of Lynn, Mass., for scabbing on the Knights of Labor cutters and avers that “the vital principle at stake, the maintenance of the contracts, of its integrity, forced the Boot and Shoe Workers’ Union to furnish men in the teeth of fierce opposition to fill the places of the K. of L. cutters who had quit work.”
Not only is scabbing thus endorsed in the interests of the sanctity of contract but it is also practiced by the cigar makers themselves. In the well-known case of the Resistencia of Tampa and Key West, Florida, a militant working class organization, the Cigar Makers’ International Union of America, assisted the manufacturers to crush out of existence this admirably class conscious union.
Another organization which is even more notably in collusion with the employers than the Cigar Makers’ International Union of America is the United Garment Workers of America. In 1903 the Association of Manufacturers of Workingmen’s Garments met in Chicago to confer with officials of the United Garment Workers concerning the regulation of the prices of garments and the use of the union label. Agreements were made between the two contracting parties by which the union became the facile tool of the employers. On January 26th and 27th, 1904, the Association met again in New York. According to the Weekly Bulletin of the Clothing Trades, February 5, official organ of the United Garment Workers of America, “the chairman was Mr. H. S. Peters, a member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, and a manufacturer . It was voted by each firm to subscribe a liberal sum to the fund of the national union for advertising the union label and to assist the union in improving the quality of the goods bearing the label. One of the principal objects of the Association is to remedy selling abuses that create an injurious competition and the effects of which are to depress wages and make difficult an increase . Walter Charriere, president of the Shirt, Waist and Laundry Workers, spoke on the label of his union. He said that his union wanted the shirt, waist and laundry workers’ label to be placed on both working and dress shirts. He also stated that he had attended the convention for the purpose of trying to assist the manufacturers in preventing competition between those manufacturers using his label and the label of the U. G. W. of A. General Secretary White replied that his organization objected to a divided jurisdiction in one shop.” The convention then passed a resolution favoring the United Garment Workers of America as against the other union because its plans were ordered with a view to using the United Garment Workers for its own aggrandizement.
This jurisdiction fight occurred in Chicago, you will remember, when the so-called Independent Clothing Makers caused a lockout and the members of our class were clubbed on the street in battling with the police and lieutenants of the capitalist class, without knowing that they were hoodwinked.
At the annual convention of the Association of Overall Manufacturers using the union label held in New York, January, 1904, the general officers of the United Garment Workers were invited to participate in the work of the convention, and, according to the Weekly Bulletin of the Clothing Trades, the general secretary attended and delivered an address. A Baltimore manufacturer, Mr. Moses Morris, is quoted by the Bulletin as saying in the course of his address to the convention:
“I had a talk with Henry White, of the Garment Workers, in which he agreed with me that an organization of the manufacturers using the label could be made of great benefit to his organization as well, and that by concerted action a great many evils might be remedied, or at least lessened, and new evils prevented to a great degree . . . After all is said and done, none of us is more or less than a labor organizer himself, in the large sense, and I am proud of being able to term myself an organizer of labor, and I sincerely hope that those whom I have organized, with a view of producing certain articles economically and good, realize that in being one of their head workers I assume a great deal of responsibility that some labor organizers do not seem to realize.”
You find in one industry in the American Federation of Labor the organization has made a contract with the manufacturers for the use of the label on scab goods because the representative of the manufacturers was a personal friend of the executive head of the organization.
That this combination of worker and shirker is carried on in the interest of the latter is amply proved by the fact that the union label is used as an advertising agency for the manufacturer. Thus, according to the Bulletin of April 15, 1904:
“W. H. Scott, advertising manager of Sweet, Orr & Co., has organized a Union Label Advertising League, his mode of advertising being by public demonstrations in conjunction with those retail merchants who sell union made products. Exhibitions of labels and other union symbols are given in halls or theaters, and to this method is added street parades on a grand scale, with unique features.”
The union label, it will be observed, is practically the manufacturers’ label. In the account of the 1905 convention of the Union Made Garment Manufacturers of America the Weekly Bulletin of the Clothing Trades, under the title of Perfect Harmony with “Union Made” Firms, reports that “a uniform national scale for the overall trade is to be considered by a special committee and a committee of the union prior to the union’s convention. To cap the climax the manufacturers selected as their secretary and labor commissioner Walter Chuck, the well-known General Executive Board member of our international union.” And in rebuttal of a charge made by the Daily Trade Record the Bulletin avers that “the only hostility shown is toward those employers, label or non-label, who refuse to come up to the standards demanded equally and invariably of all manufacturers.” These standards you will perceive from what I have already said are measured by the selling price agreements of the union manufacturers.
The same “harmony of interests” conspiracy exists between the International Boot and Shoe Workers and the shoe manufacturers as evidenced in the business transactions of the international officers of that union in the last four years. Their official journal openly admits that the label should be issued to manufacturers at the discretion of the national officers, and that “the shoe worker must come to the realization of the fact that owing to existing conditions the majority of the manufacturers do not derive anywhere near as large a profit from their business as the manufacturers in other directions . . . The opponents of the present policy of the Boot and Shoe Workers’ Union claim that wages should be increased before the union stamp is issued. At the present time there is about as much sense in this as there would be in a shoe worker with a sturdy pair of legs buying crutches to navigate on, or taking a dose of Paris green for an invigorator.”
In the February, 1905, edition of the Boot and Shoe Workers’ Journal the following argument is made in favor of the manufacturer:
“The sentiment of the meeting of the manufacturers was that an advance in the selling price of shoes was absolutely necessary, not only in the welfare of the shoe manufacturers, but also the jobber and retailer. To this should be added the shoe workers. Unless the manufacturers get together and formulate some practical agreement or plan fixing a fair price for their product a large number of them must continue to operate their factories at a little above the expense of carrying on the business.”
There can be little doubt that a more or less formal agreement exists between the manufacturers and the union officials for the purpose of limiting the number of those manufacturers who may use the union stamp so that, with the aid of the union officials, any increased demand for union made shoes may redound to the profit of the manufacturers in the combination rather than to the enlargement of wages for the boot and shoe workers.
It is not overstepping the bounds of truth to say that, whatever crimes have been perpetrated against the workers by agents of the capitalist class in the ranks of labor, none is more atrocious than those committed by international officers of the Boot and Shoe Workers, notably by Tobin, their general president and a member of the Civic Federation; Eaton, their former secretary, Skeffington and Gordon—vampires all who fatten upon the life-blood of the toilers.
Now I will recall a case from memory because I have not the documents here. There is present at this convention as one of the delegates a man who was a victim in this case. Here comes the General Secretary of the Boot and Shoe Workers’ Union, offering the Hamilton-Brown factory to operate one of their nonunion factories with union men, to show the manager of that firm after a certain lapse of time that shoes can be manufactured cheaper in union than in nonunion factories, and the result showed that the cost under the agreement with the Boot and Shoe Workers’ organization, the wages of the slaves in the union factories, were less than where you have no organization. (Applause). And here are men in St. Louis thrown out on the street because, as letters in my possession from the Boot and Shoe Workers’ Union will prove, the officers insisted that the boot and shoe workers be not organized in St. Louis; and when the men in the factories insisted that they had a right to come together, and when they were forced to go on the street, it was the same Boot and Shoe Workers’ Union that filled the places of the men and crushed the spirit of those people.
If I had time to compile the facts I could show many instances where the organizations have been used as the instruments of the capitalist class against the interests of the toilers.
Now as to the indictment against the high initiation fee. Here comes over to this country a Bohemian by the name of Richard Czarniak, belonging for eleven years to the industrial unions of Germany, Switzerland, Bohemia, France, and Denmark, and everywhere recognized with his card as a glass blower. He comes upon the shores of this country, and being imbued with the class solidarity of the toilers and believing that the doors of the unions would be open to him, he applies for a job in a factory in New Jersey. The manufacturer tells him he can give him work, but before he can give him work he will have to apply for admission in the Green Bottle Blowers’ Union. He makes application for admission to an organization belonging to the American Federation of Labor, and the Vice President of the Federation sends a reply, and the letters are on file, that unless he pays down $500 as an initiation fee he will not be allowed to work, and that man has been made a scab because he could not get work under the union.
You go to the City of New York and you find unions charging $100 initiation fee, and you find also a press censorship against those who rebel against this condition of things. You find the National Civic Federation fostering this condition through the trade journals in the last few years, and through the trade unions of this land, including the machinists’ journals, annexed to the so-called literary education club of the Civic Federation, and dictating what should be admitted into the labor journals and what should be rejected.. A press censorship has been established in this country, not by the capitalist class, but by the lieutenants of the capitalist class in the labor ranks. (Loud applause). And when you realize that the Green Bottle Blowers’ organization could not exist except by the permission of the capitalists; when you realize the fact that the Annheuser Busch Brewing Company of St. Louis, was the first one that organized the Green Bottle Blowers in the belief that it would be a club which the American Federation of Labor could hold over the heads of other manufacturers of beer in this country by creating a monopoly through a $500 initiation fee; when you realize that the same Green Bottle Blowers’ organization is fighting against all inventions and fighting them if possible out of existence so as to uphold its monopoly of a $500 initiation fee, then you will see that it is you workers that are interested in the destruction of this condition.
I have letters from engineers and firemen who were driven out of their country over the sea, who were union men all their lives from the time they were eighteen years of age, and who tried to get positions in New York City with a good-standing card from the Socialist Labor Party of Bohemia, with a good-standing card in the union for twelve years, and on account of so-called restrictions in the license laws these same good revolutionary union men were denied the right to work in union factories. There are delegates on the floor of this convention that know these facts.
It was the realization of these facts, the realization of the many crimes perpetrated, a realization of facts that my own bitter experience can prove; when we see men and women of our class standing. in line fighting injunctions and detectives, and the labor leaders saying: “We will fill your places if you don’t go back to work”; and when we see them compelled to submit by the mandate of Samuel Gompers and the mandate of the American Federation of Labor, and forced to go back to work and lose their strike;—it is the realization of these facts that has forced men to become the enemies of the craft union movement. (Applause.)
In the Western Federation of Miners, it can be proved by uncontroverted evidence, that by collusion between Mr. Gompers and the Executive Board of the American Federation of Labor prior to the Cripple Creek disaster, it was decided to crush that Western Federation organization out of existence because it would not submit to the mandates of the Executive Council of the American Federation of Labor. (Applause). It can be proved that letters were sent to unions three years ago to withdraw support from the Western Federation of Miners. It can be proved that after the mine disaster in Independence Mr. Easley, of the Civic Federation, on behalf of the American Federation of Labor Executive Board, sent a telegram to Peabody, Governor of Colorado, ordering that no discrimination should be made against members of the American Federation of Labor. It is on record that Governor Peabody said, “We have no objection against organizations working in harmony with the capitalist class.” (Applause). They have no objections because they are practically auxiliaries of the capitalist class. But they must fight these revolutionary unions which stand and fight for something better for the working class; who believe not, as Mitchell believes, that the toiler should practically give up hope of ever bettering his present conditions, but which rather foster the idea that our mission is to free the working class from the bondage of wage slavery and do away with the henchmen of the capitalist class who are acting as the labor lieutenants of this land.
We have the evidence to back up, as this evidence has been collected, that every crime charged in the last five years can be proved. Here in the teamsters’ strike in Chicago a year prior, Mr. Shaw went to Chicago and threatened the common brewery workers that they would fill the places of the brewery workers if they should insist on demanding one dollar more wages. The threat was made in black and white that they would fill the places of the union men, and by that means the breweries were saved $850,000.
It is this indictment of the pure and simple craft union movement that has brought the men and women together to fight for a better organization, to struggle for a better economic organization that will, in conjunction with all that makes for progress, bring us to the desired goal where the workers will be free. (Prolonged applause.)
During the delivery of Secretary’s indictment, on motion of Delegate A. M. Simons, the speaker was granted unlimited time to complete his remarks.
During the address, also, Mother Jones was called to the chair, and presided during the remainder of the morning session.
At the conclusion of the address the convention adjourned until one o’clock.
• Day 3, Afternoon Session : Thursday, June 29
Chairman Haywood called the convention to order about one o’clock.
THE CHAIRMAN: When the convention adjourned we were under the head of discussion of the reason for the Manifesto.
SPEECH OF A. KLEMENSIC, PUEBLO.
DEL. KLEMENSIC: Brother Chairman, Brother Delegates and Sister Delegates: As I understand the conditions in this country since I landed on these shores fifteen years ago, in 1890, I have seen that there is a bottom, a main philosophy to be found among the working class which form the pedestal to the capitalist class. The prevailing philosophy is this: “Get rich quick; honestly if you can, but get rich anyhow.” And this “get rich quick anyhow” brings us to the standard, to the conditions that Comrade Trautmann was indicting, the main feature of the trade organizations as they exist under the wing of the American Federation of Labor. Now, I would like to call attention to this fact: that the organizations were organized under this main bottom philosophy, “Get rich quick ; get rich anyhow ; honestly if you can, but make money if you can.” Now, then, under that philosophy, can you blame the labor fakir if he preys on you or otherwise gets rich, if he carries out your own philosophy?
DEL. SUNAGEL: Mr. Chairman—
DEL. KLEMENSIC: Sit down. You will get your turn.
DEL. SUNAGEL: I insist that the delegate shall speak upon something that the chair has announced as proper for discussion.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sunagel. permit the chair to say that if you continue to interrupt this convention it will be necessary to remove you from the hall. Brother Klemensic will continue. (Applause.)
DEL. KLEMENSIC: Now, taking this as the main philosophy on which the trade unions were organized, you must understand that if the organizers and members of the trade organizations had understood from the start the class struggle, all those struggles never would have come up, and the condition whereby the captain of industry controls the management of labor organizations and secures harmony between capital and labor and all work for the aggrandizement of the capitalistic plutocracy would never have come to pass. It is necessary for us to understand clearly and plainly the conditions. In 1890 the class struggle was at a very low ebb, and those of us who have been watching conditions in this country for the last twenty years know the reason why. You know that in this country there were industrial strikes begun in 1884 and 1885 and 1886, and you know what the result was. The plutocracy wanted victims, and they got their victims. I have seen men hanged for the truth in this city, in this very place. (Applause). Industrial unionism at that time had begun to shake capitalism to its very foundation, and the judges and plutocrats in this country decided to hang the men with the hope of hanging industrial unionism at the same time. But let me tell you that industrial unionism is here in this very city again to declare its right and demand its right. (Applause). The voices that plutocracy thought to silence when it tried to hang unionism are heard again, and we are here to-day to reorganize that very work that was started twenty years ago. (Applause). The conditions that were brought forward with the reorganized American Federation of Labor were these: that the workman is willing to be a slave; he wants to be a slave, and he praises the lord and master for his kindness in giving him a job. He will kick against getting $2.50 for a day’s work of eight or nine hours, but he will lick the boots of the master if he can get $3 a day. Now, through this system they have been able to organize an industrial aristocracy as Brother Trautmann very well explained this morning. By means of this system there are some few privileged men who, through their power with labor organizations and through fraternizing with the capitalists, are making good wages; they have got some standing in society and they are very respectable citizens, and therefore any one that will rebel against general conditions is to be an outcast from society. That was the condition that was brought about after the re-organization, after the troubles here in Chicago and in other places.
Now, then, the education went on after the hanging of the men here in Chicago. The class struggle is more and more prominent. Brother Trautmann explained very plainly how the corruption is going do in trade unions. All those that have been watching the movement in the different Socialist parties, Democratic party and Republican party, know of the corruption that has been going on in those places. Now, we know that it matters not what political party the workingman trusts in, he has been betrayed in every political party, and he is going to be betrayed by every political party in which he is going to trust. Therefore it was seen that there was a necessity for a new declaration of principles and a new re-organization of the labor forces. It was necessary for the workingman to see that his salvation lies in direct action, that is, in action directly to wrest from the capitalist his means of oppression and controlling his bread; and when he sees this he will take this if he can, either directly by violence, or through cooperation, or otherwise, according as the working people are able to organize themselves and find a means to solve this problem.
Now, we do not overlook the fact that the salvation of the worker, the possibility of the man to control his own destiny, lies among the workers themselves ; and in the membership in this convention we have men and women that will take their own destiny into their own hands. We do not expect any Messiah ; we do not expect it to come through any man of great authority or great knowledge, but that everybody shall feel in himself, in his own self, that he is able to direct his own forces, and shall have no particular desire to direct the force of other people and other individuals. Now, I think that we, the people here, have outgrown the idea that we are not able to direct ourselves, and what we want to do is to let other people and other individuals do the same thing, and so we may go hand in hand and work directly for the conquest of our necessities which we are now producing for the other fellow.
Now, the question is often asked: How can it be done, who is going to run the railroads and so on—who is doing the work today? Aren’t we doing the work to-day? We are doing the work today for the master, because we are organized on the basis of being slaves, and with no hopes—and this is the cherished idea of the leaders of the American Federation of Labor, that we shall remain slaves —with no hopes and no arrangement whatsoever for better conditions. Nowadays we know that the development of industry has gone on to such an extent that there are a lot of people, a lot of individuals, that are conscious of their rights as well as the rights of their brothers and sisters, and they do not spend their time speculating how to crush down other individuals in order to get rich quick and in any way or form. They are working and producing, and they demand their share in the benefits of progress and development and the possibilities in this country, and they are satisfied with that. But what we do is to insist that we shall get our share that we are producing, and we stand on the motto of the comrades of the Western Federation of Miners that they retain in their magazine and on their emblem, that “All wealth is produced by labor, and it belongs to the producer thereof.” That is the program that we want, and that is the program that we will stick to and that we will carry out to the letter. And that is the reason for the call of the Manifesto, as I understand it. I thank you for your kind attention. (Applause.)
DEL. MURTAUGH: Is the ten-minute rule in effect? The Chairman: Yes.
SPEECH OF JAMES MURTAUGH, ST. LOUIS.
DEL. MURTAUGH: I desire to say, Mr. President, that if the ten minute rule is in effect I do not wish to say anything. I may be able to complete my remarks in ten minutes, and may not. As the courtesy was extended to the brother who opened up the discussion of the reasons for issuing the Manifesto to grant him all the time he desired, I hope that in this instance it will be granted to me. Now, I may be able to finish in ten minutes. I am not a long talker, but I should not like to be interrupted.
Mr. President and Brother Delegates: The delegate who has just spoken in paraphrasing Shakespeare reminded me of another quotation from Shakespeare, and that is this:
“Speak of me as I am, nothing extenuate,
Nor aught set down in malice.”
I have listened as carefully and as patiently as I know how to the very—I do not know what language to use to express it, but the indictment and the different counts of the indictment against the American Federation of Labor. I want to say that the delegates must remember this one point, that before the American Federation of Labor was, trades unionism was; that the American Federation of Labor—and I wish to offer absolutely no excuse for the American Federation of Labor as it is, but simply to say this—that the American Federation of Labor is the result of the gropings in the dark of the trades unionists of this country to bring about something better than they had.
Now, Mr. President, we have got convened in this assembly a great many discordant elements with the “lid” on. In the course of my remarks this morning I thought it necessary to confess the fact that I was business agent for one of the conservative labor organizations. I did that for the reason that, understanding the tactics of some of the elements in this convention, the discovery would have been made and capital made of it. I have all my life in the labor movement occupied a somewhat anomalous position. I have been a radical among conservatives and a conservative among radicals. (Laughter). And so here to-day when this terrible indictment was read against the American Federation of Labor—not wishing to say anything whatever against any count in that indictment, but I would like to relate a little story. In the old days Daniel O’Connell was challenged to fight a duel, and he accepted the challenge. His opponent was going around the country shooting the heads off’ from the roosters. O’Connell’s friends came to him and reported this fact to him, saying that his life was in jeopardy on account of the marksmanship of his opponent. O’Connell said, “Have the roosters got pistols to shoot back with?” Now, Mr. Chairman, the moral of that story is in the application of it. I do not wish to stir up any strife—strife that I see is inevitable with the discordant elements gathered together here in this convention. I do not wish to be the one to stir that strife up. I do not want to point out any particular element that is going to be the strifemakers in this assembly. But those of us who have been in the movement as long as I have, those of us who have stuck through thick and thin, who are not afraid—not a bit afraid—of personal animadversions which may be cast upon us by any particular element in this convention, we know that there is an element in this convention that is more merciless even than the Lord. It was displayed here yesterday in refusing to seat a man whom you, perhaps, all believed was a friend to the labor movement, simply because he was an attorney. (Laughter.)
The Chairman: Brother Murtaugh, do you believe that you are discussing the reason for the Manifesto?
A DELEGATE: No, sir.
DEL. MURTAUGH: I think I was getting around to it, if you permit me. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that if anybody objects to anything I am stating, that I am ready to sit down in a moment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just discuss the reason of the Manifesto.
DEL. MURTAUGH: Simply the reason of the Manifesto; I was getting around to that.
DEL. WILKE: Did he say that if any one objects to this line of talk he would sit down? I as a delegate from the Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance believe that he is one of the most discordant factors, and he is trying to initiate discordance, and for that reason I ask him to retire. (Applause.)
DEL. MURTAUGH: Mr. Chairman—
THE CHAIRMAN: Brother Murtaugh will proceed on the reason for issuing the Manifesto.
DEL. MURTAUGH: Mr. Chairman, I intended to come around to that in my own way. I want to say that the reason, in my mind, for the Manifesto is plain, and that is this: the imperfection of our present labor organizations. That is understood I believe by every one who has been in the movement, who has fought and suffered as a great many of us have in the labor movement in this country. But there seems to be an idea prevalent here that something new has been found; that this class conscious struggle upon which so much stress is laid is something new, something untried; that there is a possibility of the millennium being ushered in by this convention. I want to tell you, Mr. President. that the workers of this country have been through that movement. I was a member of the Knights of Labor—
A DELEGATE: What are you doing here then?
DEL. MURTAUGH: I am talking.
THE DELEGATE: Yes, and that is all you are doing.
DEL. MURTAUGH: I have heard a great deal from you, and nothing said, either. Mr. President, I wish to say this: that class consciousness in the K. of L. was just as strong as it ever was in any element of the socialistic movement. It may not have been expressed in words, but the thing itself was there. That was the thing that brought the workers of this country into that great labor organization, the Knights of Labor. While I was a member of the Knights of Labor I was still a member of my union, and I have been all the time. Further on the American Railway Union came up. At the time I happened to be working for the L & N. Railroad Company.
A DELEGATE: Were you a laborer?
DEL. MURTAGH: I was a molder. A few of us, class-conscious, believing in the necessity of industrial organization, happened to be working at New Decatur, Alabama, in the shops of the L. & N. Railroad, and we decided to attempt to install the American Railway Union under very great odds, and if you doubt my word, Brother C. O. Sherman, sitting back there, was the organizer that organized us, and I was made the president of the organization under circumstances in which we had to employ the greatest secrecy, because the L. & N. Railroad Company was not afraid of any trades unions, but they were afraid of the American Railway Union, and they were going to prevent all of its employes from going into the American Railway Union if possible. Even then I remained true and loyal to my trade union because I had to be. And why? While we were in that particular instance working for a railroad company, absolutely impotent to bring about better conditions for our craft, yet the majority of us working in foundries throughout the country were able to better our conditions as craftsmen in those foundries.
THE CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired.
DEL. MURTAUGH: Very well, Mr. President, I will stop. (Applause.)
Del. Schatzke suggested that speakers whose time was about expired should be given sufficient warning of the fact.
DEL. PAT O’NEIL: Mr. President and Fellow Delegates: Out of the past comes experience, and from experience sometimes thought sprouts; not always, for a great many men find it hard to think. Experience has taught me, and I have done a little thinking. On the fifth day of September, 1848, I helped to found a labor organization in the city of Hongkong, in China. I was a charter member of the first Sailors’ Union in China, and I have been a member of the labor movement from that time until this, and in that time, I thank you, I have had some experience, and some of a kind that I hope not to go through again, and that I would not wish my worst enemy to have.
I agree with Comrade Murtaugh that in the past we have had organizations that were based upon class consciousness. But the great mass of the membership were not able to appreciate it to be the truth. And to-day you are likely to encounter ignorance even as we did then, although we have got a few holes punched now and the light begins to shine through, and it makes the old man feel that while I may not be at many more of these conventions, I want you fellows to take up the work where I lay it down. Can you do that?
DELEGATES: Sure; we are willing to.
DEL. O’NEIL: And I want to pay my respects to a man. I do not know who the man was, and I would not know him if I saw him now, but I heard a man say yesterday at noon that he did not know whether he could support this organization when it was formed or not. I want to say to that man and all the rest that feel like him, after nine years of the hardest kind of military service and with over fifty years of service in the labor unions, “You go back and sit down out of sight like the sutlers, and we will fight your fight for you.” (Applause.)
I came here just as an individual, that was all. I have been pleased to see that there were men here with hundreds and even thousands of votes behind them. Why? Because I saw that the great mass of the people were ready to recognize what this Manifesto meant, and whenever that is the case that is reason sufficient for the Manifesto. (Applause.)
Now, then, we see the United Mine Workers’ Union go on strike, and union railroad men haul scab miners in and haul scab coal out. By the gods, wouldn’t that make a calf leave its mother? (Laughter and applause.)
Now, my experience in the past has taught me several peculiar things, and one of them is this: Suppose a man had his hand just in that position with each finger sticking out by itself (illustrating), would it be of much benefit to him? Possibly he could keep the flies off if he tried, but that is all. Well, now, here, take the hand of labor to-day. To-day here we have got the blacksmith finger, here we have got the carpenter finger, here we have got the miner’s finger, and over here we have got the railroad finger; and all that that hand of labor has ever done has been to keep the flies off of the face of the capitalist, while he enjoyed your product. (Applause). Now, then, instead of having this hand distorted and paralyzed in its trade autonomy, I want it so that I can bring those fingers up and close them into a grip and make the hand a weapon of offense and of defense; and that, Mr. Chairman, is my reason for issuing the Manifesto. (Applause). I want it so that every one of those fingers can rely upon the finger next to it and the finger furthest from it. As it stands to-day, the capitalist shears come along and clip that out and then this and the others, through the opportunity that you give capital. I want that opportunity of capital removed. In other words, I want the teeth of the animal removed, and the only way I can see how to pull them is to close that hand. (Applause.)
Now, can you not understand that when you attack one branch of the laboring class, that you have attacked all? Can you not understand that an injury to one is an injury to every one? A man said to me a few days ago, “Why, O’Neil, you are the craziest man I ever saw. You are hoping they will have a revolution in Russia.” I said, “Yes, I am, and I will tell you why. A chain is only as strong as the weakest link. A country, as Abraham Lincoln said, cannot exist half slave and half free.” And, my friends, neither can the world. As soon as you have absolute oppression and tyranny in Russia you can look for a great portion of it here. (Applause). If you don’t believe that, move out to Colorado for a while. (Laughter.)
I thanked my Maker when I read in the paper this morning that the revolution had started in Russia. Why? Not that I want to see bloodshed, not that I want to see crime, but I do want to see better conditions for this child of mine that is coming after me. (Applause). The history of mankind has taught us that only blood is the thing that will make the rung of the ladder of progress fit for mankind to tramp upon. We know that is true, for we have spent our blood here. When the outlaws of the supreme court of the State of Illinois declared that men who were not guilty should be punished for their queer opinions, we spilled the blood that was necessary that this country might be free. (Applause). But I want you to understand that while I am a Socialist clear to the bone and an inch into the marrow, I want my Socialism to have working day clothes as well as to go into the ballot box. (Applause). I do not believe in being an organized body of laboring men 364 days in the year, Mr. President, and then being at the command of my master on the other day. (Applause). And it is for these reasons that I see in the Manifesto a shining light for the advancement of all of us; and for these reasons, to my intellect and to my understanding, was the Manifesto absolutely necessary. I thank you. (Applause.)
SPEECH OF DUNCAN McEACHREN.
DEL. MCEACHREN: As a member of the working class, as a journeyman paper hanger, as a student, if you please’ I come to address this body. I see no reason why we should not become united, despite the fact that on the opening of this convention we were discordant elements. I have taken the time and the patience to formulate in manuscript form a statement of the policy and a criticism of present industrial organizations and trade unions, and if you have the patience and kindness I would like to read that paper on that subject. It will take me more than ten minutes, and I plead for an extension of time upon the same ground as Brother Trautmann.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: I move that we set aside the rules for that purpose, and that the delegate be given time properly, to read his paper. (Motion seconded and carried.)
Delegate McEachren then read the following address in manuscript:
The presence of such a large delegation, coming as you do from all over this country, implies at least that the condition we have to deal with is one of a general rather than local character. But be this as it may, the questions we have to deal with are associated, as we know, and ramify throughout our daily lives, and embrace not only this land but all other lands wherever capitalism embryonic or fullfledged maintains. If it is not presumptuous to suggest, I would say that we must, in order to effect a change, be cognizant of all, or at least the principal facts which are facing us, leaving aside for the time being, all the fine spun theorizing and idealizing, which has heretofore characterized those organizations which have addressed themselves either flippantly or seriously towards this great problem of labor. It is needless to state perhaps to most of you, that the labor problem of to-day is not the labor problem of ancient Greece, of feudal England, or even that of colonial America; yet I believe that the confusion which is everywhere prevalent in labor circles is directly or indirectly connected with this method of analysis, and as a natural result the synthesis which is so deplorably inadequate is unhistoric and unsound.
It would be well perhaps to forget our isms as a preliminary to this discussion, and base our conclusions, if possible, upon the facts revealed. First, as workingmen and women we are confronted with a social development based in its entirety upon the most efficient method of production this world has yet known, all of which is well, and in the words of Shakespeare “is a consummation devoutly to be wished.” Running concurrently with this development are the factors in the form of men and women which have made it possible, and their social divisions, two grand divisions of which interest us in this discussion, namely, laborers and capitalists. And upon the grounds which have made us laborers and the others capitalists, or upon the continuation of those grounds (as we cannot undo the past), I come, and we all come, as conscious or unconscious protestants. You are aware that the beneficiaries of the present system, namely, the capitalists, are numerically fewer, are physically weaker, and are mentally unequal either collectively or individually, to the laborers; if you have any doubts on this score then you fail to comprehend the fundamental requisites upon which a social revolution is grounded, and which have made them necessary anywhere or at any time.
The automatic working of industry upon its productive side, the constant iteration, and reiteration, from all the founts of knowledge which associate this activity with one man or a group of men called capitalists, and the acquiescence by many of the working-class misleaders in this false and pernicious position has, no doubt, influenced you into believing that such things are proof of your incompetency or the other side’s competency. But the continuation of industry when the individual has died or disappeared from the scene breaks down all such conclusions no matter from what source the error has been sanctified. There are certain defects, nevertheless, in the ranks of labor which annul all of their numerical, physical and mental superiority and the recognition of this, more or less clearly, was the greatest factor inducing this convention; I refer mainly to those of organization and tactics; and the superiority in this is and must be manifested before those other qualities can he exercised. To change these weaknesses into weapons of strength it will be necessary to examine the organization and tactics of the opposing force; improve upon where possible or at least approximate those principles which have proven valuable when used against us.
We should, I believe, view this question as one of war in which mere bulk is at a discount, unless guided by superior knowledge of the situation. What are some of these lessons? And are they applicable, is the next question. On the one side we see, as you know, industry organized into a vast, composite organization embracing not only one field, but many, and grouped not nationally but internationally, for instance: let us examine that most familiar object, namely, the Standard Oil Company, the name would and generally does convey the impression that this is an industry connected with petroleum only, as a matter of fact, this was its original field of activity; it has long ago outgrown its swaddling clothes and embraces the field of refining and the manufacture of all those numerous coal-tar derivatives which are used in therapeutics and which are almost unlimited in number. Beyond all this it is connected with and controls such institutions as life insurance companies, numerous national banks, municipal gas and street car companies, mining interests, such as coal and copper, railroads, steamships and any industry which presents itself if yielding sufficient returns will as a natural law come within its jurisdiction. What conclusion can we draw from this? Except that the same law which has fuzed these various industries applies to the workers within those industries. An interpretation of this fact is certainly not evidenced in present working class organizations. The workers are, to a great extent, organized on a basis that represents the industrial development of half or even a century ago. Beyond this weakness of organization and overshadowing, if possible, the baneful results of same is the tacit and implied admission that labor is a commodity that the labor union is organized to control that commodity and that the labor merchant, otherwise the labor fakir can make terms with the purchaser, for the collective labor power of his union, as is witnessed by the signing of agreements, etc. And not content with this assent to the exploitation of labor they go farther and advertise in street cars, on buildings, and other public places to stimulate a demand for their commodity and incidentally advertise their employers, accepting in all of this the conclusion that they believe in the wage labor scheme of society; that they have competitors, namely, nonunion men whom they must displace and at the same time confessing their inability to monopolize their perishable commodity of labor power, concentrated, as it is, in the form of an individual who has a gastro-intestinal tract to annoy him.
The whole scheme of present trade union organization, even if it was carried to its ultimate, would simply mean an endless roundelay of wage slavery, a vicious circle without a break in its continuity except such as occur from time to time due to panics and which would sink its members into extreme poverty and degradation. It might well be written over and above all as a motto: “Perish all hope ye who enter here.”
The longer I look at this present trade union position the more firmly convinced am I that it is an abortion and an anachronism sent into the world of labor without reference to time, place, and industrial processes generally; to be held as a fetish before the eyes of labor which stifles any revolutionary or constructive action on their part.
On the other hand it serves the ruling classes as all the other institutions, good or evil, which are in existence to-day; and can well be lined up with the church and the brothel, the police powers and the peace powers; in fact, all of those things which we look upon as necessary for present capitalist stability.
You may think my criticism harsh and unfair, but, rather than indulge in any bombast about the union card or the “glory and majesty” of labor, I would go to the other extreme to, if possible, inculcate such ideas, which, if acted upon would make for the glory and majesty of that portion of society which is destined to sooner or later make civilization a reality, rather than what it is to-day: the systematic perversion of all that makes life worth living.
It is possible, although I believe unnecessary, to hold up individual leaders of the present labor organization to all the contumely which is theirs, but this unfortunately obscures the issue, which is not one of individuals at all, but one of fundamental weakness in organization, the individual simply typifying that in the same manner that any other pathologic condition manifests itself, as an exudates of pus follows the inoculation of pus bacteria. We may criticize the pus for its foul odor and general disagreeable sequellae, but this is an impotent procedure in affecting a cure. We need a caustic rather to stimulate new tissue growth and repair. You will excuse the analogy for its objectionable features, but we have to deal with a condition which is a shame on all our heads.
I am not one who believes in criticism for mental diversion and do not believe that Socialist or any other definite thought on the labor problem exhausts itself by pointing at results. We are here to formulate and use some of our constructive ability, show to the workers of the world the possibilities of an organization founded on definite plans and for definite purposes, anticipating for the future only that which the machinery of production warrants and makes possible. For this purpose we should have an organization which has the collective intelligence to appoint a commission and make itself a commission to investigate all the active potential or latent forces in present day machinery, first in order to know the required amount of labor necessary to feed, clothe, and house the world; the amount of time required and all the necessary data to insure the success of any plan which is undertaken, whether it is a strike for shorter hours or for the taking over of industry. You can readily see that an organization of this nature would have the most profound respect of its members and would enlist their active support and sympathy. It might be misunderstood; this is true of any movement that demands reason for its guide rather than stupid appeals to sentiment.
In passing, let me say that a strike conducted blindly, or instituted for the purpose of placating the wounded vanity of a labor leader or to aid his financial extortion is not my concept of a labor organization’s activity; and this has been about the extent of past contests with capital. Another fatal weakness which I would have labor guard against is the notion that immigration should swamp them. Most of the conclusions drawn about immigration are erroneous, even when considered from a capitalist standpoint and how much more erroneous are they when viewed from the standpoint which includes the free use and ownership of social productive forces. Not the feeblest, distorted and blasphemed specimen of mankind which has reached a working age is unable to produce the requisites for his own shelter, food and welfare.
How, then, even considered from the utilitarian standpoint, can he be a menace to any working class? The presence of a family of pampered drones in your midst under capitalism, the amount of human ingenuity, labor and usefulness necessary to maintain them in their immoral and useless pursuit of pleasure is a greater drain on working class resources than one hundred thousand Chinamen unable to work at all, with their meager standard and requirement for life. This only from one viewpoint of human economy and ingenuity wasted. This is not half, not even one-tenth the drain which a parasite in the form of a capitalist exercises, i. e., his power to close down a single plant such as the Pullman Car Works for a single day or close down a knitting mill in New England, when people are anxious and willing to create and use the product created, is, as you can readily see, much more disastrous to the whole of working class society than his mere capacity to gormandize or destroy. Nature soon cuts short this part of his career.
No, workingmen and women, there are no race or national boundaries to this question, even under capitalism. You could not and should not by any process of exclusion exalt yourselves above the working class of the most medieval province in China. Your world must reach a level when measured even by a capitalist gauge, or the capitalist would operate his factory in China or elsewhere, if it were cheaper. Therefore, your organization must be international in character, universal in its sympathies and one in its objects.
The trade autonomy feature which is so prominent in present day organizations is so obviously out of harmony with present day industrial developments that one is at a loss to comprehend its reason for existence except the desire of creating a berth for a larger number of officials whose abilities are of a kind that under ordinary circumstances would secure them a place as bruisers in saloons or convicts in a penitentiary. This is a factor which we cannot, as workingmen, no matter how much we desire, overlook. And coupled with this class, yet of a more despicable and dangerous type are those whose manifest destiny and purpose is to confuse the workers by saying peace, peace, where none exists. More despicable and dangerous are these, I say, for the reason that their treachery involves their whole organization and their conspicuous self-conceit does not lead them into a violation of the ordinary physiological laws of life and they thus earn the title of respectable, which is a powerful hypnotic to the uninitiated worker who has no time to burrow into the history and sanction of morals. The other man errs on this score and dies, as Sam Parks, a tubercular and in jail his frailty only affects his immediate relatives, the other does not err in this respect and his success blights the pathway over which this weary proletarian army must march to that goal of economic freedom which the poor Roman slave saw when he first viewed the wind mill in operation and conceived the idea that he had now time to rest. The wind would do his drawing of water if not his hewing of wood.
The trade autonomy idea, which was born in a handicraft stage of development, to the extent that it is powerless to aid the workers is a valuable adjunct to capitalist exploitation, keeping, as it does, a hopeless division of forces and preventing concert action. The attempts of present day trade unions to enforce laws preventing the employment of convicts proves again their powerlessness and makes them accessory to the crime of capitalism, heaping insult upon injury.
Child labor legislation is generally conceded to be a failure. No effective means are at hand to enforce it under a pure and simple scheme of organization. The insuring of members and the fraternal features of most organizations which are used against sickness, death and other complications, which go with their employment, place the dependence upon their already burdened shoulders and relieves their exploiter from any and all responsibility after he has squeezed their vitality into products and dismissed them as unfit to become inmates of casual wards, almshouses and, iconoclastic as it may seem, those misnomers called “homes” for trade unionists, dominated by that same species the labor leader who has been pushed slightly in the background.
All of the weaknesses which I have enumerated you can readily see are not basic and organic in kind; they are excrescences which must be removed as the barnacles which impede the ship’s progress; a short sojourn in fresh water will do or else the process of scraping. I believe in the fresh water method, which is analogous to your action in calling this convention and is akin to the position of that organization which I am pleased to represent. The scraping method is slow and tedious; it affects somewhat the structure of the ship and the surface is left in such a condition that new barnacles may easily find lodgment, grow and perpetuate their species. This is the boring from within method. You have chosen correctly, I believe.
To recapitulate all that has been said in a few words. The organization of labor does not typify the present mode of industry. It has become a useful tool in the hands of the exploiters because of this. The presence of the labor leader is generally construed to mean the surrender and capitulation of workingmen on strike proving his usefulness to the capitalist an instance of which may be cited. The presence of Mr. Gompers in Chicago during this present labor difficulty was heralded as such far and wide. The laborers do not need leaders but they do need representatives of their interests. Some ideas which I have believed to be erroneous were mentioned because they led to wrong conclusions. The ineffective enforcement of labor’s demands and a few words about organization. From this let me continue and summarize as we proceed.
The method of organization; while I am not prepared to wholly condemn any form I am not prepared to elaborate any plan which would meet all of your approvals. We know that men engaged in some technical calling are better able to pass judgment upon their respective needs and grievances. This I believe to be the germ of truth in trade autonomy. But we must remember that nearly four-fifths of the workers are not so situated. Any separate organization upon superficial lines as railroad firemen and railroad engineers is absurd and childish or as switchmen and brakemen. Men who can interchange positions or men engaged in an industry which is consolidated should organize likewise. The small degree of technique which separates most men thus employed is and must appeal to you as a poor justification for two organizations rendering, as it does, the members unable to line up in any effective or concentrated action when the time comes to act. The organizing of labor and putting such obstructions as high initiation, large dues, or any other prohibitive measure is an idea fit only for those who believe it is possible to become labor merchants and monopolists and exclude at the same time those whom it is our desire to organize. The preventing of men who do not belong to any particular craft from working at that occupation while fully competent to do the work and belonging to any trade union, in any country, is an abomination and an insult. Finally, whether you should pronounce yourselves in favor of this or that political party. On this last proposition I would say no and yes. I would say no to any political party which your organization dues not actively control and would say yes to that organization which is part and parcel of your economic organization. This would presume that such is possible and necessary to which I say yes. As long as we concede the necessity of government and this will be as long as we need our economic organization active participation in legislation is incumbent upon us. You cannot separate the doing of an action and its results. Legislation and government are results. The precept of no politics in the unions, to my mind, originated in a country and at a time when the suffrage was limited by property or other qualifications which prevented many who were trade unionists from exercising it. A discussion of politics under those circumstances by the trade unionist was almost as irrelevant to him and his organization as religion, literature, science or anything else which had only an ideological value. This is true to a great extent to-day and applies to any politics or political party which is not grounded on the same economic needs which bring into being your industrial organization. Politics in any sense, other than the politics which reflect the economic strength of the working class and to the extent that this working class control this reflection, is vain and futile and is the error that all existing political parties have made with one exception. We should remember that the political strength of any class is in direct proportion to its economic strength; no more and no less. Now the economic strength of the working class manifests itself in its ability to conduct a strike, its method of organization and all of those intimately associated rules and regulations which are called by-laws and constitutions. I can see why politics in the ordinary acceptance of the word should be eschewed, but politics and political activity which you inaugurate as workingmen is as necessary as the power of thought needs the spoken or written word to express it.
The belief that retiring from the world and by some deep, dark and mysterious process to organize a revolution which shall spring like Minerva from the brow of Jove is born of a concept which savors a great deal of Utopia with a large degree of the suspiciousness and false premises of the anarchist. I am in hopes that you will form an organization which will embody both political and economic activity as its field of operation. You will meet opposition in this, probably from two sources, first, those pseudo-Socialists who confuse Socialism with political revolution and not industrial revolution—who put the shadow before the substance. Secondly from those who either from a lack of observation or a superficial observation, cannot draw the line of demarcation between office getting on the part of individuals and office taking on the part of working class organizations, thereby using such offices for their collective welfare. In conclusion, let me say that if the organization founded here at this convention will remain satisfied with changing external appearances such as officials, without changing the conditions which breed such officials, it will again and again repeat this process and finally, I believe, adopt the plan which underlies the Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance. If we are ever to realize those conditions which will make want and the fear of want disappear along with its evil concomitants, workingmen alone can and must take upon themselves such a task. The road is no doubt long and weary, many centuries have passed before us; Centuries of slavery, degradation, misery and disease. Never before have all the forces been present and all the materials at hand to release the world from economic slavery. This is quite possible today and should be the aim and objective point of every organization of workers throughout the world. When such a transformation has occurred results which would be considered by the early Utopians as wild and chimerical will be realized. Results not only of increased visible wealth, but increased mental wealth which will transform the man with the hoe and the brother to the ox in the sense understood by Markham into the man who will use steam for cultivation and, instead of being a brother in external appearances, he will understand the connection which science, aided by evolution, has demonstrated, and will understand him in the poetic sense and fellowship, which led Whitman to exclaim: “I believe I could go and live with the animals; they are so placid and self-contained; they do not make me sick discussing their duty towards God; there is not one exalted above the other, the whole earth over, all, all are equals.” (Applause.)
Eugene V. Debs being called by the convention said:
Fellow Delegates and Comrades: As the preliminaries in organizing the convention have been disposed of, we will get down to the real work before this body. We are here to perform a task so great that it appeals to our best thought, our united energies, and will enlist our most loyal support; a task in the presence of which weak men might falter and despair, but from which it is impossible to shrink without betraying the working class. (Applause.)
I am much impressed by this proletarian gathering. I realize that I stand in the presence of those who in the past have fought, are fighting, and will continue to fight the battles of the working class economically and politically (applause), until the capitalist system is overthrown and the working class are emancipated from all of the degrading thralldom of the ages. (Applause). In this great struggle the working class are often defeated, but never vanquished. Even the defeats, if we are wise enough to profit by them, but hasten the day of the final victory.
In taking a survey of the industrial field of to-day, we are at once impressed with the total inadequacy of working class organization, with the lack of solidarity, with the widespread demoralization we see, and we are bound to conclude that the old form of pure and simple unionism has long since outgrown its usefulness (applause); that it is now not only in the way of progress, but that it has become positively reactionary, a thing that is but an auxiliary of the capitalist class. (Applause). They charge us with being assembled here for the purpose of disrupting the union movement. It is already disrupted, and if it were not disrupted we would not behold the spectacle here in this very city of a white policeman guarding a black scab, and a black policeman guarding a white scab (applause), while the trade unions stand by with their hands in their pockets wondering what is the matter with union labor in America. We are here to-day for the purpose of uniting the working class, for the purpose of eliminating that form of unionism which is responsible for the conditions as they exist to-day.
The trades union movement is to-day under the control of the capitalist class. It is preaching capitalist economics. It is serving capitalist purposes. Proof of it, positive and overwhelming, appears on every hand. All of the important strikes during the past two or three years have been lost. The great strike of the textile workers at Fall River, that proved so disastrous to those who engaged in it; the strike of the subway employes in the City of New York, where under the present form of organization the local leaders repudiated the national leaders, the national leaders repudiated the local leaders and were in alliance with the capitalist class to crush their own followers; the strike of the stockyard’s employes here in Chicago; the strike of the teamsters now in progress—all, all of them bear testimony to the fact that the pure and simple form of unionism has fulfilled its mission, whatever that may have been, and that the time has come for it to go. (Great applause.)
The American Federation of Labor has numbers, but the capitalist class do not fear the American Federation of Labor; quite the contrary. The capitalist papers here in this very city at this very time are championing the cause of pure and simple unionism. Since this convention met there has been nothing in these papers but a series of misrepresentations. (Applause). If we had met instead in the interest of the American Federation of Labor these papers, these capitalist papers, would have had their columns filled with articles commending the work that is being done here. There is certainly something wrong with that form of unionism which has its chief support in the press that represents capitalism; something wrong in that form of unionism whose leaders are the lieutenants of capitalism; something wrong with that form of unionism that forms an alliance with such a capitalist combination as the Civic Federation, whose sole purpose it is to chloroform the working class while the capitalist class go through their pockets. (Applause). There are those who believe that this form of unionism can be changed from within. They are very greatly mistaken. We might as well have remained in the Republican and Democratic parties and have expected to effect certain changes from within, instead of withdrawing from those parties and organizing a party that represented the exploited working class. (Applause). There is but one way to effect this great change, and that is for the workingman to sever his relations with the American Federation and join the union that proposes upon the economic field to represent his class (applause), and we are here to-day for the purpose of organizing that union. I believe that we are capable of profiting by the experiences of the past. I believe it is possible for the delegates here assembled to form a great, sound, economic organization of the working class based upon the class struggle, that shall be broad enough to embrace every honest worker, yet narrow enough to exclude every fakir. (Applause.)
Now, let me say to those delegates who are here representing the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, that I have not in the past agreed with their tactics. I concede that their theory is right, that their principles are sound; I admit and cheerfully admit the honesty of their membership. (Applause). But there must certainly be something wrong with their tactics or their methods of propaganda if in these years they have not developed a larger membership than they have to their credit. Let me say in this connection, I am not of those who scorn you because of your small numbers. I have been taught by experience that numbers do not represent strength. (Applause). I will concede that the capitalist class do not fear the American Federation of Labor because of their numbers. Let me add that the capitalist class do not fear your Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance. The one are too numerous and the other are not sufficiently numerous. The American Federation of Labor is not sound in its economics. The Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance is sound in its economics, but in my judgment it does not appeal to the American working class in the right spirit. (Applause). Upon my lips there has never been a sneer for the Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance on account of the smallness of its numbers. I have been quite capable of applauding the pluck, of admiring the courage of the members of the Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance, for though few in numbers, they stay by their colors. (Applause). I wish, if I can, to point out what I conceive to be the error in their method of propaganda. Speaking of the members as I have met them, it seems to me that they are too prone to look upon a man as a fakir who happens to disagree with them. (Applause). Now, I think there is no delegate in this convention who is more set against the real fakir than I am. But I believe it is possible for a workingman who has been the victim of fakirism to become so alert, to so strain his vision looking for the fakir that he sees the fakir where the fakir is not. (Applause). I would have you understand that I am opposed to the fakir, and I am also opposed to the fanatic. (Applause). And fanaticism is as fatal to the development of the working class movement as is fakirism. (Applause). Admitting that the principle is sound, that the theory of your organization is right—and I concede both—what good avails it, what real purpose is accomplished if you cannot develop strength sufficient to carry out the declared purpose of your organization?
Now, I believe that there is a middle ground that can be occupied without the slightest concession of principle. I believe it is possible for such an organization as the Western Federation of Miners to be brought into harmonious relation with the Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance. I believe it is possible that that element of the organizations represented here have the conviction, born of experience, observation and study, that the time has come to organize a new union, and I believe it is possible for these elements to mingle, to combine here, and to at least begin the work of forming a great economic or revolutionary organization of the working class so sorely needed in the struggle for their emancipation. (Applause). The supreme need of the hour, as the speaker who preceded me so clearly expressed it in his carefully and clearly thought address—the supreme need of the hour is a sound, revolutionary working class organization. (Applause). And while I am not foolish enough to imagine that we can complete this great work in a single convention of a few days duration, I do believe it is possible for us to initiate this work, to begin it in a way for the greatest promise, with the assurance that its work will be completed in a way that will appeal with increasing force to the working class of the country. I am satisfied that the great body of the working class in this country are prepared for just such an organization. (Applause). I know, their leaders know, that if this convention is successful their doom is sealed. (Applause). They can already see the handwriting upon the wall, and so they are seeking by all of the power at their command to discredit this convention, and in alliance with the cohorts of capitalism they are doing what they can to defeat this convention. It may fail in its mission, for they may continue to misrepresent, deceive and betray the working class and keep them in the clutches of their capitalist masters and exploiters. (Applause). They are hoping that we will fail to get together. They are hoping, as they have already expressed it, that this convention will consist of a prolonged wrangle; that such is our feeling and relations toward each other that it will be impossible for us to agree upon any vital proposition; that we will fight each other upon every point, and that when we have concluded our labors we will leave things in a worse condition than they were before. If we are true to ourselves we will undeceive those gentlemen. We will give them to understand that we are animated by motives too lofty for them in their baseness and sordidness to comprehend. (Applause). We will give them to understand that the motive here is not to use unionism as a means of serving the capitalist class, but that the motives of the men and women assembled here is to serve the working class by so organizing that class as to make their organization the promise of the coming triumph upon the economic field an the political field and the ultimate emancipation of the working class. (Applause.)
Let me say that I agree with Comrade De Leon upon one very vital point at least. (Applause). We have not been the best of friends in the past (laughter), but the whirligig of time brings about some wonderful changes. I find myself breaking away from some men I have been in very close touch with, and getting in close touch with some men from whom I have been very widely separated. (Applause). But no matter. I have long since made up my mind to pursue the straight line as I see it. A man is not worthy, in my juddgment, to enlist in the services of the working class unless he has the moral stamina, if need be, to break asunder all personal relations to serve that class as he understands his duty to that class. (Applause). I have not the slightest feeling against those who in the past have seen fit to call me a fakir. (Laughter). I can afford to wait. I have waited, and I now stand ready to take by the hand every man, every woman that comes here, totally regardless of past affiliations, whose purpose it is to organize the working class upon the economic field, to launch that economic organization that shall be the expression of the economic conditions as they exist to-day; that organization for which the working class are prepared; that organization which we shall at least begin before we have ended our labors, unless we shall prove false to the object for which we have assembled here.
Now, I am not going to take the time to undertake to outline the form of this organization. Nor should I undertake to tax your patience by attempting to elaborate the plan of organization. But let me suggest, in a few words, that to accomplish its purpose this organization must not only be based upon the class struggle, but must express the economic condition of this time. We must have one organization that embraces the workers in every department of industrial activity. It must express the class struggle. It must recognize the class lines. It must of course be class-conscious. It must be totally uncompromising. (Applause). It must be an organization of the rank and file. (Applause). It must be so organized and so guided as to appeal to the intelligence of the workers of the country everywhere. And if we succeed, as I believe we will, in forming such an organization, its success is a foregone conclusion. I have already said the working class are ready for it. There are multiplied thousands in readiness to join it, waiting only to see if the organization is rightly grounded and properly formed; and this done there will be no trouble about its development, and its development will take proper form and expand to its true proportions. If this work is properly begun, it will mean in time, and not a long time at that, a single union upon the economic field. It will mean more than that; it will mean a single party upon the political field (great applause); the one the economic expression, the other the political expression of the working class; the two halves that represent the organic whole of the labor movement.
Now, let me say in closing, comrades—and I have tried to condense, not wishing to tax your patience or to take the time of others, for I believe that in such conventions as this it is more important that we shall perform than that we shall make speeches—let me say in closing that you and I and all of us who are here to enlist in the service of the working class need to have faith in each other (applause), not the faith born of ignorance and stupidity, but the enlightened faith of self-interest. We are in precisely the same position; we depend absolutely upon each other. We must get close together and stand shoulder to shoulder. (Applause). We know that without solidarity nothing is possible, that with it nothing is impossible. And so we must dispel the petty prejudices that are born of the differences of the past, and I am of those who believe that, if we get together in the true working class spirit, most of these differences will disappear, and if those of us who have differed in the past are willing to accord to each other that degree of conciliation that we ourselves feel that we are entitled to, that we will forget these differences, we will approach all of the problems that confront us, with our intelligence combined, acting together in concert, all animated by the same high resolve to form that great union, so necessary to the working class, without which their condition remains as it is, and with which, when made practical and vitalized and renewed, the working class is permeated with the conquering spirit of the class struggle, and as if by magic the entire movement is vitalized, and side by side and shoulder to shoulder in a class-conscious phalanx we move forward to certain and complete victory. (Applause.)
Daniel De Leon being called by the convention said:
Fellow Delegates: From the time the Manifesto was issued, it was clear to me that the mission of the Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance was about to be done. The eloquent speech we just heard proves it. When I came to Chicago to this convention I came absolutely without any private ax to grind or any private grudge to gratify. In fact, during my whole activity in the labor movement I have had but one foe—and I think that my worst enemy will not deny my statement—and that foe is the capitalist class. (Applause). Not a line that I have ever written, either on the political or the economic line, but was guided by that star, proceeding from the principle of the class struggle; proceeding from the conviction that the emancipation of the working class not only must be their own work, but—what is of infinitely more importance—is possible. In having this convention come together here, we, of the Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance, indulge in the vainglorious belief that we have contributed our share; and Brother Debs will, I think—I am sure of it—admit that our literature has contributed towards that end. (Applause). I am not going to enter into a discussion or speak of that one feature which he said was the bad feature of the Alliance. I shall simply make the prophecy to him and to you, that, standing now where the Alliance stood, he will also become what the foe says I was—a fanatic; that as he sees the thing clearer to-day than he saw it when the American Railway Union was organized, he will find it clearer also who the foes of the labor movement are. I shall not go into that. All I wish to say, all I wish to go on record as saying, is this: I can imagine nothing more weak, more pitiable from a man’s standpoint than to aspire at an ideal that is unrealizable, and I have overhauled my position again and again answering this question: “Is this problem that you have undertaken as one of so many—is it a problem that is solvable?” And I have concluded that IT IS. (Applause). I drew a line, and on the other side of that line I placed the fakir and those men who assume and who deny that the working class can emancipate themselves, and who consequently propose to follow their own interests to the best of their ability and opportunity.
When three years ago the miners’ strike took place, it was, as far as I was concerned individually, an epoch in my existence. Before that I was certain that the emancipation of the working class could not come but through them; I was also certain that it was a possibility; but I did not know how far removed the land beyond them might lie. I knew that Columbus upon strictly scientific ground said: “The world being round, if I travel westward I must strike land.” But he knew not how long he would have to travel before he struck land. His scientific premises could not involve information also upon that subject; and as he traveled—you know the story, how the weak and the uninformed fell over him and called him names, and how he had to deceive them by telling them to keep on and keep on; and had land lain a few days further west, America would not have been discovered on the 12th of October, 1492. The question for me, the really important question, the question of immediate importance, was, “How far west does the land lie? How far away is the day when the working class will not only have sufficient information not to be humbugged, but when their hearts will beat with that sound impulse under which they will dare stand upon their feet and claim that they as citizens of the twentieth century are entitled to all that they produce and not a single cent less? How far does that lie?” And that coal miners’ strike gave me information upon that question. When that strike was in progress for eight months, had this organization that we hope will be launched here in Chicago been in existence, the revolution would have been accomplished in 1903. The workingman’s pulse beat high. The class instinct was there; the revolutionary spirit was there; but the army of labor, like the Czar’s army, which also consists of workingmen, was captained by the lieutenants of the capitalist class. (Applause). We then called Mitchell a fakir, and I am glad that there are those to-day in this convention who found fault with me then, but who will agree with me to-day that he was one. (Applause.)
Out of this body, out of this convention, a new economic organization or union will rise, and whether the Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance was premature, whether indeed it had this or that or the other defect, it is unnecessary for me here to go into; I could also go into some other organizations that started, and have to-day even fewer members. But the times are ripe. General information is extended, and during this process of pounding one another we have both learned; both sides have learned, and I hope and believe that this convention will bring together those who will plant themselves squarely upon the class struggle and will recognize the fact that the political expression of labor is but the shadow of the economic organization. (Applause). I believe—I know—that he who will not vote right will do everything else wrong. But I also believe and I know That there is nothing more silly than Right without Might to back it up. (Applause). And the ballot box, though it is a civilized method of discussion, though it is powerful in its way as a historic development, that ballot is the weakest of things, is the hugest fraud on earth if it is not backed by the Might to enforce it. (Applause). Do our bourgeois capitalist rulers proceed upon a different principle? Look at their law libraries. I do not believe the law books in those libraries are bound in calf or sheepskin by accident. How innocent those books look. The sheepskin in which they are bound is an emblem of innocence, of the weakness of the law without Might to enforce it. And they gather their Might in their way; we gather it in our way; and the Might of the revolutionary Socialist ballot consists in the thorough industrial organization of the productive workers, organized in such a way that when that ballot is cast the capitalist class may know that behind it is the Might to enforce it. (Applause). I have myself stated again and again, in writing and by word of mouth, that the capitalist class is the one that counts the ballots, and consequently it is absurd to expect that their election inspectors will count us in (applause)—as absurd as it would be for the Japanese in Manchuria to expect that the Russian soldiers would pull the triggers for the Japanese masters. I recognize that, but no conclusion of importance can flow from one fact. All safe conclusions flow from a number of facts that have to be considered together. The capitalist class may monkey with the ballot all they like, but for the same reason that a man can monkey with a thermometer without ever changing the temperature, a handful of capitalists may do their ballot-monkeying, but they cannot change the political temperature. You can put a piece of ice to the quicksilver in a thermometer in the heat of summer, and that quicksilver will sink below zero, will sink to a Dakotan coldness; that does not change the temperature. You may in winter put a burning coal to the quicksilver and raise it to summer heat, but that does not make it summer. The capitalist may count us out. He may lower this thermometer of the ballot, but he cannot change the temperature. His election inspectors will tell him how the situation stands; he will know how that vote is; he will know the makeup and all of it; he will understand the nature of our organization—and that brings me right smack against a question, the question that I would like to have infinitely more time to handle than I shall consume in this hall. But I shall condense.
When speaking to Brother Debs a few days ago, when we shook hands over the bloody chasm (laughter), I said to him that I greatly admired the spirit of a certain sentence uttered by him, though not the application of it. I shall leave aside the application of it so as to remove friction. The substance of his sentence was: “We are here in America under special American conditions, and we must have our own expression of the American labor movement.” Admirable. There is an instinct both among the foes and the unwise friends of the movement to hold America down to the European level. I was there last year, at the Amsterdam Congress, and I can assure you that I pitied from the bottom of my heart the men whom I considered Socialists, because, Socialists though they are, they are under feudal conditions and they are worn out with feudal issues. Their efforts are neutralized; they cannot have a movement such as we can have in America, where capitalism is full-grown, where head and shoulders it is above all other nations of the world, where, not only economically but politically and socially, we have the most advanced capitalism in existence; no longer England, but America, has that distinction. (Applause). Now, then, the American capitalist class is a different thing from the European capitalist class. The European capitalist class is feudal. I was reading quite recently a Social Democratic article from Germany in which the writer correctly stated that the capitalist class is feudalized, “Verjunkert,” and the feature of feudalism is to develop one virtue, and that virtue is valor. Take for instance this half crazy, half crippled emperor of Germany, he has all the vices of the catalog except one, and that vice which he has not is cowardice. He is a brave man. That is the one virtue that feudalism develops. So that the Social Democracy of Germany—and when I say Germany I mean the whole of Europe, because they are so intimately dovetailed that none of the European states can go it alone—when the Social Democracy of Germany shall have reached five millions, that emperor will with a handful of men attempt to overthrow it. He will fail. Blood will flow, workingmen’s blood and ruler’s blood. In other words, a physical conflict is inevitable; inevitable on account of that psychology that has developed, from the material conditions of that rule, the spirit of the European capitalist class, namely, bravery. On the other hand, do we find that spirit in the rulers of America? Have our rulers been brought up in the cradle of feudalism? Have they reached their position through any act of bravery? Have songs of bravery been the songs that rocked their cradles? No; they came to their position of rulers by putting sand into your sugar, by putting water into your molasses, by putting shoddy into your clothes, by fraudulent failures, by fraudulent fires. In other words, they have reached their position through fraud, through swindle. Now, the swindler is a coward. (Applause). Being a coward, the swindler will swagger like a bully when the adversary is weak. What do we see the capitalist class do in America to-day? It has one set of workingmen in one body, and with the other it is clubbing them, shooting them down with gatling guns. It is simply a result, not of any bravery in the capitalist class, but of the weak condition of the Giant Labor, which lies fettered by the lieutenants of capitalism. (Applause). When the capitalist class finds out what is going on in our Organization, when it finds that we are well organized, when its lieutenants and its inspectors report to it the actual vote that you will cast, however little they may register in the official returns, when they report the facts, the capitalist ruler I believe will not dare to fight; the capitalist ruler will tremble in his stolen boots and be grateful to be given a chance to earn an honest living. (Applause). But they will never yield unless they realize that behind that ballot lies an organized movement, well organized, well disciplined and entirely awakened to the present condition; namely, with the industrial trades all in one organization, so that one workingman will not scab it upon another. Then in case of a strike in one place the locomotive engineers will not transport the militia, and union men, so-called, will not, as recently happened in Colorado, carry union cards in their pockets while they were aiming their guns at the miners on strike. When the capitalists know that their labor lieutenants can no longer protect them, the latter will find that their occupation, like Othello’s, will be gone; the capitalists will realize that there is MIGHT behind the RIGHT of the ballot, and they will bow to the truth. But should they be stupid enough not to bow, we will then be ready and able to take up the conflict. And on this point—and that is the significant position of the Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance—if I were to be asked: What difference would you point out, more basic than any other, between the Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance and any other of the numerous economic organizations that are started with good purposes? I should say this:
That the Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance stated what it was there for, and stated it frankly. It has proceeded upon the principle that you cannot conceal your purpose from the enemy. The enemy’s instincts will tell them what you are after, whether you hide it or not. But if you hide your policy, if you hide your aims, if you conceal what you mean to do, then, while you cannot deceive the enemy—he will be as strongly against you as if you stated clearly what you wanted—you will deprive yourself of the support of the organizations that would stand behind you if they knew what you wanted. (Applause). The Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance was the first labor organization in this country, since the early labor organizations who also began soundly, that frankly and fully stated to the working class of America that they had to capture the public powers. Their belief is this: That you could not first take the men into the union under the false pretense that you were going to raise their wages, and afterwards indoctrinate them. No, you had to indoctrinate them first, and then bring them in. If the S. T. & L. A. has made any mistakes at all, it would be to imagine ten years ago that there were then enough such men in existence to join our ranks.
But I must close. The heat is oppressive; I have never been on good terms with the heat. Moreover, I agree with Brother Debs that this is not the occasion for speech-making, and that we have an arduous work to perform. Nevertheless, I recognize the courtesy of those who have called upon me after Brother Debs’s speech, and I wish here solemnly to state that whoever stands frankly and openly with his face turned against the capitalist class, whoever stands in such a way that his associates are not different from his purpose, whoever breaks with the foe and puts himself, to use a populistic expression, “in the middle of the road”—that man will find nothing but fraternal greeting from me as an individual, and from the organization which I represent here, and which I hope will vanish the same as the A. L. U. and other mixed organizations will vanish when this convention adjourns. (Applause.)
I wish to close with what I began with. The Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance, the same as the Socialist Labor Party, has but one ideal. The ideal is the overthrow of the capitalist class. We recognize that men may have made mistakes. We know we make them ourselves, and we are going, just as soon as the mistakes are rectified, to turn a new leaf and look at the future rather than at the past. The men of the Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance stand upon the elevation of nineteen centuries of civilization. We stand upon the enlightened interest of the individual. We know that our sons and daughters must marry other men’s sons and daughters. We want the future improvement for our descendants, and he who wants to improve the conditions of his own sons and daughters must perforce want improved conditions for the sons and daughters of all other people. Consequently, we realize the necessity of united work. We realize the necessity of a united organized movement of the working class, and with our eyes steady upon that goal we have fought in the past and will be found fighting in the future. Ten years ago Mr. Gompers said—and you remember that passage that Brother Trautmann read to-day, where Gompers brings into such magnificent juxtaposition the S. T. & L. A. and the great Deb’s strike—it makes us fraternal already—Gompers said: “I know the S. L. P. men. I know what they are aiming at, but when that day comes they will find me with a gun to fight them.” And my answer was then in The People, as it is now on the floor of this convention: “Yes, Gompers; we know we shall find you there, unmasked; but you will not on that day find the S. L. P. men a small body; you will find the American working class arrayed against you—against you along with the rest of the capitalist class, whom you in fact represent.” (Applause.)
Thomas J. Hagerty, being called by the convention, said:
Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates: There are some things upon which all workingmen are agreed. Life, food, shelter—there cannot be any dispute about these things. There can be and always will be disagreement about anything that is within the region of metaphysics, for lack of a better term, and in the region of political parties. As I understand this convention, it is called and is to go on record as not having anything to do with political parties, or as endorsing political parties in any way (applause); as a clean-cut, purely economic organization of the working class, broad enough to take in men who do not belong to any political party at all. (Applause). And I personally am opposed to any set of men constituting themselves as the interpreters of the entire working class of the World, and as saying in the name of the whole working class of the world that this convention goes on record as representing that working class and as insisting that that working class needs a particular party to achieve its freedom. (Applause). The ballot box is simply a capitalist concession. Dropping pieces of paper into a hole in a box never did achieve emancipation for the working class, and to my thinking it never will achieve it. (Applause). And the Industrial Workers’ Club, of which I am a delegate, instructs me to oppose anything on this floor which puts this convention on record as in favor of a political party. (Applause). Politics is quite a different thing, of course, from a political party. Our Russian comrades are engaged in politics of a very vigorous kind, according to the morning papers. They have been engaged in politics for some time, almost ever since the outbreak of the Japanese-Russian war. But the Industrial Workers’ Club looks upon the ballot box as a capitalist concession with a string at the other end of it, by which the capitalist is constantly pulling it back from the workers. They are disfranchizing the workers fast in this so-called glorious country. You have a property qualification in Rhode Island; you have it in Alabama; you have it in many of the southern states. They are constantly increasing the property qualification. The emancipation of the working class must come from the workers’ class conscious vote and not from some political popgun that the capitalist class lets you play with one day in the year at the ballot box. Now, I am saying this, simply under my instructions from the Industrial Workers’ Club, and I am saying it because revolutionary workingman to come into the proposed economic organization. It cannot do so if it binds that man by virtue of [words missing from transcript - editors] this convention ought to be broad enough to allow every kind of a [words missing from transcript - editors] its constitution to the principle of the necessity of some particular political party, and I think that if one is rightly to take the sense of Comrade De Leon’s explanation, a political party can never be anything else but a shadow; and while shadows will do occasionally in vaudeville shows and projected against white canvases, they will never secure the ends that we are after. We are after the substance and will let the shadows take care of themselves. The substance, the whole thing, the thing that we are after, is the tools. We want to get the whole thing, not any shadows; not any reflection in political mirrors, but we want to capture the tools of industry and the machinery of production and distribution. (Applause). We want things, not shadows. We want substance. We have a right to life and the things that make that right worth while, and we are here, as I understand the Manifesto, to go on record simply and solely as an economic organization of the working class, without any affiliation with any political party. The professional politician in Chicago or elsewhere, no matter with what name, whether it be Democratic or Republican, or whether it be any of the different accentuations of Sicialist or Socialist or Slowcialist (applause) is opposed to this convention. The plain, common, ordinary workingman is invited to this. He wants to see his class united all the days in the year, and when they are united all the days in year, and every hour of every day, they will cast the proper shadows at the proper time. (Applause).
William D. Haywood being called by the convention said:
It has been said that this convention was to form an organization rival to the American Federation of Labor. That is a mistake. We are here for the purpose of organizing a LABOR ORGANIZATION (laughter and applause); an organization broad enough to take in all of the working class. (Applause). The American Federation of Labor is not that kind of an organization, inasmuch as there is a number of the international bodies affiliated with it that absolutely refuse to take in any more men. When this organization is properly launched there will be a place for every man that has been refused. They may place us on record as being dual, but remember that the United Workers of the Industrial Union will recognize those men as union men. There will be a label adopted by this convention, and it will be the duty of every member of this organization to patronize that label in preference to any other label. (Applause.)
We recognize that this is a revolutionary movement, and that the capitalists are not the only foes that you are to fight, but the most ardent enemy will be the pure and simple trades unionist. But there is only a few of him. He is not very well organized. You have got a tremendous field to work in. There are at least twenty million unorganized wage workers in the United States of America, to say nothing of Canada. This industrial union movement is broad enough to take in all of them, and we are here for the purpose of launching that union that will open wide its doors to the working class. I care not for the skilled mechanic particularly, the pure and simple trades unionist who enforces an apprenticeship for the benefit of the man that will close down the factory or the mine at a moment’s notice and throw out the men who have devoted their time to become skilled for his especial benefit. What I want to see come from this organization is an uplifting of the fellow that is down in the gutter. (Applause). And there must be arrangements made for others than wage earners. Now, don’t misunderstand me. I mean, for the unemployed, the man that would like to be a wage earner (applause), and the purpose of this organization will be to reduce hours sufficiently to give that fellow an opportunity to work. (Applause). There will be no maximum scale of wages, I take it, established by this organization. There will be no agreement that will tie you up over night. (Applause). I voice these sentiments because I am imbued with them, being a member of the Western Federation of Miners, a revolutionary industrial labor organization. We have not got an agreement existing with any mine manager, superintendent or operator at the present time. We have got a minimum scale of wages. The Western Federation of Miners has established in nearly all the cities throughout the West and the entire Province of British Columbia the eight-hour day, and we did not have a legislative lobby to accomplish it. (Laughter and applause.)
Now, I would suggest this conundrum: If the American Federation of Labor spends $5,000 a year maintaining a legislative lobby and gets through absolutely none of the measures that they advocate, how long will it take the American Federation of Labor to bring the working class to the full product of their toil? (Laughter). Now, it is not the purpose of the American Federation of Labor to bring about such a condition. As Mr. Gompers has said on a number of occasions, “We want a little more, until we get what belongs to us.” But he has never gone on record as saying what belongs to the working class. (Applause). He should know—he is a Republican—that one of the greatest Republicans in this country said that inasmuch as labor produces nearly all of the good things of life, the duty of the government and its greatest aim should be to see that the producers of that wealth or of those things shall enjoy the full product of their labor. That was Abraham Lincoln; not quite correctly quoted, but nearly so. (Applause). Gompers does not seem to recognize that labor produces all wealth, and it has always been somewhat of a marvel to me that they should be continually chasing after the Western Federation of Miners to reaffiliate with them, because inscribed on the charter of the Western Federation of Miners is the motto, “Labor produces all wealth; wealth belongs to the producer thereof.” (Applause). And we are striving to carry that motto into its fulfillment. That is the reason that we have come out of the West and come to Chicago to meet in convention with our brothers and sisters, realizing that we must all be uplifted at the same time (applause), that society can be no better than its most miserable. If you will assist us in establishing a plane of living for the working class whereby every man and woman will enjoy a decent livelihood, we will at least have the, satisfaction of knowing that our children will never get below that condition. It is worth making an effort for, delegates, and I believe that your most earnest consideration will be directed toward that end; and if it is so directed you will have the earnest and hearty support of the Western Federation of Miners. (Applause.)
As the delegates that have previously spoken remarked, strength does not always come from numbers. The American Federation of Labor is two millions strong.
A DELEGATE: No! no!!
DEL. HAYWOOD: Nearly so.
THE DELEGATE: Six hundred thousand.
DEL. HAYWOOD: Well, two million may be too many for any one to grasp the meaning of. It may be only one million. Say it is one million. The Western Federation of Miners comes in here with twenty-seven thousand. The capitalist class of this country fear the Western Federation of Miners more than they do all the rest of the labor organizations in this country. (Applause). And we have given them a better run for their money (applause), and every time that it becomes necessary for us to make a stand against that class they begin to clean out their cannons and burnish up their bayonets. There has not been a strike in the mines by the Western Federation of Miners but what we have been confronted with the militia, the judiciary, the county and the state and municipal officers. In 1892 in the Coeur d’Alene they had out the entire militia of the State. In 1894 in the Cripple Creek district they had out the entire militia, but for once in the history of the labor movement it was on the workingman’s side. (Applause). In 1896, in Leadville, as Delegate O’Neil will bear me out, the members of that organization had to live on bacon and beans or beans straight for a number of days. In 1899 again, in the Coeur d’ Alene, they had out the militia. And you know something about the recent strike in Colorado. So that the history of the Western Federation of Miners has been a militant one. We are known as a progressive and an aggressive organization, sufficiently aggressive to keep the other fellows busy all the time. (Applause). And during the brief period of our existence we have improved the conditions of our membership. We have lessened their hours to a greater extent than any other labor organization, and during the last two years, although it was the set purpose and intention of the capitalist class of the entire West—they were all in hearty accord—to defeat and annihilate the Western Federation of Miners, we went into our last convention three thousand stronger than we were at the previous convention. (Applause). And we are continuing to grow. We want you to join hands with us, stand shoulder to shoulder with us and see if we will not be able to infuse in the working class of this country the same militant spirit with which the Western Federation of Miners is imbued. (Applause). I want to say that if that is accomplished, not only Gompers but the capitalists will begin to tremble. Mr. Gompers in a recent editorial of the American Federationist, referred to this, the then coming convention as the coming “gabfest.” There has been some talking done here in this convention, but there has not been a delegate that took the floor but said something, and that something meant something; it meant something for the working class, and it meant the doom and the burial of such fakirs as Samuel Gompers. (Applause). There is not a man in the ranks of labor in this country who is not dominated by a paid agent, but is in hearty accord with this movement; not one member of the rank and file. On the other hand, there is not a salaried officer, president or secretary-treasurer of any of the International organizations who has a soft snap like I have got, but is opposed to this movement, because he knows that it is going to take away his job, or a number of them will lose their jobs. There are in the metal industry a number of different organizations that have two or three members in an International, just sufficient membership to make a good living for the officers at headquarters. (Applause). There is going to be a coming together of those Internationals. There are in the mining industry in this country at least four or five International organizations. I want to predict that the coal, the metal interests, the salt and the smelting and milling Internationals are coming together, and there are some of us fellows that are going to lose our jobs, but if in the uplifting of the whole that can be accomplished I won’t have to work any harder than I do now, and I hope to get better paid. (Laughter and applause.)
The indictments that have been presented against the International Unions and the American Federation of Labor are not nearly as strong as they could have been made, but I think that they are sufficient for the occasion. Every individual delegate on this floor knows the terrible corruption that exists in many of these International organizations; and right here in the city of Chicago, if the truth be told, the teamsters who are endeavoring to wage a fight against the mercantile institutions have been sold out by their leaders a number of times. I am not making this assertion and saying that it is true, but it has been asserted and never contradicted. It is the duty of those teamsters to dig down deep and see if there is any fire from whence comes this smoke.
I do not desire to take up the time of the convention. I just want to reiterate that in coming here we come in good faith. We are prepared to install the Western Federation of Miners in this new industrial movement. I am delighted to see the extreme political forces joining hands on this economic middle-ground. This is what I regard as the basis of all political parties, a solid foundation from whence an organization can be built where the workers can come into a solid and grand formation, and just as surely as the sun rises, when you get the working class organized economically it will find its proper reflection at the polls. Let this movement be not for political purposes, but bear this well in mind that it is for the purpose of supervising; that it is for the purpose of saying to the operators of Illinois that “you cannot close down the mines, for the work that we do in these coal mines means bread and butter to our wives and our families, and when you take away from us the means of life you are murdering us, and we are not going to tolerate it any longer.” (Applause). You have seen stalwart men right here in the city of Chicago, and you will find many of them, with their emaciated wives and their babies dying on dried-up breasts, and these men haven’t got nerve enough to go out and steal. (Applause). The purpose of this organization is to give every man an opportunity to work. That is not asking very much, just the opportunity to work. The other fellow don’t want to work. We want to work, and we want to make it impossible for the operators to close down a coal mine when that mine is ready for operation, and we want it to be operated for the benefit of the people. We want to make it impossible for them to close down the factories when there are people needing clothes. We want to insist that production shall be carried on for the benefit of all of the people all of the time, and to give all of the people work whenever they want it and need it. (Applause.)
Mr. Chairman and Delegates: I presume that the majority of the delegates, particularly those who have signed the Manifesto, will be expected to say something concerning the mission that has brought us to Chicago. So far as I am personally concerned I feel a reluctance to making a speech, owing to the fact that I have never been able to store up anything of value in my mental warehouse by listening to myself talk. I have learned from experience that the man who is a good and attentive listener can gather knowledge far more rapidly than the individual whose ambition soars to occupy those lofty and enviable heights occupied by a Cicero or a Demosthenes in the realms of oratory. I believe, however, that the time has come in the history of the labor movement of this country and of the world when the toiling millions should break for once and forever the shackles of trade and craft autonomy—and come together in a solid compact body enlisted under the flag of industrial unionism. (Applause). The history of the labor movement for the past few years has demonstrated as never before that craft and trade organizations are as helpless upon the economic battle field in measuring steel with Employers’ Associations as the individual midget in a contest with a brawny Hercules. Defeat after defeat has been written by the vanquished on the pages of labor history, and yet the champions and advocates of craft autonomy are still appealing to the maimed and crippled and blacklisted victims of many battles to use the same old weapons that belong to the days of the stage coach and the ox cart. (Applause). The great Napoleon of trade autonomy of this country has proclaimed that the trade union is after “more and more and more.” More what? I presume more prosperity like the textile workers got in Massachusetts (applause); more treason like the subway strikers got in New York; more banquets like the Civic Federation tenders to the harmony-and-identity-of-interest promoters who are struggling to bring about the brotherhood of labor and capital; and more injunctions from the judicial factories of the Federal Courts. (Applause). This is the kind of “more and more and more” that Christ got when craft treachery culminated in his crucifixion on Calvary. (Applause.)
Since coming to Chicago I have seen the injunctions of the courts peddled upon the wagons. Men of Chicago have seen in the past few months the fruit that grows on the judicial tree. They have heard the mandates that come from the lips of the judicial Cesar. They have realized as never before that the grand sentiments that once fell from the lips of an Abraham Lincoln, that this is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, has been substituted with a government by injunction. When conflicts nowadays arise between capital and labor the magnates of wealth, through Employers’ Associations, invade the sanctuary of the courts, and from these tribunals of justice—of so-called justice—comes forth a weapon that annuls the declaration of independence and makes the Constitution of the United States look like thirty cents. (Applause). Government by injunction today robs from labor every jewel that crowns the brow of liberty; yea, more, disgraces the memory of every patriot whose valor was consecrated in defense of human rights. There is no injunction against the widows’ tears. There is no injunction against the orphan’s grief, whose parent fell by the bullet of the hired assassin. There is no injunction against the destiny that steals from the cheek of virtue the rosy flush of shame, the priceless charm of womanhood. There is no injunction against the wage slave lifting his eyes towards the dome of Heaven and praying to the ruler of human destinies to take away the tired and weary soul from its casement of clay. No. Let plutocracy beware. Other Jeffersons to-day are writing Declarations of Independence that are kindling in the hearts of millions the smoldering embers of human liberty. (Applause). Yea, more; in the years that are to come in the near future a new Lincoln will come from the loins of this republic to strike from the limbs of American manhood the chains and shackles of corporate bondage. A few more injunctions; a few more bull pens in the Coeur d’Alene and Colorado; a few more barricades at Virden, Illinois; a few more wails of misery from hungry and famishing lips; a few more murders and a few more tears as the annual tribute which labor pays to corporate greed, and there will arise from the brain and the muscle of this nation an army of heroes breathing the spirit of ’76, who will wend their way to the ballot box on the day of election and there deposit a vote whose voice will shake from center to circumference every prop and pillar upon which is reared the hated structure of private greed. (Applause). If that ballot fails, if the people are disfranchized, then the scattered millions of working people will come together and wend their way toward the banks of the Potomac, not bearing a white banner with the image of Christ engraved thereon as did Coxey’s army in 1894; no, but holding aloft the emblem of this nation’s liberty, that product of the soil of the thirteen colonies; and when they stand beneath the dome of the nation’s capitol proclaiming in the language of him who lifted the lamp up to the trembling millions in 1861, that this is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, then the brass-buttoned, blue-coated warriors in the shape of policemen will not be able to keep them off the grass. (Applause.)
Delegate Moyer was called for.
THE CHAIRMAN: Brother Moyer, let me read this
“Mr. Chairman, as we have heard the hero of Woodstock jail, Brother Debs, we would also like to hear the hero of the bull pen of Colorado, Brother Moyer.”
DEL. MOYER: While I assure you that I appreciate the action of the delegate or whoever might have offered the invitation read by the Chairman, I am going to disappoint the delegates at this time, if it might be a disappointment, as far as I am concerned, in regard to making a speech. I am not going to make a speech at this time. I have been appointed by the delegates representing my organization as one of the Committee on Constitution, to draw up a Constitution that may govern the organization expected to be launched by the delegates in this convention. When that Committee of which I have been honored by appointment as a member submits its report to this convention, I expect to take up considerable of the time of this convention in discussing that Constitution, or rather the work of that committee which has been appointed to draft a Constitution to govern the proposed organization. For that reason I feel that it is unnecessary at this time for me to take up the time of the convention. I might say, though, in the ten minutes that has been allotted to delegates to address the convention, that I come here to-day for the purpose of assisting in inaugurating an industrial union movement; a movement that is intended for the working class, a movement that will embody in its membership not only a certain class of wage workers, but every man, woman and child who under the present system are compelled to work for a day’s wages. And in the report that I may make as a member of your Constitution Committee I hope to make it broad enough to cover that of which I have just spoken. Your Chairman, representing the Western Federation of Miners, has expressed to you in words as plain as I could the sentiments of the organization which we represent. I could add nothing to what he has already said to the delegates in this convention. I feel that it is necessary for the delegates in this convention on the different committees that have been appointed, to get down to work and draw up something tangible for this body of working people to work upon, and for that reason I desire to defer whatever remarks I may make to this convention until after the committee on which I have been appointed submit their work to this convention, when I assure you that you will hear something from me as one of the signers of the Manifesto which is responsible for this gathering here at the present time. I thank you for your attention. (Applause.)
DEL. COATES: Fellow Delegates: I really did not intend upon this occasion to say a single, solitary word to this convention. I had hoped that in the great mass of the orators before this convention who have preceded they would touch more fully upon a practical industrial organization. I want to say that I do not believe that there has been a single, solitary word uttered here to-day but what I can fully endorse. I, too, want a final condition that will bring the full fruition of toil to the toilers. I, too, want this organization based solely and wholly upon the class struggle. (Applause). As I said before, I can endorse practically everything that has been said upon those lines as to the conditions that have made this gathering necessary, and it is not necessary for me to go again over that ground. But, my friends, during this talk I want to try to impress this audience, if I can, with the idea that to bring into fruition the desires of this convention, the desires of the wage working men and women of this country, a practical, everyday industrial organization, we must not be carried away in the deliberations of this convention with a purely idealistic condition. I do not mean idealistic in the sense that some mean it. I mean that we do not want to go away with the idea that we have fixed our eyes upon a condition that will come perhaps twenty-five or fifty or a hundred years from now. I want this convention, when it has ceased its labors as a convention, to give us an organization that will start its wheels of machinery the moment we quit here; that will bring into line and into a line of solidarity every man and woman who toil for a living in this nation. (Applause). I don’t want to go out of this convention simply telling our fellow workers that “you are entitled to the full product of your labor.” I want to tell him something with that sentiment. I want to tell him something that is going to give him some courage and some hope to battle for the full fruit of his toil. (Applause). I want to give him a practical basis for the fullest organization under the wage system that will give him the opportunity to live and labor until he gets the full product of his toil. (Applause). I want to go forth from this convention with a message to every wage worker of the nation, that if they will get into an organization such as we hope to perfect there will be no longer such scenes as we see here upon the streets of Chicago to-day. I do not want to tell him that in 2005 or some other distant date poverty will be abolished by the total enjoyment of our labor, but I want to tell him that here and now, to-day, the entire paralyzation of industry in this city would remove the damnable conditions that we have here and now, to-day. I want to bring him this now, within a very few short months; to bring him into a perfect working organization of labor that will wheel into line as fast as the necessity of the occasion admits until we have lined up shoulder to shoulder every wage worker in the struggle for the least of these. My friends, the conditions that have shown us the failure of the ordinary trades union to-day are the things that we must take advantage of to-day. It must lead us to build an organization to-day that will avoid these mistakes and give us some encouragement to go before the great army of labor of this country and seek its alliance with this organization. I want a practical organization that will align all the forces of labor in this country in every line of industry. I want the teamster’s cause to be the cause of the printer. I want the printer’s cause to be the cause of the laborer upon the street. I want the cause of every wage worker to be the cause of every other wage worker, right now, to-morrow, battling for the bread and butter of their families. (Applause). And while I agree with what the other preceding speakers have believed will be the final result of this gathering, of this convention, I want you not to be carried away solely with the final fruition of this work. I want you to come down here so that we can begin and perfect this organization through its constitution, and start a movement that will begin to-morrow morning and align these forces absolutely in one solitary, single, all-powerful organization. (Applause.)
And now I want to say that during the speeches upon this floor I have been impressed with the idea that there are two dangers to the growth of this organization. I believe the first danger is a too idealistic condition, or organization rather. I have touched on that somewhat, and it is not necessary for me to repeat it. The other danger is the too enthusiastic ambitions of not only the delegates here upon this floor, but of the men and women who agree with them in their sentiments. I want to warn this organization now that they must decide not only on a plan of everyday, practical working organization, but they must too decide on the level-headed management of men who will not be swayed altogether with the idea that we are simply striving for that one far-off star. I do not want the enthusiasm that will go behind this movement when we get through, to lead it into a situation that will mean our early destruction. I believe to-day, fellow delegates, that if it had not been for the too enthusiastic work of the American Railway Union it would have stood to-day the greatest organization of labor that this country has ever known. (Great applause.) But it was that very thing that I want to call the attention of the delegates to which I believe Comrade Debs can tell you put the A. R. U. out of business. We want to be careful along those lines. We want to get a good, practical organization—that is all I am asking you for—and a good, practical, level-headed management and membership of that organization that would continue on for a few years to bear the burden of battle as you have borne it for a number of years, until we can mass behind this movement a great army that can no longer be defeated upon the economic field. I thank you very much. (Applause.)
DEL. SIMONS: I was one of those who were present at the Manifesto meeting. I shall take but a few moments of your time, but there are a few things that came to me while charmed in listening here. It seems to me that somehow it is typical, if not fitting, that this movement should spring from this city, the city in which was fought the battle that I believe, howe’er it may be writ down in our history, was the greatest victory that the American labor movement has ever fought—a victory that was gained because it placed this entire country on an alignment between plutocracy and democracy; a battle that in spite of the fact that it apparently ended in Woodstock jail, is not ended yet, but is going on to-day. (Applause). And all around me here I feel, and know that the forces that called for the power of the President and that called for all the strength that plutocracy could muster at the hands of the general government, that paralyzed the affairs of this nation the most thoroughly they were ever paralyzed—I feel that those same forces which that fight brought out in Pullman town are to-day again rallying for a victory more powerful than ever dreamed of before. (Applause.)
Men, we have seen here in America the rise and fall of labor organization after labor organization. We saw the rise before the Civil War of that first organization, the National Labor Union. It grew, developed and went down, to rise again in the K. of L., taking to itself some other and better force. That again went down when that found itself unable to cope with the industrial relations existing. We have seen the rise more recently of the A. F. of L.; and mark you this, that when it held its tenth convention it had one-third the delegates that are seated in this ball to-day. But it came as the representative of a certain set of industrial conditions. It arose out of a proletariat that did not understand that class consciousness is an absolute necessity upon which to build for victory and for certainty. It arose out of the competitive period, the period of little industries. That period is gone, and the working class of to-day can no more fight their battle with weapons drawn from that age than you can fight on the military field with the flint-lock and the musket of the Revolution or of ’65. To-day new conditions have brought forth a new organization. That organization, because it does correspond to the industrial facts from which it is sprung, is bound to go on to victory.
But while we are caught with this enthusiasm let me say to you, comrades, brothers and sisters, do not, as the last speaker said, let your enthusiasm carry you away with the idea that we are not going to fight. If this organization is founded, as it will be here, founded firmly, it means the first or gathering nucleus of the army that shall overthrow plutocracy; and don’t forget that plutocracy will recognize the fact. And against those who are here and who take upon themselves this battle will be turned all the cohorts of hell and capitalism that can be turned against us. Against us will be turned the powers of a prostituted press. Against us will be turned all the forces that can be marshaled on the field of intellect, whether political, social, or industrial. Against us will be turned those that turn from our own ranks as traitors, making themselves misleaders of the working class. Against those forces we have got to fight, and I appeal to any one here that is not ready to go into that fight, that is not ready to take up that burdendon’t attempt to come into this organization; don’t lay your hands to the plow if you intend to turn back when the battle grows fierce, when the fight grows hard. (Applause). Moreover, let us lay no weapon aside. Some have said to me, “What place have you in a labor organization?” And I must say that I recognize that my place is small. This convention, this fight, is one that I cannot do much in, but what little I can I will do. I know it is little, from the very fact that you justly regard me as one who is some how shut out from your class—yet Heaven knows I work hard enough for little enough wages. Nevertheless, though I realize that I cannot lead you the strength that I should give to you were I in another position, yet I say to you that the reason I come into this fight is because I am enlisted for life in the battle for the betterment of myself, my family, my children, and because I know that I cannot get free until you all are free, and so I want to fight with you for better things for humanity. (Applause). So I say that I come into this because I want no weapon left untouched in this battle, the greatest battle the age has ever known. When I say that on the political field we will fight, I do not say that when we drop those ballots into the box that I know they will be counted, but I know we will go on to victory. I want to see that the proletariat of America has left no weapon out of its reach in the armory; that it stands ready to grasp the ballot, the strike, the bullet if it should be that we are driven to it. (Applause.)
They told us the other day in the American Federationist that this is treason meeting here., Treason? Brothers and sisters, to whom? Treason to whom? It is not we who have banqueted with the emissaries of capitalism; it is not we who have shaken hands across the chasm that no human being can bridge—the chasm that lies between robber and robbed, between the exploiter and the exploited. It is not we who have signed away our birthright over the wine table of our oppressor. No. (Applause). Our treason, if treason it be, is treason only to the rulers who have placed their power above us by virtue of fraud and force, and no other. (Applause.)
And so I say we welcome you all, not to a beautiful vision of the Cooperative Commonwealth; not to the millennium, but to a hard, bitter, desperate fight that may last out your lives. (Applause). But let me ask of you to remember that in that fight after all, the strongest fight that you can make is a constructive, sane and deliberate fight. The mere operation of picking out and painting in lurid colors the despicable traitors that have betrayed our class may gratify our vindictiveness; better than that, it may gratify an outraged and betrayed and righteous indignation. But after all, the weapon that will strike the hardest, the blow that will land the heaviest, the shot that will send the furthest and finally dash the temple to the ground, are things that belong to the capitalists and capitalism itself.
And now I want just simply to say that I hope that in this organization which is to be founded, that when we come together in our deliberations we may realize that we have to build up; that we have to lay foundation stones and that we have to build with human beings and not with mere blocks of wood that can be fitted as you like; that we may have our plan of organization founded upon absolutely eternal principles and adapted and adjusted to the forces that we must use in the battle that we must wage, to the industrial conditions out of which it springs. If we do that, if we work wisely, forgetting the past,—I care not what a man has been (applause)—I say, forgetting the past in this fight that is here—no matter what men may have done or may not have done, those battles must be fought outside of this organization; this must not be the place to fight them out. Here in this organization we have a purpose on which we are united, and no man can make himself my enemy within that organization until he betrays the purposes of that organization. (Applause). And I believe that on that basis, on that foundation, we have before us an opportunity such as is offered to no other working class in the world.
Over in Russia they are battering down the remnants of an old feudalism. They are fighting there, shedding their blood in order to advance society perhaps only to another bourgeois revolution. We hope not. Here that ground is cleared for us. We have no aristocracy but plutocracy, no division excepting the class line, a perfect concentration of industry and a complete proletarization of the working class. The lines are clear. The fight is plain. There is nothing to bedim our eyes, nothing to befog the issue save differences that our own ignorance arouses. Let us clear them up. Let us marshal together, let us stand together, knowing that we are right, fighting on, hard and strong, determined, undiscouraged no matter what may come, to the victory that we know is there, because it is a part of the very essence of things, and cannot be denied us when we are ready to take it. (Applause.)
DEL. ROWE:—Mr. Chairman and Delegates: I am placed in rather a peculiar position by this convention, because I do not know whether or not the American Flint Glass Workers’ Union will decide to affiliate with this new industrial organization or not. I know that the membership of this organization that I represent, by a referendum vote of over two to one, voted to send representatives to this convention. I know that they are sympathetic with the Manifesto issued calling for this convention. I know, too, that we have some of the brightest trades unionists in our organization that I believe are to be found among any of the labor organizations in the United States of America. But nothwithstanding my peculiar position at this time, I feel that I would be untrue to myself if I refused to express a few words to you people assembled here this afternoon. Personally I feel that there cannot be anything but good come from this convention. (Applause.) When I see such intellectual giants from the East as De Leon, from the West as Haywood, Moyer, O’Neil and other speakers, and from the Central West as Debs and Simons and others (applause), the results of this convention must have a gratifying and inspiring effect upon the workers of the world. (Applause.)
Our organization is at loggerheads with the American Federation of Labor. We cannot agree with that contented spirit of apathy that is now prevailing among the leaders of that organization. We cannot understand how the workers of the United States can be contented to live in back alleys, living in huts, while the people that produce no wealth are living in palaces and are gorged with wealth and luxury. (Applause). The leaders of labor who preach contentment to those people are misleaders; they are not trying to give them the true light. (Applause). I believe that from this convention will spring the international emancipation of the working class. (Applause). The news that we have heard in this country, about the American Railway Union strike, the strikes of the Western Federation of Miners, the coal mines where workingmen were shot to death in Pennsylvania and other States in the United States of America, is no different from the news that we get from other countries. If you have watched industrial affairs in foreign countries in the last two years I am sure you have read of the bread riots in Italy, the strikes and riots in Barcelona, Spain, in Buda Pesth, in Brussels, Belgium, and in Paris. Now, this wage movement, this industrial emancipation, is encircling the globe, and the most hopeful sign that I can discern of this movement is that it is international, that the working people of all lands and climes are going to clasp their hands and come together in one solid phalanx until they encircle the entire world. (Applause.) In the words of Karl Marx, “Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.” (Applause). This is the movement that is going to forge the American link to that international chain of industrial unionism that is going to free the workingmen and workingwomen. There has been much said about what the American Federation of Labor has done to certain organizations. I want to tell you of one particular harm they have done to the American Flint Glass Workers’ Union. When we had a strike in New York, the sixth vice-president of the American Federation of Labor sent an executive head to Washington, Pa., where a nonunion glass factory exists, and he admitted to membership in the Glass Bottle Blowers’ Association a crew of nonunionists and sent them to New York to take the places of the striking men in the American Flint Glass Workers’ Union. We preferred charges against that officer. We proceeded to Washington and prosecuted him, and this is the decision that was rendered by the American Federation of Labor executive council: “We find the sixth vice-president not guilty of the charge. He simply went to one locality and converted a crew of nonunion men into union men and transferred them to another locality to fulfill the complement of men required in that industry.” Did you ever hear of such a decision as that?
A DELEGATE: Yes, there are lots of them.
DEL. ROWE: We withdrew from the American Federation of Labor, and we have been on the outs with them ever since. But we wanted an opportunity of showing the delegates to the American Federation of Labor convention how we were treated by that executive council, and at our last convention two delegates were elected with me to proceed to the San Francisco convention of the American Federation of Labor to tell that convention how we had been treated by their executive council and officials. We requested the executive council and national officers to give us an audience before the San Francisco convention of the American Federation of Labor, and they told us that we could not be heard. They won’t give the rank and file of their organization a chance to see what that executive council is doing. Everybody who has watched the jurisdiction decisions rendered by the executive council of the American Federation of Labor will agree with me that it is nothing but a bargain counter executive council.
We delegates now come to this convention, and I want to say to you that I am a Socialist, and I have been an active Socialist in the Socialist party and Social Democratic party for a number of years, as can be testified by people in this convention (applause), but we have a large number of members in our organization who do not believe in Socialism. There are other organizations in this convention, one in particular, that I believe has about 75,OO0 members. If this convention will act wisely, according to my view we are going to form a trade union industrial labor organization and depend upon the educational influence of the intellectual leaders of this organization to enlighten the people on that secondary consideration. (Applause). I believe that our movement here should be this: to form a bona fide labor organization; a trades union that is class conscious with reference to the wage worker’s interest. When we have done that, we will have plenty of time in the future to perform that secondary work to this movement.
I want to make another suggestion. I believe that this organization should decide to hold another national convention about the month of November or some time later this season, because if you do that, the delegates who are at this convention like myself and colleagues and a number of other delegates to this convention who are not here with full power to act, will have an opportunity to report to their respective constituencies, and it will give them an opportunity of sending representatives back to the second convention and start this movement as speedily as we can do it with wisdom, in the interest of the people we represent. (Applause.)
Now, I have enjoyed listening to the speakers here this afternoon. It has had a very edifying effect upon me, and I am sure it has had a similar effect upon many other members in attendance at this convention. And I am glad to see that there is little in the way of personal animosities, and that these little feelings that have existed before this convention assembled have evaporated, and all these true leaders in the labor movement get together in one true spirit of harmony, pledged to one solid purpose, and that is the emancipation of the working class. (Applause.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I want to take this opportunity of telling the representatives of the press that are here, and others that may be in the audience, that the least that this convention expects from the press is the truth. (Applause). And also that this convention will not tolerate the representatives of the press if they misrepresent, and that when the reporter in the Tribune said that many bottles or glasses of beer had been brought up here from the saloon below, that he knew he was writing a contemptible lie. (Applause). It only adds proof of a purpose to misrepresent.
DEL. LUCY E. PARSONS: I can assure you that after the intellectual feast that I have enjoyed immensely this afternoon, I feel fortunate to appear before you now in response to your call. I do not wish you to think that I am here to play upon words when I tell you that I stand before you and feel much like a pygmy before intellectual giants, but that is only the fact. I wish to state to you that I have taken the floor because no other woman has responded, and I feel that it would not be out of place for me to say in my poor way a few words about this movement.
We, the women of this country, have no ballot even if we wished to use it, and the only way that we can be represented is to take a man to represent us. You men have made such a mess of it in representing us that we have not much confidence in asking you; and I for one feel very backward in asking the men to represent me. We have no ballot, but we have our labor. I think it is August Bebel, in his “Woman in the Past, Present and Future”—a book that should be read by every woman that works for wages—I think it is Bebel that says that men have been slaves through-out all the ages, but that woman’s condition has been worse, for she has been the slave of a slave. I think there was never a greater truth uttered. We are the slaves of the slaves. We are exploited more ruthlessly than men. Wherever wages are to be reduced the capitalist class use women to reduce them, and if there is anything that you men should do in the future it is to organize the women.
And I tell you that if the women had inaugurated a boycott of the State street stores since the teamsters’ strike they would have surrendered long ago. (Applause). I do not strike before you to brag. I had no man connected with that strike to make it of interest to me to boycott the stores, but I have not bought one penny’s worth there since that strike was inaugurated. I intended to boycott all of them as one individual at least, so it is important to educate the women. Now I wish to show my sisters here that we fasten the chains of slavery upon our sisters, sometimes unwittingly, when we go down to the department store and look around for cheap bargains and go home and exhibit what we have got so cheap. When we come to reflect it simply means the robbery of our sisters, for we know that the things cannot be made for such prices and give the women who made them fair wages.
I wish to say that I have attended many conventions in the twenty-seven years since I came here to Chicago’ a young girl, so full of life and animation and hope. It is to youth that hope comes; it is to age that reflection comes. I have attended conventions from that day to this of one kind and another and taken part in them. I have taken part in some in which our Comrade Debs had a part. I was at the organization that he organized in this city some eight or ten years ago. Now, the point I want to make is that these conventions are full of enthusiasm. And that is right; we should sometimes mix sentiment with soberness; it is a part of life. But, as I know from experience, there are sober moments ahead of us, and when you go out of this hall, when you have laid aside your enthusiasm, then comes solid work. Are you going out with the reflection that you appreciate and grasp the situation that you are to tackle? Are you going out of here with your minds made up that the class in which we call ourselves, revolutionary Socialists so-called—that that class is organized to meet organized capital with the millions at its command? It has many weapons to fight .us. First it has money. Then it has legislative tools. Then it has its judiciary; it has its army and its navy; it has its guns; it has armories; and last, it has the gallows. We call ourselves revolutionists. Do you know what the capitalists mean to do to you revolutionists? I simply throw these hints out that you young people may become reflective and know what you have to face at the first’ and then it will give you strength. I am not here to cause any discouragement, but simply to encourage you to go on in your grand work.
Now, that is the solid foundation that I hope this organization will be built on; that it may be built not like a house upon the sand, that when the waves of adversity come it may go over into the ocean of oblivion; but that it shall be built upon a strong, granite, hard foundation; a foundation made up of the hearts, and aspirations of the men and women of this twentieth century who have set their minds, their bands, their hearts and their heads against the past with all its miserable poverty, with its wage slavery, with its children ground into dividends, with its miners away down under the earth and with never the light of sunshine, and with its women selling the holy name of womanhood for a day’s board. I hope we understand that this organization has set its face against that iniquity, and that it has set its eyes to the rising star of liberty, that means fraternity, solidarity, the universal brotherhood of man. I hope that while politics have been mentioned here I am not one of those who, because a man or woman disagrees with me, cannot act with them—I am glad and proud to say I am too broad-minded to say they are a fakir or fool or a fraud because they disagree with me. My view may be narrow and theirs may be broad; but I do say to those who have intimated politics here as being necessary or a part of this organization, that I do not impute to them dishonesty or impure motives. But as I understand the call for this convention, politics had no place here; it was simply to be an economic organization, and I hope for the good of this organization that when we go away from this hall, and our comrades go some to the west, some to the east, some to the north and some to the south, while some remain in Chicago, and all spread this light over this broad land and carry the message of what this convention has done, that there will be no room for politics at all. There may be room for politics; I have nothing to say about that; but it is a bread and butter question, an economic issue, upon which the fight must be made.
Now, what do we mean when we say revolutionary Socialist? We mean that the land shall belong to the landless, the tools to the toiler, and the products to the producers. (Applause.) Now, let us analyze that for just a moment, before you applaud me. First, the land belongs to the landless. Is there a single land owner in this country who owns his land by the constitutional rights given by the constitution of the United States who will allow you to vote it away from him? I am not such a fool as to believe it. We say, “The tools belong to the toiler.” They are owned by the capitalist class. Do you believe they will allow you to go into the halls of the legislature and simply say, “Be it enacted that on and after a certain day the capitalist shall no longer own the tools and the factories and the places of industry, the ships that plow the ocean and our lakes?” Do you believe that they will submit? I do not. We say, “The products belong to the producers.” It belongs to the capitalist class as their legal property. Do you think that they will allow you to vote them away from them by passing a law and saying, “Be it enacted that on and after a certain day Mr. Capitalist shall be dispossessed?” You may, but I do not believe it. Hence, when you roll under your tongue the expression that you are revolutionists, remember what that word means. It means a revolution that shall turn all these things over where they belong to the wealth producers. Now, how shall the wealth producers come into possession of them? I believe that if every man and every woman who works, or who toils in the mines, the mills, the workshops, the fields, the factories and the farms in our broad America should decide in their minds that they shall have that which of right belongs to them, and that no idler shall live upon their toil, and when your new organization, your economic organization, shall declare as man to man and women to woman, as brothers and sisters, that you are determined that you will possess these things, then there is no army that is large enough to overcome you, for you yourselves constitute the army. (Applause). Now, when you have decided that you will take possession of these things, there will not need to be one gun fired or one scaffold erected. You will simply come into your own, by your own independence and your own manhood, and by asserting your own individuality, and not sending any man to any legislature in any State of the American Union to enact a law that you shall have what is your own; yours by nature and by your manhood and by your very presence upon this earth.
Nature has been lavish to her children. She has placed in this earth all the material of wealth that is necessary to make men and women happy. She has given us brains to go into her store house and bring from its recesses all that is necessary. She has given us these two hands and these brains to manufacture them suited to the wants of men and women. Our civilization stands on a parallel with all other civilizations. There is just one thing we lack, and we have only ourselves to blame if we do not become free. We simply lack the intelligence to take possession of that which we have produced. (Applause). And I believe and I hope and I feel that the men and women who constitute a convention like this can come together and organize that intelligence. I must say that I do not know whether I am saying anything that interests you or not, but I feel so delighted that I am talking to your heads and not to your hands and feet this afternoon. I feel that you will at least listen to me, and maybe you will disagree with me, but I care not; I simply want to shed the light as I see it. I wish to say that my conception of the future method of taking possession of this is that of the general strike: that is my conception of it. The trouble with all the strikes in the past has been this: the workingmen like the teamsters in our cities, these hard-working teamsters, strike and go out and starve. Their children starve. Their wives get discouraged. Some feel that they have to go out and beg for relief, and to get a little coal to keep the children warm, or a little bread to keep the wife from starving, or a little something to keep the spark of life in them so that they can remain wage slaves. That is the way with the strikes in the past. My conception of the strike of the future is not to strike and go out and starve, but to strike and remain in and take possession of the necessary property of production. If any one is to starve—I do not say it is necessary—let it be the capitalist class. They have starved us long enough, while they have had wealth and luxury and all that is necessary. You men and women should be imbued with the spirit that is now displayed in far-off Russia and far-off Siberia where we thought the spark of manhood and womanhood had been crushed out of them. Let us take example from them. We see the capitalist class fortifying themselves to-day behind their Citizens’ Associations and Employers’ Associations in order that they may crush the American labor movement. Let us cast our eyes over to far-off Russia and take heart and courage from those who are fighting the battle there, and from the further fact shown in the dispatches that appear this morning in the news that carries the greatest terror to the capitalist class throughout all the world—the emblem that has been the terror of all tyrants through all the ages, and there you will see that the red flag has been raised. (Applause). According to the Tribune, the greatest terror is evinced in Odessa and all through Russia because the red flag has been raised. They know that where the red flag has been raised whoever enroll themselves beneath that flag recognize the universal brotherhood of man; they recognize that the red current that flows through the veins of all humanity is identical, that the ideas of all humanity are identical; that those who raise the red flag, it matters not where, whether on the sunny plains of China, or on the sun-beaten hills of Africa, or on the far-off snow-capped shores of the north, or in Russia or in America—that they all belong to the human family and have an identity of interest. (Applause). That is what they know.
So when we come to decide, let us sink such differences as nationality, religion, politics, and set our eyes eternally and forever towards the rising star of the industrial republic of labor; remembering that we have left the old behind and have set our faces toward the future. There is no power on earth that can stop men and women who are determined to be free at all hazards. There is no power on earth so great as the power of intellect. It moves the world and it moves the earth.
Now, in conclusion, I wish to say to you—and you will excuse me because of what I am going to say and only attribute it to my interest in humanity. I wish to say that nineteen years ago on the fourth of May of this year, I was one of those at a meeting at the Haymarket in this city to protest against eleven workingmen being shot to pieces at a factory in the southeastern part of this city because they had dared to strike for the eight-hour movement that was to be inaugurated in America in 1886. The Haymarket meeting was called primarily and entirely to protest against the murder of comrades at the McCormick factory. When that meeting was nearing its close some one threw a bomb. No one knows to this day who threw it except the man who threw it. Possibly he has rendered his account with nature and has passed away. But no human being alive knows who threw it. And yet in the soil of Illinois, the soil that gave a Lincoln to America, the soil in which the great, magnificent Lincoln was buried in the State that was supposed to be the most liberal in the union, five men sleep the last sleep in Waldheim under a monument that, has been raised there because they dared to raise their voices for humanity. I say to any of you who are here and who can do so, it is well worth your time to go out there and draw some inspiration around the graves of the first martyrs who fell in the great industrial struggle for liberty on American soil. (Applause). I say to you that even within the sound of my voice, only two short blocks from where we meet to-day, the scaffold was erected on which those five men paid the penalty for daring to raise their voices against the iniquities of the age in which we live. We arc assembled here for the same purpose. And do any of you older men remember the telegrams that were sent out from Chicago while our comrades were not yet even cut down from the cruel gallows? “Anarchy is dead, and these miscreants have been put out of the way.” Oh, friends, I am sorry that I even had to use that word, “anarchy” just now in your presence, which was not in my mind at the outset. So if any of you wish to go out there and look at this monument that has been raised by those who believed in their comrades’ innocence and sincerity, I will ask you, when you have gone out and looked at the monument, that you will go to the reverse side of the monument and there read on the reverse side the words of a man, himself the purest and the noblest man who ever sat in the gubernatorial chair of the State of Illinois, John P. Altgeld. (Applause). On that monument you will read the clause of his message in which he pardoned the men who were lingering then in Joliet. I have nothing more to say. I ask you to read the words of Altgeld, who was at that time the governor, and had been a lawyer and a judge, and knew whereof he spoke, and then take out your copy books and copy the words of Altgeld when he released those who had not been slaughtered at the capitalists’ behest, and then take them home and change your minds about what those men were put to death for.
Now, I have taken up your time in this because I simply feel that I have a right as a mother and as a wife of one of those sacrificed men to say whatever I can to bring the light to bear upon this conspiracy and to show you the way it was. Now, I thank you for the time that I have taken up of yours. I hope that we will meet again some time, you and I, in some hall where we can meet and organize the wage workers of America, the men and women, so that the children may not go into the factories, nor the women into the factories, unless they go under proper conditions. I hope even now to live to see the day when the first dawn of the new era of labor will have arisen, when capitalism will be a thing of the past, and the new industrial republic, the commonwealth of labor, shall be in operation. I thank you. (Applause.)
DEL. RICHTER: I move that from this time on the regular rules of order govern the speakers, and that the ten-minute rule be applied. (Seconded.)
DEL. ROSS: I want to amend that motion that if Mother Jones will honor us with a talk within the next twenty-five minutes we extend the time for her. We are due to adjourn at six o’clock but since all the balance of the speakers this afternoon have spoken, with the rule off, we shall do the same with her. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: If Mother Jones will talk, the chair will take the liberty of extending the time by turning the watch back. (Applause.)
Calls were heard for Mother Jones, but she did not respond.
DEL. KNIGHT, PUEBLO: If Mother Jones does not care to speak I would like to speak.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mother Jones seems to think the delegation does not want to hear her to-night. Brother Knight has the floor,
DEL. KNIGHT: Fellow Delegates: I come here for business. I come here from an organization of workingmen. I want to see, as Brother Coates mentioned, a practical organization for the organization of the working class. Not only that, but an organization based upon the class struggle. Now, I was for a while with the Credentials Committee during the speaking, and I never heard what was said at that time, but there is one point that since I have been here I have not heard touched upon, and during the few minutes that I shall talk to you, since I consider it to be one of the most important points in this organization, I want to say a few words on that, and that is the educational feature of this movement. (Applause). There is an old saying that “Knowledge is power.” We know this: that the majority of workingmen to-day of the rank and file who permit themselves to bend their backs to the conditions of wage slavery; who permit themselves to be driven into the tenement houses and into these other conditions that the capitalist class binds upon them—we know that that condition is due to ignorance of their relation to the capitalistic system of society. And we know as a result of that that the only possible way to get a clear, honest and clean-cut solution of this problem, that shall stop the anguish caused by such conditions as have heretofore prevailed, is to have an intelligent understanding of this question by the rank and file; and it devolves upon our intellectual giants that are here, it devolves upon all of us who are here and who have studied this question, to see that every member of the rank and file becomes as much of an intellectual giant as any of those who may be here. (Applause). And under those circumstances it is our duty, in order to enable this organization to do its duty to the working class, to make this educational feature one of the features of this organization. (Applause). Knowledge is power. Knowledge gives a man self-confidence. Knowledge shows the man where he stands. Knowledge puts him on his feet. It takes him up out of the dust and makes him able to stand up against the so-called intellectuals. These lawyers and all this bunch of fellows that have been to college and got their sheepskins appear to have an advantage over the workman. Now, I am a workman. I have tried to get knowledge, and in all that I have read and in all that I have studied I make it my object to do this. Otherwise I amount to nothing. Otherwise none of us, no workman, amounts to any more than a toad in a puddle. Rudyard Kipling is considered a great English writer. When he first started to write he wrote some good things, and he says something about the butterfly flying among the flowers. The toad might croak and protest against conditions, but the butterfly preaches contentment to the toad. Now, we want to get to the point where we can get rid of these so-called butterflies that flutter upon the outside of knowledge and education. Sound, solid, economic knowledge and sociological knowledge is the knowledge that we want, and if this organization provides for the education of the working class, then this organization can accomplish what it set out to do and what the Manifesto placed before us. (Applause.)
DEL. SCHATZKE: Mr. Chairman and Delegates: I have paid all my attention to what has been said, and I hope you will also give me a little attention. I am proud to be in the company of these modern Demostheneses, and when such a humble man as I am tries to address you I hope you will pardon me for my earnestness and not for the way I may express myself and for my language. The question is the necessity of the Manifesto, or rather the purposes of the Manifesto. I will tell you the necessity for it. The American Federation of Labor is based only on craft division. To keep a job as a delegate, as a walking b-u-s-i-n-e-s-s agent of the workingman, seems to be its chief object. My purpose in coming here is to help form an organization on a different basis. I have worked and helped to bring these stones and I have carried the hod here to lay the foundation. We are here to lay the foundation of a great international movement which shall unite the working class of all countries, and I want to tell you that the two thousand men, women and children who have been killed in Russia helped to lay the foundation of industrial liberty. As I understand it, this convention is called to lay the foundation of a great industrial movement to be based on the class struggle. Society is composed of individuals. I am an organism, and all these little organisms compose society. To preserve society we must do away with the parasites, and protect those who produce the wealth. One of our purposes should be education. I lectured before the American Workers and told them that they should send a delegate, and send the right man. Efforts are being made and will be made to disorganize the movement, but with a proper educational department we need not fear, and we will keep on till labor gets not only higher wages, but will get the whole cheese. I thank you. (Applause.)
DEL. ROSS: Mr. Chairman and Comrade Delegates: I have risen at the close of the regular program as set apart for the day’s work to tell this convention why I am here. I want you union men and brotherhood men, of whatever kind, to hear what I have to say. I repeat, why am I here? After being for forty years a union man and a brotherhood man, why should I stand upon the floor of this convention or occupy a seat here as a delegate? I want to say in the first place, that after serving my time and having the privilege of becoming a locomotive machinist I have been in many organizations in the United States. I was promoted from journeyman workman to shop foreman and master mechanic, and consequently had to relinquish my membership as a journeyman workman. I became a locomotive engineer, and I am proud to say to this convention that there are two or three more of us in here. For seventeen years I paid dues in the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, and never did I fail to fight that grandest of all labor fakirs that ever lived, at every convention that I attended. Why did I make that race? I will tell you why. Because of the conservative action, so to speak, of one of the most conservative labor leaders that this country ever had. And do you know that by being so conservative, by fearing to get into trouble, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers became the worst scab organization that exists. There never was a time in all those years, if the Western and Southern engineers could have outvoted the Eastern and Canadian engineers, but what he would have been dethroned. But with Chauncey Depew upon the Vanderbilt lines holding the Eastern engineers under his thumb, and Arthur holding the Canadian engineers, they were able always to outvote us about 204 to 535. And as has been well said, the Vanderbilt lines have paid Chauncey Depew fifty to sixty thousand dollars a year as president of the road to see that the section hand should get a dollar or less a day.
But I am in this convention. I am past sixty years of age. I have been identified with the working class movement of this country for forty years, and I want to tell you why I am here. As a father of children who have children, I desire to build up some organization that will help my children and my grandchildren and leave them a better inheritance than I have had myself. (Applause). I was glad this afternoon to relinquish the opportunity of making a speech to this convention in order that I might hear others. For eight years my life has been dedicated to the rights of humanity, and I carried a commission as an organizer in some organization up to within less than four weeks ago, when I surrendered a commission sent by Comrade Critchlow, who is a delegate to this convention for the Territory of Oklahoma as organizer,—I surrendered that commission in Dayton, Ohio, less than four weeks ago in order that I might come to this convention representing me and my class, with the world as my friend and humanity as my theme. Thanking you for the few moments you have given, at some future time during the convention I may make an address. (Applause.)
The convention then, at six o’clock, adjourned until to-morrow morning at nine o’clock.,
• Day 4, Morning Session : Friday, June 30
The convention was called to order shortly after nine o’clock by Chairman Haywood.
The roll of members was called by Secretary Trautmann.
Minutes of the previous day’s meeting were read by the Secretary, and there being no corrections, were declared approved.
A communication from Manager Greenebaum, of the Indiana Transportation Company, was read and placed on file.
Secretary Trautmann: Here is a resolution, handed in by a club that was organized as an Industrial Union Workers’ Club, with the names attached to the resolution to be handed in. It is too lengthy to be read now. I have given it to the Resolutions Committee.
DEL. MOYER: Excuse me for breaking into your business to make a statement as to the Committee on Constitution. The committee met last night and organized, and decided that if they were to do their work as a Constitution Committee they could not attend this convention during the day. They feel that it is going to take some time to prepare the constitution and by-laws to govern this movement if launched, and while they would like and I believe they should take part in the deliberations of this body during its sessions they feel that it would be impossible for them to do that and forward the work that has been allotted to them. I would like to have the sense of this body as to whether or not they are going to continue in session while the committee that has been appointed is doing its work. Whatever the action of the convention may be, the Constitution Committee will be compelled to retire and take up the work to which they have been appointed.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: I would suggest that the Constitution Committee make some suggestions to this body as to what is required.
DEL. HALL: I think that the work of the committees is sufficiently important and takes enough of the delegates away from the convention that we can well afford to adjourn during the time that they are working. Therefore, I move you that as soon as the communications now before the convention are finished we adjourn until Saturday at one o’clock to hear the reports of the different committees. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that as soon as the communications that are before the convention have been read the convention stand adjourned until one o’clock Saturday to hear the reports of the different committees.
DEL. DE LEON: I would like to ask Brother Hall whether he would not accept an amendment making it Saturday at nine o’clock and then when the convention meets if the committees are not ready or substantially ready to report and finish their work, that we can adjourn till one. It is possible that having the whole day virtually to work in, they will be through with their work. But if the amendment is not accepted I shall not push it.
DEL. HALL: If that is the sense of the Chairman of the Constitution Committee, that they can finish their work and make a report by Saturday at nine o’clock, I will accept the amendment—accept the suggestion.
DEL. MOYER: I am not prepared to say what time it is going to take the Constitution Committee to submit a report to this convention. That will have to be determined after the committee have completed their work. If we can have it ready at nine o’clock tomorrow we will submit the report at that time. If not, we will continue at work until we have it completed.
DEL. SIMONS: I think there will be some of the committees ready to report by nine o’clock to-morrow morning, at least something, while we will have to get along without some one of the committees at some sessions. Therefore it seems to me that at nine o’clock to-morrow morning we will be ready to do business undoubtedly on some things. Some committees will no doubt be able to do the same at every session all along. We can attend to some business with some sixty members out, and therefore I support the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Will the mover of the motion accept the suggestion of Delegate De Leon to adjourn until nine instead of one?
DEL. HALL: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion stands that we adjourn until nine o’clock to-morrow morning after the reading of the communications that are on the table. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. KERRIGAN: Why not adjourn and let the committees report to the convention at half-past five o’clock? It may be the committees will be ready to report at that time. Then we may be able to do business during the day. At all events, adjourning till to-morrow morning I think is a rather long time, because the Constitution Committee should have that Preamble adopted anyhow by five o’clock to-night. As to the details of the arrangement of industries, about the scavengers and diamond cutters and machinists and others and how they will be arranged in the circle as set out in the program, that is not a matter of very great importance, though it might appear so to some workman to know whether he was to be classified with the trolley drivers one day and with the machinists another day, and so on. I think that all that the Manifesto calls for could probably be covered generally for the present, and the details can be covered at a future session. I think it would take much longer than a day to do that.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question is that the convention stand adjourned until to-morrow morning at nine o’clock after the communications are read.
DEL. WILKE: I do not approve adjourning the convention till nine o’clock to-morrow morning because the important committees have absolutely nothing in their hands to work upon. I am a member of the Resolutions Committee, and not a solitary resolution has been presented to that committee. Consequently if you adjourn till nine o’clock to-morrow we will have nothing to do. I want to see that these delegates around here get busy. I would like to make an amendment that we adjourn till one o’clock this afternoon. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: An amendment has been offered that we adjourn till one o’clock this afternoon. The delegate will please confine his remarks to the question.
DEL. BARTLETT: A point of information. I have heard a call for the getting together of the Resolutions Committee and the Organization Committee, but they did not say anything about a Label and Emblem Committee. I would like to know whether they are to get together immediately after adjournment.
DEL. COATES: I would like to make a motion that we go on till we have gone through with the order of business. If we have any more business let us go through with it, and then if we have no further business let us adjourn. I think that in about fifteen minutes we can go through with the regular order of business. I move that the matter of adjournment be deferred until that time. (Seconded.)
DEL. SULLIVAN: I am opposed to the motion made by Brother Coates to defer, for the reason that the members of those various committees are probably in session and want to attend the sessions of this convention. There certainly can be no business before the convention until the committees report, and if any is ready they might transact their business. But it seems to me that the work of this convention must necessarily be delayed until a constitution is adopted, and I believe that the Committee on Constitution is entitled to the consideration of this convention of having this convention adjourn until within a reasonable time at least, to formulate a report. It is impossible for them to do so during the sessions and be present at the sessions, and I believe that the majority of them at least desire to attend, and they should have the privilege if they want to. Therefore I am in favor of the motion to adjourn until nine o’clock to-morrow.
Question called for.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are taking up an awful lot of time to vote on this proposition. The question is called for. The motion before the convention at this time is to defer action on the motion to adjourn until such time as the routine business has been disposed of. Those in favor of the motion will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. Louder, please. Those in favor of the motion will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The ayes have it; the motion is carried. The Secretary will please read the communications.
The Secretary: I haven’t any more.
THE CHAIRMAN: There are no further communications. Report of Credentials Committee. Has the Credentials Committee any report to make?
DEL. ROWE: I just wish to ask for a point of information. I would like for the chair, if he possibly can, to announce to the delegates how many members of trades unions the delegates here assembled represent, so that we will be enabled to report to our constituents on that point. It has been said that the various delegations here represent about 150,000 members. I would like to know if we can get that information.
DEL. DE LEON: That is not possible at this time.
THE CHAIRMAN: I would request that the Secretary compile as soon as possible the information asked for by the delegate and be prepared to give it at the next session.
Secretary White, of the Credentials Committee, presented a verbal report from that committee, recommending the seating of Mr. Downey, of Lead, South Dakota, as a delegate with one vote.
On motion of Delegate De Leon, duly seconded, the report was concurred in and the delegate seated.
THE CHAIRMAN: Have the special committees any report to make?
No reports were offered.
THE CHAIRMAN: Reports of standing committees. For the Committee on Literature I desire to report progress. Has any of the other standing committees any report to make?
DEL. COATES: I want to report for the Resolutions Committee the fact that up to this time there have been only six members out of the twenty attending the sessions of the committee. We don’t want that kind of attendance at the next meeting. If we have it we are going to ask this convention to change the personnel of the committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: The members of the Resolutions Committee will take notice, and when the chairman of that committee announces a place of meeting let every member of the committee attend that meeting.
DEL. COATES: I was simply going to make that announcement. Now, while I have the floor here, I will say that the Resolutions Committee will meet at that table immediately after this morning’s adjournment, whatever time that is, and I want everybody there.
DEL. DINGER: I would ask, I being a member of the Resolutions Committee, that all resolutions be handed in before the closing of each session. Be ready here in the convention and hand them in and they will be referred to the Resolutions Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other reports of standing committees ?
DEL. MCKINNON: I wish to report that the Ways and Means Committee have not been able to get a quorum. If the committee don’t have a quorum we will have to change the committee, as two or three of us can’t possibly meet when there are twenty members of the committee. We will meet on the stage immediately after adjournment.
DEL. MOYER: The members of the Constitution Committee will meet immediately after adjournment in the adjoining hall.
DEL. REMLEY: The Organization Committee has nothing to report. We met on the stage last night, and there were only two or three of us. I would like to know who the members are and why we cannot get together. We can meet on the stage and select some place of meeting after adjournment.
DEL. MURTAUGH: It seems to me that there are a large number of individuals who are on committees that don’t know it. I have listened very attentively to the reading of committees by the Secretary to find out if possible who those representing themselves only in the convention were that were on the different committees, and from the reading of the Secretary I was unable to learn that. I believe that there are a large number in the same fix.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any further reports of standing committees?
DEL. COATES: I was just going to suggest, under that head, that it is pretty near time to appoint the Label and Emblem Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have got it right here.
DEL. KING: Let the resolutions be read and submitted to the convention.
THE CHAIRMAN: They will be read and referred to the Resolutions Committee. And at this time the chair would like to say that if any delegate has a resolution to offer it will be accepted at this time. The Committee on Literature and Press will meet in the rear end of the hall immediately after adjournment. If there are any groups that made their selection for member of the Committee on Label and Emblem they will please hand it to the chair.
The Secretary then read the following resolutions:
To Provide for the Establishment and Maintenance of an Educational Bureau.
Whereas, The general apathy and indifference to their true interests on the part of the great body of the workers, an apathy and indifference created by the industrial conditions and maintained by the ignorance—fostering methods of the capitalist editors, writers, speakers, and supporters generally, present in many respects the most serious problem of industrial unionism; and
Whereas, This problem can be solved only by the most determined, persistent and systematic efforts at education on the part of this union; therefore be it
Resolved, That we hereby provide for the establishment of an Educational Bureau to consist of two divisions, as follows: First, a literature bureau to disseminate the knowledge and teachings of the class struggle found in the writings and speeches of such exponents thereof as Marx, Engels, Bebel, Lafargue and others of the same school in Europe and America, together with other works on science, history and economics, having direct or indirect bearing upon working class interests. Second, a lecture bureau to keep in the field of the American labor movement a constant supply of speakers and lecturers working in conjunction with the literature bureau. That said speakers and lecturers be chosen with a view to their fitness to teach the history and economics of the class struggle; that they be examined as to their fitness by a competent board of examiners; that each lecturer receive a stipulated salary from the bureau, said salary to be as low as possible so as to keep out unprincipled adventurers with no practical experience in the labor movement; that the locals provide entertainment for said speakers and lecturers while in their respective localities. Be it further
Resolved, That for the use and maintenance of said literature and lecture bureau this organization shall set apart fifty per, cent of its regular receipts for dues, and that the officers of the bureau shall furnish every six months to the local and general organizations full and complete reports of the money expended and the work done. And be it further
Resolved, That the substance of this resolution, together with any changes or additional provisions that may be necessary to carry it into effect, be embodied in the constitution of this organization.
(Resolution submitted by M. P. Haggerty, of the Butte Mill and Smeltermen’s Union, No. 74, of the Western Federation of Miners.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The resolution will be referred to the Constitution Committee.
(Read by Delegate Hall.)
Resolved, That it be the sense of this convention that a public ratification meeting be held not later than July 7th in this city; and
Resolved, That a committee be appointed to make suitable arrangements for the same.
(Thos. J. Hagerty.)
The Chairman: The resolution will be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Read by Delegate Murtaugh.)
Resolved, That it be the sense of this convention that the labor of each individual unit of society is necessary to the welfare of society, and that all are entitled to equal compensation.
THE CHAIRMAN: The resolution will be referred to the Committee on Constitution.
(Read by Delegate Hall.)
In view of the fact that the first of May is the international holiday of the proletariat, be it
Resolved, That we, as industrial unionists, manifest our solidarity with the class conscious wage workers of the world by setting apart the first day of May as the holiday of the American proletariat.
(A. Klemensic.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The resolution just read will be referred to the Committee on Resolutions.
(Read by Delegate Hall.)
Whereas, Experiences of the past in various working class organizations have proved it to be dangerous to put much power into the hands of man by making him the head of an organization ; therefore, be it
Resolved, That we, of the Industrial Workers’ Club of Cincinnati, Ohio, oppose the plan of having a president as outlined in the diagram plan of organization, and favor an executive board, in turn to be controlled by representative committees of all industries in proportion to their dues-paying members as the convention may decide.
(Endorsed by the Industrial Workers’ Club of Cincinnati, Ohio, as instructions to Delegate Max Eisenberg.)
THE CHAIRMAN: That will be referred to the Committee on Constitution.
(Read by Delegate Hall.)
Resolved, That the seceding workers and seceding organizations in the A. F. of L. be required to make a public statement of the reasons of their secession, and furthermore that the rank and file in seceding organizations be thoroughly informed by a course of lectures or otherwise of our Manifesto and plan of organization before they be eligible to membership in the industrial union movement.
(Endorsed by the Industrial Workers’ Club of Cincinnati, Ohio, as instructions to Max Eisenberg.)
THE CHAIRMAN: That properly should be referred to the Committee on Good and Welfare. Not having such a committee, it will be referred to the Committee on Resolutions.
(Read by Delegate Hall.)
To the Officers and Delegates to the Industrial Labor Convention
Whereas, By a call, issued from Chicago, January 2, 3, and 4, 1905, and known as the Manifesto for the purpose of uniting all the producers of wealth into one industrial labor organization in order to better enable the wage earners to wrest from the self-appointed guardians of the producing masses a just and appropriate share of the wealth which they create; and believing that the time has now arrived in the history of the trades unions when a radical change is necessary in their construction to successfully combat and meet the changed conditions and combined corporate control of the industries and business methods and the centralizing of all force where necessary. Lucrative positions or offices in present trades unions should be a secondary consideration. Self-consciousness should be eliminated from our desires. We must lay aside all personal ambition and see only the great benefit to be derived by the army of toilers and the advantage accruing to them. Our whole energies must at this time be used in an honest endeavor to bring together into one compact body the wage earners of all classes, trades and callings, regardless of their color or creed, and then we will be carrying out the oft-demonstrated fact that separately and singly we can be beaten, but collectively and combined into one and all sheltered by the same cover of a universal labor organization we are invincible. Believing that this can be accomplished and the intent and purpose of the Manifesto be observed and every part of it adhered to by adopting a plan of organizing the workers along trade lines giving absolute home rule to each of them, thereby eliminating the expensive and impotent system now in vogue, simplifying and making it possible for a more systematic organization to be organized, eliminating the wars and factions now so much in evidence, bringing the workers into closer relationship with the working machinery of their own organization and locally organizing the workers industrially and centralizing their power by cities, concentrating all into one compact body internationally.
(Alex. Fairgrieve.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The resolution will be referred to the Committee on Organization.
(Read by Delegate Hall.)
Whereas, The universality of the class struggle between the wage working class and the capitalist class being a recognized and accepted fact by this industrial union convention; and
Whereas, There is an identity of interests between the wage workers and a common antagonism of interest existing among the workers as against said capitalistic class; be it
Resolved, By this convention, that we recommend as a final solution of the class struggle the social general strike as the most effective warfare for plutocratic capitalism and to inaugurate a universal democracy for the workers.
(Max Barthold, Industrial Workers’ Club of Chicago.)
THE CHAIRMAN: That will be referred to the Committee on Resolutions.
(Read by Delegate Hall.)
Resolved, That it is the sense of this convention to endorse and provide a perfect system of commercial cooperation.
(W. F. Morrison, Houston, Tex.)
THE CHAIRMAN: This will be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Read by Delegate Hall.)
Resolution offered by Delegate E. Bosky.
Whereas, The knowledge of economic laws is not apparent in this convention; and
Whereas, The construction of a new constitution for a new economic movement depends upon the quality of the construction material used for the purpose;
Resolved, That this convention decide upon a time when a discussion of this subject is to take place.
THE CHAIRMAN: That will be referred to the Committee on Resolutions.
(Read by Delegate Hall.)
Whereas, The maintenance and development of an independent and efficient labor press being essential to the militant working class movement, the effort to extend and improve the organization of the workers must comprehend and include the direct welfare of the labor press; and
Whereas, It is obvious that the present relation of the labor press to the working class is inadequate in that it does not fully nor satisfactorily reflect the activity, interests and aims of the workers ; and
Whereas, We recognize that this condition can only be remedied by an unhampered liberty of speech, a sound and effectual propagation of economic science, a universal system of independent newsgathering, and a democratic spirit preserved and expressed both in the various labor journals and in the union of the entire labor press by an Associated Labor Press; therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Press and Literature Committee be instructed to urge the democratic union of the labor press to the end that its relations to the workers will become true and its power for education and for battle greater by a practical effort to that end.
(Joseph J. O’Brien.)
THE CHAIRMAN: That will be, referred to the Committee on Literature and Press.
Resolved, That the name of this union be the Industrial Union. The Chairman: That will be referred to the Committee on Constitution.
Resolved, That it be the sense of this convention that only those who are wage workers be eligible to membership in this organization.
THE CHAIRMAN: That will be referred to the Committee on Constitution.
Resolved, That this new industrial organization be instituted on July 4th as Independence Day for the wage workers.
THE CHAIRMAN: That will be referred to the Committee on Resolutions.
First—I suggest that the name of this organization shall be the International Toilers’ Union.
Second—This organization shall not condemn any individual for his occupation. His occupation may be unuseful for society, but he is not to blame. But it must condemn the system which produces such individual.
Third—Any individual who performs any duty for this society, and also the individual occupations that can be used in a future society, a door shall be open to them.
Fourth—That it must also provide that every individual could come in; that is, no big initiation fees or high dues.
Fifth—I would suggest that we should establish a central organization, and we shall only charge twenty-five cents initiation fee, and twenty-five cents a year dues. This shall make the individual a member only of the central organization, but he shall also be a member of the local organization which will be a part of this great central organization, and the local initiation fees and dues shall be so low that it shall be in the reach of every workingman.
Sixth—It shall have an international manager or secretary and a national secretary or manager, and its officers, secretaries, organizers or editors shall be paid the same wages as they could make from their own occupations.
Seventh—The organization shall establish a publication, and it shall be supported by the international dues-paying members. The 25 cents a year that every members will pay will probably pay the expenses of the international, national. and state officers. If any individual does not want to belong to a local union which is a part of the central organization he may be a member of this body by only paying in 25 cents initiation fee and 25 cents a year, but the locals shall make it so convenient for members and be reasonable and shall have power to take in the individual in a local union.
Eighth—The meetings shall be public; No secrets, because secrets manufacture spies.
Ninth—This organization must be organized on the class struggle, and the working man shall be taught higher wages only shall not be his aim, but to get the full product of his labor, and so educate him to establish universal peace. At the same time the working man shall not take orders in the shape of a soldier to shoot down his own fellow workingmen.
Respectfully submitted,
J. S. SCHATZKE.
THE CHAIRMAN: That will be referred to the Committee on Constitution. Are there any further resolutions?
No further resolutions were offered.
THE CHAIRMAN: The members of the Label and Emblem Committee are: W. F. Cronin, A. L. U.; T. B. Jackson, S. T. & L. A.; J. A. Ayers, Paper Hangers; A. H. Williamson, U. B. R. E.; Thomas De Young, U. R. R. S. The chair selects Albert S. Cogswell, Chas. Nickolaus and Chas. Kiehn. Is there any further business to come before the convention?
DEL. C. O. SHERMAN: We are now organized and prepared co go ahead and do business. I believe it would be perfectly proper for this convention to have a motion prevail that no more credentials will be received of delegates to sit in this convention. My purpose in saying so is that from the appearance of the credentials that have been coming in they have been dragging along. I claim that there is no excuse now for any one not being here. If it is acceptable I will make a motion to that effect. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The chair will entertain the motion, inasmuch as it is to be decided by the convention. The motion is that no further credentials be accepted and no other delegates be seated. You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for.)
DEL. JORGENSEN, CHICAGO: Mr. Chairman, this convention has assembled, and there are in this city organizations that desire to know something of what is being done here, whose members when they know the situation will want to come in and carry on the great fight that we have begun. During this week many of these labor organizations in Chicago will have their meetings. Before Monday night all will have had their meetings. The news of this organization will spread out to those organizations that have no representation here. The Carpenters and a few other local organizations only have representatives here. During the week they will all have meetings, and they are liable to send delegates here next Monday. Between now and Monday we will have a chance to report back to our constituents, and I will guarantee that the report that I will give of this body will be favorable. (Applause.) If I am able to convince every man in that body (carpenters) that carries this working card and this due book, I will do so. I only wish that I had the ability to explain what is going on in this convention to my union, as some of those men that have spoken on the floor can do. I think I would have accomplished a good deal. But being a foreigner, not born in this country, I must say that in the twenty-five years that I have been here I have not been able to pick up the language so as to handle it perfectly, although I may have the will. Now, I am not going to drift away from the question that is before the house. I think that we ought to extend the seating of delegates to Monday night on this ground that I have stated. Let us have all that we can at this convention. Let us say like the Salvation Army says, “It pays to hold a big meeting if you can save only one soul.” It pays to extend the time for seating delegates until Monday night. As long as we are receiving any delegates I cannot see why the door should be closed. Let us keep the business of receiving delegates open as late as possible so as to hear from all organizations and not only those that we have heard from so far. I think we should extend the seating of delegates to Monday night on the ground that I have just stated. I make an amendment to the motion, that the seating of delegates be extended till Monday night. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment is that credentials be accepted till Monday night. Is that the amendment?
DEL. JORGENSEN: That is the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the amendment. Are you ready for the question? The mover of this motion, Charles O. Sherman, has the floor.
DEL. SHERMAN: I did not make that motion with the intent of shutting out any one that comes here with good intent. This proposition has been advertised since January, and the organizations have had ample time to make preparation for delegates and other preparations to attend this convention. I believe that every organization that will come here with power to act has come. They have taken their time, and have come here to form an organization and pledge that organization that they will support this organization when formed. They are here now, all that are coming. (Applause.) I believe, or want to believe, that every delegate that has been seated in this convention has come here with a heart for humanity, that wants to see the working class organized into a class-conscious movement that will move together. We recognize the fact that this hall holds many delegates that are here representing nothing but themselves, but they are representing behind them an army of men who are contributing to an organization that will throw bombs and all other forces against this organization, no matter what it may be when it is formed. They are supporting a movement that is to-day using their national officers and their national forces to destroy what we are trying to build up in this body. (Applause.) They say we are revolutionists. If we are, let us do as revolutionists do—know our friends by their acts. The revolutionists of the trades union movement are in no way affiliated with the American Federation of Labor or any other scab federation. (Applause.) They. are outside of all organizations that pay tribute to any parasite that sits in the halls of New York and eats scab bread and smokes scab cigars. (Applause.) They are on record. They do not pay tribute financially, but they have kept their finances, what little they have, and they have done what little they could to organize this organization free from parasites. I want to be distinctly understood that I have no feeling against any delegate here, because I feel that they came here to do what little they could to further the interests of the working class. But I do say that those that are here without an organization backing them, though they will carry out the principles that are laid down in this organization when it is formed, I claim that they only represent themselves, and I believe we have got enough of them here now. I thank you. (Applause.)
DEL. SAUNDERS: I wish to say that I am heartily in favor of the amendment to the original motion, and I wish to give any reasons. The motion, to my view, is one that would probably undo the work of our worthy brother that has just spoken. I take it for granted that his intentions are good, as well as I believe we could say the same of every one that is in this hall, although we may differ on some things now and may later on. But when we start our actions by excluding some one whom we first of all say we do not fear, it goes without saying and it carries with it the idea that we do fear. I believe as he said, that there are enough in this convention at the present time to make it apparent to any sensible minded person that this movement is now established. And to bar out any individual, even though he or she may come in here derogatory or opposed to this movement, I come back again and use my words that there are enough here, at least in my estimation, to outweigh those individuals. I take exception to the brother when he says that we have enough. If it is a good thing we cannot have too much of it. It is going to be determined whether it is a good thing by the actions of this body. To pass this original motion would, to my mind, be against the idea of it being good. I want to say, although I represent an organization that has so far stood aloof as far as giving their delegates a right to install, we have at least shown a disposition, or they have shown a disposition to find out, and have come here to learn, and I believe that even though there may be some individuals who may come in here from now till Monday night who would have ulterior motives, yet at the same time among them may be some with other motives, and we should not by any action of this convention bar any one. If we do not fear them, then let us show it by our action and vote the original motion down and adopt the amendment. I also take exception to the brother when he slays that this movement is a movement of individuals that have a heart for humanity. If I understand the Manifesto aright it is simply a movement born of the necessity of the working class coming together for their emancipation, and not for humanity. (Applause.) We have heard enough of this humanitarianism. Let our actions, whatever they may be, be prompted by a clear understanding of our economic environment. When we do this we teach those that do not understand it. I believe this movement will probably be the one that may possibly be the emancipation of the working class. (Applause.)
DEL. PAT O’NEIL: I am surprised at some of the remarks I have listened to. The gentleman said we don’t want any more men coming into this convention representing no one but themselves. If that is true, then I am one too many here; you know I represent no one but myself. I understood the terms of that Manifesto to be that every man in the United States, whether there was an organization behind him who at an expense of a few dollars sent him to represent them or not, was entitled to a seat and voice in this convention, and I came here in perfect good faith feeling that way.
DEL. DINGER: The others didn’t come.
DEL. O’NEIL: I came and I am here. Now, it does not seem to me that we have a right to close the door against any man who wants to come in here. For instance, looking over the daily papers this morning, I see that there is a general jubilation among the delegates that some organizations are about to go to pieces. There may be other unions that we know nothing about that are about to do the same thing. How can we tell what other men are going to do? Suppose some union men to-day, utterly disgusted at the present conditions and management, should call for a meeting tonight and send a delegate here to-morrow, we should not like very well to refuse them a seat. It does not look to me that we would want to. It seems to me, from what I have heard here, that we would have just as much right to pass a resolution here that we don’t want any more men ever—to join the organization—except those that are here and the ones they represent, as we have to deny any delegate a seat in the house. (Applause.) If we are going before the people of the United States and Canada and Mexico and the balance of the world asking men to join this organization, you have no right to refuse a man entrance here now any more than you will have afterwards. (Applause.) If he comes here with credentials representing somebody, well and good. But if he comes here representing just himself I believe in seating that man and giving him a right to have a voice here. I cannot help but feel that way. And as far as delegates being brought in here from Chicago to swamp this thing, it will take a whole lot of votes to do it, when the Western Federation of Miners is here with 27,000 votes in one bunch. Possibly my views may not be liked by all the people in this convention, but I am for the widest and fullest discussion possible. I do not believe it is safe to get a man into this organization unless he thoroughly understands where he is at. I have seen many men come. into the Socialist movement on the spur of the moment and become members of locals until election day, and when it came time to do something they laid down flat.
DEL. SHERMAN: With the consent of my second I withdraw that motion in order that the committees may get to work. (Applause.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Does the delegate who offered the amendment withdraw the amendment?
DEL. JORGENSEN: What is that?
THE CHAIRMAN: The delegate who offered the original motion requests the privilege of withdrawing his motion. I ask, do you withdraw your amendment?
DEL. JORGENSEN: That would be the greatest pleasure to me. Mother Jones then made an announcement in regard to the sale of a book on the Colorado strikes.
The convention then at eleven o’clock adjourned until tomorrow morning at nine o’clock.
• Day 5, Morning Session : Saturday, July 1
Chairman Haywood called the convention to order at nine o’clock.
On motion the calling of the roll of delegates was dispensed with.
Secretary Trautmann read the minutes of the previous session, and there being no corrections, the minutes were declared approved as read.
The Secretary read the following telegram from Cleveland, Ohio, and it was ordered placed on file.
Cleveland, Ohio, June 30.
Industrial Union Convention, Brand’s Hall, cor. Clark and Erie streets, Chicago.
Fraternal greetings. May the proceedings of your convention realize the hopes of all class-conscious workingmen.
SOCIALISTISCHE ARBEITER ZEITUNG,
German Organ of Socialist Labor Party.
DEL. SHERMAN, OF THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTION: I am not prepared to say when we can make a report. We may be engaged during the entire day.
DEL. FRENCH: The members of the Constitution Committee have learned that Comrade Powers, of the S. T. & L. A., had to go to his room sick yesterday afternoon, and has since been unable to leave. I have consulted the S. T. & L. A. delegates as to whom we should put on the Constitution Committee in his place, and I have asked the members of the delegation if Comrade De Leon would not be the best one to put on in Delegate Powers’s place, and they have agreed that he be substituted for Delegate Powers on the Constitution Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: That being the case, Comrade De Leon will be appointed a member of the Constitution Committee.
DEL. MOYER: Mr. Chairman, while I understand that there should be twenty-one members on that committee, we have been unable to muster but thirteen. At the present time the Constitution Committee should be filled, and I have a communication here from delegates to the convention that I should like to have read. The Secretary read the following communication from the International Musicians’ Union, Chicago:
Chicago, June 30, 1905. Committee on Constitution, Industrial Convention
Gentlemen:—While individual delegates, locals representing twenty or thirty members, national organizations with no power to install their bodies in a new industrial organization are seated in your Committee, yet our International Organization, one of the signers of the Manifesto, whose locals all contributed financially to the expense of the Convention, whose representatives are on the floor of the Convention with full power to install their International in the movement, who are the only representatives of one of the great industrial departments, that of the Public Service, has, through a technicality been denied that privilege as an international organization, whose intention is to become a part of the coming Industrial Union, we are particularly interested in the Constitution; as representatives of the Public Service Industry we feel we are more competent to represent our industry, and calling in particular, than others; and while we are amply able to make our objections to your report, if any, on the floor of the Convention, yet we feel that it puts, not alone our International, but the Industrial Movement in a bad light, to debar representatives of a recognized organized International Union a right, on the Constitution that is to govern them, unless perhaps, you have men already on the Committee who feel they understand our calling, and the industry of which we are to become a part, better than those who engaged in it, and who have helped to build up a branch into an international body in face of the most violent opposition of the A. F. of L. If such is the case, we are satisfied, but if not, I ask that our International be given representation on your Committee unofficial if necessary, but with full right to the floor in matters pertaining to our calling and the Industry in which we will be placed.
Fraternally,
W. SHURTLEFF
Gen’l Sec’y, International Union.
(Referred to Convention.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Has the Constitution Committee any recommendation to make in regard to this communication that was handed to them?
DEL. ROWE: I will say on behalf of the Constitution Committee that that communication was presented to our committee and we discussed it for some time, and we felt that we had no authority to increase that committee, as the convention had already provided for the number of that committee, and it was our duty to refer that question back to the convention for consideration. As a member of the committee I feel that the rules should be suspended and this delegate be permitted to sit with the Constitution Committee. I feel that way for this one significant fact: That this brother has probably some ideas about the laws protecting his organization that he wishes incorporated in the constitution. If we do not give him an opportunity of voicing his sentiments before the Constitution Committee, it is probable that when the committee reports to this convention valuable time will be taken up here in discussing something that would probably be disposed of in much less till before the proper committee, and in order to save the time of the convention, which is becoming seriously valuable, I believe that that delegate should be given permission to act with the Constitution Committee.
It was moved and seconded that the International Union of Musicians be permitted to select their representative on the Constitution Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded that the International Union of Musicians select their representative on the Constitution Committee. You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. JORGENSEN: Do I understand that this brother who made the report comes from a bona fide organization with credentials and empowered to act?
DEL. SHERMAN: The Musical Union of Chicago, with 165 members send credentials here with power to install that organization.
DEL. JORGENSEN: I have no doubt in my mind that the Musicians’ Union will select a member of the committee from the body.
THE CHAIRMAN: These in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried. The International Musical Union will select their member of the Constitution Committee. I will say to the Constitution Committee that if thirteen members have been meeting with that committee it has all the delegates that have been selected up to the present time. I think you have a full committee.
DEL. COATES OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE: Mr. Chairman and Delegates, the Resolutions Committee is able to report on all resolutions that have been submitted to it. If there is no objection I will read the original resolution and then the substitute.
There being no objection, Del. Coates read Resolution No. 4, heretofore printed, offered by Delegate Klemensic.
DEL. COATES: The Committee on Resolutions offers the following substitute and ask that the convention adopt it:
Resolved, That the first day of May of each year, which day has been selected as the International Labor Day, by the International Congress of Labor, be designated as the Labor Day of this organization, and that the members of this organization be urged to cease all labor on that day and carry out exercises appropriate to such a day for the education of the working class as to their rights and interests on the economic and political fields.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the report of your Committee on Resolutions relative to the first of May as International Labor Day. What is the pleasure of the convention?
DEL. SULLIVAN: I move that the recommendation of the Resolutions Committee be concurred in. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the recommendation of the committee be concurred in.
DEL. JORGENSEN: Since 1881 I have taken more or less interest in organization work. As organized labor we have tried the first of May as a labor holiday. We tried it for years, and we found that it was not successful. In my estimation, as far as this organization is concerned, it would not make any difference what day in the year you have for a labor holiday. Now, if it should be the case that we did not care, let us take advantage of all the good work that has already been done. There is no one here that can deny that a good piece of work has been already done by having established a labor is day in this country, all over the country. That in itself is recognizing the proletariat. We tried the first of May, and we found some difficulties in the way of that day. We found that it was at a period of the year when we were likely to have a wet day. It was a season of the year when we might always expect rain, so that outside gatherings were to a great extent spoiled for that reason. Next came a howl from mechanics all over the country that leases expired on that day, and that was the general moving day and labor was badly needed. As a mechanic in the building line I found that that was the truth. For the last ten or twelve years in Chicago I have been able to obtain double pay on that day. I know I have made as high as $10 and $12 on that day. Now, it may be that the capitalist was helped along just as much, but I don’t care how much the capitalist makes, as long as I make enough. It don’t make any difference how much he makes if I happen to make something too, but I don’t want him to make so much that I shall be starved thereby. I want my share of it. I think it is wiser to adopt the Labor Day that so much time and so much money has been spent to establish all over the country, the first Monday in September. At that month you have delegates here from all over the country, and you will find that that month is the best month in the year for almost any kind of a gathering, whether the delegates will have an outdoor or indoor gathering. It is the best time in the year for good weather and a pleasant time generally all over the country. You cannot find any month in the year when you have the same equal temperature all ever the country that you will find in the month of September. To change the Labor Day would make confusion among organized labor. Let us keep organized labor with us in this body as much as we can. Let us raise as few obstacles and make as little change in the way that they are doing business now as we can. The same changes you make here, the same changes are going to be made by organized labor, because, delegates, I believe the time is going to came when organized labor must turn to such a movement as this. I have carried that prayer book, that card (exhibiting his union due book and card), in my pocket since 1881, and I must say that I been enabled to live up to it. Now, what is the use of professing any religion or any creed if we don’t live up to it? Every time there has been an election I have listened to the speakers, and I have found at the conclusion of the speech that if you are going to get anything you must help yourselves a little bit too. If you only listen to what others tell you, and lay down or sit in a chair and plead, you can plead for a long time and get nothing if you don’t try to help yourselves.
(The speaker told an anecdote of a bread man whose wagon tipped over, and while the mail sat down to think over the situation a lot of hogs along the roadside helped themselves to the bread, the man learning from the hogs that the way to get along in this world is to help yourself a little.)
Now, it seems to me it is immaterial to this organization what day we have for a labor holiday, but you have got it so well and so satisfactorily and so perfectly established now by organized labor, that I hope to see that day made one of the features of this organization.
DEL. VEAL: Mr. Chairman and fellow delegates, I stand with the spirit of the resolution. I stand with it because it expresses the aspirations of the Labor Day of the revolutionists of the world. (Applause.) Why am I opposed to the remarks of this delegate on this floor this morning? He said that there is a Labor Day that has been built in the United States by organized labor, and that that gives us something. Let us look into the action of the labor day established under the auspices of the American Federation of Labor. In the mining camps of this country and the large cities on Labor Day you will see hosts of un-class-conscious men follow whom? Follow the capitalist riding in the carriage, the capitalist politicians, the men who are sucking the blood out of tile. (Applause.) And they take them down to the park and look into their faces and tell them how intelligent they are, and at the same time they know they are using them as dupes. In the State of Colorado, Gov. Peabody and the men who drove the miners out of the Cripple Creek district, they too celebrate and uphold this so-called Labor Day, that the capitalist class of America gave to the American Federation of Labor as a boon after they had begged for it. We want to have a Labor Day that is so distinct and so clean-cut that no man who to-day works in the mills and the mines of this country but will recognize the spirit that is there. In the Western Federation Magazine I read a few weeks ago an article which said that out in Utah the members of that organization, the black man, the Italian, the Frenchman, men of every nationality, stopped work on that day, and they marched behind the international colors with that inspiration that the first of May is the true expression of the working class. We care not whether it rains. Admitting the fact that it is a weather proposition front a bourgeois standpoint, and they consult the astronomer or the weather man; why? Because, they are looking after the profits proposition. Put we are consulting this morning the spirit in this as the founders gave it to us. Karl Marx, Engels, and the leaders of the international European workingmen. Attempts have been made to crush that spirit, but time and again on that day balloons have been sent up, and on those balloons the international colors representing the workingman’s holiday have not been suppressed. Why do we want an understanding with the world’s workers? That is what we are here for. We do not want an understanding with the American Federation of Labor. And I deny that it has ever been an expression of the working class or can express their aims and desires, because it is a capitalist organization. Now, then, the point is here: We have got to have a Labor Day that is so far removed from the craft proposition that we will show clearly to our class our solidarity with the sailors on the Black Sea, one of whom refused to eat the food that the ship had given out to those sailors, and the man who refused to eat that was immediately shot. And what was the result? That man was taken into the nearest city, and the proletariat marched out to look at that slave, that wage slave of the Russian empire, and when they did that, instantly the international colors went up, and that gave the workers in other ports inspiration. To-day we want to fly the colors of the Labor Day of the working class so that we can show that we have the spirit, that we have the revolutionary spirit, and that we are not going to fly the colors of a reactionary capitalist organization, as far as the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance is concerned.
DEL. SCHATZKE: The world is never going to be saved by cowards. If any men or women come here who do not express themselves, they are cowards. We came here to lay the foundation for a worldwide movement, and I respect every man or woman who expresses his ideas. Yesterday I met a friend of mine, one of those great labor leader newspapermen. I asked him, “Why don’t you say anything about this convention?” He says, “Well, I will tell you something new.” “Well,” I says, “I am willing to learn.” “Well,” he says, “don’t you know that the capitalist class knows that the greatest intellects of the greatest organizations have come here in this hall to try to establish an organization which will make the tyrants tremble? Therefore we don’t mention anything about it in the papers.” I asked him, “Why do you give attention all the time to the American Federation of Labor?” “Well,” he says, “that is a horse of another color.” I says, “How is that?” He said“ I will tell you why. The policy of the American Federation of Labor is dictated by the capitalist class. Their aim is to try to keep the workingman’s brains like the mule’s, his stomach just full enough to keep his constitution in working order. That is the reason they talk about the great American Federation of Labor.” If the workingman used his brains like a man he would not be so willing to produce capitalist profits for his masters. Four years ago I was on a lecture tour, and stopped at a town on Labor Day, and a great labor fakir was telling the workingman how intelligent he was. And do you know why? It was right before election. But after election they go to the masters and say, “You see those cows? I call them intelligent. How much will you give? They are for sale.” Now, why should the first of May be called Labor Day? I don’t care whether you call it the 1st or the 15th of May, but I want it in this month when the trees commence to bloom and the flowers show their beauties and the earth puts on its brightest colors. That month I want for the proletariat of the world. Let us use the tactics that have been found successful. Do you know why the great warriors never start in September? Because they fear the snow will soon come and they will not be victorious. But if the great sun will shine they can commence in May and their undertaking can be finished before June. Let us adopt May as the workers’ day of the international toilers’ union.
DEL. LUELLA TWINING: I am in favor of the first of May because it will work for the solidarity of labor. When the question of a national holiday was brought up Mark Hanna asked the government not to name the first of May because that is associated with Socialism, and well he knew that Socialism worked for the solidarity of labor, and that labor when united would be a force that would sweep them out of existence. In Denver, Colorado, the Citizens’ Alliance and the labor organizations all march in September. We do not want a capitalist Labor Day. Let us have a labor day of our own. Let us have an international labor day, the first day of May. (Applause.)
DEL. MURTAUGH: Mr. Chairman and delegates, I think that the discussion now going on is indicative of the spirit, and, if you will excuse the expression, the absolute unpracticality of this convention.
DELEGATES: Sit down.
DEL. MURTAUGH: I listened to you; please listen to me. I am a delegate to this convention, and I don’t sit down for anybody, and until the Chairman tells me to sit down I shall refuse to do so till I finish. I want to make this short and sweet. Now, Mr. President, we have been using these words so long, “class-conscious,” “solidarity,” “historical,” and so forth, that they have degenerated into a jargon. As. Brother Debs very clearly stated the other day, we are continually looking for these bugaboos, and we find them where they are not. I say this, that admitting everything that has been said by the other side to be true, there is absolutely nothing to the contention or the mass of sentiment in regard to an international labor holiday. If you are going to impress your ideas and imbue the workers of this country with your ideas, go out where you will meet them on labor day already adopted, because if you succeed in establishing a labor day on the first of May that would be as generally observed as the first Monday in September is, if the capitalist is going to reach the laborer and do all these things to him that you claim have been done, he is going to do it on the first of May just as much as he would do it on the first Monday of September. You have no means of preventing him from doing that, and you are wasting your energies on non-essentials. You are going to be absolutely uncompromising, but let me tell you that when you come to deal with the serious problems that this convention confronts you will find the unpracticability of the people here to deal with those problems. This is sentiment pure and simple. We also hear of graft all around, graft everywhere. I want to say in conclusion that there is an old and trite saying that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Del. McEachren moved the previous question. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The previous question has been called for. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried. The motion before the house is that we concur in the recommendation of the committee. All those in favor signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The ayes seem to have it. The motion is carried, and it is so recorded.
DEL. JORGENSEN: There is a whole lot of delegates that did not vote at all. That vote cannot be relied on. Let them raise their hands.
THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor of the motion will signify it by raising their right hands. Contrary by the same sign. There are four dissenting votes. The resolution and the recommendation of the committee are adopted. The report of, the Committee on Resolutions will be resumed.
DEL. COATES: Resolution No. 14: “Resolved, That this new industrial organization be instituted on July 4th as Independence Day for the wage earners.” The committee recommends that this resolution be laid on the table.
It was moved that the convention concur in the report of the committee.
DEL. WRIGHT: I move that the resolution be laid on the table.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is out of order. Your committee recommends that this be laid on the table. If you desire to concur or non-concur in the report of your committee, do so.
The motion to concur was seconded, and being put, was carried.
DEL. COATES: Resolution No. 6: “Resolved, That seceding workers and seceding organizations from the A. F. of L. be required to make a public statement of the reasons for their secession, and furthermore that the rank and file of any seceding organization be thoroughly informed by a course of lectures or otherwise of our Manifesto and plan of organization before they be eligible to membership in the industrial union. (Endorsed by the Industrial Workers’ Club of Cincinnati). The report of your committee is that Resolution No. 6 be laid on the table.
DEL. MILLER: I move you that the recommendation of the committee be concurred in. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The recommendation of the committee is that the resolution be laid on the table. It has been regularly moved and seconded that the recommendation of the committee be concurred in.
DEL. EISENBERG: I want to ask the committee why that resolution should be laid on the table. Isn’t it true that we must educate the working class? And if they do secede from the A. F. of L. this body should know why. We discussed that resolution at Cincinnati, and we came to this conclusion. Isn’t that a great propaganda to show the workers of the A. F. of L why they are seceding from them? I am surprised at the committee recommending laying that resolution on the table. Are we afraid of those things or what? We must show up the fakirs of the A. F. of L. If the A. F. of L. is all right, if you are only breaking away from them because you want a different organization with a new president, let us know that. If the underlying principle of the organization is rotten, if there is corruption there that everybody should see, why should not those seceding organizations have that explained to the world? I hope the convention will not lay this on the table.
DEL. FITZGERALD: As a member of the Resolution Committee, I wish to say that there are several points to come out in that resolution. If I thoroughly understand the call for this convention and the position of the majority of the delegates present, we do not recognize any labor organization that is now in existence, and we do not want to have it said that we are seceding, if such may be the case. The reason for this resolution being tabled is this: that no body, whether it be a local, national or international body, that is educated enough to grasp the meaning of this convention or this organization, will be seceding. We do not want to go on record as such. Therefore your committee, after a heated discussion between the several members, has decided that that resolution is not in order in this convention, and that is why the recommendation was submitted to this delegation. (Applause.)
DEL. TRAUTMANN: In addition to the arguments against the proposition or report of the committee, I wish to say this: that the intent of the Industrial Workers’ Club of Cincinnati in presenting this resolution was to avoid the secession of the disgruntled elements, discouraged on account of some industrial conditions, perhaps, without knowing the underlying principles of the industrial union movement, and avoid bringing an organization into the industrial union movement without the rank and file knowing the difference between the A. F. of L. and the true labor organization that was to be formed in Chicago, and before we should ever proceed to take in old organizations on account of some disgruntled element we wished the world to know the reason why they withdrew from the organization with which they were formerly connected. It is not to create secession; it is to prevent secession from the organization when the rank and file is not ripe to become a part of a labor organization of this kind. If the organizations draw out, as we had an instance, because of dissatisfaction with the management, and the members were not educated in the principles of this industrial movement, they would not be desired, because the same system of corruption would have full sway even though they joined this new industrial union movement. If they withdrew because the rank and file are ripe to become a part of this organization, they should so express themselves through a resolution showing that they are ripe. Then when they are ripe we will have averted conflicts of jurisdiction and they will be the right kind of men, for the simple reason that a man who is imbued with the principles of this organization will never scab while in other organizations. For these reasons, and to have all these points brought out before the working class when an organization is dissatisfied, in order that they may know that they have just reasons for dissatisfaction with the management and methods of the old labor organizations, and with the object of having a body of men ripe to become a part of this organization, this resolution was presented, and I hope the recommendation of the committee will not prevail.
DEL. COATES: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates: The Committee on Resolutions, without a single exception, I believe, were in harmony with the spirit or sentiment of this resolution; there isn’t any question about that. They only recommended that it be laid on the table because they do not believe that this convention ought to go on record at this time as demanding the things that are in this resolution; that is, making them obligatory upon these organizations. There are three points, I believe, in the resolution that we discussed, and I will try to lay them before this convention. In the first place, this resolution brands practically every organization that leaves another and comes into this one as secessionists. Now, we do not propose to have that brand put upon any men and women who are brave enough to leave some old movement and come into the new movement. (Applause). That is exactly the brand the other fellow will put on them, and we did not believe it was our duty to aid him in branding them as such. They are not secessionists. It further requires that every organization leaving or seceding from the American Federation of Labor shall make a public statement of the reasons for their secession. Well, now, the committee thought that if the organizations seceding or leaving the A. F. of L. desired to make a public statement that was a matter for the local organization to decide. The mere fact that we do not adopt this resolution does not prevent any organization from showing up the fakirs as the brother who has introduced this resolution so persistently thinks that we ought to show them up. If the local organization has a good reason, a reason they believe ought to go to the public in the interest of the labor movement, they certainly have that right. (Applause). But we ought not to require them if they do not desire to make that kind of a public statement. The fact that we lay this resolution on the table does not prevent them or take away that right from any local organization. The next proposition is that before we receive them into this organization they must be thoroughly informed or instructed in a course of lectures or otherwise as to the principles of this organization. I want to say, brothers, that personally as a member of that committee, I believe that that would require within the next three months, or six months at the most, three or four thousand lecturers traveling from one end of the country to the other trying to instruct organizations that are coming with us, when perhaps the rank and file of those organizations know as well the reason why they are coming into this movement as industrial unionists as do the lecturers that would go there to deliver the course and take up their time. (Applause). Whenever the organization decide to sever their relations with the old movement and come into the new, I want to say that there is a spirit there or there is an intelligence there that believes in the principles of the industrial movement, and they are not leaving the old one simply because of some little petty reason or some little petty abuse on the part of the officers, either national or international. They are coming into this new movement because they believe it is right, because they have the spirit of revolt, because they have the spirit of the new organization and the emancipation of the wage earners behind them, and I want to grasp the hands of that man and that woman just as speedily as possible, and I want them to get into the rank and file of this organization before perhaps it is necessary for us to send a man from some other part of the country to give them a course of lectures. The very conditions of to-day are fitting them for the industrial movement, and just as soon as they come into a position where they want to come to us, let us stretch out the hand of helpfulness and brotherhood and take them in. I think that was the entire reason of the committee, and the committee deemed it sufficient to recommend that this resolution be laid on the table.
DEL. KNIGHT: Brother Chairman and Brother Delegates, I believe that that resolution belongs properly to the administration of the new organization, the spirit of that resolution; that is where it belongs. I think this, that if we adopt such a resolution as that—not that I am not thoroughly in accord with the spirit of it, as I said the other day that education should be the basis of this organization—but we will make the thing so clumsy that we will be unable to handle it, like the old ox cart whose wheels were hewed out of a log. I want to say this, and I think, if my motion would be in order, that the proper thing to do with that is to refer that resolution to the Constitution Committee, and they may get suggestions out of that in considering the portion of the constitution which deals with administration that will be helpful to them. If my motion is in order, I move as a substitute that that resolution be referred to the Constitution Committee. I think that is where it properly belongs. I think that if we form this organization right and we have an officership that is thoroughly in spirit with this, that they will take care of that. We are a representative body. We may not be as democratic as they used to be in the olden times in the town halls when the colonists personally met and directed affairs. Therefore, I think my motion would be perfectly in order, and I move as a substitute that that resolution be referred to the Constitution Committee. (Seconded.)
DEL. DE LEON: Was that motion seconded?
THE CHAIRMAN: The substitute is seconded.
DEL. DE LEON: I move you that this resolution be referred back to the Committee on Resolutions. The Chairman of the committee made very clear to me that the resolution as presented to them was in crude condition, but he did not make clear to me why they should not have done with that resolution what they did with the other one, the first one, rewrite it, remove the crudeness and present it in an acceptable manner. The resolution has two parts; one of them is utterly impracticable, this matter of the educational course in advance. I do not wish to be severe on the gentleman who introduced it, but if you will indulge me I will say it is childish. The first part as to demanding of them a statement has a correct thought, but as the chairman of the committee very well expresses it, it should not be made mandatory; it should not be required, but they should be requested; it is desirable that such a statement be made ; and I consider that if that resolution is referred back, and if the committee will do with that resolution what it did with the other one; chew it over and present it in a new garb, leaving out what is impracticable and putting in what is good, we will have something that is worth putting in among our resolutions. The chairman of the committee very correctly stated that we do not want to seem to be a band of secessionists, but I tell you that if an organization which is in existence states why it joins us it does not need to say why it “secedes.” If you want to split hairs upon that, or if one want to, we cannot prevent him. But unless an organization in existence states why it changes its status and joins us, the doors are open for making this new organization a cave of Adulam, a gathering place for soreheads, who, because a man or woman does a thing that does not suit them in another organization, can get out and, like, chickens, go roosting with some one else. It is desirable that if a body in existence finds that its place is here, it make a public statement of why it decided to change its status. The case has been well stated by the Cincinnati organization, and the idea should be to sift out of that resolution the good points. The individual members in these constituent organizations have not had the opportunity and the parliamentary experience of the chairman of the Resolutions Committee, and they presented the matter in a crude form. It is for the chairman of the committee and for that committee in general to polish it up and leave out what is not desirable and save what is good. For that reason I move you that this resolution be referred back to the Committee on Resolutions.
DEL. SIMONS: I second that motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the resolution be referred back to the Committee on Resolutions. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. SIMONS: I wish to speak on that point. I want it referred back to the Committee on Resolutions, because I think every one here agrees that there are some things that we want to see embodied here. We are all practically agreed on the fact that every possible effort should be made to make clear and plain to the entire membership of this organization its purposes, aims and methods. and that it should be not simply a class struggle organization, but a class conscious struggling organization. (Applause). At the same time I feel that we are going to make a great mistake if the spirit goes out from that resolution and from this convention that the main reason for the existence of this organization is to hunt around like sleuths and then constitute ourselves into a mere organization of brickbat throwers to hit particular scoundrels that float on the scum of a defunct labor movement. It seems to me that we have something else that is better to do. And in the second place, I believe that we ought to understand that men are coming into this organization, if it grows, who are not going to understand, when they come in, why they come. They are going to come from class antagonism. They are going to come in because the class struggle is a fact born of industrial conditions, not an idea hatched in the brain of theorists; and when those men come into this body I believe we ought to stand there and welcome them into it; not stand there with an examination question; not stand there with some intellectual would-be what-not ready to deliver to that man who is fighting at the front a fine-spun lecture on the theories that are to lead to his ultimate emancipation; but we ought to stand there at the door of this organization with open hands, and say to that man whose hand is against the master, “Our hearts are with you in your fight.” (Applause). I have more faith in the rank and file of the working class of America, blind as they may be, mistakes though they have made, than I have in all the intellectuals and all, the lecturers and all the soap box orators—and I have been one of them for years and expect to be—I have more faith in the rank and file and the spirit of revolt that springs out of the work shop than I have, I say, in all the theorists and would-be teachers of the working class of America. (Applause). And I think that sometimes we who pride ourselves on our ability to teach, should go back to the masses and learn. (Applause). And I want to say that the thing that brought me into this organization as an individual, and I believe it will move others, was that I saw within the working class of America a tremendous revolt against the capitalist class, a revolt that was absolutely unable to express itself in the old trade union organizations; and it is because that revolt exists that this organization is going to be a success, and not because of any beautiful sentences that I and others may utter in the literature that we send out or the lectures that we make. If we found ourselves on the recognition of that fact, then we will be founded on the class struggle, and on no other condition can it be, and I hope that that spirit and that point of view may be embodied in this resolution. I support the motion that has just been made. (Applause.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the resolution be referred back to the Committee on Resolutions. Are you ready for the question ?
DEL. COATES: I just want to say another word against the motion to refer. I do not believe, fellow delegates, that it is necessary to take any action on this resolution. I believe we are simply wasting the time of this convention to refer it and bring it back for further discussion in this convention. I do not believe that there is a single, solitary delegate on this floor who has discussed it that can see anything in this resolution except a purely administrative function when this new organization attempts to band itself with this movement. As Delegate Knight clearly pointed out, that is all there is in the resolution. That is all that the Resolution Committee can get out of it. Now, any one who has ever had any experience in the labor movement knows that an organization that desires to become attached to a body sends individual delegates. They give their reasons why they wish to do so. They give their membership. They give their class or craft or trade. They give innumerable other details of their organization. The executive committee that grants the charter investigates. Every labor organization does that. That is a part of the administrative work of the organization. Now, they are going to do that here. That is all we can ask them to do. Then why send it back to a committee that has been over it and have them spend further time with it and bring it back here with another discussion of this, that or the other feature and waste the time of the convention? I think we should leave that to be outlined in the constitution, and then if it is not outlined in the constitution there is a modus operandi that the committee will have to go through in order to bring this new body or that old body into this organization.
Question called for.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the resolution be referred back to the Resolution Committee. All in favor will signify it by saying aye. Contrary, no.
DEL. COATES: Division.
THE CHAIRMAN: The chair is in doubt. Those in favor of referring this resolution to the Resolution Committee will raise their right hands. The Secretary will count. Contrary, raise your hands. The motion to refer is lost. The question is the original motion to concur in the report of the Resolution Committee, which is to lay the resolution on the table. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). Those in favor will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried, and it is so ordered.
THE CHAIRMAN: There was one of the delegates yesterday that asked for some information. This is for the benefit of Delegate Rowe if he is here. There are seventy delegates here with power to install, representing 51,430 members. There are seventy-two delegates here representing other unions aggregating 91,500 members. There are sixty-one individual delegates. A total aggregation of 142,995. (Applause.)
DEL. SCHATZKE: A point of information. I would like to ask, will the congress meet to-morrow? Will the congress meet Sunday?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is a question that will probably be decided later.
DEL. SCHATZKE: I ask that, because if not I would like to make a proposition.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just wait till we have the report of the Resolution Committee.
DEL. COATES: Resolution No. 10, by Delegate E. Bosky:
“Whereas, A knowledge of economic laws is not apparent in this convention; and
“Whereas, The construction of a new constitution for a new economic movement depends on the quality of the constructive material used for the purpose;
“Resolved, That this convention decide upon a time when a discussion on this subject is to take place.”
The Committee on Resolutions recommend that this resolution be laid on the table. (Seconded). Mr. Chairman, just to save time, I will say that the committee simply thinks that it means taking up another day or two days’ time of the convention without any apparent result.
The resolution to lay on the table was then put and carried.
DEL. COATES: That is the end of the report.
THE CHAIRMAN: Committee on Ways and Means. Has the Committee on Ways and Means any report to make?
DEL. MCKINNON: The Secretary of the Ways and Means Committee has handed his report in to the Secretary of the organization.
DEL. HELD: The Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee has asked me to read this report:
“Inasmuch as the convention has expressed its desire to have a stenographic report of this convention; and inasmuch as funds must be provided to pay the temporary expenses and to launch this organization, we, the Ways and Means Committee, find by actual computation that an assessment of five cents per member of the entire membership of this new organization will bring at once, if acted upon, $2,500 or near about; a sum amply sufficient to cover all necessary expenses such as a stenographic report and temporary expenses. In view of this, we, your Committee on Ways and Means, fraternally submit the following report: We recommend an assessment of five cents per member of the full membership to cover the temporary expenses of the convention; first, to secure a stenographic report; second, to launch the new organization.”
THE CHAIRMAN: You have the report of your Committee on Ways and Means. What is the pleasure of the convention?
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: I move you that this report be referred back to the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to make an assessment of one dollar instead of five cents. Perhaps a better way would be to amend the report submitted by the committee, and I would make my motion in the nature of an amendment to the report, that the amount of the assessment be one dollar instead of five cents. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the report of the committee be amended by making the assessment one dollar instead of five cents. You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. ROWE: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates: As a member of that committee, I want to say that your Committee on Ways and Means consulted the Secretary of this convention as to the already existing indebtedness of the same and the probabilities as to what it would amount to. It is already $160, with a probability of reaching $200. We took into consideration your expression in favor of a stenographic report, which it has been stated here would cost $600. We have asked the Secretary to make an estimate upon a membership of 50,000. You have already heard from the Chairman this morning that there are delegates here that represent 142,ooo members. Your Committee on Ways and Means, while we have had the assurance of one of these organizations ready to merge its membership into this new organization, that they would pay $300 of the $600 necessary for the stenographic report, yet the wisdom of that committee was this: that every man and every woman who became members of this organization, we were satisfied, would desire to have his or her equal share of the burden of the expense of the convention and stenographic report, and consequently we made the assessment five cents on 50,000 members, which would make $2,500; $600 probably covering the stenographic report and $200 for the temporary expenses of the convention and leaving $1,700 in the treasury of the new organization. Now we bring this report to you for your acceptance or rejection. Some have said to me this morning that the Committee on Constitution would make provision for a per capita tax. We have got nothing to do with that. I consulted the chairman of this committee, and we decided to provide in this way for the temporary organization and expenses. I admire the spirit that would make the assessment a dollar, but we took into consideration that the probabilities are that by that assessment you will have $200,000, and this committee I do not believe has power to make that assessment without the assurance of the representatives of these organizations who will compose the larger share of the membership of the new organization, and for that reason I sought this floor as a member of that committee, knowing that once before a proposed assessment of $4 from the Ways and Means Committee had been referred back. You can see that a small assessment of five cents per capita would cover the expense of the convention and stenographic report and leave $1,700 in your treasury; and then let the report of the Constitution Committee come in with the per capita tax and initiation fee to provide funds for the further carrying on of the business and work of the new industrial organization.
DEL. SCHATZKE: I would say that we should not wait for a per capita tax. This money is needed right now. I believe we should raise this money and that the committee have no right to levy an assessment for the future.
DEL. DE LEON: I regret that Brother Smith amended his motion. I regret it all the more because I may be misunderstood when I oppose his second motion, namely to assess the membership one dollar. I regret that he did not stick to his original motion to refer this matter, because I think that in that way the matter can be presented more clearly. I am in favor of assessing the membership of this new organization one dollar per capita. I believe this organization, when started, will need all of that fund for its administrative and agitational and organizing work; but it is for that very reason that I do not like to see this motion as it stands, where the dollar is to cover not only the organizing expenses and the other debts of this convention, but also the stenographic report. Now, all of you who have had any experience in the matter of collecting taxes—and this is a tax—know that it takes time and money to collect that tax. Brother Sherman, when he discussed the stenographic report on the floor, correctly stated—partly correctly—that as the matter stood this stenographic report would be a matter of history when it came to be published, and in that case $600 would not be too little. It would be, in my opinion, $600 too much. Any amount of money, however small, spent for the stenographic report, if that report would have to wait six, eight, ten or twelve months to be issued, will be too large, in my opinion. It would be substantially wasted, and that is something that I hope we will be able to avoid. When this body goes into existence the General Executive Board, the general administrative officers, will have their hands full; their hands full collecting the funds necessary to carry on the organization; their hands full to collect funds for the purpose of organizing; and I do not believe that one dollar apiece for the membership will be enough to meet those expenditures, and the result of it will be that the stenographic report will have to go by the board. I repeat it here, $600, and I do not agree with Delegate Coates who said it will cost five thousand or anything like that. I said $600 after consultation with the stenographer. The $600 is not so large a sum, but it is $600 too much if we are not going to have it within a month or so, and the benefits will be absolutely lost, and the result will be that the proposition of Delegate Smith would be either a dead letter or will be a waste of time and money. Now, taking the sense of the house from the various discussions that have preceded upon this subject, I would ask leave of the house to withdraw the proposition made by the Daily People through the delegation of the S. T. & L. A.—to withdraw that proposition so that this convention as an official body shall have no liability whatever; because if this convention is to have any liability it is clear to me that that report never will be had. The stenographer is not going to get out his transcript if he has not got some assurance of cash payment when he makes it. It will be a number of months before the convention will be prepared for that purpose. If this convention allows me to withdraw that proposition we shall then proceed to publish a stenographic report and gather the funds in the same manner that we have gathered them so far, by voluntary contributions, which are being acknowledged in The People. I consulted Brother Haggerty, of the Butte Smeltermen’s Union, and he expressed his willingness to receive whatever voluntary contributions any delegates should choose to give toward publishing this stenographic report as soon as this convention adjourns. If you give him voluntary contributions you will give the names of the contributors, and their names will be acknowledged in the Daily People, and according to the assurance of the stenographer within twenty or thirty days we can begin it. I hope I am understood. In view of this, I move you as an amendment that one dollar assessment be levied upon every member of this organization towards paying the expenses of the necessary work of the officers when the new organization is launched, meaning thereby also the expenses which have been incurred for this convention and the general expense of the convention, and that the matter of the stenographic report be excluded and left where it was before this convention met. Is that understood?
THE CHAIRMAN: I believe I get the purport of the motion. It is rather lengthy. Do I hear a second to that motion?
DEL. MCEACHREN: I second the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: Comrade De Leon, will you kindly reduce your motion to writing? I think I can state it, however.
DEL. DE LEON: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: For the benefit of the Secretary I would like to have it reduced to writing. The motion is that there be an assessment of one dollar levied to carry on the work of this organization when launched, and that the matter of the stenographic report be not considered at this time. Is that the motion?
DEL. DE LEON: No, I want to leave the expense of the stenographic report out altogether.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, that the matter of the stenographic report be left out altogether. Brother Hall has the floor.
DEL. HALL: It occurs to me that the discussion of this report of the committee and also the motions that have been predicated upon it are entirely out of order, for the reason that this body has no power to assess the membership that they represent. There is a time set aside when all individuals and organizations will be initiated into this new movement, but it is set for a time after the report of the Constitutional Committee. Last January a little handful of men met in Chicago for the purpose of launching this movement. There were less than thirty. We realized that there was an expense devolving upon us amounting almost to $200. We had no organization to assess. We had nothing but our own selves to rely upon. The Executive Committee, five members appointed by that conference to look after this matter of finance, was simply instructed to get the money without involving the conference. This committee did it. This stenographic report is a document that is to be used for the propagation of this movement from a world-wide standpoint. If there is a demand for this document we will not require an assessment of the membership to meet it. If there is no demand for it, it would be a crime to assess our membership. Now, there has already been provision made, if I understand, for the shorthand notes of this convention to be taken. Now, I would favor the creation of a committee from this convention who will have in their charge the handling of these notes, and if they can see their way clear without an assessment of the membership to have them printed and scattered broadcast over the world I am in favor of that. But I believe the world should pay for it. If the world wants it, if the membership want it after our organization has been effected, then make it. I think the motion is entirely out of order. I think the report of the committee is out of place, because we have no power to vote an assessment upon our membership until after we have installed them into this new organization, and then only through regular channels, That is why I oppose every motion that has been predicated upon the report of the committee, and would offer a substitute if I am in order.
THE CHAIRMAN: The substitute will be recognized.
DEL. HALL (continuing) That a committee of five be appointed by the chair, whose duty it will be, not to make a report to this convention, but whose duty it will be to handle this proposition until the next convention of this organization.
DEL. DE LEON: What proposition?
DEL. HALL: I do not believe that we should be burdened with anything of that kind now.
DEL. DE LEON: What proposition?
DEL. HALL: I have stood in opposition to it always, and see no necessity for it. There is much in this report that the world will not want, and it is only a matter of file for the general offices, and it can lie on file in its present state as well as though it was printed and bound in vellum. Therefore I move you that a committee of five be appointed to look after this matter, with positive instructions that they must not bring any report which considers an assessment of the membership of this organization. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The chair feels that such a motion would be out of order. If this new organization is launched, the business of the organization must of necessity be conducted by the administration of the organization which will be launched. If the chair may be permitted, it occurs to me that a substitute to defer action on this until the report of the Constitution Committee, would just about have covered the matter.
DEL. DE LEON: I accept such a substitute.
DEL. SCHATZKE: May I have a word to say about this?
THE CHAIRMAN: You have already spoken on this proposition, Brother Schatzke.
DEL. HALL: I think that it is due me and due the convention, that since you have ruled my motion out of order—
THE CHAIRMAN: Just as a matter of personal privilege.
DEL. HALL (continuing): —to restate this proposition and make this matter clear.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is just a matter of privilege; not to make a motion.
DEL. HALL: No, not to make a motion. But I believe the chair is wrong, if he will think over his ruling, because this is a matter that belongs to the convention and not to the organization.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have a right to appeal from the decision of the chair if it is wrong.
DEL. HALL: No, I don’t want to do that, but I just want to call attention to that as the reason; I just want to explain that as my reason for making this motion, that this document does not properly belong to the organization; it belongs to the convention and is in the hands of the delegation of the S. T. & L. A., where it will remain.
THE CHAIRMAN: Brother Hall, permit the chair to explain to you that the document, is not under discussion; that the amendment entirely disconnects the stenographic report from the proposition of levying an assessment, and plainly states that it shall not be considered. Delegate McDonald has the floor to speak on the amendment to the amendment, which is to levy an assessment of one dollar.
DEL. DE LEON: It is not an amendment to the amendment. It is an amendment to the motion. The delegate wished to make a motion to refer, but he immediately withdrew that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Permit the chair to explain the position of the report of your committee at this time. A motion was made to concur in the report of the committee.
DEL. DE LEON: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Del. Smith amended that motion by making the assessment one dollar instead of five cents. Delegate De Leon amended the amendment by setting aside the stenographic report entirely, and levying the assessment if launched. Is that correct?
DEL. DE LEON: Yes.
DEL. DANIEL MCDONALD: I desire to say that I am not in favor of the report of the committee at this time, neither am I in favor of the amendment to the report, neither am I in favor of the amendment to the amendment. But I propose to make a motion without any argument, for I think that the people here understand the proposition sufficiently well without any argument. I move you, Mr. Chairman, as a motion,—it is a motion—to refer or defer action on this proposition until after the Constitution Committee has reported. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: A motion has been made to defer action until the Constitution Committee has reported. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for).
DEL. WALKER: I am one of those delegates that are simply here for information, sent by our District Council in conjunction with other delegates sent by the district convention to this convention for the same purpose. There are, notwithstanding the statements made on the floor of this convention, a good many members of our organization who are just as interested in this movement and will go just as far and do just as much to see a success made of it as any representative of any other organization that is at this convention to-day. Mr. Chairman, we want to be honest with you and let you know just what our position is, and then treat us as you think best. Now, in deferring action on this proposition until after the Constitution Committee has reported, I expect possibly you will have in mind then another proposition under discussion to be handled by the representatives of the different organizations who are here to make a permanent organization of this institution. Now, there is one thing that I want to make clear, and that is this, that the only way that it will be possible to get the members of the rank and file of our organization to that place where they will make the fight necessary to have our organizations brought in line with this movement, the only thing that you can do is to educate them as to what this movement means. Now, there are a great many things said that I do not agree with, but there are a great many things that have been said that I would like to see our organization in a position to get them and read them and thoroughly understand them, and I think you will find that they will take occasion to prove that they as well as the workers of every other organization are with the workers of the world in trying to emancipate themselves. I would like to see every statement that has been made here—the stenographer I understand has taken them—I would like to see them both transcribed and printed, and printed in such shape that we will be able to furnish every member of all the organizations with a copy of them. I think that if you will do that, it will have more to do with the effect desired of bringing our membership to the place we want them than millions of dollars spent in explaining the nature of the movement in order to reach the individuals. We are willing—at least I am willing as a representative of the sub-district—to pledge ourselves to pay any reasonable amount to justify ourselves in having a stenographic report of this convention made, transcribed and printed, but in such a shape that we will be in a position to be able to get it when we want it and be in the hands of every member of our organization. I believe the delegates that are here, regardless of whether they are going to affiliate immediately, with power to become a part of the organization, or whether they are here representing organizations for information, or whether they are here as individuals representing themselves, should bear the expense of getting this complete report, and then take that report and make use of it as propaganda in this movement. That is what I would like to see done. That is what I am prepared to commit our organization to pay their share of the expense in getting done, and that is what I would like to see done.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is to defer action on this report until the Constitution Committee has reported. (Question called for.)
DEL. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman and Delegates: I am in favor of the motion to refer this whole question as last made. I am one of those delegates who are here with full power to install the organization that I represent into the new organization that is to be born in this convention. But I do not say that I am here with authority to place a load upon the membership of the organization that I represent. I believe that the cart is before the horse when we begin to talk about taxation upon the possibility of that which we are in hopes will be a part of this organization. Every child that is born into this world is born with a debt over his head that he never can pay off; and for God’s sake, let us not create a debt with this organization without the rank and file that has got to liquidate this debt has got something to say whether they are willing to take that contract or not. It is very easy for us to resolute here a taxation upon the rank and file that is in the factory and in the field and in the mine, toiling from day to day, but it is not easy for them to get meat and bread and pay for it and liquidate the debts that we will contract here. Hence I am opposed to any assessment that is going to load down financially the workers of this country. That is supposed to be the intention of this assessment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Brother Sherman, permit the chair to say that you are not talking to the question. This is simply a matter of deferring action on this report until such time as the Constitution Committee has reported.
DEL. SHERMAN: I believe the brother that made the motion had a reason for deferring it, and that the, original motion proposed to contract a debt for something that has not been created yet. We have not got an organization. But I hold that the delegates in this convention, if they individually wish to pledge from their individual purses a certain sum of money, they have a right to do so, because they agree to do it at this specific time; but they have no right to contract any debt for any people or person that they represent here. Consequently I am in favor of the last motion.
Question called for.
THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor of deferring action on this report until such time as the Constitution Committee shall have reported, will signify by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee on Literature and Press.
DEL. BRIMBLE: The first recommendation of this committee is that this organization shall have an official organ, to be published weekly. It was the sense of the Committee on Literature and Press that the official organ be sent to the entire membership, arrangements to be made for so doing. At 1.45 P. M. yesterday we met and considered the resolution No. 11, presented to the convention by Brother J. J. O’Brien. It was moved and seconded that we concur in the resolution, but that at present we see no way of carrying it out. The motion was carried. It was also suggested by the committee that Simons and O’Neil prepare an address to the workers on industrial unionism; that Smith and Kiemensic prepare a leaflet on the political aspect of the union; and that Brimble and Mrs. Forberg prepare an indictment of the new trades unionism against the old.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee on Literature and Press will report progress.
THE CHAIRMAN: Committee on Organization.
DEL. DANIEL MCDONALD: The recommendation of the committee is that the matter of Resolution No. 7, which pertains to organization on industrial lines with absolute home rule in the State, etc., introduced by Brother Fairgrieve, of Montana, be referred to the Committee on Constitution. That is all that the committee has to report this morning.
DEL. WHITE: I move to concur in the report of the committee. (Seconded.)
The motion was put and carried.
Announcement was made that the Committee on Label and Emblem had no report to make, but would meet on adjournment of the present session.
Secretary Trautmann read the following resolution:
RESOLUTION No. 16.
Whereas, There is already established an international bureau of those industrial unions which are based upon the class struggle, with the headquarters at Berlin; therefore, be it
Resolved, That this new organization enter into immediate relations therewith.
(Submitted by W. E. Trautmann, Thos. J. Hagerty and Daniel De Leon.)
The Secretary read the following resolution, submitted by Delegate Chas. Kiehn, representing the Longshoremen’s Union of Hoboken, N. J., in regard to the struggle of the people in Russia:
Whereas, There is in progress at the present time a mighty struggle of the laboring class of far-off Russia against unbearable outrage, oppression and cruelty and for more humane conditions for the working class of that country; and
Whereas, The outcome of that struggle is of the utmost consequence to the members of the working class of all countries in their struggle for their emancipation; and
Whereas, This convention is assembled for the purpose of organizing the working class of America into an organization that will enable them to shake off the yoke of capitalist oppression; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That we, the industrial unionists of America in convention assembled, urge our Russian fellow-workmen on in their struggle, and express our heartfelt sympathy with the victims of outrage, oppression and cruelty, and pledge our moral support and promise financial assistance as much as lies within our power to our persecuted, struggling and suffering comrades in far-off Russia.
(By Chas. Kiehn, Longshoremen’s Union, Hoboken, N. J.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The resolution with reference to establishing an international bureau of industrial unions will be referred to the Committee on Organization. The resolution just read, in regard to the situation in Russia, will be referred to the Committee on Resolutions.
The following resolution, submitted by Delegate Chas. Kiehn, of Hoboken, N. J., was read by the Secretary:
Whereas, The industrial union movement has for its object the uniting of the working class of the world into one large and powerful international organization, and for that purpose it is necessary to at first create mutual relations with the labor organizations of other countries ; therefore, be it
Resolved, That the incoming General Executive Board be instructed to get in immediate communication with the international secretaries of the trades and labor unions located in Berlin, Germany, S.O. 16, Engel-Ufer 15, immediately after the close of this convention, for the purpose of starting such mutual relations as are necessary.
THE CHAIRMAN: The resolution will be referred to the Committee on Organization.
The Secretary read the following resolution, offered by Delegate Chas. Kiehn, of Hoboken, N. J.:
Whereas, For the purpose of unifying and strengthening the new organization it is necessary to have a uniform system of dues and tax collection; therefore, be it
Resolved, That for the purpose of collecting dues and general assessments stamps be issued by the general organization through its duly elected officers ; that the stamp be put upon the books as a per capita tax; that the same stamp be issued by the various departments to the members thereof, and the proceeds be used for the creation of a general fund.
THE CHAIRMAN: That will be referred to the Committee on Constitution. Are there any other resolutions?
Resolution offered by Joseph Corna and A. Klemensic:
In view of the fact that the present form of capitalism is increasing organized violence to perpetuate the spirit of despotism to predominate in this republic ; be it
Resolved, That we condemn militarism in all its forms and functions, which are jeopardizing our constitutional rights and privileges in the struggle between capital and labor. Be it further
Resolved, That any members accepting salaried positions to defend capitalism, directly or indirectly, should be denied the privilege of membership in this organization.
THE CHAIRMAN: The resolution will be referred to the Committee on Resolutions Are there any other resolutions? New business.
DELEGATE T. J. HAGERTY: Under the head of new business should come, I think, the resolution offered here calling for the appointment of a committee to make arrangements for a ratification meeting to be held not later than July 7th, so that the representatives of the various organizations here might publicly express their adherence to this new organization, and that to the public at large might be given an expression of the attitude of the men who stand for this economic organization. If that is to be done it must be done soon, for many of the members will be unable to remain any longer than July 7th. I think the arrangements for such a meeting rightly come under the head of new business.
THE CHAIRMAN: The resolution alluded to was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and they have not reported. Is there any further new business?
DEL. COATES: It does not seem that there is any other business coming before the convention, and as it is highly important that we let the Constitution Committee go back to work, I move you that we now adjourn until nine o’clock Monday morning. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that this convention now stand adjourned until nine o’clock Monday morning. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. RICHTER: A point of information. As the Constitution Committee is not able to state when it will be able to report to this convention on the constitution, I would like to ask if it is not in a position to make a report upon the preamble or declaration of principles. That will lay the basis or express the basis for this new organization, and its adoption will react upon the other parts of the constitution. I would ask, if it is not in a position to report at present, why not?
THE CHAIRMAN: The brother asks if the Constitution Committee has prepared the preamble or declaration of principles. Will the chairman or some member of the committee answer?
DEL. MEYER: The sub-committee appointed by the Committee on Constitution has not as yet completed its work on the preamble. When they will complete the preamble can best be answered by Brother Sullivan, of the Committee on Preamble, the sub-committee from the Constitution Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: Will Brother Sullivan state whether or not the sub-committee is ready to report on the Preamble?
DEL. SULLIVAN: We are not ready to report at this time. We have part of the work done, but not a sufficient amount to be submitted to this convention for their consideration.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Constitution Committee state that they are not ready to report. The motion is to adjourn until nine o’clock Monday morning morning.
Del. Klemensic made an announcement in regard to delegates visiting the graves of the Chicago martyrs in Waldheim Cemetery.
A motion was made and seconded to amend the motion to adjourn by making it nine o’clock to-morrow (Sunday instead of Monday morning.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a moment. Are there any other announcements?
A number of announcements were made in regard to meetings of the various committees.
DEL. ROWE: A point of information. Delegate Hagerty made an inquiry in regard to a mass meeting not later than the 7th of the present month to ratify the work of this convention. That resolution he informed the delegates is in the hands of the Ways and Means Committee, and the point of information I rise to ask about is, after hearing several discussions as to our power to levy any assessment, have we got any different way of providing ways and means for that meeting? As a member of the Ways and Means Committee I ask for that information.
DEL. M. P. HAGGERTY: I wish to speak on the amendment relative to having a Sunday session, when the time comes.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion to adjourn is not debatable. The question as to the time may be discussed.
DEL. M. P. HAGGERTY: I am opposed to Sunday sessions. I care not how you recognize Sunday, whether you go to church or stay away, but there is one thing we should do here, and that is recognize Sunday as a day of rest. And I see no good in meeting on Sunday, when we can adjourn on Thursday or adjourn on Friday. Now let us observe Sunday as a day of rest at least. We are not in such a great hurry that we need to take Sunday for labor. We should have that one day in the week. We should certainly raise a great outcry if the capitalist class insisted upon us working on Sundays as well as the other six days. That would be seven-day exploitation of us. Let us have Sunday as a day of rest at least. I hope this motion will not prevail.
DEL. JORGENSEN: I believe we should not meet on Sunday.
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment to the motion is that we meet to-morrow morning at nine o’clock. Those in favor—
DEL. MOYER: I want to make a further statement as chairman of the Committee on Constitution. I ask whether or not Brother Shurtleff has been appointed on the Constitution Committee and will be allowed to sit unless appointed by the convention.
THE CHAIRMAN: Brother Shurtleff has not been appointed to the Constitution Committee. The motion was that the delegation select a member to work on that committee.
DEL. MOYER: Why not submit it to the convention, so that it can be acted on before adjournment? Suppose we adjourn till Monday morning at ten o’clock. While I am on the floor I want to say to the convention that the Constitution Committee at its last session permitted the chairman to fill out the committee in case they did not report at this day’s session. We feel that we should have a full Committee on Constitution and not fail to report, so we ask the convention to permit the Chairman to fill out that committee so that we may work this afternoon and evening and tomorrow so as to be able if possible to make a report to this convention Monday morning.
DEL. DE LEON: I desire information. The rules under which we work authorize the various groups to appoint their representatives on the various committees. My group appointed Thomas Powers, but Powers has been taken sick and is lying in bed, and my group has appointed me as a substitute. I desire to know whether Brother Moyer would consider me entitled to sit on that committee, and if he does not, whether this convention should pass on that.
DEL. MOYER: I did not hear you.
DEL. DE LEON: The question that was asked with regard to Delegate Shurtleff raises a doubt in my mind whether you would recognize me as entitled to a seat on your committee, since our group originally appointed Delegate Powers. Now, Delegate Powers has been taken sick and my group has appointed me as his substitute.
DEL. MOYER: I believe that the convention has acted on your appointment.
DEL. DE LEON: All right. I simply put the question.
DEL. MOYER: The convention acted on the appointment as they have on the appointment of other members of this committee.
DEL. DE LEON: Then has the convention acted on my appointment?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. I would ask that the International Musical Union make their appointment before the adjournment of the convention.
DEL. COATES: That raises a point. Has the International Musical Union been seated or recognized in this convention?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think not, only inasmuch as it is recognized as a part of the American Labor Union.
DEL. COATES: Then that is satisfactory. I wanted to make it clear I haven’t any objection particularly to anybody going on these committees, not a single solitary soul, if any organization wants to be recognized that has not been recognized particularly by this convention. I have not heard any credentials read here from the International Musical organization. I rather think, however, I remember that a musical organization from Chicago has been given one vote. That is not a group. They simply come under the individual organizations.
THE CHAIRMAN: The International Musical Union is not here as an organization prepared to install, but only as a component part of the American Labor Union. It has no individual representation on that committee except through the American Labor Union group.
DEL. COATES: Is there any doubt that that is the only way it is here?
THE CHAIRMAN: I presume that is the way.
DEL. COATES: The Secretary, I presume, must have a record. Isn’t it true that that is the way?
THE SECRETARY: Yes, that is true.
DEL. COATES: Then there is no question about it.
The amendment to adjourn until Sunday morning was lost, and the convention then adjourned until Monday morning at nine o’clock.
• Day 6, Morning Session : Monday, July 3
Chairman Haywood called the convention to order at 9.30 A. M. The roll call of delegates was on motion dispensed with.
The Secretary read the minutes of the previous session, and there being no corrections, they were approved as read.
The following communications were read by the Secretary and ordered placed on file:
Hoboken, N. J., July 2.
Wm. E. Trautmann, Industrial Union Convention Hall, Clark and Erie streets.
Chairman and Delegates:—Greetings. Our best wishes to succeed in your important work. Smash the labor fakirs and traitors. Twist the ropes to hang Gompers, Mitchell & Co. Three cheers for the new class-conscious movement. Yours for the emancipation of our class.
HOBOKEN ORGANIZED LONGSHOREMEN
(in general meeting)
HENRY F. SCHRECK, Chairman pro tem.
FERD DITTER, Secretary pro tem.
Los Angeles, Cal., July 2.
Chairman Industrial Union Convention, Brand’s Hall, Clark and Erie streets, or 55 Clark.
May a class-conscious union crown your efforts and sound the death knell of wage slavery. Adopted at public meeting of Socialist Labor Party and Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance, Los Angeles, Cal.
H. J. SCHADE.
East St. Louis, Ill., July 7, 1905.
To the Industrial Union Conference, Chicago, Ill.
Greeting:—A number of workingmen in this city has raised a purse for the purpose of securing E. V. Debs to deliver an address in this city. I was approached with the proposition and told them doubtless E. V. was attending the Industrial Union Convention now in session in Chicago and that if they secured him he would doubtless talk industrialism unionism and oppose all other forms of unionism. “That will suit us,” they said, “we want him.” “Well,” I said, “upon these grounds I’ll volunteer to communicate with the convention and learn how soon he can come.” “Good, do it ” they said. So now if E. V. can come under the auspices of the Industrial Union so that the local S. T. & L. A. can take charge, we will get ready for a big meeting under the auspices of the new organization. Hoping the revolutionary spirit will guide the new organization into the proper channel and launch an up to date revolutionary union, and requesting E. V., or those who may have charge to inform me as soon as possible the date that he can speak in East St. Louis, I remain yours for the emancipation of the working class.
W. W. COX
522 North 43rd street, East St. Louis, Ill.
P. S.—They tell me expenses will be met. Let me know what they will be.
Also a communication from a Schenectady union donating five dollars.
DEL. WHITE, of the Credentials Committee, presented a report from that committee recommending the seating of F. Kenke, representing painters, tailors, machinists and a number of mixed trades, with 47 votes; Timothy Mahoney, Street Laborers’ Union, Chicago, with one vote. It was stated that the latter brother represented an organization of 1700 members, who had secured a nine-hour day with $2 a day, after Gompers had given instructions to sign a contract for nine and a half hours with less wages than the members were getting.
On motion, the report was concurred in and the delegates seated.
Special committees were called for, but none had any report to make.
THE CHAIRMAN: Reports of standing committees. The Committee on Constitution.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY, secretary of the Committee on Constitution: The Committee on Constitution has the following Preamble to report.
DEL. SCHATSKE: A point of information. Before that is done I would like to suggest that the Constitution be read by paragraphs, and that every paragraph should be read twice.
DEL. HAGERTY: I will read it in chunks if you want it.
DEL. SCHATSKE: And after that that the paragraphs be discussed separately. I make that as a motion.
No second.
DEL. HAGERTY (reading Preamble): “The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of working people, and the few who make up the employing class have all the good things of life. 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, and take and hold that which they produce by their labor, through an economic organization of the working class without affiliation with any political party. (Applause). The rapid gathering of wealth and the centralization of the management of industry into fewer and fewer hands make the trades unions of to-day unable to cope with the ever-growing power of the employing class, because the trades unions foster a state of things which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping to defeat one another in wage wars. The trades unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers. These sad conditions can be changed and the interests of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that its members in any one industry or in all industries if necessary, shall cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one the concern of all. Therefore, we the workers unite under the following constitution.” (Applause.)
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the reading of the Preamble offered by your Committee on Constitution. What is the pleasure of the convention?
DEL. FRY: That Preamble may be all right. I am not prepared to say it is not. From the reading of THE CHAIRMAN of the Committee it is almost impossible for the delegates to digest the contents of it. I believe it should be printed. I believe that each delegate here should have a copy of it before we take any action on it. Otherwise we may not be able to digest the matter as a whole. I offer that as a suggestion or motion. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that each delegate be furnished with a copy of the Preamble before taking action on the Preamble. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: I oppose that motion on the ground that this Preamble is short enough for any one to catch the drift of it, and that the printing of the Preamble and distributing copies of it would delay this convention beyond a reasonable length of time. If there are any objections to any of the principles laid down, the Preamble is very brief, so that objections ought to be stated plainly here and now to this convention, and the Preamble itself ought not to be put off. If it were a lengthy document and complicated and with much involving of sections and phrases it might be reasonable to suggest the printing of that Preamble. But to my thinking this convention is competent enough to take this Preamble up as it stands. The workers here, I think, have sufficient memory to retain the substance of that Preamble for discussion.
DEL. ROSS: I want to offer a different motion, and that is that the Preamble be accepted as the report of that committee and without debate. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Without debate?
DEL. ROSS: Yes.
DELEGATES: No, no.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have not heard a second to the motion.
DEL. SCHATSKE: I second it.
THE CHAIRMAN: The chair will rule that motion out of order.
You are speaking to the proposition of having this Preamble printed.
DEL. RICHTER: I am opposed to the motion, for the reason that if it were printed it would not facilitate the work of this convention. As one of the Committee has stated, it is brief enough to enable the convention to take action upon it. I therefore move as an amendment that the Preamble be taken up paragraph by paragraph and acted upon. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: An amendment has been offered that the Preamble be taken up paragraph by paragraph and acted upon. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). Those in favor of the amendment will signify it by saying aye. Contrary, no.
The motion is carried. Read paragraph one.
Secretary Hagerty read the first paragraph, as follows:
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of working people and the few who make up the employing class have all the good things of life.”
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the reading of paragraph one.
What is the pleasure of the convention?
DEL. M. P. HAGGERTY: I move its adoption. (Seconded.)
DEL. MCEACHREN: I would like to have some definite knowledge as to what the good things of life are, and it seems to me that the Preamble is objectionable in not specifying them.
A delegate raised a point of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded that paragraph one be adopted. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for.)
DEL. RICHTER: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates: If the sending of delegates to this convention indicates anything, it shows that there is a desire among the working class to free itself from oppression, and the response to the call for this convention shows that it expects that this convention will express through its declaration of principles the situation as it exists to-day as far as the capitalist class and the working class are concerned, and that it will point out a policy by which it may generate strength enough to free itself from wage slavery. Now, fellow workmen, the Preamble offered by your committee starts out, “The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.” It appears to me that the paragraph as it stands has no sense and is untrue. It does not say anything about such matters as we should expect in the Preamble of this new organization which has set itself the task of freeing the working class. For this reason I move that we strike out that clause and substitute the following: “Labor is necessary to satisfy the needs of society. Therefore every able person should do some useful work for its maintenance. The means of production and distribution have grown to such a size and have become so costly that only a few can own them, as long as private ownership thereof exists; condemning the rest of mankind to obtain an existence by selling their labor power to those few. The private ownership of the land and modern tools of production has turned them into means of oppression and exploitation, forcing the wage earning class to suffer want and misery and insecurity of employment, while the increasing profit of the capitalist class secures to them a life of idleness and luxury.” I move that this be substituted for the first paragraph of the Preamble as submitted by the Committee.
DEL. SCHATSKE: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates—
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a moment. There is no second to the substitute offered for paragraph one. The debate occurs on the original motion, which is to adopt paragraph one as reported by the Committee on Constitution.
DEL. SCHATSKE: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates: There has been objection offered against this paragraph which says that the capitalist class and the working class have nothing in common. Have we anything in common? I was once in a mining town and I came to the post office. There were two little children playing out of doors. They enjoyed their play very much. A man came out from the post office and grabbed one child by the hand and said, “You have no business to play with this child.” The child commenced to cry, and said, “Why, I love that child.” “Well,” said the man, “don’t you know that that child’s father is a miner and your father is a business man and also the postmaster?” Now, haven’t those two classes something in common? Isn’t it frightful when the miners and the workingmen down in the gutter live in those hovels and they have got to pay rent for them? Haven’t they got something in common when the little children have to go to work in the cotton mills in the eastern cities and work long hours watching the looms and get $2.80 in two weeks, and the children of the rich spend thousands of dollars in luxuries and for flowers, while the workingmen who produce all wealth that these people enjoy have to live in poverty and degradation? Isn’t that a beautiful communism? How do you like that kind of communism. I ask that this motion shall be adopted.
DEL. GILBERT: I would like to say, Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates, that it is quite impossible for us to split hairs and to analyze with fine accuracy the scientific interpretation of this or any other document. But one of the things that pleased me particularly about that Preamble was this, that while possibly it was not stated in absolutely scientific terms, it seems to me it was stated in the terse, ordinary language of the plain people, and that is what we want. We do not want to put out from this convention an academic statement. We want simply to put out a statement that will carry conviction to the mind of the humble toiler, and when you talk about there being nothing in common between them the average common horse sense knows that. Therefore I would move you the adoption of that first clause, without wasting the time of the convention. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is out of order.
DEL. WHITE: I have heard a good many Preambles read, and this is the first time I have seen a Preamble that has not got the ear marks of too many professors. The language sounds good to me. I believe we can go before the working class of this country with it and that they can understand the report without having to get dictionaries and find out what is meant. What we want is to go before the common people with a Preamble so plain that every honest Tom, Dick and Harry, including ourselves, can understand it. I am in favor of the entire Preamble as reported by the Committee.
DEL. WILKE: I move the previous question. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The chair very much dislikes to entertain such a motion. It occurs to me that this is a matter of the most vital importance to this convention, and that if there are any delegates on the floor that are opposed to the Preamble they should have a right to express their opinions in regard to it. However, the motion for the previous question has been made. Those in favor will signify it by saying aye. Contrary by the same sign, no. The motion is lost. The motion before the convention at this time is to adopt paragraph one. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). Those in favor of adopting paragraph one will say aye. Contrary, no. The ayes have it. The motion is carried and paragraph one adopted. (Applause.)
Secretary Hagerty then read the second clause of the Preamble, as follows: “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, and take and hold that which they produce by their labor, through an economic organization of the working class without affiliation with any political party.”
A motion was made and seconded that the paragraph be adopted as read.
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that paragraph two be adopted.
DEL. SIMONS: It seems to me we are trying to adopt something that is almost ridiculous in statement. If you will analyze that as it stands, it says that we are in favor of political action without any political party. I am absolutely in favor of no endorsement whatever of any political party. At the same time the wording of that is contradictory and confusing, and there ought to be something done to straighten that out. It either ought to be split into two sentences, or else it ought to state more clearly what it does mean. As it stands now it practically says no political action, without a political party. I object to that. I have not a copy here, and so cannot make an intelligent amendment.
A delegate moved as an amendment that the word “political” be stricken out.
DEL. WRIGHT: I want to say that that paragraph does not contradict itself, in my opinion. I will point out the reason. The first part of the paragraph merely places it upon the plane of the existing civilization, the existing conditions under which we live in the United States; that is, wherever it is possible to get at the mass of working people and present a program of the International revolutionary proletariat by methods which give us that chance.
Furthermore, it says, “without affiliation with any political party,” which is correct. We can pursue the method of appearing before the working class with this program without affiliation, and I believe that the sentence or paragraph stands upon its feet, not that it comes out clear, but enough to enable you to study it out, and I think that any person who will follow that closely will see exactly the status of it.
DEL. RICHTER: The paragraph reads, “between these two classes a struggle must go on.” Why must it go on?
DEL. SCHATSKE: Until it is finished.
DEL. RICHTER: “Until the toilers come together on the political as well as economic field and take and hold what they produce.” It says that the moment you bring the workers together on the political and economic field the struggle ceases. As a matter of fact, it just starts then. “That which they produce,” why should they take it? Doesn’t it belong to them? If I have something I don’t need to take it. To take it implies that I take it from something outside of me, but not from myself. This says, “what they produce by their labor, through an economic organization of the working class without affiliation with any political party.” Why should that statement be in the Preamble, “without affiliation with any political party?” The form of the organization will give expression thereto. Although this phrase was in the Manifesto calling this convention, I do not see any need to have it in the Preamble. Mr. Chairman, I move that this paragraph be stricken out and the following substituted: “There can be no peace as long as an increase of wages of the whole working class means a corresponding decrease of profit to the capitalist class, and vice versa. From these conditions a struggle arises which will not cease until the worker is lifted out of his present merchandise or wage slavery position through the collective ownership of the tools of production and distribution. Until such a change is possible the wage workers must unite and organize as a class on the industrial as well as political field, having for their aim an effort to realize their class interests and to support and protect them in their struggle for existence.”
DEL. PARKES: I second the motion to adopt the substitute, to get it before the house.
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that paragraph two be stricken out and the substitute offered by Delegate Richter be adopted instead. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. DE LEON: The paragraph, if you will let me read it over again, says: “Between these two classes a struggle must go on until all the toilers come together on the political as well as the industrial field and take and hold that which they produce by their labor, through an economic organization of the working class without affiliation with any political party.” That is the language as offered. I wish to speak for the clause as a member of that committee, and against the proposed substitute. The argument has been made by Delegate Simons that that is contradictory; that this clause proposes political action without a political party. Now, let me invite your attention to the Manifesto, to the promise and invitation under which this convention is gathered, and under the terms of which it is convened. You will find on page four of this issue of this form of the Manifesto (holding up a copy), this passage: “Craft divisions foster political ignorance among the workers, thus DIVIDING THAT CLASS AT THE BALLOT BOX as well as in shop, mine and factory”; and on the next page of the Manifesto you find this clause: “It (this organization) should be established as the economic organization of the working class WITHOUT AFFILIATION WITH ANY POLITICAL. PARTY.” If to recognize the necessity of uniting the working people on the political field, and in the same breath to say that the taking and the holding of the things that the people produce can be done without affiliation with any political party—if that is a contradiction; if it can be said that these two clauses in this proposed paragraph are contradictory, then the contradiction was advocated by Delegate Simons himself, who was one of the signers of this Manifesto. (Applause). Here you have his signature (holding up the page of the Manifesto with Simon’s signature). But, delegates, there is no contradiction, none whatever; and I consider that these two passages in the Manifesto, if any one thing was to be picked out more prominent than any other, are indeed significant of the stage of development, genuine capitalistic development in America. This Manifesto enumerates a series of evils that result from the present craft division:—it shatters the ranks of the workers and renders industrial and financial solidarity impossible; union men scab it upon one another; jealousy is created, and prohibitive initiation fees are adopted; “craft divisions foster political ignorance among the working class, thus dividing them at the ballot box.” If this, the division of the working class on the political field, is an evil, then it follows that unity of the working people on the political field is a thing to be desired. And so it is; and this clause in the Preamble correctly so states it. That being so, does this other sentence sound contradictory, the sentence that provides that the new organization shall be without affiliation with any political party? The situation in America, as presented by the thousand and one causes that go to create present conditions, removes the seeming contradiction. That situation establishes the fact that the “taking and the holding” of the things that labor needs to be free can never depend upon a political party. (Applause). If anything is clear in the American situation it is this: That if any individual is elected to office upon a revolutionary ballot, that individual is a suspicious character. (Applause). Whoever is returned elected to office on a program of labor emancipation; whoever is allowed to be filtered through by the political election inspectors of the capitalistic class;—that man is a carefully selected tool, a traitor of the working people, selected by the capitalist class. (Applause.)
It is out of the question that here in America—I am speaking of America and not Europe—that here in America a political party can accomplish that which this clause demands, the “taking and the holding.” I know not a single exception of any party candidate, ever elected upon a political platform of the emancipation of the working class, who did not sell them out as fast as elected. (Applause). Now, it may be asked, “that being so, why not abolish altogether the political movement? Why, at all, unite the workers on the political field?” The aspiration to unite the workers upon the political field is an aspiration in line and in step with civilization. Civilized man, when he argues with an adversary, does not start with clenching his fist and telling him, “smell this bunch of bones.” He does not start by telling him, “feel my biceps.” He begins with arguing; physical force by arms is the last resort. That is the method of the civilized man, and the method of civilized man is the method of civilized organization. The barbarian begins with physical force; the civilized man ends with that, when physical force is necessary. (Applause). Civilized man will always here in America give a chance to peace; he will, accordingly, proceed along the lines that make peace possible. But civilized man, unless he is a visionary, will know that unless there is Might behind your Right, your Right is something to laugh at. And the thing to do, consequently, is to gather behind that ballot, behind that united political movement, the Might which is alone able, when necessary, to “take and hold.” Without the working people are united on the political field; without the delusion has been removed from their minds that any of the issues of the capitalist class can do for them anything permanently, or even temporarily; without the working people have been removed altogether from the mental thralldom of the capitalist class, from its insidious influence, there is no possibility of your having those conditions under which they can really organize themselves economically in such a way as to “take and hold.” And after those mental conditions are generally established, there needs something more than the statement to “take and hold”; something more than a political declaration, something more than the permission of the capitalist political inspectors to allow this or that candidate to filter through. You then need the industrial organization of the working class, so that, if the capitalist should be foolish enough in America to defeat, to thwart the will of the workers expressed by the ballot—I do not say “the will of the workers, as returned by the capitalist election inspectors,” but the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box—then there will be a condition of things by which the working class can absolutely cease production, and thereby starve out the capitalist class, and render their present economic means and all their preparations for war absolutely useless. (Applause). Then, the clause “between these two classes a struggle must go on until all the toilers come together on the political as well as industrial field, and TAKE AND HOLD that which they produce by their labor”—through what? THROUGH AN ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION OF THE WORKING CLASS, “without affiliation with any political party,” stands out in all the clearness of its solid foundation and challenging soundness. That clause is a condensation, I should say, of hundreds of volumes now in the libraries of the country, and of many more volumes that have not yet been written, but the facts upon which they are based are coming forward. One of the facts, a fact of great importance is that curious apparition—the visionary politician, the man who imagines that by going to the ballot box, and taking a piece of paper, and looking about to see if anybody is watching, and throwing it in and then rubbing his hands and jollying himself with the expectation that through that process, through some mystic alchemy, the ballot will terminate capitalism, and the Socialist Commonwealth will arise like a fairy out of the ballot box. That is not only visionary; it is the product of that cowardice which we find very generally in the politics of some men who claim to represent the working class (applause), on account of which we find that such politics in nine cases out of ten degenerate into what is called “possibilism.” It brings about a repetition of the methods of the Christian church, which raises a fine, magnificent ideal in the remote future, to be arrived at some time, sooner or later—rather later than sooner—eventually if not later—and in the meantime practices all “possible,” “practical” wrong. (Applause). I maintain that this clause, consequently, is not contradictory, but states the four-squared fact. (Applause.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Your time is up.
DEL. DE LEON: I am done.
DEL. MURTAUGH: I desire to speak in favor of the clause as read, not exactly for the reasons pointed out by the previous speaker, but simply because it is in the field of possibilism and practicability. (Applause). I cannot agree with the sentiments just expressed, but with the clause just written. In looking over the past and considering the great number of men, the men of many ideas politically and otherwise, that have contemplated coming into this organization, I think that this clause is just exactly the thing, and it is born of exactly the same need that the old line trade unions mean when they say “no politics in the union.” It is born exactly of that same need. It is useless for us here to attempt to disguise the fact that we have every shade of political opinion. We have the Socialists—I happen to be one of them—who believe that action in the political line is absolutely necessary. We have the Socialist, on the other hand, who is so near the anarchist that he is beginning to think as the anarchist does, that action along the political line is absolutely harmful instead of being useless. We have on the other hand, members of different religious faiths, recognizing the fact of the absolute necessity of the solidarity of the working class, but who still cannot get away from their early teachings, their early superstition, if you please, and cannot get into any political party. Now, if we are going to be practical, if we are going to work for possibilism, as it has been expressed, we had better start out along the lines expressed in that section of the Preamble, because only along such lines is it possible to amalgamate the forces that we wish to amalgamate. (Applause.)
DEL. MCEACHREN: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates: I would like to speak in favor of the clause as presented to this convention. I would like to speak for the clause, not for the language it is couched in, but for the ideas it represents. The idea involved in this clause of this Preamble is this: That an economic organization, founded upon class lines, will sooner or later as an economic organization express itself politically. To say at this time that you must endorse a political party which does not exist, would be to anticipate something in the future. I believe that this clause is thoroughly correct. I believe it is correct for this reason also; you must recognize that the strength of the working class is its economic organization; that that economic organization is founded upon a common need. This common need is expressed in the economic organization that represents that common opinion. And I believe that the only opposition that we will get will be from such gentlemen as have spoken at the last, and who believe that the working class need leaders other than workingmen to pilot them out from capitalism. (Applause). I believe that is altogether incorrect. Therefore, you must recognize that there must be an economic organization founded on the class struggle. The scheming politician who comes to you and says that he represents the workingman and that he will turn tip the cudgels for you is and must of necessity be an impostor and a prevaricator.
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: I confess frankly that I am unable to say whether I agree with the ideas of the Committee on Constitution or not, simply because the Preamble does not express clearly to me any idea or any principle. It seems to me that this paragraph of the Preamble particularly is intended, not to represent the principles and purposes of industrialism, but represents a toadyism to three different factions in this convention (applause), and I am opposed to this organization toadying to any man or any faction of men. Let this convention state the principles of industrialism, and if the factions see fit to fall in line and support then, well and good. It seems to me that this paragraph could not have been more involved or more confusing if it had been written by the platform committee of the Republican or Democratic party. It seems to me as if the paragraph is intended to be toadying to the man who does not believe in politics at all, the pure and simple trade unionist as we have come to call him; that it means a toadying to the Socialist, and also to the anarchist, if you please. It seems to me that this paragraph is intended to be such that the supporter of this movement can point to it when talking to a pure and simple unionist and say, “that is just what you want, and expresses what you believe in.” I believe it is intended to be such that a Socialist can be pointed to this platform with the statement that “this is Socialism.” I believe it is intended to be such that an anarchist can be confronted with this platform and told that “this means anarchy as it is written right in this paragraph.” I believe that is what this paragraph is intended to be, and I am opposed to that sort of fad myself. I may be wrong, Mr. Chairman. This paragraph may be entirely clear to every other person in this convention, but I confess it is not clear to me. I expect to do some talking for this movement after this convention. I am going to talk to individuals wherever I find them for this movement, and I cannot afford to have Brother De Leon along with me every time I meet a man, to explain what this paragraph means. (Applause). I move you that this paragraph and the balance of this Preamble be referred back to the Committee on Constitution for a clearer paragraph and a Preamble that represents more clearly the principles and purposes of industrialism. (Seconded.)
DEL. SIMONS: I rise to second that motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: The delegates who have spoken seem to think that they are talking on paragraph two of your Constitutional Committee’s Preamble. That is not the fact. The delegate here offered a substitute that is now before the convention.
DEL. SIMONS: Is this motion out of order then?
DEL. SMITH: Is a motion to refer out of order?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, a motion to refer is in order, but you were talking entirely to this paragraph, and the delegate now rises to a question of privilege.
DEL. SIMONS: No, I simply second this motion, and if that motion comes before the house I would like to speak on it.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is to refer this Preamble back to the Committee on Constitution. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. SIMONS: I just want to suggest two or three other things that I am satisfied ought to be in there, if I understand it. In the first place I see in this section what Brother Smith has just said, that it seems that it is intended to catch everybody, and that it does not catch anybody, and I want to say that it seems to me there are certain things that ought to be embodied in that Preamble. There are certain things that distinguish this organization clearly and plainly from other organizations. There is the one test in there, the principle of the class struggle. The principle of the independent political action, I am not insisting on. I would like to have it; that is my side of the proposition. I am in favor of it, and I want to see it in there. I also believe that this should be broad enough, and I think Comrade Smith will also agree with me that it should be broad enough to admit the anarchist and the Socialist and the men who do not believe in political action at all in any way, providing they stand by the other principle. The fact is that we all admit the two principles which stand out clearly on the economic field; first, that this organization is opposed to all bargaining across the line between the capitalist and the laborer; and in the second place, that the form of organization should be industrial and not craft. Now, it seems to me that those points are not brought out clearly in that Preamble, and those are the things that ought to be clear above everything else. It may be my fault that I cannot understand, but I do not see it.
DEL. DE LEON: I am talking here to the motion of Delegate Smith. Delegate Smith’s statement was that this paragraph is a toadying to three distinct ideas; the pure and simple idea, the Socialist political action idea, and the anarchist idea. Do I understand you correctly?
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: Yes,?
DEL. DE LEON: That was the substance. Now, he certainly is mistaken when he says that there is any toadying here to the pure and simple idea, because the pure and simpler states that politics are exactly like religion, and that a man can go his own way upon it. I do not know a single instance of a pure and simpler who will say that the working people must be united on the political field; so that so far as toadying to the pure and simpler is concerned, I fail to see it. There remains what is loosely called the Socialist political and the anarchist idea, understanding by the latter the recognition of the mission of physical force. Are they toadied to? If it is believed that there is any toadying done towards either, it must proceed from the opinion that any one of them has, exclusive of the other, the whole truth; it must proceed from the idea that one or the other is absolutely wrong. The truth is that they are both but a fraction of the truth. I do not believe that when you state that two bones belong to a body you are toadying to either bone. If you scratch a political Socialist you will find a man who says that the trade union is going to die out and there is no use bothering about it. They don’t want any economic organization; they don’t want any industrial organization; hence they are mooncalves, ballot maniacs. On the other hand, if you look at the anarchist, he, disgusted at the political mooncalves, flies to the other extreme, and says: “political action is wholly useless,” and you think of physical force instantly and alone. The position of the Committee was accordingly one, not of toadying towards either of the two, but of recognizing the truth in both camps: the truth in the Socialist political camp, that political action and the means of civilization must be given an opportunity; and recognizing at the same time the fact that in this country, for one, it is out of the question to imagine that a political party can “take and hold.” Consequently there are two distinct ideas that run into each other, and the opinion of Delegate Smith upon the subject proceeds from the notion that the two camps, anarchist, so-called, and Socialist, are divided by an unbridgeable chasm; otherwise there cannot be any toadying. For if there is something that you hold is right, and something that I hold is right, and we join the two and eliminate what is wrong in both, that surely cannot be called “toadying.” This clause consequently is a constructive clause with the feature of toadying absolutely excluded. As far as the pure and simpler is concerned, he is knocked on the head—do you call that toadying? I guess he does not—because his attitude is that politics are simply like religion and should be excluded absolutely.
DEL. GILBERT: I wish to speak to the motion to refer. I am opposed to the motion to refer for the simple reason that there is no constitutional question involved. If we will look at that it is quite likely we will discover this. First, we are here to effect an economic organization. There are two elements in this convention. One element proposes to do away with political action entirely. Another element is inclined toward political action. All that this paragraph is in essence is this: It first of all states very clearly and plainly that this is primarily an economic organization based upon the conflict of classes. Secondly, it says in essence this: That as individuals you are perfectly free to take such political action as you may see fit. As an organization you cannot. That is correct. (Applause). Thirdly, in essence it says this: You shall not as an economic organization stand committed to any political party at present in existence. You may say, “Why, then, shall we say that there is any use in the ballot?” This is why: Because, as Comrade De Leon mentioned earlier in the discussion, the ballot is one of the things generally agreed upon by civilized men to fight their battles with. Consequently, if the economic organization is to be the basis of any action—and it must—and if political action must simply reflect the interest of an economic class, the component parts of this industrial organization, the individuals composing it, whenever they see fit to vote they will only vote for that political party that reflects their economic interest. (Applause). I do not care what name that political party has. You cannot conjure with a name. If the Socialist party wants to represent the economic interest of the working class it can only do so by coming before us with such a program that it appeals to our economic interest. (Applause). If it fails to do that, and if the Socialist Labor Party does it, then the Socialist Labor Party will have claims on the individual’s fealty. And if that fails to do it some political party will arise, because we should remember this, Mr. Chairman and Comrades, that any political party, I care not what it may be, it can only exist as the manifestation of an economic interest, that is all. Consequently this does not involve a constitutional question. We are simply stating that primarily we are an economic organization based upon the conflict of classes. Secondly, that as individuals we may use every means, both political and economic; thirdly, that we do not stand committed to any political organization in existence. Therefore, I think it should stand as written. (Applause.)
DEL. KLEMENSIC: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates: We must not overlook the fact that we are here as workingmen, and as such we do not recognize the Socialist, the anarchist or any other kind of ist. We are here as workingmen and as rebels. (Applause). The reason why we are here is that we want to devise ways and means whereby we all can agree, and as the previous speaker stated already, the economic condition of the workingman is the foundation, is the fundamental condition of his being and his welfare and his development. Now, then, this being the case, it lays the foundation that economically we all are united and we all have the desire to unite, for the simple fact that in the past history of every one of us our division came from the work of the capitalist and exploiting class. Now, then, we come here to agree, and we all agree on the economics as the fundamental question. We readily recognize the fact that there are men who believe in political action, and they are entitled to; there are others that believe straight-out in education and omitting to take this political action. Both of those parties are right and correct according to their standpoint. But the most important fact is this, that all of us want exactly the same thing, and there is no reason why these different factions should be on the outs in any way. As I stated to start with, our economic foundation is the one on which we are all agreed, and these two ways, political action and nonpolitical action, are only a question of method, a question of judgment, of practicability or whatever it is. But, as Comrade De Leon stated it very well, there are many chances in every political party to give weight and force and strength to the fakir. Now, what we want to do is to eliminate the fakir, and, as I understand the statement of Comrade De Leon, the Socialist party and the Socialist Labor Party are looking after it to eliminate the fakir as much as possible. Therefore, I appeal to all of you not to forget the point on which we are united, the fundamental economic action. I think the Manifesto in its clause is short and brief, but is broad enough to embody all these different factions, and I am heartily in favor of this clause as it stands.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Constitution, I am opposed to referring this clause back to this Committee, not only for the reasons so very plainly and convincingly outlined by Delegates Gilbert, De Leon, Klemensic, and others, but also for the reason that this Preamble is not drawn up by the Press and Literature Committee, but by the Constitution Committee. It is not designed as an exhaustive treatise on these questions. Its function, as we understand it, is simply a statement of bare facts and not the proof of those facts, which is impossible in a Preamble. We are agreed on the bread and butter question, all of us. We are agreed that we need food, shelter and raiment. The economic, as Comrade Klemensic just said, is the foundation in the last analysis, and it is not the part of the Constitution Committee to engage in a long-winded rhetorical flight in the Preamble to the Constitution. There are plenty of opportunities, with this Preamble as a basis, for all manner of orators and all kinds of politicians to burn up the oxygen out of the atmosphere with long phrases and fine technical hairsplitting. The fundamental fact is here stated and ought to stand as it is stated, and ought not to be elaborated in this Preamble. This is a part of the educational propaganda of the proposed economic organization. To load down this Preamble with all the suggestions that are turned in here, especially the suggestions from one of the delegates, would mean the turning of this Constitution into a folio of a hundred pages or more by the time you got through. The Constitution should be a brief, pithy, concise document, written in the language of workingmen, not written in the language of Proudhon, not written in the language of Bakunin or Marx or Engels, but written in the plain, everyday language of the man in overalls. We want to appeal to the man in overalls. (Applause). We want to organize the plain common workingman, the workingman who could not, to save his immortal soul, tell you the difference between variable capital and constant capital, who could not distinguish the most technical proposition in an academic statement. We want to talk to that man in his own language. Therefore, I am opposed to referring this thing back again. I also want personally to resent the insinuation of Delegate Smith that this is toadying to anybody, no matter who he is or what he is, or to any existing institution, no matter what it may be. We are working here for the working class. We do not care about any factions. We are agreed only on the substance, upon the fact that we want to take and hold all the things that belong to the working class, and we want the goods, and we want to put the boots to the other fellow. (Applause.)
DEL. LILIAN FORBERG: I want to oppose the amendment that was offered by Comrade Smith, because it seems to me it is a waste of time. It seems to me that this paragraph in the Preamble is just as clear and plain on what we are going to do as language can be made to express it. It says distinctly that this struggle, meaning the struggle between capital and labor, must go on until the forces are united on the political field. That means the forces of capital on the one side united in a solid political party, and the forces of the working people on the other side. It distinctly says that this struggle must go on. It states in the next paragraph that we come here to organize an economic organization of the working class, based on the class struggle, without any affiliation with any political party whatsoever. What has been the trouble with the working class movement in all the time that has gone before? Because there has been no economic organization based on the class struggle. The old American Federation of Labor is based on the idea of harmony, that the interests of capital and labor are identical, and the old political parties have been the expression of that idea, and have been just as muddled as the expression of the American Federation of Labor. If you organize here an economic organization based on the class struggle, the workingmen that came into that organization will understand that it is battling on the workingman’s side, and they will come to understand that no political party can be put up by the capitalists to represent the working class, and the time will come when no political party which is the expression of the interests of the capitalists can get the vote of a workingman belonging to an economic organization of the working class based on the class struggle. (Applause.)
DEL. DINGER: I shall not take up much of your time. What I have to say I can say in very few words. It seems to me that we workingmen who come here from all over this country, come here for business. and not for any other purpose. We come here to express in the constitution that we may adopt the sentiments that caused this gathering to come together. It seems to me that the proposition of Delegate Simons is strangely contradictory. He stated that he agreed with the other delegate that this Committee was trying to toady to some of the elements in this convention, and then he goes on record as saying that he wishes this referred back to the Committee to make it broad enough. Now, if I understand the meaning of broadness correctly, in this case it means just the very same thing that he condemns. This is broad enough for me. I want to tell you as a member of the S. T. & L. A. and the Socialist Labor Party that I am not here to force my ideas upon any one. Unless I can convince a man that I am right I don’t want him to affiliate with the Socialist Labor Party. I believe that the Socialist Labor Party is right. I believe the Socialist Labor Party is the only political organization in existence that can emancipate the working class. But that has nothing to do with the case. I am a member of the Socialist Labor Party only in so far as I believe and am firm in the conviction that it represents the interests of my class. Otherwise, I do not care one whit for the Socialist Labor Party. (Applause). I am opposed to political tight-rope walking. We are not performing. We are wage slaves from the mills, mines and factories. Now, let us adopt a common sense proposition upon which we can proceed. I am anxious to be one of those who will go out and try to get more of our fellow workingmen to affiliate with this organization, but if you want me to do that I want a proper basis on which to proceed. I want to have some kind of a principle upon which to stand so that I need not be ashamed of my affiliation with the Socialist Labor Party. I believe, Mr. Chairman and Delegates, that this is sufficiently clear, and I believe that there is no man in this movement who cannot go forth satisfied that he is representing the interests of the working class by adopting the original as it is. I am opposed to referring it to the Committee.
DEL. LA MONTE: I would like to ask, as a matter of information, to have Comrade De Leon’s amendment read. I would like to know just where we are at before I go on.
THE CHAIRMAN: I don’t understand you.
DEL. LA MONTE: What is the status of the business?
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion before the convention at this time is to refer this Preamble back to the Committee on Constitution, this paragraph two. Paragraph one has been adopted.
DEL. LA MONTE: This thing has been put into as plain English as it is possible to get it. They have made a statement of the class struggle, and upon that point it would only be a waste of time to refer it back to the Committee and make the Committee do the work over again that they have honestly spent their time upon for two days. Why should this thing be repeated? I have been here for days, and this convention has been wasting its time in windjamming. You have got a statement here brought forth in as plain and simple language as any man can produce, which simply states the class struggle upon which we have got to stand. Why should we waste time by referring this back to the Committee?
Question called for from various parts of the hall.
DEL. GLASGOW: It has been said that there has never been an economic organization based on the class struggle. I want to say that the Knights of Labor was an economic organization based on the class struggle?
A DELEGATE: A point of order. The gentleman is not talking to the question before the house.
DEL. GLASGOW: I am going to get to it.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is the motion to refer.
DEL. GLASGOW: The motion is to refer. Others have been permitted to go into the merits of the main question. Why should I be cut off at this time? Why should I be cut off now when I want to show that the statement is not true?
THE CHAIRMAN: Speak to the question before the convention.
DEL. GLASGOW: To refer?
THE CHAIRMAN: To refer.
DEL. GLASGOW: That, of, course, then prevents me from going into the merits of the question as I understand it.
THE CHAIRMAN: It prevents you from speaking on any other question except the question to refer.
DEL. MCDONALD: A point of order. A motion to refer a proposition opens up the main question to discussion, and is entitled to the same treatment as if the motion to refer were not made at all.
THE CHAIRMAN: I believe you are correct, brother. I think you have stated the proposition correctly. The delegate may proceed.
DEL. GLASGOW: Now, I must return to the question of the Knights of Labor, and why the Knights of Labor were destroyed. I will make it brief. The Knights of Labor principles were set forth in its Preamble; and let me tell you that the Preamble is the most essential thing. I care not what your constitution provides, it is the Preamble that must determine all our future actions, and upon that hinges the various other things. The Preamble of the Knights of Labor was, “organization, education, cooperation, political action.” That in my opinion is what this Preamble sets forth until it comes to the one point in which it says “no affiliation with any political organization,” the very thing that destroys the essence of that Preamble. Prior to that it recognizes the class struggle, it recognizes the necessity of political action, but at the end it says, “no political affiliation, no political action.” That is how it will be construed in our various labor organizations, and the present Preamble will be no advantage over the present declaration of the American Federation of Labor. The question will be constantly raised in our organizations, “no political action, no political talk;” so there will be no political discussions on the economic side, and no political economics would be permitted in our labor organizations. We would simply be tying the movement up, as it were. Now we should go on, and I believe that if a few words were stricken out that we could agree to leave the question open for the organizations to do as they saw fit. Why were the Knights of Labor destroyed? They were permitted to go on and grow like a snowball that was turning over and over, until it came to a point where they wanted to take political action, and the moment they did that there were those who prevented the success of the movement. You who were living at that time in Chicago understand that that was the position. That was why the Knights of Labor was destroyed. We nominated a man in the United Labor Party, Bob Nelson, a molder. The district counsel appropriated a certain sum of money for the purpose of carrying on that campaign. Immediately there came Powderly. You all know who Powderly was, I believe.
A DELEGATE: A traitor.
DEL. GLASGOW: Powderly came with instruction that that money should be put back into the treasury and no political action would be permitted. It was a movement on the part of the capitalists, and they used Powderly for the purpose of destroying the Knights of Labor. They were destroyed because the assemblies that were prevented from taking political action yielded up their charters. And you know Powderly was taken care of just as Gompers will be taken care of when he is out of the labor field. That was the position in which we were. The capitalists do not believe in forming a political organization. Why? They have got behind them the President. They have got behind them the courts. They have got behind them the guns that back up these things. Until we get possession of the political field we will not be able to control any of these avenues by which the government is used by the capitalists that keep us in the condition of wage slaves. Is my time up?
THE CHAIRMAN: You have three minutes yet.
DEL. GLASGOW: Now that is the position I take. Then we should be careful that we take no action that will prevent in our organizations the privilege of discussing at least economic questions, and political questions in harmony with them. But I do not believe that we should take the position of declaring for a political party at the outstart, but this if adopted don’t say that or anything of that kind, and I believe it would be disastrous and place us back just where we are to-day under the present trade union regime.
DEL. RICHTER: Mr. Chairman, have I a right to the floor?
THE CHAIRMAN: You have the floor.
DEL. RICHTER: I have not spoken to the amendment, and I don’t want to cut off the gentleman in his argument.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I would like to ask, before I discuss this question, the reading of that clause to be referred.
THE CHAIRMAN: Will you read that clause?
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: “Between these two classes—”
DEL. MCDONALD: The motion before the house is to refer the entire Preamble back to the Committee on Constitution, is it not?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, the motion before the house is to refer this clause, as I understand it, clause one having already been adopted by the convention.
DEL. MCDONALD: I do not think that is the sense of the motion to refer. It would be absolutely silly and folly on the part of the mover of the motion to refer a certain clause back without referring the entire Preamble back.
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: The motion was to refer this paragraph and the balance of the Preamble?
THE CHAIRMAN: Not the paragraph that has been already adopted.
DEL. SMITH: We cannot do that.
DEL. HAGERTY (reading): `Between these two classes a struggle must go on until all the toilers come together on the political as well as on the economic field and take and hold that which they produce by their labor, through an economic organization of the working class without affiliation with any political party.”
Question called for from many parts of the hall.
DEL. RICHTER: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates—
DEL. SAUNDERS: I believe I was recognized before this delegate.
THE CHAIRMAN: This delegate (referring to Delegate Richter) has the floor. You just rose to have the paragraph read.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I asked to have it read prior to discussing the question.
THE CHAIRMAN: This delegate has the floor, and he asked for it before you came into the hall.
DEL. RICHTER: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates: It is not that I rise to show what I know or do not know, but I may state that I did not come into the labor movement yesterday; that during the last ten years I have seen the ups and downs of the labor movement, economic as well as political, and if anything was responsible for the defeat that it suffered it was the lack of recognition of their interests as a class. I defy any delegate here to show me in the paragraph presented by the Committee, anything that refers to the class struggle in any other manner than by stating the words “class struggle” and that it must go on. Now, what does this say? Does that give us a conception of the class struggle? It does not. If this declaration or Preamble shall be of any use, it must be the means whereby the speaker in the meetings or wherever it be shall have a chance to go back to its declaration of principles, so as to shut out any element injurious to the movement, and to incite an effort to gain an understanding of it. With the wording of this paragraph as it is, as it has been pointed out by some of the speakers, you leave the door open to any one. Just listen: “Through an economic organization of the working class.” Now, a store keeper along the avenue here is a worker; a small farmer is a worker; and so you go along the line. On what ground can you prevent them from joining this organization? If the class struggle has any sense at all it means the struggle built upon the class interests of the wage working class; and therefore it springs from the fact that an increase in the wages of the whole working class means a corresponding decrease of the profits of the capitalist class. From this condition springs the class struggle, not from an organization of the working class. But I am opposed to referring it back to the Committee, as the Committee has, through two of its representatives, expressed itself and shown that it has no desire to change or alter the Preamble in such a manner as to give a different expression to those essentials, those factors which constitute or are active in this struggle. When we say “class struggle,” you hear the word and you may think anything of it if you are not informed and are so blind that you desire such plain language, yet the result of this blindness means more confusion to us and more strength to the enemies of the working class. I am a delegate from one of the Locals of the S. T. & L. A., and I was certainly forcibly reminded of the words of Delegate Debs on last Thursday, that “the theory of the S. T, & L. A. is correct, but there is something wrong with its method.” And certainly the speakers that have stood upon the floor here have shown by their very position that the charge was well founded. Now, fellow workers, if this organization shall amount to anything, you must bring to every man as far as possible a recognition of their class interests. If you cannot do this you may amalgamate all the workers, but you will not be in a position to generate the strength to bring forth the energy essential to overcome the capitalist class. Delegate De Leon said that we must have the workers’ economic power; that Right is a shadow without Might. But I ask you, what Might can an economic organization generate? It can only pit its empty stomachs against the full cupboard of the capitalist class, but it can make those empty stomachs strong when they are accompanied by an intelligence and by a knowledge of the factors of the class struggle which will mean their destruction. It makes those empty stomachs strong when they are accompanied by a knowledge of the factors in this class struggle which work toward the uplifting of the working class. And that is the only part which the wage working class has through its organization to accomplish its mission. Now, Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates, after listening to the expression of the sentiments of this convention I do not expect that it will adopt the substitute. I therefore do not hold that the wage working class will not progress. What this convention may leave undone some other convention will do. But I feel it my duty not to be guided by a reverence for some high and grand mind, whether it belongs to this organization or any other organization, or to decline to act because to express a certain condition certain words must be employed which are unfamiliar to many men, but which you must employ if you want to bring home to man a knowledge of what is for the interest of his class; and for this reason I have spoken.
DEL. BERNINE: Mr. Chairman and Delegates to the Convention: It was necessary that there should be a long course of academics and debate in the preliminary and earlier work leading up to the labor movement. It was necessary at one time that we should distinctly state that, when we spoke of the working class, that we should refer to it as the wage earning class in order that people might know what we meant. But at this time we are all in accord as to what is meant by the working class, and I think that there can be no splitting of hairs here. It was a long time before we could impress upon that working class a recognition of the fact that there was a class struggle, but the coming together of this convention shows us that that class struggle has been recognized. It shows us that the necessity for academic discussion has gone by, and that we can confidently approach the working class at this time with a plain statement of terms, without any scientific trimmings. I think we are all sufficiently aware by this time that the working class must be united politically. I think we are sufficiently aware that they must be united upon their material class interests, and as I said we can come in this simple language to the working class and ask them to organize upon the proposition that there is a struggle in society between the classes, which will not end until the working class is united economically and politically to take and hold that which they have produced. (Applause). The time for certain action has come. And what is that action? Simply to cut that string which binds the working class to the capitalist class. That is the action that we have to take here at this time. It is to set the working class free from the capitalist class by striking off the fetters that weight them down to the capitalist class, and by uniting them, first economically, on the class struggle. And as I say, the academic discussion has gone forward to that point where we know definitely that all class struggle is a political struggle, or in other words, a struggle for the public powers, in order that we might through these public powers, by the might of our economic unity, take and hold that which we produce. Therefore, I think this is sufficiently clear. I recognize the fact that we are here for action and not for economic discussion, and I am not in favor of that motion to refer.
DEL. BARTLETT: I am in favor of referring back to the Committee for this reason: I think the working class has been sufficiently hypnotized in regard to what true working class politics are. The prevailing opinion exists among the workingmen that going up to a capitalist ballot box and dropping a piece of paper in it means working class politics. I want to tell you that that is the most contemptible lie that was ever told you, for this reason: To imagine that you could go into a capitalist hall of Congress and by a vote take possession of their property. Isn’t that a piece of rank nonsense? You might just as well go over to the Board of Directors’ room of the North Western Railway Company and cast a vote to take possession of their property. Do you think they would hand it over to you? No. They will never do anything like that. So get that microbe out of your head. What we are up against you all know pretty well. There are certain reasons why we can’t tell the truth right here.
A DELEGATE: No, sir, none.
DEL. BARTLETT: But the fact that stares us in the face is that we have a struggle ahead of us, and this struggle is going to be a bitter one, and the clearer we can get, the nearer to the earth we can get, the better it will be for your carcasses. Now, what are true working class politics? Is it that you are voting at a capitalist ballot box? No. True working class politics means this: That in so far as the working class is organized to take possession and enforce their demands on the economic field, working class politics grows co-extensively with this economic power, and all the voting that you fellows have to do is among yourselves as to what plan of action you will take against this capitalist class, and time will reveal to you fellows the rank nonsense of voting at a capitalist ballot box. You can vote better probably with machine guns and hand grenades in the course of time.
(Manifestations of disapproval in various parts of the hail.)
DEL. BARTLETT: I am in favor of referring that resolution back to the Committee in order that they can strike out all of that confusing language about political action at the capitalist ballot box and all that stuff, and bring back in place of that clause a plain statement of what the working class is going to do on the economic field. I thank you.
DEL. PARKES: We do not know a thing unless we know the reason for the thing. The discussion that has gone forth as a result of these motions has cleared up this question in my mind, and I think it has cleared it up in the minds of a number of others. The function of a constitution is not to teach the class struggle. The constitution constitutes the frame-work of the organization, and in the making of that constitution we are guided by the principles of working class economics and the class struggle; and it seems to me that the Committee have done well in their statement of the proposition, although I was the one who seconded the motion to adopt the substitute because I did not know the reasoning upon which they based their deductions which they made. To give you an analogy, it is not necessary for an architect to teach mathematics in order to erect a structure. In order to apply the principles of the class struggle and build up an economic organization upon the lines of the class struggle, it is not necessary that the principles of the class struggle shall be taught by every clause of the constitution or by any of the clauses. It may be built in accordance with those lines. Nevertheless now it has been stated upon this floor that this is not the only organization that has been built on the lines of the class struggle. I am not speaking of the S. T. & L. A. I only wish to speak of the things which I know. It has been said that the Knights of Labor was built upon the lines of the class struggle. I will read from the declaration of principles of the Knights of Labor adopted in 1874, and you may judge for yourselves: “It is not a political party. It is more, for it is a crystallization of sentiments and measures for the benefit of the whole people.” The benefit of the whole people is the declaration of the Knights of Labor, and not the benefit of the working class as is stated in here by the report of the committee on the Preamble to the constitution. And it goes on to say: “But it should be apparent, when exercising the right of suffrage, that most of the objects herein set forth can only be obtained through legislation, and that it is the duty of members, regardless of party, to assist in nominating and supporting by their votes such candidates as will support these measures. No one, however, shall be compelled to vote with the majority.” Those are quotations from the declaration of principles of the Knights of Labor adopted in 1874. So I think that a great deal of this discussion that has been brought forward here is founded upon wrong premises. Nevertheless, I think it has resulted in clearing up a great deal of doubt in the minds of many. Having read the substitute over a number of times, I have come to the conclusion that it is not necessary to refer this paragraph back to the Committee, but that it ought to be adopted as reported by the Committee on Constitution. (Applause.)
DEL. ROSS: Mr. Chairman and Delegates to this Convention:
You all know that if I could have done it I would have saved two thirds of the discussion on the Preamble when it was read to this convention. Now, as a delegate to this convention and as a union man and a Railroad Brotherhood man for forty years, I want to say something at this time. That second declaration in the Preamble follows the first, and the first is that there is no harmony between the two classes. The majority of the Constitution Committee who prepared the Preamble is made up of men like myself. You have heard and I have heard men who have represented so-called labor organizations, stand before audiences and say to those audiences of workingmen, “Your interests and the capitalists’ interests are identical.” I am here to say that the first clause in that Preamble contains a statement that they stand diametrically opposite, and the man who, proposing to represent labor, would stand before an audience and make the declaration that their interests are identical, is either a knave or a fool. It is this condition of things and a knowledge of this condition among men who have, for years and years, contended as best we could for our rights, that has brought this convention together. I am going to speak for the adoption now of that second resolution to prevent this Preamble being referred, if I possibly can, back to the Committee. Why? Because when I first heard it read by the Secretary I recognized the fact that it covered the ground wherein the others had failed, and that it gives to every man who will read it the very thing that you want him to have, and that is that he can readily see that this economic organization is based upon the fact of the class struggle, and that his interests and the interests of his masters are not the same. It says that this struggle must go on and on. Until what? Until labor has been organized to see its solidarity, until the working class can claim its own. Some of you people have talked about politics. One actually talked about shooting. Let me tell you something. It requires a great deal more courage on the part of some men to vote than it does to shoot. You fellows who talk that way, put that in your hat. I have been there. I was a rebel in 1864-5, whether it was any credit to me or not. I have been familiar with events from the Baltimore riots in 1877 until the thrashing of the street railway employes in New Orleans two years ago, and I am pretty well acquainted with every contest that has taken place. In 1881 I was upon the “Q” system when the engineers had their long contest, when it cost some of us a six or eight dollar a day job. If every man who labors and produces wealth had been joined in a labor organization so that every man could have had every other man’s assistance, there is not a time or place in history if they would stand together in solid phalanx but what they could get what they want without either shooting or fighting. You ought to recognize that fact. Supposing the men of this country stand together who produce the wealth. I want it understood that I am not arguing for the other side; I am arguing only for the man who works in a useful occupation and produces something necessary for the use of society. I have no use for the parasites of society at all. This second declaration in this Preamble says that this struggle must go on and on because the encroachments of the parasites upon the producer of wealth rob him of what he produces and prevent him and those who are dependent upon him from having not only the good things of life, but even the necessaries of life in many instances. A comrade asked what we meant by the good things of life. I hate to make this reference, but I hope there is no man in this audience who is a delegate that is non compos mentis, not sound in mind. The good things of life referred to there—and I am satisfied that the Committee will bear me out in it—mean that the toilers of the land may have good houses, good clothes and good food, and that their children shall have the chance of a good education. I want to say that I don’t want to see a vote cast by a delegate to refer that back, but I hope it will be adopted unanimously.
DEL. HOPKINS: Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to take up the time of this convention in any useless discussion on this question. We have already spent two hours of our time here and have accomplished nothing. We have come from all over the country, from all over this broad land with one purpose in view, and that was to organize the working people of this land into one solid compact body. But it seems from the two hours’ discussion here that this convention has been called for two purposes; one, with the understanding that it is to organize the laboring class, I believe, and the other that it is to organize a political party. We are taking up too much of our time discussing this word “politics.” We should leave that out altogether, leave that to one side. We don’t care to discuss politics or to refer in the convention to political organizations. We come here for the purpose of organizing ourselves into a compact body so that we can go out and meet the foe. We recognize, the fact that there are but two classes in this land, one the capitalist class and the other the laboring class, and that the capitalist class is already bound and organized into solid bodies on the battlefield while we are scattered in the trade unions. The working class have discovered this fact, and they have sent us to represent them and not the political bodies. We are here representing the laborers of this great land. We were sent here for only one purpose, and that was to organize this industrial laborers’ organization. Let us do that; let us accomplish that. We have had a committee out for the last two days working. They have been working day and night. They have presented to us a set of resolutions or a Preamble for the basis of our organization which is perfect in every way, and I believe that we are taking up unnecessary time in discussing that here by injecting too much politics in it. To refer this back to the Committee would take two more days of time. They would then present it to this convention, and we would consume three or four more days with the Preamble, and do nothing except increase expense to ourselves and to those whom we represent and who sent us here. Therefore, I move you the previous question. (Applause.)
DEL. JACKSON: When the delegate behind me spoke in favor of referring this paragraph back to the Committee he stated that certain facts made it impossible to tell the truth in this convention. Now, I disagree with him. I claim that the truth has been told in this paragraph in such a brief form that if any article were left out it would be a half truth, and that would be no truth at all. Now the first phrase is, “The toilers must come together on the political field as well as the industrial field.” That is a truth, a solid fact. The eleventh commandment of Gompers, who states that “Thou shalt have no politics in the union,” is proven to be a lie, because just as soon as a union man gets up to discuss working class economics and not political action, then he is shut off. That proves that the discussion of economics from the working class standpoint in trades unions must inevitably bring out a discussion of the political action of the working class. (Applause). Now, it has been said and argued that that last clause providing for nonaffiliation with any political parties conflicts with that position. It does not. The first clause simply shows the workingman intending to affiliate with this industrial union that he must be prepared to discuss working class economics in that union, and inevitably must follow political discussion. But that does not entail the official affiliation or endorsement of any political party. I am satisfied that if this industrial union throws open its doors to the discussion of the economics of the working class, then it must entail the discussion of the political action of the working class, and therefore the endorsement of any specific political party is absolutely unnecessary.
Question called for.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is that paragraph two of the Preamble be referred back to the Committee. Those in favor of the motion will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. Motion lost. The motion now occurs on the substitute introduced by Delegate Richter. Are. you ready for the substitute? (Question called for). Those in favor of adopting the substitute will say aye. Contrary, no. The substitute is lost. The original motion is to adopt paragraph two. Are you ready, for the question? (Question called for). Those in favor will signify it by saying aye. Contrary, no. The motion is carried. The paragraph is adopted, and the Secretary will read. (Applause.)
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY, of the Committee, reading: “Third paragraph. The rapid gathering of wealth and the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands make the trade unions of to-day unable to cope with the ever-growing power of the employing class, because the trades unions foster a state of things which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping to defeat one another in wage wars. The trades unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers.”
DEL, O’NEIL: I move the adoption of that paragraph.
(Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has, been regularly moved and seconded that paragraph three be adopted as read. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). Those in favor will signify it by saying aye. Contrary, no. The motion is carried and the paragraph is adopted. (Applause). The Secretary will read.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: Fourth paragraph: “These sad conditions can be changed and the interests of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members is any one industry, or in all industries, if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one the concern of all.” (Applause.)
The paragraph was read a second time owing to the fact, to which Delegate De Leon called the attention of the Secretary of the Committee, that the word “only” after “upheld” had been inadvertently omitted on the first reading.
DEL. SCHATSKE: I move the adoption of this paragraph.
(Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that paragraph four be adopted as read. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. COATES: I just want to ask the committee to allow an amendment. I want the last part of the paragraph to read: “an injury to one is an injury to all,” not “the concern of all.” I want to make it the injury of all. I ask the Committee to accept that as an amendment; if not I will put it to the house to amend it in that way.
DEL. SCHATSKE: I suggest the same thing.
DEL. DE LEON: I ask that the delegate put that as an amendment, because we of the Committee have no power to change it.
DEL. COATES: Just read the last few words.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: “Thus making an injury to one the concern of all.”
DEL. COATES: I move to amend by making it read, “thus making an injury to one the injury of all.” (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Has the Committee any objection to making the change?
DEL. HAGERTY: I have, as a member of the Committee, an objection to making that change.
DEL. DE LEON: It can only be done by the house as a whole.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you offer that as an amendment?
DEL. COATES: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded that the clause be amended by making it read, “the injury of all” instead of “the concern of all.”
DEL. HAGERTY: I object to that, because an injury to one is not exactly an injury to all, but is the concern of all. An injury to a man in California is not a direct injury to a man in Chicago. It is the concern of the man in Chicago. It is the concern of his class, but it is not a direct injury. It is the concern of all workingmen, the business of the entire working class to resent that direct injury, but in actual fact an injury done to one workingman is not felt by the entire working class at all. A wage worker here in Chicago may be discharged for his activity in unionism. The injury is confined to that one wage worker, but his injury is the concern of all wage workers, the concern of every other member of the working class, but it is not a direct injury to every worker. Moreover, this particular phrase “an injury to one is the concern of all,” is familiar to all workingmen, and it seems to me in view of these facts that it ought to stand the way it is.
DEL. COATES: I thought we had been talking about the class struggle continually in this convention. I want to say that we really have made up our minds on the class struggle. Seeing that we have done that, it appears peculiarly clear to me that the injury of one of that class is the injury of every one of that class. (Applause). We can twist it as we please as long as we are in this class struggle the injury of one is the injury of every one of that class.
DEL. DE LEON: I would like to ask Delegate Hagerty, Delegate Hagerty as a physician, if an injury to any part of the body is not an injury to the whole body, as a medical question?
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: Not necessarily, not as a medical question, is an injury to one part an injury to the entire body. It depends on whether it is functional or organic. If there is an organic injury, of the heart, for instance, the entire body is injured. But you can have a nerve injured without injuring the entire body. You can have a nerve injured without interfering at all with your digestion. Your digestion will go on just as well afterwards, and all the different processes will go on just as well as before.
DEL. SAMUELS: Comrade Chairman and DELEGATES: We want to make this question so as to be understood not only by the progressive delegate and progressive workingman, but by all workingmen. All I want to tell you is this: There are very few people who understand that an injury to one is an injury to all, and therefore we have got to make it plain so that every workingman will understand it.
DEL. JACKSON: Delegate Hagerty says that an injury to an individual is not a direct injury to any but the one. I think not. If a man is injured, if a member of the working class is injured, we know that every individual in that class is liable to that injury, and I believe that if we take the standpoint of the concern of all we will take that standpoint as a sympathetic strike, and it cannot be put in that position. Every industry or every craft must strike from the standpoint of its material interests as a craft. I am in favor of changing that word to “injury.”
DEL. MORRISON: I do not agree with Delegate Hagerty, and I will give you my reasons for it. I heartily agree with the proposition to amend. An injury to an individual unit of this great body of workingmen in San Francisco would be the concern of all of the individuals because though the concern of an individual must be addressed directly to the individual, yet if it is an injury which affects the whole class directly or remotely it causes an injury to each individual unit of the organization. Therefore I stand for the amendment to change the wording of that from the concern of all to the injury of all.
DEL. BOSKY: I disagree with Comrade Hagerty. I believe that whatever hurts any individual laboring man hurts at the same time the whole class of laboring men. That is an economic law. Economic laws are such that any benefit that the capitalist class derive immediately out of an individual is an injury that concerns all of us. The science of economics must be taught; the equality of labor, the value of labor and of commodities, must be taught before you can make any success of a movement of this kind. It is no use talking about parliamentary rules in an organization of this kind. Economic laws are involved in an economic movement, and they must be the foundation of the Constitution and everything else.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I move the previous question. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The question occurs on the amendment, which is to insert the word “injury” in place of “concern.” Those in favor of the amendment will signify it by saying aye. Contrary, no. The amendment is carried. The question now occurs on the original motion to adopt paragraph four as amended. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). Those in favor of the motion will signify it by saying aye. Contrary, no. The paragraph is adopted as amended. A motion would be in order to adopt the Preamble in its entirety.
DEL. DE LEON: I move that it be adopted as a whole. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the Preamble be adopted in its entirety.
A DELEGATE: As amended?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, the whole Preamble. Those in favor of adopting this Preamble as amended will signify it by saying aye. Contrary, no. The Preamble is adopted as amended. (Great applause.)
PREAMBLE.
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.
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, and take and hold that which they produce by their labor, through an economic organization of the working class without affiliation with any political party.
The rapid gathering of wealth and the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands make the trades union unable to cope with the ever-growing power of the employing class, because the trades unions foster a state of things which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. The trades unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers.
These sad conditions can be changed and the interests of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries, if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all. Therefore, we, the working class, unite under the following constitution.
A number of announcements were made as to meetings of various committees.
Del. Coates, of the Resolution Committee, reported back Resolution No. 17, offered by Delegate Chas. Kiehn, of Hoboken, in regard to the struggle of the people in Russia with a recommendation on the part of the Committee on Resolutions that the resolution be passed.
It was moved and seconded to concur in the report of the committee. The motion was carried and the resolution adopted.
No further committees were ready to report, and at twelve o’clock the convention adjourned until one o’clock.
• Day 6, Afternoon Session : Monday, July 3
Chairman Haywood called the convention to order at one o’clock P. M., and called Del. Coates to take his place as Chairman.
Del. McDonald, on behalf of the Committee on Organization, reported back Resolution No. 16, offered by Delegates Trautmann, Hagerty and De Leon, and Resolution No. 18, offered by Delegate Chas. Kiehn, with a recommendation that the convention adopt No. 18 in place of No. 16.
DEL. LA MONTE: Comrade Chairman, I desire to know whether this resolution, which the committee recommends, ties up this body with the International Socialist Bureau at Brussels, Belgium, or whether it opens this up to communication with all international headquarters which may be located in any place all over Europe, London, Berlin or wherever else it may be. I ask as a point of information. I want to know where we are at. We want to know what we are going to do before we act.
DEL. MCDONALD: It simply says here that the incoming Executive Board has instructions to correspond with the trades and labor unions located in Berlin, Germany.
DEL. LA MONTE: Located in Berlin. We have heard that, located in Berlin. Comrades, do you know what the situation in Berlin is?
A delegate raised a point of order.
DEL. LA MONTE: I am willing to yield the floor to another motion. What is before the house at this time?
THE CHAIRMAN: You have the recommendation of your committee.
DEL. LA MONTE: Has any motion been made to adopt it at this time?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think this delegate was going to make a motion before when he arose.
DEL. LA MONTE: I am going to make a motion to this effect, that this resolution be stricken out or laid on the table, either way you please to take it.
THE CHAIRMAN: That the report of the committee be laid on the table?
DEL. LA MONTE: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a second to the motion?
Motion seconded.
THE CHAIRMAN: That carries with it, of course, the other resolution.
DEL. LA MONTE: Has any motion been made to adopt it at this time?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think this delegate was going to make a motion before when he arose.
DEL. SCHATZKE: I would like to ask for information.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you through, Delegate La Monte?
Del. La Monte: No, I am not through.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is the information?
DEL. SCHATZKE: I would like to know why we should tie ourselves first to the labor organizations of Berlin in preference to any other place on earth.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a question of information.
DEL. SAUNDERS: A point of order. There is nothing before the house except this resolution, and no one can receive or have the floor except it is to rise to make a motion. The brother made a motion, but there was no second. Therefore he is not entitled to speak unless he gets permission.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am just trying to tell him that.
Del. La Monte: I still have the floor?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
DEL. LA MONTE: I make a motion that this resolution be stricken out.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a second to the motion that the resolution be laid on the table?
DEL. LA MONTE: No, I did not make that. I made a motion that the resolution be stricken out.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a proper motion.
DEL. MCDONALD: I move you as the chairman of the Committee on Organization that the report of the Committee on Organization be accepted and the resolution adopted. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It is moved and seconded that the report of the Committee on Organization be accepted.
DEL. KIEHN: As a member of the Committee on Resolutions I would like to give the delegate that spoke just now the information as to the reason that induced me to offer this resolution. The international secretariat of the trade and labor unions of Europe is located in Berlin. It not only consists of the labor unions of Germany, but of all Europe. The international headquarters is fixed in Berlin, Germany. It is an institute for the exchange of views of the different labor organizations, compiling statistics and other matters pertaining to the international trade union and labor movement. It is different from the International Socialist Bureau in Belgium. That is another institution altogether.
DEL. TRAUTMANN: When the general conference met a question came up as to relations with organizations in other countries built upon recognition of the class struggle, and the Secretary of the conference was instructed to communicate with such other organizations as recognized the same principle already as will be the foundation and the fundamental basis of this new proposed organization. There are two bureaus, a bureau for the Socialist political parties with headquarters in Brussels, and a headquarters of international unions based and founded upon the recognition of the class struggle with headquarters in Berlin. Comrade Legien, a Social Democratic member of the German Reichstag, is the general secretary of those organizations. The French organizations give a full report—here it is—from all the bureaus, including Spain, South Australia and New Zealand. I have the answers to the invitation to send delegates to this convention. They will be laid before this convention, and you can then form your opinions. There are five bureaus already attached to the general industrial central organization, and the first report is in conjunction with the report of the Socialist Bureau this year. Here are the addresses of those organizations that are founded on the same fundamental principles that underlie this organization. The object of establishing international relations is to make the industrial unions of Europe co-operate with the organizations in this country so that, for instance, when emigrants from foreign countries, including Japan, leave their country to find shelter in this country, that they may be already advised that here is an organization that will open the doors to every immigrant, no matter where he may come from. (Applause.) Now, I communicated with the unions of Japan. I communicated with all countries with the exception of such countries where such unions are not in existence. In explaining at the general conference the difference between the pure and simple craft unions, the government unions of Russia, the yellow unions of France and the blue unions of Germany, I showed the difference in tactics between those pure and simple European organizations that are used in the same way that the American Federation of Labor is used as the instrument of the capitalist class. I venture to say, from the experience of the last year, if we firmly connect ourselves with that bureau, that the members of our class, members of progressive organizations of labor, will know when they leave the other countries that there are organizations with which they can immediately associate themselves and become a working member of an organization working on the same lines as those in the old countries. Not only will these relations extend to the unions that are to-day connected with the international unions in Berlin, but these relations will go further and extend to Russia. We are aware of the fact that Bakunin or the followers of Bakunin rather have in the last five years organized economic organizations on the class struggle that will certainly come under the head of the organization that we are going to form, and with whom we can establish such relations as to bring the immigrants from foreign countries immediately into the folds of industrial unions of this country. Perhaps it would be taking too much of the time of the convention to go into it in detail, but you can see from letters from Denmark, South Australia, Germany and other countries where we have such organizations existing, that they fully agree with the principles underlying this new organization. If we are ourselves further advanced or represent a further advance it is for the reason that capitalism is further advanced in this country. In my letters that I sent to them I pointed out to them the difference between the American Federation and us, and it was the general secretary of France who grasped at once the significance of this new organization and had a big article in The People, in which he points out the difference between the American Federation of Labor and the proposed organization. I know from experience that men who have been trained and skilled in the Socialist party in the old country, unable to assimilate or affiliate with the old working class organizations, have become stagnant and finally conservative. They became the henchmen of the capitalist class because they did not find an organization that was built on the underlying principles on which we propose to build this in this country.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other delegates that wish to speak on this motion?
It was moved and seconded that the report be adopted.
DEL. SCHATZKE: A point of information. The way I understand “international,” it means that we want only one headquarters for international purposes and one secretary. There is already such an organization in Europe as an international movement to adopt our plans. Now, the question is, shall we recognize the German headquarters, or shall the Germans recognize that we will establish the headquarters here? I would like to find out where we shall establish our international headquarters.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is for the international congress to settle.
Question called for.
THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor of the motion to adopt the report of the committee as a substitute for the original resolution will say aye. Contrary no. The motion is adopted.
DEL. BRIMBLE: I made a mistake this morning. When you called for the report of the Committee on Literature and Press I said there was no report and that nothing had been settled by it. There has been a part of the work done.
Del. Dinger read the following report on behalf of the committee, he not being a member :
The inherent weakness of the arguments against the United Workers and industrial unionism is proven by the fact that the only thing that is used with any effect by its enemies is a lie. That is, that the United Workers is not in fact a labor organization, but a political movement.
On account of many of the organized and unorganized working people being ignorant of the real principles and purposes of this new labor unionism, it is necessary that these charges that are being made by the salaried officials of craft unionism, by the so-called labor papers that depend upon craft unionism for support, and by the capitalist press, be refuted.
In the American Federationist, official magazine of the American Federation of Labor, for March, 1905, Samuel Gompers, its editor, referring to the Industrial Union Manifesto, says
“The Socialists have called another Convention to smash the American trade union movement.”
The Iowa State Federation of Labor, acting upon this misrepresentation, adopted the following:
“A few disgruntled office seekers and would-be politicians have seen fit to criticize the present methods and government of our trade organizations; and these same people have issued a call for a Convention to be held in the City of Chicago June 27, 1905, to form an organization TO BE A POLITICAL INDUSTRIAL LABOR ORGANIZATION, the avowed purpose of which is the complete annihilation of the present trade union movement BY POLITICAL METHODS.”
The Advance Advocate, a so-called labor paper depending upon Gompersism for support, says
“And now a new industrial union is to be launched in Chicago. It is going to revolutionize the whole labor movement, according to the Manifesto of its promoters. IT IS GOING INTO POLITICS. We predict that it will fail.”
The Milwaukee journal, a capitalist daily newspaper, repeating the chorus of all capitalist newspapers, has this to say:
“The Socialists are still earnestly advocating the formation of a new national organization in the hope of downing the American Federation of Labor, as the federation is opposed to making the labor union a political organization.”
These falsehoods have been freely circulated in craft union literature, and more freely by the capitalist press, in spite of the fact that not a word can be found in any of the official acts or utterances of the United Workers, or of the Conferences or Conventions that brought it into existence, or in the Manifesto or other industrial union literature, to justify them.
On the other hand, every official declaration of the United Workers and the Industrial Union movement on this question has been clear and unmistakable AGAINST making it a political organization or a political movement. The Manifesto declares:
“It (the industrial union) should be established as the economic organization of the working class, WITHOUT AFFILIATION WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTY.”
The United Workers is not a political party. It is a labor union. It is made necessary because other so-called labor organizations have proved themselves incompetent and unable to represent the working class. It also declares its final purpose to be the abolition of wage slavery and complete freedom of the working class in the possession of the means of production and distribution.
While the United Workers is not a political party, and does not affiliate with any political party, the capitalists must not delude themselves with the idea that they alone are wise enough to know the value of political power, and that they, through the political ignorance of the working people, will be free and unhampered in placing capitalist servants in charge of the law-making and law-executing powers, and in using for the benefit of the employing class the policemen’s clubs and the guns of the soldiery.
The United Workers and the industrial union movement reserves the right for its members to use, outside this labor organization, in a political way, any weapon that will prove useful in the struggle for economic betterment.
As organized workers we oppose every form of working class ignorance, and urge all working people to study politics, and advise all unions to set apart a time to study political questions, to the end that when the working people use the ballot, their votes may be cast unitedly in their own interests.
The reading of the report was greeted with applause.
DEL. GOODWIN: As I understood that resolution this organization shall have no affiliation with any political party, and yet it is implied throughout that political action, in the parliamentary sense of the word is necessary. I make a motion that that resolution be tabled. (Seconded.)
Motion to table put and lost. A motion was made to adopt.
DEL. DE LEON: I move that this article that was read be referred to the incoming General Executive Board, for final action. (Seconded.)
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: I do not think there is any necessity of referring this to the Executive Board. It seems to me that this convention is wise enough to know the sort of literature it desires to place before the working people of this country. It seems to me that the combined intelligence of the delegates in this convention is greater than the intelligence of any set of men that can be selected from this convention as an Executive Board. (Applause.) This document is not so long as it appears from the manner in which it, was read. The document contains less than 700 words, and can be easily printed on two small pages. I know that the document does, not provide that the organization shall be committed to politics. It was decided by the Committee on Literature and Press that it was absolutely necessary to answer the question or claim of the enemies of this movement that this organization was to be a political organization. It was absolutely necessary to refute that assertion of our enemies, and in this document the Committee on Literature and Press has attempted to answer it in a clear and concise way without committing the organization to any political party, or to politics at all in fact. I will not read the first part of the document, which simply gives the charge that it is a political organization, but I will simply read a part of the answer to that charge: “On the other hand, every official declaration of the United Workers and the industrial union movement on this question has been clear and unmistakable against making it a political organization or a political movement. The Manifesto declares”—and then quotes from the Manifesto as follows: “The United Workers is not a political party. It is a labor union. It is made necessary because other so-called labor organizations have proved themselves incompetent and unable to represent the working class in its everyday struggles with the employing class.” This sentence asserts that the fundamental principle of the organization is economic. It goes on: “It also declares its final purpose to be the abolition of wage slavery and complete freedom of the working class in the possession of the means of production and distribution. While the United Workers is not a political party and it is not affiliated with any political party, the capitalists must not delude themselves with the idea that they alone are wise enough to know the value of political power and that they through the political ignorance of the working class will be free and unhampered in placing capitalist servants in charge of the law-making and law-executing power and in using for the benefit of the employing class the policemen’s club—and the guns of the soldiery. The United Workers and the industrial union movement reserve the right for its members to use outside of this labor organization in a political way any weapon that will prove useful in the struggle for economic betterment.” It does not even commit the organization to the proposition that politics is a useful weapon. It urges all working people to study politics and advises all unions to set apart a time for political discussion to the end that when union men use the ballot they may cast it unitedly, in their own interest. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that if this convention is to decide that the working class through the unions of this proposed organization shall not be permitted to discuss politics and shall not be permitted to consider political questions, it will place this organization on the same narrow basis that the American Federation of Labor now takes on that question. It seems to me that this organization can take a broad stand on this question that will permit a free and unlimited discussion of political questions as well as all other questions that concern the working class in this way. If we do that, if we simply permit the workers in this proposed organization to study these questions in their own way, we can rest assured that if the political field is the field whereon to circumvent capitalism it will be taken advantage of by the members of this organization; and if politics is not a field that will be proper for carrying on the work of the organization the workers in this new movement can never learn that any quicker than by studying political questions for themselves. (Applause.)
DEL. PAT O’NEIL: I am afraid the brother over there did not understand the matter when it was read. He has confused a quotation from Gompers’s paper as the utterance of the committee.
DEL. GOODWIN: No.
DEL. O’NEIL: I think you did. I don’t see how else you can come to the conclusion that you have. The American Federationist and papers of that class have continually charged the Manifesto with being a movement to bring a political movement out of the labor movement. This is simply a statement to the people at large that that is not true. It is not to-day, and it never has been true. The American Federation comes out point blank and instructs its members that they must not meddle with politics. This organization, on the contrary, says that the industrial union, as I understand, is to be an economic organization for the purpose of the betterment of the wage working class or the working class. If that is true, why should not the laborer, who to-day is the most ignorant as to political economy of any man on earth—why should he not be set clear on that point?
DEL. LA MONTE: I protest. The workingman is not the most ignorant man as to the laws of political economy.
DEL. O’NEIL: If he were not ignorant on that subject you would never find him lined up in support of the other fellow. (Applause.) You better keep still after this, till you know the man that you go up against. The position of the committee, therefore, was to strive to bring out a statement to the public at large to set them right in reference to the charges made against this proposed organization by the American Federationist. That is all I wanted to say.
DEL. GOODWIN: The delegate said that I misunderstood this. The address says, “The United Workers is not a political party. It is a labor union. It is made necessary because other so-called labor organizations have proved themselves incompetent”—
DEL. RICHTER: A point of order. We are discussing a motion to refer to the Executive Board, and not what the other people may say.
THE CHAIRMAN: That opens the entire matter for discussion.
DEL. GOODWIN: I will read: “The United Workers is not a political party. It is a labor organization. It is made necessary because other so-called labor organizations have proved themselves incompetent and unable to represent the working class in its everyday struggles with the employing class.” I understand that out of this criticism of other organizations comes this organization. It says it comes to fight the battles of labor on the economic field, and inasmuch as it does that it is nothing more. Do you delegates assembled here believe that this economic union of the working class will remain only economic? The Black Sea events have proved that the struggle in Russia is finally political. There is no ballot box in Russia, and the Russians do not need it, because under their conditions they must struggle without the ballot box. This address says: “It also declares its final purpose to be the abolition of wage slavery and complete freedom of the working class in the possession of the means of production and distribution.” If this is the purpose of this organization as this resolution sets forth here, it makes a denial of the statement going before, that it is not a political movement. The very act of the working class organized into this union, in seizing the means of production and distribution, is of itself political, and I hold that a union which proposes to take from the capitalist class these things and give them to the working class is of itself a political act. The Democratic and Republican parties have the election machinery, and every time we want anything we must go before the capitalist class and ask for it at their ballot. Here is the Socialist Labor Party. Every State in the Union denies its right to the ballot box. In every State it is not recognized as a political party, and it goes before the capitalist class of this country demanding from the capitalist class the right to go on its ballot. I want to know what we are here for. Do we come here asking favors for the working class? This resolution contradicts itself. In one place it says this is a purely economic organization, and then it goes on and says its purposes are political. If this organization goes on record recognizing the need of the ballot box in its parliamentary revolution, if it educates the working class along those lines, then it is going into politics pure and simple. Up till 1896 the idea of “economic organization” was never preached. The subject was never presented before the working class. The S. L. P. started the S. T. & L. A. First the political must dominate the economic. Here it says the economic must dominate the political, or the political organization must justify itself before the economic. I say that the political must justify itself before the economic. If the economic organization is open to justification, then it is wrong to that extent. Now, what does the working class know or care about capitalist politics? You cannot get on the ballot unless you ask the capitalists, and if the capitalists see fit they may keep you off. You belong to the working class, and there has not been a law passed in the interest of labor but what the capitalist supreme court has stood ready to strike it off the statute book. And if you go into politics and elect your candidate the capitalist judges will declare the election unconstitutional or illegal. Take Colorado. A capitalist, supported by labor votes, Adams, was elected governor by an overwhelming majority in Colorado, and the election was thrown out and Peabody put in his place. Go where you will, you have got to ask the capitalists for the right to go on the ballot. I say this convention ought to declare itself on that one point.
DEL. GUY MILLER: It seems to me unnecessary to explain the attitude of the delegate who has just spoken. Every man here understands that political and religious institutions are but the reflection of the economic system of production, and that when this convention sets before itself the task of bringing about an economic revolution it also prepares the way for a revolution in every field of society, and in every other field of thought. That seems to me to need no further discussion. And now the fact that we propose to bring about the industrial union of the workers, that we propose to make the solidarity of the interests of the working class a fact in an organization whose purpose is to do business with the capitalist class and to favor that unity which is to be brought about in the white heat of action, will not be lost sight of or forgotten or overlooked when it comes to the ballot box. This organization is prepared to support the interests of the working class upon every field of action, on every field whereon its interests are at stake. Its purposes are just as wide as the interests and needs of the working class. We do not propose to throw down one censorship of human thought and replace it by another. We propose to be free to express opinions in the union regarding all the interests of the workers of this country. That is what we have been defeated in in the past; that is what we are to secure in the future. I believe that most of the people who have listened to the reading of this resolution recognize the fact that the political movement and the industrial movement are but the two hands that are each to do battle for the interest of the working class. And since government is but a reflection of economic systems of production, through strengthening our arms on the industrial field we shall also make our voices more effective on the political field. The expression at the ballot box, the casting of a Socialist ballot, is something more than putting in a mere piece of paper. That is all right. The fundamental mistake occurs on the part of many who are members of this convention in thinking that that is all. It is the expression of the determination on the part of the men who cast that ballot to back up that expression of the working class by the entire strength of that class; that is what it means to cast a Socialist ballot. So people are fundamentally mistaken when they consider that we are mere theorists. But upon the other hand, if the Socialist believes in the expression of our interest at the ballot box, the industrialist also believes in the union of the worker in the factory and the mine to best conserve and protect that interest which is expressed at the ballot box. Each of these two forms is necessary if we are to secure our freedom. The strike is in its incipiency a revolution, only too often the men who strike are ignorant of the fact. It is a demand for a larger part of the products of their toil, with the power to say something regarding the conditions under which they must earn their bread. Statements have been made here regarding unions, that they were not consciously formed on the lines of the class struggle, most of them. That is the reason why our battles have been so ineffective ; but just the same every union that was ever formed is as expression in some form of the class struggle (Applause.)
DEL. SAUNDERS: I wish to emphasize the last statement of the last speaker. He spoke of the wisdom of having an understanding of this economic movement about to be launched, and the necessity of depositing a Socialist ballot. If you remember, he said a Socialist ballot. I agree with that. I also agree with him when I believe he means to say that that ballot means a working class political ballot. That means the working class and only the working class. I agree with that. But I believe that that is to be seen yet, and when a political organization will come before the working people of America where it is pointed out that they stand for the working class and only the working class, then will be the time when the workingman will be able to deposit a Socialist ballot.
DEL. SCHATZKE: This report states that the workingman has a right to study politics. I would rather that workingman should have a chance to study economy. If he would study economy he would have no need of politics. If he understands economy it will mean the abolition of the parasites. Therefore, I say, let us not say that he should study politics, but I would change the expression that he should study real economy.
DEL. POWERS: We have lost sight of the subject in hand. I would like to have the report read again.
THE CHAIRMAN: We will have the report read again.
Del. Dinger again read the report.
DEL. POWERS: Comrades, I am going to take up but a few minutes of your time. I want to say to you that no matter what disposition you make of this resolution, when I go out of this convention I intend to exercise my right as an American citizen. I intend to vote against the capitalist behind the judge. I intend to vote against the capitalist behind the policeman’s club. I intend to vote against every politician that is in favor of wage slavery. I intend to vote against the buttress of the worst tyranny, the man behind the gun, and there is nothing in this resolution that will stop me from doing that thing. There has been a great deal said in this convention about the American Federation of Labor. After I leave here I don’t propose to waste five minutes of my time talking about the American Federation of Labor. I intend to go out and do what I can to build up the industrial movement. (Applause). Let the American Federation of Labor waste its time if it wants to talking about this organization. But there are millions of men who are outside of our organization and the American Federation of Labor organization also, and it would be to our advantage to reach out for them and let the American Federation of Labor go the way it is going. Now, comrades, you see the electric motor taking the place of the locomotive. You see the man in uniform directing a train of cars with a simple crank. You see one weaver doing the work of forty. Twenty years ago in Fall River there were 2,000 spinners, and notwithstanding that great union that they have there, made up of good loyal men, I have seen them on strike, and the number of men has decreased in twenty years to about 450 from 2,000, and the number of mills has increased about twenty-eight. The inventor is undoing the American Federation of Labor, and neither the American Federation nor any other power on this planet can deal with this question in any other way than is proposed by this organization here. And when we go outside let us forget the American Federation of Labor. Let us keep this thing in mind, that there are in the American Federation of Labor a lot of good fellows, the rank and file; there are a lot of them. I have seen those fellows from Fall River who belong to the American Federation of Labor, with half an inch of snow on their shoulders, tramping through the streets of the city of Providence collecting dimes and cents to feed the strikers in Fall River. So far as the officers are concerned, I have never bothered much with them, and I don’t propose to. The inventor is writing the doom of such organizations as the American Federation of Labor, and let him go on and do it. Let us attend to these millions who have never been organized at all. Now, comrades, no matter how long we discuss this matter of politics or no politics,—it seems that we cannot get politics out of our heads, this thing has got to go the way it is going. You don’t want to say to me when you go out of here that because you are an industrial unionist you cannot exercise your right as a citizen. Let us tell a man what we think it is best for him to do on election day. And you don’t want to attempt to vote such resolutions as those down. That is what you are trying to do. I do not think we can put this organization on record in any better way than the way that is proposed, and what is the use of going on all day talking about politics and politics and politics?
DEL. MURTAUGH: Mr. President and Fellow Delegates, I wish to say that if our foresight were equal to our hindsight there would be no need of the introduction of such a resolution as I understood from the reading is being introduced here. We have gone through this entire matter in the adoption of the Preamble, and if the foresight of the faction that wishes to continue this wrangling in the convention were equal to their hindsight they would see that the entire question has been done away with in the adoption of our Preamble. If we are going to get down to business, if we are going to confine ourselves to the serious, practical problems that confront this convention, we are going to do away with this wind-jamming, because I am going to tell you that any man of average intelligence that is an attendant at this convention understands just exactly what is meant. When we say that we wish to form a class conscious organization, that expresses it all. The different shades of opinion that are necessarily brought together here and split hairs and talk for hours upon the definition of a word or a phrase, are not going to help the movement along. I have heard it said that the workers of this country are ready for this movement. If the workers of this country are ready for this movement, they are ready for the movement; they are not ready for the hairsplitting definitions that we are going to quibble on in this convention. (Applause). Resolutions of this kind just introduced prolong debate. We are all right from the time our Preamble was adopted; our Preamble covers it all.
DEL. VOEGTLE: I think we ought to settle these points, because every one wants them settled. The question is whether that resolution is contradictory or whether it is not in regard to political action. So I offer as an amendment, so you will not be misunderstood and not go on record as being contradictory—
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, delegate. The motion is to refer. Do you want to discuss that now?
DEL. VOEGTLE: Yes. My view of this matter is this: that working class politics shall consist in the management of the economic affairs of the working class on the political field, without going into the capitalist halls of legislation to perform acrobatic feats and reactionary performances in front of the capitalists in trying to display our strength in their eyes, because you can never gain anything through a bluff or through loud talking, because, as Marx said, the capitalist state is the executive committee of the capitalist class. We are up against it. It is an economic question, and the working class wants to recognize that politics is inherent in the economic power that they hold as an economic organization, and that these go hand in hand. If we think that we can gain political expression, that is, wield political power, by going into the enemy’s camp and trying to outvote him, we are mistaken. Now, that resolution seems to convey the impression that by hitching this economic organization on to the Socialist party or the Socialist Labor Party, that those long-haired phrase-mongers who are in those parties will lead us on to emancipation. Now, we want to get rid of that bogus idea and come right down on earth. (Applause.)
DEL. PARKS: I want to speak on the motion to refer. A motion has been made to refer this matter to the committee
THE CHAIRMAN: No; to the incoming Executive Board.
DEL. PARKS: Well, to the incoming Executive Board. It should be referred to some board or back to this committee, and as there is no other motion, I will speak in favor of the motion that is before the house. The document says that the United Workers is a political organization or in favor of political activity or something of that kind, and the term “United Workers” is used as if that was going to be the name of the coming organization. A little further on it uses the term “Industrial Workers” as the name of the proposed body. Those are errors, it seems to me, in that kind of a document which we are about to adopt as an official declaration of this convention. And then it contains some other errors, it seems to me. Another statement contained in the paper is that no official utterance of any industrial unions or industrial union literature shall contain an endorsement of any political party or anything of that kind. Now, the American Labor Union is an industrial union organization organized on the principles of industrial unionism, and it seems to me—I am pretty sure that my recollection is correct—that in the preamble of the A. L. U. they endorse the principles of international Socialism, and that might be interpreted by some to be a political pronouncement. Therefore, I hope that this question will either be referred to this incoming committee or back to some other committee to get the errors out of the document.
DEL. O’BRIEN: I believe that this convention is facing two positions, at least from the spirit of the discussion upon this question, and these two positions are of very great importance and have a direct relation to referring this question to the incoming Executive Committee. These two questions, as they appear to me, are simply these: On the one side it is a question of making this organization a political organization, and on the other it is a question of repudiating by implication or by direct statement the question of politics. Now, it seems to me the statement provided by the Literature and Press Committee is not clear and distinct enough. It is neither a political marriage with any existing political party nor is it an attempt to bring out a political party as the result of this organization. And on the other hand it does not repudiate any efforts of the working class on the political field to better their conditions. Accordingly I am in favor of referring this report.
DEL. SIMONS: I rise to a point of information. I would like to know how we are to interpret the action on this report. Are we to consider this motion to refer as repudiating the work of the committee and to repudiate political action or not? We have had a lot of arguments on one side and the other, and I would like to ask the mover of the motion or the Chairman, what are we to understand?
DEL. DE LEON: It seems to me clear from the utterances of the speakers that an article of that length should not be acted on at one hearing. I have now heard it twice, and understood it better the second time; but I would hesitate to act after reading it only twice, just because it is so important. As far as I understand the purport of it I believe I am in full sympathy with it. But I know there are expressions there that you yourselves (referring to the committee) will very likely expunge. The Committee on Constitution has not adopted the name of United Workers for this organization. They may adopt another name. Suppose they do, are you going to reconsider the question? Are you going to change the name? Another delegate mentioned some other imperfection. The thing as a whole, it seems to me, is all right, but if it is to be referred to a final committee for further information on these details, to what is actually called a committee on style, they would eliminate those imperfections. I am in hearty accord with the thing itself, but I think we are not in condition to adopt it as it is. We are not yet far enough advanced in the convention. We might be to-morrow, and for that reason if it was sent to the incoming G. E. B. that body will find it necessary to issue as soon as possible its announcement on the lines that have been promulgated by the Preamble. Have I answered your question?
DEL. SIMONS: I thank the gentleman for the answer. I am a member of the committee, and it seems we have to act before going to the Executive Committee. I want to make the point of order then that the rest of the discussion is entirely out of order and none of these questions are in order. I ask the chair to rule on that.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is that?
DEL. SIMONS: I make the point of order that all discussion is out of order on a matter of a mere correction of style. I want to say that if the convention does not adopt the name that we put in there we might as well leave the word blank. Under the circumstances I make the point that all discussion on the question of political action or nonpolitical action is certainly out of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: I agree with you.
DEL. KLEMENSIC: As a member of the Committee on Literature and Press I wish to say that the committee agreed to form three sub-committees to state clearly and exactly the position of this body, and from that standpoint I think that discussion on the subject is proper now, because in order for the committee to do its work it ought to have proper guidance. At the same time we do not want to delay our work. The question with us was this, that we should have a proper knowledge of exactly what was wanted, and the committee drew up these lines for discussion, and if they were eventually approved and printed, money must be used, whether it was to be in the form of a small handbill, or four pages, or whatever was found most practical and cheap, in order to explain the position of this industrial union. Now, as far as politics goes, in this latter part, I do not know how it came in here; it came in without any knowledge of mine as a member of the committee. They say that “the United Workers in the industrial union movement reserves the right for its members to use outside of this labor organization in a political way any weapon that will prove useful in the struggle for economic betterment.” Thus far I agree completely. But further on it says, “As organized workers we oppose every form of working class ignorance, and urge all working people to study politics, and advise all unions to set apart a time to study political questions, to the end that when the working people use the ballot their votes may be cast unitedly in their own interest.” Now, I have nothing against that, but since I do not believe in the efficacy of the ballot—and to be honest with myself, I never can get one—in this case it is something I never can agree upon, although I recognize that those that think the ballot is an effective weapon may do so. I would not oppose it, but from my individual standpoint I do not use it as far as I am individually concerned. Therefore I think that the whole matter should be referred back to the Executive Board, so that whenever we come to political questions they will come before the Executive Board, and we will then have intelligence enough and be broad enough to size up the proposition in the right way and take proper action.
DEL. GLASGOW: This report of the Literature and Press Committee calls attention to the charges made in the American Federationist and other papers charging this organization with trying to bring about another political organization, and also an industrial organization with it. Now, I believe all of us are in favor of endorsing the declaration to the effect that we are not trying to bring into existence any political organization at all. The committee also recommend that there be set aside a certain portion of the time of the labor organizations for the purpose of discussing political questions. I am heartily in favor of that portion of the recommendation. I do not believe that this body is ready to take the position of some who do not believe there is any efficacy in the ballot. I believe nine-tenths of the people still believe in the efficacy of the ballot, and that the labor organizations will repudiate the idea that there is no efficacy in the ballot, and if we do set apart a portion of the time for the purpose of discussing political and economic questions we will be able to educate them so that they will use their ballot along with their economic methods, and it will not be a very long while before we will be able to realize the emancipation of the wage working class.
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: I simply want to correct a misunderstanding that has appeared. It is said that this report ought not to be adopted because it fixes a name for the organization, and that that may be changed when the constitution is adopted. As stated by a member of the Literature and Press Committee, this name was used in the report simply because no other name was at hand. I want to correct the person who said that two different names were used—although it is immaterial in the discussion. One name was used throughout. The document refers to the industrial union movement, but wherever the name United Workers occurs in this document it is as a name favored for adoption by this organization as an industrial union.
The previous question was then moved and carried.
The question on referring the document to the incoming Executive Board was then put. The result of a viva voce vote being in doubt, the Chairman called for a raising of hands, and the motion was declared carried by a vote of 35 to 29.
DEL. DE LEON: Will you accept a motion at this stage, “With a recommendation that they act promptly upon it—the Executive Board”? If you think it would arouse debate I will take my seat.
THE CHAIRMAN: I don’t think any action on that is required.
DEL. DE LEON: All right.
Del. Held, on behalf of the Ways and Means Committee, reported back Resolution No. 2, heretofore printed, providing for a ratification meeting not later than July 7th.
DEL. HELD: The report of the Ways and Means Committee is as follows: Your committee recommend that you concur in the resolution, and recommend that the convention select a special committee whose duty it shall be to carry out the sense of the resolution.
On motion the report was concurred in.
Del. Held, from the Ways and Means Committee, also reported back Resolution No. 9, on the subject of providing a system of commercial cooperation, with the following recommendation:
DEL. HELD: Your committee report that this resolution does not come within the sphere of the Ways and Means Committee, and recommend that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Constitution.
On motion, the report was concurred in and the resolution referred to the Committee on Constitution.
DEL. HELD: I move that a committee of five be appointed by the chair, whose duty shall be to carry out the sense of Resolution No. 2.
THE CHAIRMAN: A committee of five to provide for this public meeting?
DEL. HELD: Yes.
Motion seconded.
THE CHAIRMAN: I want to say to the convention that the method of appointing committees is provided for. The rules provide that all committees of this convention shall be selected by the various groups, with three appointed by the chair.
DEL. DE LEON: That is standing committees, is it not?
THE CHAIRMAN: It says “all committees.” Unless there is some objection the chair will entertain this motion for this special committee. Is there any objection?
DEL. MURTAUGH: I move that it be the sense of this convention that the chair be allowed to appoint this committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection the motion will be put before the house, that a special committee of five be selected by the chair to arrange this meeting. Are there any remarks on the motion? All those in favor will say aye. Contrary no. It is carried. The chair will attempt to announce the committee pretty soon.
The Secretary then read Resolution No. 21, submitted by Delegate Chas. Kiehn, of Hoboken, N. J.:
Whereas, The aim and object and purpose of this organization should be to unite the organized working class into one economic organization for the purpose of gaining ultimate complete emancipation for the working class from wage and all other forms of slavery; therefore, be it
Resolved, That the members of this organization who participate in political action are also expected to support daily such political parties as stand unconditionally for the absolute overthrow of the existing capitalistic system of society and the inauguration of a cooperative system of production and distribution; and be it further
Resolved, That support by members of this organization of political parties which do not stand for the principles of this organization as above enumerated shall be deemed treason to the most vital interests of this organization and to the working class in general.
DEL. BARTLETT: I move that that be tabled. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The proper course is to send that to the committee. I will send this to the Committee on Resolutions. I was just going to say this would be covered pretty much by the Committee on Literature and Press, and I will send it to the Committee on Literature and Press.
The Secretary read the following resolutions from the Butte, Mont., local of the Socialist party:
Whereas, A convention of unionists is now in session in the city of Chicago, whose purpose as expressed is to build an economic organization of the working class, to build an industrial union founded on the class struggle, in which to bring about the solidarity of labor on the industrial field and the inauguration of the workers’ republic; therefore, be it
Resolved, That Butte Local of the Socialist party extends congratulations to said convention and urge that the delegates now assembled in Chicago be alive to the responsibility resting upon them; that they spare no effort to so construct the new organization that it shall avoid the errors of the pure and simple craft unions now making up a greater part of the organized labor movement in America, and that the new union may be able to take care of the economic and ultimate interests of the entire working class of this country.
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the aforesaid industrial union convention in Chicago, that another copy be placed on file in this organization, and that a copy be furnished each of the daily papers of Butte for publication.
(Adopted at a regular meeting of the Butte Socialist party.)
THE CHAIRMAN: That is simply in the nature of a communication.
THE SECRETARY: It is brought in as a resolution.
DEL. DAVIS: No, it is simply a communication.
THE CHAIRMAN: The communication will be received and placed on file.
The following communication was read
F. J. U.—102.
Chicago, Ill., July 3rd, 1905.
To the Officers and Delegates, Industrial Union, Brand’s Hall,
Chicago, Ill.
Gentlemen and Brothers:—Whereas, A Manifesto has been issued by certain members, men and women, to form an Industrial Union based on economic lines, to the betterment and emancipation of the working class; and
Whereas, Said Manifesto has been duly approved by Flat Janitors’ Union, No. 102, Chicago Flat janitors; therefore, be it
Resolved, That our delegates to the Industrial Convention are instructed to do all in their power to make this convention a success, and our fearless order is, to work against plutocracy, creed and popery; and, be it further
Resolved, That our delegates are empowered to install this organization as a drop into the sea of workingmen and women; and, be it further
Resolved, That our wish and order is: Go and multiply thousand folds; and, be it further
Resolved, That the secretary of this organization is directed to forward this resolution to the convention.
Yours fraternally,
GEO. A. NEW MILLER, Sec’y.
Local No. 102, Chicago Flat Janitors.
Respectfully submitted,
GEO. A. NEW MILLER, ANDREW ANDERSON,
Delegates.
Received and filed.
The Secretary then read a resolution (No. 22) handed in by delegates from the Industrial Workers’ Club of Chicago, reading as follows:
Whereas, 1. Owing to the fact that the legislatures of certain States have passed bills making it a misdemeanor for workingmen to persuade or attempt to persuade other workingmen from joining Military Organizations; and
Whereas, 2. We, as united workers, recognize that Patriotism is one of the cardinal virtues, and should be inculcated into the minds of all those having their country’s interests at heart; and
Whereas, 3. It is a well-known fact that a well trained Regiment is superior to ten thousand not so trained, and military training would be absolutely indispensable to the property interests of the country in the face of a foreign invasion ; and
Whereas, 4. By emulating the example of our beloved President it is possible for any among us to attain to the same exalted position ; and
Whereas, 5. A contingency might even arise in which such training, and the membership in such an organization might be of value to the workingman, as a workingman; therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of this organization that its members affiliate at once with the different State Military Bodies, and that they also show their loyalty to the present government by persuading all brother members to do likewise.
BERT M. SAUER,
Industrial Workers’ Club, No. 1, Chicago, Ill.
The reading of the resolution was greeted with derisive laughter.
THE SECRETARY: I did not read over that resolution (the resolution of the Industrial Workers’ Club) before reading it to the convention.
A DELEGATE: Who is that from? The Typographical Union?
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: That should be referred to the Literature and Press Committee.
DEL. DINGER: Refer it to the Fire Marshal.
THE CHAIRMAN: We will ask the Secretary to consign it to the waste basket. (Applause.)
DEL. MURTAUGH: I rise to object to the autocratic decision of the President in asking the Secretary to consign that resolution to the waste basket.
A delegate rose to make a point of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you want to make a motion now?
DEL. MURTAUGH: I want to make a motion, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right.
DEL. MURTAUGH: I want to move that that resolution be referred to some committee, I care not which, but that it be reported back to this convention. If I were to have my say, I should say the Resolution Committee. Now, Mr. President.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a second to the motion?
The motion was seconded.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me ask you, delegate, did you introduce the resolution?
DEL. MURTAUGH: No, sir, I did not.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a moment. Let us find out. Is the delegate on the floor that introduced this resolution?
DEL. SAUER: I introduced the resolution.
THE CHAIRMAN: I thought it was handed in from outside.
DEL. MURTAUGH: Now, Mr. President, if you will permit me just a minute—
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion before the house is that this communication be considered by the convention and sent to the proper committee.
DEL. MURTAUGH: Correct. I want to say, Mr. President—
A delegate rose to a point of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: To save any talk I will refer it to the Resolution Committee. Is there any further new business? Any other business before the convention? If there is no other business—
DEL. POWERS: I would like to ask, if you have power, after a motion is made, to refer this matter to a committee without action, haven’t you the power to take it away from the convention? I consider that motion now before the house, and I want to discuss it.
THE CHAIRMAN: It was simply to correct the error of the chair that it was not referred to the committee in the first place. As I understood the comrade back here, it came from the outside, but it seems it came from a delegate. I did that, referred it, so that the chair could correct its own mistake. Is there any other business before the house? I would like to have some suggestions on this ratification committee.
DEL. DE LEON: I suggest that Chicago delegates be appointed upon that committee.
A number of names were suggested by various delegates.
THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, COATES: The chair will appoint as the special committee to arrange the meeting as provided for in this resolution just adopted, Delegates O. M. Held, Daniel McDonald, W. J. Bradley, John Cranston, Guy N. Miller.
Del. Jorgensen suggested that the proposed meeting be so arranged as to reach the organized workingmen of Chicago especially, those not belonging to organizations not being so important to reach at the present time.
DEL. O’BRIEN: In connection with the matter referred to the Executive Board a little while ago, I wish to move, in order to place the matter before the house, that in the event the Executive Board finds the report of the Press Committee needs correction or amendment, it present us an alternative report or alternative statement.
DEL. DE LEON: It has a right to.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is within their power to do that.
There being no further business, the Chairman declared the convention adjourned until nine o’clock July 4th.
• Day 7, Morning Session : Tuesday, July 4
Chairman Haywood called the convention to order at nine o’clock A. M.
On motion the calling of the roll of delegates was dispensed with. Secretary Trautmann read the minutes of the previous day’s proceedings.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the minutes. Are there any corrections?
DEL. SAUNDERS: I don’t know whether there was any action taken or whether there was a report on a resolution that I presented two days ago in regard to the eligibility of members. I am not quite sure as to where it was referred to, whether to the Constitution Committee or the Resolutions Committee or what, but I have heard nothing of it since. I would like to know if any action has been taken or whether there is any report from the committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Secretary inform the brother?
THE SECRETARY: I don’t know the number of that resolution. It was referred to the Constitution Committee, and they have not reported on it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any corrections to be made in the minutes? If not, they are approved.
The Secretary announced that there were no communications.
DEL. WHITE: The Credentials Committee desires that all credentials be presented here at this time. We do not propose to wait on individual credentials much longer. Here are two delegates recommended to the convention, to be seated with one vote each: John Spielman, bookbinder, Chicago; L. Bingstrom, No. 73, Sheet Metal Workers, Chicago.
On motion the report of the committee was concurred in and the delegates seated.
DEL. HELD: The Committee on Ratification Meeting report their work well under way, and the committee report progress.
DEL. DE LEON: In the absence of the secretary, I wish to say that we were instructed to report that the Committee on Constitution will be ready to report at two o’clock this afternoon. We report progress.
DEL. COATES, OF THE RESOLUTION COMMITTEE: The following resolution, No. 20, was referred to this committee:
“In view of the fact that the present form of capitalism is increasing organized violence to perpetuate the spirit of despotism to predominate in this republic; be it
“Resolved, That we condemn militarism in all its forms and functions, which are jeopardizing our constitutional rights and privileges in the struggle between capital and labor; be it further
“Resolved, That any member accepting a salaried position to defend capitalism, directly or indirectly, shall be denied the privilege of membership in this organization.”
The committee offers the following in its place:
“Whereas, The present form of capitalism is increasing organized violence to perpetuate the spirit of despotism; and
“Whereas, The result of this spirit will be the further degradation and oppression of the working class; therefore, be it
“Resolved, That we condemn militarism in all its forms and functions, which are jeopardizing our constitutional rights and privileges in the struggle between capital and labor; and be it further
“Resolved, That any person joining the militia or accepting position under sheriffs and police powers or as members of detective agencies or employers’ hirelings in times of industrial disturbance, shall be forever denied the privilege of membership in this organization.”
The committee recommends that the substitute be adopted.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the report of your committee. What is the pleasure of the convention?
Delegate Sunagel moved the adoption of the report.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I move to amend by striking out “capital and labor” and inserting “the capitalist class and the working class,” and to strike out the word “privilege.” I move to adopt with that exception.
THE CHAIRMAN: It will be necessary for the delegate to reduce that motion to writing.
DEL. SAUNDERS: All right.
DEL. COATES: We intended to make that “capitalists and laborers.”
THE CHAIRMAN: Isn’t that the way it reads?
DEL. COATES: No, I think it reads “capital and labor.”
Delegate Klemensic requested another reading of the resolution, and Delegate Coates complied with the request.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Saunders, will you kindly take notice to the manner in which this resolution is corrected?
DEL. SAUNDERS: Yes.
In the second reading by Delegate Coates the language was changed to read “capitalists and laborers” instead of “capital and labor.”
DEL. KLEMENSIC: Mr. Chairman and brother delegates, as the mover of the first resolution, I desire to say that I heartily endorse the second one, because it states exactly the spirit that we want to put down. I heartily approve it as it is written, and hope it will be adopted as reported by the committee.
DEL. COATES: The committee moves that it be adopted. (Motion seconded.)
DEL. SAUNDERS: As to the privilege, you know it is not a privilege but a right.
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the resolution be adopted as read. An amendment has been offered that the word “privilege” be stricken out where used.
DEL. SAUNDERS: Where used.
DEL. SPEARS: I want to add an amendment to that, that we bar out any person who takes a nomination for office from a capitalist political party. (Amendment seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: There has been an amendment offered to the amendment, that we bar out all those that accept a nomination: on what?
Delegate Spears handed up his amendment in writing.
THE CHAIRMAN (reading amendment): “From capitalist political parties as nominees for office.” You have heard the amendment to the amendment.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I would like to suggest to the party that made the last amendment to the amendment, to insert one or two words in here; that is, that those who accept not only the nomination but endorsement of any capitalist political party or organization shall be barred. I will state my reasons—
DEL. SPEARS: I accept the suggestion.
DEL. KLEMENSIC: Mr. Chairman and Brother Delegates, right on this point, when we are interfering with this political amendment, we will be up against it in the Western Federation of Miners, Now, in the Western Federation of Miners we have one of the strongest unions; it is the Butte miners’ union. Their situation is a very peculiar one at the present time in the struggle between capital and labor. There is a number of men, maybe about half a dozen, members of the Western Federation of Miners, that are practically in control of the Republican party there, and that the struggle did not start yet in Montana is due to the intelligent position of this Western Federation of Miners. Those men are the ones that have thus far kept the struggle away between capital and labor in that state. What we know is that the sruggle will commence there some time, and when it does the interests of capital will be identical, and they will no doubt join hands and make a hard fight against the organized workingmen. But as it stands now, there are workingmen that are practically in control of the Republican party, and if we accept this amendment we would brand those men as traitors to organized labor. Now, at our convention at Salt Lake City, those men practically declared themselves ready to take up industrial unionism. They believe it is right, but they say we will jeopardize ourselves as we stand in a peculiar position just now. Now, if through our organization we can get something from the capitalists we might just as well get it. Those men are just as intelligent as we are, and as soon as the capitalists show a united front against the working class all those men will be ready to go into the Socialist camp, but they are not ready yet. There is one thing to state here, that the Butte miners’ union of Montana is one of the strongest unions, and they will come up with the goods when it comes to the final struggle, and they will come with the money. They are one of the strongest unions in men and money, and we have to take this fact into consideration. Furthermore, if we declare that our organization is not a political organization, what right have we to brand any political leaders as political fakirs? We have no right to do it. (Applause). If we take our stand on the economic struggle, we should not mix politics in the organization.
DEL. SPEARS: That is the vital point and the only one I care for in this convention. If you are going to organize this on the class struggle, organize it so, and don’t put any man between the two horns of a dilemma. The delegate here says he is afraid for six or eight Republicans in the Western Federation of Miners. If he is interested in the working class he don’t need to care about men who endorse capitalist politics and capitalist parties. This union endorses nobody and no organization, and we had better not vote at all than endorse an organization or allow any of the officials to go on a capitalist ticket.
DEL. M. P. HAGGERTY, BUTTE: Mr. Chairman and Brother Delegates, I may digress a little from time to time from the actual question under discussion, but I will not lose sight of it; I will keep it in sight continuously. I will say that I came to this convention with great hopes. If you will prove to me conclusively—I hope you will do it—that the tone of this convention is equal to—has reached the high level whereby this body will put itself upon record as saying to the working class, “No man nominated by a party other than that which recognizes the class struggle, a revolutionary political party, can find lodgment here,” I will go home highly pleased, notwithstanding the fact that it puts me outside of the movement; but you need not bother about that. I want to see a resolution or an amendment such as is outlined here pass; that no man other than one nominated by a class conscious, revolutionary, political party can find a home in this new movement. That is what I want to see. (Applause). If you fall short of that, you will not be doing your duty to the working class. It is true that back in the State of Montana we have a peculiar condition of things. Some five or six years ago I attended a convention of the state labor movement in the city of Helena, in September, 1899. I went with the delegates from the organization that sent me to this convention. It devolved upon that convention to go forth and organize what we know as a political party. The movement had been instigated previous to that, but that convention was called upon to organize. I was put upon the executive board for the purpose of organizing such a party. We had a purpose in view. What was that purpose? The smeltermen in the State of Montana had been working twelve hours a day. The miners had been working ten hours a day. We demanded an eight-hour day, and made every effort along the lines called moral force to get it, but could not succeed. We went into politics and organized a labor party, and I have not heard of or seen at any time a more revolutionary body than that labor party convention which met in the city of Helena in September, 1899. It is true, there was a difference of opinion. McDonald and Fairgrieve and many others were there and assisted in building up this party. We had that one thing in view—the reduction of the hours of labor from twelve to eight. After the party had been organized the capitalist parties commenced to lay plans to seize upon it. We found the Amalgamated Mining Company upon one side, and Senator Clark and F. E. Heinze upon the other, at war. There was an opportunity that we could not miss. We seized upon the opportunity. Clark wanted to become a United States senator, and F. A. Heinze wanted something else, and we knew it. I maintain that we did not go to them, but compelled them to come to us, but nevertheless there was a capitalist combination with a labor party, and hence it becomes capitalistic. We went to the polls and united our movement to theirs. Twelve men went to the legislative body from that county. In the division we got six of the twelve. We got the sheriff of the county, the coroner and others. I was nominated for the office of county commissioner and was elected. Now, then, the eight-hour day was the object of this movement. It passed the legislative body, and the governor was compelled to sign it, though he was a capitalist. Two years ago they asked that it be put into the constitution. It was done, and the people voted overwhelmingly to have the eight-hour day put into the constitution, and that is the way that the people of Montana secured the eight-hour day in that state. There was no strike, no bloodshed, no troops, no Citizens’ Alliances, We got it through a determined effort on the part of the working people to get it. We caught the capitalist parties quarreling, and took advantage of it. We knew that the chance was only temporary. The labor party has served its aim and purpose and has practically expired and gone out of existence. The term of office for which I was elected has been a very long one. It expires in November; but I can assure you that I am heartily in favor of a resolution by this convention saying that no man other than one who is elected on a class conscious, revolutionary, Socialist party ticket can be a member of this organization. (Applause.) This may be the turning point in your movement. Don’t go out from here with a Sam Gompers organization such as we have heard depicted here. There has been some protest made here because some brother has said the working people are not intelligent enough, but after listening to the indictment in regard to the outrages and wrongs and the great maltreatment the working people have received, with no protest against it, what conclusion can you arrive at except that the working people are not intelligent. Now, then, let us pass a resolution, and make it good and strong, that no official except one who is elected on a revolutionary ticket of the highest order can come into your organization. I thank you.
A DELEGATE: What is before the house?
ANOTHER DELEGATE: The amendment.
DEL. LUELLA TWINING, PUEBLO: Mr. Chairman, I consider the amendment is unconstitutional, for in our Preamble we are against political affiliation. How can we interfere with the political aspirations or actions of our members?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Twining has suggested that a resolution stating that no man shall be eligible to membership that accepts a nomination on a capitalistic ticket, is antagonistic to the Preamble that has been adopted by this convention. The chair is of the same opinion, and will rule this amendment out of order.
DEL. SPEARS: I take an appeal from that decision.
THE CHAIRMAN: The decision of the chair has been appealed from. Those in favor of sustaining the chair will say aye. Contrary no. The chair seems to be sustained. The vote now occurs on the amendment to strike out the word “privileges.”
DEL. SAUNDERS: I wish to speak to that motion. I am opposed, to the word “privileges,” because in the Preamble it states that this organization starts out as a revolutionary organization. We have gone as far as we possibly can to do away with and obliterate those words and terms which have been so significant in keeping the working class in ignorance. Therefore when we speak of privilege it only means one thing; it means a privilege that we never had. In regard to the first part where the “privilege” obtains, I am opposed to it for the reason that we have no privilege at all in that respect; and in the second part where we propose to give the privilege to come into this organization, there is another word besides privilege, and that is “right,” and I believe that is sufficient. As long as you rest on the intelligence of the membership I believe the word “right” is sufficient. If you want more, use a synonymous word, but a synonym to “right” is not “privilege.” The right in this organization is the might that this organization has to debar those who do not come up to its qualifications. A privilege simply means something that we can give to any individual; and in doing that, in making that amendment to the motion, I had that in mind. As to the objection that was raised by myself in the first place, in regard to the struggle between capital and labor, I stated that it should be “laborers and capitalists,” but it seems to me that that is not sufficient; that it should be “the working class and the capitalist class,” because “capitalist class” takes in not only the capitalists, but also their henchmen along with them; and where you simply say “capitalists” it is not sufficient, in my opinion.
THE CHAIRMAN: The delegate will confine himself to the amendment.
Here Delegate Sunagel made a remark that could not be understood by the reporter.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I do not know what the delegate said, but I understand that technically I am out of order, because I accepted the suggestion of Brother Coates in making it “laborers and capitalists.” I hope some other delegate will make an amendment to even strike that out and make it “capitalist class and working class.”
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment is that the word “privileges” be stricken out where it occurs in the resolution. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for) Those in favor will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The ayes have it; the word “privilege” will be stricken out. The motion now occurs on the resolution as amended.
By request of a delegate the resolution was again read by Delegate Coates.
DEL. MURTAUGH: Mr. President, I believe the passage of that resolution by this convention would be a mistake, because it would be denying ourselves the use of the very weapon that we may have to use in order to emancipate the working class. The hope of Russia to-day, and the only hope of Russia to-day, is that the army of Russia may be permeated with the spirit of revolution. The thing that made the French revolution successful was the fact that the army in France at that time was permeated with that spirit. The reason for the outrages in Colorado was that we did not have men with the right spirit in the militia in Colorado. You allow the government to organize the other fellow against you, arm him with a superior weapon, and you become almost absolutely helpless. When we have sense enough to go into the militia as a body you will find that the other fellow will be opposing us in our attempt to do that, and we should not add our own opposition to it. I wish that every workingman in the United States, every member of organized labor at least in the United States, was also a member of a militia company and was armed with the best weapons known. and I believe if that were the case—I believe it is possible to bring about that result—if that were the case such outrages as occurred in Colorado recently would never occur again in our history.
DEL. COATES: I did not intend to say a word on this, and I am not going to take up much of your time, but I want to say to Delegate Murtaugh that he does not know what he is talking about (laughter) at least when he speaks of conditions in Colorado. We have gone through just exactly the same experience that you have suggested to this convention. Not more than five years ago we deliberately planned to capture the militia power of Colorado.
DEL. MURTAUGH: Yes, we succeeded, and just as soon as we succeeded—
THE CHAIRMAN: Will you permit the chair to suggest that we succeeded to the extent of having Delegate Coates here at one time commander-in-chief of that militia.
Del. Coates: You bet, and I was not very proud of the distinction, either (laughter). We succeeded, I say, so far that just as soon as the next administration came into power they disbanded every one of our companies of militia; that is what they did. And they disbanded them for no other reason than that they were members of organized labor and unfit to do duty to the State of Colorado under such circumstances. (Applause). That is going to be your experience.
DEL. MORRISON: I just want to ask the gentleman a question.
DEL. COATES: Sure; go ahead.
DEL. MORRISON: If you do organize yourselves and become a factor, and the incoming administration recognize that fact and disband you, isn’t that an argument that that is the line to proceed along, but perhaps in a little different way?
DEL. COATES: I don’t think so. I don’t think you can get into the militia and stay in.
DEL. MURTAUGH: I would like to ask Delegate Coates a question.
DEL. COATES: All right.
THE CHAIRMAN: If Delegate Coates desires to answer the question.
DEL. COATES: I would be very glad to answer any question.
DEL. MURTAUGH: The question is, when you were organized as a State militia, whether it was class conscious enough to act together as a militia in Colorado.
DEL. COATES: It was partially class conscious, enough that we decided to all shoot together.
DEL. MURTAUGH: In the event of the laboring people of the United States or the workers of the United States got in the same class conscious condition, in your judgment wouldn’t it be a mistake to refuse to take advantage of the opportunity to gain control of the militia?
THE CHAIRMAN: It is the opinion of the chair that there are not half a dozen dissenting votes against this resolution in this convention, and it is criminal on the part of delegates to use up the time in discussing it. (Applause.)
Question called for.
DEL. WHITE: I want to make one statement, and that is that when you talk about workmen going into the militia, there is nothing but workingmen in the militia. There is no capitalist militia. You have got a workingman’s militia to-day.
The question was then put by the Chairman, and the resolution was adopted.
DEL. COATES: The next resolution will give the delegate over there just what he wants. It is Resolution No. 22:
“Whereas, Owing to the fact that the legislatures of certain states have passed bills making it a misdemeanor for workingmen to persuade or attempt to persuade other workingmen from joining military organization; and
“Whereas, We, as United Workers, recognize that patriotism is one of the cardinal virtues and should be inculcated into the minds of all those having their country’s interest at heart; and
“Whereas, It is a well-known fact that a well-trained regiment is superior to one that is not so trained, and military training would be absolutely indispensable to the protection of the property interests of the country in the face of a foreign invasion; and
“Whereas, By emulating the example of our beloved President it is possible for any among our membership to attain to the same exalted position ; and
“Whereas, A contingency might even arise in which such training and membership in such an organization might be of value to the workingman as a workingman; therefore, be it
“Resolved, That it is the sense of this organization that its members affiliate at once with the different state military bodies, and that they also show their loyalty to the present government by persuading all brother members to do likewise.” (Signed, Bert M. Sauer, Industrial Workers’ Club, Chicago
DEL. COATES: The Resolution Committee report on this resolution that the same be laid on the table. I move you that the recommendation of the committee be concurred in. (Motion seconded.)
The motion was put and unanimously carried.
DEL. BRIMBLE: The Committee on Literature and Press report on Resolution 21, submitted by Delegate Chas. Kiehn, of Hoboken, N. J., that the resolution does not come within its province, and we hand it back. We also report that the committee has completed its indictment of the old-line trades unionism, that the same has been passed upon by the committee, and is now submitted to the convention.
Del. Dinger, for the Committee on Literature and Press, then read the following report:
In presenting its indictment, of what is known as old-line or pure-and-simple trades unionism, the Industrial Union wishes it to be understood that it is not intent upon making trouble; and, at the same time, we wish it to be understood that we do not shrink from the task that lies before us when we realize that our attempt to bring freedom to the worker may bring on trouble. We, as class conscious members of the working class, aware of the rights and the power of our class if brought to a realization of the position which it should occupy in society, have, as an aim, the bringing to an end of wage slavery and the establishment of the Cooperative Commonwealth, a system of society in which there shall be neither exploiter nor exploited, and in which he who contributes to the well-being of society shall receive the equivalent of the full product of his labor.
The man of average intelligence, taking a view of the world to-day, must be struck with two things. First: that every country in the civilized world produces more than is consumed at home, and, as a consequence, commodities to the value of hundreds of millions are annually exported; and, secondly, that the greater part of the working class is just above the starvation line, and, in part below it. The question then arises, “What is the cause of this?” And in reply we say, “A minority of the members of society own and control the means of production and distribution, and, as a result, are able to dictate the terms of life to the many. The workers having aspirations above a life in which the conditions are hard and precarious, and in which the life of the toiler is sacrificed without stint that the cupidity of the capitalist may be satisfied, look for something better, and inquire as to the right of him who produces nothing receiving the greater part of the product of the community. ”
In the struggles of the rising capitalist class with decadent feudalism the worker was told that the master in the shop was his friend and the baron his enemy, and, as a consequence, the toiler fought the battles of his immediate exploiter to a successful issue. This accomplished, it was found that he had but changed one master for another, and that he was more mercilessly exploited under capitalism than had been the case under the old regime. Naturally, men sought for relief, and it was pointed out that salvation lay in union. Against the individual employer the battle for improved conditions was comparatively easy, and many advances were made. But capitalism, to live, must develop, and it did develop, while unionism stood still. The individual capitalist gave way to the partnership; the partnership to the stock company ; the stock company to the trust; and now the trust is giving way to the trust of trusts. In face of this progress of capitalism, trades unionism stood, and stands, still, and, as a result, we see the workers, as a class, almost helpless before the masters in the political arena and on the field of labor. What is to be done?
It is our contention that craft unionism is not able, even if it desired such an issue, to work the salvation of our class. It is our contention that capitalism in which culminates the brutalities and cynicisms of the ages, finds no stronger buttress than the machines built by Samuel Gompers and men of his stripe. They are better friends to capitalism than is the capitalist himself.
The basic feature of old-line trades unionism is that the interests of capital and labor are identical. If this be the fact, why the necessity of a labor organization at all? If the interest of the capitalist be that of the toiler, surely the capitalist may be trusted to see to us, and we to him. The existence of an organization designed even ostensibly to further the interests of labor gives the assertion of the pure-and-simple unionists the lie. Based upon a contradiction it is only to be expected that old-line unionism breeds corruption as a swamp breeds mosquitoes. The following evidence in support of our claim is not the one-hundredth part of what may be advanced.
Among pure-and-simple unions in America the A. F. of L. takes preeminence, and its leader, Samuel Gompers, is the chief of his tribe. The character of the man and of the organization may be estimated from the following extract from the exhibit of the A. F. of L. in the St. Louis Exposition: “It should be remembered that it was the councils of the A. F. of L., acting in conjunction with the chiefs of the railway brotherhoods which refused, in the face of immense pressure, to participate in the great strike on the railroads centering in Chicago in 1894, and thus averted a bloody and disastrous conflict with the military forces of the United States.” Here we have the officials of the A. F. of L. making a boast before the capitalist class of their treachery toward labor in the great A. R. U. strike.
According to a letter sent out from the headquarters of the A. F. of L., dated April M, 1902, it is shown that the A. F. of L. had decided to carry on a secret war of extermination against the Western Federation of Miners and the American Labor Union, and was actually engaged in doing so, while on the face of things it was extending the hand of fellowship to the organizations named. This is the spirit of the men who are accusing us of attempting to set up dual unions. Whatever we do, be it good or bad, we are doing in the open, and not using the methods of the midnight assassin.
In 1904, when the locals of the W. F. M. were being crushed in the Cripple Creek district, Samuel Gompers came to Denver to organize the miners who had stood by the capitalist class into the A. F. of L.; and after the riots of June, 1904, when the campaign against the W. F. M. was fiercest, the A. F. of L. was expressly exempted from the punishment being meted out to the miners. A man is known by the company he keeps, and an organization by its friends. That being granted, we may get a line on the character of the A. F. of L. from the fact that it was looked upon favorably by the Citizens’ Alliance, the Mine Owners’ Association, by Peabody and all the elements opposed to the miners who had struck work in defense of their brothers.
Had the railway brotherhoods refused to “spot” the cars at the mills at Colorado City, it cannot be doubted that the strike would have been speedily won. As it was, the officials of those organizations declined to accede to the request of President Moyer, and their answers were of such a character as to make the matter contained therein to be available to the Peabody element, which has carried the oppression of the workers to the limit as yet reached in America, as campaign matter.
Richard Cyormiack, an Austrian glass blower, worked at his trade in Germany, being a member of the union there and in England, where he worked upon leaving Germany. Upon obtaining employment in Mexico he found no union there and immediately set about organizing one. Coming to the United States he applied for membership in the Green Bottle Blowers’ Association in the United, presenting evidence as to his competence as a workman and his record as a unionist. He was told that membership in the union would cost him an initiation fee of $500.00, and the men who set this prohibitive price upon admission to the union, which, with them, means the getting of a job, claim that they stand for the unity of labor!
When the members of the American Flint Glass Workers were on strike in Olean, N. Y., D. A. Hayes, president of the Green Bottle Blowers’ Association, and sixth vice-president of the A. F. of L., sent an executive officer to Washington, Pa., who installed a crew of non-unionists into the G. B. B. A., and paid their transportation to Olean, at which place the newly-elected members of the G. B. B. A. were put to work, taking the places of the striking members of the A. F. G. W. U. The officers of the last-named organization preferred charges against sixth Vice-President Hayes, of the A. F. of L., and the case was brought before the executive council and officers of the Federation in Washington, D. C. Upon hearing the evidence the council rendered the following verdict: “We find D. A. Hayes not guilty. He simply sent an officer to a nonunion locality and converted a crew of nonunion men into union men and transported them to another locality to fill the complement of men required at that factory.” In other words, the A. F. of L. machine, of which Hayes is a part, attempted to cover up the fact that he had taken scabs and had given them the union card, and had then paid their way to a place where union men were on strike, that the strike might be broken and the bosses triumph. And this is the same president and the same organization that raised a wall of $500.00 initiation fee to keep out a good union man and thereby forced him to become a scab or give up his trade, in line with the craft spirit which prompts the few to seek monopoly of the jobs, and whose officers in doing the dirty work of the capitalist class take arrant scabs and make good union men of them to serve the ends of the employers. Why did not Mr. Gompers meet the strike breakers as they came into Chicago and organize them into the Federation? Such action would be as creditable to the A. F. of L. as those cited.
The miners employed in District 15, United Mine Workers of America, declined to go to work under the conditions fixed by their officials and the mine owners, and were punished for doing so by being placed on the blacklist of the capitalists and of the union.
The miners of Germany sent 6,000 marks to the miners of America when they were on strike, and, in return, when the miners of the Ruhr district in Germany went on strike, Vice-President Lewis, of the U. M. W. of A., said: “The U. M. W. of A. will take no interest in the strikes in Germany.” The editor of the “Mine Workers’ Journal,” in urging that the membership of the union accept a reduction in wages demanded by the operators, says that: “The clergy approve it (the U. M. W. of A.) ; the press has lost its venom, the operator looks upon it as a necessity to a successful conduct of his business” ; and goes on to “pray that God in his wisdom may guide and direct them (the miners) to have the moral courage and sublime wisdom to stand by their great captains in the hours of need,” and they, the “great captains of labor,” are standing by the great captains of industry, to the detriment of the workers. You may hear many things of the Industrial Union, but you will never view the spectacle of one of its leaders praying God, in its official organ, that the miners may fall in with the desires of the masters and accept a reduction in wages.
Pure and simple union leaders are not above conspiring with certain of the manufacturers to raise the price of goods. At a meeting of manufacturers as reported in the “Boot and Shoe Worker” it was stated that “an advance in the selling price of shoes was absolutely necessary, not only to the welfare of the shoe-manufacturer, but also to the jobber and retailer.” This was spoken of as a “step in the right direction.” In the same issue an argument is made against a demand that wages be increased before the stamp be issued on the ground that such a course would be senseless. Here we see the labor fakir eager to increase the profits of the capitalist, or, at least, to keep them from falling, while, at the same time, he ridicules the idea that conditions be improved in the shop before the stamp be issued.
The case of the Boot and Shoe Workers’ Union and the Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co., of St. Louis, is an illustration of the manner in which the rank and file are manipulated by the labor hierarchy in the interests of the capitalists. “The St. Louis contract gave the use of the label to the Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. which had been boycotted for years because of its unfairness to organized labor, and which, under the proposed “union” contract, would operate under no better wages and rules, and would even operate two out of its three factories as “scab” shops and raider nonunion conditions. The membership of the St. Louis locals protested against this remarkable “union” contract further on account of a provision that “all questions and conditions of labor in the factory be left to the firm to determine.” The membership protested in vain, however, and general Vice-President Lovely and General-Secretary Eaton forced the contract upon them. Shortly after the contract went into effect Mr. Eaton resigned as general-secretary and became superintendent of the Hamilton-Brown factory at a salary of $5,000.00 a year! It is a thing worthy of note that in the “union” stamp factory of which Mr. Eaton was superintendent wages averaged lower and conditions worse than in the open or nonunion shops of his competitors! ! Here we see the apostate, always remarkable for his zeal in the cause to which he goes over, receiving the thirty pieces of silver, and Mr. Eaton is not alone in this. There are many such but, unlike Judas, they haven’t the sense of right and wrong developed to the extent of realizing what they have done and going out quietly and hanging themselves. These men glory in their crimes, and display proudly the fruits of their betrayal of labor.
The queer work of the leaders of the B. & S. W. U. is not confined to St. Louis by any means. In Chicago an agreement was made with certain manufacturers in which it was expressly stated that “The manufacturers who are party to this agreement shall not be called upon to pay more than any other factories in various parts of the country making a similar grade of work,” which means, in plain English, that, conditions not being improved in the least, the men are to be saddled with the cost of maintaining the union.
To paraphrase Voltaire, the A. F. of L., which is the fine consummate flower of craft unionism is neither American, nor a federation, nor of labor. It is not American, because it is modeled upon lines that may have been useful in England sixty years ago but which are certainly outgrown to-day; it is not a federation as it is split up into warring factions, 116 in number, which “scab it” upon each other with great cheerfulness, as occasion demands; it is not of labor, as it takes its orders from the Belmonts of the Civic Federation.
The constitution of the Cigar Makers Union aims to establish an aristocracy of labor and discriminates against workingmen because of their race and their poverty. Section 64, page 17, of the constitution provides that “all persons engaged in the cigar industry except Chinese and tenement house workers shall be eligible to membership.” “It is further specified that the acceptance of rollers and filler-breakers as members by initiation or card shall be optional with local unions except in places where the system has already been introduced.” This section is clearly designed to foster a monopoly of a few craftsmen in collusion with a certain class of manufacturers against outsiders. Section 154, page 39, reveals additional evidence in the clause that “no union shall be allowed to furnish the label for cigars made in whole or in part by machinery.” Thus the blue label of the cigar makers, instead of being a mark of improved conditions in the cigar industry, is a medium whereby a small proportion of the trades unionists by mutual agreement with employers on the selling price of cigars preserve some rights which they refuse to extend to others of their crafts who work in shops where machinery is used and to those whose employers cannot be forced to sell their goods at prices stipulated by the union. Yet, in spite of these restrictions, and notwithstanding membership discrimination against Chinese and tenement workers, Section 154 of the constitution provides that “when the manufacturer deals in Chinese or tenement house (scab) cigars it shall be optional with local unions to withhold the label from such a firm.” Stogie makers and common workers in cigar factories and employes of the cigar trust are absolutely debarred from the union, and when they tried to organize under the A. F. of L. they were refused a charter because the C. M. I. U. of A. objected to its issuance.
At the last national convention of the Typographical Union a resolution to the effect that members of the union should be debarred from joining the militia was voted down, and, whenever the militia is called out to assist the capitalist class in breaking a strike, the spectacle may be seen of “good union men” shooting at other union men and mistreating their wives and children.
In bringing to an end, at this time, the evidence as to the corruption of the pure and simple labor leader and the failure of old-line trades unionism, notice must be taken of the conditions of the aristocrats of the labor world, the railway men, who, through their organizations, do so much to perpetuate the reign of the exploiter. The “brotherhoods” have no scruples when it comes to hauling strike-breakers and soldiers to the scene of trouble in the world of labor. These “unions” hold aloof from the rest of their fellows, and how are they repaid by their friends, the capitalists? There can be no question that labor on the railways is being intensified; that old employes are being turned off to make room for young men; and that tens of thousands of men are killed and injured every year that dividends may be produced to provide for the maintenance of the Gould family’s French count and the Vanderbilt’s English dukes.
In bringing our indictment of craft unionism to a close we wish to emphasize the fact that it is part and parcel of capitalism, and that the corruption of its leaders is but the outgrowth of its principles, and that the attempt to bring about the emancipation of our class through “boring from within” is a delusion.
Craft unionism stands for capitalism; industrial unionism stands for the working class, and, upon that ground, makes its appeal to you. We contend that the craft unions even when purged of its fakirs, has become obsolete in the face of the development of industry. Therefore, we call upon the workers of all countries to unite under the banner of Industrial Unionism.
The reading of the report was received with applause.
DEL. MCEACHREN: Can I get some information, as to the object of this?
THE CHAIRMAN: The object of this indictment is to have it published in pamphlet form and distributed throughout the country.
DEL. MCEACHREN: As a member of this organization, I take it upon myself to say that the indictment is very incomplete. The indictment deals with individuals mainly, and we cannot be so hypocritical as to go before the working class of the country and say that we are not falsifiers and the other fellows are. I do not believe that that is the way to indict the trade union movement as it exists to-day. I think it is so farcical that it is an insult to the intelligence of workingmen. That is my opinion of it.
DEL. HALL: I move that the report be referred to the incoming Board of Directors for consideration. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that this manuscript, the indictment of the pure and simple trade union movement, be referred to the incoming Executive Board or to the Executive Board of this organization. You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question?
Del. Ross: The work of the morning, Mr. Chairman and fellow delegates, seems to have been to define those who are properly qualified to be members in this coming organization, and to bring indictments against the already existing organizations. I want to say that there are three things that constitute a labor organization in its formation and in the accomplishment of its ultimate purposes. First, to agitate; second, to organize; and third, to educate. The indictment that could be justly brought against the existing organizations is lack of the last-named essential, failing to educate. I want to say that in the struggles of the past—and while I am doing so I glory in the fact—it was my privilege as a representative of some of the already existing organizations in the year 1896, to be called to the State of Tennessee and to the Commonwealth of Georgia, and with Comrade Robinson, now second vice-president of the International Association of Machinists, to stand up in behalf of the children of that State. For four weeks we met the legislative committee of fifteen members of the lower house and pleaded for the passage of a law to protect the children of that commonwealth of fourteen years and under from being worked in the mills, factories, workshops, stores, laundries, telegraph and telephone offices, and I want you to hear the result of that effort. At the end of four weeks’ time I was told that a report from the committee must be made, and it must be passed or rejected. When Comrade Robinson and I walked up street I said, “Do you realize that upon our hands we have the fight of our lives?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “You go to the State House, and I will go to the cotton mill situated in the suburbs of the city of Atlanta.” I went. I introduced myself to the superintendent of that mill. He said, “Captain, would you like to go through ?” I said, Certainly, and he took me through every floor from the bottom to the top and back. When we returned to the lower floor he asked me into the office, and I said, “No. Now, sir, I must inform you of my mission here. I have come to ask a special favor at your hands. I am in the State representing its children, and I want you to go before a committee in the State House this afternoon at two o’clock and there describe the conditions of the employes in this mill.” He dropped his head for a moment, and looked up, and I saw tears in his eyes. He said, “I will come, but I will lose my job.” And I want to say to the delegates in this convention that he did come, and also he lost his job. But here is what he said to that committee : “To my certain knowledge that mill employs children from 47 families, and by so doing deprives 47 fathers of jobs, who have nothing to do but walk the streets of the city of Atlanta and go down on Saturday night and draw their children’s wages. These children average eleven hours a day; their ages range from seven to 16 years, and they are paid the magnificent sum of from nine to 29 cents a day.” And with that information before that committee the committee reported the bill back for passage without a dissenting vote.
DEL. SAUNDERS: A point of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: The delegate has the floor. His time has nearly expired.
DEL. SAUNDERS: Well, I raise a point of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is the point of order?
DEL. SAUNDERS: My point of order is this: I have no objection to the gentleman continuing as long as he speaks to the motion, but I know he is not speaking to the motion at all and is wasting time.
DEL. ROSS: I am speaking to the motion, Mr. Chairman. It is simply the failure of the organizations in doing what this organization is going to be organized to do.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question before the house is the reference of this manuscript to the incoming Executive Board. The delegate will proceed.
DEL. WHITE: Are we going to discuss this thing for the next three weeks, seriatim? Are you going to discuss that book that was read to you? I move the previous question.
The previous question was called for, and the motion being put, was carried, and the chair declared the report referred to the incoming Executive Board.
The Committee on Literature and Press announced no further report. The Committees on Organization and Label and Emblem announced no reports to be made.
DEL. WHITE: Would a motion be in order at this time to limit the presentation of resolutions to twelve o’clock, no more resolutions to be received after twelve o’clock?
THE CHAIRMAN: Will you kindly reduce your motion to writing?
Delegate Schatzke endeavored to obtain the floor, but the delegates were not disposed to listen.
Delegate White reduced his motion to writing, and it was read by the Secretary, as follows:
“Resolved, That no more resolutions be presented after twelve o’clock noon, July 4th, unless by special motion.”
Delegate White moved the adoption of the resolution. Motion seconded by Delegate Payne.
DEL. COATES: I do not think we ought to pass that kind of a motion. We cannot tell what will come up in this convention, and when a resolution comes up we can act on it immediately. It is not going to do any harm to leave the matter open. I rather think that we ought to withdraw the resolution or we ought to defeat it. Let us give everybody an opportunity to the last minute. (Applause.)
DEL. WHITE: In presenting the resolution I desire to state that there has been quite a little time consumed in the convention over non-essential resolutions presented. I believe if everybody is going to present resolutions from now until the Committee on Constitution reports, we will take up the time on resolutions that amount to nothing as far as the interests of this convention are concerned. I believe that every man should have his resolutions ready by noon so that we can finish our business promptly and not spend time on technicalities.
The question on the adoption of the resolution was then put, and the motion to adopt was lost by a vote of 19 to 33.
DEL. SCOGGAN: In referring that long document to the incoming Executive Board, does that motion dispose of it and leave it to that board to do as they see fit with it?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is the opinion of the chair.
SECRETARY TRAUTMANN: I have received letters from other countries relative to the issuance of the Manifesto, and in order to have them on record I have asked the chair to permit them to be read. In compliance with the instructions from the general conference, I sent to all foreign countries, with the exception of Great Britain, where I could not get the address of the class-conscious labor organizations, an address inviting them to send delegates to this convention.
The Secretary then read letters received from the following countries: 1, Germany; 2, Australia; 3, France; 4, Denmark. The letters are given below in translation, when necessary. The original circular letter sent to the various foreign countries precedes the answers. The documents are as follows:
INDUSTRIAL UNION MOVEMENT OF AMERICA. Temporary Executive Board.
W. D. HAYWOOD, President, 3 Pioneer Bldg., Denver, Col.
W. E. TRAUTMANN, Secretary, 16 East 7th St., Cinn., O.
A. ,M. SIMONS., CLARENCE SMITH, W. L. HALL.
All communications as to information, etc., should be addressed to
W. E. TRAUTMANN, 16 E. 7th St., Cinn., O.
Cincinnati, O., April 10, 1905
To the officers and members of the Central Administration of Industrial Sons of France,
Comrades and Fellow Workmen:—From the Manifesto herein enclosed, which was issued to the workers of the United States by members of economic organizations and Socialists, you will observe that the intent of this contemplated organization, which is to be established in Chicago, Ill., is to organize the workers of this land, and reorganize organizations already in existence, on approximately the same lines, and to adopt the same fundamental principles for the guidance of its administration, as are already in vogue in all progressive labor organizations of the European continent, and have made them effective, powerful instruments in the class struggle between the owners of the implements of production and distribution, and the producers of all wealth, while the unions of this land, as managed and conducted to-day are mostly used as instruments of the capitalist, through corrupt labor leaders, to perpetuate the capitalistic system of society.
The manifold and multiform treacherous services that have been and are every day being rendered to the capitalists by many, yea most of the labor leaders of the American Federation of Labor, through open and outrageous treason and appalling betrayal of the class interests of the workers; the evil influence on those leaders of an institution of capitalism, the National Civic Federation, which has already extended its sphere of corrupting influence over countries across the ocean, the general discontent, and the work of disintegration emanating as a result of these conditions, and the notorious crimes that are being perpetrated as outgrowths of so-called craft union, guild like separation and division, built upon the detestable principle of harmony between the master of the tools, and the servants exploited for profit at the operation of these instruments of production and distribution, all these combined, have made this step of reorganization absolutely necessary.
Many organizations, believing in the irrepressible class conflict within to-day’s society have already announced their readiness to become an active working part of this movement, and will be represented at the convention to be held June 27th in the city of Chicago. Other organizations may also decide to participate, and a complete reorganization of the forces of labor may be effected on the lines outlined in the Manifesto, exclusive of all elements of corruption, and of those controlled and guided by the interests of the exploiting class. The Western Federation of Miners, the world-wide known organization, the members of which have so nobly fought the vanguard battles of labor against capitalist brutalities in Idaho and in Colorado, and are still in the brunt of the battle, are chief promoters of this movement, and from this fact alone the comrades may judge that the undertaking has been commenced with the earnestness and the firm determination, required for the consummation of such moves, historically necessary in the course of economic developments and evolution.
In the conference held in January, the undersigned, as secretary of the executive committee, was instructed to extend invitations to all administrations of Union Federations in all countries upon the European continent, also Australia; as have already to a certain extent adopted the fundamental methods of action, and scope, as outlined in this American Manifesto, as guidance of the workers in their class-conscious organizations on the economic field, to send to this convention delegates who will express through their presence the solidarity of labor throughout the world in the raging struggle and war with the master class of the world.
Aware of the fact, that the economic unions (Freie Gewerkschaften) of Germany will have a convention in May, at which also representatives of other countries will be present as fraternal delegates, we deemed it best to submit this invitation to both, the respective administrative officers of a given land, and to that general convention of class-conscious unionists to be held in Germany. You are cordially invited to delegate from the ranks of your Central Alliances in each land, as are standing on the same fundament as constructed as a basis of the new organization in America, fraternal delegates, who are to give their views and opinions not alone as to the aims and objects of militant organizations of the working class, but who may on that occasion, and through the knowledge which they may acquire while here, learn what dangers are lurking behind movements of the working people, if capitalistically-influenced leaders take the lead of it, and corrupt it for the sole benefit of the master class.
While not knowing all the rules of the Union organizations in the various lands upon the globe, yet I think that you may act upon this invitation, and we sincerely hope that you will elect fraternal delegates, and will thus help, by delegating class-conscious workers to this convention, in establishing a sane movement here, and tie an unbreakable bond of working class solidarity of all workers organized for the purpose of conducting the battles of labor against the capitalist class on the economic field.
You are kindly requested to inform the undersigned, whether delegates will be elected by the Central Administration of the Unions of your lands, and if answered in the affirmative it may be possible to arrange lecture tours for the comrades before organized and unorganized toilers of the American continent.
It is the desire of all those who have realized that the irrepressible class conflict in society demands adequate weapons and instruments to conduct the fight, to establish among such workers as adhere to the same principles such a unity of action, and efforts similar to that now existing in France, and to point out to the proletarians of this land, the ways which must be followed for their complete emancipation from the yoke of wage slavery and oppressions inherent in the capitalist system of society.
Trusting to hear from you soon, I remain,
With Fraternal, International Greetings,
WM. E. TRAUTMANN, Secretary.
C. LEGIEN, Berlin S. O. 16, Engel—Ufer 15.
Berlin, April 19th, 1905
To the Secretary of the Industrial Union Movement of America,
Cincinnati, O.
Dear Comrade:—The General Commission has taken cognizance of the plan of organization worked out by your committee, and also considered your invitation to send representatives to the congress to be held on June 27th in Chicago, Ill.
After mature consideration of the matter the commission has come to the conclusion, to refrain from sending fraternal delegates to this congress, although we fervently hope that a better connection may be established between the industrial unions of America and those of Europe, at least closer than they have been hitherto.
The reason for not sending delegates to this congress should by no means be found in an assumption that we are not sympathizing with the movement in America, we only do not consider it good judgment to actively engage or interfere in the fermenting process now taking place in the trade union movement of America. But the sending of delegates to this congress would be tantamount to active interference, inasmuch as it would not only devolve upon the representatives to represent the industrial unions of Germany in Chicago, but they would also be required to give the benefit of their experience there and thus actually participate in the construction of the new organization.
The central office of the industrial unions of Germany has always strictly adhered to the principle that it is not advisable to interfere in the development of a movement of a country by other foreign countries, we hold therefore that this evolutionary process must take place unhampered by outward influences.
So we do not consider the time has now arrived to send delegates to the congresses of our comrades in America; however, we hope that there will soon come a purification in the American movement on economic lines and that an organization may develop for the American workingman which is in accord with modern views and requirements. As to whether this organization has to evolve from the existing ones, or whether it should he established by a new formation, we certainly cannot judge. At all events we shall refrain strictly from using any influence in this respect.
We beg the comrades to view these our reasons for abstaining to send delegates in a spirit of fairness, and we assure you that we are with all our hearts with your efforts at emancipation of the working class of America.
I beg you also to send me a few of the organization plans in the German language, since several unions here have expressed their desire of getting such plans.
In the hope that soon a mutual cooperation and hand-in-hand working with the workers of your country may be established,
I remain, with fraternal greetings,
C. LEGIEN, General-Secretary.
Established 1889.
“STRENGTH UNITED IS STRONGER.”
THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR FEDERATION.
PROVINCIAL EXECUTIVE
Brisbane, May 27, 1905.
Mr. W. E. Trautmann, Secretary Industrial Union Movement, 16 East Seventh street, Cincinnati, O.
Dear Sir:—I am instructed to acknowledge receipt of your circular letter of the l0th April last along with Manifesto to the workers of the United States setting forth the basis of a contemplated industrial organization on advanced Socialist lines and inviting us to send a fraternal delegation to a proposed conference to be held next month.
In reply I regret to say that time, distance and want of funds preclude our compliance with this invitation. You will be pleased to know, however, that my Executive are in sympathy with the class-conscious spirit which animates your Manifesto, and I am desired to wish the efforts being put forth in this direction every success.
Under separate cover I am forwarding a copy of the manifesto issued by our Federation in this State in 1890 and also copies of an official report of our recent State Triennial Convention.
We anticipate that a determined effort will be made to secure Australia’s representation at the next International Conference to be held at Hamburg.
With fraternal greetings,
Yours faithfully,
ALBERT HINCHCLIFFE, Secretary.
GENERAL CONFEDERATION OF LABOR
Social Headquarters : Bourse du Travail. 3 Rue du Chateau-d’Eau, 3 Paris (Xme).
(General Confederation of Labor)
(Well Being and Freedom)
All unions affiliated with the General Confederation of Labor are required to cover their correspondence, circulars, etc., with the above Confederal stamp.
FROM MAY, 1906, FORWARD, WE WILL WORK ONLY 8 HOURS A DAY.
To Comrade Wm. E. Trautmann, Paris, May 29, 1905.
Secretary of the Industrial Labor Union,
16 E. Seventh St., Cincinnati, O.
Comrade:
Our committee took, with pleasure, notice of your Manifesto and call. It is happy at the constitution of your organization, and it hopes that your federative group, which, itself planted upon the field of the class struggle, will have at heart the necessity of conducting the battle upon that field where all equivocation vanishes: Upon the economic field.
It is not for us to meddle in your internal organization: it is for you to constitute yourselves according to the lay of the land where you are called upon to struggle. Nevertheless, allow us to observe that the French economic organizations have had cause only to congratulate themselves for having eliminated from their midst all discussions and questions concerning electoral and governmental parliamentarism. In fact, we hold that the political opinions of a workingman are secondary to his class interests. Consequently, whatever may be the opinion of a workingman upon that head his interests are ever supreme and, upon the field of interests, in the revolutionary struggle against capitalism, all opinions can blend into one.
Upon these tactics, which constitute the basis of the organization of the General Confederation of Labor, the working class of France has cause only to congratulate itself.
By this mail we forward to you several official publications of the G. C. of L. reports of conventions, pamphlets, and also several copies of our official organ, the “Voix du Peuple” (Voice of the People), which, furthermore, we shall henceforth remit to you regularly.
As to your proposition that we send a delegate to your Chicago Conference, notwithstanding the pleasure we would have in accepting your invitation, the matter is impossible to us in view of the great distance and, above all, in view of the great expenses that the sending of such a delegation would involve.
But although we shall not be able actively to participate in that economic manifestation (manifestation of unionism), we are in full sympathy with you, and we devoutly wish that your economic grouping may emerge from your convention consolidated and grown, so that it may develop upon the solid economic and social field, without ever allowing itself to be swerved from the platform of the class struggle—a platform that is the cause of being for the economic formations which pursue the aim of the actual improvement of the condition of the workers, and also the removal of the existence of the capitalist class, in order to bring about the integral emancipation of the working class.
Deign, comrade, to receive our fraternal greeting. By order of the Committee,
E. POUGET, Secretaire-adjoint.
DE SAMVIRKENDE FAGFORBUND. Denmark. Telegramadresse Fagforbund. Telefon 3541.
Kobenhavn, K., June 9, 1905
To Mr. W. E. Trautmann,
Secretary of the Industrial Union Movement of America, Cincinnati, O.
Your esteemed invitation to send representatives to your constitutional congress on June 27th was duly received. But our executive board regrets to convey to you the information that we could not accept the invitation.
We are somewhat acquainted with the conditions in the unions of North America, but not sufficiently that we could with some weight of argument present our opinions relative to the questions propounded in your Manifesto.
As to our own opinion on the economic organization we, here in Denmark, take the absolute and decided stand that the same must be built—as so well expressed in your Manifesto—upon the recognition of the class struggle in society. But how that can be accomplished if the unions, as you again proclaim in the Manifesto, will abstain from cooperation with any political party even with that one which indulges solely in the politics of the working class, we cannot understand. We are of the opinion that everywhere, when needed, the economic organizations and the Social Democratic party must work hand in hand, in order to promote the interests of the working class where the interests of the toilers have to be taken care of. We hold that the passage in your Manifesto where it reads: “without affiliation with any political party,” has only been inserted to manifest the complete neutrality of the unions.
An affiliation is certainly not necessary, perhaps such an affiliation would prove a detriment, but the every day co-operating work of the economic organizations and political Socialist Labor Party is absolutely essential in the political and union agitation, through the press, in the legislatures, etc. That is our opinion if the protection of the interests of the workers are to be furthered to the fullest extent. Only when the two wings of the class struggle are supporting and complementing each other can there be hopes for a real and lasting progress, on a firm foundation, for the future. These two branches of the general movement must find and supplement each other, and then progress will be made.
We know full well that the political conditions in America are quite different from those here, and that it is hard to induce the workers to take part in politics—class conscious politics.
Through the unions it may be possible to make class politics more attractive for them.
As to the program drafted by the Industrial Union Movement we will say only this:
As a rule it is the easiest way to organize the workers for the attainment of the individual immediate demands. Therefore the beginning should be made in the organization according to branches as the quickest way to organize unions under the different categories of workers.
The theoretically right form perhaps is the organizing according to industries. This form will presently evolve from underlying conditions if they are not, as in Germany and Sweden, for instance, already in practical force. We believe, however, that it were rather a dangerous step to attempt to force with one blow a certain theory, even though same may be absolutely correct. This may be conducive of breaking the unity of action of the workers against the manufacturers, and this, so we think, would be by far more detrimental than the faults of an antiquated form of unionism, which cannot hold its own when its usefulness ceases.
For these reasons it may appear to us that the attempt of your congress may have dangerous results for the American trades union movement in general.
We certainly cannot pass judgment on the present administration of the American trade unions. If same is not guided by the recognition of the working class movement and the class conflict, or when, as asserted in your Manifesto, same is corrupted, then we think this administration could be led presently on the right path of the class movement. These changes, we believe, will be best worked out from within.
As stated before we are not able to be represented in your congress. From your letter, of course, I infer that you wish to hear the opinion of other nations on the project. For these reasons we have made this brief survey above, and because we would not be put in the position to become judges over the deeds and actions of our American comrades. Our thoughts make reference only to the trade union movement in general.
We hope that your deliberations may lead you to success, and that the economic unity of the organized workers of America be promoted, and that, at the same time, conditions be established to carry your movement on in accord with modern advanced ideas, so that the workers of North America, organized on economic and political class lines, may soon march on to the goal: the abolition of capitalist class rule.
For the Administration of the Centralized Unions of Denmark.
De Samvirkende Fagforbund,
C. M. OLSEN, Chairman.
DEL. KIEHN, HOBOKEN: In regard to international affiliation, I would like to say a few words in regard to the position of the Longshoremen’s Union, the organization that I represent. We have been affiliated internationally for the last five years with the International Federation of Transport Workers. The headquarters used to be in London. At the conference at Amsterdam last year it was transferred to Hamburg. Through ceaseless agitation our international association in America was induced to affiliate the whole association with this International Federation the first of January of this year. I understand that no other American association could affiliate without their consent. Now, as this international affiliation is of the utmost importance to the members of that organization, I would like to bring home to them the news that they are saved from interference on the part of the International Association of Longshoremen of America. We are in constant communication with the members of the same vocation in other countries. We have had occasion to pick up notices in the ships’ holds and take care of certain things that happened on the other side. We are in constant communication while at work with the men that work in the same ships and for the same employers and handle practically the same kind of goods as the men do on the other side, so that international affiliation is of the most vital importance to the trade that I represent, and I am glad to be able to give this information.
SECRETARY TRAUTMANN: The fact is that the European comrades in the unions do not understand that the movement in America has brought about such conditions as to cause complications. When Mitchell was sent to the international congress of coal miners last year in Europe, they understood that Mitchell was a Socialist, and in letters written to a certain journal for $5,000, paid by an enterprising newspaper association, it was stated that Mitchell said in Europe that he was a Socialist, and in the Amsterdam convention some of the old comrades asked why Mitchell was not at the congress. This Association of Transport Workers with headquarters at Hamburg believes that the organizations in America are based on the recognition of the class struggle. Now, suppose the Longshoremen’s Unions of Hoboken and New York should withdraw from the American Federation of Labor, then will come up the question before the International Transport Workers’ Union as to whether this organization should be recognized internationally, or whether the Longshoremen’s Union should be recognized, and the question of the principles upon which the organizations are established will then have to be decided before the international congress of the industrial unions of the world. They have recognized unions founded as the American Federation of Labor is, as being to a certain extent an expression of the class conflict, and in order to disabuse them of notions of that kind and make conditions clear, international relations will have to be kept up. We have found in German and French papers articles written under the impression that the American Federation of Labor is an expression of the class conflict in society, concealing or ignoring the relations existing between the American Federation and the Civic Federation and other capitalistic organizations. The effect of our letters is to give them correct information so that they will not confound this organization and those affiliated with it with the American Federation of Labor. From these letters you will see that the foreign unions are in sympathy with our movement, and that it is to our interest to continue the relations that have been started under instructions from the general conference.
The communications were ordered received and placed on file.
THE CHAIRMAN: Resolution No. 21, by Delegate Kiehn, and which was handed back by the Literature and Press Committee, will be referred to the Committee on Constitution. There being no further resolutions or reports, a motion to adjourn is in order.
DEL. COATES: I move that we adjoin to two o’clock, and that then we take up the report of the Constitution Committee and consider it in preference to all other business until it is finished. (Seconded.)
A DELEGATE: Before the motion to adjourn is entertained, I will say that we were about to offer a resolution providing for the appointment of a Committee on Label and Emblem. I believe the convention has made no provision for such a committee at this time. I make that motion. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Such a resolution will be entertained at this time. Have you a resolution written?
No written resolution was handed in.
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that a Committee on Label and Emblem be selected. Are you ready for the question? (Question asked for). Those in favor will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried. Each group is requested to select its delegate for this committee. The chair will prepare the appointments and have the announcement ready by the time we reconvene.
The motion to adjourn until two o’clock was then put and carried.
• Day 7, Afternoon Session : Tuesday, July 4
Chairman Haywood called the convention to order at 2 P. M.
THE CHAIRMAN: When the convention adjourned it was to meet at two o’clock and take up the report of the Committee on Constitution. Is the Committee on Constitution ready to report?
The committee not being ready to report, a recess was taken, and the convention reassembled at 2.50 P. M.
THE CHAIRMAN: Have the different groups selected their members for the Ritual Committee?
The various groups handed in their selections, and the Chairman announced the following as the Committee on Ritual:
American Labor Union—W. Shurtleff.
S. T. & L. A.—S. J. French.
U. B. R. E.—J. S. McDonald.
Western Federation of Miners—(Selection deferred.)
Individuals—C. C. Ross, Guy E. Miller, James Murtaugh.
THE CHAIRMAN: We will now have the report of the Committee on Constitution. Proceed with the reading of the Constitution.
DEL. MOYER: Mr. Chairman and brother and sister delegates, the Constitution Committee appointed by the convention, who, I may say for my associates on the committee, have worked faithfully since their appointment, have made an effort to present a body or constitution to this organization which we believe will be sufficient to govern this industrial organization that may be launched until a convention may be called some time in the future. It is not necessary for me to enter into any preliminaries in regard to the work of the committee, so I will proceed to read, beginning at the Preamble. I might say that I have understood that the Preamble drawn up by the committee on constitution has already been adopted by this convention. I have no personal knowledge of it, as I was not present on the floor of the convention when this part of the work of the committee on constitution was adopted. I will begin by reading the Preamble, and then the constitution.
Delegate Moyer then read the Preamble and the first two articles of the Constitution, after which, at his request, Delegate T. J. Hagerty, Secretary of the Committee on Constitution, completed the reading of the report.
At the conclusion of the reading of the Constitution, Chairman Moyer, on behalf of the Committee, added the following:
DEL. MOYER: The Committee on Constitution, selected by this convention a few days ago, submit their report at this time. We fully realize that the matters set forth in the report submitted may not be sufficient to govern this organization in the future. We believe that we have submitted a form of constitution sufficient to launch this industrial movement. We have agreed upon this constitution, this report as read by the secretary of the Committee on Constitution and myself, with the exception of one member of the constitution committee. With the exception of that one member we believe that this report, this form of constitution, should be adopted by this delegation and this industrial movement launched at this practical time, and that such changes as may be necessary in the government of this organization after being launched should be left in the hands of an Executive Board or an Executive Council that may be selected by this convention. In support of their report to this convention the Committee on Constitution has the following motion: “Moved by De Leon and seconded by Hagerty that if any amendments, changes or alterations are offered to this report by the convention, Chairman Moyer of the Committee on Constitution, shall demand in our name a roll call thereon.” We submit the report of the Committee on Constitution to you and it is now your property. (Applause.)
DEL. COATES: Mr. Chairman, I move you that the report be taken up and read and acted on seriatim. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the report of the Committee on Constitution be taken up seriatim. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). All those in favor of the motion will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried, and the secretary will please read.
Delegate T. J. Hagerty, secretary of the committee, then read Section 1, Article 1, as follows: “This organization shall be known as ’The Industrial Workers of the World.”’
DEL. COATES: I want to offer an amendment to the first section. Instead of “Industrial Workers of the World,” I want to offer the name “The Industrial Union of America.” If I can get a second to the motion I will give you my reasons for this. (Amendment seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the amendment. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. COATES: Mr. Chairman, the only reason I offer this motion is the fact that I realize that we, on the American continent, have no right to organize a union for the workers of the world. I realize that we can only organize the American part of the industrial workers’ union of the world. I believe, Mr. President and fellow delegates, that when we go into an industrial workers’ organization of the world we must go into an organization made up of like organizations as this from every nation in the world into an international labor union of the world; and I do not believe that we ought to begin with the idea of stretching ourselves beyond the real domain of this organization. I believe that England, Germany, France, and all the various nations of the earth should be given their equal right in organizing their great national and international industrial organizations, and then we ought to come into an international congress such as has already been organized and has its headquarters now in Germany; and I believe we are, as I say, beyond our territory when we attempt to launch this movement, which must necessarily confine itself at least to America, Canada, and the nearby nations that wish to come in with us in this organization. I really believe that it would be more attractive, if you please, to the workers of America, this latter name that I suggest, I believe it will cover our entire territory, and I believe that is the kind of name that we ought to have, limiting ourselves to the American continent.
DEL. BARTLETT: I second the amendment, for this reason: We are trying to launch an industrial union movement. Industrial unionism is gaining more prominence among the workers, and by calling this the Industrial Union of America we can explain the idea of industrial unionism more intelligently. I therefore second the amendment.
DEL. BERNINE: I have only one object in seconding this motion. It was not because I wanted to confine it to a nationality, because no one recognizes more than I do the international character of the working class, being a member of that class. There is throughout the world but one working class. (Applause). Believing as I do that this union of the working class in America is organized only for one purpose, one ultimate aim, one object, and that the overthrow of the capitalist class, and knowing as I do and as the members of the delegation with whom I am here, that the workers of each country, although they unite with the workers of the whole world, that the workers of each country must settle with their own capitalist class ; and that is the only reason that that point might be kept in view, that when the time is opportune here for us to seize that for which we are organized, and if we are not organized for that purpose we are simply wasting our own time and deluding the workers with a false hope. That purpose can only be, and it is the only purpose for which we stand on the floor of this convention, the final and complete emancipation of the working class and the absolute, unconditional surrender by the capitalist class of all the means of production to the people, namely, the working class. (Applause). Therefore I believe that while we bear in mind that there is but one working class and that we ought to be intimately joined with that class, that the interests of the workers in Europe or in China are identical with the interests of the workers in America, yet we should not lose sight of the fact that we must finally settle with our own capitalist class.
DEL. WRIGHT: I want to say, with regard to the name as settled on by the Committee on Constitution, that we did not understand the name to be a definition or an indication of the jurisdiction of this organization. We understood the name of this organization to be a general designation of our position with regard to all the workers of the world. Now, I cannot conceive, nor do I, that any name for any organization does define the jurisdiction of the organization. And I cannot conceive, therefore, that the questions that the other delegates have raised with regard to the amendment and against the original proposition as presented by the Committee on Constitution are valid. If they were valid it would be different, but I do not believe that they are, under those circumstances, since this name does not define the jurisdiction of this organization. It simply sets forth to all workingmen that we recognize the principle that we are all workers of the world and belong as such in that category as workers of the world, industrial workers of the world; and I think that if we fly that banner as a name for the organization a good deal, as some other organizations have flown the banner “Workingmen of All Countries Unite,” we recognize the fact nevertheless that the working class of each country would have to settle with its own capitalist class in each respective country. (Applause.)
A DELEGATE: I would like to ask the secretary or the committee for the reasons for giving the name that the committee has?
DEL. T. J HAGERTY: As Brother Wright, of that committee, has explained the meaning of the committee as far as I understand, I do not think anything can be added to it except that in confining the name to America it would shut out, for instance, one of our brothers here in New Jersey who is in communication with the members of his association in Hamburg, and would shut out a great many in South America and Mexico who are not, so far as the word “American” goes, practically, of the United States.
DEL. BERNINE: Since the point I made seems to be fully understood by this convention, I will withdraw my second, with the consent of the maker of the motion.
Question called for.
DEL. RIORDAN: I do not suppose there are very many delegates here who care very much about international boundary lines, but I am going to speak about how this name will be taken in the country across an international boundary line, namely, Canada.
There are many organizations over there which at the present time are affiliated with organizations that are to become a part of this organization. I am sure that they will protest or find a little fault with the name “America.” We have over there a great number of patriotic Canadians who do not agree with the name of an organization defining itself too closely. At the time that the American Labor Union changed its name from that of the Western Labor Union it created a great deal of feeling throughout British Columbia owing to the fact that they had made the change without their approval. Now, I want to say, delegates, that it creates more or less of a prejudice when you define things so closely as to name or designate international boundary lines. We have some over there, I will acknowledge, who realize the fact that they must be cosmopolitan in a matter of this kind. They do not want to recognize international boundary lines. I for one do not. But there are many who are members of organizations that are about to affiliate themselves with this organization who will oppose a name of that kind, and I object to the name of “American” in naming this organization.
DEL. KLEMENSIC: Brother Chairman and fellow delegates, when you try to define what the boundary line is between one nationality and another one, the only thing that is plausible is this: it is the common submission of a common lot of men and women to a common set of men that are ruling them in the name of some supreme being or some supreme power, and this supposed-to-be boundary is something that you neither can see nor feel, but it is the plutocracy that organized it that way. We know we have got Austrians, Chinamen, Japs, and people of all nationalities here in this country. So we have got Frenchmen, Germans and Italians, and we are a cosmopolitan crowd. Now, then, as it is, all lines that were ever established have always been established by men who were a bunch of robbers, thieves and exploiters, and we want to combine ourselves as humanity, as one lot of people, those that are producing the wealth of our oppressors, and we want to have under that banner our brothers and sisters of the world.
Question called for.
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment is that Section 1 of Article 1 shall be changed to read “The Industrial Union of America” instead of “The Industrial Workers of the World.” Those in favor
DEL. MOYER: Roll call, Brother Secretary. (Roll call seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: We will have a roll call if there is any question as to the result of this vote.
DEL. COATES: Allow me to say a word in conclusion, and that is, that if there is anybody here who believes that I am a stickler for a national or international boundary he is very much mistaken. But I think we ought to be at least sensible on the matter. The idea is simply this with me: Of course we do not care anything about the name of America or anything else. I agree largely with my fellow delegate over here who spoke of the fact that every nationality must settle its own questions, especially industrial and political. There is no doubt about that. It is true that perhaps it is not settled finally in any nation until the rest of the world shall have acted. Nevertheless those are national questions at the present time. But the chief idea that I had in mind was this we have no right to take away the privilege of any other nation to organize such a union as we here are organizing. What complications will we get into if we accept the membership in this organization of a man who lives in France or in England or in any other nation? Are we going into all those various nations to accept membership into this organization? If we do we will have no end of turmoil in the ranks of organized labor. We will perhaps get mixed up with men who do not want to belong to their organizations there, who believe that they are following the best policy in the interest of the workers and who do not believe we have things right, and in fact we are going to get into trouble if we attempt to stretch ourselves over the world. We simply want to confine ourselves to the people who are working closely together. There is no doubt in my mind but what we will get along well with our fellow workmen in Canada or Mexico or on the American continent. That was my idea of limiting this extension or this boundary of the organization to the entire American continent, where practically our interests are all identical as far as the political features and the industrial features are concerned. But I think we are going to get ourselves mixed up with every other nation if we attempt to stretch this to the industrial workers of the world and let individual organizations, or individual members, if you please, of the working class of every nation come into this organization. All I want is some practical, sensible organization.
Question again called for.
THE CHAIRMAN: The debate has been closed on this amendment. The amendment is to change the name of this organization from “Industrial Workers of the World,” to “Industrial Union of America.” Those in favor of the amendment will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no.
A division and a roll call were called for.
THE CHAIRMAN: If a roll call is desired the secretary will proceed.
The secretary proceeded to call the roll. Before the call of the groups was finished Delegate Fitzgerald changed his vote from no to yes. Delegate Sherman, in the absence of his colleague, Kirkpatrick, stated that there was an understanding that the vote of the United Metal Workers was to be cast as a unit. A delegate suggested at this point that the further calling of the roll be dispensed with, but the Chairman directed that it proceed. After a few of the individual names had been called Delegate Murtaugh suggested the uselessness of continuing the roll call in view of the apparent result, but the call of the individuals was completed. At the conclusion of the call—
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment on the face of the count has been lost. The secretary will count it up and give the correct result of the vote. The amendment is lost.
(Later in the proceedings the result of the vote was announced by the secretary as: Ayes, 3540; noes, 47,728.)
DEL. LUCY E. PARSONS: I recognize, at least I believe, that the original name covers too much ground, and the one that has been offered and lost covers too little, so I move that we substitute “The American Branch of the Industrial Workers of the World.”
DEL. DE LEON: Can we make an amendment to the motion?
THE CHAIRMAN: There is no second to the amendment. The motion occurs on the paragraph, Section 1 of Article 1 as already submitted by the Constitution Committee. Those in favor of the motion will signify it by saying aye, contrary no. The motion is carried and the Section adopted. (Great applause). The secretary will proceed to read.
Secretary Hagerty, of the Committee, then read Section 2 of Article 1, as follows:
Section 2. (a) And shall be composed of thirteen international industrial unions, designated as follows Division 1 shall be composed of all persons working in the following industries: Clerks, salesmen, tobacco, packing houses, flour mills, sugar refineries, dairies, bakeries and kindred industries.
Division 2. Brewery, wine and distillery workers.
Division 3. Floriculture, stock and general farming.
Division 4. Mining, milling, smelting and refining coal, ores, metals, salt and iron.
Division 5. Steam railway, electric railway, marine, shipping and teaming.
Division 6. All building employes.
Division 7. All textile industrial employes.
Division 8. All leather industrial workers.
Division 9. All wood working employes excepting those engaged in building departments.
Division 10. All metal industrial employes.
Division 11. All glass and pottery employes.
Division 12. All paper mills, chemical, rubber, broom, brush and jewelry industries.
Division 13. Parks, highways, municipal, postal service, telegraph, telephone, schools and educational institutions, amusements, sanitary, printing, hotel, restaurant and laundry employes.
Central bodies. Central bodies (first) composed of seven or more local unions in two or more industries shall be known as industrial councils; (second) Local unions, in such industries as are not organized and represented on the General Executive Board; (third) Individual members in such places where there is not a sufficient number of workers to organize a local union in any industry.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the reading of Section 2 of Article 1. What is the pleasure of the convention?
DEL. DINGER: Mr. Chairman, I move that we concur in the recommendation of the Committee on Constitution on that Section. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that we concur in the recommendation of the committee.
DEL. COATES: Mr. Chairman, I want to offer an amendment. The amendment is that the second paragraph of Article 1 shall read “This organization shall be composed of national and international unions embracing all workers of an industry,” instead of thirteen division as made up.
THE CHAIRMAN: Have you got the amendment written? If so, please hand it up.
DEL. COATES: Yes, sir. (Handing written amendment to the Chairman.)
The amendment was seconded by a number of delegates.
THE CHAIRMAN: An amendment has been offered to Section 2 of Article 1. There are lots of seconds. The amendment is that Section 2, Article 1 be amended to read “Shall be composed of national and international unions embracing all workers of an industry.” You have heard the amendment. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. COATES: Mr. Chairman, I offer that amendment for the reason that I think we are making a very serious mistake indeed in trying to divide the workers of the world into thirteen industries, or rather thirteen industrial divisions. While I agree that an injury to one worker is the injury of all, nevertheless my experience in trades unions has shown me that a peculiar thing that directly affects one industrial branch does not directly affect the workers in another industry; the particular feature of their complaint, the particular demand that they make for their working conditions. And I believe that an international organization ought to be made up of solely those—or one of the departments rather of this organization ought to be made up solely of those people in a single industry. Now, tell me, if you please, what connection the hotels, the public parks, the theaters, the musicians, the restaurant employes, and the laundry employes have with the printing or the publishing industry, if you please? And I want to call your attention to the fact that the fundamental principle underlying this organization says that when one part of this industry strikes, the entire industry strikes; and just as soon as we begin to take out the printers for a remedy of the conditions in the line of publication in whatever field it may be in that branch of industry, we are practically forced, by bringing these other people into their section, or rather, into their international union, to take out the restaurant employes, the laundry employes, the musicians and the various other ten or twelve or fifteen separate industries grouped under this thirteenth head. I think we are going purely crazy as far as the practical feature of lining these people into an organization is concerned. I won’t attempt at this time, nor do I desire to attempt to put into the constitution the limits of any industry. That has been a mooted question in the organized labor world for a number of years. Why, we have a division of all kinds of crafts in an identical trade, men who work practically on the same material, in the same shop, and yet they are contending for a division. I want to throw everybody in that industry into one organization and make it an industrial organization; not merely to fix a set principle for this organization at this time, grouping ten, twelve or fifty different and separate industrial organizations under one head and one international organization. I think if we are to accomplish anything at all in the way of working up this organization to a practical organization, to an organization of usefulness to the workers of this country, or of the world, if you please, we must begin on a practical basis, simply attempting at this time to wheel into line the men and women who work shoulder to shoulder every day in the year as wage workers.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: As I understand, the economic organization of the working class is devised to meet the organization of the capitalist class. It must correspond, organ for organ, tissue for tissue, to the structure of capitalist industries, rather than to the craft divisions that exist at present among the workers. Those who have read Charles Edward Russell’s articles in Everybody’s Magazine on “The Greatest Trust in the World,” know that the beef trust to-day is no longer a beef trust, it is a food trust, an international commissary department. That fact is recognized by our fellow-workers in Switzerland, who have practically the same arrangement that we have here in their culinary industrial union of Switzerland, in which they take in tobacco workers, bakery workers, brewery, wine and distillery workers, and all cooking trades, as one industry. To-day we have in this country no longer a few corporations owning a few railroads; to-day we have a department of transportation, with its own international steamship lines, owning and buying up electrical interurban lines—a distinct department of transportation. It is declared to be the ultimate aim of this organization to train the workers to take over—to take and hold that which they produce by their labor; to administer the things that they take; to administer them according to the best developed system. The system of industry to-day is no longer a system of old international crafts or trades. Even the system of government is not such to-day. We have men representing in the government, not electoral constituencies, but industries. We have Senator Aldrich, general manager of the United States, representing the transportation department of the capitalist system of society. (Applause). Now, we propose to organize the workers to meet the structure of the capitalist class. The employee in Odessa, as we read in the papers of this week, is being exploited by exactly the same employer as the employee of the McCormick Harvester Company and the International Harvester Company here in Chicago, because we read that the International Harvester Company’s plant is involved in the troubles in Odessa. The workers are beginning to have one master the world over. There is one capitalist class the world over. We may talk about meeting a particular capitalist class in this country, but it is not true. We are meeting the one world capitalist class, and we must not be afraid to meet that class on their own ground and according to their own forms. We must no longer fight with the little popguns of craft unions in a small international union against the modern shrapnel of the capitalist system, but we must be prepared to meet their conditions and go them one better. We must be prepared to meet their class according to the economic groupings demanded in the Manifesto that called this convention, and not through the narrow emphasizing of the old craft spirit that divided and split up the workers and allowed them to be scattered by the capitalist class in a divided and disorganized craft unionism. (Applause.)
DEL. C. O. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman and fellow delegates, Delegate Coates seems to be wonderfully fearful that the workers of the United States will become acquainted with those who under circumstances that they were not responsible for, happen to be governed under some other nation. The first point he made in his argument was that he believed we were going too far when we called ourselves the workers of the world.
DEL. POWERS: I rise to a point of order. We have got through with the discussion of that matter, and it doesn’t matter what this gentleman has said about a separate question.
DEL. SHERMAN: The second argument he makes he also brings in that same point when he offers an amendment that we shall have national and international organizations. Who is to be the judge of that class of workers in the United States that should not be international with the world? What class shall be given the especial privilege in the United States that they shall be classed under “international organization?” I am not unmindful of the fact that the chart as set forth here is quite contrary to the old-fashioned and rotten system under which the trades unionists have gone along so many years. I am not unmindful of the fact that we are going to meet opposition that will support the brother who has offered the amendment. But those who were instrumental in drawing up this Manifesto which has resulted in this magnificent representation of the producers of the United States, took into consideration this: that this organization must take the initial step forward, if we were going to break down the old system of craft organization. (Applause). And it is on the Manifesto that this committee has drawn up this constitution. We have stood by the lines of that Manifesto. If I understand the proposition right, Mr. Chairman and delegates, that is what we are here for—to form an organization as outlined by that Manifesto. (Applause). And the first delegate that raises up any objection to any part of that Manifesto, I will all the time object to his position. We are called here with the expectation, according to that Manifesto, to form an organization that would represent the producing class of the world. (Applause). I want to say to my brother delegate who has offered this resolution that he need not be afraid we will offend anybody. If there is one Frenchman in France, one Englishman in England, one German in Germany, or one man in any other country that desires to take out a membership in our organization, if I had anything to do with it I should always stand up and say that we must protect that individual to the full ability of our organization. (Applause). It is that way, and that way only, brothers and sisters, that we are going to break down this rotten system called trade autonomy, which has been so detrimental ever since it has been introduced. He says, “What difference does it make if the printers strike?” To me it makes a difference if anybody strikes; it is my grievance (applause), and I want to be in an organization that can be of use to protect that worker, no matter whether he be a printer or a candy maker. (Applause.) Your Committee on Constitution felt at this time that thirteen groups was as small as we could reduce them at this time. But for myself, I do expect, if I live to be ten years older, that it will be reduced to three groups instead of thirteen. I believe that this is going to bring forth an education that will bring to the workers a realization that the injury of one is the injury of all (applause), and that there is no distinction between the workers. The producing class, whether they work in metal, wood, paper or any other way, as long as they sell their labor in the open market in a competitive system, their interests are identical, and there is no common ground between the producer and the exploiter. (Applause), I hold that if this organization now in its birth should go out after issuing this Manifesto, and recognize a national organization, that that would destroy the whole force of the Manifesto calling for this gathering. I for one as a member of that Constitution Committee will stand first, last and all the time for everything that has been read before this audience this afternoon in that constitution. I thank you. (Applause.)
DEL. H. S. DAVIS: I wish to address the convention. To the local in which I hold a membership in the American Labor Union, that chart as now organized means the destruction of that local. I wish to know in what particular position that local will be placed. I refer to the Butte Working Men’s Local Union No. 5, of the American Labor Union, composed principally of ditch diggers, etc., with a jurisdiction extending over all unorganized crafts and callings there, till another organization of that kind with jurisdiction begins; all over Silver Bow county and clear into the other counties until the jurisdiction lines of some other organization of that kind begins; principally in Silver Bow county.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you ask for information?
DEL. DAVIS: Yes, where do we get off as a local?
THE CHAIRMAN: It is the opinion of the chair that you would be in Division 13, Highways and municipal work.
DEL. DAVIS: All right; that is a question that will be put to me as soon as I arrive home.
DEL. DUNCAN MCEACHREN: I desire to find out wherein this grouping that is in the chart as outlined by Comrade Hagerty conflicts with industrial organization. I cannot see, as far as I am able to see, wherein Delegate Coates finds any conflict. He seemed to argue along the same lines and come to the same conclusion, with the exception of some difference as to national and international unions. I cannot see where they conflict. Their arguments are alike. They sound similar to me, and I believe they are alike.
THE CHAIRMAN: We will hear the explanation of the secretary.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY, of the committee: The section here calls for thirteen divisions, thirteen departments or groups in which the workers shall be internationally organized. As I understand Delegate Coates’s amendment, it does away entirely with these thirteen groups and means any number of national and international industries. It might mean 60; it might mean 500 for all I know; it might mean 1,000. We might call the business of making toothpicks a separate complete industry, so that there would be a department of toothpick makers, including all the fellows in the business of toothpick making, and so on interminably. This means a logical arrangement, so far as we can see to-day; a logical grouping of the workers in thirteen economic groups or departments, bringing together more closely the workers on the basis of the class struggle, and the eliminating and blotting out as far as possible of all craft lines, craft jealousies and trade aristocracies.
DEL. GILBERT: Comrades, Delegate Coates asked a question that has not been answered. That is my only reason for rising in order to say something to this effect: He mentioned a number of trades or callings to be grouped under the one head, and of course they appeared very divergent and disconnected, and he said, “What has the printing trade got to do with those?” For fear that he or some member might think that we are carried away by sentiment, I am going to answer his question. If he will revert to the wording of the original document he will see that it says that they “will strike in a given industry when necessary.” Don’t forget that “when necessary.” Each particular calling will make its own especial rules, as far as those kinds of dealings with the capitalists are concerned, they apply only to them. But it is said, “I cannot see any rightful connection between laundry workers and printers.” Supposing the laundry workers are having some kind of trouble, why should the printers print lies about the strike, under the pretext that it was not their fight? If the printers are called upon to print lies concerning them, then it takes up the cause of the laundry workers right then and there, and this is one of the times when it is made necessary for the whole group to battle together in common.
DEL. J. C. SULLIVAN: I make no contention at this time that the imaginary lines drawn between the industries by this committee are absolutely correct, but they are, in the judgment of the committee that this convention saw fit to turn the matter over to, as just and equitable as they could arrange at this time. If you will notice in the constitution further on, there are certain powers given to the Executive Board to classify organizations. If it should be found that some unions are classed with or identified or attached to a division, and it would be to their interest to be attached to another division, reason would naturally cause us to believe that the change would be so made, but in order to make a start the first step must be made. This, as I understand, is to be an organization organized on the industrial plan, wherein all the industries revolve around one center—that is, the management of the organization—where the workers in any one industrial center look to it for advice, assistance and support in making their contentions in its industrial battle for existence. Now, it may be possible to change some of those lines so as to be fairer than what is represented by that chart at the present time. It might be better, to the minds of some, to make fewer divisions or a greater number of divisions. But, as I stated a moment ago, to the minds of the committee to whom this convention delegated the power of preparing a constitution for your consideration, that is the result of their efforts. If it is wrong, if it is unfair, I believe that I can safely say that it is the fault of the heads of those individuals and not of the hearts. It is in accordance with the best judgment and the ability of which they are possessed. If it is not for the best interests of the organization it is your fault in not placing people on the committee who had more ability. (Applause.)
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I am one of that committee who would not vote for the report of the committee. Brother Moyer mentioned one man who dissented; I am the dissenter, for several reasons. In the State that I come from, Montana, the question of uniting the workers into one organization has been something that has been agitated by the people there in their local unions, in their State and central organizations, for years. I believe there went from Montana into the first convention in Denver calling for a resolution of this kind, from Brother Sullivan of Butte. They had tried to devise an organization that would be most effective. After they got this Manifesto they looked over and read the Manifesto thoroughly, but they thought that when we came here the men who had issued this Manifesto would have a constitution drawn up that they thought the workers should work under. Now, then, I was put on the special committee to draft a part of the constitution. We brought in a report on the lines of this resolution that I submitted to the first committee, on State lines, to organize the workers in State organizations, but to unite them by a national congress of labor that would have a control over the entire organization of any and all kinds, for the purpose of eliminating any jurisdictional fight that might come up between different crafts and different industries, grouped all together. The intellectuals of that committee opposed it on the ground that it would place too much power in the hands of the State, within State lines, that they might use it for political prestige. Now, it seems that they were afraid of their horses, since if you leave the power in the hands of the collective membership in the State or in the organization, and have the imperative mandate controlling your representatives, the leaders will never dare to use their power for the advancement of any political party, whatsoever. We were told by the committee that the chart did not mean anything, that the Manifesto was the work of one single individual. Now, we did not confine ourselves to that chart, but we brought in a report for an organization along certain lines. The committee threw it in the waste basket because the convention has committed itself to a certain policy and you cannot inject this part or any part into it. I want to say this, that I cast my vote on the first part, the name of this organization—
DEL. MOYER: I rise to a point of order. I take the position that the brother is not confining himself to the matter before the convention, and I ask the chair to rule on it.
THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken, Brother Fairgrieve.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I realize this, that this is about the only place that I can be heard on this question, and I take the opportunity for the view of the unions of Montana to get before the convention on this question.
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: I have seconded the amendment of Brother Coates. It seems to me that every great national movement has certain central underlying principles that make that movement necessary. The material facts, the underlying principles that called the industrial union conference together in January, were in my judgment the almost universal demand on the part of organized labor in America and a great part of the unorganized working people of this country for industrial unionism. It seems to me that the economic development of the United States and of the world at this time emphasizes the necessity for industrial unionism. It seems to me that the working class want industrial unionism. On the other hand, it does not seem to me that the material facts, the underlying principles of economic development indicate a desire on the part of the working people of this country or any other to divide the working people into certain arbitrary groups named divisions or by any other name that may be given them. And I dispute the fact, Mr. President, that the Manifesto adopted by the conference in January provided for the arbitrary grouping of the working people into thirteen fixed divisions outlined on the chart now facing this convention. I maintain that the conference in January declared straightforwardly and in unmistakable terms for industrial unionism as provided for in the amendment now pending before this convention. I maintain that the conference in January protested strongly against craft unionism; not for the reason that it intended to declare for certain arbitrary fixed groups, but for the reason that it intended to declare and did declare for industrial unionism. The amendment offered by Delegate Coates, in my judgment, does not provide for craft unionism in any sense of the word, and it seems to me ridiculous for a delegate to get on the floor of this convention and say that he cannot understand how many groups there would be in an industrial union organization with the limited industrial organization of this country. It seems to me ridiculous for him to mention the possibility of there being 100 or 500 such groups. Regardless of how the delegate may feel on this question, I feel certain that the great mass of the American working people recognize what industrialism means, and they recognize that it means the combining together in one international industrial organization of the world the crafts or trades embraced in one particular industry. And industrial unionism is further emphasized by the industrial union conference in January; it means the banding together of all such international industrial organizations in one general union of the working class. It seems to me that if we can confine this organization to the thirteen arbitrary groups or divisions as set forth by the Constitution Committee, that we are going to put before the working people of this country a proposition that they do not want and do not know anything about, and it will be absolutely unworkable when it goes before them. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that a clear declaration for industrial unionism would result in any appreciably greater number of departments than thirteen as stated in the chart now before this convention. I do not see how from a study of that chart there could possibly be, if all of the working people of this country were organized, more than sixteen or eighteen international industrial organizations. But it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that if this organization is going to succeed it must follow the natural lines of economic development, and not follow the arbitrary fixed lines that may be set forth by this convention or this Constitution Committee, saying that certain men should be placed in a certain place, and these women there, and that they shall not be welcome in any other places in this organization. I believe that the natural course of economic development is for organization by industries. I believe that the working people want organization by industries, and I believe that it will not involve this organization in any greater number of international organizations than the Constitution Committee provides for, and I believe that the plan submitted by the Constitution Committee is unworkable.
DEL. W. L. HALL: As there has already been some difference between those who have been instrumental in calling this convention, and the precedent for manifesting this difference has already been established, it occurs to me that I have a right to intrude some of the ideas that I had as a signer of the call for this convention. It occurs to me that there is one general principle underlying what might be termed an economic organization of the working people, and that one principle is centralized administration. It occurs to me that that one factor in labor organizations, administration, has a greater influence upon the individual character towards bringing about solidarity of the working people than any other factor with which we have to contend. We have already departed from the true spirit of those who called this convention by establishing thirteen different administrations in this one union that was called for. The Manifesto clearly states that “an organization fulfilling these conditions must consist of one central union embracing all workers”; and it establishes itself upon that principle a little further on by saying, “All members must hold membership in the local, national or international unions covering the industry in which they are employed.” Now, that does not mean that this national or international union is set aside as a separate administration; it simply means that for clerical purposes, for purposes of grouping the members and recognizing their groups economically, they are placed in that position to each other. But the idea was to centralize administration. The idea, as I say, has been departed from by the committee, but I presume the committee considers that we are not in a perfect state of development; therefore that it was necessary for them to depart in certain measures from the ideal of an economic organization. Now, then, if we follow Delegate Coates’s suggestion and establish 50 or 60 different or further administrations in this one economic organization, it occurs to me that we will rob it of the force that it will have; it seems to me that we are weakening the movement by establishing these different administrations. What is meant by an administration? What is meant by Brother Coates’s motion to have them grouped as international unions? It means simply the setting up of another administration within this one great administration. Now, then, I claim that the fewer of those that we have, the better it will be, the more strong will your movement be, the more we will be in accord with that which is demanded by the working people; that is, a form of an organization that will serve their economic needs. Now, I do not care to occupy much of your time, but I would like to call attention to that one general principle underlying a perfect economic organization of the working people, and whenever you divide that administration—it may be for reasons that you cannot avoid, or it may be for various reasons but for whatever reasons, whenever you divide that administration, we are thus far departing from the true principles underlying an economic organization. I claim that to have a perfect economic organization we must have a centralized administration and an absolutely centralized financial system before we can accomplish it.
Otherwise, if you give any independence, which you do through separate administration by a division of the organization, you have separated that to that extent from the general movement. Now, I do not pretend to say that we can form a perfect economic organization of the working people, but what I do say is that we can get as close to it as possible, and I believe the grouping suggested by the committee, if that is as close as they can get, is reasonably far enough away from the idea. I do not like even this grouping, but I think it is better than leaving it to a board of directors to decide what is an international. I venture to say that there is no one well enough posted upon the condition and the economic development of this country to ascertain what is a real industrial union. If they cannot decide, it suggests the idea of jurisdictional strife between different divisions. Now, we are going to have that with this division. Here are thirteen grand divisions that we are going to have according to this plan. We are going to have men who are sitting at the head of these different divisions struggling for their organizations. We are going to have them contending that there is some other division of the organization making unfair rates or taking in men that do not belong to them. Now, the more you extend that, the more internationals you organize, the more of this jurisdictional strife you are going to have in the organizations, and it will be the running sore that will destroy us eventually. I claim that we should have our eyes upon the future economic organization of the working people, and if we cannot adopt it now, let us at least announce that that is the correct principle and have something in the future to work to, and be assured, the fewer the number of groups in this organization we shall have, the shorter road to travel. We must avoid all that we possibly can anything that will suggest a jurisdictional struggle between these divisions, because that is what is really destroying the American Federation of Labor; that is the one thing that has made it really ineffective. If there had been perfect peace and harmony between the different organizations of the American Federation of Labor, they would have been just as much an economic organization of the working people as this one that we are forming, and we should not follow the American Federation in failing to recognize those facts. They have been dividing men by reason of the tools that they work with, but we must divide them by industries as much as possible. I claim that we need to absolutely centralize the administration of this organization, absolutely centralize it into one general administration. You can divide it for clerical purposes if you will, or for statistical purposes, as the legislation of the future is going to be largely a matter of statistics. We will probably need to divide the working people for statistical purposes only. But to divide them for administrative purposes is, I say, establishing a sore in the organization that will destroy us. I venture to say now that if we establish the principle that these thirteen different divisions of labor are an absolute fact that we must deal with, in the period of ten years from now we will have to do exactly what we are doing now, destroy this organization in order that we may establish one that more closely states the needs and requirements of the working people. I believe this will be destroyed eventually unless we establish firmly the principle that centered administration and a centered financial system must be the thing that we are to work to in the future. Let us, if we cannot do better, not do worse by establishing a greater number of divisions of this organization. (Applause.)
DEL. GOODWIN: As I understand that chart there with its subdivisions of industries, I look upon it as mirroring the industrial field. Further, I look at this organization that we are trying to launch here or are going to launch as the economic organization of the working class, as a class union which, by virtue of the fact of capitalist development and in the peculiar way in which it is developed, we must make our organization conform to that development. We see capitalist production divided into several departments, but the principle of division is no more important than for economic organization. As Brother Hall has just remarked, the necessity of economic organization is shown by the experience of the past few years in reference to the differences between international organizations dealing with different kinds of commodities, which Brother Hagerty mentioned in his remark about the toothpick business. But if we have an organization where we have got to be continually changing our organization in the same proportion as the changes in capitalist production, wiping out an old industry and starting a new, we will be constantly tearing down and building up again. If industry could be divided up into certain specific groups according to certain commodities that never changed, then we might group men in a certain division. Flying machines might come and we could put them in their place. If we divide up our organization into various parts with reference to the commodities that are changing, we have got to launch a new industrial union every time a new commodity is introduced. I think it is far preferable to have fewer divisions. The anatomist looks at the human body in the light of so many organs. You might divide the anatomy in another way, but you never change those functions or those parts. You might change the classification, but still at the same time the old functions are there. I look upon this movement, and I think those most progressive in this movement look at it in the same way, that we should only mirror the industrial field. We see capitalist production, and that it very much resembles the human anatomy, divided up into separate functions something like the brain, heart, etc. You cannot tell nor you cannot lay down a line of demarcation between two industries and do it exactly, any more than you can lay down the line of demarcation between the functions of the heart and stomach, because those two functions intermingle. You cannot separate them and take one out without taking the other. Hence these divisions, however important they are, should be commensurate, should be in line with the real divisions of capitalist production in the way industries are carried on and largely divided. It should be a reflection of the industrial field and practically set it forth.
DEL. FRENCH: I do not desire to take up time, but I want to go on record as endorsing the statement made by Delegate Hall, and in doing so I wish to say that I think the delegate voiced the sentiments of the S. T. & L. A. as well.
DEL. O’BRIEN: Last fall there was an international conference held in St. Louis, and if you would go over the general scope of that conference you would see that its scope was almost identical with this. There was a chart with groupings and sub-groupings. It appears to me from the remark of a brother on the floor that there is a question involved in the main groupings and what are termed the sub-groupings, and that it might be necessary in an economic organization to have sub-groupings. I believe you can have the departments and the sub-groups without destroying the general function and general solidarity of the organization. I believe it will be necessary for other departments of this organization to have a working principle. I believe in the development of that system of organization. In order to inaugurate a working class republic it will be necessary to have some groupings without destroying the one purpose for which this convention is called together.
DEL. GLASGOW: I desire some information, so that when I go back to my organization I can answer the questions that may be asked of me. I think this will be practical and that we will be able to work along that line, but there are certain questions that I imagine will be asked of me by all the brothers in the branch in which I may be grouped: “Who is going to determine the rates of wages and hours of labor in each particular occupation or trade?” Questions of that kind will probably be asked. We want to get down to the practical working of the organization. When we go to a member and present this proposition to him and ask him to vote to bring his organization in, he will want to know what this is to be before he will consent that his organization shall go into this. Now, who can tell who is to determine these matters? Will it be those in charge of the particular industries or groups that will determine for themselves? And supposing some one organization, say in the building trades, wants to fix wages and hours one way, and another organization says “That is unfair,” and they are asking if a strike shall be ordered to carry out their ideas, would all the others in that particular group be compelled to go on strike because this one trade asked that which may be unfair? Supposing all the others would not consent to it. I want to get at the practical working method, and if some one will give me the idea I will be prepared to answer them, but at the present time I could not. Perhaps Brother Hagerty can answer me that, or some one else.
DEL. KNIGHT: I do not care to argue this one way or the other, but as I understand, this convention cannot settle the technical subjects that will arise. In order to organize we have formed these groups. We realize that it is an evolutionary process and will develop in the future. This is the foundation process, and from that the Executive Board, the President, the Secretary-Treasurer and the organizers can go before the working class and put this proposition up to them. We will depend upon the knowledge of the working class in the various branches of labor, and the organizers and the Executive Board can then develop this question. It will require human brains and human activity to make any of these things go. We should not imagine that when we set this thing down that that settles the question. There is going to be an application of mind and intelligence to this proposition, and that is exactly the way the committee proceeded in drawing up this proposition. I agree with what has been said in favor of a strongly centralized organization, and we want to centralize this as much as possible at the present time so as to get out to the worker and begin the work of organizing the workers and get the material and proceed to divide it up technically and place them, in the position in which they belong. I say that because I thought it might clear up somewhat the proposition.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any further remarks? When Delegate Coates addresses the convention again on this question that will close the debate on this question.
DEL. PARKS: It seems that one member of the Constitution Committee could not concur in the report of the committee, wishing to set up a department of State autonomy or something to that effect. I believe that a study of this plan in the light of the industrial development of the world will reveal to you the fact that capitalism is organizing the business of the world, and the great factories of the future are to be marked not by State lines, not by geographical lines laid out by a surveyor, but by great industrial departments such as we have before us in the world to-day, such as the Standard Oil Company, the great trans-continental lines of railway that run between the Gulf of Mexico, and the great world-wide telegraphic organization of the means of communication, which, with industrial development, are wiping out State lines. Over a hundred years ago there was brought into existence a new nation that was organized by a lot of middle class capitalists and a lot of businessmen. Thirteen States were inaugurated at first, but that group of thirteen States down in the East have changed to a very great extent, and one or two of the States to-day have a great deal more power than the half dozen New England States. If we start out with this division, which is merely suggestive as an organization, it does not necessarily follow that it will always remain as it is outlined here to-day. I think I have been informed by the Constitution Committee that there is provision in the constitution made whereby workers in a department or working in an industry will be able, by a vote or by the Executive Board, to take themselves out of one department and put themselves over in another department if they find that their interests are identical with those of the workers in that department. So I do not think we need to be alarmed about dividing the workers into thirteen different groups. The question has been asked, “Who will regulate the wages and the hours of work?” etc. Who do you think ought to have the right to regulate the hours of work and the wages of the railroad employes, or the telegraphers, or the mail clerks? It is laid down in the Manifesto that there is to be craft autonomy locally, industrial autonomy internationally. I think that the employes of the great trans-continental transportation division ought to be internationally united, with power to regulate their own affairs, hours of labor, rates of wages, etc. My friends, I do not think we need to be carried away with the idea that we are dividing the workers by groups yet as suggested by the Committee on Constitution, or that they have made an attempt. If you will look over this long list of thirteen groups, it classifies the workers according to the industry in which they are at work and with the workers whom they probably are in harmony with altogether.
DEL. WHITE: I want to ask one question, so that I will be cleared up. No matter what sort of an organization we form, no matter what plan we get, can we avoid the aristocratic feature in the organization, can we get rid of the aristocratic idea that separates locomotive engineers from laborers?
DEL. CRONIN: The Constitution Committee, in making this report, reported to this convention that they intended to submit to the convention for their consideration a skeleton of the constitution. Therefore I say that they have no right to draw up a large chart setting forth the different departments for the various organizations that desire to affiliate whenever it shall be established. For this reason there is a lot of international unions formed upon the industrial line in America to-day that I believe are all ready to join this organization, providing they can come in here as an industrial union and not be combined with any other distinct craft or calling or any other industry. Consequently I say that we should form our industrial union on industrial lines, not upon a chart where you put together different industries in certain departments.
DEL. MURTAUGH: I have listened very attentively to the various remarks on this subject, and it seems to me that the entire thing is a tempest in a teapot. I can see absolutely nothing in the grouping as put forth in that chart other than an apology for craft unionism as it exists to-day. We each and every one of us who believe in industrial organization, perhaps have in our own minds a plan drawn upon which we believe the industrial organization should be built. I want to say that in so far as my conception of industrial organization is concerned, it means entirely the solidarity of which we spoke so much in the beginning of this convention and of which we are beginning to lose sight now when confronted with the practical problem. That was all I desired to say, Mr. President.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any further remarks on the question?
Question called for.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Coates has the floor for the closing remarks.
DEL. COATES: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates: I am not dismayed by anything that has been said in opposition. I am rather surprised, however, to hear some remarks that have been made, particularly the remark of Delegate Sherman when he intended to carry out the impression that I stood for the old-line craft organization. Now, he knows better than that. I want to say to the delegates of this convention that another impression that Delegate Sherman gave out, I think is an error; not deliberately used, I don’t believe, to sway this convention, but at the same time having that tendency; and that was that this “wheel of fortune” up here—I cannot call it anything else—was a part and parcel of the Manifesto. I want to deny that it is a part of the Manifesto. It has been said so by one of the originators of this call. It was not, and I have not heard anybody on this floor say that it was except as intimated by Delegate Sherman—if he intended to stick to the Manifesto—maintaining or intimating that that was part of it.
I can agree with every argument that has been made upon this floor for one general centralized head and one general central organization. Mr. President and fellow delegates, I would rather, I would prefer, if you please, to vote for a motion to make it one organization of all the workers of the world if it was practical. (Applause.) The only plea that I have to make now is for a practical organization; an organization that is going to be built up and succeed and go to the lengths that you want to go finally. I want the delegates to remember this Preamble to the constitution as you have heard it read, and see if my amendment does not fit absolutely in place with that Preamble and constitution, and that this wheel does not fit in it. In my opinion the wheel limits this organization. One craft or trade that has been mentioned that usually makes up a part of an industrial group must go in that industrial group. If it does not it will simply be turned over, as somebody has said, into another industrial group. But nevertheless, it must go into some other group of those thirteen. My amendment simply is, and really carries out the intent and spirit of the constitution further on, to give the Executive Board the power to really limit or designate the limits of an organization. It does not fix any limit. It simply says that it shall be made up of national and international organizations organized upon the industrial plan, and that it shall be left to the Executive Board of this organization to say what plan they shall organize on.
In that connection, before I forget it, I want to see, fellow delegates, that we are organizing something now that is the most practical plan, the most feasible plan, to give us a year or two years from now just exactly the groupings into which we should form the workers of these United States—or of this organization, rather. I believe that if we go into the field purely and solely on the central idea that brought this convention together, on the industrial plan, and leave the lines of that industrial organization to the Executive Board, we will be in a far better position a year hence or two years hence to put this organization on the best possible foundation to bring the desired results, the abolition, if you please, of the wage system itself. I believe that just as soon as we go before the mass of the workers with this division, you are immediately going to build up a Chinese wall that you are not going to get over in time to organize this movement. That is the only thing I am afraid of, and I want to say that I want to see this movement go. I have no desire except to build it up and see it go.
Now, there has somebody said—and it seemed to be the general idea, the principal argument he made against the amendment—that capital is organized world-wide and operates world-wide. I want to say to every one of the delegates that have made that statement, that the development of capital is industrial, and you cannot deny it or you cannot prove it otherwise. Whenever capital goes into the railroad business it organizes a railroad company, and the railroad companies, variously as they are grouped together, come together as railroad companies. Whenever the same men who are interested in these railway companies want to go into the newspaper business they organize a separate company and go into the newspaper business, and that company has absolutely nothing to do with the railroad business. When they go into the restaurant business—
DEL. DE LEON: Tut! Tut! Tut!
DEL. COATES: Well, I want somebody to prove otherwise, and I will be very willing to have them do it—whenever they go into the restaurant business they operate along the same line. That is just exactly how capital is operating in the present development of the economic system. That is the way, Mr. President, I am satisfied every one of the originators of this call had the intention that we should form this organization. I do not believe it was the intention to do anything else except to organize an industrial union.
Let me bring out another feature. Delegate Gilbert over here, in attempting to align the hotel or laundry people with the printers, attempted to say that identity of interest came in this direction, that when the laundry people went on strike, was it right to see the newspaper employes, for instance, continue to set up and print lies about the laundry people? This organization has already put it into the power, and we have all agreed on it—put it into the power of the Executive Board that just as soon as, within their judgment, another industry should be called out in order to protect the interests of those on strike, that that too shall be added to the strike number. We can group one industry after an another until we get them all. That is exactly the way that we ought to operate, and that is exactly in line with the amendment that I made to this motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question now devolves on the motion—
DEL. COATES: I ask the convention to kindly allow me just a few more words.
DEL. DE LEON: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN (Delegate J. C. Sullivan in the chair): The rule is ten minutes. The, question is on the—
DEL. SHERMAN: I move that his time be extended. I move a suspension of the rules. (Seconded.)
DEL. MCDONALD: I move a suspension of the rules and that Delegate Coates be given further time. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the rules be suspended and that Delegate Coates be given further time. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for.) Those in favor of the question will say aye. Contrary no. The motion seems to be carried. The motion is carried. Delegate Coates has the floor.
DEL. COATES: I want to thank the delegates for this extension of time. I want to say that perhaps to some of you I have seemed to occupy the time of this convention, but I do not believe anybody can say that I have occupied it uselessly. I have tried to occupy the time at least according to the best light that I had in me to see the proper thing to do. I want to bring this out as fair as I possibly can, to get the delegates to realize what we are doing. That is the only intent I have. I want to say that I do not believe that I have another single solitary objection to this entire constitution. The first amendment I made was serious to a certain extent, but not to a very great extent; but this thing I believe is a serious proposition. I believe that either the failure or the success of this organization depends on the very section of the constitution that we are going to adopt or amend right now.
At the request of a delegate the pending amendment was read by the Secretary.
DEL. COATES: This means that every man and woman working in an industry shall become a member of his or her organization, that is, the organization of that industry. To put it plainly I want the principle established that a man, woman or child that has anything to do with the printing industry shall go into one industry. I want the restaurant and hotel people to go into one industry. I want them simply, just as soon as they come into the same craft or the same calling where they work shoulder to shoulder, where their everyday lives are bound together—those are the people that I want to come into one industry.
There was something said about the centralization of power. I am not attempting to touch on that, because I said a few minutes ago that the Executive Board of this organization will have all power to wheel into line in every industrial controversy every member of this organization. Now, let me ask—I have tried to find out if I possibly can—how are the local unions of these various groups to be organized? If I had this section here, if I had the wheel very close to me, I could tell you the fourteen or fifteen different organizations that are grouped together in one group. Let us take the last one; that is the one I remember more particularly. The highways, the people who work on the streets and in the parks, the people who are musicians, the people who are working in hotels and restaurants, the people who work in laundries, the people who work in the printing industry and two or three other industries, are grouped together. And, my friends, that group, I want you to understand, simply means one organization. This means a number of organizations simply allotted in a group. It means that the laundry workers, the street car drivers, the workers upon the highways and in the parks, the musicians, the employes in restaurants and hotels, the employes in the printing offices, shall all become individual members of one great international organization. Here we are. Here we have got a local organization of that group. You are a printer; I am a clerk of some different kind. It means fourteen or fifteen of us in a distinct branch. Are we going to make that up that way, or are we going to separate all those various locals as restaurant employes, as printers, street car drivers, musicians and so on? If we do separate them—and some one has made the remark that we will have local trade unions—then you are doing the very thing perhaps that I want you to do, only you are going about it a hundred times more difficult. If you do not divide them up that way, I want to say to you that just as soon as the street car men or the laundry workers get into a difficulty that means a strike, that means a per capita tax on the printers and the other fellows, then in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred he will be outvoted in his local craft union and he will never get a strike and he will never make a demand for a betterment of his condition. I want to say to the delegates of this convention that that was the fatal weakness of the Knights of Labor; that was the very thing that destroyed the Knights of Labor, if you please. We had the clerk, the building laborer, the street car man, the mill worker, the laundry worker in every one of these assemblies of the Knights of Labor. That was its very weakness, and after a while the K. of L. found that it had to organize assemblies of different trades and different crafts. That is the point that I am trying to make clear to this convention; that if we are to be grouped in this indiscriminate way we are not going to make any progress at all. If you are going to group us simply this way nationally and then separate us this way locally, you are going to destroy the very scheme of industrial union that we are here laboring so hard to bring about. I want to say to you delegates that there is only one feasible way for this organization to operate on, and that is to organize nationally or locally the industries as they are grouped upon the industrial field, and then wheel into line behind every section or every industry that is on strike or in difficulty every other industry that comes within the confines of this organization. (Applause.)
There are one or two features of this thing that I intended to bring out, but I believe with my last illustration you catch the idea that I am trying to bring out. You catch the scheme that I believe you will find yourselves involved in if you vote for the provision as brought in by the committee. And I want to say to every one of these committeemen, every single solitary one, that I will be the last on this floor to criticize their acts. I am not standing on this floor criticizing the acts of the committee, but I simply realize that they are a part of this convention and that the convention as a whole has a right to criticize or amend or change any work of any committee.
And now, Mr. President, in closing, I want again to appeal to this organization to look at this if they can in a practical light. A few days ago when I addressed this convention on the purposes of this organization, I said that we want to fix in mind the goal of this organization, the abolition of the wage system. But I warned you at that time that in order to bring the wage workers into an organization of that kind we must build a practical organization; an organization that will go out here to-morrow and begin the struggle for the bread and butter question of to-morrow; an organization that will battle, if you please, for a reduction of the hours of labor tomorrow, for an increase of wages to-morrow, for the right of the workers of the world to organize to-morrow; and I want the delegates to set all this other sentiment aside and give us for the emancipation of the workers an organization along the lines of the Manifesto that has called us together. (Applause.)
DEL. DE LEON: I rise for information. Have I the floor to ask a question?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
DEL. DE LEON: I would like to ask Delegate Coates through the Chair whether I understand him rightly to say that if his plan goes through there would be nothing else to change in this proposed program. Did I understand him to say that?
DEL. COATES: I said, as far as I know, I did not have another single objection. There may be, of course, if I find myself mistaken. I do not think so, however.
DEL. DE LEON: My next question is whether—
DEL. COATES: Just a moment, before you ask me another. I am not going to be tied up here. I meant that if there is something that comes up that is not in conformity with this amendment I am going to make it right.
DEL. DE LEON: I did not mean to tie him up; I simply meant to understand. He is an intelligent man, and seemed to understand the whole scope of the constitution, although he cannot have preserved an accurate memory of every detail, but he must have in his mind what that scheme is. Consequently in proposing a thing of this sort I understand him that it is his opinion that his plan can be substituted for these arbitrary groups and the whole scheme is not thereby smashed.
DEL. COATES: I think not.
DEL. DE LEON: I understand you rightly.
DEL. COATES: Yes.
DEL. DE LEON: My next question to him is, how many heads would there be in this industrial organization? Would we, according to his plan, have to recognize an executive head, a central administrative body? Of how many members would that executive body consist, as, a result of his plan?
DEL. COATES: He might ask me, if it takes me two-and-a-half hours to go over to my room when will the next 4th of July occur? It would occupy too much time to go over that now. If anybody wants to go over to my room I will go into the matter fully.
DEL. DE LEON: Well, I am glad of your answer.
DEL. COATES: I think it is just about as sensible as the question. How can I tell you? How can any man tell how many groups there will be? That is just exactly the reason I don’t want any line drawn.
DEL. DE LEON: That answer also suits me. I now want to ask the delegate this third question—whether I understand him rightly to say, that when the capitalists wanted to organize a railroad company it is made up of railroad men?
DEL. COATES: No, I didn’t say any such thing.
DEL. DE LEON: Let me put my question straight, and not cut my question in two.
DEL. COATES: Yes.
DEL. DE LEON: And when they want to organize a newspaper they gather as newspaper men and not as railroad men?
DEL. COATES: You did not understand me in that way. I said this, that when capitalists want to organize a railroad they organize a railroad company. I did not say the men on the railroad at all. I said that when they wanted to publish a newspaper they organized as a newspaper company. That is what I said. I don’t understand the purport of all these little foxy questions at all. (Laughter and applause).
At this point, at six o’clock, the convention adjourned until tomorrow, July 5th.
• Day 8, Morning Session : Wednesday, July 5
The convention was called to order at 9.20 by Chairman Haywood.
The roll of delegates was called by the Secretary.
The Secretary read the minutes of the previous day’s sessions.
CHAIRMAN: You have heard the reading of the minutes. Are there any corrections? I would ask that the Secretary insert the correct number where the vote on the roll call occurs.
THE SECRETARY: The number was 47,728 against the amendment; 3,540 for the amendment.
The minutes were then approved.
The following communication was received from the Socialist Labor Party at Pittsburg, Pa., and on motion it was placed on file:
Pittsburg, Pa., July 4.
The Industrial Union Convention, W. E. Trautmann, Secretary, Brand’s Hall: Comrades, the Socialist Labor Party of Pennsylvania in State Convention assembled at Pittsburg, in the name of the oncoming revolution greet you. Hew to the line of class-conscious solidarity; make no mistake, give us a working men’s and working women’s organization, as harsh and radical as capitalism itself.
D. E. Gilchrist, Sec’y convention, Osmond Hall, 1921 Carson Street, S. S. Pittsburg, Pa.
No report was offered by the Committee on credentials.
DEL. DANIEL MCDONALD: As a member of the committee appointed yesterday for the purpose of a ratification meeting, I will state that the committee has made arrangements to use this hall Friday night, the 7th, and the committee is arranging to advertise the proposition as extensively as the occasion justifies. I believe that is all that the committee has to report.
DEL. Schwartz: A point of information. I would like to ask if the committee has decided upon the list of speakers.
DEL. MCDONALD: Yes, I will state that the committee has agreed upon four speakers: upon Mr. Debs, Mr. Moyer, Mr. Coates and Mr. Sherman as the four principal speakers.
DEL. BARTLETT: Is a motion in order?
THE CHAIRMAN: We are listening now to the report of the committee. Do you want to make a motion as to this report?
DEL. BRADLEY: I would like to amend that by adding Comrade De Leon’s name.
DEL. KNIGHT: I would like to ask that committee how it is that the press gets these reports before the convention gets them. All that has been reported by that committee appears in this morning’s paper.
DEL. MCDONALD: I will state, Mr. President, that the committee thought it was proper for them to get the matter advertised as extensively as possible, and if this paper desired to advertise it it is entirely satisfactory to the committee, and we simply announced that to the newspaper men yesterday afternoon. That is how it came to get into the papers.
DEL. KLEMENSIC: Since we know the names of the four speakers that are intended to speak at that meeting, and I do not see any one from the Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance, I would like to have some comrade from the Socialist & Labor Alliance also speak at that meeting.
DEL. McDonald: I will state that the committee on speakers at the ratification meeting agreed upon this plan: that Eugene V. Debs was representing the Socialists and the radical element in this convention; that Delegates Moyer, Coates and Sherman were representing the trades union end of the proposition, and in that way all the elements in this convention were honestly represented as the speakers are appointed by this committee.
DEL. KIEHN: I move you that the following comrades be added to the list of speakers: Comrade De Leon, Hagerty, Haywood and Trautmann. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the four names just read be added to the number of speakers at that meeting. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. GUY MILLER: At first there were a great many candidates to be placed on the speakers’ list. At first the committee would have been glad to hear from all of them, but we realized that time was to be considered in this matter. The number of members of the various organizations represented here was taken into consideration, the Western Federation of Miners being the most numerous; and while personally I wanted very much to have the worthy Chairman of this convention on the list of speakers, yet we realized that we had the lion’s share of the honors of this convention. President Moyer had hardly been heard from, and so he was chosen for that place. Now, we thought this is to be purely a trades union meeting, for the purpose of putting before the people the principles of industrial unionism. More than that, we considered also something of the wrangle, something of the ill feeling that has characterized certain sections represented in the convention, and for that reason we thought it best that certain names be left off the program. These matters were talked over, perhaps with some energy, during that committee’s session. I want to say, however, that so far as the members of that committee were concerned, we did not participate in that spirit. The only question which we asked ourselves was, as to what names would contribute most largely to the success of that meeting, and we decided accordingly. Now, if three more names are added to the list of speakers furnished by the committee, it simply means that every man’s time will be cut to such a short limit that he will be unable to enter into details and give this meeting what the people ought to have and what they expect.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: Mr. Chairman, I desire to have my name taken off there, as I am not a candidate; but I want to say that this committee, in my opinion, does not represent the big end of what they call this wrangle, and I see in their report a direct slur at the Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance, and particularly at Brother De Leon, who has fought so valiantly for this economic organization. This ratification meeting is for the purpose of showing that at last the workers have got together on the common ground of an economic organization of the working class. Brother De Leon through thick and thin has stood for an economic organization of the working class when to stand for it was to be denounced by the entire American Fakiration of Labor from New York to San Francisco, and if any one in this convention represents an uncompromising fight for an economic organization such as we hope to establish here, that one is Brother De Leon. (Applause).
DEL. RIORDAN: I want to ask the committee a question. Very recently I saw where Eugene V. Debs was wanted in Montana. I would like to ask the committee if they have any assurance that he will be here on Friday evening. If not, it appears to me that we should make some arrangement to have some one to speak in his stead; that is, if we are to decide on adopting the report of the committee.
DEL. Sauer: I will state, in answer to that question, that the committee was practically, while not positively, assured that Mr. Debs would be here on Thursday night, and that he would be in the convention on Friday and that he would be at the meeting on Friday night. Although the committee is not in a position to guarantee to this convention that Mr. Debs will be here, I believe and it is the belief of the committee that he will be here.
DEL. Bradley: As a member of the committee makes the statement that Delegate Debs represents the radical element, I, as one of the radical element, do not believe that Debs represents our ideas at all. I believe he represents the conservative element in this convention; for that reason I do not think he is a representative at all.
DEL. M. P. HAGGERTY, BUTTE: I am in favor of the proposed addition of the names read by this brother here; not on account of the names of the men, but on account of the intellect that they possess. It seems to me that if there is one thing that the laboring man in this country needs to-day, that one thing is a man or men with intellect enough to lead the people right. I believe our past history has conclusively proved that it has been a case of the blind leading the blind, and so we all fall into the ditch. We want intelligence in the labor movement; not men who have got only ordinary intelligence. We want the best we can get, and prejudice and personal feelings should be cut entirely out of this, and let us take the men who are capable of teaching, capable of instructing, giving us more knowledge, which is something that we are hunting for. If De Leon or Hagerty or anybody else has got this knowledge to give, then I say that prejudice should not keep those men from teaching the people. Let us have the best we have, got, and that is none too good. (Applause)
DEL. Luella Twining: I do not want to take part in any factional strife. I am very anxious to hear Debs and the other speakers, but I think the people that come here will want to hear Delegate De Leon. I would like to hear him, and I think his name ought to be added to the list of speakers.
DEL. DINGER: I move to amend that the list of speakers be Eugene V. Debs, Daniel De Leon, Brother T. J. Hagerty, Brother Coates, and so on along down the line as the committee has recommended. I forget the names—Brothers Moyer and Sherman. I move that as an amendment.
A DELEGATE: I move that the name of Thomas J. Hagerty be added to the list of names of speakers.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is already covered by the amendment. You have heard the amendment offered by the delegate over here. Your amendment to the amendment is out of order.
DEL. JAMES SMITH: I believe it would be to the benefit of the meeting to have Mr. De Leon as a speaker at this mass meeting; not because he represents one faction in this convention, but because he represents the cause for which we have come here. Therefore I hope and trust that the delegates assembled in this convention will be consistent enough and broad enough in not only asking but insisting on him, if possible, to be there as a speaker to address them on that evening.
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment is that the names of Delegates De Leon, Hagerty, Haywood and Sherman be added to the list selected by the committee. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). Those in favor of the amendment will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The amendment is carried. Now, what do you desire to do with the report of your committee as amended?
It was moved and seconded that the report be concurred in.
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the report of the committee be adopted as amended. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. MOYER: I shall have to ask the convention at this time—I do not think any explanation on my part is necessary—that my name be taken from the list of speakers. I have a reason for this, but I do not care to go into details with the convention. I would ask that my name be taken from the list of speakers. I do not want to be arbitrary and insist that it be taken from the list, but I ask that the convention do that.
DEL. DAVIS: Is the motion before the house for discussion again?
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion before the house is to adopt the report of the committee as the list of names has been amended. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. DAVIS: Now, I voted against that amendment for this reason: I believe that the list of speakers should include one name, one individual rather, representing the Western Federation of Miners, one representing the American Labor Union, and one speaker representing the American Labor Union, and one speaker representing the Socialist sentiment of this organization, believing that three speakers will be plenty for one meeting. Therefore I voted against the amendment. Believing that still, I am now opposed to the report as amended, and I hope that the good sense and judgment of this meeting will try to limit the list of speakers. We know that there are very few men that have the faculty of expressing very much to a large audience in the short period of time which will be allotted to them if you have a great number of speakers. I hope you will act along this line; otherwise I will have to vote against the amendment.
DEL. DANIEL MCDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the committee on mass meeting thoroughly discussed and thrashed out the very proposition that is before the convention this very minute. The committee would have been glad to have selected all the gentlemen who are now mentioned by the various gentlemen in this convention. In addition to that, Mother Jones was talked of as being one of those speakers, and nearly every one of the names that have been mentioned was talked of by this committee. The committee, however, believed that it would be impossible to hold the crowd for more than about two hours or two hours and a half at the outside, and that each one of those speakers probably would consume about thirty minutes. Starting at eight o’clock, which was agreed upon by the committee, it would hold the meeting until about ten o’clock. Now, then, if we are to add four more speakers to this proposition, neither one of the speakers will have an opportunity to do anymore than simply pledge his support, without any explanation of what industrial unionism is to the people who come here, thus doing, in my opinion as the chairman of that committee, an injustice to the people who come here for the purpose of hearing something about industrial unionism. Those men who have been selected are the men who are presidents and chief representatives of the different organizations that are going to become a part of this organization and who will put their organizations into this new organization, and those are the men that we want to have the assurance of as the chief officials of the three organizations mentioned, such as the Western Federation of Miners, the American Labor Union and the United Metal Workers’ International Union. They are the men that represent the largest portion of this proposition, the chief proportion of the new organization, and it was the intention of the committee to have those men give their views upon the industrial union proposition; and the committee went to the trouble of seeing the three of them who are here, and we hope to correspond or get in communication with Mr. Debs by wire as to whether he will be here or not, and in the event of Mr. Debs not coming, the committee expect to substitute some one else. But it strikes me that by putting on this large list of speakers at this meeting neither one of the speakers will do the organization or himself justice.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: A matter of information. In several conversations that I have had with Brother Debs in the last two weeks he personally stated to me that it was his desire to appear on the same platform in a ratification meeting with Brother De Leon on this question. (Applause). I also state that I have withdrawn my name from that list and am not a candidate.
DEL. ROBINSON: I shall vote against the report of the committee, for I do not believe that it is the sentiment of the convention. I would like to see the speakers’ selected by the delegates to this convention.
DEL. PHIL. VEAL: We as members of the working class have come here for a purpose. That purpose is to line up along the line of solidarity. Now; then, from now on there is no A. L. U., there is no Western Federation of Miners, neither is there a Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance. We merge what is known by those names into the industrial union. But we must profit by the experience of the past, where men have fought for this idea that we are about to launch. The men and women who come here, many of them, have listened to some of these speakers before, but as a wage slave of the mines I want to get the expression of Haywood, I want to see Moyer, and I want to see all these men who have fought, and I want to see Comrade De Leon. I have never heard them before an audience nor in this convention. Hence we must get them on a platform, and recognize the fact that the American proletariat of this age has put them on record where they clasp the hand, not only of international industrial unionism, but the hand of solidarity, pledging themselves to the workingmen of Chicago that from now on they will fight under the same banner. (Applause). We demand as workingmen that these men be given a place. We won’t solve the problem or educate the workingmen in one meeting. It has got to be fought out with the organizers and the agitators when they leave this convention hall. We want to have that spirit of solidarity so engrafted into the minds of the working class of this city to start with that it is beyond the breath of suspicion that here is any prejudice. Hence I stand absolutely for the support of the amendment which says that we shall add these four names.
DEL. DE LEON: It has been carried.
DEL. VEAL: I stand for that proposition that we add these comrades, and refuse absolutely to allow Comrade Moyer to withdraw from this list, because we want to see these men face to face, and I express the sentiments of the men who sent me here.
DEL. SCHATZKE: A point of information. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to have another meeting Saturday night and allow these men to express themselves? I believe there are a great many people here in Chicago who would be glad to come back two nights to hear the expressions of these people on the principles of industrial unionism.
DEL. CRANSTON: I think we ought to have about three meetings. Delegate Schatzke is all right. Any speaker that gets on the platform cannot expect to cover the question so that it will be understood by the mass of the people that come here, under thirty or forty minutes, possibly longer. We took Brother Debs, believing that he as a trades unionist was in a position to explain all that was necessary. There is no objection, I think, on the part of the committee to adding Brother De Leon, but we cannot have too many speakers because it will not permit any one to do full justice to the subject. I do not think the committee would object to De Leon’s name being added, but I do not think the convention ought to put on more than one more if we want to give them all time to speak. There will be hundreds of people coming to this meeting to hear this question discussed, and I do not think it would be just and fair to allow the speakers’ time to be cut down as you have suggested.
DEL. DINGER: I move as a substitute for the report of this committee that this convention select the speakers and the order in which they are to speak.
DEL. SAUER: I want to understand what this ratification meeting is for. Is it to explain industrial unionism to the people, the crowd who will be here at the meeting, or is it to show that all the factions on this floor are united?
THE CHAIRMAN: The word “ratification” suggests that it is for the purpose of showing that we are united.
DEL. BRADLEY: I would like to ask if this committee was not given full power to act in regard to the speakers, soliciting for the hall, advertising and so on? If I understand the thing right, they had full power to act, and with that understanding this convention should abide by the decision of the committee. If they don’t want to do that, I say discharge the committee and appoint the speakers at this time, right here. I make that as an amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Before the motion is put the chair wants to say this to the convention, that the name of Haywood will have to be taken from the list, as I expect the work of this convention will be concluded before that time and I will not be in the city. However, it will be necessary for President Moyer to remain here, and I am in hopes that the convention will not find it in their wisdom to permit him, unless he insists upon it, to withdraw his name from that list of speakers, because he can tell you many things that will be of interest to the industrial union movement, representing, as he does, one of the most perfect industrial organizations in this country. The motion is to adopt—
DEL. COATES: Before the motion is put I want to tell the convention that I will be very glad to give any time that may be allotted to me to the other speakers that have been mentioned.
A DELEGATE: Are we to vote on this report as amended with the names of Hagerty and Haywood omitted?
THE CHAIRMAN: You are to vote on the motion as amended.
DEL. DINGER: Was my substitute out of order? I think it was seconded.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the report of your committee, and it was amended by adding four names. Delegate Hagerty requests that his name be withdrawn, and I request that my name be withdrawn.
DEL. MOYER: I had hoped that this convention would give me the consideration that I asked for and take my name from the list of speakers. I will have now to say to the convention that it will be impossible for me to speak in this hall on Friday evening. I do not want to disappoint anybody by permitting my name to be included in this list of speakers, when I am satisfied at this time that I will not be able to address a meeting here on Friday night. I desire to see the Western Federation of Miners represented on this list of speakers, and I would ask that the name of James A. Baker, of British Columbia, be placed on the list of speakers.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion occurs on the report of your committee amended. Those in favor will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The proposition is to add the two names, Trautmann and De Leon, to the report of the committee. Those in favor of the report as amended will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The ayes seem to have it; the motion is carried.
DELEGATE PAYMENT: It would be wise to have an understanding now as to whether Brother Moyer is to speak or Brother Baker. He asked that he be excused and have in his place Brother Baker, of British Columbia.
THE CHAIRMAN: The request will have to be arranged with the committee. —Reports of standing committees. The Constitution Committee, on Section 2 of Article I.
DEL. COATES: Do I understand that we are to vote for now?
THE CHAIRMAN: Sir?
DEL. COATES: As I understand it, the debate and argument was closed last night, and we now vote.
THE CHAIRMAN: No, sir.
DEL. COATES: Well, now, of course I do not want to continue to be interrupted on a proposition of this kind. I am willing to leave it to the rules of the convention or to the convention, as far as that is concerned, but certainly—
DEL. SHERMAN: A point of order. I understood the chair to announce yesterday afternoon that everybody was to speak that desired to on that question, and that Delegate Coates was to make his closing argument. He did so, and he closed and the convention adjourned at that time.
A DELEGATE: I believe Brother Coates stated that he desired the floor after all the delegates had spoken who wanted to, and that he would be given the privilege of the floor to close.
DEL. KLEMENSIC: I move you that we have a further extension of time to discuss the matter. (Seconded).
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded—it occurs to me that there is no occasion for a motion.
DEL. Klemensic: Well.
THE CHAIRMAN: If there is any delegate that desires to speak on the question he may.
DEL. COATES: I haven’t objection to anybody speaking. If we are going to open up this debate again I am gong to claim the right of the mover of the motion. I want to make another speech, too. I want that thing understood before this thing is opened up.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you make a motion for further debate?
DEL. KLEMENSIC: That further discussion on Section 2, Article I., of the constitution be allowed.
DEL. DE LEON: Does the chair entertain that motion?
THE CHAIRMAN: In view of the ruling of the chair in my absence yesterday, the chair will entertain this motion that there be further discussion.
DEL. COATES: Do I understand you will entertain a motion to suspend the rules and have discussion?
THE CHAIRMAN: To suspend the rules and open up this question for discussion.
DEL. DE LEON: A point of order. My point of order is that the rules were suspended yesterday, and when the rules were suspended the delegate who then had the close was given unlimited time, and I had the floor to ask some question, and at that point the convention adjourned. The rules are suspended now, and the subject is no longer open under the rules. That is my understanding.
THE CHAIRMAN: If that is the understanding of the convention, motion—
DEL. DE LEON: I would like to have a ruling from the chair. My point of order is that upon the vote of this convention the rules were suspended, the convention adjourned, and consequently we are no longer discussing under the rules. I would like to get a ruling upon that. I simply request a ruling from the chair, without any debate from the floor. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?
THE CHAIRMAN: It is correct.
DEL. COATES: I am opposed to that kind of snap judgment. I simply want to call your attention to this rule. The rule shows that my time was extended by the convention; the rules have not been suspended absolutely, no.
DEL. DINGER: The motion was to suspend the rules.
THE SECRETARY: The motion reads that the rules be suspended and Delegate Coates be given an extension of time, and the motion carried.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: According to the rules governing bodies, when that session adjourned that session ends. We did not recess last night; we adjourned till this morning, and with that the session ends and, the rules operate again. The rule was only suspended during yesterday. If we had recessed till nine o’clock this morning this suspension would still have been in effect, but the convention adjourned and this is a new session.
THE CHAIRMAN: In the opinion of the chair, Section 2, Article I. occupies the same position as if there had been no discussion on it. What is the pleasure of the convention?
DEL. COATES: I just want to ask for information. The position of the chair is that I have a right to close the debate?
THE CHAIRMAN: You have the right to close the debate.
DEL. COATES: That is all.
DEL. DE LEON: The only reason I take the floor is that I consider the matter under discussion—Section 2 and the Coates amendment—infinitely more important than the matter of a name, and I do not believe it is the purpose of the committee to railroad anything through this convention. It cannot be our purpose, nor do I believe it is the purpose of those opposed to the proposition of the committee to carry anything highhandedly, by force of votes. I proceed upon the theory that we all desire that when this convention adjourns we can all be agreed, if not upon the wisdom of what was done, nevertheless agreed upon what was actually done. After the address of Delegate Coates it was clear to me that whichever way the vote went—and I have no doubt as to how that vote will go—whichever way the vote went, there would be a vast amount of misconception upon what was voted, or upon what the committee actually proposed. For that reason I took the floor, notwithstanding the lateness of the hour and the condition of the convention, to ask Delegate Coates the questions that I did, and get the answers which I needed for my argument.
I asked Delegate Coates whether I understood him correctly, that he believed that his proposed substitute will not materially affect the structure proposed by the committees and I understood him to say—you are my judges whether I report him correctly or not—I understood him to say that, while he did not want to be bound down by any set of words, that that was his impression. I shall show you that the Coates amendment would smash the structure proposed by your committee. Right here let me say that it is no argument against an argument that a brick proposed to be substituted would smash the structure of the committee. That is no argument against such a brick. It may be a desirable thing to smash that structure. The structure of the committee may be wrong; the brick proposed to be substituted by Delegate Coates may be a good brick; and if so made clear, I am sure that the committee jointly with the convention will join hands in smashing that structure. But it is well that when that proposed brick is voted on we vote on it with a clear knowledge as to what its effect will be. I repeat that it is of itself, no argument against Delegate Coates’s brick that it would smash the structure proposed by the committee; but we should know whether it will or not. It won’t do to vote for that brick, or favor that brick thinking it to be an innocent brick, and that it will not smash the structure, and then find that the brick was full of dynamite and that it brings the structure down over our ears. If that is understood I shall proceed.
I asked Delegate Coates how many industrial unions and industrial international unions he thinks would have to go into that body according to his proposition. He did not answer me, but I do not need him for that. Delegate Smith, who stands with Delegate Coates upon that matter, did not have to indulge in astronomical calculations about the next 4th of July to come to a conclusion. He stated, as I remember, that he thinks the number of industrial international and national unions would not be to exceed sixteen.
Isn’t that it?
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: I said I did not think to exceed twenty.
DEL. DE LEON: That it would not exceed twenty. Very well, I accept that. He at any rate stated a figure. Now we have something to go by. I disagree with Delegate Smith that it would not exceed twenty. I am of the opinion that twenty is about one-half the number that would have to be entered on the list. I believe that forty is nearer to the truth, to the correct number, than twenty. Aye, twice as many as forty. Now, I shall take his position presently, but follow my theory for the present. If I am right that the present constitution of the unions will make it impossible to have only twenty of these organizations—if I am right that it will take at least forty, what will be the result? The structure of the committee is industrialism. But industrialism is not a thing of one thing only. Industrialism means a number of things, and among the things that industrialism means is the establishment of an organization so centralized that it can act quickly and as one man. Whatever name you give to something else—call it a thousand times industrialism—if it is not so centralized that it will act promptly, that it can act promptly and as one man, the name of industrialism given to it is a snare and a delusion. Now, then, if I am right that it will take at least forty, is it imaginable that the presidents of these forty international and national unions can constitute a central authority sufficiently centralized to preserve that feature of the structure proposed by the committee? I say no. Forty men is too large a number. You cannot have centralized authority with forty men. This is no longer a matter open to discussion, it is a matter established by human experience. A deliberative body is one thing, an executive body another. You want a smaller body than that to accomplish executive purposes. But now, suppose that, in order to save that feature of industrialism, you, instead of having all the presidents of these forty national and international industrial unions represented, you reduce them below that number, to a number of members of an Executive Board small enough to preserve that centralized and executive power—where do we land? We land right back into the A. F. of L. principle where many of the organizations that are considered integral parts of the whole are not represented, but are wholly ignored on the Executive Board. On the executive board of Gompers organization you have seven men, and you have industrial, national and autonomous unions galore, notwithstanding that, only seven men, only seven officers of seven of these “autonomous” bodies, act as the executive board. A preposterous idea! For an executive board, an effective industrial executive board, it must not only be a small body, but it must be a body consisting of individuals who directly represent their respective constituencies.. My theory is that at least forty such industrial bodies would be needed by the Coates plan. If my theory is right, then you are before this dilemma: either an Executive Board that has no centralized power and won’t have it on account of its numbers; or, if you want to reduce the number, they cease to be direct representatives. But perhaps my theory is wrong. Perhaps Delegate Smith’s theory is correct, that the number would not exceed twenty. I ask you to watch and follow me closely; I am willing to be pinned down to my words; I believe in a man being held to what he says, otherwise we tumble into hopelessly unintelligible confusion. If I am mistaken I shall be glad to be corrected, and if you want to find out my mistake follow me closely. I now take up the theory of Delegate Smith that it will need no more than twenty international unions as a maximum. What will be the result? Just watch. The unions are to-day absolutely interdependent; labor has become interdependent; you cannot think of any one trade but it dove-tails with. another, and is, in turn dove-tailed with by others. Take for instance the Western Federation of Miners; all the men working around the mines, whether they are directly engaged in digging ore or not, are working interdependently, and so are the unions of the crafts. You all know—I hope you do—that there are infinitely more unions, national and international, than twenty. It follows that under the Smith figures and the Coates proposed brick, there will have to be an immediate wiping out of the individual character and autonomy of at least sixty organizations. Under the Smith figure and the Coates system you would then have twenty organizations, twenty national or international unions, and these twenty national or international unions would have to draw to themselves rapidly, quickly, without any period of transition, all the other unions that are over and in excess of that number, and which have kindred qualities with the prevailing twenty. That is a most drastic proposition. It leaves no time for transition. Those men will have to go in immediately, or if not immediately, whenever they do go in they find absolutely no autonomy for their trade. They disappear. It may be compositors and machinists; it may be woodworkers and carpenters, if you like; it may be electricians and mechanical workers, whose work dove-tails very extensively. Nevertheless, those organizations exist to-day, and under that system their autonomy will vanish absolutely, destroying the quality of their occupation which compels and necessitates the continuity of that autonomy. Now, that is a drastic method. Now, what does the committee propose? Delegate Coates asked, “What do you want? Do you want to rule your individuals as a mass, or do you want them separated as locals?” Or would you have this or that or the other?
THE CHAIRMAN: Your time is up.
DEL. JACKSON: I move that Delegate De Leon’s time be extended as provided for by the rules. (Seconded by Delegate Coates).
A DELEGATE: Under the ruling it is not necessary to have this motion. According to the ruling of the chair here the rules were suspended yesterday. You sustained that decision this morning, and it is not necessary for the motion at the present time. Delegate De Leon has the floor until he is done speaking.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question is that the time of Brother De Leon be extended. Those in favor of the motion signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried.
DEL. DE LEON: I do not want to consider this motion as a personal compliment to me. I wish to consider that in voting as you have just done you simply realize that it is important that you should know what you are voting for. (Applause) Delegate Coates asked this question: “What do you propose? Do you propose this or that or the other?” There was no occasion for any such questions. The committee’s proposition is clear on that head. The only explanation I can find for those questions is the difficulty of any person’s remembering a long document which he hears read only once. Now, what does the committee propose? Among the things that the committee proposes is that within each of these industrial organizations into which these various unions are subdivided there shall exist a number of executive boards. The proposition is—I quote from memory, from the fact that I heard it read only once in the committee—that there shall not be fewer than five of them.
DEL. COATES: Seven.
DEL. DE LEON: Seven, and not fewer than seven. So that there is a possibility of there being at least three times seven, or twenty-one sub-heads of the general executive committee, these sub-heads constituting within each of these thirteen departments, the requisite craft executive boards. Now, what does that mean? For each of these sub-divisions there are a number of individuals representing the executives of what? Of a mob? Preposterous! Not of a mob;—representing these various existing craft organizations; these various craft organizations which are the result of the capitalist sub-division of labor. It means, consequently, following closely what the Manifesto says—and when I say Manifesto, I mean exactly what I say. I quote from the text, not from the wheel, so that no one afterwards may say that the wheel has anything to do with it. The written words of the text of the Manifesto provide here, on page 5 (reading) “A movement fulfilling these conditions must consist of a great industrial union embracing all industries, providing for craft autonomy locally, industrial autonomy internationally, and working class unity generally.” That the committee proposes sub-executive boards within each of the divisions, is a complete answer to the various questions put by Delegate Coates. It shows that the committee proposes that the different crafts within each of the main divisions shall organize upon craft lines in sub-divisions, and that the heads of these sub-divisions shall be assembled in sub boards. It means that the committee proposes to put an end to what is harmful in the existing craft organizations, putting executive boards over them, chosen by themselves. They will administer their own affairs, according to the language of this Manifesto, and they will jointly elect one member to the general executive board. That removes what I consider the largest part of the confusion created, unintentionally, by Delegate Coates, and arising from his not having remembered this passage. When he closes I hope he will answer directly upon this, whether or not these sub-executive boards of crafts do not absolutely deny the impression that he attempted to convey. Should he still he of his former opinion, I would like to know the reason why. and I invite you to follow his answer closely when he closes. I recognize that these divisions are not ideal. One of them or two of them are; the others are not. But there Delegate Hall well expressed the sentiment of the committee, and, I hope, of this convention when he said that we must begin to take a step some time. Now, the committee proposes a scheme through these subexecutive boards which would leave time for these craft organizations to amalgamate wherever amalgamation is possible. The proposition of the committee, consequently, is a sane proposition; it is a practical proposition. And this proposition of the committee is decried as a wild theory, notwithstanding its practicability; and the Coates proposition—the craziest of propositions, namely, to suggest that you just squeeze and mutilate and pound those crafts within the number of twenty, without any provision for the separate arrangement of the crafts in different managements—that proposition it is here attempted to be palmed off as “practical!” I hold that the views Delegate Coates expressed are a natural result of what is my contention with regard to his general position—he fails to understand that constitution.
One of the questions I asked Delegate Coates was this, whether I understood him right with regard to what he said on the matter of railroad companies and the like. He said I was wrong. I have here the transcript from the stenographer. This is exactly what he said: (reading) “Whenever capital goes into the railroad business it organizes a railroad company, and the railroad companies, variously as they are grouped together, come together as railroad companies. Whenever the same men who are interested in these railway companies want to go into the newspaper business they organize a separate company and go into the newspaper business.” Now, listen: “AND THAT COMPANY HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RAILROAD BUSINESS.” Now, that statement I consider to be an unqualified blindness to the facts. There is not one single capitalist organization, capitalist concern, capitalist board of directors, but embraces a dozen or more different industries. (Applause). When capitalists come together to organize a newspaper, perforce it is a newspaper that they are going to set up, but to say that they have absolutely nothing to do with the railroad business is to ignore a glaring fact,—by this time, you see, the gentleman has gone beyond the domain of “theory” and has run foul of the field of facts. If capitalists want to organize a newspaper business, a newspaper company, they look for railroad magnates, for mining magnates, for factory magnates, for financial magnates, and they come together; ostensibly for a newspaper, but de facto to promote the interests of these industries that are amalgamated within or behind that mask of a newspaper. (Applause). Time was that when we Socialists said these things we were said to he “wild-eyed men.” I think the time has come when Delegate Coates should know from experience and from facts that he can gather from the capitalist press, that we are not “wild-eyed men.” Look at what is going on in New York, now. Capitalists had met to organize an insurance company—an INSURANCE company, mind you. And what are the facts that are now being unearthed? There is not a banking trust, there is not a railroad trust, there is not a Standard Oil interest, there is hardly a factory industry, but is represented on that board of directors; an examination of the Equitable Life Assurance Society proves that what they have there is ostensibly a “life insurance association,” but de facto a means by which to gather money for the industries that each of these various directors represents. (Applause). Is it “insurance” that takes Depew there? Is it “insurance” that takes there the man who owns the stocks of the Fall River weaving mills? Oh, no! It is something entirely different. There is a book that I recommend to all of you. It is not a book with a yellow cover; yet it is thrilling enough for yellow covers, although its cover is red. It is called the “Directory of Directors.” It is a publication from the capitalist camp. It gives a list of the directors in the leading industries of the United States, and the leading corporations of the country. In it you will find innumerable instances of men who pose as directors in one concern and are directors in half a dozen others. Few comparatively are the instances of importance in which a man is a director in one concern alone. Those men pick themselves out and elect themselves and each other, here out of the railroad business, there out of some other business, but all with an eye to the interests of the various industries that they represent. The capitalist system has reached a point where it is no longer a lot of little individual blisters; it is one general blister. (Applause). The theory upon which this committee has proceeded is that the working class should be organized as one body, without ignoring the necessary craft sub-division. We recognized the fact of the different trades, the different tools that they have to use, and we look to the ultimate ideals, the absolute amalgamation, but we recognize the necessity of a period of transition, and the committee’s proposition provides for a period of transition. I do not believe that that period of transition will be very long; I do not share the opinion of Delegate Coates that the ideal of ultimate emancipation lies distantly remote—a thousand years or so.
DEL. COATES: I did not say a thousand years.
DEL. DE LEON: You stated it would be a thousand years and more, to the very day.
DEL. COATES: Not a thousand years.
DEL. DE LEON: A hundred years?
DEL. COATES: Yes.
DEL. DE LEON: You stated a thousand, I think. If there were time I would look for it in the stenographer’s report. I understood you to say that, to the very day. But let it go at a hundred. Even that I consider a serious error, however sincere the error may be. It is a harmful error. Delegate Coates has repeatedly assured us of the loyalty of his intentions; but the best of intentions do not preclude a person’s acting wrongly—though, perhaps, not wrongfully. It is wrong to place the ultimate consummation of this movement into the remote distant future. If you want to encourage a tired man you do not tell him that the goal of his trip lies innumerable hours thence. At times you may even have to imitate Columbus: you tell the man that the goal is near, and you give him courage, and add elasticity to his step. Do not deceive him. Do not make him think that the goal is near when the goal is away out of sight.
But, as I stated and explained on the third day of this convention, I hold that the goal IS IN SIGHT. (Applause). Consequently I consider it wrong to conduct ourselves as though the goal were indefinitely far off. I hold that the proposition of the committee is correct. It takes in the situation and its nearby possibilities. I believe that the committee, as one man, will join Delegate Coates or anybody else if he can propose a better method. But unless a better method is proposed, unless a method is proposed which is agreeable to facts, not to fancies—unless that is proposed, I for one shall stick to the proposition of that committee. And since the debate has been opened and the rules have been suspended I shall listen carefully and attentively with no hobby to ride, or ill temper. When I yesterday asked my questions to Delegate Coates he went to pieces and forgot his exquisite parliamentary manners. The occasion is solemn. It demands cool judgment. We want that when we adjourn from this body, those who have fought—for it is a fight—against a thing, may, although not agreed in their action, be agreed upon what was done. (Applause).
DEL. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman and Delegates, as one of that committee I will state that with all of the arguments that have been put forth, both on the floor of this convention and in conversations that I have heard on the street, I have as yet not changed my mind. While I will agree with Brother De Leon that perhaps the plan partially may be not a success, yet I feel at this time that the plan outlined is the best that can be done for a start; and whatever I may say in opposition to any arguments that may be put forth by any of those who participate, I seriously hope and trust that no delegates will feel that I am addressing them personally. I am speaking to the principle, and no matter how this fight goes, when I leave this hall I shall have the same love and respect for those that oppose me as I have for those who are with me. (Applause). There is a principle involved that we must all adhere to, and while we may be divided on opinions we must be united on action. (Applause). A few remarks were made by the brother who preceded me, referring to those who took issue with the proposition. If this amendment prevails it would practically mean that this convention is not prepared to state what the lines would be in the industrial movement, but it would be left to some other committee—I do not know where they are going to select them from, some one that is wiser than this committee or this convention—to lay out the lines of what industrial unionism shall be. It means a longer deliberation than what this whole convention will be and the only way that I can see that the committee could reach any conclusion would be to go among the various trade unionists and get their various opinions and then outline as to what they believe would meet with the approval of the trade unionists of the United States. Which would mean what? It would mean multiplying forty by three. It would not be forty divisions that would meet the approval of the trade unionists of the United States. There are one hundred and twenty-seven distinct divisions and charters now standing out, issued by the American Federation of Labor. In several of those organizations to-day there are arguments being put forth by men who claim to be posted on the trade union movement that they should be re-subdivided and charters issued to different trade unions that are represented in the one hundred and twenty-seven. If we are going to be industrial unionists and we are going to expand greater than thirteen, I feel that we should strike out the name “industrial unionism” and not represent ourselves to be that which it would not represent. (Applause). Brother Coates is a printer. First of all I will say that I am confident that he has traveled several thousand miles to reach this convention with the right heart. He is here with the spirit of brotherhood, to do something to emancipate the producing class. I know that he is here honest and earnest, and in the argument that he makes against this proposition he personally believes that he is right. I concede that he has got a right to his opinion. He represents the printers, and his contention is that the printers should have an organization of their own. There is an organization of that class existing at the present time. Does Brother Coates know that the printers don’t work in a way that they can be identified as an industrial organization? Does Brother Coates realize that the printing of this country is done by a printing establishment? Does Brother Coates realize that at the great meat strike in Chicago not many months ago there were over a hundred printers in the printing department of the packing industries that were not included in the packers strike? Does Brother Coates realize that in the meat industries, the packing industries, they are also running laundries? They are in the laundry business, yet they are in the industrial packers’ business because they do work for the packing industry. They have restaurants too, if you please, in the same industry. Does Brother Coates not realize that under the proposition that he offers here it is nothing more than purely and simply what we have got at the present time—what we are assembled here to tear down?
(Great applause). Last November at Montgomery Ward’s plant all the garment workers walked out into the streets of Chicago and declared a strike. It took some four months to defeat that strike. After the garment workers had been annihilated and defeated the teamsters that were working in the same industry came to the conclusion that they should have assisted the garment workers.
Those are the kind of decisions that the employers like. “Just let us get at you one at a time and we will skin you to a finish.” That is their proposition. (Applause). If the garment working industry were organized on the industrial system there could not have been one man or woman, whether he or she be driving a team, running a sewing machine or working a hand needle, but what would have stopped work and at once have paralyzed that industry. But under Brother Coates’s proposition, before anything of that kind could be done, conciliation must be brought about between five or six executive heads, just as we have got them at the present time. I would not object if somebody would make a motion to strike out the thirteen lines and make it three. (Applause). What is a mechanic? He is a slave; he is nothing; he is a workingman. I do not recognize one man to be any different than another. He is only one cog in the wheel that goes to make up the general machinery that grinds out the product. (Applause). And I care not whether it requires two or three years to become an efficient mechanic, or whether he is only the common laborer that comes across the water and all he can do is to pick up the shovel and dig and excavate for the factory that is going to accommodate the employes; it is just the same to me. (Applause). There is no particular business at the present time. Take the transportation department, as the Pennsylvania Company, go up to Monroe street, and on the sidewalk there you find a line of cabs that it has been decided by the City Council belongs to the Pennsylvania Company, that has a full right to the streets of Chicago to stand there to accommodate the people that the Pennsylvania Company, that furnishes transfers, that they may go to other points or to go to other depots. Go right into the depot; there we find the terminus of the Pennsylvania Railroad; follow it all the way down, with every slave and every one that works for that company as a part of that corporation, away on to Jersey City, and there we find the Pennsylvania with a great monster vessel backed in there, and there the passengers of the Pennsylvania are put onto that boat and transported across. Many of them are going to foreign countries, and they go on a Pennsylvania line because the Pennsylvania people have got lines that run to various ports in Europe. Away the Pennsylvania Company goes to the foreign ports, and you don’t stop there, but they have their agents that go out representing them and misrepresenting the conditions in this country, and they go into Ireland, they go into Wales, they go into Sweden and in all of the congested ports, and there they misrepresent to them the golden harvests they have in America, and if they come over here they travel by the Pennsylvania lines. It is one straight system all the way through, representing nearly every industry.
THE CHAIRMAN: Your time is up.
DEL. TRAUTMANN: I move you that Brother Sherman be granted the same privilege as other delegates who have spoken; that his time be extended.
Motion seconded by Delegate Simons.
DEL. COATES: To settle this whole business, I move that each speaker be allowed to speak till he finishes. (Seconded).
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved that every speaker be allowed to speak till he has concluded.
DEL. MURTAUGH: I am opposed to that for the reason that the majority of what was said by the two speakers that have just spoken on the subject seemed to imply that those who are here in the names of the industrial unions, with the exception of a few, do not understand all the ramifications of the capitalistic system, and that in order to awaken our minds to these ramifications time is wasted in listening to other things that they are discussing. I for one want to resent that imputation. I do not believe in it, and I believe—
THE CHAIRMAN: You are doing pretty well towards a speech yourself, Brother Murtaugh. The amendment is that each delegate be allowed to speak until he has concluded. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for).
DEL. FAIRVIEW: I believe that a motion of that kind is useless. There are something like 251 delegates here, and we would be here for the next three months if that motion prevails. I believe each side should have two or three speakers and let them present the arguments. I am opposed to this motion. We don’t want to sit here for two weeks, when two or three on each side can explain the situation.
DEL. COATES: The that reason I made the motion was to save time. Every speaker that speaks we are going to give an extension of time, and it would not be proper if we did not do it, and we are merely wasting five minutes at least every time in making the motion, and putting the motion.
The question was put, and the Chairman being in doubt, a vote by uplifted hands was taken, resulting in forty for the motion and twenty-four against.
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment is carried. The original motion is that Brother Sherman be allowed an extension of time, and that other delegates be given time till they conclude their arguments. Those in favor of the amended motion will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. Carried. Brother Sherman will proceed.
DEL. SHERMAN: We had the Pennsylvania under discussion. That is only one of the few combines in this country, and they are getting fewer; they are pushing out their lines every day. Pennsylvania also does its printing, under the system of class organization, the same conditions which exist, no matter if we do call it by the name of industrial unionism. I don’t want anything called by name, but I want it in operation. We don’t want anything called; we want cooperation and industrialism a fact. We want the workers to be working on correct principles and educating themselves to the fact that there is identity between labor; that they only represent the producing class. There is too much plutocracy now in labor, and that is the curse of it at the present time. (Applause). I do not think that there is a sister or a brother on the floor of this convention but what realizes that the products now are handled by corporations and trusts that are so intermingled that they are practically one organization, no matter whether it is on the industrial or the political question. They own and control the power from the fact that the workers are divided industrially. You unite them industrially, and when they realize what they can accomplish on those lines there is nothing impossible on anything that we want to do after that. (Applause). The powers against labor are nothing. The index finger of the producing class would push every enemy into the sea. All you have got to do is to get them all to push at once. The only enemy that labor has got is labor. Capital never won a strike nor never won a battle. It was labor, and we must educate labor that they must turn around and face one way. There never was but one railroad strike ever won, and that was with an industrial organization, the A. R. U. (Applause). And it was won against the opposition of the old brotherhoods and all of the political trickery that they could bring into line. It was demonstrated at once when they telegraphed to the seat of the United States government that “transportation was paralyzed, and we want to place this proposition in your hands, and that you run these trains with bayonets.” When labor is organized right and educated, they will own the bayonet. (Applause). They make them, and after they are made and polished and fitted to the weapon that will do the most destruction you hand them over to the enemy, and you say, “Now I am going back here a few hundred yards to see if it spits you.” Thus far it has given entire satisfaction. It is a well-known fact that there is a prize offered to-day to the man who will create or invent a machine that will destroy the most human lives with a single shot. You have got all these things to contend with, and I beg of you, Brother Coates and your friends, for God’s sake don’t cut off that arm, but put your arm out and come together and work together. Division does not mean strength. I don’t care how you divide it, it does not mean strength. You have got to unite them. And I believe that the committee has done as well as any committee could do under the circumstances. I took into consideration the Manifesto as we understood that we should work from it. When I say “Manifesto,” I want you to understand that that chart on the back of the Manifesto is not considered the Manifesto. That chart was not in the conference when that Manifesto was adopted. That Manifesto was simply given to a brother who drew it up, and we have given this just as a little outline or diagram showing the centralization of our power. I am not unmindful of the fact that there will be in these various places here thousands of men probably representing one particular vocation. I am not unmindful also of the fact that undoubtedly to facilitate matters and to relieve the burden of this executive board in that department that they will have to have sub-committees or sub-executive boards; that they will create those to confer with these people, the same as we have at the present time. It is a fact that the national organizations now have their local unions; their local unions have their sub-bodies; they have their representatives known as business agents to assess them, like my friend from St. Louis (laughter); a delegate who, though he is in opposition to that, I love him and respect him because he was in one of the A. R. U. organizations which I initiated into the organization. That is the best redeeming feature I know about him, because he embraced industrial unionism eleven years ago.
Now, I believe this is misunderstood. I believe that even Brother Coates has not stopped to consider that it is possible in the different crafts and in the industrial divisions that they can be handled to the best interests of the movement, just the same as the regular army is handled, the infantry, the artillery and the various parts. Then there are the industrial organizations co-operating within one certain body; they are handled by certain divisions, but those divisions come to a head just as the army does, which makes it possible for united action. And that is what we have to have, sisters and brothers—united action. Now, to change that, to take out one line, means the adjourning of this convention and the appointing of another committee, because the committee that served once would not feel capable of forming anything that was within reason. Taking out one line or adding one line means the reconstruction of this whole constitution that has been made, because that is the basis of the organization; and when you change that, it is just like undermining a building, and the whole thing comes down and must be built up again.
Now, Brother Coates and delegates, I think you are right when you are fearful, and that it will not be possible between now and the next convention to organize all the workers in any one of those divisions. You may be all right, if you are afraid that they will become organized and get disrupted from the fact that they will have no way of handling each other. But I don’t think, you will see it that way. I think, brothers and sisters, that bravely as we have started, we will perhaps find places where changes could be made by the next convention. But for a start I cannot see or I cannot believe that it would be advisable or feasible to change that proposition and then call ourselves and be an industrial organization. Industrial organization, as I understand it, means that when an industry represented in any department is involved, it involves every one in that industry. Whether he is a printer, whether she is a lady that waits on the table, whether he or she is a laundry worker or a clerk or a stenographer, if they are in that industry it includes them all. And the only way that you can have concentrated action and momentary movement is to have them organized in industries, regardless of what part of the industry they belong to, so that when you touch the button the signal goes to every man and woman in that industry. It is not a question of assembling six or seven months before and taking action and writing to the high moguls that belong to the various national organizations and getting their consent. You don’t have to call a board together to fight and quarrel and consider whether an organization is now in a position where it would be possible to bring them out on strike, or whether it would be feasible if they have a contract that has not expired, as is the condition at the present time. I tell you, those that are arguing on the proposition of tearing down this chart or this little outline, I believe they are making a mistake, and before you go seriously into the matter I hope you will consider and think what we are trying to do. We are not trying to please the American Federation of Labor. We know that we are going to displease them. We know that in the transportation department we are going to displease the Switchmen’s organization, but we are going to please the switchmen. We are going to displease the officers of the trainmen’s organization, but many of the rank and file are going to be pleased. We are going to displease many of the firemen as officials, and the engineers with “the great proud eagle eye,” the one that is known as a national scab as an organization—we are going to displease all of those people, but we are going to please the rank and file, because we are going to offer them a proposition that they can come in on one platform and fight in one cause. I hope you will receive it and ponder it and endorse this proposition as it stands. (Applause).
DEL. KLEMENSIC: Brother Chairman and Fellow Delegates, the way I look at this discussion we are facing two different attitudes or conditions, if you please. One is practical and the other theoretical. Now, theoretically, in everything that Brother Sherman and the other brother said about it, I agree with them. It is the only way we can bring the ultimate results to a focus where we want all industrial cooperators. On the other side, we know the fact that as we stand to-day at this convention the only properly organized organizations in this convention are represented by the Western Federation of Miners and the Metal Workers. Now, as far as I can see, those two organizations are the only two here in this body. Now, we do want the rest of the labor organizations in this industrial movement. The question is, how are we gong to proceed about it? How can we get to the rank and file and show the rank and file that our conception of organization will bring immediately and ultimately better results than the American Federation of Labor? Now, we have to take these things as practical men, that would come in our daily lives, in our struggle for every day bread and butter. For my part, I will read the Manifesto and the statements thereof. In the first place, “All power shall rest in the collective membership.” The question is, how can we bring our organization to that form whereby we can have all power rest in the collective membership? This I think we can only have through an organization locally, that the local organization will have more latitude to deal with local affairs. Now, we know that the conditions in the city of Chicago in any given trade are different than in the rest of Illinois, or maybe the State of Colorado or other places. Where the congestion of your population has risen to a high pitch, the state of affairs is different from where the population is scattered. Now, furthermore, we say, “Local, national and general administration, including union labels, buttons, badges, transfer cards, initiation fees and per capita tax, shall be uniform throughout. All members must hold membership in the local, national or international union covering the industry in which they are employed, but transfers of membership between unions, local, national or international, shall be universal.” Now, the point at issue will be this: I am say a member of the Journeyman Tailors’ Union. Now, I do not know whether our Executive Board may be satisfied with the local tailors’ union in Pueblo, that we are joining in this movement. It is certainly against Lennon’s advice and his personal letters as stated to our unions. We referred the case to the Executive Board, and Mr. Lennon wrote us back again that it is his own personal wisdom to tell us and advise us that we should not mingle with an organization that is Socialistic. Now, this is the condition, that in the journeymen Tailors’ Union that man is the absolute boss and power of that union. The condition then will be that we will be kicked out of the international union; and in this case, as the Manifesto says that all members must hold membership in the local, national or international union covering the industry in which they are employed, in that case we could not comply with this point in our Manifesto. Now, again, it stands to reason that it is better that every union that is affiliated with the American Federation of Labor—that it is better to stay and stand in the central organization and fight for industrial unionism. Now, then, if that is to be the case, we have got to have some protection one way or another. But the only plausible way we can come to the members and show up the advantages of industrial unionism is to explain to them the difference between the old organization and the new one. For instance, in our trade, the tailors, now we have custom tailors, garment makers, cloak makers, cap makers, and I think four or five like organizations in the garment trades. Now, when the Journeyman Tailors’ Union is trying to amalgamate with the garment workers, we would try to push the idea furthermore in that particular union that all garment trades should be included. If that is the idea of industrial unionism it is practical and feasible. And then it should be understood that the laundries and other trades will not mix in our affairs when it comes to a local issue, or an issue in a similar organization; because we must understand that if one of our organizations gets into trouble, while we will always try to avoid it as far as we can, but there is no doubt that in practical life we will be up against it, either in one locality or in another one, that is as far as the tailor trade is concerned. But now, you take for instance, the condition of the printers here in this town or the wood workers, and the difference between the men that are working in this city and the mill hands in Michigan and other places. The men out in the country can work cheaper and under better conditions than the man that has a little cottage here in this city. These are local issues, and this is only known particularly to the craft that those men are employed in. If I understand the Manifesto rightly, and there is no desire on my part to alter it, we should build the whole thing up side down. But there is one particular point that I want to call attention to, and that is this, that centralization produces authority and despotism. That is the point we are up against in human history all the way through. On the other hand, we have got to try to centralize our actions, as we know that only centralized action is efficient. Now, we should have centralization and local authority without despotism. It is a possibility. And on this point I think we may consider the seven departments as they exist in the United States government; the navy department, the war department, the postal department, commerce, interior affairs, foreign affairs, etc., and that every one of those different unions that would be affiliated with it, that it has its own autonomy as a trade, but at the same time it be centralized in one principal department. In this way we might have no more than seven instead of thirteen as now. But I am satisfied that this committee, as the brother states to us, have given us in this the best they could make; I believe it is so, although I think it more expedient to have a secretary to do the work necessary as far as writing and correspondence is concerned, and have seven men representing those seven industries on the Executive Board, and among the seven they can pick out a President, or he could be appointed here from the convention to perform the work. But practically the work necessary for this organization would be only the work of a secretary, with whatever he would need in the way of advice from the Executive Board; because we have to keep in mind, as has been stated several times over and over again, that we don’t want to keep up a pile of hangers-on in our organizations as walking delegates and the man that would become ultimately a figurehead. We must not give them an opportunity to prey on us, and if we don’t give them an opportunity they will stay away, but if you do give them a chance they will take the chance, and no one else but ourselves are to blame if we give them that opportunity. Now, another thing. We have got the Western Federation of Miners. Now, we know that the Western Federation of Miners tried to organize their own craft or their own industry the best they understood, and it would be folly for the tailors or shoemakers or carpenters or any other trade to mix into their convention and say, “This is the way you should run those affairs.” So we say it is not the purpose. of this organization to turn upside down the different trades. All those that are working around the mines in whatever capacity, they have got their say-so in their locality. That is the thing that is understood by the system of industrial unionism. Furthermore, we know that as a matter of expediency and for better administration the Western Federation of Miners would have say over such a thing as a District of Cripple Creek. Furthermore, we have got such a thing as the State Federation of Utah, and of California. Now, all the mines that are in those particular States find it to their interest to have a State organization. They do it for their own protection and to further their interests. Now, you see it may be necessary, as Brother Fairgrieve of Montana pointed out, that in some ways and in small localities it is very advisable if you can group the people of that particular State where it is necessary that all co-operate together. But the essential point is this, that we never overlook the fact that we should all belong to the same big family, the Industrial Workers of the World. That is the point that the American Federation of Labor never had and never can, that they are under a common jurisdiction, but they have no ultimate purposes. The only organization that we have got is for ultimate purposes, and that is as far as we want to go, but all these minor questions we have to settle among ourselves.
The next point is this, that many of the organizations have a sick benefit and death benefit. Now, in many organizations we will be up against it, because they would not withdraw and lose the benefits. It is the sick and death benefits that keep them back, or maybe insurance. These are all points in practical life that with some individuals or some organizations we will be up against. I think that in some ways the ideas of Brother Coates are correct, for what he means is probably those. I do not know whether I am correct or not, That designation is not broad enough to take in all these; it is either too small or too broad. Take for instance the printers. The printers say you will not know how to manage their affairs, and he would not like to be mixed up with the laundries, which is a trade recently mixed up with the large packing houses, as Brother Sherman presented us the evidence. Maybe Brother Coates did not know, as Brother Sherman properly pointed out, that there are commercial houses, industrial houses, that are running printing and laundry and restaurant and all these businesses under one management. But Brother Coates was probably figuring out just the conditions in the trade that he knows about out in Montana. But this is the only way we can get at it. We know that in the big majority of the locals where we are that in every locality we are up against something different. Now, I would like to suggest that we take into consideration the organization of the French organizations, as shown by the letter of Comrade Pouget. That organization is organized on the principle as I outlined to you before. There is a committee of seven with practical charge of all the big business when they are in executive board session, and all the business is done by the secretary. He is the man that is responsible for the transactions during the time that the executive board is not in session and during the time that the convention is not in session. Now, you see, that lightens the expense, and at the same time there is a central organization and it is effective. There is no doubt but what in time we should have a kind of organization which will come under this head when progress has been made. But as a suggestion I would like to have it understood by the committee that they should be given ample latitude in the different trades to take up the suggestion, and it will be the result of our intelligence and a way in which we can do it better. We. must not be understood to direct in their internal affairs. As an organization we must not be fanatics. If we start out with fanaticism we might get into many difficulties which we can avoid if we think it over coolly and carefully.
DEL. POWERS: I am not going to take up over five minutes of your time, probably not that long. I think this organization is going to seriously disturb the present organizations. The Western Federation will pass through an experience in the next ten years that will shake them seriously. The printers will get a shakeup. Organized labor as we know it to-day is going to get a severe shaking, and that shaking is going to be done by the men who are now at the bottom, living on chuck-steak and digging in the sewers. The trades unionist of to-day has an advantage, and it is the result of his organization. He has said to those who are not organized, “Organize and get the benefit of organization,” and the people have not heard his voice. The condition of the printer to-day is the result of his organization. But now this organization is going out and through its educational department it is going to reach the man in the sewer. It is going to reach the laborer who is earning $1.30 a day,. and who pulls the truck for the man who is getting $3 a day. his laborer in overalls who supports a wife and family on $7 a week, while the tradesman lives on the best with his $3 a day—this laborer is :going to be lifted tip, and he is going to say to the tradesman, “It is as important that the truck should be taken to the drill as it is that you should lay out this hole where it is to be drilled. It requires muscle to pull the truck, and it requires food to give muscle.” And the main work which this organization will have in the future is not protecting those that are already organized, but lifting those that are down in the gutter, so to speak, and those that are at the starvation point, up to a level with those that are now organized. That will be the work of this organization. The organized labor of to-day is an aristocracy. It is a conceited, selfish aristocracy, no better than the other aristocracies. The man who is not the heir to a million, but is heir to a crafty father who looks out into society—or the son of a wise father, I will put it that way—who takes his boy and puts him to a trade, and supports him while he is learning the trade, and then after he has passed through his three years’ experience he has learned something and he becomes superior to the other fellow, the son of a $7-a-week man, the boy who has been cheated out of as opportunity to learn a trade, and who has probably been a bobbin boy in a mill for $10 a month. This whole thing is running through the working class in America to-day, and the purpose of this organization, as I understand it, is to convince every man who works for a living, to write this deep and indelibly in his memory, that every man and woman on this planet has a right to the best that progress can give him or her, and it does not matter whether the man digs in the sewer or whether he records the course through which the planets pass. (Applause). And mind you—
A DELEGATE: A point of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is your point of order?
THE DELEGATE: That in the discussion he is engaged in he should not be trying to cover the whole field, but that he should discuss the proposition before the convention.
THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. The delegate will confine himself to the question before the convention.
DEL. POWERS: I thought I was. I think the trade unions will be in this movement in a very few years. The strength of this movement will be given to the lifting up of those that are down. It will not be given to the protection of those who are already comparatively well off. So far as the international feature of it is concerned, look at what we have right here in America. We have got the Swede in his fraternal organization. We have got the Irishman in his fraternal organization. We have got the Pole, we have got the Frenchman. We have got all those different nationalities in every city, with their charters hung up, and what are they doing? They are trying, each of them, to convince the other nationality that notwithstanding all that may be said to the contrary, they are eminently respectable. We have had in England the trades union movement for seventy years. We have had the wise mechanic, the wise printer, the wise stone mason, and all the rest of the skilled labor, and what have we got in England? We have got the poor-house there; we have got poverty there; we have got deformity there. And the same is true in France, and the same it true in Ireland, and the same is true all over the world.
THE CHAIRMAN: The delegate will take notice that the proposition is that this amendment of Delegate Coates be adopted, and that that hasn’t anything to do with the question on which you are speaking at the present time, or the subject which you are covering.
DEL. POWERS: Well, the argument has been on such a broad gauge that I did not think that I went beyond the distance that most of the other members did. However, I did not start out to take up much of your time. I believe that the broader the gauge you can put this movement on the better. I would ignore all the education and all the experience that the trades union movement has got to-day. I would ignore the whole thing. I would pay no attention to it today. This organization is launched in recognition of the class struggle by the working class. It is the working class, and not for those trades organizations that are not willing to come into this movement, thoroughly understanding that this movement is not for the protection of any particular trade, and is not going to concern itself very much as to preserving the advantages that the particular trades have to-day as a result of their organization, but it is going to concentrate all its efforts on the lifting up of the men who are down. I think that is what we want to keep in view, and I think if we do that we will go along the right course.
DEL. Pat O’Neil: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates, down in our country—I am led to tell a little story, but it will take up but a minute or two—down in our country we have what is called the Arkansas hog. We have got hogs that can outrun anything. They have big bristles on their backs, and if they get after you you want to climb. They will put their bristles up and give a “buh, buh, buh,” and jump right over a hickory sapling. They will jump over a fence and get into a potato patch, and if a man goes after one of them the hog will run to his fellows and they will get in a bunch and if they go for him he had better get up a tree. So I find there is here a spirit of that same kind. I don’t care whether it is the Typographical Union hog that has jumped into my potato patch or not. Now, why the American workingman can’t have as much sense as the Arkansas razorback hog has, is what puzzles me. Now, I want to ask you just a plain, practical question. You have got a big strike on right here in this city. The teamsters’ portion of your transportation department are out on strike. About two months ago a large shipment of machinery was made from this city down to Spadra, about thirty-five miles from where I live. Now, mark you, I want to show you that these fellows recognize that an injury to one is an injury to all, in spite of the evidence of John Mitchell to the contrary. When that machinery got there at Spadra our men refused to unload it. Then they went over to Russellville and got a few men, mostly negroes and a few white men, and when they came over there the men had a talk to them, and they too refused to unload it. Now, mark you, the proposition. The president of our district went down there; Peter Handy, the president of the U. M. M. A., District No. 21, went down to Spadra and ordered the union men of Spadra to unload that machinery under threat of losing their charter. They still refused to do it, and on the day when I left for Chicago twenty-five of them were in the United States jail. Now, I want to ask you a question, every one of you men who can’t get into your head what industrial unionism means, I want to ask you this question: Suppose when your teamsters refused to handle stuff here, and those nonunion teamsters had put that stuff on the train, if we had industrial unionism the railroad could not move the stuff. That is what industrial unionism means, and I am sorry to see any one come here and try to talk along the old, craft union lines.
Delegate Simons took the floor.
DEL. COATES: It is now about five minutes to twelve, and I don’t wish to split any speaker’s talk in two, so I move that we adjourn till one o’clock. (Seconded).
DEL. SIMONS: I won’t take over ten minutes. But it is not important to me.
DEL. COATES: I think it is better to adjourn.
DEL. SIMONS: Just as you say.
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that we adjourn till one o’clock.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I rise to a point of order. It is not twelve o’clock. You will have to suspend the rules.
THE CHAIRMAN: A motion to adjourn is always in order.
The motion to adjourn was lost.
DEL. DANIEL MCDONALD: The committee on mass meeting and ratification desires to announce to the convention—that is four members of them do, there being five on the committee—there are four members who desire to withdraw their names from the committee, and if the convention sees fit to appoint another committee it is entirely within their pleasure. Mr. Bradley, Mr. Guy Miller, Mr. Cranston and Mr. McDonald desire to have their names withdrawn from that committee on ratification and mass meeting.
DEL. DE LEON: I move you that these committeemen be allowed to withdraw. (Seconded).
The motion was put and carried.
The convention then at twelve o’clock adjourned until one in the afternoon.
• Day 8, Afternoon Session : Wednesday, July 5
The convention met at one o’clock.
THE CHAIRMAN: When the convention adjourned we had under discussion the amendment offered by Delegate Coates to Section 2, Article 1. Delegate Simons has the floor.
DEL. SIMONS: I am not one of those that think that the organization is going to go to wreck and ruin if either side prevails here, but I do feel that there are a few things that incline me to support the amendment, and I hope that what I have to say will be put in such a way that it will apply directly to the question in hand. It seems to me as if a great deal of talk on this subject has taken the universe for a field and humanity for a theme, and bears little relation to the matter under discussion. Questions have been asked and generalities have been gone into and different conclusions have been drawn, with but little connection between the generalities and the conclusions. There has been a great deal of the sort of argument that the capitalists use when they tell you that the Declaration of Independence is an inspired document, and that the constitution was handed down directly from heaven, and therefore that they ought not to pay their laborers more than 50 cents a day. There has been a lack of connection. We are all agreed absolutely on the fact that we want to secure a greater solidarity in working class organization; that we want to reflect in the organization that may come from here the solidarity that is taking place on the industrial field. We are all agreed that trade lines have been all but entirely wiped out. We are all agreed that the lowest man needs the fight the worst; not simply equal to, but needs the fight more than the man who is in the highly skilled trade. We are all agreed upon these things. But now the question comes up as to how to get the application of the views of the committee and of a majority affecting these questions. Now, when I first saw that chart, I was impressed, as I think every one was who has noticed, with its value for propaganda, with the skillful way in which it was presented and the large number of facts it contained. But I never dreamed that we were going to come to a time when that chart was to become a fetish and that we should accept it instead of the facts. I had no idea that the complex society of to-day could be drawn and illustrated upon this chart so as to express all the facts that we want to express in our organization here. Then this amendment came up, and it has been stated upon the floor of this convention that to-day the American working class was divided among 127 different divisions. Those divisions of to-day they propose to recombine by another method. They propose to add thirteen more. No, they do not simply propose to add those thirteen, but it is proposed to split the 127 rather up and down this way, and then we propose to crosshatch then with thirteen more, making 13 times 127 sections in which we propose to split the working class of America to-day. I supposed we were going to come here to form an industrial union. There is not a line upon that chart, as we can see, that provides for organization by industries. That is an organization by departments, if it is anything. Moreover, those departments, I believe—and I believe it has been pointed out here over and over again—instead of being found in the industrial field and transferred to the chart, they were created in the brains of the committee, and then they seek to impose that upon us as a picture of the industrial field. One comrade told us here that if we overturned this position it would destroy the entire work of the committee. Let me tell you that when your committee attempts to go contrary to the industrial facts, those industrial facts will tear that committee and this organization all to pieces. The thing for us to do here is to look into the industrial relations as they are, and reflect them in our organization. Now, then, what are the conditions? Those industrial relations to-day, as we are to set them forth in our organization, as they have been set forth by every speaker upon this floor, are to the effect that the men that are working in one line of industry have common interests. There is nothing whatever in the plan that at all applies to the position that Comrade Sherman took and numerous other delegates here, that the men that work for the Pennsylvania Railroad were going to be split into 50 or 500 different divisions. On the contrary, those men are in one industry, and the amendment specifically says “industries.” It proposes that they should be so organized. The thing that we have got to do here is to make our organization fit the industrial situation as it is to-day, not as we happen to consider it in some beautiful picture of things that we would like to see some time in the future. When we go out from here we are not going to be bothered about 127 organizations, standing ready to jump into this and divide us all up. We are not going to have at the utmost more than ten or eleven industries that would be in a position to organize. Now, I want to call your attention to something that this means. This means that with the organizations as they are to-day, that the men in any one of those departments where we have a union to-day it may go in there and adopt the name of that department and seize the machinery of that department. It means that a little handful of men can control the machinery of that department and keep up such a hubbub within it as to keep all opposition out and those half dozen men can wield exactly the same power within the central council as the same number of men that might represent fifty or a hundred thousand men in some industry that was fully organized. It simply gives an opportunity for the capture of the machinery by a handful of men in those different departments. There is another side to it. It is said that this amendment opened up the road to the adoption of the A. F. of L. form of organization. Don’t you believe it. This method is an absolutely superior method, and I will tell you why; because the object of this is to represent industries, not trades. The chart represents arbitrary divisions, just exactly the same as we say of the men who are the vice-presidents of the American Federation of Labor at the present time. And you are proposing to duplicate the American Federation of Labor Council when you adopt that chart as it stands there to-day.
Again, as Delegate De Leon told us, we must recognize the time element in this proposition. But again it was a generality from which I believe he drew the wrong conclusion. It seems to me it is more sensible, when we have an industry organized, to adopt that industry and organize it on industrial lines, and then when the time comes for more industries to go in, for more trades to come into that industry, that then we begin to let those industries grow together till the time comes to form an industrial department. That is the point we have got to keep in mind all the way through this.
Now as suggested at the beginning, I do not think things are going to ruin whichever way we vote on this. But I have no desire to force the industrial organization of this country into a sort of departmental chart like that, corresponding in no way to the facts. They have taken one of those divisions and crosshatched it in a dozen different ways which have no relation to the facts as they are to-day. And besides, it seems that when they had got twelve of those, they had to make an unlucky thirteenth and label it the waste basket and throw everything else into it that they could not fit anywhere else along the line, and with nothing corresponding to the facts as they are to-day. And so I say to you that if you adopt this report of the committee, you will tear to pieces not simply the work of the committee, but you will tear to pieces the organization that you are to found, or rather industrial development will tear it to pieces for you. Now, however much we may not like it, we must recognize the facts in the industrial world. There are tremendous facts that we cannot leave out of consideration. So I wish that those who are to speak after me would argue from that standpoint. I want to call the attention of some of these men to the fact that this plan as proposed cuts crosswise across all the 127 divisions of one department and jumbles them together, not in relation to the facts, but in relation to schemes that are of no moment. And second, it enables a mere handful of men to represent one of those divisions, so that if there are half a dozen men organized in the, carpenter trade, we will say, then they represent the department of building, and those men have control of the machinery of that entire department. Again, that they have laid down a plan that is going to duplicate the A. F. of L. by making divisions arbitrary and electing men that represent nothing in the heavens above or earth beneath but simply the control of those organizations. And finally, that they have absolutely neglected the time element in the fact that they are endeavoring to create something that is inconsistent with present development in the trades. I ask you to take those facts and look them over, and if you find that they are sound I ask you to vote for the amendment. If not, I would like to have it pointed out wherein they are not sound.
DEL. TRAUTMANN: Comrade Chairman: I have only a few words to say. When the conference met in January and mapped out the Manifesto or program it was well understood that the eleven original departments of industry should have a right to subdivide into industrial groupings or industrial divisions, under the direction of the advisory board or with the consent of all the different groupings making up that respective department. Now, I hold that it is the sense and I believe it is the sense of the committee that such trades shall be preserved by industrial departments. For instance, take department No. 13. It comprises various groupings, but we see for instance there is the street sweeper classed together with the printer. But at the same time it does not prevent the department administration or the department advisory board, or whatever it may be in the future, from grouping the printers in a separate division of the department as outlined in the diagram. The parks, highways, municipal sanitary department, and so on, would form industrial divisions of that department. The Constitution Committee could not lay down iron rules, and I do not believe that they have intended to lay down arbitrary rules and force men to go into the groupings as outlined in the Manifesto. We only represent a skeleton within an organization. We believe that the rank and file will discuss the various subjects discussed at this convention, and will discuss the form of organization as intelligently as they have discussed the Manifesto, and the heads in that locality will perhaps advise how the groupings should be made, and the industrial formation will be formulated later on at a coming convention. The Constitution Committee has not laid down iron rules to say that you must go into a group. Now, I am, say, a flint glass-worker. The Amalgamated Glass Workers, by the form of organization, by the rules in the constitution, will be forced to come together and form one industrial grouping, and the Amalgamated Glass Worker and any worker in a glass factory will have his representative and his vote on the advisory board or executive committee, whatever it may be. That right has been given to the industrial department, to run their own affairs in compliance with the general rules of this organization. And I am satisfied that if Section 2 of the constitution is adopted, it will preserve the industrial groupings, and they certainly have a right to decide for themselves in what department they belong and as to what would be the best form of administration for the particular division of a given department. The suggestion of Delegate Coates simply means that we will have about 120 industrial unions within this organization, and 120 industrial unions would claim representation on the general executive board. You will have every day and every week a sort of convention and you will be discussing and never will come to a conclusion. I am satisfied that if you adopt the proposed constitution as submitted by the committee and allow the rank and file of the organizations attached to this organization to discuss the faults and the good points of the constitution, that in the next convention we will be able perhaps to outline a better constitution and make better groupings or put the members together as may suit best those who are connected with the organization.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: Delegate Simons stated that this chart splits the workers into thirteen times the number of international crafts mentioned by Brother Sherman. If that is true, it splits them in every department. Let us take the department of mining as at present illustrated in the Western Federation of Miners. I notice a great many people are getting “cold feet” about this chart, falling into line with Gompers in calling it a zodiac. This chart did not originate at least in that department of the brains of the committee as a sort of pipe dream, as is intimated. It follows the groupings of the men in that particular union or industrial organization, economic organization. The Western Federation of Miners is more than an industrial union: it is an economic union. The United Mitchell workers, as Pat O’Neil would call them, are an industrial organization, but they are not an economic organization. They are industrial in form. That is, they claim jurisdiction over every man working in and around the mines, but they recognize a community of interest between the capitalist class and the working class. They live by the sufferance of the coal operators, as a joke upon the system. Yet they are in industrial organization. They are, in so far as the organization itself is concerned, in conspiracy with the coal operators. The Western Federation of Miners is not split up, notwithstanding the false statement of Delegate Simons. It is not split but multiplied by the fact that it is the Western Federation of Miners. When you see a man with the three-starred button on in a western camp, you do not ask him if he is a marker, if he is a timber man or an assaying man, if he is a blacksmith or a mill or smelterman, or a solution man. The thing that is emphasized is that button. The thing that is biggest in that button, the thing of which it is the symbol in the Western Federation of Miners, is that that man is a member of the working class so far as it is organized in the mining industry. Never, in all my experience in the mining camps of the west, have I ever yet seen or met any sharpening of any craft distinctions in the Western Federation of Miners. The fact that for the sake of clearness for the workers who read this chart we state the different kinds of work, does not mean that we split them up into that many kinds of workers. The fact that is emphasized in that chart is that we give the economic grouping.
Now, Brother Simons says that this chart does not reflect present social conditions. He makes a broad, blunt assertion, without any proof whatsoever. I think sufficient proof or suggestive proof has been offered before in these discussions as to the economic groupings, and there is hardly any need of my going into that again. We might mention for illustration the department of transportation to-day as it is organized. It is not simply railroads or small railroads; it is practically the department of transportation. If you read the Railway Age, which is practically the official journal of the railway interests of this country, you will find that eighty per cent. of the transportation of this country is controlled by five groups of capitalists. As Marx has well put it, the historical tendency of capitalistic accumulation, the drift into fewer and fewer hands, is to-day entering its final stage of concentration, the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands. When the teamsters in the city of Chicago went to the Fair and Siegel & Cooper to get an individual settlement before they struck, they got the answer, “Go to our chairman, Mr. Farwell, of the Employers’ Association of Chicago.” The employers in the Manufacturers’ Association, for example, cover that entire sweep of the department of Manufactures in their relations with the working class, and they fight as one organization within that department of manufacture. They do not fight as wood working manufacturers, or as furniture manufacturers, or as metal manufacturers. They fight as the Manufacturers’ Association, as a particular economic grouping in society to-day. And it is to my thinking merely a begging of the question for Comrade—or Delegate rather—Simons to get up on this floor and to say that this committee evolved this thing simply out of their inner consciousness; that it does not reflect anything; that it is a mere arbitrary arrangement; that it does not reflect present economic conditions. He does not prove that it does not at all. He simply makes the broad statement. He says moreover that we are all agreed about solidarity. Let him speak for himself; I do not think we are at this stage of the game. If we were we would agree about an economic organization of the working class and not a splitting up of the workers into a hundred or 500 international and national industrial unions. (Applause.) The word “industrial” is capable of many interpretations. In every one of those departments there might, at a low estimate, be fifty industries which could properly be classed as industries; not as economic groupings, but as industries. At that rate we would simply have an enlargement of the A. F. of L. with a fine rhetorical Preamble stating that we believe in the class struggle, although in practice we are going to split up the workers as much as possible and let the capitalists play hell with them. (Applause). Comrade—or Delegate rather—Delegate Simons states that ten or fifteen men could get together in a department and take the name of a department and capture the power of that department. If he had listened to the report of the constitution submitted by this Constitution Committee he would not make that statement. The constitution expressly guards against any such a state of affairs. The Executive Board elected by this convention or by this organization has the power to specify and classify. It is not going to have six carpenters constitute the department of building. The department of building is not constituted until at least a majority of the different building trades are organized in a department of building. He says that this chart is simply the A. F. of L. Samuel Gompers says the same thing. (Applause). In fact, he has got out a chart very much like this to prove that it is the A. F. of L.—the zodiac and all other kind of things. The A. F. of L. is built on the craft principle. This chart outlines an economic organization from economic groupings of industries. There is all the difference between the antipodes between this proposed form of organization and the American Federation of Labor, which splits up the workers in a department of industry; in the department of building, the carpenter, the hod carrier, the painter, the paper hanger, the plumber, the tinner, the electrician, the glazier, the roofer—all belong to exactly the same economic groupie to the same organization governed by the same economic laws within that organization and working within that organization. To-day the A. F. of L, which Delegate Simons says is the same as this chart, in the building industry is exactly the opposite. The brick layers in the city of Chicago, in their union, agree that if in the future men want to go out on strike when scab lumber is hauled to the building they will have permission of the union to do so as individuals. As a matter of fact the carpenters, many of them in the city of Chicago, worked with scab lumber hauled to the building under protection from deputy sheriffs and police in this strike. And I submit to the intelligence of the assembled delegates here that there is no parity between men organized in an economic group in the building industry and the crafts of the building industry where one trade can stay within the full spirit and letter and content of the American Federation of Labor and scab upon another craft within the same building industry. And any one here who understands the structure of the American Federation of Labor will not agree with Delegate Simons that this chart is just exactly the same as the American Federation of Labor and splits the workers up just as the American Federation of Labor splits them up. It is not designed to split them up. It is designed to bring them together in easy relationship in their economic matters, to deal with those matters with a wise, intelligent economic grouping of the power of that working class. To-day capitalist society, notwithstanding the general, unproved, unsupported and uncorroborated statements of Delegate Simons, the capitalist class is organized in a capitalist society, in exploitation, and organized according to certain well-known economic groupings. There may be lines where they cross. There may be political borders and boundaries, but the main groupings stand out clear and strong. We have to-day a department of mining, a mining industry.
An interruption.
DEL. HAGERTY: I have the floor, and you will have your time to talk after I get through.
It was moved and seconded that the interrupting delegate be required to keep still or be put out.
DEL. HAGERTY: The delegate states that this chart was evolved out of the brain of the committee, or this grouping, without relation to the facts as they exist. I think that that committee did not evolve, and I as one of the committee know that so far as I am concerned we did not evolve this simply as a fanciful scheme. But we had in mind to give, so far as we could at this present provisional stage of organization, the main groupings of industries as they are to-day. He refers to the superstitious thirteen. Politicians nowadays are very superstitious. (Applause). It is a waste basket, he says; a waste basket for all the others, all the left-over goods of the other departments. In support of number thirteen we have a duplicate in the culinary trades of Switzerland, one of the most highly organized, economic, revolutionary unions in the world, or in continental Europe, organized exactly along those same lines; an industrial, economic organization of the various workers unions in the culinary trades; even larger than that thirteenth division, taking in even the groups here, the brewery, wine and distillery workers, including the tobacco workers, the flour mill workers, sugar refineries, and so on up to and inclusive of brewery, wine and distillery workers. So that we are not making a leap in the air or evolving something out of the over-heated imagination of the Constitution Committee, but we have already before us facts and the experience of other workingmen. Much as we may wave the flag of American superiority and supremacy, I want to tell you that our continental fellow-workers, with whom we shall soon be in international, world-wide, revolutionary, economic relationship through this organization if it starts out right, have had the experience that we have not had. They have already organized on these lines. Only last month in Spain a congress was held in Madrid which issued a manifesto somewhat longer than this Manifesto; a manifesto summing up five years’ experience in the experiment that we are about to make. Five years ago in Spain an organization formed along the same lines as this is devised to be formed along, was organized in Madrid, and this manifesto is a summing tip of the five years’ struggle and experience of that organization, and it has been demonstrated to be a success along economic lines, along industrial lines and against craft division, against multiplying the workers into national and international small industries that split up their forces, that decentralize their administration, that complicate the processes of their struggle with the employing class. I hold that that amendment is destructive of the entire principle of economic, revolutionary organization of the working class (applause); that it would simply be a mere reform upon the American Federation of Labor, which to-day under economic pressure is groping in more or less industrial ways. The Typographical Union is ceasing more and more to be a craft union and is broadening out its jurisdiction. It to-day assumes jurisdiction over the machinists, over the linotype operators. It is working toward jurisdiction over other departments within the printing industry itself. And yet that International Typographical Union is, while becoming industrial in form, not an economic organization of the working class. In the St. Louis convention one of the delegates stood on the floor and said, “Lives there a man with soul so dead who never, to himself hath said, this is my own, my native Land?” And then they took up the military resolution. And in some of the Colorado bull pens the soldiers that were guarding the Western Federations of Miners “rebels” had Typographical Union cards in their pockets. (Applause). We do not want industrial organizations of that sort. We want the workers grouped according to the structure of the capitalistic industries themselves. We do not claim as a committee that that grouping is correct, is fixed, is immovable, but that at the present stage it is the nearest reflection we can get of those capitalist groupings of industry, as nearly as we can represent them. It is not designed to tie the progress of the working class, of the economic, revolutionary organization of the workers. It is not a crystal. It does not put any hindrances in the way of broader development and closer coming together in a more and more organic solidarity. It simply was designed as a basis for the present condition of organization work. And I submit that the amendment itself and the spirit of the amendment are absolutely against the Preamble of this proposed organization, and against the whole economic structure, if properly built, of a revolutionary working class organization of the world-wide toilers, of the world-wide workers. (Applause.)
DEL. GUY MILLER: Mr. Chairman and Delegates of the Convention: I deprecate the introduction of personalities that to some extent has disfigured this discussion, for to me every man who has a seat in this convention, by that fact is entitled to recognition as a comrade in the world-wide army for the industrial emancipation of the working class. And so I recognize Delegate Coates and Delegate Simons and Delegate Sherman and Delegate Hagerty as comrades who may differ in their ideas as to the form and meaning of this proposed constitution, but who are united in a common purpose. It seems to me that the discussion that has taken place here is a conflict between forms of expression and not between ideas, and I believe that the Constitutional Committee, with all due deference to their ability, have been unfortunate in their choice of terms, since there seems to be such a wide variance of opinion as to the meaning of the proposed constitution. I think we all realize—our presence on the floor is prima facie proof at any rate that we realize—the industrial solidarity of the working class. Every man who understands the spirit of the Manifesto knows that every line drawn on that chart there is an arbitrary line and not an organic one; an attempt to picture forth an idea. And ideas cannot be pictured. The people who take that chart as a sort of fetish are liable to find a mudhole of misunderstanding in it. It is an attempt to diagram forth the work of this committee, and I know perfectly well that Comrade Coates in his amendment and the Constitutional Committee in that section which they have drafted are aiming at precisely the same thing. And if I have succeeded in understanding the men who have entered into an exposition of the work of the Constitution Committee, everything that Delegate Coates’s amendment provides for is already secured in the work of the Constitution Committee. In other words, this convention goes on record as recognizing the craft autonomy and the industrial unity of the working class of this country. One of the delegates, one of the comrades who addressed the convention shortly before Delegate Sherman, said that we were willing to throw aside all that education and experience had taught the workers of this country. To do so would be nothing less than a crime to the men whom we claim to represent here. We want to take into our consideration every fact that has been brought out in the struggles of the past. We must also consider that the organizations in existence at the present time are to some extent a product of industrial evolution. They have a meaning, and it is our business to interpret that meaning and explain it in such a way that the workers in factory, mine and mill everywhere shall realize that we understand the meaning of those facts. The form of organization is the result of industrial evolution. Now, it seems to me that in meeting the idea of the concentration of capital the organization of the industrial movement had to some extent overlooked another fact, a corresponding fact, that to some men might seem to be in opposition to it, but really is united with it. In other words, Mr. Chairman, this is an age of specialization as well as concentration, and if I understand the meaning of this Manifesto we are to apply that principle in the organization of the working class of the country, to get down out of the realm of principles into the everyday world; in other words, a printer is very much better fitted to discuss and to consider the problems confronting the printing industry of the country than the man engaged at work in the laundry or in the park. We are not so foolish as to overlook or underestimate the importance of that fact. So the proposed industrial organization is to provide for the organization of the printers even into various craft organizations of that highly specialized industry. But remember, at the same time we provide also for industrial unity, because this convention emphasizes the idea of the essential unity of the working class of the world, and the only way in which their interests can be perfectly protected is to unite the power of the entire body of the working class in support of the position of the workers at any particular point in the field. We should be insane to do less than that. The specialization of industry is a principle, I repeat, which, if this organization is going to keep step with progress, it must take carefully into account. The fact that we are able to accomplish so much more to-day in every field than in any other age, is owing to the fact that there are a few men devoting all their energies, their time, their talents, to the solution of particular problems; problems belonging to a small department of industry. I think I may be excused if I take an excursion off at the present time in illustrating matters of this kind. For instance, in the agricultural department a scientist in the last year or two has made an improvement in corn and made a difference of one hundred million bushels to the farmers of Iowa. Another scientist in the chemical department was making investigations in his particular department or bureau, and another scientist in his particular bureau. There was the same spirit directing all those highly specialized industries. Behind each of them there was the capitalist system and the capitalist mind directing the energies of the whole. In the discussion this forenoon one of the comrades made mention of the fact that it was the capitalist behind the newspaper and the capitalist behind the railway industry. It is true enough. There is the capitalist system behind each one, but the capitalist uses the men who understand the railway business to direct the railways of this country, and he uses the men who understand the conduct of newspapers to direct the conduct of his newspapers. And we, if we are intelligent men, will not be a bit behind that capitalist in the realization of the problem of the working class and in directing our organization so as to meet and solve those problems. And so for the mining industry, the Western Federation of Miners, if you please; at the head of that organization there will be a man who is in direct touch with the mining industry of the country. The same thing will be true of the metal workers, the tobacco workers, or any other line of workers that may form a part of this new industrial organization. We must not overlook the fact—I do not believe it can be emphasized too much or too often—the fact that the workers in any particular department or industry are best fitted to solve the problems in that particular department. And after they have brought the best intelligence they possess to the solution of those problems that solution will be backed by the entire strength of the working class, the men engaged in every department of industry. I have felt all along in the discussion of the problems of this convention, that while you were considering the problem of concentration and central administration, you did not recognize to a sufficient extent the principle of democracy as well—the right of the workers in all the various departments, to solve their own particular problems. I want to tell you that the concentration of affairs and the organization of industry must proceed along these two lines. While it gives increased power, that increased power must be directed for the benefit of the working class, and not for a few highly specialized and organized industries. The trouble with the American Federation of Labor and their system of organization in the past is that they have never realized the class struggle; there has never been an honest attempt to organize the workers and present the full force and power of their organization at every point where the capitalist system came in conflict with it. Capitalism is so highly organized at the present time that you finally come to its expression in the person of a single man. That man might well be a Rockefeller who would stand for the oil fields, for the railway fields, for the banks, the manufacturing industries for all that civilization stands for at the present time; and through his spokesmen he presents the position of organized dollars. We must organize the working class in all the wide ramifications of industry until before that cool, magnetic individual there stands a person who in his own individuality stands for the interests of the world of united workers, and against the organization of united dollars presents the power of an organization of united men. (Applause). That, I take it, is what this organization is to secure. That I have understood to be the exposition of the Constitutional Committee. That is precisely what is provided for in the groupings of these various industries, in the work which will confront the organizer when he goes out over the country and presents this plan of organization to the workers. Remember, we must take into consideration not only industrialism, but human nature as well; we must show that this organization provides for the control of these various departments to a certain extent by the workers engaged in those departments. I have been told on this floor, Mr. Chairman, that industry was rapidly tending to a point at which the arbitrary division between the skilled workers and the unskilled workers was being wiped out by the machine. That is absolutely true, and we all agree with that. But I want to inform you that if you jump over the intervening space of time, if you seek to make this association accept and anticipate a fact that will take twenty years to realize, you bring this organization into existence twenty years ahead of its time. It is unable to solve the problems that confront it to-day. The problem that is before us to-day is to bring into the world an organization in absolute harmony with the facts as they exist at the present time. If we do that, the finger of shame is impressed deep on every form of industrial evolution at the present moment, and our organization will bear the imprint of that finger of shame. Let us be ready and able to change its organization in correspondence with the facts of industrial life. It is no compliment to an organization or to a man to insist that the form of organization is ahead of its time. That is the severest censure that can be laid against it. And now, I want to say to you that the Knights of Labor in their organization represented the solidarity of the laborers’ interests. But that organization came before the time when that concentration of capital had completely occurred on the industrial field. As a result it was impossible to form an organization that should represent the absolute solidarity of the working class of the world. That was the product of industrial evolution. The rise of the American Federation of Labor on the ruins of the Knights of Labor was a recognition of the principle of craft autonomy. They had gained nothing from experience of the past. They did not combine the principle of industrial solidarity along with their craft autonomy, and consequently that organization is ineffective to protect the interests of the working class, and, in the final analysis, fundamentally immoral, as every organization of the present day must be that is not founded on the lines of the class struggle and that does not enable the workers to present a united phalanx against every onslaught of the capitalist class.
So it seems to me that the ideas that have been presented very ably on both sides of the field find their expression in the report of the Committee on Constitution. I have heard the idea expressed that the Western Federation of Miners and kindred organizations, for instance, were to be disorganized on account of this fact. I want you to understand this, and if you understand industrial evolution you will grasp the fact as soon as it stated: That with every advance in industry each line of industry becomes more highly specialized. So the necessity of an organization representing the mining industries of this country, organized to protect the interests of the men who work in the mines, will be clearer and better defined ten years from now than it is at the present time.
DEL. DANIEL MCDONALD: Mr. Chairman and Delegates to this Convention: I am just slightly inclined to think that the delegates who have spoken upon this all-important proposition have been just a little inclined to overdraw the proposition. Now, I feel that what I want to know is this: I want to satisfy myself that I understand this proposition. I believe I understand the call for this convention. I believe that we have done two of the things that this convention has been called for. We are now about to do another thing that the convention was called for. This, in my opinion, is the important proposition. This convention was called for what? Passing up the other two propositions that have been passed upon, and taking the matter up from this Manifesto, it clearly says: “A movement to fulfill these conditions must consist of a great industrial union, embracing all the workers, providing for craft autonomy locally, industrial autonomy internationally, and working class unity generally.” Is that not clear? Doesn’t this declaration make the proposition that is before this convention? This proposition is clearer than any of the arguments that have been made yet upon the proposition, to my notion. It is the duty of this convention to clearly set forth, in my opinion, an industrial plan of organization. Now, if we fail to do that, then to my notion we fail to perform largely the purpose that we were brought here to perform. Let us see how this thing will work. We say we are going—I am in favor of the amendment because the amendment suggests that—it says that the organization shall be made up and organized and given jurisdiction over the different industries of the country. Much stress has been laid upon the fact that the Western Federation of Miners is an industrial organization. Let us agree to that. How is the Western Federation of Miners organized? They are organized as miners in the mining camps; in the smelting camps they are organized as smeltermen; in the large camps of the West they are organized as miners, as engineers, as smelters, as ropemen and the other classes associated in that particular industry. The miner has absolute local trade autonomy. The smelterman has absolute local trade autonomy. The ropeman has absolute local trade autonomy. Now, that settles that mining industry proposition. Do you propose to carry the proposition logically out to every other line of industry? If you do, then there can be no dispute or quarrel or fuss about the proposition. If you do not propose to carry that out with the different mechanics and the different groups of workingmen in the other industries, then I say we fail in our purpose; and I believe that the amendment carries it out clearly, more so than the explanation of the proposition submitted by the Constitution Committee. We might take the baking industry, for instance. It is a large industry. Now, there are different kinds of bakers; some of you may think that there are some confounded poor bakers. But there are bakers who bake bread, and there are bakers who make pies, two distinct and separate kinds of bakers. The pie maker would be absolutely in a piemakers union; the bread baker would be in a bread bakers’ union; the people who work in the factories, their shipping clerks, their receiving clerks, their mixers and all kinds of other tradesmen that cannot recall readily; then there is a number of women folks; are those to be brought together and mixed up as dough is mixed? Not at all, in my opinion. The piemakers will have local trade autonomy; the bread bakers will have local trade autonomy; the shipping clerks, receiving clerks and the other bakers in the cracker factories will have their local trade autonomy, and their organizations will be operated locally and they will be permitted to transact and perform their local business in their local way. But the authority granted to those various locals will be given to them by reason of the particular industry. That is to say, neither one of those locals can act arbitrarily, independently and to the disadvantage of the other locals engaged in that industry. Now, you take another large industry, such as the manufacture of all kinds of machinery.
There are a number of trades, well defined trades, in that particular industry. For instance, there is the patternmaker; he is, a woodworker. There is the flaskmaker; he is a woodworker and works all the time in wood. Then comes the molder, who works with the flasks made by the flaskmaker, and works with the patterns made by the patternmaker. And then under the same roof is the machinist, in the same building, working for the same proprietor, for the same employer. He handles the castings, finishes the castings, etc. Then there is the blacksmith, then there is the boilermaker, distinct separate trades. Now, it is not the intention, I do not believe, of this Constitution Committee or of the proposition submitted by them to this convention, to mix all those trades up together. I don’t think so, but it don’t clearly say so; so that the amendment is more clear, in my opinion, and conveys the right intelligence to the workers of the country. Now, if you are going to mix those people, it is absolutely impossible, gentlemen; it is simply impossible to mix them. You want to construct the organization in such matters in accordance with the Manifesto and the sentiments therein expressed. There are ways to give the various industries their industrial autonomy, and then their local management, etc., always subject to the central authority of the general organization. Now, we say that the trades that I have just mentioned, in the manufacture of Machinery, are distinct trades. Let me tell—it is unnecessary to say this—relative to the organization of employers. The American Federation of Labor guarantees—now, remember this—guarantees to every international organization chartered by it or affiliated with it, if you please—guarantees that national organization strict trade autonomy. It does not make any provisions in the charter of that organization about affiliation or any relation to the trade next to it at all. In other words, each organization chartered by the American Federation of Labor has a license to work independently, distinctly, free from any affiliation or association with any organization in the American Federation of Labor. That is to say, that if the molders go on strike, the machinists have a perfect right to remain at work. That is international trade autonomy guaranteed by the American Federation of Labor. They are guaranteed trade autonomy by reason of their charter granted them by their national organization, and those organizations commonly act separately and independently of each other, without any regard for each other’s interests, sometimes catering to the employer, and by reason of one or two of those organizations dickering with the employer at a time means defeating the other trades engaged in that particular industry. That is absolutely and positively wrong. We are here to denounce that, and instead to offer this plan of industrial unionism. Properly worked out, it will eliminate the possibility of such a thing occurring; for the reason that the central general body would compel every one of be obliged to support the particular trade that was in difficulty; for the reason that the central general body would compel every one of the organizations or everyone of those trades to support the trade which now is on strike, and they would all, if it came to a strike of one, would be obliged to strike at one and the same time. Now, I believe it was the intention of the convention to construct such an organization, and I think it is going to do that. But I believe that we want to express that idea, if that is the idea, just as plainly, just as positively, just as absolutely as it is possible for us to make it. Now, if that idea of industrial autonomy is not given to the various and different industries, and then the local autonomy given to the different trades within the particular industries, I fear, Delegates, that this organization will not take on as large proportions as the delegates here hope to see it take on. Now, we cannot mix up, as some of us here would have it—we cannot mix up laundry workers with hotel girls or bakery girls or anything of that sort. I do not believe we want to. Not that there is any particular difference in people, or that we recognize any particular difference so far as the people are concerned. But the trades are so specialized that the waiter girl wants to be in her organization by herself, and the laundry people want to be in an organization by themselves; and so on down the line. That is the only practical way to construct this organization, and that is the only way, in my judgment, that we can go before the public, go before the workingmen and women in this country and secure their support and cooperation in this movement. There is another thing that I want to say in this connection, so far as this matter is concerned. Now, I have absolutely nothing to say as to the action of the committee. I think the committee is an excellent committee, and I think that they did excellent work, much better than what I could have done. But the proposition that the amendment has a bearing upon is this: How this organization should be composed. The section says: “This organization shall be composed of thirteen international industrial unions designated as follows.” Thirteen international unions. It makes no difference if there were fourteen industries, the organization must be arbitrarily and unnaturally confined to thirteen industries; a thing that with all the 120 industries is absolutely impossible to do. You cannot confine it to two industries; you cannot confine it to one industry; and you cannot confine it to thirteen industries if there are fourteen industries, because it is unnatural to do it and it is arbitrary to do it, and the people engaged in that particular industry simply will not recognize the authority of this convention.
(Here Delegate Guy Miller was called to preside in the absence of the Chairman).
DEL. DINGER: Mr. Chairman, I would like through you to ask the speaker a question. Doesn’t it say “industrial unions” instead of “industries” ?
DEL. MCDONALD: It is thirteen industrial unions or groups, yes.
DEL. DINGER: Yes, exactly.
DEL. MCDONALD: It says here that “it shall be composed of thirteen international industrial unions.” Thirteen; isn’t that what I read?
DEL. DINGER: Yes, but you intimated that it was thirteen industries it was to be organized in.
DEL. MCDONALD: That is what it means.
DEL. DINGER: No, sir, not to my mind.
DEL. MCDONALD: It says, “There shall be thirteen international industrial unions, designated as follows.” Is it organized on industrial lines? I cannot understand unless it is thirteen industries; and if it is fourteen you will have to put it into fourteen.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: A point of information. The whole intention of this committee is not that it means thirteen unions according to thirteen industries, but thirteen industrial unions; that is, unions industrially organized in thirteen departments or divisions. I wish the speaker would not misinterpret that. It does not mean just thirteen national or international industries, but thirteen groups, thirteen international industrial unions, grouped as follows, according to these divisions: division one, two, and so on to division thirteen.
DEL. SCHATZKE: A point of information. If it is thirteen international industries industrially grouped, it ought to be “internationally grouped,” and nationally.
DEL. MCDONALD: It may be possible that I cannot understand this proposition, and I do not want to misinterpret this, proposition, but I want to get straight on the proposition myself, and I want this convention to get me straight if, I am capable of being put straight. It may be possible that I am dull of comprehension, that I cannot comprehend this thing correctly. “It shall be composed of thirteen international industrial unions, designated as follows.” It shall be composed of all persons working in the following industries: clerks, salesmen, tobacco workers, etc. Then it goes down to breweries, and then we take up mining, milling and smelting. I believe that is absolutely correct, the mining, milling and smelting; I believe that is absolutely correct.
DEL. HAGERTY: It is departments and groups of industries.
DEL. MCDONALD: Well, this proposition proposes the division of industry. I do not think the word “division” represents the proposition of “industrial” at all. I contend that the most effective way is to organize upon industrial lines, and then make the necessary provision for those people engaged in the various industries of the country to afford the different workingmen, laboring men, mechanics and artisans, etc., an opportunity to recognize one central authority in an industry, and then that industry to recognize the general, central authority, of the general organization. I fear that unless we recognize that fact, that it is going to seriously hamper the growth and prosperity and success of this organization. I am satisfied that it is absolutely impossible to mix men and women of various industries and different crafts or trades into one organization, when there is a sufficient number to carry on a successful organization having jurisdiction over that particular trade. But I want you to keep in mind always that those different organizations, in my opinion, must be operated and directed by one central authority, and that neither one of those departments or neither one of those trades in an industry can arbitrarily and independently act to the disadvantage of that particular industry. But we must afford to the laboring men in those various industries an opportunity to manage their own affairs locally. If that is the purpose of this constitutional report, then I say we should make it clear. Why do we suggest the word “division” if it is an industrial proposition? The proposition itself suggests division, while the proposition or the word “industries” would suggest the proposition of unity for those in a particular industry. I thank you, officers and members, for your attention.
DEL. PARKS: I rise to a point of information. You said the piemakers and bakers and shipping clerks in the department of baking constituted the industry, and that it would be a separate industry.
DEL. MCDONALD: Yes.
DEL. PARKS: Now, suppose that there is a large mining industry with a bake shop and laundry attached. The workers in the laundry and bakery would produce commodities for the purpose of running the mining industry, while those in the mining industry want the bread and pies made by the bakers, etc., at that particular point. Now, under the industrial organization according to the report of the Constitution Committee, would those bakers not be organized as miners, and are they not to be organized under the Western Federation of Miners and not according to their craft or their trade as bakers?
DEL. MCDONALD: No, they would be organized as bakers, certainly.
DEL. PARKS: But is it not a fact that they—
THE CHAIRMAN: I shall have to decide that it is out of order to make a speech in asking a question for information.
DEL. PARKS: Do you know to-day whether or not in the Western Federation of Miners they are organized as bakers or as miners?
DEL. MCDONALD: The president of the Western Federation of Miners is a delegate to this convention, and he is more capable of answering that to the entire satisfaction of yourself and to the satisfaction of the convention than I am.
DEL. WHITE: A point of information. If it is in order I would move that those on one side of this question select one member to debate with Delegate Coates, and let those two decide this, and limit the debate down to a point.
THE CHAIRMAN: The chair would decide that this is not a controversy between one side and the other, but merely a discussion to bring out the underlying points in industrial unionism. I therefore decide such a motion to be out of order.
DEL. MURTAUGH: A question of personal privilege. I would like if possible to try to impress upon the minds of the delegates here present that there is really no fundamental difference between either side of this argument.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I do not believe that that is a question of personal privilege, brother.
DEL. JAMES SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks; I will be very brief. Mr. President and Fellow Delegates to this convention, I would like to know the full interpretation of the remarks put forth here in the convention. I do believe that this Committee on Constitution is made up of fair, honest and upright men; I believe that they are able men, from what I have heard since I have been in this convention; but I do believe, Mr. Chairman and Delegates, that they are not infallible. There are none of us infallible; we all make mistakes; we are all liable to error. But I do say that I want to go back from here with a full and distinct interpretation of the constitution as it is laid down to us. I do not believe in going back with a skeleton report, saying we can amend it after we find out its weakness. Why not amend it now. Why not go back to our people and say, “Here we have got a document that we can work out judiciously and honestly.” How can we install organizations in our various jurisdictions without we have a constitution to go by? Mr. President and Brothers, all the arguments I have heard, to my mind have endorsed ably and nobly the amendment; Brother De Leon, Brother Sherman, and Brother —who was the other brother?—there were three brothers who quoted from this section of the Manifesto—spoke of the intention for which we came here. I represent the Stationary Engineers and Firemen of the city of New York. I believe all the big cities throughout this country have got the same grievances to put forth that we have. I represent a local of engineers who have come out for the industrial movement, who have been discharged from their positions because they advocated it, because they had a contract drawn up for eight hours for a day’s work, and the so-called trade autonomists came along and substituted a contract drawn up for the bosses. Mr. President, I want to bear my testimony on the position of Delegate Trautmann, who has got both contracts. I represent the local of engineers and firemen who have been threatened in an issue of the so-called journal of the International Engineers in either November or December, with assassination. Why? Because we have advocated the industrial movement. Nobody knows that better than Delegate De Leon. Mr. President, suppose I go back to my local; according to this report of the committee, I go back to New York, and I say to our local engineers—well, I am ahead of time. Mr. President and Delegates, we have in New York about fourteen to sixteen thousand engineers and firemen. We have perhaps three to four thousand of those organized, the majority in the Federation. Then suppose we have to call out all the engineers of the various departments; we have no local of engineers; there is no local left for us to join. I would like to ask the committee if that is the sense of the recommendation that they have brought in in that part of the constitution? Can you answer that Brother Hagerty?
DEL. HAGERTY: I think Brother Hall here on the floor will bear me out in the illustration that I am going to take time to use, which will answer that, and which I think is the sentiment of the committee. For instance, we will suppose that we have a building industry and there are three or four engineers working on the construction of a building, and there are carpenters and plumbers and tinners. Now, if any difficulty arises which affects all the engineers as engineers, then your engineers’ committee within the building industry handles that as relating to your fuss. Then if you cannot settle that grievance, it comes before the combined board of all the workers represented in that department.
DEL. SMITH: The local?
DEL. HAGERTY: The local, to be decided by them. Then if it cannot be decided by them, it is carried to the general administration; and in that way you have local autonomy, but not in the A. F. of L. sense.
Del. Smith: No, we have had enough of that. The A. F. of L. says explicitly that “You in Brooklyn must stay in Brooklyn. You cannot come over the bridge. You in Manhattan must stay in Manhattan; you can come up to the bridge.” Those were the words of the A. F. of L. But I want to know from Brother Hagerty, when it states thirteen groups, if it puts us in with the gripmen or what branch of industry; because I hold that we have a right to have this by virtue of the Manifesto, that we have a right to hold our own meetings; we have in the engineers our employment bureau; we have our educational bureaus; the electrical workers have the same; the members of other unions have the same.
DEL. HAGERTY: Just a moment; perhaps I can clear up what you want. In addition to what I said, each division has its own management and makes its own constitution, subject to the general principles of this Manifesto. There is nothing in it that forbids the engineers in the city of New York, for their special benefit, getting together in any local meeting, but at the same time they are also members of whatever industry they are working in. Now, that is impossible with the A. F. of L., but it is possible with this, because they all belong to the same thing, to the Industrial Workers.
Del. Smith: If we have all the engineers working in the brewing industry for instance, or in the printing industry, we are held subject to recognize the grievance of any organization in this body, but will they have to become members of their various industries?
DEL. HAGERTY: They are members of their various industries.
DEL. SMITH: But do we have to recognize them in our local?
DEL. HAGERTY: Not necessarily.
DEL. SMITH: I want to have this explained plainly, so that we may know where we are at when we go to make our report. The report of the committee as to that part of the constitution I am not satisfied with at the present time, but I believe the amendment will clear up that part of it better. I am not entirely satisfied with that part because it doesn’t show clearly.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid it would be a good idea for the speaker to repair to some ante-room with a member of the Constitution Committee and clear up the doubts in his mind.
DEL. HAGERTY: These questions that he is bringing up now are settled later on in the constitution. They cannot he all covered here in one section. but the constitution as a whole must be dealt with.
DEL. BEUCHERT: The amendment, to my conception, means that the national and international organizations in existence now in this country might be able to join this organization, and here is, I guess, the point where we might stumble over the report of our Constitutional Committee. We must consider the fact that there are many of the members of the trades organized in this country in the national and international organizations, and they are organized for the purpose of bettering their condition, their existence. They may not be organized on the principle of this organization, but the rank and file are for the betterment of their conditions in social life, and they have made many sacrifices to build up their organizations. What is the intention of this organization to do with these organizations in existence? Will they pass over them as if they were not in existence, or will they recognize them? Will they give them an opportunity to affiliate with this organization or not? If you take the standpoint that these organizations are no good and you don’t want them, then they have to break up if they want to join us, and is there anybody here who believes they will do that right away? Do you forget about this fight and this trouble that we had to overcome to bring all these people into our organization? I think not. I guess we have plenty to show, just as these organizations are put up and just as the people of these organizations have put it before us. They might join our organization as a body, and by the simple reason that they want to join us then they will recognize our principle of organization. I guess they will do it right away, and they will do it by whole organizations. If they don’t join us, they might have their fight between themselves, and the separate locals might join all right enough, but the situation with the national organization is such that it might be convinced that it better start in the trade union movement to join this industrial movement and shake hands with all the brothers of the world. Now, there is another point that we want to take time on, for it is just on the point which was made by the delegates in their speeches, about centralization and the power this thing had: After the report of this constitution I saw right away from this that the most power of this organization is in the hands of the President. The most power is centralized in one hand, and under certain conditions he might be disposed to use all of his power. I don’t believe in that.
THE CHAIRMAN: The part that you are discussing now belongs later in the constitution. Please confine yourself to the question under discussion.
DEL. BEUCHERT: Well, all the others have spoken on the same line, and I claim the same right as any other.
THE CHAIRMAN: I beg your pardon. It is not the desire of the chair to be arbitrary, but simply to confine the discussion along the line that is before the house.
Del. Beuchert: I want to speak just on the general subject of the organization, and I want to make a few remarks.
THE CHAIRMAN: That comes up later.
DEL. BEUCHERT: No, there is no more chance for it to come up. It is just the general subject of the organization, that is essential in this centralized power.
THE CHAIRMAN: The chair wishes to say that the power vested in the Executive Board and the various officers will be discussed in the report of the Constitution Committee, later on, therefore any discussion on that line is out of order at the present time.
DEL. BEUCHERT: Very well; what I want to know is whether the organizations that are already in existence are ready to join this organization or not.
DEL. FRENCH: I would like to ask the Secretary of the Constitution Committee to read that portion or clause providing for those industrial groups or departments or international industrial unions as they are grouped here.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: Here is the section that provides for that, and it might possibly stop the discussion. It is section three: “The financial and industrial affairs of each international industrial department shall be conducted by an executive board of not less than seven nor more than twenty-one, selected and elected by the general membership of said international industrial department; provided, that the executive board and general membership of said international industrial department shall at all times be subordinate to the General Executive Board of the Industrial Workers of the World; subject to appeal, provided the expense of such referendum shall be borne by the international industrial department or international industrial union or unions involved.”
Del, French: Now, Brother Chairman and Delegates-
A DELEGATE: I move you that we take a vote now.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is out of order.
DEL. FRENCH: Just these figures is the only question I want to ask about, to get at those figures, to have it made plain that those thirteen groupings provide for conducting the business by an executive board of not less than seven nor more than twenty-one members, selected and elected by the general membership of said international industrial department. That is what I wanted to get at, because I think it is time that we got this discussion back to bedrock, back where we started. We have gone all over the map in the discussion, we have viewed it from all sides, but that does not matter. My only idea in getting up here was to try to clear away any fog that might have gathered as a result of the broad, if I may term it so, discussion that has taken place since this thing was first brought up. Now, the word “fetish” was applied to the report of the committee. I do not believe there is an intelligent, discerning delegate here, man or woman, who believes that anybody who has spoken in favor of the report of the Constitution Committee looks upon it as a fetish at all; I do not believe it. And I do not believe that anybody—any discerning person who had listened to this discussion—can be affected by any insinuations as to the plan here emanating from the brains of a few men, or who will imagine that economic conditions will compel or cause the automatic bringing up of a correct organization without the brains of men being used in forming it. But I want to get back to this, and we need not bother about those things at all. This plan under discussion that the Constitution Committee brings in recommends this section providing for thirteen groups, international unions, with executive boards containing not less than seven nor more than twenty-one representatives; and I believe it provides further on, doesn’t it, in another section, that the president shall be a member of that board?
DEL. HAGERTY: Yes.
DEL. FRENCH: Well, you see this is a skeleton of the new organization intended to be formed, and you bring this in. Now, the amendment proposed by Delegate Coates, as I understand it, is to abolish that arbitrary grouping, as it has been termed, those thirteen arbitrary divisions, and to insert the words, “international industrial unions.” Isn’t that right?
DEL. HAGERTY: Yes.
DEL. FRENCH: Now, the question then of the practicability or impracticability of either plan is a thing that goes right through this discussion. To my mind, and I think to all those who have watched most closely and who have tried to get on their feet as to the position that we should take in relation to this, is that this proposition is as nearly practicable as can at the present time and under present conditions be devised. Now, we have come here to launch an organization that will stand upon correct principles, the principles laid down in the Manifesto. We come here to launch an organization that will be formed on those lines as nearly as we can possibly make it. We do not come here proposing to cater to the forms already in existence. We do not come proposing to figure on whether we shall as the delegate over there referred to—figure as to what we shall do to placate those international craft unions in the A. F. of L. We do not come here to express a fear lest the lines laid down do not fit the lines already laid down by the A. F. of L. and would not enable them to jump bodily as a craft union into this organization and retain that craft autonomy that enables them to keep the workers divided. We did not come here to worry if some one should be annoyed by our attitude. We came here to try and set the workingman on his feet. We came here to try to establish an organization that represents as near as possible the correct lines that should be retained for an economic organization to fit, as has been previously expressed, the economic conditions that face us. Surely any discerning person can see that the nearest thing outside of the ideal that was laid down by Brother Hall yesterday, the nearest thing that at present we can get, is this proposition of the Constitution Committee. And now my view is this. Delegate Coates’s amendment provides for national industrial unions. It does not define what an industry is. He does not want to be arbitrary, I presume. But what will that lead to? Don’t you see the difference between the attempt at system that has been made by the Constitution Committee, in the attempt to get as much system as possible into the launching of this organization, so that it can be carried out in a manner that will remove or avoid as much as possible of the friction that will come about—don’t you see the difference between that and the condition that would result from the adoption of the course as proposed by that amendment? It does not define what an industry is, and leaves it open to all these organizations which call themselves industrial organizations, that only compose a small part of an industry, if an industry could be definitely defined? As I understand it, the Constitution Committee, in devising this figure, did it under the present economic conditions, while if possible we should have all the workers, because the interdependence of all industry under modern means of production is taking that into consideration, and that they should devise some plan that will at least lend system to the creating and building up of the new organization; that they could to-day, in figuring out the economic groupings of the working class, draw temporarily (I understand that to be the sense of the committee, temporarily) thirteen economic groupings or industrial groupings; not thirteen industries, as has previously been explained, but thirteen economic groupings in which to place the different sets of industries in each one of those groupings, and to launch the organization in this manner, bearing in mind all the time the coming of a convention that will improve upon that skeleton and make it still more centralized. I for one, if nobody else, will on this floor before this convention adjourns make a motion that this constitution when adopted shall stand till the next convention, so that it will not become, as I heard a remark—I think it was Brother Hagerty that made it—a crystal that we will have to smash; but that it will stand as a skeleton structure of the new organization, that can be taken apart and rebuilt on a more improved plan, more consistent with the economic conditions facing us at the next convention. Now, that is why I arose, to try to get this down back to first principles, to the plane of the practicability of an organization which does not draw any hard and fast lines, which leaves it open to interminable discussion, when a local is organized, as to which industrial grouping it should be placed in. As for the practicability of this, it seems to me that there is possibly a misunderstanding in the meaning of some. I have noticed that Brother Smith was in doubt and did not seem to be quite clear on the conditions that we will confront. Now, this Manifesto declares here—
DEL. JAMES SMITH: Do you mean to insinuate that I did not make myself clear?
DEL. FRENCH: I am not arguing the question. I only made the remark.
DEL. SMITH: I want to be understood on the point, if I was not clear. I still hold that I was clear on that point. I still hold for the interests of the local, and I still insist on standing by this Manifesto as adopted.
THE CHAIRMAN: This brother has the floor.
DEL. FRENCH: What I wanted to say was this. There is a possibility, and I drew that conclusion from the remarks of Brother Smith, of some persons misunderstanding the position that we would be in because of this grouping as laid down by this Constitution Committee’s paragraph here. Now, I do not see any difficulty in carrying out the plan of organization laid down in those groupings. This Manifesto provides there in that clause that has been referred to by many others, “A movement to fulfill these conditions must consist of one great industrial union, embracing all industries, providing for craft autonomy locally, industrial autonomy internationally, and working class unity generally.” The conditions are referred to in the previous part of the Manifesto, which describes the modern capitalist conditions where industries are controlled and centralized in management, and interdependent, and necessitate a working class organization to meet them. But it provides for craft autonomy locally and industrial autonomy internationally. Now, what I wanted to know was this. There was nothing said about representation of the various crafts on the various divisions, about the difficulty of having them represented on the executive board of the administrative bodies, and it seemed to me it was a plea for the present A. F. of L. international and national craft unions, and that such bodies as applied to join would want their particular craft or division of the industry represented on the administrative bodies. Well, now, I claim that this plan provides as nearly as possible for all that; as nearly as needed. The executive board of one of those departments is to be composed of seven to twenty-one. Now, take for instance the railroad industry. We can have an executive board in that grouping. On that executive board there will be say twenty-one members. Now, I think twenty-one divisions in one of these industries, represented each by a member of that division on the administration board of that department, will come pretty near covering all important crafts in that department. And they will all be represented on that executive board or advisory board or whatever it may be termed, the administrative board of that particular department, and they elect a president who becomes as I understand the purport of the fifth section, ipso facto a member of the General Executive Board. Isn’t that the understanding?
DEL. HAGERTY: Yes.
DEL. FRENCH: Now, this department elects by referendum a president who is in touch with an executive or advisory board composed of representatives of the various divisions of the crafts, if you may call them crafts, of the department. Being in that position, and being the choice by referendum of the department, he is surely able to represent on the national board his department and the divisions of his department, and you hereby get a national board with thirteen members, and that is about as large as is workable to launch an organization. On the other hand, the amendment as proposed would cut down that arbitrary division, and abolish the system, and at the same time be anarchistic, if you will. If you would draw a hard and fast line, some particular craft or division will kick about it, and what do you get by kicking? You have no definite standard of what an industry can be. You have got to go along guessing at it all the time and arguing it out and trying to build up this industry and that industry, and you can have, as has been stated, anywhere from, 60 to 127 or more various trades claiming to be an industry, which would, according to that constitution if it were adopted, claim representation on the General Executive Board. Otherwise you have a confusion that will be created by the absence of any definition as to what will constitute a division of the workers into any kind of group. Now, I have not talked with the committee about it, but I believe that one of their ideas in putting that together is that they desired some system to start with; they desired to have some ground to stand upon, and they offer that in the belief that they could not get anything better at the present time. I do not believe—I hope that such is not the case—I do not believe that there is any number of men in this hall who want a bad start; yet an outsider who did not know about it and was sitting up in the gallery and watching the debate of to-day and yesterday, would imagine that some of us were trying to do as you will find done in the various legislative bodies of the various countries when something is on hand that needs to obstructed; the obstructionists talk it to death; they keep it going on and on till the hulk of those present are tired of it and want to get rid of the whole business. At present I do not believe that there is anybody or any group of persons in this convention as it now stands that would want to do any such thing. I would rather believe that the actions, or rather the attitude struck by the opposers of this proposition of the Constitution Committee, show that they are honestly striving to have a plan adopted which they believe, as far as their understanding of the proposition goes—which they believe to be the correct thing to do. But this debate or discussion has gone on now a long time, and we have heard it touched upon from all sides, and surely any discerning person in this convention watching the speakers, sizing up their arguments, trying to size them up for himself, and keeping or trying to keep in mind just what this stands for and just what the amendment stands for, and not allowing himself to be diverted by any expressions on the matter, must surely now have reached a conclusion as to the practicability and feasibility and wisdom and correctness of this plan or of the other. And I hope that those present will not indulge in any more lengthy speeches (laughter), but that when any person in the future has something to say in corroboration of what somebody else said, that he will do what I did yesterday when Delegate Hall spoke so cleverly for the constitution—stand up and say he endorses what the previous comrade said, and in that way we will avoid having this proposition talked to death, and more confusion brought about by somebody rushing in with a substitute in order to get another lengthy discussion.
Del. W. F. Morrison: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates: I have not imposed upon your attention a very great deal since I have been in this convention, but I hope to be able in the few remarks that I may make and the few questions that I may ask, to find out just where I am at; not where the convention is at, but where I am at on this proposition. Having received an invitation to visit Chicago, having been invited by the general invitation in this Manifesto, and realizing from a life of experience in the labor movement that there must be something done, and that that thing must be something definitely done for the whole working people, I came to this convention; realizing fully that if the workingman shall ever be emancipated it must be done through the wisdom that lies in the working class. Do we exhibit wisdom in our convention? Will the world at large look upon us as being a wise, deliberative body, when we cannot determine just exactly what we want upon the second proposition presented to us? I have before me a skeleton which was prepared for this committee for the purpose of constituting this conference into a working machine. The brotherhood or organization with which I am immediately affiliated gave instruction to unite our body with this, providing it held to the lines of the Manifesto. Now, are we holding to the lines of the Manifesto on this question? What impresses me very strongly in the arguments on both sides is the indecisiveness of the opinions of the delegates on this floor, and it reminds me of the old religious muddle, that “You shall and you shan’t, can and you can’t, you will be damned if you do and you will be damned if you don’t.” That is the way the thing stands to-day, you shall and you shan’t. Brother Coates on the one hand says this represents one proposition, and Brother Hagerty on the other hand says it represents another proposition. They are all aiming to wipe out these lines of demarcation, and that is what this Manifesto stands for. I see here groupings and there groupings, and they amount to thirteen. Now, let us see whether the Manifesto includes any grouping to speak of except as a universal brotherhood of workingmen. One says, “Let us change the number of these divisions.” The Manifesto says, “A movement to fulfill these conditions”—now I am going to read into it a word when I come to it, embodying the class struggle; let us simply inject the proposition—“must be founded on the class struggle,” and its general administration must be conducted in harmony with a recognition of the class struggle, and it must be international. And now, coming back to the first proposition: “A movement to fulfill these conditions must consist of one great industrial union”; one great industrial union, which our name implies, and which I support and cherish with all my heart. Now, let us go on: “A great industrial union embracing all industries, providing for craft autonomy.” Now, that comes right back to the unity with which this industrial union must be composed. It says, “Granting to each and every local craft its craft autonomy locally.” Now, “Industrial autonomy internationally and nationally”; “embracing all industries, providing for craft autonomy locally, industrial autonomy internationally.” Now, then, I would presume, from what Brother Hagerty said a while ago, that these groups here represent international, industrial conditions; that the industrial grouping would stand for industrial unions, or the union of industries. I understand that each and every craft or trade shall have its local union, and then whatever industry or craft may be found employed in it will organize themselves into a national union of their craft along the industrial lines with other crafts in the same industry, but not in the same group with another craft. That brings us up directly to the centralized government which is represented in the Industrial Workers of the World. The plan as laid down by the committee proposes that they shall arbitrarily say what is individual craft autonomy or what craft individuals shall belong to in a group or division. I am in favor of the amendment. I wish we could be now advanced far enough along that we could wipe out all of these dividing lines, whether they be imaginary or otherwise, and come directly to the individual uniting with the great industrial movement of the workers of the world, in deed and in truth. It was said upon this floor that the Knights of Labor was before its time. My friends, it was not before it was needed, however. The Knights of Labor may have come before the majority of the workingmen were able to handle the situation, and when we came back to divide ourselves up into groups and separate ourselves by these class lines, we see that most of the working people are not yet ready to be organized into an industrial organization that comprises the whole entire working class of the world. Let us tear down, let us wipe out these lines of demarcation, and plant ourselves unitedly upon the proposition of a united brotherhood of the workers of the world.
DEL. DE LEON: I wish to ask the speaker a question. Do I understand that the speaker believes that the proposed amendment would not divide the working class into different trades and crafts?
DEL. MORRISON: No, it would not. It would divide them locally. Will you ask that question again, please?
DEL. DE LEON: I wanted to ask whether you believe that this proposed amendment that you speak in favor of—you say that this grouping divides the working class into thirteen different groups. Now, I want to know, wouldn’t the amendment to this proposition divide the working class into groups, indefinitely? The only difference I can see is that these groups are definitely stated, and the other groups are indefinitely stated.
DEL. MORRISON: It will divide up all the trades, and their own locals will take care of such things as relate to each trade specifically, and those trades shall form internationally into an industrial union embracing all workers in that line. For instance, I am working now in the oil fields. We have a transportation department pertaining to the oil field, yet there is no one working in that field except workers directly employed in the production of oil or identified with transporting the oil, etc. We have derrick men, teamsters, roustabouts, watchmen, pipe men, etc. Then we have the refiner, the blacksmith, the machinist, the tank maker, and all of them work in and around the specialized oil industry from beginning to end. Now, then, if you group the oil men as an industry with some other industry or industries, the direct interests of the men in the oil industry may be under the control of men not in that industry but grouped with them, and they will give the preference to their own industries in this group. But supposing we have groups making up the distinct industries, including nothing but men who work directly in the oil industry, for instance, their interests will be better understood and protected than in any other way. That is my contention. I hope you understand that. Is that satisfactory to you? Now, my friends, I recognize that this is a complex question. I recognize that it is necessary that this convention should construct a constitution which should be perfectly clear to the workingman in the ditch, so the organizer will have no trouble to make him understand his relation to the entire proposition. But when we who are interested and have studied to some extent our relation with the laboring world, cannot agree upon the interpretation of this chart submitted as a part of the constitution and in explanation of it, how do you expect the organizer who goes into the field to make it plain to a man who digs in the ditch? I believe in the Western Federation of Miners or any other organization of that kind, with the knowledge that rests in the individual members of the miners, the organizer could go and explain to them, but with the great mass of men that are found in many organizations they would not understand it. Therefore this constitution must be made plain and simple, with no technical words. Now, let me make another illustration to show you that this plan of grouping is inconsistent even with the line of nature. The whole human anatomy is based upon the cell proposition; life in all forms is based upon the cell. I understand that the individual unit member is a cell in this organization. Those cells are made up into bones and tissues, and they are different in proportion to the tissues that they make up, such as muscle, brain, bone, dermis and all those things. Now, then, you cannot expect to find the cell of a muscle in the brain; therefore you cannot group them together. We find that all of the cells that belong to the brain and form the brain are right in the brain. Now, we have the blacksmith; the blacksmith has interests in common with every other blacksmith, no matter where you find him. Now, to group him for the benefit of his class, he should be placed in relation to his interests as a blacksmith. Now, we have another class, another relation, with reference to skill. We have the relation of the unskilled, and the blacksmith, boiler makers, machinist, pattern-makers, molders, and all those trades that make up a certain industry. Now, in the industrial plan that industry will have an organization, without any other connection except directly upon the center of this chart, which is the administrative department of this organization. It must not come through some other channel, say the miners, unless he is grouped by his organization intimately with the miners’ organization. We take a miner now and put him at the head of this group. Do you believe the miner can represent all these other groups? No it would be just as foolish, as I understand it, as to put the Western Federation of Miners in charge of this central group here, and say, “Administer the whole entire affairs of this organization,” as it is to say that any miner’s union can name a number of individuals and group them together and absolutely represent the industrial interests of a specific industry, and I believe Comrade Coates will bear me out in that. I do not believe that we are going away from this convention without having an understanding. There seems to be a fear on the part of some of the delegates, however, that if we change this one particular clause we tear down the whole entire constitution and all the work of this committee shall have been in vain. I presume that them is wisdom enough in this vast assembly to take that constitution and amend paragraph after paragraph and section after section to conform to the amended condition of this one particular paragraph.
A DELEGATE: Mr. Chairman, does the five-minute rule apply?
DEL. MORRISON: If it had I would have sat down before now, for I think I have talked all of five minutes. I have no personal feeling in this matter, and I hope that none of the delegates that will talk on this proposition will have any personal feeling on the matter. And I can say that I have interrupted none while they were on the floor, and I have been intensely interested in this proposition because, friends, I am one of those individual delegates that pay their own way; I cut $5 a day from my own earnings, out of my employment, and $10 a day for the two Sundays that I am apt to be here in the discussion of all these questions. I have wanted to save time, and for that reason I have been perfectly quiet. I hoped to be able to have this proposition settled by this convention without my having any say-so whatever, but since it became a general discussion I felt that I might add my little mite, though it might be tiresome to some of the delegates. This is my first time and it will be my last. If we grant that which this document prescribes, local autonomy to the individual crafts, then it follows that we must organize for our safety the craft into its immediate industrial organization, which shall be immediately responsible to the central body, to the central organization, in order that we can have the returning influence of authority pledged to the general membership in case of necessity. Now, then, that being the case, the industry should have a perfect local, and not a complex local and central organization as here represented. I would be glad if we could wipe out all these artificial lines, for I have no use for them, because each and everyone of the industries has been given in the outline here; the industries have all been stated, and why do we want to aggregate them into groups and establish an arbitrary ruling over groups which are not entirely in harmony with each other? They can only be in harmony with conditions affecting them in their ordinary affairs, and do not agree with them otherwise. Then let us leave these lines out. Let us have our representation industrially directly, without any grouping save in the general group, the whole entire group. Then I could go to the least man in the community, in the oil industry, and tell him, “Here, you can give all of the toilers a local organization”—call them common laborers—“you can have your own local, your own grouping,” and then when we have gotten them all into locals to study these conditions under a charter from the main organization, when they come in in this place and in that place in the oil industry, they elect from themselves the necessary officers and they can actually administer the affairs of the oil industry without reference to the administration of the department of mining. But when we go with a complex idea to the workingman he will not be able to understand the necessity for such things as that, and therefore he will not embrace the opportunity of becoming a member. But when we tell him he can come into his local and discuss in his local everything that relates to his particular interests, and then that his local shall have industrial representation directly in the convention and connected with the central organization, he can then be made to understand it, I believe. I thank you very kindly. (Applause.)
DEL. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, as this is getting down to a question of endurance, and possibly to give the stenographer work this afternoon, I propose that we cut the debate short. It is getting monotonous to a majority of the delegates, sitting here and hearing the same ground being covered by every speaker practically in the same channel, simply to be recorded by the stenographer. (Applause.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It is not within the power of the chair to cut this debate short before the people of this convention want to do so. Every other man who gets this floor is entitled to the same courtesy, and I hope that hereafter no one will so far forget the duty they owe to the delegate, the chair and themselves as to needlessly interrupt the speakers; and also that the speakers will be short and quit when they get through. (Laughter.)
Del. Bradley: I am not going to tire you now, but I just want to say a word or two. I don’t believe in this long-drawn-out talk. The Constitution Committee has made thirteen sub-divisions of the workers. The committee recognizes as well as any of us that the interests of the working class are all the same. Now, to-day under capitalism we can divide the working class into three divisions, one the food department, another the shelter department, and the other the clothing department. We could make three groupings if we wanted to do it that way. And whenever a strike is initiated by any portion of the working class which is connected with the production and distribution of food supplies, then that would mean that this particular portion of the working class could be backed up by all the rest of the workers that have anything to do with the production and distribution of foodstuffs. Then, taking the clothing department, the same rule would apply; and so in the building department. And finally we would come to the conclusion that these three groups are mutually dependent upon each other, and that when any question arises it must come right down to a class struggle of the working class against the capitalist class. But for a matter of convenience the Constitution Committee has divided them up into thirteen divisions, just for convenience of dealing with certain elements of the working class that may be instantly involved in a strike, and also for the purpose of communicating with them. And I think that most of the arguments that have been advanced here overlook the point that the Constitution Committee is trying to impress upon your minds; that these groupings are made only for the convenience of communication with the working class. That is all I have to say.
DEL. DINGER: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates, I assure you that I will not take up any more than five minutes of your time. We came here. for the purpose of doing what? We came here for the purpose of organizing an industrial organization. It seems to me that there is one thing above every other that has caused us to come here, and that is the so-called scabbery that has resulted in the jurisdiction quarrels within the American Federation of Labor. We have before us the proposed systematic plan of the Constitution Committee that has labored faithfully for two days in bringing that about, and the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment is that this industrial organization of the world shall be composed of national and international unions embracing all the workers of an industry. There is something indefinite, something that is to be fought out. You will have the same scabbing as you had in the American Federation of Labor. There is nothing definite about that. This committee has tried to give you a feasible, tangible, definite plan, remember that. Whatever may be said about industrial unionism, we must first of all endeavor to make that industrial unionism effective, and this your committee has attempted by making a system, by proposing to you a system upon which this industrial union must be organized. I am not going into details, but want to refer to what the last speaker, but one said. He shows to you the different trades included in the oil industry, the blacksmiths and numerous other trades. He said, “Who is to determine who belongs to that industry and who not?” In order to avoid these so-called jurisdiction squabbles we have to do the best we can and find the best system. Now, if you endorse this amendment you endorse anarchy, if you please. You endorse the same principle upon which the American Federation of Labor has been organized. If you endorse that plan you will have no system and be like the A. F. of L. And you will find out that you will succeed much more rapidly and much more thoroughly than working without a system. I think that has been the experience of the human race.
DEL. SAINER: I have heard a great many speeches about the jurisdictional problems of the different unions. I do not think we came here with the idea of settling any of those problems. We came here to settle the one great problem of securing the organization of all the workers, and the question of what the different unions would do is not the question at issue at all. The fact that we depend on capital for an existence, that is the problem to be settled.
(Question called for.)
DEL. ROSS: I admire the disposition, Mr. Chairman and Delegation of this Convention, to listen to fourteen nearly consecutive hours of debate upon whether or not we shall adopt this substitute amendment offered by one of the brother delegates upon the floor in place of the recommendation of the Constitution Committee. I want to say to you this, in plain and explicit terms: I do not approve of the recommendation of the committee, from the simple fact that it is my understanding, and I think it has developed nearly every delegate with the exception of a few who have spoken, that the object of this convention was to find some solution for the purpose of solidifying the workers, not only of our country, but of the world. And when that is so, I want to ask you, if that is solidarity? Is it? And for that reason I say upon this floor I am not in favor of it. And while I admire the statements of some of the delegates, and while some of you had the pleasant opportunity to sail on spread-eagle wings of oratory, did you not notice yesterday that one of that committee emphatically informed you and me that whatever we might do in regard to accepting or rejecting what that Constitution Committee offered, they would call the roll and carry it over all opposition? And for that reason I have kept my mouth shut, and I think it would have been wise if a great many more of you had done the same thing. Now, there are a few more moments left, and delegates have the opportunity of closing this debate, and I believe—and I arose for that express purpose more than anything else—to say that it is due to the patience of the delegates of this convention and to that of our honored Chairman, that we as delegates refuse to speak longer or take the time, and let Delegate Coates make his speech and then let us do our voting and see whether we take the substitute or whether we take that which is offered by the Constitution Committee. I thank you.
Question called for, and calls for Delegate Coates.
DEL. BOSKY: You have heard a whole lot of stories about this new industrial organization, and you have heard absolutely nothing on the economic principles involved in this question. You have heard of the troubles of the boiler maker and the troubles of the oil field workers and all of these, and we have heard nothing about the wage system. Are we here protesting against the distribution of wealth in this country? There are two things that are closely connected with economics—production and distribution. These two things are absolutely dependent on each other. If you want to create harmony between these two things, you have to make here on this floor a declaration that all things necessary to our life which are produced and distributed in these great industries are equally of necessity, and consequently equal of volume. If you want to found here a new organization on the industrial field, you must not only have wills to go about it, you must have a principle and go out and tell every man that is connected with this production and distribution that his share and his part of the work is the same and equal with any other. If you want to build a house it is just as necessary to dig the foundation as to raise the house, and it must be done before you can have the painting and music and education that are going to be furnished in that house. You have to establish here and declare here for the economic equality that is necessary to our living, and not before will we carry out the purpose for which this convention is here.
Question called for.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegates from this time on will be required to confine themselves absolutely to the question before the convention; that is that “It shall be composed of national and international unions embracing all workers of an industry. ” That is an amendment to Section 2 of Article 1.
DEL. WILKE: I desire to speak to the amendment.
DEL. MURTAUGH: I desire you to re-read that amendment. I did not understand it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Section 2 provides that there shall be thirteen international industrial unions. The amendment is that it “shall be composed of national and international unions embracing all workers of an industry.”
DEL. WILKE: Mr. Chairman and Delegates, I am opposed to the amendment for the reason that the call of this convention had in view a different object from what the amendment proposes to make it. I came here as one of the attendants of this convention for the purpose of founding an organization along class lines, and not craft lines. (Applause). I wish to lend my cooperation to your efforts with that motive in view, and none else. The amendment as it stands now virtually places this organization in the same category as the A. F. of L. and other craft organizations. (Applause). You speak about organizing them industrially according to the amendment. You have that form of organization to-day. I belong to the craft of printers. Haven’t you got your Allied Printing Trades Council? What does that represent? The printing trade, with the type founder, electrotyper, stereotyper, bookbinder, pressman and compositor. Is it fulfilling its mission? I say no. Therefore, delegates, I hope that you will not place this organization on craft lines, but on class lines, and organize an economic union and not an aristocratic organization. (Applause).
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I won’t take up much time, but I want to say something on the subject. I heard Brother O’Neil remark something about the construction of this being wrong. I want to instruct him as to the numerical construction of it. The national executive board of this body, in place of being composed of fifteen members will be composed of thirteen members elected by their different groups as outlined on that chart, and as the balance of the constitution will bear me out when it is read to you. The construction of those thirteen groups will be composed of 273 men, if they carry out the intent of the constitution as far as they want to go. Now, I want to say that I am opposed both to the amendment and to the original motion, and I am going to vote against both of them when the time comes. I endeavored yesterday to lay before you a plan that 18,000 men asked me to do two years ago, for the workers of this country, in the State of Montana, and I am going back to my constituents and report to them as I find things here, and not as I don’t find them. We want one single organization. We don’t want any craft lines. We want industrial lines. We want one central body, centralized in some part of this country, with an executive board so small as to work quickly, and with absolute control of every industry and every workingman in this country. That is what we want in Montana. And we want to organize the industries locally into a central body in order that there may be back of each local body all the force of the central body. That is the plan that I wanted to offer to this convention, and you would not let me do it. Now, I am going to go back to my constituents and tell them what was done here, and see what will happen down there. I don’t want to see any more debate on this. Every man knows how he is going to vote, and for God’s sake proceed with the constitution if you are going to have it.
Delegate Murtaugh was recognized.
DEL. WHITE: I object, because he has spoken twice.
DEL. MURTAUGH: I rise to a question of personal privilege. Did I talk twice?
THE CHAIRMAN: You cannot till all other delegates who wish have spoken.
DEL. MURTAUGH: Then this gentleman ought to be seated.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Murtaugh, have you spoken twice?
DEL. MURTAUGH: I have not.
A DELEGATE: Yes, he has.
DEL. MURTAUGH: I have not.
The Delegate: I appeal to the stenographer’s report on it. He has spoken a couple of times.
DEL. MURTAUGH: I have not. I understand just as well as anybody the limitations of parliamentary law. I have held myself in repression for a long while, and I have listened to the vaporings of others.
Another delegate objected to the use of the term “vaporings,” and the stenographer’s report was again appealed to.
THE CHAIRMAN: The chair takes the position that the delegate has not spoken on this question. If I remember rightly he did rise to a point of order and attempted to make a speech. Delegate Murtaugh has the floor.
DEL. MURTAUGH: Mr. Chairman, I wish to be as brief as possible. I know that in some intelligences I am going to be understood, but to the great composite intelligence of this organization I believe that in a very few words I can make myself clear. I tried to get it in before on a question of personal privilege and failed. I want to say this simply, that in my estimation there has been absolutely nothing said by either side upon the question under discussion for so long that would not apply equally to either side. (Confusion). I cannot speak without having attention paid to me. I am going to try to be brief. I say this, that the grouping that has been attempted there and the other groupings that have not been plainly outlined by the opposition mean practically the same thing. It means the recognition, as Delegate De Leon expressed it, of the present divisions in the crafts or the present tools that we use, and the only difference between the two factions was a difference in degree and not a difference of minds, as to how they should be grouped. We get into that state of mind, Mr. President, necessarily on account of the limitations that are put upon us by the environment in which we are born and raised. When we come into a convention of this kind that embraces every shade of opinion, necessarily each and every shade of opinion expressed here must be something coming from the environment of the particular individual that expresses that shade of opinion. We can expect to get into just such a tempest in a teapot as we have been in for the past twenty-four hours. I want to say further, Mr. President, that the Preamble adopted by this convention expressed just as much of the aspirations of this convention as was possible for the composite intelligence of this convention to express, and that when an organization could be formed it was inevitable that we got into just such a muddle. I want to say further, that I have been very much surprised to find myself a revolutionist among revolutionaries, when I thought that I was a conservative of conservatives, and just take this as my individual conception of what a completely class-conscious organization, with that expression of the kind of, solidarity that is needed in an economic organization and should be, and that should be this: The recognition of the fact that we have certain very, very simple groups as represented by the trade, for instance, that I belong to the molders, whose interests are apparently in some minor instances separate and distinct from the interests of anybody else who might happen to be working in the particular shop or factory in which a molder is working. But I want to emphasize the fact, Mr. President, that that interest is no more emphasized by the fact that we wish to retain our local organization of molders or any other craft, than it is by the chart placed before us there, where we apologize for our present system of organization by saying that this is not an expression of solidarity, irrespective of what the capitalists say, that this is not an expression of the solidarity that we should have in the labor movement. And I want to say that if you are going to have solidarity in the labor movement you are not going to have thirteen groups, any one of which may become powerful, but you are going to have just one expression of solidarity. It is going to be contained in the centralized government of the organization here formed, and, you are not going to have the danger that there is now within the American Federation of Labor of the withdrawal of the United Mine Workers or the Iron Molders or the Machinists or any other organization, and they could withdraw to-morrow out of the American Federation of Labor, or some of them. You are going to have an organization in which each and every individual unit of that organization has something at stake; an organization that will not only inculcate the principles of solidarity and class-consciousness, but in which the individual units composing that organization, irrespective of how you organize the local, has something at stake nationally and internationally, and won’t withdraw. Mr. President, I believe that without going into further details, that expresses my idea. And I wish to offer as a substitute for the whole—I believe embracing the idea—I do not believe that it will do away with the work of the Constitution Committee; I believe that they will grasp the idea, and I believe that on account of the respectful attention that has been given me they have grasped the idea, no matter how imperfectly stated. I hope we will get ourselves out of this muddle and get into a completely class-conscious, solid organization of the workingmen such as we express in our Preamble, and not offer an apology to any form of capitalism or craft organization now extant. I will offer it here: “Resolved, That Section 2 be referred back to the Committee on Constitution with instructions to endeavor to bring in a plan combining local craft autonomy with absolute solidarity nationally and internationally expressed.” (Seconded).
DEL. SHERMAN: I have had the floor once, but I would like to have it five minutes to see if I cannot cover the points that I did not cover in my previous talk to the convention.
(Chairman Haywood resumed the chair).
A DELEGATE: A point of order. We cannot consider the substitute.
THE CHAIRMAN: The substitute is that Section 2 be referred back to the Committee on Constitution with instructions to bring in a plan combining local craft autonomy with absolute solidarity nationally and internationally. You have heard the amendment to the amendment. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). Those in favor of the amendment to the amendment will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is lost. The question occurs on the amendment to Section 2, that is the one introduced by Delegate Coates, which it would probably be well to read, as none of the delegates have spoken to it lately. “It shall be composed of national and international unions embracing all workers of an industry.”
Del. Glasgow took the floor.
DEL. DAVIS: Is all debate shut off? If so, I am perfectly willing to take my seat. If not, I wish to have the floor for an amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have suggested a hard proposition to the chair. The chair at this time would like to tell you a falsehood if he could, but the debate has not been closed, and you have the floor.
DEL. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates to the convention: I wish to say a word in behalf of a vast army of laborers in this country, the vast army of laborers that are not organized—the man who ought to have the chuck-steak or joint but get poor soup principally—in his behalf. In glittering generalities it has been pointed out here that they would be vastly benefited by the adoption of this constitution without amendment, or that portion of it that was before the house, and also as proposed to be amended by Delegate Coates. Now, as one who came from that class, but at the present time is in organized labor and has been for nearly twenty-five years, I wish, to state that that class is pretty thickheaded. I know that, because I am from that class. I wish to state here and now that unless you can point out specifically wherein we are going to be benefited, the particular class from which I came, it will be utterly impossible in the future, as it has been in most instances in the past, to have them with you as an organized body whatsoever. They are the ones who work for small pay. They are the ones who to-day need to have the work started going. If you pick the brainy skilled worker, you will be helpless unless you throw away your pride and your coat collar and get down into the bottom of the sewer or into the hole that is commonly called an excavation for a building on which the structure is to be erected, or whatever it may be. Now, for my part, I can see nothing very encouraging in the plan presented by your Constitution Committee, and I can see nothing in the amendment as presented by Delegate Coates. This is the first time I have raised my voice in this convention, either for or against any proposition that has confronted you, but I feel that I would be false to my particular class if I sat on my chair and refused to raise my voice in their behalf. I have looked over, as carefully perhaps as I will do in the future, the proposed plan as presented by an individual delegate, Brother Fairgrieve of Montana. I have also looked casually over a plan as presented by my Brother delegate Critchlow, representing the International Laborers’ Union. Whether either one is exactly what my class, in my opinion, would want, I do not know; but there is provision made specifically for my particular craft in each of their plans, and I ask you now, in the name of over twenty millions of people, have you presented, any of you, any specific plan for that class of which I am a member?
DEL. DINGER: Certainly; sure.
DEL. DAVIS: I see nothing whatever only glittering generalities. Now, we wish, all that are in this position, you would show us some plan by which we can save ourselves. Now, we don’t want to have to say, like our good fellow Christians say, that Christ will save us, or as many trade unionists say and I have heard them say, that Brother De Leon will save us, and Brother Eugene V. Debs can save us, and Mother Jones, and Brother Samuel Gompers has got a plan that will save you.
THE CHAIRMAN: The delegate will confine himself to the question.
DEL. DAVIS: All right, Mr. Chairman; I have said all I want to say in the general way in which I have spoken. I am coming right back to that part of it for one minute, and that is this: I hope that the good sense of this convention will prevail and vote down that particular part as presented by the Constitution Committee, and also the amendment presented by Brother Coates, and we will then endeavor right here in committee of the whole to submit a proposition to cover that particular phase of the constitution.
DEL. CRITCHLOW: I want to speak on the question before the house, although it was not my intention to do so. I do not want to speak for the purpose of finding out where I am at, because I know where I am at and I know where my organization is at. But I am afraid that there are some of us that don’t know where we are at. Now, then, the one point of difference between these two contentions for consideration has never yet been touched, and I cannot understand how all this discussion has gone on without touching that point. If that is an industrial union, then our organization is not in favor of that industrial unionism. That is not what they stand for. That organization as proposed there is a departmental organization, nothing more nor nothing less. That is not necessarily an industrial organization. The printing industry cannot be organized as a printing industry on industrial lines in that form of organization. The printing industry as such—I think that is the main contention here—would be divided into the different groups to which it was most closely allied and made subservient to the management of those groups. That is the contention at issue. The bakery business, as so cleverly brought out here a moment ago, would not necessarily have an industrial bakery workers’ union under that form of organization, but it would be an organization divided into the groups of trades most closely allied and made subservient to the management of those groups. If that is the proposition it will forever preclude the possibility of this organization organizing the bakery workers or another similar organization. The time has not yet come in the development of the union movement in this country that that form of organization can be made a success. It has been remarked here on the floor, in contradistinction to that argument, that the capitalist industries at this time have reached that stage. Suppose that to be true, is it not a fact that the capitalist industries have reached that stage by reason of the fact that through the breaking down of their different lines of capitalist exploitation they have developed surplus capital which has of necessity forced it to go into other lines of business for the purpose of exploitation, thereby necessitating the formation of other industrial groups? Now, then, it seems to me to be an impossibility to jump from a craft organization into a group of organizations. It seems to me that we have of necessity to pass through the industrial form of organization. The proposition submitted against that proposition of the committee is a proposition to organize on legitimate industrial lines and recognize legitimate industrial organizations embracing the workers in any given and specific industry. There is no one so foolish as to believe that an intelligent man of sound judgment cannot determine whether any industry is an industry or not. It seems to me that if I go back to my organization and submit a proposition like that, they will wipe out the industrial declaration in their constitution. That is a part of their declared program to-day. They will say that they do not understand the industrial constitution or what industrial unionism means, if that is the position of the industrial unionists’ convention. Industrial unionism, as we understand it, is an organization in any given line of industry embracing the workers in that industry, and that is nothing more or less than the contention of Delegate Coates. Now, then, that contention of Delegate Coates will conflict with that proposition there; because for instance the Typographical Union—I say that because I understand that he is a typo—will of necessity be so divided and separated into different groups with which it is most closely allied as to become subservient to the organizations, and we have learned from experience in our organizations that that will not be tolerated. Now, I would like to take up the question of the previous speaker, but I will not digress to that extent. I would like to tell at some time during this convention the different problems that have confronted us in organizing the laborers of this country; because the experience that we have gained and the fact that we are the only powerful organization of laborers on an international scale in the world, so to speak, would I believe be of interest and of vast importance to this assemblage. But on the question now at issue I will simply say this, that if that proposition stands our organization certainly is not nor cannot be an industrial union, and we did not know in the first place what we were doing when we sent representatives here.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the convention will permit the chair, I do not believe that I have spoken on any question that has come up, and it is not my intention to speak at this time, but I would like to appoint Delegate Sherman here to act as Chairman long enough for me to make a motion.
(Delegate Sherman took the chair).
DEL. HAYWOOD: This motion is that Section 2 of Article 1 be referred back to the Committee on Constitution with instructions to specifically satisfy and perform that part of the Manifesto providing for “craft autonomy locally, industrial autonomy internationally, and working class unity generally.” Just a few remarks in favor of this motion. I am opposed to the amendment offered by Delegate Coates. I am not altogether in favor of this subdivision, only inasmuch as it provides for a general administration over this organization. When the members of the Constitution Committee said that there were probably fifty industries in this country, then I say that this Manifesto provides for those fifty industries (applause) and that this organization should be broad enough in its scope to take in every one of them; that this is not a departmental organization; that this Constitution Committee should, as nearly as they can carry out the sense and sentiment of the Manifesto. In my opinion, Division 13, wherein you have grouped together all of those industries which are covered by and may be termed public service—you have included the great) printing industry in that division. The constitution does not provide for international central autonomy for the printing industry. I insist that it should provide for it. And I would like it not only for the printing industry, but for every other industry that is represented here and that we may bring into this organization. Now, I say that the printer has a craft. To what particular industry does his craft belong? The printing industry is an industry in itself, divided up into twenty or thirty different crafts, and I take it that this organization is formed for the purpose of giving to those different international unions absolute industrial autonomy, to those local unions local autonomy, and let every one of the local unions be installed with the idea of giving to their members as nearly as they can individual autonomy. I am in accord with this proposition as a general proposition, that is in so much as it represents a government, for instance, like the United States government, where we have the department of the navy, the department of war, the interior department, agricultural department, postal departments and other departments. I am perfectly in accord with a general administration of that kind. But that is not carried out in the formation of this organization. And this government with its different departments is carried into effect by different States. Is it possible for the delegates here to consider those different States as international industrial unions, to carry into effect the aims and purposes of the general labor movement which are represented by a central government? If there are forty-five different international unions, they should have absolute autonomy just the same as the State has from the national government. Every county in the State—I mean every local in an international, should have the same relative position or maintain the same relative position towards its international as the county does toward the State. That is my idea of building up an international organization; one where we can have general centralized administration in the general labor movement. But I do not want the general labor movement to interfere with the building up and the maintaining of any industry other than as it affects the general labor movement. It has been said here a number of times that the purpose of this organization is to take over the means of production and distribution. Well, now, how best can you teach the workers in any trade, class or industry as to the aims and purposes and ability of those particular workers other than by giving them absolute autonomy over the business that they know best? Suppose, for instance, that instead of the printers in this particular section here you had put the miners; do you think we would agree to a proposition like that? Now, the printing industry is an industry that is rapidly assuming such proportions that it is of much greater importance than the miners, employing more men. Therefore, I am in accord with the contention that the delegate has raised who made the amendment, that this plan is not correct. I again say that I am satisfied with the plan as a general administration. I am not satisfied with it inasmuch as it does not provide industrial autonomy for the international organizations. Therefore I make a motion that this particular section be referred back to the Constitution Committee with an instruction to carry out the spirit and sense of the Manifesto. (Seconded).
THE CHAIRMAN (DEL. SHERMAN): You have heard the amendment. Are you ready for the question? Delegate Hagerty was recognized.
DEL. GLASGOW: Didn’t you permit me to have the floor?
THE CHAIRMAN (DEL. SHERMAN): No, I was not in the chair when you were recognized. This is an entirely different question, and you had an entirely different Chairman. Now Delegate Hagerty has the floor on this question, on this particular motion on the question to refer back.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: It seems to me that that motion to refer ought not to be put until the entire constitution is read and the members find out whether provisions have been made for this allowing of craft autonomy. I am opposed to the term “craft autonomy” in its present interpretation. I do not think it conveys the idea, or perhaps conveys the idea that the Chairman has in mind, if he means by craft autonomy the A. F. of L. interpretation. In that spirit I am opposed to the motion. I oppose the motion on the general ground that it is not reasonable enough, in view of the fact that the rest of the constitution, which must necessarily interpret the preceding portions of the constitution, have not yet been discussed, and we cannot consistently accept, a reference, and I as one, if this committee is compelled to rewrite this, shall withdraw from my previous promise in that committee to support this thing as a whole. I am going into this thing as a free lance, and support Brother Hall’s position from start to finish.
(Delegate Haywood resumed the chair).
DEL. COATES: I only want to add a word or two on this matter of referring. I want to say that I believe it is unfair to me, after we have sat here all day long and listened to this argument on the amendment, to adopt a motion that will prevent my arguing or trying to explain or clear up, if you please, some of the arguments that have been made here to-day. I have been sitting here, Mr. Chairman, ever since nine o’clock this morning, taking notes from the speakers that I desire to answer, who I believe have touched on this question, and I believe that this convention is entitled to my interpretation of my amendment before your motion comes in to refer. I have another reason, that I believe that my amendment, if voted on, will test the sense of the convention as to whether it wants to refer along the lines of your motion. I mean that the original motion and the amendment will settle the proposition here whether we shall have an industrial organization or a departmental organization. And if it decides to adopt my amendment, then your motion to refer back to the committee to provide for industrialism will be absolutely correct. My only contention is that the convention ought to decide first whether it wants industrialism or departmentalism.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: A point of information. I would like to have this new word that is coined here, “departmentalism,” defined for this convention.
DEL. COATES: You can define it if you like.
DEL. HAGERTY: I request courteously that the delegate will answer my question, and in the sense in which it was asked, seriously and without persiflage.
DEL. COATES: Mr. Chairman. I have been sitting here all day long for that very purpose, and I really think that the Chairman ought to withdraw that motion and let me cover this proposition, and then I will, I believe, to the satisfaction of the delegates define “departmentalism” and “industrial unionism.”
THE CHAIRMAN: The chair would say to the delegate that in the opinion of the chair the motion to refer opens up the question—all questions under debate.
DEL. COATES: I was going to bring that very point out. Do I understand that if I make a talk now as the mover of this motion, then we will just simply go over the whole thing again; everybody will answer me, and then you will give me the privilege of answering them again?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, you haven’t got any other privileges.
DEL. COATES: I hold only the privilege of talking to this motion to refer this resolution?
THE CHAIRMAN: If you desire to talk to the question of referring, the scope is broad enough to give you an opportunity to present any arguments.
DEL. COATES: Well, the idea is that when I get through the question is still open to every delegate?
THE CHAIRMAN: It is open to every delegate.
DEL. COATES: And that includes me, of course.
THE CHAIRMAN: It includes you.
DEL. COATES: Yes. Well, I am not going to say anything else now.
THE CHAIRMAN: Brother Coates, the chair is not narrow in regard to this. I have no objection to seeing the convention go on record, and I am entirely willing to withdraw my motion to refer until you conclude your argument.
DEL. COATES: Well, the, only point is that I believe the amendment and the original motion will test the sense of this convention whether it wants what I term industrialism or what the other people term industrialism, and then it will be a proper time to. send it back to the committee if it wishes, to carry out that plan.
THE CHAIRMAN: It does not so occur to the chair. Now, in the event of the amendment being defeated, there is no reason why this is going to be adopted. If this amendment was adopted I still would make my motion to refer.
DEL. COATES: Yes, then your motion would be very properly in order, but if my amendment was defeated and the committee’s report adopted it would not be.
THE CHAIRMAN: The mere fact of the amendment being defeated does not suggest that this report here is going to be adopted, Brother Coates.
DEL. COATES: Not at all; not at all.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, with the consent of my second, I have no objection to withdrawing the motion to refer at this time.
A DELEGATE: I withdraw the second.
Delegate Coates called for from different parts of the hall.
DEL. GLASGOW: I move the previous question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Coates has the floor.
Motion for previous question seconded.
DEL. DANIEL MCDONALD: I understand that the report of this committee is before the convention. That is correct, is it?
THE CHAIRMAN: Jut a minute. The amendment of Delegate Coates is before the convention.
DEL. MCDONALD: The original proposition?
THE CHAIRMAN: The report of the committee as amended by Delegate Coates.
Del. McDonald: Brother Coates made an amendment to the report of the committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Del.. McDonald: The amendment is before the convention in addition to the report of the committee?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
DEL. MCDONALD: Now I understand that there was a motion to refer the entire proposition back to the Committee on Constitution. Am I correct?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. With the consent of the second the motion has been withdrawn and the question now occurs on the Coates amendment.
DEL. MCDONALD: Well, I simply want to make this point, that to refer the proposition was equivalent to the adoption of Brother Coates’s amendment, in my judgment.
THE CHAIRMAN: I thought so. I will state to Brother McDonald that the adoption of this motion to refer, while it may have seemed to be the equivalent of the Coates motion, it gives it into the hands of the Constitution Committee to carry out the provisions of the Manifesto.
DEL. COATES: Now, Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates, I will attempt, in the time that I shall occupy this floor, to confine myself absolutely to the report of the committee and the amendment made to that report. In order, to do that, I want to get clear in the minds of the delegates here the report of the committee, and on the construction of the report of the committee. I do not want this audience to vote on the sayings, of any supporter of this report, but on the report, and nothing else. When the report of this committee is embodied in the constitution, that is the law, and not the interpretations of the framers, or rather of delegates upon this floor. Now, let us see what the report is. “Section 2. And shall be composed”—that is, this industrial organization, the Industrial Workers of the World—“shall be composed of thirteen international unions, designated as follows.” Mind you, thirteen industrial unions is all that can make up this organization. Now, the first industrial union is to be made up as follows—
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: Divisions.
DEL. COATES: No, sir, I am not talking about divisions. I am talking about industrial unions that this report says shall make up this organization. The first industrial union shall be made up as follows: Clerks, salesmen—
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: A point of order. I object to the reading of this with an exposition. Read it as the committee reports, and not with interpolations. I object to your interpolations.
DEL. COATES: May I read in a different word?
DEL. HAGERTY: Read in “division.”
DEL. COATES: Well, you read it.
DEL. HAGERTY: No interpolation. Let us get it right. I demand a reading of the report as it is, without any interpolations.
DEL. COATES: The delegate has the language in his mind. Let him read it.
DEL. HAGERTY: No, sir; a point of order.. If he is quoting the report of this committee, then let him quote it as the report.
DEL. COATES: I never saw anybody that was afraid of a discussion except the fellow that wanted to hide something. Now, if there is anyone here that can get any other words out of this report than I am reading I am willing to let him read it.
DEL. HAGERTY: I simply maintain my point of order. If he is going to read the report of the committee, let him read the report of the committee, and not any interpolations.
THE CHAIRMAN: The delegate will proceed to read the report as he sees fit. If you have any corrections to make make them.
DEL. COATES: Now let me tell you what Delegate Hagerty is trying to do.
DEL. HAGERTY: A point of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: No, that is not necessary, Delegate Coates. Confine yourself to the argument.
DEL. COATES: I was not going to make any personal insinuations; not at all. There have been enough of those made. I do not want to insinuate that anyone here is trying to be dishonest, and I want to warn the delegate against insinuating that I am dishonest in this thing. I will read that section again. I am surprised that the language of this report has stirred up so much trouble. “Shall be composed of thirteen international industrial unions, designated as follows.” Now, let me tell you that the report goes on and instead of saying “industrial union No. 1,” it says “Division No. 1.” That is what he was trying to get me to say. And I want to say or I want to ask him why a difference is made in thirteen industrial unions and thirteen divisions. They absolutely mean one and the same thing; because after we get through with these divisions there is not an industrial union mentioned in here. Now, is that satisfactory, that Division No. 1 means Industrial Union No. 1. I believe it is. “Industrial Union No. 1 shall be made up as follows: Clerks, salesmen, tobacco, packing houses, flour mills, sugar refineries,, dairies, bakeries and kindred industries.” I don’t know what they mean by “kindred industries,” I am free to confess.
DEL. HAGERTY: Kindergartens.
DEL. COATES: I cannot understand where tobacco and bakeries are kindred industries, and I do not know what other kind of industries they are going to bring in under the word “kindred.” Industrial Union No. 2, “brewery, wine and distillery workers.” Get that correctly, fellow delegates. An industrial union at last. “Division 3, floriculture, stock and general farming.” That might probably come under an industrial union. “Division 4, mining milling, smelting and refining coal, ores, metals, salt and iron”; a very proper industrial organization. “Division 5, steam railway, electric railway, marine, shipping and teaming.” I am not going to separate those now, but a very improper industrial organization, in my opinion. “Division 6, all building employes”; a proper industrial organization. “Division 7, all textile industrial employes”; a very proper industrial organization. “Division 8, all leather industrial employes;” a very proper industrial organization. “Division 9, all woodworking employes, except those engaged in the building department.” That will need perhaps some further construction to fix more definitely its lines. “Division 10, all metal industrial employes”; perfectly proper. “Division 11, all glass and pottery employes”; perfectly proper. “Division 12, all paper mills, chemicals, rubber, brooms and brushes, and jewelry industries.” A conglomeration that is not very proper. “Division 13, parks, highways, municipal”I suppose that takes in the mayor and police and the rest of them—“postal service, telegraph, telephone, schools and educational institutions, amusements, sanitary, printing, hotels, barber employes, restaurant and laundry employes,” and the rest of them. Now, those are the thirteen industrial unions that are to make up this organization, and none other. I do not care particularly to lay stress upon the conglomeration of the last division, but this one sticks out most glaringly. I want to say that perhaps six of these divisions are proper. And then in order to be sure that there could not be any more than thirteen organizations, all the rest of them are bunched into three or four other international industrial unions. I want to repeat that it is a most impracticable grouping of these organizations in a union. System? Somebody said system. Somebody said that this was a systematic grouping. I want to say that there is absolutely no system in it, except perhaps as it applies to four or five or six of the divisions as mentioned. I am satisfied the intention and the purpose of this committee was to divide these groupings as far as representation on the Executive Board was concerned; and I want to say to you that if they had done that, perhaps we would have had no particular objection to it. We might have tried to straighten this thing out in a limited way, but it would not have been the serious question that it is now. And that as it comes here, comes on interpretation, and I want to say it is widely different, and I want to call the attention of this convention to what I believe the two different explanations of this report make. I shall quote them the nearest to my belief of what they said, and if I misquote anybody I have no purpose to misinterpret what they did say. Delegate De Leon said that my amendment which provided for industrial organizations was a most drastic measure; that it meant the destruction of a great many now national and international organizations. And I took from that that he intended that they should stay just exactly the way they are; that the printers, the stereotypers, the restaurant employes, barbers and so on, should stay absolutely as they are at the present time. And then somebody accused us of advocating the A. F. of L. system. I want at the present time to contrast that now with the other interpretation of what I claim, this explaining of this report by Delegate Sherman. Delegate Sherman just took the opposite view from Delegate De Leon. Here you are, with the two interpretations of the very men on this committee, and we are expected to go out and agree on these things. Delegate Sherman just took the other view, that practically every international organization should be wiped out of existence, and then they have one great central body absolutely operated from this Executive Board with central power. Now, which interpretation of this thing are you going to take? Delegate De Leon, who wants the organizations carried on as they are now, retaining all their trade and craft autonomy, bringing into this organization all the contentious and disrupting quarrels about trade jurisdiction and autonomy, or do you want to wipe out absolutely all the organizations and bring them into one general administration? I want to say to you frankly that I would prefer the latter one, eventually bringing the A. F. of L. bodily into this organization. I am satisfied, Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates, that the whole interpretation of the various members of this committee in support of their report has been predicated upon the proposition that they are simply grouped as representatives on the Executive Board. Why, they have gone so far in their interpretation as to agree absolutely with my amendment. I think every argument that there has been in so-called opposition to my amendment has strengthened the amendment, and the longer I listen to the arguments against it the stronger it comes to me. Delegate Hagerty in his explanation and also in answer to several questions put to him on this floor, has said that every individual craft organization should have its organization and its local and international autonomy. Isn’t that correct?
DEL. HAGERTY: No, I did not use those words.
DEL. COATES: What did you say? I am willing to be corrected. I want to be fair about it.
DEL. HAGERTY: Go on. When you get through I will speak.
DEL. COATES: No, I don’t think you will.
DEL. HAGERTY: I believe I will.
DEL. COATES: All right.
DEL. HAGERTY: You have misquoted me.
DEL. COATES: Then this is the time to correct it.
DEL. HAGERTY: Well, I merely say that I did not make the statement that every craft should have its international organization.
DEL. COATES: You did not say that?
DEL. HAGERTY: No, I did not say that. I am positive. I do not think it is the spirit of the Manifesto.
DEL. COATES: Then if it has not been said, that is the impression on this floor. While I may not use just exactly the words that you used, that has been the interpretation that you have put time and time again on this report; that the printers should have their own organization; that the laundry workers should have their own organization; and so on clear down the line. And the impression has gone forth in this convention that we were to have different industrial organizations under this scheme of grouping. I want to show you, Fellow Delegates, that that kind of interpretation is misrepresentation of this group, and you have no right to make that interpretation when you leave this convention after this report shall have been adopted. I read you Division 13, including a great number of craftsmen or wageworkers that absolutely have no kindredship or identity of interest except the general identity of interest of every man and woman who works for wages; and I want to show you that there must be only one industrial union of this great Division 13, because it says further down that only the presidents of these divisions or industrial unions shall become members of the Executive Board. I would like to read that section, if you please. (Section handed to speaker by Delegate Hagerty). “The general executive board shall be composed of the General President, the General Secretary-Treasurer, and one member from each industrial union as provided for in Article II., Section I.” I was in error, and I want to confess it. As I remember that report, it said the president of each one of these divisions should be a member of the Executive Board. I find that it simply says a member of these divisions. Now, there is not very much difference.
DEL. WHITE: Look on, and it does say the president.
DEL. COATES: That was my impression, that that was in the minds of the committee.
DEL. SHERMAN: You are right, Brother Coates.
DEL. COATES: I thought I was right. But suppose you do not do it that way; suppose there is only one of these groups, what does that mean? It means that the laundry workers, the municipal employes, the highwaymen—I mean the fellow that works on the street (laughter)—and the fifteen or sixteen other divisions in Division 13, shall gather together, or their representatives shall gather together and select this member of the Executive Board. Here I am; I have been selected to represent Division 13. (Copy of the constitution handed to the speaker by Delegate Moyer). “Article II., Section I: The officers of the Industrial Workers of the World shall be a General President, a General Secretary-Treasurer and a General Executive Board composed of the above named officers and the President of each international industrial union.” Then there is a contradistinction or a difference right there in the report of the committee. One place it says it shall be the president, and the other place it says it shall be a member, and we certainly cannot correct this after we adopt the report. That is where I got my impression of it. But I am here; I belong to this grand and glorious division of cooks and waiters, the highway employes, the hotel and restaurant employes, the laundry workers, and innumerable others. I am glad they did not put the “kindred organizations” in there. And we have gathered together. I think it provides a time when this member shall be selected.
DEL. MOYER: I want to object to Brother Coates casting slurring remarks as he does on the work of the Constitution Committee. If he has any objection to its work it is all subject to his criticism, but I object to his sneering remarks against the Committee on Constitution. If we have erred in our judgment I am willing to be criticized, but not in the sneering way that Brother Coates has in presenting his argument to the convention. (Applause).
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I would like to ask Brother Coates a question. Is the whole constitution under discussion, or just that motion that lie made yesterday?
DEL. COATES: I am not discussing anything except the report and this amendment.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I notice that you are discussing the construction of that just now.
DEL. COATES: I want to apologize to the committee if they think that I am sneering at their work. They put that in in one of the sections, “kindred organizations,” and that gave me the right very properly to refer to the other section. They put the words in my mouth. I did not put them in theirs, and I certainly shall not again refer to them in any way, if the committee believe that I am sneering at their work, because I am not.
DEL. MOYER: I want to state for the information of Brother Coates that I have no objection to referring to “kindred organizations,” but I do object to the tone in which he mentioned that part of the committee’s work. That is what I referred to. (Applause).
DEL. COATES: Well, I will have to use my own tones.
DEL. MOYER: Very well.
DEL. COATES: Now, I am here. But first I am going to say that this latter section is one not showing the composition of the Executive Board, that it shall be the presidents of those great industrial organizations. First let us take that first feature, that he must be the president of this Division 13; then there must only be one organization to elect him president. How can he be president of a division? How can he be president of this industrial union division, if there is more than one industrial organization in that division? How can he be? I will just leave that point right there. And it is an impossibility to claim that he is president of this division, for there would be more than one organization in that division. Isn’t that true? Now we will leave the president go, and we will come back to the other feature; that means the election of a member of this division.
I said a few moments ago that I had been selected to represent Division 13, because I am classified as a wageworker under that division. I am a printer; I have been working at it all my life, and I will be when I get back and go to setting type. But I want you to keep this in mind: The cooks and waiters, the laundry workers. the printers, the highway worker, the municipal worker and the other innumerable crafts under Division 13, have gathered together through their representatives as is provided there, and they elect a representative on the Executive Board. I am the fellow. I am a printer. A question of serious difficulty comes up among the hotel and restaurant employes. I am representing those fellows. “Coates the General Executive Board is confronted with this proposition. The hotel and restaurant employes are trying to improve their conditions in their vocation. Now, as a representative of this organization detailed to see to the conditions of the hotel and restaurant employes, we want this Executive Board to act instantly on this proposition.” I say, “Well, you fellows forget that I am only a printer. I have never worked in a hotel or restaurant in my life, and I know absolutely nothing about their conditions in the kitchen and in the dining room.” What an elegant representative I am of those people. What a beautiful representative I am, to go to the General Executive Board, which, on my representation of the case or misrepresentation of the case, shall decide perhaps to paralyze the industries of this country. I want to tell you that the printer can absolutely be nothing but a misrepresentative of the case of the laundryman, or the highwayman or the workers in any other line. (Applause) I want to tell you that any other fellow that would be selected for that group would be in identically the same position that I am. Suppose we sent a laundry girl, if you please, as a representative on this Executive Board, and the question of the typesetting machine operator is in controversy.
DEL. BRIMBLE: I would like to ask a question. Do you think the printer would not know anything about what these other people want? There would be no sense in saying he would not know. It is an insult to their intelligence.
DEL. COATES: I think I have possibly as much sense as others on this floor, and I do not think there was any insult to the gentleman at all. I simply want to show you, my friends, and my whole purpose is to show you how ridiculous and impracticable, as I said in the beginning, this sort of grouping is. That brings me to the first proposition, as I remember it, that Brother De Leon gave out.
He says that the idea of making these groupings is to make a central power of quick action. Well, if the Executive Board wanted to get quick action, when they asked me as a representative of the cooks and waiters what I knew about their craft, that quick action would mean sending absolutely back to the cooks and waiters and getting them to the Executive Board and chewing the whole rag about the whole business. That is where you would get your quick action. It would merely mean the gathering together of this Executive Board, and not having the information at hand, and then sending back to the seat of difficulty for a committee or something of that kind to come up. That would be your quick action. And then he goes on to say that for that very reason the dividing us into forty industrial organizations is too slow and long. I want to say to you that if the industries of this nation can be divided up into forty—yes, into two hundred—you can gather together in a central point the two hundred just as quick as you can the thirteen that are provided for in this report. The chances are that the entire hundred would not have any further to travel than would the thirteen members, and then absolutely we would have together every man that represented an industry in this organization, and your quick action would come then. He not only would be prepared as a direct representative of that industrial organization, but he would have already been made cognizant of the struggle that is going on in his industry, and he would be equipped with absolute, full knowledge upon that question and could discuss and vote immediately. And so I say your argument for a small executive board that can by misrepresenting hurt the people that they are selected to represent, would be much slower in action than would be a committee of 40 or 50 or 150, made up directly from the industrial organizations. His next statement as a member of the committee that was important to this convention was that we could afford to adopt this method at the present time and let it stand for a year. I believe, delegate, that if we adopt this system of grouping and let it stand for a year, we will not have a single organization back here in a year from now to discuss this thing and change it.
DEL. DINGER: I would like to ask you a question:
DEL. COATES: All right.
DEL. DINGER: Do you say that the only objection you have to this grouping is that there were not enough groups, and otherwise you have no objection?
DEL. COATES: No, you are wrong.
DEL. DINGER: According to my understanding of the report here, you said that certain of these groups, the majority of them I believe, were grouped perfectly.
DEL. COATES: Some of them are.
DEL. DINGER: Well, in all those groups they have printers, and much of the printing is not done by regular printing establishments.
DEL. COATES: I was coming to that pretty soon. I touched upon the proposition of wiping out all of these various organizations. The argument of most of the brothers was that I meant to wipe out, for instance, as an illustration, the printers union. The organization that I would like to see in one industry is now divided into twelve. I am not quite certain about that, but they are divided up into reporters; they are divided up into pressmen internationally, of two different kinds; they are divided up into stereotypers, into typesetters, and the general organization takes in typesetters of all kinds, but nevertheless there is a group of eight or ten different organizations in the printing industry. Delegate De Leon says that if we are to adapt my amendment it means the wiping out of every one, practically, of these organizations; and I want to say this, I absolutely agree with him. That is exactly what I want to do. I want every man and woman and kid that works in the printing industry to come into an industrial organization. And while I am on that feature, I want to say to that delegate here—I forget his name just now; he did not call it—
DEL. DINGER: Dinger.
DEL. COATES: Delegate Dinger says, and so did Delegate Sherman, that printing practically is not done by printing; that is, in a regular separate industry. He says the packing interest and packing trust takes in every kind and character of worker. He did no make it as broad as that, but he said several. He spoke of printing; and consequently it will apply to that industry, as far as the work in those industries. I don’t think even they carry that idea out in this grouping. They certainly do not. The printer inn the packing industry will not be with the packers in this grouping. But suppose he is. My proposition simply means this, that every printer shall belong to the printing industry, whether he works in the packing industry or the oil industry. But just as soon—now, do not misunderstand me—but just as soon as a department of that industry, for instance the packing industry, has a serious grievance they send it on to this General Executive Board for endorsement. They can not strike; they must present their grievance, to this General Executive Board. Now, the packing industry, under my proposition, and the printing industry are separate, industries, and they are in two separate organizations. Under the present scheme of organization in the A. F. of L. the Executive Board could endorse the packers’ strike and the printers would not have to come out. But under my plan, just as soon as the General Executive Board was notified that the packers had a serious grievance and they endorsed that grievance to the extent of authorizing a strike, before they could send out their order they would immediately notify the industrial organization of printers that had its members there, that when the packers struck every other member of this great organization should strike in that one industry. (Applause) They would not order out the entire printing industry, but this Executive Board would say to us, “Mr. Printer in the packing house, come out just as soon as the packers come out in that house.” There you have an absolutely perfect working organization, and at the same time keep these separate industries separate and distinct.
It has been stated time and time again, and I think Delegate De Leon led off in the statement—at least I have him so reported here—that this grouping is practically laid down in the Manifesto. I do not mean by that that he said that the grouping on the wheel in the Manifesto was a part of the Manifesto; no. But he claimed that this system of organization was practically outlined in the Manifesto. I want to take issue with him on that proposition. The Manifesto, I believe, was adopted solely and wholly without a solitary dissenting voice in that convention called for the purpose of organizing industrially, as industrial organizations. Delegate Smith told you yesterday that it was. And if you will read the section in the Manifesto applying to this you will find that the Manifesto is absolutely and unequivocally unmistakable upon that proposition. The Manifesto provides for industrial organization internationally and craft autonomy locally. That is, it means that the printing industry shall be in one national organization with power over every one of its various divisions of that industry. That is all my amendment means.
And that is where I come to the proposition that this is a departmental organization. I wish to say to you that if we are to have a president of this department to be a member of this General Executive Board, that there must be only one organization of that department. That is where my amendment differs. My amendment simply says that it must be made up of international and national industrial organizations made up of wage workers in any industry. Some one said, I believe, in the argument, that that was indefinite, that “I don’t understand any such thing as that.” Some one cried out that this system and the amendment are absolutely indefinite. Can there be anything indefinite in saying that every man and woman in the printing industry shall belong to the printers’ industrial union, and every man in the packers’ industry shall belong to their industrial union, and every toiler in the mining industry shall belong to the mining industrial union? Not at all. It seems to me the clearest and the best proposition or provision that you can put into this constitution. The reason I did not name specifically every man or every wage worker that should go into that industrial union was that I might overlook some, or I might put some temporarily over in another industry, and when this industrial organization is made up and comes in to this organization for a Charter the Executive Board can very properly look it over and grant it and transact all these things according to circumstances. If there is any organization that gets into an into an industry where it does not belong, it is only a question of time when experience will teach them and teach this general organization the right place in another industrial group, and it will go there entirely without any contention, because they will go where they can get the best protection.
DEL. EISENBERG: I want to submit just one question. You said the textile workers group was all right.
DEL. COATES: As far as I know.
DEL. EISENBERG: Would a clothing cutter keep on working as a textile worker? I am a clothing cutter, and we have a better organization.
DEL. COATES: I have not time to go through all these other divisions to answer the many questions that might be asked.
DEL. EISENBERG: I ask the question, will my trade, the clothing cutters, be divided from the textile workers?
DEL. COATES: Certainly, I do not include the textile workers with the clothing workers.
DEL. EISENBERG: It is included there.
DEL. COATES: Then it is a mistake, I think. Now the next proposition. I don’t want to be too long, but, delegates, this is a serious proposition to settle without an understanding. I maintain now, as I maintained yesterday, that the formation of this organization means its success or its failure, and I can afford to stay here tomorrow arguing this question of the formation of this organization.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: Let me ask one question, and it may probably clear up a doubt that I have in my mind. Will you kindly define “industrial union?”
DEL. COATES: To a certain extent I have tried to do that.
DEL. HAGERTY: You call a packing house an industry, don’t you?
DEL. COATES: Yes.
DEL. HAGERTY: Well, you say the printers in the packing all belong to the printing industry?
DEL. COATES: Yes.
DEL. HAGERTY: There are lots of other industries in the packing house industry, and each worker would have to be a member of his particular organization in the packing industry, so there would really be no packing industry.
DEL. COATES: My point was simply this, that only the people who are directly allied shall come into an industrial organization. For instance, the printers—
DEL. HAGERTY: Let me ask a question.
DEL. COATES: Let me finish, please. I want to finish my answer, and you can keep on as long as you please; because I am not going to be swept off my feet by a few questions. I want to answer that by saying this, that as far as it is possible, as far as it is practicable, the workers in an industry will find their own union. And if, sir, there are twelve or fifteen or a hundred other craftsmen that do not properly, from a craft standpoint, belong in that industry, they will belong to another under which we shall have control and under which we shall control them as I outlined with the printers in the packing house.
DEL. WILKE: The delegate is using the printers as an illustration. Is it not a fact that in the printing industry you have photoengravers and so forth? Where would you attach me?
DEL. COATES: I put them in their own organization. That is, I should think that the printer will belong to the international union of that trade. Brother Critchlow seems to think that the printer must cease work when he ceases work. I cannot see for my life on what principle he would expect that. But here is an all-powerful organization; it is not going to let one craftsman work in an industry when it calls another one out.
A DELEGATE: When a printer works in another industry, is the printer’s trade subsidiary in general to the industry?
DEL. COATES: It is only subsidiary in a small degree.
The Delegate: Aren’t there many among the other industries, for instance the packing, divided among them all?
DEL. COATES: Only very insignificantly so.
THE DELEGATE: Is it not generally so?
DEL. COATES: No, Sir. I will guarantee that out of two or three hundred thousand people in the printing industry there is not a thousand working outside of that industry among other industries.
THE DELEGATE: Is it not a fact that the printers working in the packing houses have particular grievances to adjust that do not arise in the printing industry in general?
DEL. COATES: I could not answer as to them. But if you organize them industrially they won’t. That is exactly the reason I don’t want the packers to stop work without the printers in that industry stop. I want them all together.
DEL. SHERMAN: You referred to the magnificent organization to which the brother in the chair belongs. Does it not occur to you that the time is not far distant when the timber of this country is going to be obliterated, and the timbering now in the mining industries is going to be done by iron? Now, I want to ask you if those who set those iron bracers and those who prepare the iron for the bridge and bench and rivet and the material that goes into the mines—whether they would belong to the metal industry or whether they would belong to the mining industry.
DEL. COATES: Well, sir, I want to say that if their work came under the head of the skilled crafts of the metal industry, that is exactly where they belong. (Applause.)
Del. Veal: I desire to ask Delegate Coates a question. He has used the term industrial unionism. The United Mine Workers to-day is made up of tributary bodies of miners in branch groups, but they have not industrialism. We want to know about industrialism. Is it industrialism without any mention of the class struggle? Are we to lose sight of the industrial revolution? I want him to make specific what he means by industrial unionism.
DEL.COATES: I mean the industrialism that is behind that, the class struggle. Now, let me take up the Arkansas hog. I believe I can use it very nicely on that question. I think it was Delegate O’Neil that introduced the Arkansas razorback hog, and he told you that when a capitalist or some fellow who wanted to capture that hog—I suppose he meant the capitalist by that illustration—when he chased the hog it ran to a group of its fellows, and they put up their tails, or had a strike as you might say, and their entire bodies came into a kind of solid organization and whipped the capitalist. Now, I want that kind of a razorback hog, but when that razorback hog runs I want him absolutely to run here, and I want to see him fight as a whole hog. I want him to run this general organization as an industrial hog. I want him to run here, for instance, as a printing department hog. I don’t want his tail to be a dishwasher. I don’t want his hind leg to be a municipal worker. I don’t want his other hind leg to be a laundry worker. I don’t want his head to be nothing but a candy maker. I want his grunt simply to be the mouthings of the printer; ,I want him to be a printer’s hog. And then in order to have the class struggle behind that industrial hog, I want him to do just like the razorback hog of Arkansas does. He comes to his fellow hogs and he gets them all together and he defies the capitalist class as a class. (Applause.) That is what I mean by an industrial this organization. That is what I mean by the class struggle underlying this organization.
DEL. LILLIAN FORBERG: According to your statement in the beginning you stated that the printers belonged in a separate industry by themselves. A moment ago, in answering a question, you said, for instance, that the stenographers and clerks and typewriters that were engaged in the printing industry would belong to their separate organizations and not to the printer’s union.
DEL. COATES: Yes.
DEL. FORBERG: Now, that being the case, isn’t that exactly the same form of organization that we have at he present time, so far as the printers are concerned? (Applause.)
DEL. COATES: I want to say no. I am very glad you cheered, but I want to say no. I want to say to you that instead of twelve or seven, as there might be, divisions in the printing industry, there should only be one organization in the printing industry. It was Delegate De Leon that wanted the same craft organizations that we have now.
DEL. DE LEON: N-o-o ! Not by a jug-full!
DEL. COATES: That is what you said. I want to say that his very language and the interpretation of this group is such. He said, “I don't want to destroy these unions.” That meant that the amendment would destroy them. I want to say to you that as far as the typewriters and the stenographers in that department were reporters or editorial writers in that department I would say that they belong to the printing department, but if they are simply stenographers taking the dictation of somebody in that department, or typewriters, then they belong to the stenographers and typewriters’ organization, to be taken out with the printers when they strike through their international organization. (Applause.)
DEL. SCHATSKE: Didn’t you say you came two thousand miles to this convention to organize all the working class, and not the labor crafts?
DEL. COATES: I want to say as far as I understood the question, the first part, did I come two thousand miles to help organize this union, I want to say yes, and I can afford to travel several more thousand miles to organize it right rather than see it organized wrong. (Applause.)
DEL. SAINER: Would you place the machinists and molders along with some other crafts by the side of the printers?
DEL. COATES: If I did I would misrepresent them. But it is the same principle; I would apply the same principle to the machinists and the molders as to the printers, and I will tell you why; I would not undertake to represent them because I do not know anything about the machinery business. But as there are intelligent men in the machinery and molding business, I would follow the same general principle, and they will get into that line of industrial organization that they deem correct for them.
DEL. SCHWARTZ: Don’t you believe there is a difference between men in different lines of work?
DEL. COATES: The question is, do I not believe that there is a difference in workingmen. For instance, this way, to put the two extremes: The question is, do I believe there is a difference between the street sweeper and the locomotive engineer? I am trying now to give you the two extremes. No. I want to say to you that I believe that the street sweeper who works want for the health of the people and the life of the people, is just as essential as in the locomotive engineer that draws you from one end of the country to the other. (Applause.) I want to say to you that all my life in the trade union work my aim has been to put absolutely upon an equality every man and woman who work by their daily toil for their living. I wish the street sweeper could get the wage of the locomotive engineer, and I wish the engineer to get the full product of his toil. (Applause.)
DEL. ROSS: Isn’t the section man worth as much to society as the engineer?
DEL. COATES: I have just said he was.
DEL. WHITE: Let Brother Coates proceed with his argument.
DEL. COATES: There was a remark made this morning, and I took it very personally, that while I was sincere and honest, I was simply bounded by my conditions. I just want to say to this convention that I will put my soundness on economics on the plane of any other man’s soundness on economics in this convention, I don’t care who he may be. (Applause). I don’t want this organization for you alone. I want it for me. Now, that ought to satisfy you. Now, Delegate De Leon said, in talking about my statement of yesterday that when the capitalists wanted to organize a railroad they organized a railroad company, and when they wanted to organize a newspaper they organized a newspaper company,—he said that I was blind to the fact that they were simply organizing the newspaper to support the railroad company. I want to say that perhaps that will apply merely to a few instances. The brother says that when a great number of capitalists organize a company they organize it because of the surplus that they want to earn more dividends, and they go into some other industry because they want it to support the original industry that they are in. And in that statement he went on to say that his grouping was in line with the economic development.
(A hiss was heard in the hall.)
DEL. COATES: Did you hiss then, Mr. De Leon?
DEL. DE LEON: You know it was not I, Mr. Coates.
DEL. WHITE: No, it was I. I wanted one of the comrades to keep quiet so that I could hear your argument.
DEL. COATES: I thought he was thinking that I had made a misstatement. I want to take issue with them on that point. I want to say that the motion that I have made for the industrial organization is absolutely in line with the economic development of even capitalism. I want to maintain the same position that I took last night, that when these capitalists go into a separate and distinct industry they operate it as a separate and distinct industry. They may perchance support each other, and Delegate Hagerty, I believe, said in support of that theory that when the teamsters went to the employers, Siegel, Cooper & Co., I think he said, for a settlement of their difficulty, they referred them to the Citizens’ Alliance, or rather Employers’ Association. And by that he meant to support the idea that they are absolutely controlling all industries. I want to say, my friends, that the thing I am attempting to get you to do is the very thing that the capitalists are doing at the present time. When they told the teamsters to go to the Employers Association they did not say to them that this Employers’ Association ran all these industries as a single group of industries; of course not. They simply said to them that “We have finally come into a central body where we, the various groupings of employers and capitalists, have thrown all settlement of these difficulties into their hands.” That is the very thing that we want to do with them. When the capitalist comes to the printer to settle his difficulty in his organization, I want him to say to the employer’s representative, “Go to the general executive board of the wage workers representatives.” (Applause). I want him to say that “We are organized economically just as you, sir, are organized. While you divide your people up into industries as you do, some of you operating dry goods stores and others railways, we have done identically the same thing and we have reached the same conclusion that you have reached, that this struggle is a class struggle and we have to settle our difficulties as a class.” (Applause.) And I want to say to you that we are absolutely on the same plane and are attempting to organize on lines identical with the capitalist groupings and the economic development of today. And again I will repeat, that I will match my soundness upon this proposition with the soundness of any other delegate, be he even Mr. De Leon.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Coates, will you permit the Chair to ask you a question?
DEL. COATES: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you regard the Western Federation of Miners as an industrial organization?
DEL. COATES: Well, yes, in its general feature. I differ with it, however, in some of its features.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, you have said to Delegate Sherman that in the event of iron being used in place of timber to hold the ground up, that you would grant to the structural iron workers the right of jurisdiction over that craft in the mining industry. Do I understand you to mean that that would carry out the ideas of industrial unionism? (Applause.)
DEL. COATES: I said, if the delegates will remember, and I applied the same principle throughout clear through my argument—I applied it to the timberman in that instance,—talking about the metal worker, for instance, that brought into the mine the metal to prop the sides of the mine; I said very distinctly that if the work that was to be done by the man who handled that metal compelled him to be a mechanic sufficiently to place him side by side with the skilled metal worker, that he belonged in the metal workers union; if it does not, if it simply means drilling a hole as a common laborer, then he belongs in the mining industry.
THE CHAIRMAN: Permit the Chair to state that a common laborer cannot drill a hole at all.
DEL. COATES: I think he can.
THE CHAIRMAN: I want to ask a question with reference to skilled work.
DEL. COATES: What I mean was this, that if this metal worker in the mine is simply a metal worker in the metal industry without connection with some other feature of the mining industry, then he belongs to the metal workers.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, I am going to ask this question: If, in your opinion, the skilled blacksmith, the skilled engineer, the skilled smelter, the skilled mill man, the assayer and the other skilled mechanics, or the timberer around the mine, along your line of reasoning, belong to their separate craft organizations, and if they do, would it not destroy what we now are as an industrial organization ? (Applause.)
DEL. COATES: I want to say again, no. While I am on trial, that must be my position. I am not afraid to do that. I want to say no; for the reasons that I have said, that under this general organization we are going to have a central power that will compel these people to work together. It makes very little difference to me, if you please, how many divisions we make in this as long as we have that power; only I want the great mass of people whose work is similar in any industry to belong to the one general organization. Now, I want to say a word about this Western Federation of Miners. It is not under discussion here, and I don’t want to discuss it fully; but the Western Federation of Miners recognize that very principle right now indirectly. Take, for instance, the city of Butte, Montana, and you will find industrial organization. They have a number of organizations, as somebody has pointed out, I believe Delegate McDonald; they have the miners together; they have the pumpmen together; they have the engineers together; they have the ropemen together. But they have one central power that can force them all together.
DEL. DINGER: I wish to ask one question. Isn’t that precisely the same plan that the committee proposes, local autonomy?
DEL. COATES: No, no.
Adjourned until nine o’clock July 6.
• Day 9, Morning Session : Thursday, July 6
Chairman Haywood called the convention to order at nine o’clock.
THE CHAIRMAN: While we are waiting for the Secretary the Chair will announce the committee selected to fill vacancies on the Ratification Committee: M. E. White, Lynch, Starkenberg and Mrs. Forberg.
On motion the roll call of delegates was dispensed with.
The Secretary read the minutes of the previous day, and they were approved.
A communication was read from Local Union No. 9, Brewery Workers; Milwaukee, contributing $25 toward the stenographic report.
The Credential Committee and special committees had no reports to make.
THE CHAIRMAN: Under the head of standing committees we will take up the report of the Committee on Constitution.
Del. Kiehn: I make an amendment to the amendment of Delegate Coates—
DEL. COATES: I rise to a point of order. As I understand it I have the floor.
THE CHAIRMAN: The chair will take the position at this time that Delegate Coates has the floor.
DEL. COATES: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates, I am not going to try to delay you very much longer on this argument. I would have been through before the closing adjournment last night if it had not been for the great number of questions that were continually asked me, and I will try to finish just as speedily as I possibly can. In opening this morning I want to tell you an experience I had before I had moved an inch from where I closed speaking last night. Upon this stage day after day there has appeared a reporter for one of the daily papers of Chicago. He is the labor editor, if you please, of this paper, a very active member of organized labor, and a very warm and enthusiastic supporter of Samuel Gompers and the American Federation of Labor. Before I had a chance to move he came to me and grasped my hand and said: “Coates, I know you are right in that, but I hope to God you will not succeed.” I understood him in a moment. So do you. And then he added, “If you do succeed it means the complete success of this organization and the disintegration of the American Federation of Labor.” (Applause). He says, “If you don’t succeed it means the failure of this organization, and it means more supreme than ever the policy of Sam Gompers and the American Federation of Labor.” Now, there is the testimony of one of their chief supporters and one of the men who have attempted to ridicule this convention ever since it has begun.
I want to say in that connection that this report of this committee, if it is adopted as provided here in this chart, that no matter how we may decide to interpret it in this convention, there will not be an officer of a single national or international organization in the American Federation of Labor but what will interpret it in his own way to destroy this organization. In my opinion, if they interpret it correctly they will have sufficient force behind that correct interpretation to destroy this organization and to prevent their membership coming into it. My friends, they will not stick to a correct interpretation as I understand it of this chart. They will deliberately misrepresent the chart and this grouping of the divisions in this new organization.
I want to touch just on one or two other points that were brought out. Delegate Sherman, in his argument in favor of this, said that if the amendment was adopted it simply meant again the assembling of the various presidents of these various industrial organizations as an executive board, and the matter of breaking of contracts would come up in all these various industrial controversies. Why, my friends, the whole foundation of this organization is the class struggle, and it was understood that we should not have a single solitary contract with any organization, and that this executive board would have absolute and full power to control instantly every organization making up this great organization. So I cannot understand that argument.
Then comes again Brother Trautmann, and he says in his argument that each industry shall have its own union. Now, that is all I am contending for, and I am free to confess that most of the men who have favored the committee’s report practically agree on that proposition. And, fellow delegates, I want you to keep clear in your minds that I am not contending against the interpretation of this constitution by the various people who have spoken in favor of it, but I am trying to stick to the wording of the constitution itself; and if that means that we shall have industrial organizations under this organization, all I want and all my amendment provides for is that the constitution itself shall say it in distinct language. That is all I am contending for. I might agree largely with their interpretation, but I want the constitution so worded as to carry that out into a fact, and that no interpretation may be needed by any individual. If we are going to depend upon interpretations, how widely the interpretations of the report have differed.
DEL. JAMES O’NEIL: Delegate Coates, I wish to ask this question.
DEL. COATES: Yes.
DEL. O’NEIL: Not to confuse you or anything of the kind, but I am seeking for information. For instance, I have worked somewhat as a hoisting engineer in the mines. Suppose I am working as an engineer in the mining industry and I have my card in the mining industry. I go to work in the packing industry as an engineer, and I deposit my card in the packing industry. I believe that in each of these industries I have local autonomy, but I am not represented except through the industry itself. Am I to understand, or am I to infer rather from your argument, that the craft should govern me where I am a member of this industry, or shall the industry govern me?
DEL. COATES: Will you let me answer that later on, and I will bring that point out.
DEL. O’NEIL: Yes. That is a question that is bothering me.
DEL. COATES: Now, Delegate Hagerty tried to illustrate the difference between two so-called industrial organizations. For instance, he said that the Western Federation of Miners was an industrial organization. Granted for the sake of argument. It comes as near to it, I am satisfied, and nearer to it than any organization that I know of now in existence And then he says the United Mine Workers is an industrial organization, but it is tied up with the identity of interest between the employer and the employee. Why, that does not change its phase as an industrial organization. We have declared that there is no identity of interest between the employer and the employee.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: Brother Coates, just a moment. I made that distinction in order to clear the term in the Manifesto “an economic organization,” and I believe I called the Western Federation of Miners an economic organization and the United Mitchell Workers an industrial organization. That is the sense of the Manifesto.
DEL. COATES: But you agreed that they were both identical in form, except one recognized as we may say the class struggle, and the other recognized the identity of interest of the employer and the employee. Well, now, we are not going to have any such distinction as that here. We cannot possibly have it. But let us stick to the Preamble that we have adopted, that there is no identity of interest and there cannot be possibly an identity of interest between any division of this great organization and the employers of labor. There is no autonomy of any division of this organization when the general interest is at stake, as I wanted to say last night when I got to the hog illustration. I did not have time to finish exactly what I meant, when another question was fired at me. But you will remember I said I did not want this thirteenth hog divided up into a laundry worker’s leg, a musical union leg, a cooks and waiters’ leg, a barber’s leg, a printer’s mouth, and so on. Why, if you give us that kind of a razorback hog you simply transform him into a woggle bug or tumble bug. This leg over here may switch off or want to switch off as a cook and waiter. The other part may switch off and want to be a municipal worker. I want that hog to know absolutely what it wants. I want the hog to be an industrial hog that knows absolutely, that is conscious of the very thing that he wants to carry out in his industry solely and done, and then I want him to back up with every other hog that comes from all the other industries and make a solidarity class struggle to meet the solidarity of the capitalist class. (Applause.)
DEL. SHERMAN: That is the capitalist hog you meant.
DEL. COATES: No, I meant just what I said. Delegate Hagerty said this chart is an economic grouping. I will not say anything further about that. I think I tried to show yesterday that the industrial organization is clearly in line with the economic development at this time. It may be necessary after a while to change this form of organization, and I want to say to you that if this body is not broad enough in another few years to expand itself to meet the economic development of its time, I will head a movement, or join in a movement rather, to organize a new union that will. I believe it will be broad enough to expand itself. But if it is not broad enough to expand itself, then it simply rests with some of us that do not agree with it to go out and organize a movement that will conform with the economic development of its time.
Now let me say just a few words on my amendment, and I will try to cover your question in that, and then I will close. I said at the beginning that the amendment simply meant that this organization should be made up of industrial organizations. I said at that time that I did not want to take the position, that I do not believe it is proper for this convention to take the position, of absolutely drawing the line as to every individual in a single industry, as to where he belongs. That is exactly the reason I made the amendment as broad as I did, because I did not want to say, or I do not want to say, to the engineer in the packing industry that if his experience teaches him that he does not belong there as an effective force he should go there anyway. I want that to be left to the experience of these organizations. I want that to be left to the judgment of the Executive Board and the managerial or administrative board of this organization to do what we believe would be effective in an industry to-day, and we might decide that it is for its more effectiveness and more practicability that he should be shifted into some other industrial organization, and I want this consideration, at least at the beginning of this organization, to be left identically in that position.
Del. Lillian Forberg: Under your plan of organization would you advise any one of the trades that are organized, for instance, in the Western Federation of Miners, to break away from the miners’ organization and organize themselves as an industrial union of engineers, we will say, independent of the other lines in that industry?
DEL. COATES: No, that is not my understanding or my interpretation of it at all. And I want to say that from the questions last night, fired at me as they were, there has an impression gone out that that is exactly what I stood for. Now, one of the last questions last night was about work around the mines and whether the metal worker making the iron stulls to be used instead of wooden stulls belonged to the mining industry or not, and it seems to have made a false impression, which I could have prevented if I had had time to stop and think. I said repeatedly that I did not propose to draw a line or attempt to make up these industrial organizations. I want to say that neither in your time nor in mine will that change occur for lack of timber for use. I would have said that off hand, perhaps, because you will find in our country within the boundaries of the State of Idaho, for instance, that there is enough timber at least (they have estimated it time and time again) for the next hundred years for every stick of that character in use, based on the present consumption. And in all the Western States that kind of a condition exists more or less. But I would have said this: I would have gone further and I would have said that if it comes to a time when we must change or depart from the wooden stull in the mine to the metal, that that metal will not be made in or around the mines, but it will be made in a shop somewhere, either located in a central part of the mining industry or in a metal workers’ shop or machine shop or something of that kind or a foundry located distant from the mines. The fellows that handle the iron may be not fall under the jurisdiction of the Western Federation of Miners, except the fellow who places it in the mine. Now, if that is true, we then believe there would not be much trouble to find out where the industry started and where it ceased as far as the mining industry were concerned, in the matter of control over the man that works in and around the mine. But I still won’t take the position that I am not going to take, and I do not want anybody to put me in the position of saying to what each and every department of an industry they shall or shall not belong, because I do not know where they belong. If I had known, I would have tried to elaborate an entire scheme, but I do not want to do that and I do not want you to do it, because I believe we can only do that by the actual experience that will come out of this organization.
Now, let me touch on another phase. How are we going to form this organization? I want to say that with the possible exception of two trade unions that are in this body to-day—and they will have to be revised somewhat, in my opinion—there is not a national or international organization in existence to-day that can properly come into this organization. Now, where are we going to get our organization? Why, my friends, we have simply got to go out and educate these people that are working in these already organized industries. We have got to organize them as they come with us, believing in industrialism, into local organizations, and it is going possibly to take us more than a year, more than to the time of the coming of the next convention, to even attempt to organize a national or an international organization. Then why should we not wait? Why should we not go into the field absolutely open, without a line of demarkation, in order that we may go and find out just exactly where we shall finally land in the makeup of this organization after another year at least has passed by? There will not be a single union come here, with the possible exception of the U. B. R. E. and the Western Federation of Miners at the present time, except as they come in as local organizations, and then are finally made up into industrial organizations by the Executive Board of this organization. That is, they will call them together and they will organize and they will adjust themselves entirely as to who ought and who ought not to belong to a certain industrial organization. Now, take my own organization for instance, the organization that I represent here. I want to tell you that if the amendment is voted either way, if it is passed or no matter what is done at this convention to organize a new movement, in order to get into it the American Labor Union is absolutely destroyed—absolutely. We cannot come in here as an organization. We are made up of a great group of local organizations, and they must come into this organization as locals, and then finally be grouped into their national or international organizations as they belong. There is not a national organization to-day that can come into this organization to which they can attach themselves, not a single, solitary one. The national and international industrial unions that are finally to make up this organization must be organized by this organization itself, because they are not organized at the present time. And then, my friends, there is a greater plea than that for the amendment, that we ought simply to let ourselves loose and to give ourselves absolute freedom to go among the unemployed. I have heard one or two delegates here plead the cause of the unemployed. I want to say that I want absolutely every man and woman in the gutter and out of the gutter in this organization. But we have got to organize them first and then classify them in their various industries through the experience and the knowledge of this organization itself. They are not classified or organized at the present time.
Now, friends, in closing I want to refer to one of the most important objections—or not really important, but I believe one of the most weighty objections offered to the amendment, and that was by Delegate De Leon. He said that my proposition was too remote for the worker. I had estimated something like fifty years to bring about the final ideal of this organization; and he said that the wage worker would become discouraged, that I was setting the time too far ahead. I want to say that I am firmly convinced—and if I were not so I would not appear upon this floor—that I am proposing the very thing to grasp the hand of the worker to-morrow and give him encouragement in the battle for his condition to-morrow, at the same time perhaps holding out to him the final result a few years away. If we do not get these people in, if we do not make a practical organization that will take the wage system as it stands to-day and improve the condition of the wage worker under the wage system, we will never get the wage workers together to abolish the wage system. And I do not want to see the abolition of the wage system before the struggle of right now. I want a practical organization so that to-morrow we can go out and say to these people. “ We are here to help you battle under the wage system, while at the same time we are battling for the abolition of the wage system.” I claim, my friends, that this kind of an organization will give the greatest encouragement to the man who is a toiler in the ranks of labor. I want to charge too remoteness against this proposition; I want to say, friends, that this departmental grouping is perhaps fully fifty years ahead of the industrial time of today. This is too remote. This is too far a jump ahead of the present education and the economic grouping of the working class.
DEL. HAGERTY: May I ask a question?
DEL. COATES: Yes, when I finish. That is the charge against this. And because of that nature, because of that grouping, the organized laborer of to-day would not come into this organization. I want to repeat the words that I said at the beginning of this discussion. My friends, the adoption of the form of organization either means the success or the defeat of this movement, and I believe you too are here with an earnest, honest, sincere purpose to make this organization a success. Too remoteness is my greatest conception on this. If it is simply made up for the purpose of representation on the Executive Board, well and good; it may not have to be changed to any material extent. But as a departmental grouping of the wage workers in one great organization where a half dozen or a dozen different groups of workmen are gathered together under one executive head, I say that it is absolutely remote and the thing that will discourage this movement and mean its defeat at its inception. And I want to plead to you, delegates, along that line. I want you to throw away all petty little differences that we may have had. I want you to throw away all the prejudices that any of us may have. Let us look at this organization from the standpoint of success. That is what we are for. Let us make a practical organization that will receive the almost instant support of hundreds of thousands of the wage workers of this country; and if we do that it means the glorious success of this organization; if we do not I believe it simply means defeat at its birth and the setting back of this very sentiment another five or another ten years in the United States. I thank you most sincerely, indeed. (Applause).
DEL. JAMES O’NEIL: Now will you answer my question? Which trade will control me in that division? Shall the industry I work in control me or shall the craft I work in control me?
DEL. COATES: I told you, Mr. O’Neil, that every individual industry would have to settle that proposition. I don’t want to settle it. Now, I don’t want to settle it because I am not big enough to settle it.
DEL. BRADLEY: Do you believe in the uniform transfer card system that we have adopted in that constitution?
DEL. COATES: You bet. That is what gives it effectiveness.
DEL. BRADLEY: If so, what are you going to do with the printer in the packing house system? Is he compelled to take a transfer card from the packing house industry to the printing industry?
DEL. COATES: You don’t want me to answer that.
DEL. BRADLEY: I want you to.
DEL. COATES: No, because the organizations will settle that for themselves. That is, the Executive Board will settle that proposition.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question occurs on the amendment. The amendment is that this organization “shall be composed of national and international unions embracing all persons working in an industry.” Those in favor of the amendment will signify it by saying aye—
DEL. SHERMAN: Roll call on that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Contrary, no—
DEL. COATES: I want a roll call.
Del. White: I rise to a point of information. Does the defeat of this amendment prevent a motion to re-refer this proposition to that committee?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, sir.
DEL. WHITE: Will you entertain a motion before the roll call to re-refer this whole proposition now back to the committee?
THE CHAIRMAN: If the convention will permit the chair to decide at this time whether or not this motion has been carried or lost, such a motion would be considered.
DEL. COATES: I object to that. I want a roll call on this amendment. However, I want to say this to the chair, that the chair’s position will not be correct if he takes the position that a motion now to refer would be out of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: We will proceed with the roll call.
The roll call was proceeded with by the Secretary.
DEL. COATES: While the Secretary is figuring this up I want to say that of course there is a record or official report with each name and how they vote. The Secretary has it in his possession.
SECRETARY TRAUTMANN: Yes.
DEL. COATES: When it is published I don’t want the total record; I want the record of each individual voter.
THE SECRETARY: All right, that will be given out.
DEL. VEAL: Is there any possible way by which the number of people represented by the independent vote here may be arrived at? They were only seated as individuals, although there were credentials here from several organizations. I would like to have that vote brought out as far as the credentials show the membership of the organizations. I know of one organization of two thousand members that has voted on this proposition. I would like to know if we can put that in such a way that it would go out and show the people who are voting on this proposition, so as to estimate the amount of membership they have in this organization.
DEL. DILLON: Is it not out of order for us to do any such thing officially? We might like to do it as a matter of statistics, but is it not out of order to make such a motion?
THE CHAIRMAN: He has not made a motion. He simply asked if it were possible to ascertain. I do not know how that can be done except through the roll call and finding out those that do not represent organizations.
THE CHAIRMAN: The result is 39,540 1/2 no; 11,543 1/2 yes. The amendment is lost. (Great applause).
[For detailed vote, see appendix.]
Delegate Sherman was called to the chair.
DEL. HAYWOOD: At this time I would ask the privilege of having the motion to refer presented to the convention.
DEL. FERBER: I again ask the privilege of seconding that motion.
DEL. HAYWOOD: I simply want to ask that the amendment be read as the Secretary has it.
THE SECRETARY: The one you made yesterday?
DEL. HAYWOOD: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: “That Section 2 of Article 1 be referred back to the committee with instructions to specifically satisfy and provide for that part of the Manifesto providing for craft autonomy locally, industrial autonomy internationally, and working class unity generally.” That is the amendment to the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN (DELEGATE SHERMAN): You have heard read the amendment. What is your pleasure? (Question called for). All in favor of the amendment—
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment; not the spirit of the motion to refer, but its logical sequence in this Article 1. It is not logically the part of Section 1 to deal with that motion. Section 2, if the motion to refer it is carried, is the place at which to consider it, namely: “The financial and industrial affairs of each Union,” and so on, “shall be conducted by an Executive Board of not less than seven nor more than twenty-one, selected and elected by the general membership of said international union; provided that the Executive Board and general membership of said international industrial union shall at all times be subordinate to the General Executive Board of the Industrial Workers of the World, subject to appeal, provided the expense of such referendum be borne by the international industrial union or unions involved.” It seems to me that there is sufficient Power in that section to regulate the industrial affairs of each department, each group of industry, and that the discussion should come under that section. This entire article is covering the form of organization. The first section is simply the groupings. The second section deals with the administration of those groupings, and it seems to me that the motion ought to be referred to that part of the section to be instantly discussed.
DEL. KIEHN: Is an amendment to the motion in order?
THE CHAIRMAN: This is an amendment that we have under discussion at the present time.
DEL. KIEHN: The motion is to refer. Is an amendment in order?
THE CHAIRMAN: I believe it is.
DEL. KIEHN: If an amendment is in order, I move as an amendment that Section 2, Article 1 of the constitution as submitted the Committee on Constitution be amended as follows: “The Industrial Workers of the World shall consist of organizations embracing all workers in a clearly defined, distinct industry, which industrial organization shall be subdivided according to the calling and location as seems practicable to the membership thereof. It shall be the duty of the General Executive Board to determine the jurisdiction line of the industrial organization. An appeal may be taken from the decision of the General Executive Board to a convention or to a referendum vote of the membership of the general organization.” (Amendment seconded).
THE CHAIRMAN: The chair would rule that that amendment is out of order.
DEL. COATES: I expected that decision, but I was then going to point out this fact to you, under the proper rules of order: That that motion would be perfectly in order, but the motion to refer must take precedence. That is, we must vote on the motion to refer, and then this would be in order.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is the way I look at it. At this time it is out of order.
DEL. COATES: Yes, until we vote on this.
DEL. MOYER: As a member of the Committee on Constitution I ask for the roll call on the amendment to refer.
DEL. HAYWOOD: I take it that every member on the Constitution Committee is on that committee and in this convention for the purpose of carrying out the spirit of the Manifesto, the sense of the Manifesto, the proposition or document that has resulted in the bringing together of this convention: the document that has created a world-wide discussion. This section as presented by the Constitution Committee, in my opinion does not carry out the sense of the Manifesto. When one of that committee takes the floor and asserts that these divisions are groupings of industries, he then is opposing the sense of the Manifesto. There is a delegate on this floor representing 23,000 workers and they occur in one of these groupings. He asserts that it is impossible for his organization to become a part of this industrial union unless it is so constructed that at least a portion of that membership can be recognized as an industry.
DEL. MOYER: With the consent of the chair I would like to submit a question. I would like to ask what delegate he refers to as representing on the floor of this convention 23,000 workers.
DEL. HAYWOOD: I refer to Delegate Critchlow of the Laborers’ International Union. He is not voting 23,000 votes; he is here as a representative member of an organization of that strength. There is a delegate on this floor representing a number of thousand votes, that is not in accord with this section; and there is the delegate now speaking. And as I have asserted, it is because I believe that this section does not carry into effect and into action the spirit of the Manifesto. You have acknowledged on the floor that this is a grouping of industries. The Western Federation of Miners, a delegate of which I am, endorsed the Manifesto. It did not endorse a departmental organization such as herein represented. I am opposed to the general centralization of power (applause), only in so far as that general centralization of administration affects the general working class movement. (Applause). I believe that every industry should have absolute control, jurisdiction, autonomy, administration or whatever you may please to call it, over their entire membership. And I believe that the local union and every industrial union should accord to that local union jurisdiction just as far as possible over all of their affairs. I do not believe that there is a handful of men in this country that are big enough to devise ways and means or point out methods and tactics or ways of carrying on a tremendous organization. That power must come from the rank and file. (Applause). It has been asserted that this industrial union is for the purpose of developing the individual membership to such an extent that they will be able to say to the capitalist class that we understand the workings of the economic industries and it won’t be very long until we will tell that class that we are getting ready to move in. (Applause). I believe in an economic organization that will so sufficiently organize the workers as to give them control of the industries, and that is not going to be accomplished by a general centralized administration. (Applause). It can only be developed by giving to the individual just as much individuality as you possibly can, so that he does note interfere with the best interests of the members of his local. To give to the locals administration over their affairs as long as they do not interfere with the interests of the industries; and to give the industries absolute jurisdiction and administrative autonomy over the interests of the industries as long as they do not interfere with the general working class movement; that, to my mind, is a democratic method of administration. This, to my mind, is a sort of Rooseveltian form of organization. This is a form of organization where we give to the President of this organization a power so that he can involve the industries represented in this organization in strikes in any part of this country, and that is what Roosevelt is doing. When he was down in Colorado he left Taft sitting on the throne, and there wasn’t any trouble.
DEL. MOYER: Now, I want to take exception, as chairman of the Committee on Constitution, to the speaker. He says that the report of the Constitution Committee gives the power to the President of the Industrial Workers of the World to involve every industry in a strike. I say no. It places the power not in the hands of the president, but in the hands of the General Executive Board.
DEL. HAYWOOD: Which is practically the same thing. (Applause).
DEL. MOYER: I take exceptions to the speaker’s position. I claim that it is not the same thing. I claim that the Executive Board of the organization that he represents has a voice in conducting the affairs of that organization.
DEL. HAYWOOD: And again I am compelled to assert that it is practically the same thing, inasmuch as the president maps out and has control of the workings of the Executive Board. To my mind the president of this organization should be the smallest potato in the row (applause), and if this constitution is adopted in its entirety and this grouping of industries is formed that they are going to work under, the president will be the biggest fish in the puddle. But that is neither here nor there. That is a matter that will directly adjust itself in a very short time. The most important, the vital issue at this time, is to here and now form an organization that can grow. I was in favor of the amendment introduced by the delegate from Idaho, Delegate Coates, but I am not in favor of it if he proposed by that amendment to entirely wipe out this proposition. Now I am willing to have this form of centralized government, provided that going down through these segments, you will give to every industry that is grouped there administration over their internal affairs; and it was because the delegate’s amendment did not provide for that, that I voted against it. Now, as I have remarked before, there is not one of the embers on this Constitution Committee that can take exception to this amendment offered to refer, because what we have asked is that they bring in a constitution in the spirit of the Manifesto. If that is done you will launch an organization here that is going to grow and grow rapidly; and in the course of a few years it may be possible to bring this about. I trust that it will never come to that stage, because I never want to see the industries of this country centralized in a central general administration. (Applause). You have got your general administration at the present time under the capitalist system, and it should not be your purpose here to try to emulate the things that are being done by the capitalists. In speaking of these groupings you say this takes identically the same form as the industries of the capitalists. It is not so, positively not so; because there is no capitalist corporation but what will contend that every man in the railroad department must be a railroader, that is, under the general supervision of men that understand the railroad business. And that is so in every other department. And while there is the same interest, the same money, the same capital invested in the different industries, each industry is operated by itself for the benefit of the capitalists that have got their money invested there. This organization should operate on those lines to the extent of saying that the railroaders shall conduct their business, the miners shall conduct their business, the printers shall conduct their business, for the benefit of the working class, because we have got our capital invested there. And that is carrying out the sense, the spirit, the mandate, if you will, of this Manifesto. I say mandate because I come instructed into this convention. The convention of the Western Federation of Miners endorsed the Manifesto. They did not endorse anything else. They endorsed all other parts of the Manifesto, and not any particular part. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the motion to refer should not only carry the support of our entire delegation, but I believe that the truth, the facts that I have set forth here should bring to that motion to refer the support of all the delegates on the floor. I thank you. (Applause).
DEL. HALL: I want to announce myself as being in favor of referring this matter back to the committee, but in doing so I should like to take issue with Delegate Haywood upon the proposition he has suggested. I am not going to occupy a great deal of your time. He said he is opposed to centralized administration—
DEL. HAYWOOD: No.
DEL. HALL (continuing): —for the reason that he believes—
DEL. HAYWOOD: Now, Delegate Hall, will you permit me to say that I did not say anything of the kind? I said that I was opposed to general centralized administration only in so far as it affected the general working class movement.
DEL. HALL: That is the same thing, except in different language. I am willing to accept that. He agrees to centralize administration, and he agrees to oppose centralized administration. That is the statement in his words. I gave him more credit than that, for simply saying that he opposed centralized administration placed him on that side of the question. I still maintain that he is opposed to centralized administration. Now, I want to call your attention to administration wherever it has been established in any part of the world for any purpose. Would it be wise for a railway corporation to divide its administration? I admit it is wise to divide its legislative department. I admit that it is well to bring in just as many people as possible to consult together upon propositions of legislating, but when this legislation is effected it is absolutely necessary to have the carrying out of those propositions in the hands of one man. When you have it in the hands of different men there is conflict, there is conflict of authority. Conflict of authority always brings personal conflict, which has been the weakness of the labor movement in this country—absolutely its weakness. Now he says that every industry should have autonomy. He means that in an administrative way. I claim that if every industry is given autonomy, that is directly opposed to the principles that are necessary to be established in constructing an economic organization. Now we will take the railway industry. To what extent is he going to give that administration? If he gives that administration to any extent whatever it means that he is taking from the centralized administration that authority, and then comes up the question as to how much they have not got? But the point I want to call attention to is that it is establishing a unity; a unity of authority, that is in opposition to the centralized unit of authority that we should establish. But I will not occupy your time. I simply want you to think of those things yourselves. I want you to understand. Brother Haywood says we should not emulate the capitalist class. I think we should emulate the capitalist class in everything that has made them a powerful factor, in everything that has put powers in their hands to grind down the workingman. The same principles that have given them power will give us power. He claims that they have centralized their administration. They have done it for the purpose of giving them power over the working class. Now, is it not wise for us to emulate the capitalist when it comes to principles of that kind that work for our interest? Brother Haywood himself says that centralization of power—he has told me privately that centralization of power is wise; centralization not of power, but of administration. I think a better term would be centralization of superintendence. That is a term that suits me best. He says he is in favor of that, but that our economic development at this time has not made it possible for us to centralize our power because the working people are not educated to that point. I claim that if that idea is correct, if that general principle is correct, that we should announce it, that we should establish it in our organization as a fundamental principle. If we do not do that we are simply establishing another organization that in a few years will have to be destroyed in order to give place to an organization that more nearly fits into the economic progress. We have the American Labor Union, established six years ago. It has been presented to the working people of the world. Practically the same element that is forming this new economic organization is in the American Labor Union. The A. L. U. has anything but the working class. If it had it would have been a different organization to what it is to-day. Now the idea suggested by Brother Haywood as his reason for referring this back to the Committee is that he wants the same proposition that we have got in the A. L. U. He does not want to improve in the least upon what the A. L. U. was. I claim that if we do not improve upon the A. L. U., that we will stand in the world exactly as the A. L. U., and that is not what the working people want. I am in favor of referring this back to the Committee, but I would like and I want to leave them uninstructed, but I would like for them to study these propositions, not from the standpoint of their past experience in the trade union movement not from the atmosphere that comes through their own experience, but from a wise standpoint, judging not from the failures of the past, but from the successes of the past, which can be studied if we will study the capitalist plan of organization. I am in favor of referring the report to the Committee.
DEL. KIEHN: I am opposed to that motion to refer this back to the Committee for two reasons. In the first place it will retard the work of this convention, and I think we have been here long enough. The second reason is that I can judge by the disposition of that Committee that the recommendation that they will give when they do report will be practically or almost the same as came from this Committee before, and that would raise the same discussion as the first report has raised. That is why I am opposed to referring it back to the Committee. We are here to do business. If it is referred back to the Committee we will stay here and wait for the report of that Committee, and it may be another week before we have the report, and we will go over the same ground that we did yesterday, practically the same ground.
(Delegate Haywood resumed the chair.)
A DELEGATE: I want to know whether we are working under a suspension of the rules or those reported from the Committee.
CHAIRMAN: We are working under the rules of the Committee on Rules of Order.
DEL. J. C. SULLIVAN: I am opposed to referring this back to the Constitution Committee, and I am not going to take up very much of your time in telling you why I am opposed to it. In the first place I want to say that in my opinion the report that this Constitution Committee submitted to you is the result of their best thought. If it is not acceptable to this convention, act wisely and consign their report to the waste basket and appoint a committee that will do your bidding and prepare a report that is acceptable to you.
DEL. LUCY E. PARSONS: I believe the Committee have done the best they could and did it conscientiously, and if the section were referred to the same committee they would go over the same ground and their report would cover practically the same ground. For this reason I shall cast my vote no.
DEL. SHERMAN: I feel that many of the delegates do not thoroughly understand the intent of the Constitution Committee. Several speakers who have addressed this convention on the proposition have dwelt very strongly on the proposition that the Executive Board would be an organization something the form that a Czar would have. Now we will take the President; we provided specifically there that the President was not a Czar; that if he did anything detrimental to the movement in general, the General Secretary or any of the Executive Board have the privilege of preferring charges against him, and they have the power to suspend or vacate his office. He is selected by a general vote of the whole organization. Vice versa, when the Secretary is in the same position; which practically puts it in the hands of the people. Your Committee realized full well that the scope of any of the departments was very large. Hence we felt that we had no business to go into the departments in the Constitution further than to provide for a minimum and a maximum initiation fee, minimum and maximum dues, and place the per capita tax or general tax at a universal figure for all organizations. We felt that each department should enjoy a democratic government of their own, and let the voice of the people say what form of government they would give to their department. All we asked them to do was to conform to the general Constitution. We proved, as we believed, a wide scope for that Executive Board for the different departments, from seven to twenty-one. Now, we did not say how they would place those twenty-one, neither have we stated what duties would be imposed upon those twenty-one if they saw fit to elect twenty-one. But we supposed that they would take from the spirit of the Manifesto and they would draw up a Constitution, and they would no± be appointive offices, but that they would be elected by the whole membership of a department, and we supposed that it would be made up of men who organized that department and had some knowledge of the trade union movement and the question that we are trying to solve here, which is the solidarity of labor. We supposed that it would be made up of men not wishing or desiring to divide the ranks within those departments any further than it would be to divide the local union by letting trades organize in local unions by themselves. Your Committee as a unit believes that the blacksmiths should have a blacksmith’s union, for convenience sake, if not more, for discussing grievances and not having other crafts there to interfere with them on the floor, men that knew nothing about it. Now then, if they got strong local unions in Department 13 representing Brother Coates’ craft, the printers, which has been laid great stress on, there is nothing in this general constitution that prohibits a representative at the head of those local unions, as they would be printers; there is nothing that prohibits them from having a sub-executive board behind them, and each one of those that would be represented would be expected to have an intelligent Executive Board in here that would be composed of representative men of the different departments, of the different local unions. There is nothing that prohibits having local councils within themselves, or grievance committees, as many as they want to. That is administration within themselves; that is like a seat of government; it is a government by themselves, within themselves. Then they come down here, and Brother Coates lays great stress on the fact that nobody but a printer can sit in this Executive Board and represent the printers. Perhaps that might be so if he had no association here where he would not hear any grievances on this Executive Board where he is supposed to sit. That might be true, but he does at all times preside at these meetings and he hears these grievances come in, and perhaps after these a grievance comes in from the printers, and there would be a grievance committee come before this Executive Board of a hundred members, representing pressmen and type-setters and the different departments among the printers, and there it would be discussed; and I would hope that they would never elect a man as their president there that would not have intelligence enough to know how to instruct the Secretary to take down the proceedings and take any manuscript that they would furnish that would put them in a position to know what the printers would want. Then the Constitution does not debar this president, the representative, from taking any number of witnesses before the Executive Board if there is any question coming up there relative to any specific or special trade. I as one of the committee am willing to serve this convention in any capacity that the majority vote rules. I am your servant. While I am on that committee I will serve you to the best of my ability; but I will say that at the present time, from what I have heard in the arguments that have been put forth, I tell you that if it voted that we retire once more with this, I actually believe that we will not be in a position to alter the proposition different from the way it stands at the present time, but I am willing to try. Brother Haywood is just as much in error as Brother Coates, and Brother Haywood being an industrialist, would howl so that the top of the Black Hills would go up to the sky if this thing was put in working order the way he wants it within two years. I contend that if the printers are entitled to an identification as being a specific calling or trade, I claim the man that learns to be an engineer, and gets a certificate before a board recognized by a State, national and municipal government, certifying that he is prepared to take under control that engine and machinery, that the engineer is just as much entitled to a separate representation and a separate national organization with a separate national board, no matter whether that engineer works in a mine or whether he works in a factory or whether he runs an engine that runs a threshing machine in the rural districts. And let the engineer or the blacksmith walk into the mining districts where Brother Haywood has his industrial organization and begin to dictate there and say that “that man belongs to me,” and you will hear the boy put up his war whoop, you bet, good and solid. Those things will come just as long as you don’t have the right form of organization. I thought we were here to form an industrial organization, but it seems that some have came here with the impression that it was industry organizations. I am out of place if that is what this convention was called for. I am in the wrong place, because I am first, last and all the time opposed to forming industry organizations. I cannot see where the sisters and brothers can take exception to this Constitution. We have left it practically within the hands of the people. We would naturally suppose that they would exhibit the same spirit as here in drawing up their Constitution; that they would have local control over their president and their Executive Board; that they could take their representative out of that Executive Board if they wanted to. We would suppose that they had common sense enough to do that. I can not for the life of me see that this division proposition means unification. It is only a few months ago that I got up some statistics in the little “Metal Worker” that bears my name as editor. I took conservative figures and showed the thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars that are expended every year for Executive Boards to keep men on salary serving the various organizations that we have in existence now; and this would be identical; and my only thought was to bring it down so that we could handle the affairs and unite the sisters and brothers into one solid phalanx so that they could realize that they were not following leaders, but that there was a principle involved, and the only ones that it was necessary to hire were those to carry on the actual local business of the organization. It is a fact to-day that hundreds of thousands of dollars are being paid by the poor unfortunate working people, and some of them haven’t got a bite in their house, yet the salaries of those who represent them in the organization must come every month. That is one thing I want to be done away with. I want to see in this Constitution the figure—heads, as I call them, the number of heads in the organization, brought down smaller. Let the money remain with the people; leave it in the country, leave it in the home, leave it in the local district, and not pay anything out simply to keep a lot of wise-looking guys, rubby-dubs I call them. While his intent is all right, Brother Coates knows as well as I do the disposition of human nature, and when you set up eighty or a hundred governments those eighty or a hundred governments, no matter what the ties may be in the federation, those governments will conflict and their will quarrel.
DEL. DAVIS: Will the speaker answer a question?
DEL. SHERMAN: I will answer any question you wish to put.
DEL. DAVIS: Are you aware that the delegates were not sent here to take up the time simply; they were sent here to do work?
DEL. SHERMAN: That is just what I was sent here for, and I am not representing myself; I am representing my constituents, the people that sent me here. I have no personal ax to grind; I am representing the spirit of my people.
THE CHAIRMAN: Your time is up. The question before the house is that the section be referred to the Committee on Constitution.
DEL. VEAL: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates, I am opposed to referring this proposition Back to the Constitution Committee. Why? It has been stated here that this chart does not come up to the expectations of this convention. The men whom I represent many of them, have laid on their pillows at night; they saw that chart before they went to sleep; they saw it in the morning when they woke up; it has become the property of the working class, which has focused their minds on the class struggle proposition, and they know where they are, in these large industries, based on the class struggle. And because the printer and the scavenger (applause) are placed together are we going to repudiate this whole thing? This is what we want, as industrial unionist revolutionists, to put these highly skilled capitalist—trained men in the ranks with the slaves in the ditch and in the mines, and say, “You have got to come here.” A question has been raised about an arbitration board and democracy. Yes, the American Federation of Labor has said, “Democracy.” I would rather take two class conscious workingmen to represent the economic interests of my class than four million men who interpret it from a capitalist point of view. What? Do you need to fear the men whom you are going to select from this body of men? No; if we have reached the point in American history and development whereby our class can stand and without putting up any props to hold them in line, we have reached that point where we can launch a class conscious union. Then why do we need to cater to sentiment and cater to the idea of democracy? (Applause). Here we are. We say, we claim in defense of this chart that it does not exclude any one. And I want to say that the representatives who have taken a position against that proposition here, they themselves have sat from the Atlantic to the Pacific on boards representing the various crafts; and I claim as a representative of the working class that I can interpret our class economic interests, whether of the miner, engineer, or printer; and if we cannot interpret the fact of the merchandise character of labor, if we cannot interpret these various crafts under the head of the working class movement, economically speaking, then we are in belief pure and simplers, and we ought to go on record as being pure and simplers and leave no record as being revolutionists. Hence I think this thing has been discussed long enough. Let us adopt it. The spirit that is behind it is a revolutionary spirit, and I would rather take the spirit that is behind that than a perfect thing on paper which is reactionary in its character. And with the experience that we are going to get in the labor movement, in a year or two years we can come to this convention with a proposition based on experience without any so-called defects which seem to be imaginary on this proposition. And after all, what does it mean? It means the working class on the one hand and the capitalist class on the other; and we can focus the minds of the slaves with that thing better than anything—with this chart and with the Manifesto better than anything that has ever been conceived of in this century which will represent my class interests.
Question called for, at 12 o’clock.
THE CHAIRMAN: In the opinion of the Chair all of the delegates know whether they want to refer that or whether they want to adopt the original. The Chair is willing to sit out ten minutes if the rest of the delegates are willing.
DEL. KIRKPATRICK: I have never spoken.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have the floor.
DEL. KIRKPATRICK: Mr. Chairman and Delegates, I believe that the sentiment of the delegates in general is a unit. The only thing that I see is a misunderstanding between different opinions. But when you come to sum it up the same idea comes out at the hub of the wheel. I believe that this convention ought to take into consideration the autonomy that you set out in your Manifesto; and the representatives, if you please, that have been sent here as rubber-necks, as I call them, to find out the sentiments of this convention, you will notice, are trade autonomists, and if you hope to leave this convention with the foundation of the Manifesto you must consider their case. I believe in an industrial form of organization nationally, but not locally. We must take into consideration the masses that are organized at the present time and the condition that they are organized in, and if you please, the experience that we have had in the jurisdictional fights is what has brought us here to see if we cannot eliminate that. We can eliminate it, and it shows in this convention that it can be eliminated, because in local localities there is no jurisdictional fight. That has been the history of the American Federation of Labor, that it was the fakir at the head that caused the jurisdictional fight, and not the wage earners in the shop. Now, then, I ,want to state that I am in favor of sending this back to the Constitution Committee, not because of any reflection on the committee, because I believe they did the best that they could; but I believe that in this discussion that has been brought out they can see and grasp the sentiment of the convention, and that they must in their constitution recognize local autonomy; you must recognize that fact. There is not a laborer but what wants to be classed in his class. And you are telling us to be class conscious, and yet there are some of the delegates that are looking too far ahead. They have got the idea that when you tell them to be class conscious they imagine it is to be class conscious with the men they work with, whether it is in the ditch or in the machine shop. He believes that he should support that man. If he is a laborer he classes himself in that class. The delegates at the present time are trying to convey the idea of a hundred years from now. Ignorant men don’t understand that, and you cannot educate them to it at this particular time. Why should we not take that wheel? I can conform to that wheel. I see within that wheel that every organization represented in here can conform to that wheel. The only conglomeration that I see in it was the intent and hope to stipulate and name each and every industrial organization. That was a foolish idea, to my estimation, because I do not think the entire convention could do it and put them in their place properly. But they will come. If you will lay the foundation they will come each in its own natural course. It will take some time, but you can bring it. I would like to illustrate my ideas as best I know as a local organizer in the metal industry. I would like to express my opinion in that particular industry, because I work in that industry. I see in one of the segments that you have a metal industry. That meets with my approval in this way: that the blacksmith and the machinist and the molder and the pattern maker, the metal worker, etc., in the metal industry would not lose their identity as a craft in that metal industry. They have their local autonomy, but when it comes to a national issue there is only one head. When there is any grievance that head decides that if there are one or two or three of the different metal crafts in that particular factory involved in a trouble they are all involved. That is industrialism. It is not industries; you are industrialists, in my estimation. Now, why can’t we agree? I do not believe that we need to have an international president and an executive board for the molders, for the machinists, for the metal workers and so on down the line till we come to the entire metal industry. There is where we have use for our trade autonomy from an international standpoint, and there is where this trade autonomy proposition is fitting this industrial form of organization at the present time, right from the international standpoint. I believe that we could in that metal industry make one office that all communications from the metal industry would go direct to that office, and have only a secretary and local representative who would need to do the business of that one national organization. But when a grievance went in there it would be going into the one office that controlled that one metal industry, and only one.
THE CHAIRMAN: Your time is up.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: Now, Mr. Chairman and Brothers, I do not wish to take up your time by arguing on this question, but I do want to take exception to the remarks made by some of the speakers who preceded me. When I came here I came here with one idea, this one thought foremost in my mind: I know that the workers of this country want to be emancipated from wage slavery. That is what I have been working for for years. I have realized this, that as long as the workers of this country or of this world were divided on trade lines and shop lines they never could be brought together, or that they never could be brought to a state where they would work as one. Now, I want to illustrate the capitalistic system a little bit.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate, the convention cannot have its time taken up by any further illustrations of the capitalist system. The question before the house is the matter of referring this proposition to the Constitution Committee.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I want to speak on that.
THE CHAIRMAN: No further illustrations of the capitalist system.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I want to speak on that, and I want to show you the impracticability of sending this back to the committee, before I get through; because we will get the same thing back here again, in my opinion. I believe we should have one single organization, organized with one single head; a practical working machine, that would have absolute control over every working industry in this country, and not only one. If we are going to do anything we have got to have that. Now, then, in this committee the different methods of organization were thrashed out, and the committee brought a report in here with one dissenting vote, and that was my own, against that system; and they decided then to stay with it regardless of what came up in this convention. Now, if you refer this back what do you expect to get from the committee again? If you want something else, for God’s sake appoint a committee; for that one won’t bring a report in again that is any different, in my opinion. Now, I want to say this much, that if we are going to have the old system of organization, then let us all go into the American Federation of Labor. If we won’t form an industrial organization then let us go into the American Labor Union where we belong, because I want to say this, that the system that Delegate Coates has been advocating here is not industrialism; it is industry, and if we want to give the union craft organizations, then do so. That has been my observation about the old American Labor Union, or American Federation of Labor, that those jurisdictional fights have always been schemes to divide the working class and keep it divided. My object is to have one single organization and one head for the business of directing the affairs of the working class generally; and you know that the rank and file are at the present time capable of running their own local affairs.
DEL. SCWHARTZ: After the discussion of the past two days I have come to the conclusion as follows: that Delegate Coates is in favor of this constitution, but objects to the wording. I do not think the wording expresses what the interpretation of the committee meant. That is what I understood Coates to say. Therefore, I would make a motion that the interpretation of the constitution by the committee be a part of the constitution, and that will settle every question which has been discussed till now.
DEL. COATES: Right here just let me ask a question. Whose interpretation do you want?
DEL. SCHWARTZ: The interpretation from the Committee on Constitution.
DEL. COATES: There are none of them that have interpreted it alike, not one of them.
DEL. DE LEON: Every one has done it from a different viewpoint.
DEL. SCHWARTZ: Yes, and I will do it differently. To which interpretation do you refer when you state the interpretations are not alike, may I ask?
DEL. COATES: To the speeches of every delegate.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will not entertain the motion, because in the opinion of the Chair this convention does not want a constitution that needs interpretation. We want one that we can all understand.
DEL. COATES: That is right. (Applause.)
DEL. DE LEON: Mr. Chairman, I take the floor, although I consider every minute of this convention to be precious at this late hour. I take it as a member of the Committee on Constitution. I shall not go into any of the subjects that have been debated here during the last two days. I believe I voice the opinion of every member of that committee that they know they have not produced a thing that is perfect. I believe I voice the opinion of all when I say that they are convinced that if they had a month to think this matter over, they would have produced something better. I think I express their opinion when I say that what they have produced has been the resultant of two considerations—namely, the limited period we had to work in, and the belief that by presenting this, we would present something under which we can begin to work. I believe I express the opinion of my fellow members on the committee when I say that what they had in mind was to propose a temporary organization for when this convention will have adjourned. For these reasons, I shall not deny, indeed, I consider it very probable, that, if this matter is referred back to our committee, we may now be able to bring in something better. We may be able to do so for the simple reason that we now know more. We are now bound to know more because during the forty-eight hours that this discussion has lasted we have grown forty-eight hours older. True enough, to refer this matter back, to refer it back at this late hour, would promote the designs of the A. F. of L. agencies, whoever and wherever they may be, whose desire and designs must be to protract the discussion so that this convention may adjourn without having left even a nucleus of an organization. Even so, I would not object to having this thing referred, lest the committee be considered pig-headed. Nevertheless I shall vote against the motion to refer for the reason that, tacked to the motion to refer, there is a sentence which I, for one, cannot understand. The closing sentence of the motion is that this committee bring in a constitution in keeping with the Manifesto. If this motion is carried it implies that the committee violated the Manifesto. It is in the nature of things that a new term like this of “industrialism” cannot yet have acquired such a crystallized meaning as to convey the identical thought to all minds. I believe that, at this stage, were you to take a hundred men at random, you would with difficulty find any two who view the subject from the identical side of its many sides; each would be more likely to consider some one aspect of the subject, give that aspect supreme importance, and frame his definition of “industrialism” accordingly. When you refer this thing back to the committee with that sentence and instruction that we shall bring back a report in keeping with the Manifesto—a thing that we believe we have done—you simply set up to us a standard which I, for one, do not understand. For that reason I shall vote against the motion to refer. (Applause.)
(Question called for.)
DEL. GOODWIN: I do not want to take up much of your time, and I won’t take up much of your time. I want to say this, that the ideas that have been brought out here cover three general stages of capitalist production. Delegate Coates brought in the consummation of the pure and simple craft form. He would organize perhaps into one union with reference to the industry in which the printers were engaged, and as far as the other crafts were concerned industrially he would not make anything specific and definite. Delegate Haywood speaks of industrial autonomy. Now, there can be no industrial autonomy in this organization any further than it is a function, for the word “autonomy” is not and should not be used, because it expresses something that a particular industry has not got, a function. It has an economic function, but it is not clear. It is so closely interrelated and intermarried with other industries, that have been organized before we have completely organized, that when one part of this complete economic organization moves all the rest of these parts must move. So these industries, any of these industries, are subsidiary and supporting the whole organization; and I hold that that chart as gotten up is practically correct. In some of the details it might be corrected. There might be some criticism about where some should be. But the tendency of capitalist development is concentration. We are going from industrial production to departmental production. It won’t be many years—in fact it is practically now in embryo—till we have departmental production. We have departmental production that takes in several industries. The tendency in development in the early stages of capital is to go into industries, and the later tendency is to divide into departments, and these departments are international. I am opposed to the amendment.
(Question called for.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is to refer Section 2 of Article 1 to the Committee on Constitution. Those in favor of the motion will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no.
(Roll call asked for.)
DEL. COATES: A delegate has requested a roll call before you put the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not hear any dissenting voice. The motion is to refer.
DEL. DE LEON: I would ask that the motion be read. The motion is not merely to refer, but with instruction that we bring back a report in keeping with the Manifesto, which means that we have not done that.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the motion.
The Secretary read the motion, as follows: “Motion to refer back to the committee with instructions to specifically satisfy and provide for that part of the Manifesto providing for craft autonomy locally, industrial autonomy internationally, and working class unity generally.”
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll.
The Secretary then called the roll of delegates and took the vote. During the calling of the roll several delegates explained their votes, as follows:
DEL. MOYER: I desire to explain my vote, as I believe I have the privilege of doing in a convention of this character. I want to say that I am in favor of referring this report of your committee, that part of it, back to A committee. I am opposed to referring it back to THE committee, as I understand is meant by the amendment. I would vote in favor of having it referred back to a committee, but I would vote against referring it back to the original Constitution Committee. My vote is no.
DEL. KNIGHT: I have a right to explain my vote. I want to say that I vote no for exactly the same reasons that Brother Moyer gave.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I want to explain my vote. I do not believe in sending this back to the same committee, because I know that nothing else can come back from them. Therefore I vote no.
DEL. KLEMENSIC: I take the same position as Brother Moyer, but I will vote yes.
DEL. SHERMAN: I desire to say that I concur in everything stated by Brother Moyer. I vote no.
DEL. VAIL: I believe that every member of the committee with the exception of two voted for the constitution as amended. I was the only member of my delegation on the committee and we vote as a unit. I think it is useless to send that back to that committee, and therefore I vote no for the entire delegation.
DEL. PAT O’NEIL: I understand that the next section explains the very argument we are having here, and for that reason I vote no. I am not one of the kind that lays down, and so I vote no.
DEL. PARSONS: I believe the committee has done the best it could, and has done it conscientiously. If we are to refer this back to the same committee their report would go over practically the same ground again. For that reason I cast my vote no.
(After the computation of the vote by the Secretary—)
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion to refer is lost; 20,759 no; 2,705 yes. (Applause). The motion to refer is lost. The convention stands adjourned until ten minutes past one.
[For detailed vote on roll-call, see appendix.]
Adjourned at 12.10 P. M. till 1.10 o’clock.
• Day 9, Afternoon Session : Thursday, July 6
The convention was called to order by Chairman Haywood at 1.25 P.M.
THE CHAIRMAN: When the convention adjourned we had just disposed of the motion to refer. The motion now occurs on the adoption of Section 2 of Article I of the constitution as recommended by the committee.
Secretary Trautmann: I would ask, in order to eliminate too much discussion, the consent of the Constitution Committee to insert in their report on Section 2 the following clause: “Shall consist of thirteen industrial divisions subdivided into industrial unions of closely connected industries in the appropriate organizations for representation in the departmental administration.”
DEL. BRADLEY: Do you make that as a motion?
SECRETARY TRAUTMANN: Yes, sir.
DEL. BRADLEY: I will second that motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the amendment offered by Secretary Trautmann to Section 2, Article I of the constitution.
Secretary Trautmann: I believe that most of the delegates in the convention are firmly decided upon these principles of organization. I am satisfied that you all agree that we should have a concentration of administration, and I am satisfied that every one is willing to allow industrial subdivisions to have an administration and a voice in the various industrial subdivisions. The amendment would not change the structure of the constitution as submitted to this convention. It would only guide the incoming Executive Board so as to allow industrial organizations to install themselves into this organization as soon as it is launched. I believe that most of us have agreed, and are agreed, that in years to come the concentration of this organization will go on in line with the concentration of capitalistic enterprises, and I believe also that a time of transition should be allowed. The structure as laid down, or foundation, by your Constitution Committee, gives ample time for the incoming Executive Board of this organization to mete out the detail work of this organization. They can subdivide, they can arrange matters, they can have an organization flexible enough to install the organizations into departments where they properly belong. I believe also that even the diagram outlined, good as it may be, does not settle all the affairs, and there should be always room for discussion as to what would be the best for an organization, as long as the membership of that organization are willing to install themselves into this organization. According to this amendment which I make, we agree that a central administration should exist. This central administration should be comprised of thirteen industrial divisions instead of industrial unions. At the same time, in each division there should be room for industrial organizations; and the industrial organizations will install themselves in line with capitalistic development. For instance, the United Brewery Workers to-day only embrace a part of the brewery workers in all the departments. At the same time I realize the fact that in conformity with the plans of other countries the scope of the organization and the plans that we may advance should embrace every man and every woman employed in the industries of making beer, wine, liquor and so on. So also do I believe that the tobacco industry should include every one employed in the tobacco industry and that they should have a right to have an organization of their own, but they all should be subject to the rules of the general organization, and should be allowed representation in the administration of that respective department. You have practically endorsed the plan of organization as outlined by the Constitution Committee. It may not be perfect. I do not believe it is perfect, but it is good enough for one year’s work or two years’ work, and then whatever defects we may find in the plan of organization, they will be found out in one or two years, and then your Executive Board will be able to make such recommendations as to make the organization perfect. We have agreed at this convention that we must have one principle laid down. That principle is that we must adapt our constitution, our methods, our forms of organization, as much as possible to the development of capitalistic enterprises. This principle being settled we should also give room for detail work for the incoming Executive Board, and this can be settled by the Constitution Committee when it adopts this small amendment, or this small clause to be inserted in the article, which will not change, amend or modify any one of the other clauses to follow, but will simply allow the thirteen departments to stand in these departments; the various organizations will shape themselves according to the institutions of our times, and I believe this will settle the local difficulties and give each organization a chance to work out the best plans by which it can install itself into this new proposed organization. It will allow room for the working class to find the best place where they can get in, and where they properly should be situated, and I believe this would solve also the rest of the work of the Constitution Committee, and would give a chance for the entire convention to adopt the rest of the work of that committee. I do that for a purpose. I have seen some of the Constitution Committee, and I believe that they will agree upon these detailed sections of the constitution if adopted by this convention with the consent of the Constitution Committee, and we then know that we have the structure laid, and in one year perhaps we can find all the defects of the constitution and remedy them if we find it necessary; and for that same reason Mr. Chairman,. I will make that as a motion, that the Constitution Committee be requested to insert that as a part of Section 2.
DEL. COATES: I understand now that this motion or this amendment is before the house.
THE CHAIRMAN: This amendment is before the house.
DEL. COATES: I want to make a motion. I am willing to submit this motion without any debate. I do it largely on account of this new matter coming in and the temperament as I understood of the convention when it voted on the previous motion. My motion is this: I move that the present Constitution Committee be discharged and the amendment now before the convention be referred to a committee of the same number and selected in the same manner as the present Committee on Constitution, with instructions to report a constitution complying with the Manifesto declaring for craft autonomy locally, industrial autonomy internationally, and working class unity generally.
DEL. PARKS: I second the motion.
Question called for.
DEL. COATES: I wish to ask for a roll call, Mr. President.
THE CHAIRMAN: I would say to the mover of the motion that the motion will not be entertained by the Chair until such time as the disposition of this convention is determined as to the plan that has already been selected to form a Constitution Committee of this convention. (Applause). The Chair will suspend his decision in regard to this very serious matter. The committee will be selected in the same manner as the present committee, as this provides. Permit the Chair to say that in his opinion the selection of the group from the Western Federation of Miners would consist of identically the same delegate that is now on that committee, the President of the Western Federation of Miners. And it is the opinion of the Chair that the formation of this committee would be identically the same as it is at the present time, and until such time as this amendment has been disposed of, and the sense of this convention in regard to the committee that have already submitted their work has been defined, the motion will be declared out of order. If you have a desire to appeal from the decision of the Chair, you will be so permitted.
DEL. COATES: Give me a chance. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I appeal from the decision of the Chair, and in that appeal I wish to state my reasons. My reasons for appeal is this: I disagree with the Chairman when he says the make-up of the committee will be the same. I do not believe the Chair or any other delegate can assume that right or that position; I do not believe it.
I make the appeal on another ground. Mr. Chairman, we have realized all the way through that this Constitution Committee has absolutely pledged itself to support this report, and we know that behind that pledge is a sufficient number of votes to carry that amendment. At the same time the temper of the resolution, or rather of the convention, on the previous motion that was voted on, to refer it back to the same committee, shows to us that there are some members of the Constitution Committee that would be willing to send it to some other committee. They are simply standing together as a committee. They would prefer that this be unloaded onto some other committee. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is my only reason, and I do not think this convention ought to be forced to go up against a committee that is absolutely pledged to support this motion regardless of whether they are convinced that it is right or that it is wrong; and I make my appeal on those grounds, and I ask a roll call on the appeal.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chairman would take the position that every member on this committee is placed on his honor; that after coming into this convention and listening to the debate which has consumed twenty hours of time, I say the members of this committee must have absorbed some ideas, and that the will of this convention stands above any action that may have been taken in that committee. Delegate Miller, will you kindly take the chair?
(Delegate Miller took the chair.)
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The decision of the Chair has been appealed from. Does the Chair desire to state its reason for making the decision?
DEL. HAYWOOD: I have already stated the reasons.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The question now occurs on the motion, shall the decision of the Chair be sustained? Those who are in favor of sustaining the decision of the Chair will, when their delegations are called, record themselves as voting yes, and those who are opposed to sustaining the decision of the Chair will vote no. The Secretary will call the roll.
DEL. DANIEL MCDONALD: They are putting the Chair in the wrong light in presenting the proposition. I think Robert’s Rules of Order provides that when the Chair is appealed from it is not a personal issue with the Chair, The way you put it makes it a personal issue with the Chairman, which is not the case. Consequently the motion should be put in this manner: Shall the decision of the Chair be the judgment of this convention? That relieves the Chairman of stating the issue of the proposition and settles the responsibility of the decision upon the convention itself.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: So far as the Chair is concerned, he is of the opinion that the delegate’s objection is a distinction without a difference.
DEL. KIEHN: What about the vote of my organization? I have a telegram from my union, giving power to install.
Secretary Trautmann: I have just received a telegram from the Longshoremen’s Union asking permission to cast its entire strength of 400 votes. Will the convention allow his vote of 400 to be recorded on any roll call or in any action of the convention?
DEL. MURTAUGH: That should be decided later.
It was moved and seconded that the vote be so recorded and that the delegate be permitted to cast the 400 votes.
Delegate De Leon moved the previous question.
Delegate Frye rose to a point of order.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The previous question has been called for on the question as to whether the gentleman representing the Longshoremen’s Union shall cast the entire vote of his organization.
DEL. COATES: Is that the motion?
DEL. DE LEON: A motion was made and entertained, as I understood, that the member be allowed to record the vote of his organization. That motion was seconded. The Chair entertained that motion, and on that motion I rose, was recognized and moved the previous question.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: It is not necessary to have any lengthy discussion on this, and the Chair will call for the vote on that question at once.
DEL. COATES: I rise to a point of order, that is all. I don’t want to discuss it. I do not know how this delegate is going to vote, and I don’t want to know. But I raise the point of order that it is not in order, as there is a motion now before the house, or there is an appeal, which is the same thing.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The Chair would decide that it is the sense of this convention to treat every delegate fairly and allow him to be represented on every vital question coming before this convention and therefore I will decide that the motion to allow the delegate his full voting strength is in order.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I appeal from the decision. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The Chair will call Delegate Spiegel to the Chair. Please be seated, as the Chair is not going to recognize anybody until the gavel is in the hands of another man.
(Delegate Spiegel assumed the chair.)
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The question before the house is on the appeal from the decision of this Chairman (Del. Miller). Are you ready for the question?
The question was called for by several delegates, and being put, the decision of Chairman Miller was sustained.
(Delegate Miller resumed the duties of Chairman pro tem.)
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The question Is whether the Longshoremen’s Union shall cast the full strength of its organization. (Question called for.)
DEL. MURTAUGH: I wish to speak on this question.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The previous question has been called for. It will be applied to this motion.
DEL. DANIEL MCDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I believe now is the time to discuss this.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The chair has been sustained.
DEL. MCDONALD: I rise to a point of order.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Brother McDonald is out of order. DEL. MCDONALD: The question cannot be called on the appeal, because the appeal is not debatable.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Those who are in favor of allowing the delegate from the Longshoremen’s Union—
Previous question called for.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Do you wish the previous question on that?
A DELEGATE: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Shall the previous question be now put?
Question called for, and being put, was declared carried.
DEL. MURTAUGH: Please inform us, Mr. Chairman, what the previous question is.
THE CHAIRMAN: Those who are in favor of seating the delegate from the Longshoremen’s Union will make it known by saying aye. Contrary no.
DEL. MURTAUGH: Is there any debate on that question?
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: No.
DEL. MURTAUGH: No? Then you have parliamentary anarchy, not parliamentary law.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The convention will be in order. The previous question was called for and carried. That took the question beyond the realm of debate.
DEL. MURTAUGH: The question before the house was the question on the appeal from the decision of the Chair, and nothing else can be entertained but that until that is decided.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The gentleman is out of order.
DEL. MURTAUGH: If anybody thinks that gag rule is going to prevail he is certainly mistaken. I recognize the limitations of parliamentary law, but I recognize the fact that parliamentary law was instituted first on account of necessity.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Will the delegate please be seated?
DEL. MURTAUGH: There is no order here; no order in anything that has been done on the past motion. In God’s country I am out of order? I am simply asserting myself as an individual.
Cries of “Sit down,” and confusion.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: If it is necessary the Chair will appoint a sergeant-at-arms to preserve order.
Delegates: Good.
DEL. MURTAUGH: If you so decide I shall quietly go outside with any sergeant-at-arms that you may see fit to appoint. I protest against the proceedings that are had here under the guise of parliamentary law. It is anarchy, pure and simple. (Applause.)
A DELEGATE: The previous question on the appeal from the decision of the chair.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The question now occurs on the appeal from the decision of the Chair.
DEL. COATES: Mr. Chairman—
Secretary Trautmann: The Chair decided that he would not entertain the amendment of Delegate Coates until the amendment of Delegate Trautmann had been disposed of, and Delegate Coates then appealed from the decision of the Chair.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Now the previous question has been called for on this?
DEL. COATES: No, I beg your pardon.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The Chairman simply asked a question for information on the former motion, and now Delegate Coates desires to state his reasons for appealing from the decision of the Chair; was that it?
DEL. COATES: Mr. Chairman, I will state to you in just a moment what I want. The only thing I have in mind, Mr. Chairman, is to get this convention quiet so it can understand what it is voting on before this roll is called, that is all. Now• I want to appeal to the delegates, for heaven’s sake let us not get excited and undo absolutely our ten days’ work in this convention. Now, let us understand, quietly and calmly, with the best intentions in the world, and know just where we are now. That is all I want. Now, the motion before the house, if the Chair will permit me to state it in my way, is that I made the motion to refer it to a new committee for the reason that I believe it is the proper thing to do, to bring us out of this turmoil. The Chair decided it was out of order. I have appealed from that decision. The vote is, shall the decision of the Chair be the decision of the convention? Now, all that are in favor of the appeal will vote yes, and all who are in favor of my appeal will vote no. Now let us not get into a turmoil before this vote is over.
(Cries of “roll call.”)
DEL. MURTAUGH: If we can have quiet I wish to say something.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: My brother, there is no discussion on the appeal from the Chair other than by the person making the decision and the man who makes the appeal. Now the Chair wishes to state that those who vote yes on the question, “Shall the Chair be sustained?” will sustain Delegate Haywood in the decision that it was out of order to refer Delegate Coates’ amendment to another committee along with the report of the Constitutional Committee, and those who vote no will vote in favor of the motion made by Delegate Coates.
DEL. HAYWOOD: Will the Chair permit me to explain my position, just one moment?
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Yes.
(Cries of “roll call.”)
DEL. HAYWOOD: You will get the roll call. I just want to state that the position I took in declaring this motion out of order in selecting a new Constitution Committee was simply because we have not yet heard an expression of this convention as to whether or not the report of this. Constitution Committee met with your favor. (Applause.)
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The roll call will now be called.
The Secretary proceeded with the roll call, during which the following proceedings occurred:
DEL. HAYWOOD: I ask the delegation of the Western Federation of Miners to cast my vote.
Various explanations were made during the roll call.
DEL. COATES: I don’t concede the right of any delegate to this convention to cast another delegate’s vote. I have taken that position all the way through. If it was one of our delegates that was absent we were simply short that many votes. We are not going to establish the proxy system right here, are we?
THE SECRETARY: We have been doing it. We simply cast the entire delegation’s vote.
DEL. COATES: You have no right to do it, and I rise to that point right now, and I will wait for the decision of the Chair on that point right now.
DEL. HALL: I will state my position. The proposition as presented to our membership vas this, that on all matters affecting our organization materially the delegates were instructed to vote a unit vote; that is, a majority of the delegates should decide how that vote should stand in the convention. That is the instructions from the membership of our organization. Now you have here a delegation with 2,087 votes, and if anyone of the delegates wishes to not comply with that instruction it is simply necessary for him to withdraw from his delegation and make application to be represented by himself as an individual, otherwise the vote must be cast in accordance with the instructions of our memberships on all matters vital to the United Brotherhood of Railway Employes. If any delegate present representing a division of our organization wishes, or has instructions from his local, to cast his vote independent from the general instructions, then he simply has to withdraw and ask to be seated in the convention with the number of votes that is represented in his local.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The Chair would wish to state his ruling on that point. The Chair would decide that in the absence of any rule by the convention it becomes the right of any delegation to consider to decide the manner in which their vote shall be cast.
Roll call asked for.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Do you wish a roll call on that proposition? That means that the delegations themselves decide how the vote shall be cast.
DEL. HALL: Then the vote of the United Brotherhood of Railway Employes is a unit on this proposition, 2,087 votes.
A DELEGATE: No, sir, each delegate has the power to cast the vote, and it has been recorded here.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: I think any further discussion of this is out of order at the present time.
DEL. HALL: I just want to call your attention to the fact that the vote is being recorded in opposition to your ruling. Now, I am perfectly willing for Brother Hopkins to have his representation and let him vote just as he pleases on all questions just as he pleases. There is no doubt about that; but if you do that you must take that number of votes from the delegation representing the United Brotherhood of Railway Employes. If he wants to cast his separately from the rest, and not follow the instructions of the membership in their referendum vote, then he would have to withdraw and cast that vote independently, and it would be necessary for him to be seated representing his division in the convention, according to your ruling.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: It seems to the Chair rather strange that this question should have waited until this late hour in the day. On the vote that was taken just before dinner, the vote of the U. B. R. E. was divided in the same way, some of the delegates being absent and some present. Now, in figuring up the vote of the U. B. R. E. the Chair simply wishes to announce to this convention the method which he took of arriving at the total vote. He concluded that the delegates who were present had a right to cast the vote of the U. B. R. E., which would divide the total vote cast by the number of delegates present. Multiply that number by the number of men voting yes and the number voting no and place it in the roll call.
A DELEGATE: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
DEL. FITZGERALD: I would like to say now for information to the Chair, the reason for this motion—
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The Chair does not consider it necessary to state that.
DEL. FITZGERALD: I say the reason we divided that vote this morning was that there were fourteen votes cast, seven each way. Then it was for the delegates to take and divide the different votes. Isn’t that right in your opinion? But if there were eight votes one way and six the other the eight would have had the unit vote according to the referendum going out to the United Brotherhood of Railway Employes.
THE SECRETARY: In all the delegations the records will show, as to the organizations having power to install, that of such delegations those who were not present were not counted at all, and as to those who voted, we divided the total number of votes among those who had voted. For instance, if a member of the delegation of the American Labor Union had been absent, his absence was so recorded, and the vote of the entire delegation was divided between those who were present. That was, as you can later on see in the roll call, done by the Secretary. If the convention does not agree with it, certainly it will be changed.
(Roll called for.)
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Any further discussion on this matter will be out of order. The roll call will be proceeded with.
DEL. HAYWOOD: I am willing to pair with Delegate Coates on this proposition.
DEL. COATES: All right, I will vote no.
DEL. HAYWOOD: All right, I will vote yes. (Applause.)
DEL. RIORDAN: I am not claiming to support the report of the committee, and I do not think we have pledged ourselves to it. I am going to vote for what in my judgment is for the best interests of the convention. I vote no on that proposition.
The roll call was finished by the Secretary.
Delegate Sherman here came to the front, stating that he had been absent, and asked permission to vote. A delegate objected on the ground that the vote had been closed. The Chairman ruled that any delegate had the right to vote or change his vote at any time before the result of the roll call was announced.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The vote stands: Yeas, 25,710; noes, 22,473. The decision of the Chair is sustained.
[For detailed vote on roll-call, see appendix.]
(Delegate Haywood resumed the Chair.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The question occurs upon the amendment introduced by Delegate Trautmann. All those in favor of the amendment will signify by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried. The vote now occurs on the report of the Constitution Committee, on Section 2, Article I, as amended by this motion. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). Those in favor of the motion will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no.
DEL. COATES: We have got to a point where we are going to have a little scrap.
THE CHAIRMAN: You can get it.
DEL. COATES: I want a roll call, and I ask decently for it.
A delegate moved to dispense with the roll call.
DEL. COATES: I appreciate your services, but we will not take an opportunity for a roll call away from the convention; no, no.
Chairman: A roll call may be asked for, and a roll call will be provided unless otherwise disposed of by this convention. However, the Chair takes the position that we may have a viva voce vote, and before announcing it any delegate may ask for a roll call, and it is not necessary to have any scrap over it. While the roll call is being prepared by the Secretary, it has been suggested by one of the committee on ratification meeting that there is an announcement to make. Listen to the committee.
DEL. MURTAUGH: I do not understand the necessity for a roll call being prepared by the Secretary, when he already has a roll call and has been repeatedly calling from that roll.
THE CHAIRMAN: I will just say for the benefit of the delegate that it is necessary every time the roll is called to have a transcript of all the names.
DEL. POWERS: I would like to ask a question of the gentleman. Do you ask for a roll call because you are in doubt as to how the motion is going to go, or is it for the purpose of wasting the time of this convention? (Applause). I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I will stay in this convention for a year, if necessary. (Applause.)
DEL. COATES: I want to say to the delegate that it is not for the purpose of wasting time. I want a record, and the convention wants a record, I believe; that is all.
DEL. HELD: As the chairman of the ratification committee I wish to announce that the committee has made and adopted the following program, without any recommendation, to leave it to the convention to do what it pleases about it: “We, the committee, have adopted the following program: Grand ratification meeting of the Industrial Workers of the World, to be held at Brand’s Hall, corner of Clark and Erie streets, July 7, 1905. Meeting will be called at 8 P. M. The speakers will be: Eugene V. Debs, Daniel De Leon, William D. Haywood, Thomas J. Hagerty, C. O. Sherman, Charles Moyer, William E. Trautmann. David C. Coates, and others, will speak on the necessity of the working class organizing under the banner of the industrial Workers of the World.”
DEL. COATES: Mr. Chairman, I certainly intended yesterday, on the report of this committee, in what I said to the convention, to decline to address that mass meeting, and if the convention did not understand me at that time, I wish to withdraw my name from this list, because I shall not address that mass meeting.
DEL. WHITE: As one of that committee on arrangements for the mass meeting, I will also say that it was the sense of the committee that this ratification meeting be not held until such time as the constitution is adopted and we thoroughly understand what “industrialism” means, so that there will be no confusion among the speakers on the platform, and I thought that was the sense also of that committee on this ratification meeting; that this convention allow further time, and not expect it to-morrow night, but to wait until such time as the constitution is adopted, and the speakers can confine themselves strictly to the questions provided in the constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the report of your committee. What is the pleasure of the convention?
DEL. MOYER: I move its adoption. I said yesterday that I did not want to disappoint any one by being announced as a speaker at the mass meeting to be held here on Friday night. I can say to the convention and the committee that it will be impossible for me to address a mass meeting here to-morrow night. I say this in all sincerity, and I wish the convention to take me at my word.
DEL. FRENCH: I move that the report of the committee be adopted, and that the names of the delegates who have spoken be removed from the list, as they cannot speak at that meeting. (Seconded.)
Motion carried.
DEL. WILKE: Mr. Chairman, do I understand by the adoption of that report of the committee that the meeting of to-morrow night is postponed.
DEL. WHITE: Not at all.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherman, did you have some special business to bring before the convention?
DEL. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman—
DEL. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask the Chair a question. Is it or is it not according to parliamentary rules to put a motion and have it carried when a delegate is upon the floor asking to speak upon that motion? I do not know; I am not very well up in parliamentary rules.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state that after a question is put and the Chair asks, “Are you ready for the question?” and takes the floor to put the motion, when a delegate arises at that time he will not be recognized. Proceed with the roll call. The question is on the adoption of Section 2 of Article I as amended by Delegate Trautmann’s amendment. Read the amendment.
The amendment was read as follows: “Thirteen industrial divisions subdivided into industrial unions of closely kindred industries in the appropriate organizations for representation in the departmental administration.”
DEL. HALL: I will move that we insert the word “industrial” before “organization” in that amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is out of order. The roll call will be proceeded with.
The roll call was then taken by the Secretary, during which a number of explanations were made, among them the following:
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I want to say that if I had a million votes I would cast them against it, because by adopting the last amendment you are creating an organization with more heads and more officials to keep up with than you have in the American Federation of Labor, and I vote no.
DEL. PARKS: Mr. Chairman, I want to state my reason for the vote which I gave. I object to the parliamentary railroading that has lately been inaugurated in this convention. Therefore I vote no.
The roll call was finished and computed by the Secretary.
THE CHAIRMAN: Section 2 of Article I as amended is carried Yeas, 39,127; noes, 12,061.
[For detailed vote on roll-call, see appendix.]
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair at this time wants to resent any imputation on the part of any delegate that there has been any parliamentary railroading of any proposition m this floor. Two days and a half of time have been consumed in discussing this proposition, and then a delegate Las the impudence to get on the floor and say something has been railroaded. (Applause.) The Secretary will proceed with the reading of the next paragraph. Delegate Coates, will you kindly take the chair?
DEL. COATES: I will kindly ask to decline now. I thank you, but I do not want to preside.
Delegate Sherman was asked to preside, but declined.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Coates, will you permit the Chair to insist that you take the Chair for a few minutes?
DEL. COATES: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not care to preside.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, you are not in any danger of getting into any scrap.
DEL. COATES: All right; I don’t want to preside. I thank you very much.
The Chairman requested Delegate Bradley to take the Chair, but he declined, and Delegate Ferber was called to the Chair.
Secretary Hagerty read the next section, as follows:
SEC. 3. The financial and industrial affairs of each International Industrial Union shall be conducted by an Executive Board of not less than seven (7) nor more than twenty-one (21), selected by the general membership of said International Industrial Union, provided that the Executive Board and general membership of the said International Industrial Union shall at all times be subordinate to the General Executive Board of the Industrial Workers of the World, subject to appeal, and provided the expenses of such referendum shall be borne by the International Industrial Union, or Unions, involved.
It was moved that the section be adopted. Seconded.
DEL. MURTAUGH: It has been so long since the entire constitution as presented was read that the majority of the delegates are unable to grasp what the entire constitution means, and I believe the entire constitution should be read so that we can understand it in all its parts before voting upon any other section. I move that the entire constitution be read. (Seconded.)
Motion put and lost.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question is now before the house on the adoption of this particular section. Are you ready for the question?
The question was called for, and being put, was carried and the section declared adopted.
DEL. COATES: Will the Chair kindly request the Secretary to make a note on the minutes that Delegate Coates is not voting on this proposition? THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will please take notice that Delegate Coates is not voting.
DEL. COATES: I wish it to apply to every section of this constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: I am an old schoolmaster, and I have never presided anywhere unless there was perfect order, and while I maintain my position as Chairman we will have to have perfect order or there will not be any work.
Secretary Hagerty of the committee read Section 4, as follows:
Sec. 4. INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS shall have jurisdiction in local affairs over the unions of which they are composed, but shall at all times be subordinate to the INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD and submit a copy of their constitution to the General Executive Board for approval.
DEL. EISENBERG: I move you that that be adopted. (Seconded.)
DEL. HALL: I rise to a point of information. Will the Secretary please explain just what that means, so that the delegates will understand it? Does it mean that in a certain community a number of locals can form together and establish some kind of a government or some kind of a central council? Is that what it means?
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: In the section adopted by the convention there are included central bodies. “Central bodies composed of seven or more local unions in two or more industries shall be known as industrial councils.”
DEL. HALL: I would like to amend the motion as made, by a motion to strike out that part of this section, and I will explain why I would like to have that struck out. I think an economic organization must fight as much as possible anything like a geographical division of the working people. I think one of the best indications that we have in the world that the revolution of 1776 was not a working class revolution, was that the country over which the government was established was laid out in geographical sections instead of economic divisions. Now, going back somewhat into history, we find that the old free cities of Germany had their governments protected upon a different principle, and that was that all sections of society were represented in the government. Now, we have departed from that and established in this country a form of government on geographical lines that permit one class of people, that is the wealthy class, being elected as the representatives in the government. That is why we have drifted towards plutocracy instead of drifting towards democracy. Now, the point where it applies in the economic movement is this: I have had a great deal of experience with central councils, and I have never yet seen one of them that proposed anything for the economic needs of the working people. Those councils have always been used for political purposes, and wherever you find a central council you will find it dominated by some one person for political purposes. He will dominate it for a selfish purpose. If we confine his field of action to the local of which he is a member, the scope of his influence is limited, and I certainly hope that anything in the shape of a central council, a state council or anything of that kind will be knocked out of this constitution. I believe that if we establish that precedent and permit locals to organize themselves and come into a central council, we will drift away from that point which we wish to reach. You may rest assured that if in the city of Chicago there is permitted to be established a central council in which all locals may be permitted to have representation, that central will drift into a political ring that will eventually become just as corrupt as some have accused the Chicago Federation of Labor of being in the city of Chicago. It does not make any difference about what form of organization it is, it will not make any difference. You declare for the irrepressible struggle between the capitalists and laboring men, but results later will make no difference; it will gradually drift into the affairs of the organization, and we should take steps at this time to eliminate any possibility of that kind. There is no economic interest that can be served by a central organization. If there is a proposition coming up involving the different locals in certain sections, those locals may discuss the proposition without having a central organization.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: I rise to a point of order. These industrial organizations have already been adopted by Section 1 of this constitution, unless Brother Hall wants to throw the whole discussion open again.
DEL. HALL: How is that adopted?
DEL. HAGERTY: In Section 1, providing for the thirteen international industrial divisions, a central body and local unions.
THE CHAIRMAN: Read that particular section for the enlightenment of Brother Hall and others.
DEL. HALL: No, it is not for my enlightenment. If I understand what has already been adopted, the groupings are in economic groupings, but they are not geographical groupings.
DEL. HAGERTY: Is your objection to these industrial councils? Because if it is we have to throw open Section 1 again, for they are provided for there.
DEL. HALL: I admit that I have been asleep.
DEL. HAGERTY: Section 2 as amended here reads in this way:
“Shall be composed of thirteen international industrial divisions subdivided into industrial unions, of closely kindred industries in the appropriate organizations for representation in the departmental administration.”
DEL. HALL: That does not establish any such—
DEL. HAGERTY: Then the divisions are specified here. That is in paragraph A. You don’t want all the divisions read over again?
DEL. HALL: No.
DEL. HAGERTY: Paragraph B: “Central bodies composed of seven or more local unions in two or more industries, and shall be known as industrial councils.”
DEL. HALL: That is exactly the one I am fighting against now. That has not been adopted.
DEL. HAGERTY: That has been adopted. Section 1 has been adopted. We are at Section 2 now. Rather, we are at Section 4, I mean.
DEL. PRYOR: I would like to ask the committee whether the interpretation of that council is that there would be no international bodies whatsoever except this? You provide for central bodies, the grouping into central or district councils. You make no provision, in my estimation, for any international bodies over them except this. The adoption of that practically means the adoption of all international bodies except this. Is that the interpretation you place upon it? I would like to ask that question of the Chair.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: I do not understand the question thoroughly. The Chair is unable to give you the information. If Brother Hagerty or any member of the committee will volunteer to do that, very well. If you will, just set the brother right. Brother Sherman will give you that information.
DEL. SHERMAN: The section reads seven or more local unions, composing two different internationals,—they must come from at least two,—which bars the proposition in an industrial center where there would only be a representation of one international organization, and they felt that they would not need any central body, but your committee believes that there is good comes from central bodies in industrial centers. The brother who preceded me pointed out some very strong points, as, we who have had experience know, that these central bodies have been used more for political purposes many times than for economic purposes. But we provide there, which no other proposition has ever provided, that their constitution must be first submitted to the General Executive Board before they are legally an organization and can go forward and do business. The general constitution holds in line the whole structure as to the formation and the handling of the different crafts. Regardless of what political stigma has been put upon the central bodies, I believe that organizations and local unions, whether they be connected with an international or whether they be connected directly with the General Executive Board, that they can do good in large industrial centers by delegates representing those unions coming together on stated occasions and there discussing questions that are at issue in that one industrial center. I believe that good has been done in the city of Chicago. While I believe that many times it has been detrimental, I believe that came from the fact that the form of organization under which the trades unions are now existing and the authority that is in themselves under the present form of central bodies, with no restrictions from any central heads, particularly is to blame for it more than the central body. Further on, those of you who have read this constitution, you will see that we did not recognize that central body only as a local affair, as they are not permitted to have any representatives in any national convention, which is the case at the present time with the central bodies. The central body should not be recognized in a national convention, because of the fact that the central body itself is made up of organizations that will be represented in that body. I feel that it is absolutely necessary at this time to provide for these central bodies. You must remember, brothers, while I regret it, that the American working people are not prepared for anarchy—I wish they were—the law of love does not prevail, and there has got to be some line laid down whereby these propositions can be handled from an organic standpoint, and those laws have got to be made by the representatives of those who are going to participate in the movement. I feel that the central body could be of no harm to the movement, but I feel that it would be of great good in industrial centers where every sister and brother from Chicago, New York and large centers know that it is absolutely necessary for the trades, no matter how they are affiliated in nationals or whether they are independent—it is absolutely necessary for committees to come together, and you cannot get those committees together without you have some kind of a plan whereby they recognize the necessity of every so often meeting and discussing such questions as are before the working people locally.
DEL. J. C. SULLIVAN: I would ask for some member of that committee to explain and answer a question. He has omitted it all the way through, as to the abolition of the international heads. He did not answer the question. I want a yes or no to that question.
DEL. HAGERTY: We are now discussing Section 4. The other things in this constitution, the question the delegate here asked, ought to be asked in its right place when we come to it. If we are to take up ten minutes at a time asking questions in relation to a section not under discussion, we will never get through. This question is answered in its proper place. This is Section 4 now.
DEL. PAYNE: I ask for information. What I want to know is about this two or more kindred organizations or kindred trades that make up the central bodies, when there are seven or more locals. Is that the way this is made?
DEL. HAGERTY: Industrial organizations are defined in this way: “Paragraph B. Central bodies composed of seven or more local unions in two or more industries, and shall be known as industrial organizations.”
DEL. PAYNE: What I want to know is if Delegate Hall has a different proposition that would be better. I am seeking for information on that.
DEL. HAGERTY: The section under discussion is Section 4. “Industrial councils shall have jurisdiction in local affairs over the unions of which they are composed, and shall at all times be subordinate to the Industrial Workers of the World, and submit a copy of their constitution to the General Executive Board for approval.”
DEL. AYERS: I move its adoption. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded that Section be adopted. Are you ready for the question. (Question called for.
DEL. KIEHN: I want that in conformity with the section that has been passed previously, which provides that international organizations are admitted in various divisions, the local unions ought to be under the supervision of those international organizations. I don’t see how else you will amend it.
Question called for.
DEL. HALL: That is an important point that he has brought up there. The report of the committee did not originally intend for these subdivisions to be divided into international industrial unions. Now, the amendment divides it into international industrial unions, and therefore, as we claim, the central body should not have jurisdiction over these locals. The jurisdiction should come from the international, as we want a continuity of interest passing through the international. There should be a perfect connection passing through the international. Doesn’t that require an amendment, Brother Hagerty?
DEL. HAGERTY: The section under discussion is Section 4, and I presume that the adoption—at least it is my personal opinion—that the adoption of the amendment to Section 2, or the Trautmann amendment, namely, that the Industrial Workers of the World shall be composed of thirteen international industrial divisions, subdivided in industrial unions of closely kindred industries, that that probably carries the change of name all the way through the constitution. It is to be understood, because when we refer back to Section 1 in this constitution we refer to the name in the original report, “International Industrial Union,” and if that has been amended to read “International Industrial Divisions,” I presume it is the sense of that amendment that wherever the words “International Industrial Unions” occur it should be read “International Industrial Divisions.”
DEL. HALL: I did not want any confusion.
DEL. WILKE: Why do we discuss the jurisdiction of the local or central council? I contend we are discussing the jurisdiction of the subordinate council.
Question called for.
The question was then put and carried and the section declared adopted.
Secretary Hagerty then read the next section, as follows:
SEC. 5. LOCAL UNIONS, as provided for in Article I, Section 2 (c), shall be directly subordinate to the General Executive Board of the INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD and a local constitution for their government must be approved by the General Executive Board.
DEL. DE LEON: I move you the adoption of that part of the constitution. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded that Section 5 be adopted. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for.
DEL. DAVIS: I would ask, as a special favor to myself, that the Secretary be requested to read that particular section again that we voted upon.
DEL. HAGERTY: Local unions are defined in Section 1, paragraph C, as being any such industries as are not represented on the General Executive Board.
The question was called for and carried, and the section declared adopted.
DEL. HAGERTY: Is it in order that Article I be adopted now?
THE CHAIRMAN: Is that all of that article?
DEL. HAGERTY: That is all of Article I.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is it the sense of this convention that Article I shall be adopted as amended ? As many as are in favor of the motion please answer aye. Those opposed no.
DEL. HOPKINS: I rise to a point of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: State the point.
DEL. HOPKINS: There has been no motion to adopt this, and you have no authority to call for a vote on it without a motion.
A DELEGATE: Are you going to take it in sections or how? DEL. HOPKINS: I ask the Secretary to read the motion made when this committee first reported, that this constitution be adopted seriatim. Read the motion that was passed by the convention at that time.
DEL. HAGERTY: Doesn’t the adoption of these sections carry the adoption of the article? I am not here to split hairs with you. Is that the sense that Article I is now adopted by this convention?
DEL. HOPKINS: Oh, no.
DEL. HAGERTY: If you are here to split hairs or anything of that sort we will never get through.
DEL. HOPKINS: I want things done in the proper way and manner.
THE CHAIRMAN: I will rule you out of order. The various sections have already been adopted. Now the question occurs on whether we will take up and re-endorse these sections.
DEL. J. C. SULLIVAN: I care not whether you pass an article at a time as a whole or whether you wait until the entire constitution is acted on, but when final action is had on the constitution I shall ask a roll call vote before it is finally adopted.
THE CHAIRMAN: The roll call vote will be so ordered.
DEL. SULLIVAN: I would say it is better to go through the constitution and act on every section separately, and when you get through with it, then act on the matter as a whole, and one roll call vote should do the business one way or the other.
THE CHAIRMAN: Then you mean, Brother Sullivan, that we dispense with that at the present time?
DEL. SULLIVAN: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: And go on with the reading of the next section?
DEL. SULLIVAN: Yes, to save time.
THE CHAIRMAN: If that is the consensus of the opinion of the convention I shall so rule.
DEL. HALL: After we have adopted this seriatim all the matter is open again. Does that mean that any section that has preceded can be amended?
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not so hold.
DEL. HALL: Why not adopt it then as we go over it?
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: After the constitution has been read as a whole all the way through then the matter will revert to the roll call for its adoption, and then we who object to it or any part of it can cast our votes on every section.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I rise to a point of order. My point is this, that the motion that was carried on the presentation of the constitution proposed by the Constitution Committee—it was decided by motion that this constitution should be taken up seriatim, which will mean clause by clause, and not to be adopted section by section or article by article when amended. My point of order is this, that no motion can be entertained by the Chairman to adopt any section or any article until the whole constitution has been read and amended, and then it will be accepted or rejected as a whole. That is my point.
THE CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken. The Chair does so rule.
Secretary Hagerty of the committee read the next article, as follows:
ARTICLE II: OFFICERS—HOW SELECTED AND THE DUTIES THEREOF.
SECTION I. The officers of the INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD shall be a General President, a General Secretary-Treasurer and an Executive Board composed of the above named officers and one president of each International Division.
DEL. CRANSTON: I would like to amend that section to read as to the members of the international divisions that the word “president” be stricken out and the word “member” be substituted.
DEL. HAGERTY: I think that is all right. The words “member” and “president” occur here almost interchangeably, and I presume that it is the sense, so far as I understand the Constitution Committee, that the word “member” be used in other parts.
DEL. CRANSTON: Instead of having the president to be president and a member of the Executive Board, that he be elected; but it is open to the international to elect a member instead of the president. It should not be compulsory that the president should be the one that represents them, but any member should be eligible to represent them. Instead of the word “president” let any member be elected. I insist upon it in that way.
DEL. HALL: I would like to ask the secretary another question. Do you provide that all these men shall come from a department?
DEL. HAGERTY: Here is a part of the constitution. Section 5 of another article specifies that the other members of the General Executive Board shall be elected by their respective international industrial divisions in accordance with their prescribed rules, so that the use of the word “president” here, I suppose, is just a slip of the pen on the part of the man who first made the notes, or made these transcripts. Here it is provided for, so it makes no difference.
DEL. CRANSTON: That has been the great trouble with a good many constitutions that have been drawn up, that one part of the constitution would specify one thing, and another part of the constitution absolutely contradict it. I think it is the sense of this convention that the word “member” be inserted instead of the word “president.”
DEL. SULLIVAN: It is a blunder on the part of the man transcribing it.
Question called for.
DEL. SULLIVAN: It is not a mistake on the part of the sub-committee that prepared that part of the constitution. That reads just as the sub-committee intended as it should, so it is not a mistake.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: I did not understand it so in the Constitution Committee, and would not agree to that sort of thing from the reading of it.
THE CHAIRMAN: The mover of the amendment wishes to insert in Section I, the word “member” instead of the word “president.”
DEL. CRANSTON: Yes.
Question called for.
DEL. GLASGOW: I rise to a point of information. Is that member to be elected? It does not say that he is to be.
DEL. HAGERTY: It is provided in this constitution that a member be elected from each international industrial division.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question has been called for. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. MOYER: I demand a roll call on the amendment, as chairman of the committee.
DEL. DINGER: In behalf of the delegation here I would ask Brother Moyer to please withdraw the motion, because it would take up too much time. We want to get through with that business, and don’t want to go through with that again.
DEL. MOYER: If the Constitution Committee other than myself have no objections, I have no objection.
DEL. HAGERTY: I have no objection to that motion as a member of that committee, for that is the way I understood that thing. I was not present at drawing it up. I think it is merely a quibble on a technicality.
DEL. DE LEON: I have no objection.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you then withdraw your insistence upon the roll call, Delegate Moyer?
DEL. MOYER: If there is no objection on the part of the other members of the Committee on Constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: If there are any members here of the Committee on Constitution, please state your objections now.
DEL. J. C. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman. I will state that that was perfectly worded that way by the sub-committee who prepared that article. It was given some little consideration, and that is just as much the intent of the committee as any other wording of that report; but rather than to impose on the convention the time necessary for a roll call, I will willingly waive any personal objection I may have to making the change, although it is my opinion that it should remain just the way it is. I am willing, however, for the sake of time, to waive that personal objection. (Applause.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Have you any objections, Delegate Sullivan? Then we will revert to the question. As many as are in favor of inserting the word, now, will say aye. Contrary, no. The motion is carried, and the committee will please insert the word “member” instead of “president.”
Delegate Hagerty read the next question, as follows:
“Section 2. The General President and General Secretary-Treasurer shall be nominated from the floor of the convention, and the three candidates for each respective office receiving the greatest number of votes in the convention shall be submitted to the general membership of the organization for election.”
DEL. PAYNE: I would like to say that we have only passed on amendments to Section 1. We have not adopted Section 1 as yet.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is right.
DEL. GILLHAUS: I move that Section 1 be adopted as amended. (Seconded.)
The motion was put and carried and the section was declared adopted.
THE CHAIRMAN: It now occurs upon the next section which has been read. A motion will now be entertained for its adoption.
DEL. JORGENSEN: I move its adoption. (Seconded.)
The motion was put and carried and the section declared adopted.
Delegate Hagerty read the next section as follows:
Section 3. The General President is the Executive head of the INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD and its chief executive officer. He shall be nominated and elected as provided for in Article II, Section 2, . and shall hold office until his successor is duly elected and installed. He shall preside at all conventions and meetings of the General Executive Board of the INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD and he shall be only a delegate-at-large to the general conventions. He shall convene the General Executive Board when, in his judgment it is to the interest of the Organization and he shall convene the General Executive Board when requested in writing by a majority of the members of said board. He shall, upon the written request of one hundred (100) local unions, representing not less than three (3) industries with a total membership of not less than I5,000 members, call a special convention of the INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF HE WORLD at such time and place as are designated by the General Executive Board.
If, in his judgment, the official action of the General Secretary-Treasurer, or a member of the General Executive Board, is detrimental to the best interests of the organization, he shall make a complaint in writing, setting forth such charges, and shall convene the General Executive Board within ten (10) days to investigate said charges and take action thereon. If the General Executive Board, by a majority vote, sustain and justify the President in making said complaint, they may suspend or expel the member of the General Executive Board, or the Secretary-Treasurer, as the case may be, and shall fill any vacancy that may occur in either office; provided, that in case it is a member of the General Executive Board his industrial union organization shall be advised of such action and be requested to fill said vacancy within ninety days; provided, that the person selected by the Executive Board shall be empowered to act with like power of any other member of the Board until the industrial organization shall elect a person to fill the place, who shall immediately be installed in office. But in case it is the General Secretary-Treasurer the person selected by the General Executive Board shall fill the office until the next general election unless removed for cause.
The General President shall have entire supervision of the entire affairs of the organization and watch vigilantly over its interests throughout its jurisdiction. In this he shall be assisted by the officers and members of all organizations subordinate to the INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD. He shall, with the approval of the General Executive Board, appoint such organizers as the condition of the organization may justify. All organizers shall at all times work under the instructions of the General President, and all organizers, while in the employ of the INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD, shall report to the General President in writing, on blanks provided for that purpose, at least once each week. They shall receive as compensation for their services such sum or sums as shall be fixed by the General Executive Board.
The General President shall at each general convention render a report in detail of the work of his office since the last convention, and shall make such recommendations as will, in his judgment, advance the interests of the organization. He shall travel throughout the jurisdiction whenever the affairs of the organization will permit of his doing so, and he shall be empowered to examine the books and workings of any union or organization of the INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD when able to do so for the purpose of determining whether or not the union or organization is complying with the general constitution.
He shall be empowered to employ such clerical help as may be necessary to conduct the affairs of his office. The remuneration for the clerical help employed by the General President shall be fixed by the General Executive Board. He shall be held liable for all official acts or documents emanating from his office, whether done personally or by a clerk or stenographer. He shall sign all vouchers drawn by the Secretary-Treasurer and countersign all checks before any moneys are drawn from the treasury.
He shall devote his entire time to the affairs of the organization, and shall receive as compensation such sum or sums as the convention or General Executive Board may determine.
THE CHAIRMAN: What shall be done with the section as read?
DEL. SAUNDERS: Do I understand that the President shall hold office until his successor is duly elected and installed?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir, that is as it should be.
DEL. SAUNDERS: Or otherwise removed for cause?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is provided later.
DEL. SAUNDERS: The question I wanted to ask is this, does that mean the election of President, or the tenure of office, will be from one convention to the other?
THE CHAIRMAN: You ask, does it mean that?
DEL. SAUNDERS: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: It means until this convention, or some other convention which shall be next convened, shall see fit to so elect a president and install him. That is just exactly what it means.
DEL. HALL: I would like to amend that section in such a manner that the compensation of the General President, and the compensation of the General Secretary-Treasurer, shall not exceed $1,800 a year for the latter, and $2,200 a year for the former. I am simply making these figures to get the matter before the convention in order to get some idea as to what the sense of the convention is.
THE CHAIRMAN: Brother Hall, if you will reduce that particular amendment regarding the President only to writing, the Chair will entertain it.
DEL. ROSS: I want to offer an amendment to that section. I want it so amended as to read that the term of the President shall be one year, and not to be elected more than four consecutive terms, and such elections to be by referendum vote. (Seconded.)
(Here Delegate Haywood resumed the chair.)
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the reading of Section 3 of Article II, and the amendment offered by Delegate Ross. What is the pleasure of the convention in regard to this amendment?
A delegate requested that the amendment be read again.
THE CHAIRMAN: Amend said section to read that the term of the President shall be one year, not to be elected more than four consecutive terms, such election to be by referendum vote.
DEL. JORGENSEN: I move that it be adopted.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question?
DEL. MOYER: I shall have to ask for a roll call on the amendment, as a member of the Committee on Constitution.
DEL. ROSS: I want to have it distinctly understood by every delegate in this convention that I am not calling in question the honesty of purpose of this committee, in regard to any man that may be elected President, but I want to say that from the hitter experience of myself and others, so far as the labor organizations of this country are concerned, the continuous service of one man at the head of an organization more than four terms is detrimental. Remember, I do not bring this charge to this work, but I am trying to have it not happen.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: I rise to a point of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: State it.
DEL. HAGERTY: The subject that this delegate is discussing has already been decided in Section 2, about the referendum for the election of President, and that is not now under discussion.
DEL. ROSS: It did not state the term of service.
DEL. HAGERTY: At the convention; “shall be nominated by the convention.” The constitution later on fixes the conventions at but one a year.
DEL. ROSS: That is nomination, but I am speaking about his election.
DEL. HAGERTY: He is elected by the general membership.
DEL. HELD: I move that the motion be laid on the table.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is the delegate willing to withdraw his amendment?
DEL. ROSS: I am willing to withdraw the amendment, provided the Secretary will read the portion that covers that ground.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will please read Section 2 that has been adopted.
DEL. HAGERTY (reading): “The General President and General Secretary-Treasurer shall be nominated from the floor of the convention, and the three candidates for each respective office receiving thee greatest number of votes in the convention shall be submitted to the general membership of the organization for election.”
DEL. ROSS: And the term of office?
DEL. HAGERTY: The term of office is decided later on in the constitution by the voice of the convention.
DEL. ROSS: Then I withdraw the motion.
DEL. JORGENSEN: I will withdraw my second.
THE CHAIRMAN: Permit the Chair to state to this convention in the consideration of this constitution that you are merely adopting a provisional constitution. That this convention should not undertake at this time to build a constitution for this organization, but permit it to go before the working class of this country and come into the next convention prepared to build a constitution that will meet the requirements. Now, all these amendments might at this time be dispensed with. Simply have a provisional constitution, one with a foundation solid enough and a structure strong enough to hold this organization together until we meet together again. Now, the amendment occurs on Section 3 of Article II. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for.) Those in favor of the adoption will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried.
DEL. DE LEON: I rise for information. Was that motion of Delegate Hall’s entertained?
THE CHAIRMAN: I haven’t heard any motion from Delegate Hall or anybody else. The Secretary will read.
DEL. HAGERTY: I thought I was voting on Delegate Hall’s amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hall’s amendment was not seconded before that amendment. The Secretary will proceed with the reading.
The Secretary read the next section as follows:
Section 4. The duties of the General Secretary-Treasurer shall be to take charge of all books, papers and effects of the office. He shall be nominated and elected as provided for in Article II, Section 2, and shall hold office until his successor is duly elected, qualified and installed, except in case he shall he removed from office, when his place shall be filled as provided for in Article II, Section 3, under the “Duties of General President.”
He shall conduct the correspondence pertaining to his office; he shall be the custodian of the Seal of the Organization and shall attach the same to all official documents over his official signature; he shall provide such stationery and office supplies as are necessary for the conducting of affairs of the Organization; he shall act as Secretary at all meetings of the General Executive Board and all conventions and furnish the Committee on Credentials at each convention a statement of the financial standing of each International Industrial Union, Industrial Council and Local Union.
The General Secretary-Treasurer shall close his accounts for the fiscal year on the last day of February for each year. He shall make a monthly financial report to the General Executive Board and a quarterly financial report to the general membership, through the General Executive Board, and he shall make a complete itemized report of the financial and other affairs of his office to each Annual Convention.
He shall attest the signature of the General President to all official documents and shall prepare and sign all charters issued by the General Executive Board. He shall receive all moneys for charters, dues, assessments and supplies from International Industrial Unions, Industrial Councils, Local Unions and Members-at-Large; he shall receipt for same and care for and deposit all moneys as instructed to do by the General Executive Board in some solvent bank, or banks, which shall be drawn out only to pay indebtedness arising out of the due conducting of the business of the Organization, and then, only after bill shall have been first duly presented by the creditor when, in payment thereof, a check shall be drawn and signed by him, after which he shall present it, together with the bill, to the President for his counter signature.
For the honest and faithful discharge of his duties he shall give a bond in such sum, or sums, as may be fixed by the Convention or General Executive Board, the bond so given to be approved by the General Executive Board and kept in their custody.
He shall devote his entire time to the affairs of the Organization and shall at all times be under the supervision of the General President and the Executive Board and shall receive for his services such remuneration as may be fixed by the Convention or the General Executive Board, which shall be paid out of the funds of the Organization in the same manner as is provided for in the payment of other bills and indebtedness.
He shall, with the approval of the General Executive Board, employ such assistance as is necessary to conduct the affairs of his office. Remuneration for such employes shall be fixed by the General Executive Board and paid as other bills and indebtedness, as hereinbefore provided for; he shall convene the General Executive Board as hereinafter provided for in Article II, Section 5.
DEL. GILLHAUS: I move that that be adopted as read. (Seconded.)
DEL. WILKE: I did not see any provision made in this section for the protection of the President as is provided for in the previous clause for the protection of the Secretary-Treasurer; that is, in regard to honesty, etc. I don’t see anything there where the Secretary is authorized to prefer charges in that section.
DEL. J. C. SULLIVAN: You will find that provided for in the next section.
DEL. POWERS: I wanted to speak to the motion which preceded this motion. I want to explain the thing on the record because there is something that has been suggested here that I know I will get up against in the future, and I want, when I go home to the organization of men whom I represent here, to have them understand that I tried to get the floor of this convention when this question of salaries of officers came up here. I do not think that I will stand for any $2,000 parasite in this union, and when that does come up on the floor of this organization I shall insist and say that if any man doing the work of the working class will get $2,000 a year, I will get out of this organization. I am working for about $8 a week. I want to go on record.
DEL. J. C. SULLIVAN: I would like to state for the benefit of all of the delegates in this convention that if you will notice the reading of that constitution pertaining to remuneration or salary it provides that that shall be fixed by the convention. Now, your committee did not feel competent to insert figures there; consequently, they referred the matter to the convention. I would hold that it is the duty of each and every delegate here that is interested, when the proper time comes, to express their opinion and offer a resolution or a motion covering the matter. You are not fixing a salary at this time by adopting that part referring to the salary; you are simply giving yourselves as a convention power to do so.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question is that this section be adopted. (Question called for.)
DEL. WILLIAMSON: If Brother Powers had been on the committee he would have had an individual chance of speaking on the matter at the time.
THE CHAIRMAN: Those in favor of adopting the section will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried and the section adopted.
The secretary of the committee read the following section:
Section 5. The General Executive Board shall be composed of the General President, the General Secretary-Treasurer, and one member from each International Industrial Union, as provided for in Article II, Section I. The General President shall be elected as provided for in Article II, Section 2, except in case of vacancy, which shall be hereinafter provided for. The General Secretary-Treasurer shall be elected as provided for in Article II, Section 2, except in case of vacancy, when he shall be elected as provided for in Article II, Section 3. The other members of the General Executive Board shall be elected by their respective International Industrial Unions, in accordance with their prescribed rules except in case of a vacancy, when such vacancy shall be filled as provided for in Article II, Section 3, all of whom shall hold their office for one year, or until their successors are duly elected, qualified and installed.
Immediately upon adjournment of each Convention, the General Executive Board shall convene and designate some one of their members, other than the Secretary-Treasurer, as President pro tem., who shall, in case of emergency, assume the duties of General President until such a time as the General Executive Board can be convened to fill the vacancy in the office of President.
Any member of the Executive Board or the Secretary-Treasurer may, if in their judgment they find the official action of the President detrimental to the best interests of the Organization, file a complaint in writing, setting forth such charges. If said complaint is signed by two or more members of the Executive Board, it shall be filed with the General Secretary-Treasurer, who shall, within ten (10) days after serving a copy of such charges on the President, convene the General Executive Board, to hear the case. If the charges are sustained by a majority vote of the General Executive Board, they may suspend or expel the General President from his office, provided that, before the suspension or expulsion of the President be permanent, the question shall be submitted to the entire membership of the organization and their decision thereon shall be binding and final.
The General Executive Board shall have full power to conduct the affairs of the Organization between conventions and their decision on all matters pertaining to the Organization, or any subordinate part thereof, shall be binding, subject to an appeal to the next convention, or to the entire membership of the Organization, provided that, in case a referendum vote of the membership is demanded by any subordinate, or sub-division, part of the Organization, the expense of submitting the matter to referendum shall be borne by the Organization taking the appeal, except wherein the decision of the General Executive Board shall be reversed by a vote of the membership; then the expense shall be borne by the general organization.
The General Executive Board shall have full power to issue charters to International Industrial Unions, Industrial Councils and Local Unions, as provided for in Article I, Section 2 (a), 2 (b) and 2 (c). They shall also have power to charter and classify unions, or organizations, not herein provided for.
In case the members of any subordinate organization of the INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD are involved in strike, regularly ordered by the Organization, or General Executive Board, or involved in a lockout, if in the opinion of the President and General Executive Board it becomes necessary to call out any other union, or unions, or organization, they shall have full power to do so.
Any agreement entered into between the members of any Local Union, or organization, and their employers, as a final settlement of any difficulty or trouble which may occur between them, shall not be considered valid or binding until the same shall have the approval of the General Executive Board of the INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD.
The General Executive Board shall meet twice within a fiscal year to audit the books of the General Secretary-Treasurer and transact such other business as may come before them.
The General Executive Board shall, by a two-thirds vote, have power to levy a special assessment when subordinate parts of the organization are involved in strikes and the condition of the treasury makes such action necessary, but no special assessment shall exceed fifty cents per member in any one month, nor more than six (6) such assessments in any one year, unless the same shall have been approved by a referendum vote of the entire membership; provided that, in case special assessment be levied, the same shall be paid from the treasury of the Local Unions and International Industrial Unions chartered by the INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD, and provided that, when special assessments are levied for the benefit of unions or organizations, the members directly involved in strike shall be exempt from such assessment.
The General Executive Board shall have full power and authority over the official organ and guide its policy. They shall, by a majority vote, elect an Editor, who shall receive such compensation as in the judgment of the General Executive Board is just and proper.
The Editor shall hold his office at the pleasure of the General Executive Board and shall at all times recognize the authority of the General Executive Board over him as Editor of the official organ. The Editor may, with the approval of the General Executive Board, employ such help as is necessary to conduct the affairs of his office.
DEL. CRANSTON: I would like to have this added to that: I move that this be added as an amendment to that: “All members of the General Executive Board shall, before assuming the duties of their office, fill out and sign in the presence of witnesses their resignations, the same to take effect on acceptance by a majority of the General Executive Board, subject to the rights of appeal as provided.” (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the section be amended as read. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. WHITE: A delegate raises the question whether it would require a vote of this convention, that no general officer or President of the Executive Board of the Industrial Workers of the World shall hold membership in the American Federation of Labor, or any other pure and simple trades and labor organization.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: Comrade White, I think that is a matter for the convention itself to decide. If this is a real, economic, revolutionary convention the convention might say that, and if it does not they will go away as a lot of pure and simplers, in my judgment.
DEL. ROSS: I desire, Mr. Chairman, to appeal to your recollection as the Chairman of this convention. I want to ask a question for information. After I had offered an amendment which was intended to cover the ground in that document called a constitution, you said that it should not be the permanent constitution. I believe that was your declaration, wasn’t it, or was it not?
THE CHAIRMAN: I said that in my opinion this was merely a provisional constitution.
DEL. ROSS: Yes. Now, sir, I want to ask you if, when this convention adjourns, that constitution being adopted by this convention, the Western Federation of Miners, the S. T. & L. A. and the others who come in, if they won’t hereafter be the organization, if adopted by them and all the other organizations, and I could never have a chance in any other organization until they have affiliated with that body.
THE CHAIRMAN: Until they have affiliated with this organization?
DEL. ROSS: Yes. For that reason I want to still offer an amendment. In Delegate Hagerty’s reading there I find, sir, that provision is made to elect the officers annually, but no provision made as to how often or how many times they may be elected.
A DELEGATE: Yes, there is.
DEL. ROSS: I want to offer this amendment: That where it says that he shall he elected for one year (it states that he shall be elected yearly, but don’t say how many times he shall be elected), I want it to read that it shall be for one year, and no officer shall be elected more than four consecutive terms, if I can get a second to that amendment. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a second to the amendment?
DEL. PAYNE: Yes, I second it.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is that officers of this organization shall be elected for one year and not to be elected more than four consecutive years. You have heard the amendment. Are you ready for the question?
Question called for, and amendment put and lost.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion now occurs on the section as read. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for.)
DEL. KLEMENSIC: Brother Chairman and Fellow Delegates, it was just this particular point where the difference is between the contention of Brother Coates and the rest of the delegates, and there we are now. Now, a man that is a member of an organization of the American Federation of Labor, he has then, according to the statements here, no right whatsoever in this organization.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: No, not at all. You are talking about—
DEL. KLEMENSIC: In the Manifesto it is stated that members should be members of national and international organizations. Now, according to what is read and stated here, we have no right to be here. Now, then—
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Klemensic, permit the Chair to explain to you that this does not say as to what your membership shall be. The question was simply asked by Delegate White, but it is not set forth or defined in any way in that section as read.
DEL. KLEMENSIC: But it is stated here that he shall not be a member of the American Federation of Labor.
THE CHAIRMAN: No, it does not.
DEL. HAGERTY: No, that is not in here at all.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question before the convention at this time is whether or not this section shall be adopted. The motion is that it be adopted as read. Are you ready for the question ?
(Question called for.)
The question was put and carried and the section adopted.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will proceed to read.
DEL. SHERMAN: I would ask, as special privilege, the ears of the delegates of this convention for two minutes. I would ask it as a special privilege, if there is no objection. (No objection was heard.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherman has the floor.
DEL. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, Sisters and Brothers, I have an announcement to make, and I desire to make a motion following the announcement. Our little sister here on the platform, Sister Langdon, who has so efficiently served us through this convention, had the misfortune yesterday of having some one steal all her belongings from this platform, including her return transportation, some $40 or $50, and some valuable credentials that she had from various organizations in her work that she has done for many years. I want to make a motion that the Chair appoint an uninstructed committee to take up this case and make such provisions as in their judgment will be fitting for the occasion. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). Those in favor of the motion signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried. The Chair would appoint on that committee, the mover of the motion, Brother Sherman, Brother McCabe and Brother Hickey. The Secretary will proceed to read.
DEL. MCCABE: Brother Hickey is not here at the present time. I don’t think he will be here till to-morrow afternoon.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the committee can probably meet with him.
The Secretary of the Constitution Committee read the next section as follows:
“Article III. Section I. Revenues. The revenue of the organization shall be derived as follows: Charter fees for International Industrial Unions shall be $25. Charter fees for District Councils and Local Unions shall be $10.”
DEL. HOPKINS: I move that it be adopted as read.
At the request of Delegate Hall the section was read again.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: I would like to remark that I hope the fellows that are not listening won’t ask any more questions.
DEL. HALL: I stand rebuked, but I will explain the reason why I would like to have that read. I believe here is an opportunity of knocking out that idea of chartering district councils. Now, we might provide for district councils without chartering them. If we charter them we give them special sanction, giving them certain powers that it is a little difficult to withdraw later on. Now, I move you that we knock out that part of the article referring to district charters and in all sections following. I think there has been nothing preceding this. Let us knock out all portions that provide for issuing charters to central councils. This motion simply covers this one case where we receive revenues from district councils for these charters, and then it will provide later on for knocking out all that charter proposition to the central councils. I move you that we knock out that portion of this section which relates to issuing charters to district councils. (Seconded.)
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: A point of order. District councils have already been provided for and adopted by this convention in the first article of this proposed constitution, in Section I. Moreover, in Section 4 of that same Article I, which has been adopted by this convention, jurisdiction is given in these councils. Now, you cannot have industrial councils composing part of this Industrial Workers of the World and having jurisdiction without having charters.
THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken.
DEL. HALL: Just before you rule on that, will you permit me—
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is out of order.
DEL. POWERS: I move that the word “ten” in reference to the price for local charters be stricken out and “three” inserted. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion occurs on the original motion, which is to adopt the section as read. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). Those in favor will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried and the section adopted as read.
DEL. POWERS: Did you understand that I had a second to my motion?
THE CHAIRMAN: I did not.
DEL. POWERS: This gentleman (indicating) seconded it.
THE CHAIRMAN: If you will, kindly rise to your feet when you address the Chair. I did not hear you second it. The Secretary will proceed.
Secretary Hagerty of the committee read the next section of Article III, as follows:
Section 2. International Industrial Unions shall pay as general dues into the treasury of the INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD the rate of eight and one-third cents per month per member; Industrial Councils shall pay a flat rate of $1.00 per month for the organization; Local Unions shall pay twenty-five cents per member per month, together with such assessments as may be levied as provided for in Article II, Section 5.
The stamp system shall be used. Stamps shall be procured from the General Secretary-Treasurer at the rate of prices provided for in Section 2 of Article III.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard read Section 2 of Article III. What is the pleasure of the convention?
It was moved and seconded that the section be adopted.
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that that section be adopted as read.
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: I move to amend the section as read by striking out “eight and one-third cents” and substituting “twelve and one-half cents.” I wish to speak to the motion if it receives a second. (Amendment seconded.)
DEL. KIEHN: I move to amend that the “eight and one-third” be stricken out and “six” inserted. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that “eight and one-third” be stricken out and “six” inserted. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: I probably should have stated my reasons for making the motion that the general dues be twelve and one-half cents to the international, but I did not consider it in order to make such a statement preceding the motion. I consider that the solidarity of this organization cannot be expressed except the organization issues a publication at regular intervals containing the official declarations of the organization and representing its principles, which publication should go to every single member of international, national and local unions. It seems to me that if we are to have solidarity at all, that is to say, if all of the members of this organization are to act together, they must think together first; that is to say, they must decide for themselves, from a study of the principles of the organization and the conditions affecting the organization, what action is necessary for the best interests of the organization. And unless the individual members of all of the unions united with this proposed organization are in close touch all of the time with the conditions of all of the other unions in the organization, they will not know what action can best be taken for the interests of the organization as a whole. We have not recognized in to-day’s work that a provision of the Manifesto shall be followed strictly. I will not say that the recommendation of the Manifesto regarding the issuance of a universal journal must be strictly followed, because the precedent has been established that this convention has the right to place a construction or interpretation upon the Manifesto. But I do maintain that whether the Manifesto is to be strictly followed or not, the recommendation for a universal official journal to go to every member is fundamentally right and ought to be adopted and provided for in this convention. Maintaining that it is right, I maintain that the revenues provided for the general organization will not permit of the publication of such an official journal and sending it to every member. It will simply permit of the publication of a journal for voluntary subscription, and such a journal will receive the subscriptions of only those who are the best supporters of the organization and who least need it An official journal for this organization, to be of any benefit to the members, should be issued weekly; that is, to be of great benefit to the members. If it is to be issued weekly it will require at least four cents per member per month from all of the members united locally or internationally. If issued monthly it will require at least two and one-half or three cents per member per month to provide the means for that purpose. As I understand it, of the eight and one-third cents per capita tax provided from the international organization, five cents is to go into a central defense fund. Is that correct?
DEL. HAGERTY: No, it is not five cents.
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: A special defense fund is provided for, Mr. Chairman, any way. I maintain, anyhow, that the revenue as provided for here will not permit of properly conducting this organization and provide means for the publication of an official journal to go to every member, and I therefore made the motion for twelve and one-half cents; and while I will not repeat the motion again, I want to register my objection to reducing that tax below the amount stated in the committee’s report.
DEL. SHERMAN: I agree in all that has been stated by Brother Smith of the necessity and the good that will come from a journal issued by this General Executive Board, and your Committee on Constitution took that proposition under advisement, but we felt at this time that the time will soon pass to arrive at the date of another convention, and during that time there will be a great deal of what might be called turmoil work, of getting these organizations in line, and getting things straightened out. Recognizing the fact that the organizations that are here pledged and joined with this organization have at the present time official organs of their own that must be supported by the membership, we felt that a year would not be too long for the rank and file to decide whether they wanted the publication of one united publication; and they were as a unit believing that it would be of very little interest to the rank and file to have a general publication and then all the internationals have a publication also, and they felt that with this new child that is being born, if we could organize and pull together the working class and put them in good working shape so that they would be prepared to go into the next convention, then if they saw fit to make provisions to launch an official organ that would embrace the whole machinery or whole business of the whole organization, they would be better prepared at that time. Feeling as the committee did, that it was not the proper time at the beginning of an organization to launch an official organ, they felt that the amount named as per capita tax or general dues was sufficient, and I am of the opinion that the committee is correct. There are none of the organizations that are coming in here but what have official organs of their own. Those organs have got lists of subscribers that are paid for, and those subscriptions are supposed to be carried out to the expiration of the time that they have paid for. Hence if they pass a motion as prescribed by Brother Smith at this time it would necessitate the double load of carrying the general organ as well as the ones that they have subscribed to and paid for at this time. Hence I do not think we are ready at this time to dictate too much of a load upon the rank and file. Hence I am opposed at this time to insisting upon launching an official organ for the organization.
DEL. SHURTLEFF: I desire to offer an amendment to the amendment, that the tax to the general body shall be fixed at five cents for the defense fund and one cent for the general fund. With the sick benefits and other expenses, to turn over eight and one-third cents to the general organization would practically put you out of business entirely. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: You are out of order. An amendment to the amendment has been offered, that is, that this section be amended by striking out “eight and one-third” and inserting “six.” Are you ready for the question?
Question called for; also roll call demanded.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will determine as to whether a roll call will be had on this question. If this is carried overwhelmingly there will be no roll call.
DEL. POWERS: Now, comrades, I think we are making a mistake just here. You are basing the income of this organization according to your experience. This amendment to the amendment says six cents per capita. You will understand that this six cents has got to come out of the dues that are paid into the organization to carry on the organization. Now, we have only got one textile local in Rhode Island, and at the present time it is in a crippled state because it had a big strike on over nine months, and it was torn literally to pieces financially and numerically. Now, you want to keep this in mind, you men who get $3 and $4 a day, that there are in this group of textile workers men who are working fifty-eight hours for $5.40 a week. There are in this group women who are working for $3.60 a week-grown women. And these people want to be organized. There is a greater need for organizing them than there is you. (Applause.) You are getting a living wage; you are getting something to eat, and you have got fresh air. These people do not get a wage sufficient to feed them properly, and they are in an atmosphere that is poisoning them ten hours a day. Now, I tell you, we cannot stand this per capita tax. I tell you further, that you will organize very few locals in the textile industry if they have to pay $10 for a charter. Now, comrades, I do not want to do any bragging, but I have organized a few textile industries and I have paid for the charters out of my own pocket, and it was only $3, but they could not raise $3. Now, I understand the textile industry. I know the financial condition of those people, and I tell you that the best young men, as good as any that I know of, have gone into a fight against $60,000,000, against the greatest woolen trust, or the greatest combination of woolen manufacturers in America, and carried on a strike for nearly nine months; carried it into four states, and stopped 2,700 looms, and among people whom they had never seen before, and there are 800 of those people now blacklisted. In this town, in this local that I come from, we have 50 men of that local that can’t work in that town, and they are scattered to all points of the compass. Now, I would like to keep these people together. They are the fighting element of the textile industry id New England. Outside of this lot of men there is nothing in New England worth mentioning. Years ago many of them belonged to the assembly of the Knights of Labor. Some of them have grown gray in the labor movement. Now, I would like to have you allow these people to live, allow us to exist, if you make this per capita tax six cents you will put us out of business. Now, that is all I am telling you. I would like to see something done to let these district councils decide what their dues will be. They are the best judges of what the per capita tax should be and what they can afford to pay. Mr. Chairman, just think; we have got in Rhode Island about 100,000 textile workers; probably over 100,000, and we have got organized in that whole state, taking those who belong to the American Federation of Labor and all the rest of them, about 10,000. Now, there is a big field there, and we want this organization to put us in a position so that when we get back we can go out and work. We do not want this organization to put us in a position that will cripple us financially in the beginning; and this will do it. Now, we can’t pay this per capita tax. I say to you that the treasury of our organization is empty now; we haven’t got a nickel there. We are holding this organization together with our hands and teeth. We have been holding it that way for two years, and I am sure that if this goes on and you force us to pay six cents after paying all our other expenses, that we will not be able to do it. Now, that is the condition. I hope this amendment will pass, the five-cent amendment. I hope the amendment to the amendment will be struck out. I would rather see some provision made in the constitution to leave it to those groups in this textile industry to decide how much dues they will pay and how much per capita tax they can afford to pay. They are in a better position to know what they can pay. Now, comrades, you men here who earn $3 and $4 and $5 a day, if you came into our industry we would look upon you as a curiosity. You are able to pay, with $4 and $5 a day. Delegate Morrison surprised me the other day when he said he was getting $5 a day. I haven’t run into that sort of a man in a year.
DEL. MORRISON: I rise to a question of personal privilege to speak on this question, inasmuch as I was mentioned by the speaker as being the man who stands on this floor as having received $5 a day. There is no man in this convention that realizes—
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will not permit the delegate to go into the question of wages. This is a question of whether or not this amendment will be carried.
DEL. MORRISON: Well, I want to speak to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, but I want to diverge just a moment so as to make myself understood.
DEL. SCHATZKE: What is the amendment? I would like to hear the amendment again.
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment to the amendment is that “eight and one-third” be stricken out and “five” cents per capita inserted. Delegates will confine themselves to the question.
DEL. MORRISON: I am heartily in favor of a reduction from “eight and one-third”, or from “six” down to “five”, if there are going to be stipulated sums prescribed that the different locals are to pay for dues; for the reason that the delegate here has raised the question of the impossibility on the part of certain individuals and groups of laborers in this country to meet their payment. And I rise to a point of privilege to express myself and go on record in this convention on a proposition that has never been submitted to this convention, in regard to the equitable distribution of the burdens of this great organization that we are going to launch. May I have this privilege just a minute?
THE CHAIRMAN: As long as you are speaking to this question.
DEL. MORRISON: I might divert just a minute, but I want to go on record on this question.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will call your attention to it if you divert.
DEL. MORRISON: All right. This is my proposition, briefly. I don’t want to detain you long because it is not my purpose. It is this, that there ought to be dues established by this organization that will bear equally upon each and every individual member of society known as a laboring individual, in accordance with his ability, dues based upon a men’s earning capacity. (Applause.) That will provide for my friend who is working in the mill, sitting over here, and it will also provide for the man that gets $5 a day, and I promise to pay my percentage of the dues, whatever it is.
DEL. SAUNDERS: In view of the fact that there is no motion to the effect of the one on which the last brother spoke, I would be in favor of the amendment to six cents, taking into consideration what Brother Powers stated. I believe, however, that working men who want an organization at all will realize that we cannot organize under less than six cents and allow the organization to live. I believe too, that there should be a provision, whereby these organizations that come in under the head of the category mentioned by Brother Powers should be provided for, but I do not believe that that is any argument why the six cents should not prevail. Therefore I am in favor of the amendment.
DEL. HALL: It occurs to me that it is impossible to vote intelligently upon this proposition unless we understand something of how this fund is to be segregated. It is just possible that the suggestion of twelve and one-half cents would not be too much if we knew how the money was to be used; or it is just possible that we might make it a little more than that if used in the proper way. Now, let me suggest to you that the constitution provides that each industrial section or division shall have a member on the General Executive Board. It also provides that these separate divisions shall have a general Secretary-Treasurer. Now, I would like to have it go out to the world that this member of the General Executive Board and this General Secretary-Treasurer of the industrial division is linked in his personal interest with this one union that we are forming. Now, if the salaries of the different international officers are to be paid from this general fund accumulated in the treasury by this per capita tax, and the cost of stationery and supplies by the different internationals, and the rent of their office is to be paid from this general per capita tax that is under discussion, it might reasonably be a little larger than it is or that has been suggested, and have no international per capita tax. For instance, if all the per capita tax assessed against the membership of the organization should go into one central treasury from which could be borne the expense of all the different industrial divisions, then that is all the per capita tax that is necessary to put upon the membership, and we could make it much lighter that way than by a per capita tax placed on them for the support of this main organization of eight and a half or six cents, and then have another per capita tax on them for the support of their separate industrial division. Now, if we knew how these funds were to be segregated, then we could vote intelligently, but until we do I do not see how we can treat the question wisely and well. I am in favor of one per capita tax and no more, and I am in favor of that coming into a general treasury, and I am in favor of the secretaries of these different industrial organizations representing industrial divisions being paid out of that. I am in favor of having a uniform system of stationery and supplies going out to the membership.
THE CHAIRMAN: The chair will have to call you to order. Inasmuch as the section that was adopted there says that the financial and administrative powers shall go to the divisions, you are not speaking to the question.
DEL. HALL: I rather think that you misunderstood what I wanted to say.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have talked a long while, long enough to make anybody understand.
DEL. HALL: I believe that different delegates have stated that the per capita tax would be sufficient to bear the expense that I have suggested; that is, the salaries and the general administration of these different industrial divisions. Now, the committee has made no suggestion as to the segregation of this fund coming in. If the per capita tax is eight and one-third cents it means $80 per thousand members. That, multiplied by 50,000 members represented in this convention, means 50 times 80, which is $4000, I think, per month. Now, I believe that is more than is necessary to pay the salaries of General President and General Secretary-Treasurer and to get out the stationery necessary to conduct the business of the general organization. I think it is an unnecessary burden to place upon the membership. Now, if the committee would define what uses they wish to make of that money that comes in, then we could act upon it intelligently.
DEL. LUCY E. PARSONS: I think this per capita tax is very important. We have heard from this delegate from Rhode Island that there are women there working for $3.60 a week, and certainly they have got to be taken into consideration. I can verify this, for I was in Rhode Island and among those textile workers, and I think that their wages would not enable them to pay a very large tax. They are the class we want. This organization is for the purpose of helping all, and certainly it is the women in the textile mills that are the lowest paid. I think the suggestion of the brother here is good, if it can be made flexible and work; that the different local organizations should be permitted to levy their own tax, knowing as they do what amount that tax should be. If it is a local in the west or in Chicago, where the wages are better, they may be able to vote a larger per capita tax. There should be more flexibility so as to meet the conditions of those who only get $3 or $4 a week, and not make their tax at the same ratio as those who get as much as that a day, or even more. Simply make it so that the People and the women who get such poor pay should not be assessed as much as the men who get higher pay.
DEL. DINGER: I wish to ask the committee through you, Mr. Chairman, a question.
THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed.
DEL. DINGER: Is there any provision made in the constitution there for such cases as presented here by Comrade Powers?
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: I think that that is the spirit of this constitution. As the Chairman stated a while ago, the constitution is provisional for the sake of getting this organization under way, and I think—I am positive—that there is not a single member of that Constitution Committee who would dream of compelling a textile worker earning $3 a week to pay into the general fund that which he could not pay. I think that that is the spirit of the Constitution Committee. That was discussed, in reference to the earnings of members, for instance the miners; that the eight and one-third cents a month is a mere bagatelle to the miner. As a matter of fact, that provision could not be enforced in so far as the textile workers are concerned, or in so far, for instance, as the closing down of the mills. Suppose the mills would close down for a year and they were not earning anything at all, if they were paying eight and one-third cents a month into the general fund it would destroy their organization. I do not think that that is the spirit of this constitution at all, and if I am not right in saying that, I would like some other members of the Constitution Committee to correct me here. I think that the convention has got Brother Sherman’s interpretation of that Constitution Committee, that it is not an iron-clad document, fixed and rigid like the old bed of Procrustes, who, when a traveler came along, would put him on a bed, and if his legs were too short he would stretch them, and if the legs were too long he would chop them off. This is not procrustean; it is a document or constitution to give us a working plan to go on, and it must be left to wisdom and experience to guide us. There is enough power given to the wisdom of the General Executive Board to cover the objection of Brother Powers. We all recognize that that is a real, solid objection, and I think that the General Executive Board of the incoming organization has power to regulate such a matter as that. Otherwise there is no use having a General Executive Board if they cannot interpret the spirit of this constitution; and the spirit of it, the keynote of the spirit, is struck in its Preamble.
DE1. MILLER: The pathetic helplessness of poverty was never better suggested than by Comrade Powers when he stated the condition of the textile workers in Rhode Island. It ought to be clear to the delegates of this convention that if anybody were in the same condition as those textile workers, resistance to capitalism would be out of the question. It is clear, too, that if the textile workers are not able to pay, the men who are receiving better wages than they are getting might bear the burden of that fight for labor. There is nothing to hinder the Executive Board from granting a dispensation to, even like the textile workers and other crafts in which extremely low wages prevail, and the burden might be laid on the shoulders of those fellows who not only have the power to do, but have the will as well. No one need be afraid of what is going to become of $4000 that may come into the treasury of this organization. Any one who knows or has the faintest conception of the burdens which this organization is to meet, knows that funds will constitute a grave question. We cannot have too much money. For that reason it seems to me that both the amendment to raise to twelve and one-half cents (as I do not think it is wise to provide at the present time for the publication of an official journal) should fail, and the one reducing the per capita tax to six cents should fail also. That is about the size of it.
DEL. JORGENSEN: I would only mention what Delegate Hagerty said. It seems to me that this convention is trying to make an organization so perfect that you will never have to go into any other convention. If you think you can do that, then you might just as well make up your minds that you will have no constitution for the next three years to come.
DEL. LILLIAN FORBERG: Thee brother is not talking on the subject.
DEL. JORGENSEN: I am sticking to the subject pretty close. I think you will have something to do and change in the next convention. I think the per capita tax of the amendment to the amendment is just about the one we should adopt. It is easy to increase expenses, but it is hard to decrease them. At the next convention, if you think that you need to increase your per capita tax you can do so, after you have seen that it is necessary. The comrade here has described the condition in Rhode Island. You can leave those states out and exempt them from bearing the per capita tax at all, according to the Manifesto there. How can they build up the organization? Their hands and teeth are the only instruments that they have. Since 1881 the carpenters have had a convention every other year, and there never was a year that they had a convention unless they had to change their constitution either one way or the other, taking out, changing, etc.
DEL. MCDONALD: I want to ask Delegate Hagerty if the constitution makes provision for the General Executive Board in such cases as this one; if it has given the General Executive Board that power?
DEL. HAGERTY: I do not know exactly the wording here, but the General Executive Board has power to regulate the affairs of the organization between conventions; that is what it states. If we are going to give that an interpretation there, it must be broad enough to cover these difficulties.
DEL. MCDONALD: It does specifically give them the power, does it?
DEL. HAGERTY: May I read that portion to them?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
DEL. HAGERTY: In the “Duties of the General Executive Board” it is said that the Executive Board shall have full power to conduct the affairs of the organization between conventions, subject, of course, to a referendum.
DEL. MCDONALD: Surely, yes, subject to the constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question is on the amendment to the amendment, which is to insert the word “six” instead of “eight and one-third.” Those who favor the motion will say aye. Contrary no. The motion is lost. The motion now occurs on the amendment to the original motion, which is to make the per capita tax twelve and one-half cents. Those in favor of the motion will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is lost. The motion now occurs on the original motion, which is to adopt the section as read. Those in favor will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried and the section adopted. The Secretary will proceed.
The Secretary of the committee read the next section, as follows:
Article III. Section 3. Individual members may be admitted to membership at large in the organization as provided in Article I, Section 2, paragraph D, on payment of $2 initiation fee and 50 cents per month dues, together with such assessments as may be levied by the Executive Board as provided for in Section 5, Article II, all of which shall be paid to the General Secretary-Treasurer; provided, members at large shall remain such so long as they are outside of the jurisdiction of a local union subordinate to the general organization, but on moving within the jurisdiction of a local union of the Industrial Workers of the World or any of its subordinate organizations they shall transfer their membership from the union at large to the local union within the jurisdiction where they are employed. The initiation fee for members of local unions, as provided for in Section 2, paragraph C, Article I, and Sections 5, Article II, shall be $2. The monthly dues shall he 50 cents per month, together with such assessments as may be levied as provided for in Section 5, Article II; provided, no part of the initiation fee or dues above mentioned shall be used as sick or death benefits, but shall be held in the treasury as a general fund to defray the legitimate expenses of the union. All international industrial unions subordinate to the Industrial Workers of the World shall charge for initiation fee in their respective unions not less than $1.50 nor more than $5 as in their judgment the conditions will justify. All international industrial unions subordinate to the Industrial Workers of the World shall collect from their membership of their organizations a per capita tax at the rate of 25 cents a member per month; provided, that no part of the above mentioned moneys shall be used for sick, accident or death fund, but shall be held in the treasury of the international industrial unions for the purpose of paying the legitimate expenses of maintaining the organizations.
DEL. WILKE: I make a motion that we concur in the recommendation of the committee. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. ROSS: I want to say to this convention that I want to move that Delegate Hagerty completely read the remaining portion of that constitution, and then we will adopt it as a whole without debate. Now, I have got a reason for this. There have been some of us going away, and they know it will be adopted. I am cognizant of the fact, and every one on this floor ought to be so by this time, that it is useless to change or make a request or a motion. I move that Delegate Hagerty continue to read the remaining portion of the constitution as provided by the Constitution Committee, and when it has been read that this convention adopt it as a whole and without debate. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is out of order. The motion is to adopt the section. Are you ready for the question?
Question called for.
DEL. WILKE: I rise to ask a question. I made a motion to concur, to bring it before the house. In that section that has just been read there is a passage that refers to the national industrial organizations charging an initiation fee of $1.50 and not more than $5. Do I understand that to refer to the local or to the individual members?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is the local.
DEL. WILKE: I didn’t get quite clear on that, and I wanted to ask the question.
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: I would like to know if I have been mistaken in understanding that the report of the committee provides that the dues in the local unions, including local unions with international bodies, shall be 50 cents per month. Will the Chairman permit the Secretary of the committee to answer that question?
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: Local unions (and by “local unions” in this section is meant unions that are directly chartered by the general administration of the Industrial Workers of the World), in places where there are not enough persons in an industry to constitute an industrial organization, shall pay 25 cents per month per member.
DEL. SMITH: That is not the question.
DEL. HAGERTY: Individual members shall pay 50 cents per month. Your question is—
DEL. SMITH: My question is whether this constitution as reported by the committee provides the rate of dues to be paid by members of local unions.
DEL. HAGERTY: It does not. That means local unions, but Delegate Smith used local unions in the first sense of the word; that is, locals directly chartered by the general administration.
DEL. SMITH: Or locals with the international.
DEL. HAGERTY: Or locals united with the international. There are two. Locals united with internationals have no specified dues here except as regards their dues to their internationals, not as locals.
A DELEGATE: Is there a minimum and a maximum fee?
fee.
DEL. HAGERTY: There is a minimum and a maximum initiation fee.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will please read the whole section.
The section was again read by Secretary Hagerty.
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: Mr. Chairman, if the Secretary will let me take that I will give it back (copy of report handed to Delegate Smith.) This is a very long section. It seems to me that this section provides that dues in local unions directly chartered by this organization shall be a fixed sum per month, and yet it does not make any such provision for locals united with international industrial organizations. Am I right in that?
DEL. SHERMAN: According to the reading, but it was not the intention, for I am confident it was the intention to make a minimum and maximum that the international should charge.
DEL. SMITH: I will simply treat the report of the committee as it is written. It is stated that it was the intention of the Constitution Committee to make the dues in local unions, whether united directly or through international unions, 50 cents per month, no more and no less. It is also provided that no part of the revenue of the local unions, whether directly chartered or through international organizations, shall be used for sick or death benefit purposes. In other words, it is proposed in this constitution to prohibit local unions connected directly with this organization charging more than 50 cents per month dues.
DEL. HAGERTY: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. It is not prohibited, if the brother will permit me. The local union has its own constitution and its own local government, financial as well as administrative, subject to the Industrial Workers of the World and the approval of the General Executive Board; and that has already been adopted by this convention.
DEL SMITH: I merely want to understand it properly. If there is no excuse for me to talk, I am the last man in the convention to wish to talk. I understand it differently than as stated by Delegate Hagerty. The initiation fee for members of local unions, as provided for in Article I, Section 2, and Article 2, Section 5, shall be $2. The monthly dues shall be 50 cents per month. My interpretation of this section as written and as read is that local unions of this proposed organization, if this constitution is adopted, shall charge 50 cents per month dues, no more and no less. If that is not the intention of the Constitution Committee, then the constitution Committee has not written the constitution in accordance with the intention of the committee, and it ought to be so written. I will speak on the motion to adopt, I am opposed to that section as read, because I believe that local unions united with this organization should have the right to fix the monthly dues of members at any sum the local unions may see fit. I recognize, Mr. Chairman and Delegates, in making this talk, that it is entirely out of order if the constitution is to be written in conformity with the intention of the Constitution Committee as stated by Delegate Hagerty.
DEL. HAGERTY: A point of order. As I stated, that is in this document already provided for and adopted by this convention. If you will refer back to the section. It is not my interpretation or opinion; it is merely the document.
DEL. SMITH: I simply read the document as it is.
DEL. HAGERTY: Read the other part.
DEL. SMITH: If any other part conflicts with this part of the constitution, then the other part of the constitution or this part of the constitution should be and must be changed. This part of the constitution states clearly that the dues in local unions shall be 50 cents per month, and it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, with a further reading of this particular section, that it is the deliberate intention of the Constitution Committee to prohibit monthly dues being fixed at a higher rate than 50 cents per month, because this section goes on to state further along that no part of the initiation fee or monthly dues shall be used for sick or death benefit purposes. In order that this part of the constitution may be in agreement with the intention of the Constitution Committee, I shall move you that this section which I now proceed to read as I would amend it, be amended so that it will fix a minimum dues in local unions of 50 cents per member per month, and shall eliminate that part of the section prohibiting local unions from inaugurating sick or death benefit systems. I shall make that as a motion before I get through. Now, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this organization is going to succeed as a labor organization just insomuch as it leaves within, the power of an individual member, just insomuch as it leaves within the power of the international industrial organization, a complete and perfect democratic management of the affairs of the individual member, of the local union and of the international industrial organization, matters that affect the individual member only, that affect the local union only, and that affect the international industrial organization only. If this organization presumes now or at any other time to say to the individual member or to the local union or the international organization that they shall not do things which do not interfere with the efficiency of the general labor movement as a whole, then this convention and the organization are going to fix such rules as will make it absolutely impossible for the organization to grow or gain strength among the American working people. Local unions now have a habit in the American Labor Union, in the Western Federation of Miners and in other local organizations that are represented in this convention directly or through international delegations, —they have a habit and a practice of charging monthly dues of from 35 cents per month to $2.50 per month. The monthly dues in some of the local unions of the Western Federation of Miners are as high as $2.50 and the benefits are correspondingly great. The monthly dues in some of the local unions of the American Labor Union are as low as 35 cents per month, and my experience with those organizations has been that the monthly dues are not sufficient to furnish revenue to properly conduct the unions and pay the obligations of the local unions to the general labor movement. I am therefore in favor of fixing the minimum local dues of 50 cents per member per month. But, Mr. Chairman, if this convention goes on record as prohibiting local unions, either national or directly chartered local organizations, from charging more than 50 cents per member per month as monthly dues, or prohibit those organizations from providing benefits for their members as they may see fit after they have fulfilled all their obligations to the general labor movement, then it is going to place such restrictions upon this organization as will make it impossible to succeed. I move you, Mr. President and brother delegates, as an amendment to this section—I shall have to have the document before me in order to make an intelligent motion—
DEL. HAGERTY: All right. (Hands constitution to Delegate Smith).
DEL. SMITH:—As an amendment to this section—this is the section that I would like to amend at this time; I will read the section as reported by the Committee on Constitution. It is a paragraph, but in my judgment it should be a section, to be treated intelligently by the convention:
“The initiation fee for members of local unions as provided for in Article I, Section 2, C, and Article II, Section 5, shall be $2. The monthly dues shall be 50 cents per month, together with such assessments as may be levied as provided for in Article II, Section 5; provided no part of the initiation fee or dues above mentioned shall be used as a sick or death benefit, but shall be held in the treasury as a general fund to defray the legitimate expenses of the unions.”
I move to amend this section so that it shall read as follows. I will reduce this to writing as soon as I can:
“The initiation fee for members of local unions as provided for in Article I, Section 2, and Article II, Section 5, shall be not less than $2. The monthly dues shall be not less than 50 cents per month, together with such assessments as may be levied as provided for in Article II, Section 5.”
I move as a part of my motion that the balance of the section be stricken out, which provides that “no part of the initiation fee or dues above mentioned shall be used as a sick or death benefit, but shall be held in the treasury,” etc. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The delegate will please reduce the motion to writing.
DEL. KIEHN: Have I got the floor?
THE CHAIRMAN: If you wish to speak to the motion as made you have the floor.
DEL. KIEHN: I wish to state that I am opposed to the amendment and am opposed to the adoption of this section. If I go home to the members of the organization that sent me here, the members that have been accustomed for the last ten years that the organization has been in existence never to pay any more than 25 cents dues and not to charge more than $1 initiation fee—if I go home to them with that proposition as offered in this constitution, it will raise a suspicion in their minds that this will be a bleeding process, and if the money is to be used as it is specifically stated, for nothing else but to defray the expenses of the organizations, it will raise a suspicion in the minds of the members that the purpose of this organization is to create some soft places for a few individuals. We are opposed at all times to high dues and high initiation fees. If you wish to create a defense fund, create a defense fund specifically and apart from your regular dues. Don’t mix them up with regular dues or any other fund that you wish to create. If I go to those members of that organization with this proposition they will jump red-hot at me, I will tell you. And another thing; if you send out organizers to organize the men that earn probably between. $5 and $10 a week, and you ask those men to “Come to a meeting to be organized, but don’t forget the $2”, you will get very few that will come there. I have had experience. I have simply asked the men to come and be prepared to pay but 25 cents initiation fee, and I did not get many. I will guarantee that if you ask men earning between $5 and $10 or less, to come with $2 in their pockets to pony up for initiation fee, you won’t get many.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: A point of information. In the constitution it is not said that new unions that come into this have to pay $2, but it specifies a charter fee of $10 for the new unions.
DEL. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman and Brothers, your committee when drawing up this constitution, this one part, realized, that in the past it has been the habit of some trades organizations of having low dues and then inaugurating a sick benefit, and then when a grievance came up and it required a little finance to carry on a little local business or to send somebody from their union to help them and pay their day’s wages, when they have looked in their treasury they have found that it had all been paid out for sick benefits and they did not have anything. Now, an army without a commissary train is worth nothing in the field. If you have got nothing behind you but an organization with an empty treasury it isn’t worth a cent. You have got to feed the soldier if you expect him to go on the firing line and fight. The only desertions that we generally hear of are where they have been starved to death. Hence we felt that we must provide for local dues and then specify that those dues should be used for the legal expenses of the organizations, which any one realizes is anything pertaining to strikes, grievances, lockouts or the current expenses of the organization, but not to be used for sick, accident or death benefits.
THE CHAIRMAN: Brother Sherman, will you permit the chair to ask you a question?
DEL. SHERMAN: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any provision in this section of the constitution that prohibits a local union from having higher dues and using that portion of the increase?
DEL. SMITH: That is what I want to know.
DEL. SHERMAN: If a local union desires, among its membership, a fund created for either death, sick or accident benefit, or for supporting and maintaining visiting committees, there is nothing in this constitution that prohibits them from doing that as a side issue and keeping a separate treasury for that purpose. There is nothing that prohibits them from doing that. We pay as an initiation fee, as I understand it—and I believe Brother Sullivan will bear me out—in the international—if I remember right it reads that the internationals, local unions connected with internationals, shall have a minimum local dues of 50 cents and a maximum of not over $1.25. Am I right, Brother Sullivan, in $1.25.
DEL. SULLIVAN: I don’t remember whether we fixed that.
DEL. SHERMAN: I think I distinctly remember that we passed upon this, but we passed upon this before it was written, that part of it, I mean, and it was written in pencil in longhand. I am confident, because we discussed the proposition, and we fully realized that we cannot maintain an organization and have no blood or ribs or sinews or anything to carry on warfare for less than 50 cents. Hence I see in Brother Smith’s motion a great harm that might come by allowing them to charge more if they wished. Now, there are local unions in this country not affiliated with the American Labor Union, or the Western Federation of Miners, whose initiation fee is $50.
DEL. SCHATZKE: $500.
DEL. SHERMAN: That is to keep out a certain class that would come into the field; it will keep them out of the local unions, because if too many join the organization they will have a membership so high that all cannot get employment.
DEL. HAGERTY: A point of order. I would like to have Brother Smith’s reading, because I think Brother Sherman is not getting it right on that point.
DEL. SHERMAN: I don’t want to do him any wrong.
DEL. SMITH: It seems to me that I have given the constitution as read the only interpretation that could be given to it by a literal reading of the constitution. I have been informed by the Constitution Committee, and I take it for granted that it is the intention of the constitution, that local unions that wish to provide further benefits may ask their members and require their members to pay not more than the difference over the 50 cents per month. That being the case, I will withdraw my motion, with the consent of my second. I think, however, that the constitution is not at all clear on that proposition. I think the constitution is clear in another part, but I say that a constitution which says that monthly dues shall be 50 cents per month leaves the impression upon me, at least, that the dues shall not be more nor less than 50 cents per month. I believe now that it is not the intention of the Constitution to be written in that way that the local unions that wish sick benefits may provide for them, by paying a higher rate of dues. And with the consent of my second I will withdraw my motion, with the distinct understanding that the case is as I have stated.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does the second withdraw his second?
DEL. JORGENSEN: I withdraw my second.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is withdrawn, and the motion now occurs upon the section as read.
DEL. FRENCH: I would like to ask as a question of information if it is not to be understood by that section that local unions or any unions connected with this Industrial Workers of the World—if it be understood that they are not permitted to form sick and death benefit organizations as a part of the unions; if they may have them as a wheel within a wheel; as an organization that the members can form themselves into if they want to, but not as a part of the organization, as in some of the old unions now.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state that it is the sense of the Chairman that it is not the intention to prohibit local unions from establishing sick and death benefits in the unions.
A DELEGATE: In the reading I do not remember whether that applies to the internationals or whether it is the local unions connected with the internationals, that the initiation fee shall be no less and no more than that amount.
DEL. HAGERTY: No less than $1.50 nor more than $5.
THE DELEGATE: In some of our unions there is a $2 and $5 proposition.
DEL. VEAL: That has reference to members at large.
DEL. MORRISON: I would like to know, for information, if it is not in violation of this, that is, does it not put the individual who transfers from one to another in a position to have to pay an initiation fee when he transfers from one to the other, inasmuch as the fees are different perhaps, the one in which he had paid might be $1.50 and the other might be $2.
THE CHAIRMAN: The constitution provides for a general interchange of cards.
DEL. MORRISON: Without any additional fees?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
DEL. DAVIS: I wish to ask a question of the Secretary of the committee. I have expected it to be brought out. That is, if locals that are already organized will be required to again pay an initiatory fee of $2.
DEL. HAGERTY: There are no organized locals. The Industrial Workers is not yet organized.
DEL. DAVIS: Well, then, I will have to explain my particular position.
THE CHAIRMAN: Permit the Chair to answer, will you?
DEL. DAVIS: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Organizations now organized will not have to pay another initiation fee.
DEL. SCHATZKE: I wish you would read my amendment.
DEL. SAMUEL: This convention has been called to organize the workingmen; not a trade union; not to keep up, like the American Federation, the capitalist system. Therefore, we have got to use them to overthrow it. We know that money will not overthrow the miserable system, but we have got to make conditions to organize the unorganized labor. Therefore, we should see what is the reason those workingmen do not come into these unions. I object to the initiation fees and dues as stated in that section. I think there ought to be some way that we could adopt right here in this convention to make it easy for everybody to come in.
DEL. MCCABE: I rise to a point of order. Delegate Schatzke has an amendment that has been up there for some time that we would like to hear.
THE CHAIRMAN: Brother McCabe, your point of order is not well taken. Brother Samuel has the floor.
Delegate Samuel yielded the floor.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, brother, the Secretary will read the amendment of Brother Schatzke.
The Secretary read the amendment, as follows: “All those people who have no trade or get less than $9 a week shall pay only twenty-five cents initiation and twenty-five cents dues to the international organization for the year, with the understanding of voluntary contributions.”
THE CHAIRMAN: Does Brother Schatzke offer this as an amendment?
DEL. SCHATZKE: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: To what portion of the section? To the entire section ?
DEL. SCHATZKE: No, only the international or general dues.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the amendment. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). All those in favor of the amendment will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The amendment is lost.
Original question called for.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now the motion occurs on the section as read. Those in favor will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried and the section adopted. The Secretary will proceed to read.
DEL. SCHATZKE: I desire that my amendment shall go on record.
DEL. KIEHN: I wish to be recorded as voting no on the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: Record the delegate as voting no.
DEL. H. S. DAVIS: I wish to be recorded as voting no.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will proceed.
Secretary Hagerty, of the committee, read the next section, as follows: “Article IV, Section I. The annual convention of the Industrial Workers of the World shall be held on the first Monday in May of each year, at such place as may be determined by previous convention.”
DEL. FERBER: I move its adoption. (Seconded.)
The motion was put and carried, and the section declared adopted.
The next section was read, as follows: “Section 2. Delegates to the annual or special conventions shall be as hereinafter provided for. The General President, the General Secretary-Treasurer and other members of the General Executive Board shall be delegates at large, with one vote each, but shall not be accredited delegates or carry the vote of any union or organization.”
DEL. FITZGERALD: I move its adoption. (Seconded.)
The motion was put and carried, and the section declared adopted.
The convention then, at six o’clock, adjourned until nine o’clock A. M: July 7.
• Day 10, Morning Session : Friday, July 7
Chairman Haywood called the convention to order at 9.30 A. M.
On motion the roll call was dispensed with.
The minutes of the previous day were read by the Secretary.
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: The minutes referred to the motion made by me yesterday that the monthly dues shall be not less than fifty cents per month, but it does not state that that was the motion, nor does it state that the motion was withdrawn upon the distinct understanding with the Constitution Committee that the constitution meant that the dues should not be less than fifty cents per month, but could he more than fifty cents per month. I would request the Secretary to have the minutes read in that way.
THE CHAIRMAN: Will the delegate kindly address the Secretary and make that correction? If there is no other correction—
A DELEGATE: There is no record in the minutes of the Paper Hangers, No. 584, withdrawing from the convention. I would like to have it recorded on the minutes.
THE SECRETARY: Was that announced from the floor of the convention?
THE DELEGATE: It was announced as a question of special privilege from the delegates.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will make that correction.
DEL. EISENBERG: If the Paper Hangers have withdrawn, what are their delegates doing here?
DEL. DINGER: I understood Delegate Coates to request that he should be recorded as not voting on any proposition.
DEL. COATES: I did not make any such proposition as that at all, but simply desired to have a little talk among the delegates, and I requested in our absence to be recorded as not voting on those sections of the constitution. I certainly did not come into this convention with the intention of pulling out of it and leaving it. There may be some that would like to understand it that way, but that is not the way.
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: A question of personal privilege. I wish to state that the records on Brother Coates’ motion state his position on the floor. He has no authority to speak, nor do I think he intended to speak, for any other member of the delegation representing the American Labor Union on the floor of this convention.
DEL. COATES: Certainly not I desire to speak for myself.
THE SECRETARY: Delegates Coates came up and announced to the Secretary that he wished to be recorded as not voting on the constitution as long as he was absent. That was his first statement. But the statement of Delegate Coates was that he would not vote on any part of the constitution.
DEL. COATES: No.
THE SECRETARY: That was the understanding.
DEL. COATES: Then he misunderstood it.
DEL. FERBER: I occupied the chair at the time, and that was the statement that I understood Delegate Coates to make, that hereafter he would not vote on any part of the constitution, and I so notified the Secretary while I was holding the chair, and I think it was read correctly. If it is to be changed, all right.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is that matter straightened out satisfactorily?
DEL.. COATES: No, I just simply desired to state that I was simply going to be absent from the session of the convention, and I desired to be recorded. I knew most of the votes would be carried viva voce and there would be no regular record, but as long as I was absent I wanted to be noted as not voting; that was all. That was the position, if you please. I certainly did not want to deny myself the right to vote if I were here.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will note it.
DEL. KIEHN: I heard no mention made of the motion that I made to amend the constitution to make the per capita tax five cents. There was no mention of it made on the minutes.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair remembers that proposition. Delegate Smith made a motion to raise the per capita tax to twelve and one-half cents. That motion was not seconded. Delegate Kiehn then made a motion that it be reduced to five cents, which was seconded, and it was put as an amendment to the original motion, which was to adopt the section as read. Delegate Shurtleff then made a motion that it be six cents; he made that as an amendment to the amendment. Both the amendment to the amendment of Delegate Shurtleff and the amendment to the original motion of Delegate Kiehn were lost. The Secretary will please record it so.
THE SECRETARY: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct?
DEL. KIEHN: That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other corrections? If not, the minutes will stand approved as corrected.
The Secretary read a communication from the Sixteenth Assembly Branch of the Socialist Labor Party of New York, and it was ordered placed on file.
Del. White, of the Credentials Committee, made a report, presenting the credentials of John Matthews, representing the Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers’ Union of America, Local 830, Chicago, with a recommendation that the delegate be seated with one vote.
On motion the report was concurred in and the delegate seated. The Auditing Committee announced that it would be ready to report in about two hours.
THE CHAIRMAN: Under the head of reports of standing Committees we will take up the report of the Committee on Constitution. The Secretary will read.
Secretary Hagerty, of the committee, read the next section, as follows:
Section 3. International Industrial Divisions shall have one delegate for the first 4,000, or less, of its members; for more than 4,000 and up to 7,000 members they shall have two delegates; for more than 7,000 and less than 20,000 members they shall have three delegates; for more than 20,000 and less than 40,000 members they shall have four delegates; for more than 40,000 members and less than 80,000 members they shall have five delegates; for more than 80,000 and less than 160,000 members they shall have six delegates and for more than 160,000 members they shall have seven delegates.
On motion of Delegate Gillhaus the section was adopted. The next section, as follows, was read:
Section 4. Local Unions, chartered directly by the INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD, shall have one delegate for 200 members or less, and one additional delegate for each additional 200, or major fraction thereof.
On motion of Delegate Eisenberg the section was adopted. Section 5 was then read, as follows:
Section 5. When two or more delegates are representing any Local Union, International Union or Industrial Division in the convention, the vote of their respective organization shall be equally divided between such delegates.
Delegate Dinger moved the adoption of the section. Motion seconded, and the section was adopted.
Section 6 was next read, as follows:
Section 6. Representation in the convention shall be based on the National Dues paid to the General Organization for the last six months of each fiscal year and each union and organization entitled to representation in the convention shall be entitled to one vote for the first fifty (50) of its members and one additional vote for each additional fifty (50) of its members, or major fraction thereof.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the reading of this section. What is your pleasure?
DEL. HALL: I would like to ask the committee why they have established that basis.
DEL. HAGERTY: Brother Sullivan is more acquainted with that.
DEL. HALL: I would like to ask this convention, because I might offer an amendment. But possibly the committee would explain it.
DEL. J. C. SULLIVAN: It is to state definitely what representation an organization is entitled to, or what vote. It was not deemed advisable to prepare a constitution whereby an organization possibly of thousands or hundreds of thousands probably, would have too large a number so that business could not very well be conducted. A basis of one vote for fifty individual members we believed would be a fair proposition to all, whether they be large or small unions. To my mind it is a fair basis of representation, that for each fifty members or major fraction of fifty that a union has, they are entitled to one vote.
DEL. HALL: The point I wanted to bring out was, why they adopted the six months period. It states in there that the representation permitted to organizations would be computed from the per capita tax for the six months period preceding the convention. I say, why that six months basis?
DEL. SULLIVAN: One of the principal reasons was to prevent any organization from padding the rolls. To give them a fair representation on the membership that their organization possessed, we believed six months was not too long, and we aimed to strike an average, providing the union or organization had been in existence that long.
On motion the section was adopted.
Section 7 was read, as follows:
Section 7. On or before the 10th day of March of each year the General Secretary-Treasurer shall send to each local union and International Industrial Division credentials in duplicate for the number of delegates they are entitled to in the convention, based on the national dues for the last six months.
The Unions and International Industrial Union shall properly fill out the blank credentials received from the General Secretary-Treasurer and return one copy to the General Office not later than April 1. The other copy shall be presented by the delegate to the committee on credentials when the convention assembles.
Delegate Payne moved that the section be adopted as read. Motion seconded.
DEL. DAVIS: We are not quite ready; the time is so short between the time when the General Secretary-Treasurer shall send out these credentials until the time when they shall be returned, that it makes it in many instances so that it cannot be acted upon by the locals at all. There are hundreds of locals already in existence, or will be after we organize them, and the time is only one month between the time, not later than March 10, that the General Secretary shall send out these notices, and April 1, when they must be returned.
DEL. SULLIVAN: The reason the committee saw fit to make those dates was that the credentials were to be sent out by the Secretary Treasurer based on the per capita tax or dues received from the unions at the close of the fiscal year. The fiscal year, under the constitution that you have adopted, closes on the last day of February. Your committee deemed that about ten days was as short a time as the Secretary could comply with the requirements and send out the credentials in accordance as the unions were entitled to them; and you have adopted a constitution providing that the annual convention shall be held on the first Monday of May. Now, in order to save time, in order to get down to business in the convention at the earliest possible moment from a financial point of view, a temporary roll must be prepared by the Secretary of the general organization. Now, by stating that those credentials shall be received at the general office by April 1, it gives him thirty days, or practically thirty days, to do that work. It does not say, however, that you cannot elect your delegates to the convention during the month of January or February if you desire, or any other time that may meet with your approval. But so far as hundreds of local unions that only meet once a month are concerned, I want to say that they are simply unions in name. There is not a local union in existence that is doing its full duty to its membership and carrying the banner of industrial freedom that does not meet oftener than once a month, and the sooner you get that idea out of your head and do business and get together when the occasion requires it, at least once a week, the sooner you will be doing your duty in the ranks of organized labor.
DEL. BRADLEY: I cannot agree with the statement just made that the unions that meet only once a month are not in favor of industrial unionism. I consider that a direct insult to many union men. There are just as good union men that meet once in two months as meet once every week. I know there are lots of them.
DEL. SULLIVAN: I take exception to the remark that there are just as good union men that meet once in two months as those that meet once a week. I say they are not doing their full duty as union men. I have no apology to make for that statement. I repeat that statement, that a union that does not meet oftener than once a month is not only not doing, but cannot do its full duty to organized labor. (Applause.)
The motion was then put and carried and the section adopted.
DEL. DAVIS: I wish my vote to be recorded “no” on that proposition.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Davis wishes to be recorded as voting no. The Secretary will read.
The next section was read, as follows.
Section 8. Delegates to the convention from Local Unions must have been members in good standing of their Local Union at least six months prior to the assembling of the convention; provided, their local union has been organized that length of time.
Delegates from International Industrial Unions to have a seat in the convention, must have been members of their local union at least six months and of their International Industrial Union at least one year; provided it has been organized that length of time.
The expenses of delegates attending the convention shall be borne by their respective organizations.
On motion of Delegate Hopkins the section was adopted as read. Secretary Hagerty read the next section, as follows
Section 9. Two or more local unions in the same locality, with a total membership of 500 or less, may jointly send a delegate to the convention, and the vote of said delegate shall be based on the representation hereinbefore provided for.
DEL. HALL: Does that conflict with the provision that each local may send a delegate; I mean, that provides for central councils, I suppose.
DEL. HAGERTY: Local Unions.
DEL. HALL: You say two or more unions.
DEL. HAGERTY: Local unions.
DEL. HALL: Local unions may join together and send one delegate?
DEL. HAGERTY: Yes, local unions directly connected with the general administration.
DEL. HALL: Locals cannot send delegates in addition to that? I mean the locals.
DEL. HAGERTY: This is intended to cover cases where the local union is so small that it cannot afford a delegate itself.
DEL. HALL: It does not offer an opportunity for the delegates?
DEL. HAGERTY: Presumably not, if the section be taken as read. On motion the section was adopted.
Section 10 was then read, as follows
Section 10. There shall be a Universal Label for the entire organization. Local unions, and other organizations must procure supplies, such as membership books, official buttons, labels and badges from the General Secretary-Treasurer, all of which shall be of uniform design.
Delegate White moved that the section be adopted. (Seconded.)
DEL. SCHEIDLER: I would like to ask about the label. What is meant by the label? Is it the same label as that of the American Federation of Labor?
DEL. HAGERTY: No.
DEL. SCHEIDLER: Explain what is meant.
DEL. HAGERTY: The label, as Brother Trautmann outlines in his indictment read before this convention, the American Federation of Labor label, is a manufacturer’s label, as for example, the woodworkers’ label, the steel makers’ label, the type setters’ label; they are manufacturers’ labels, capitalist labels, and indicate a collusion between these craft unions and the capitalists themselves, as Brother Trautmann overwhelmingly demonstrated in his indictment. This unionism is for the purpose primarily of showing the uniformity of the organization, to show that all the workers recognize only one symbol, irrespective of the craft or the nature of the commodity: and it is the opinion of the Constitution Committee, I think, that during this transition period some such a thing is necessary to show that the workers will stand together and eliminate from the minds of the workers all these craft distinctions that are found in the other labels; not that it will be an essential weapon in overthrowing the capitalist system, but during this transition period as a matter of progress for the workers it shall be used.
The section was then adopted.
Section 11 was read, as follows:
Section 11. There shall be a free interchange of cards between all organizations subordinate to the INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD and any Local Union, or International Industrial Union shall accept, in lieu of initiation fee, the paid up membership card of any recognized labor union or organization.
Delegate Gillhaus moved that the section be adopted. (Seconded.)
DEL. PAYNE: I would like to ask, if a man has taken out a card in one local and wants to join another local, is that accepted as the initiation fee, or must he pay another initiation fee?
DEL. HAGERTY: Not at all. This section distinctly answers that question. I will read it again. (Section read by Delegate Hagerty.)
DEL. KIEHN: I don’t hear any provision made for certain qualifications. Suppose a man wants to transfer to another division to work in that particular industry that he understands absolutely nothing about. It may be dangerous to the lives of the men that he is working with. There ought to be some certain line of qualification. There is no provision made for that.
DEL. HAGERTY: I think the brother’s difficulty is answered in the fact that in each international industrial division the local union makes its own constitution governing its own membership, as long as it does not conflict with the general constitution. The section was then adopted.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read.
DEL. HAGERTY: That is the end of the present report of the Constitution Committee.
DEL. DINGER: I have prepared here a resolution that I wish to present, covering the cases that have been brought out here by Brother Powers and others, regarding the lower paid wage workers that wish to organize. I do not wish to precipitate a lengthy discussion on this, and if there should be such I will withdraw this resolution:
“Resolved, That it is the sense of this constitution that the rules regarding dues and initiation fees be not”—
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, Brother Delegate. This constitution has not yet been adopted.
DEL. DINGER: Well, I wish to insert this as an appendix or some kind of a resolution in here, if it is permissible.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you desire to make this as an amendment? DEL. DINGER: As an amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does it set forth or specify the particular section that you propose to amend?
DEL. DINGER: This does not specify anything else, but simply puts in black and white what is already the sense of this Constitution Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed with the reading of the resolution. DEL. DINGER (reading):
“Resolved, That it be the sense of this constitution that the rules regarding dues and initiation fees be not strictly enforced in cases where the average wages ruling in any industry proposed to be organized fall below $9 a week. In these cases the amount of dues and fees shall be regulated by the General Executive Board in accordance with the ability of said workers to meet such financial obligation.”
DEL. POWERS: I second the amendment.
DEL. WHITE: If there is no objection, I move that this be referred to the incoming Executive Board for their consideration. (Seconded.)
DEL. DINGER: I am satisfied with that.
THE CHAIRMAN: If you are satisfied with that, the motion is that this resolution be referred to the incoming Executive Board.
DEL. KIEHN: I am opposed to that part of the resolution where it says that it shall be regulated by the Executive Board. I think it ought to be regulated by the men and women themselves that are to be organized, and not left to the Executive Board. I believe in the self-government of the men that are organized. I think they have the proper judgment as to their own ability to pay their dues.
DEL. DINGER: I wish to explain that. The wording of it provides for that, where it refers to the ability of the workers to pay or to meet such obligations; so that covers that, I think.
THE CHAIRMAN: Brother Delegate, now, to avoid, any unnecessary discussion or any mix-up in this constitution, the Chair will at this time rule that this resolution is out of order until the report of the Constitution Committee is disposed of. I will not say that the resolution is not in order, but only until such time as this constitution has been adopted. It is not within the province of the Chair to say that this should not be got down so as to conform with the very spirit of this resolution. Therefore, at this time I will rule that out of order.
DEL. FRYE: By adopting this constitution report as a whole, it would be impossible to insert any other clause in there.
THE CHAIRMAN: It has not yet been adopted as a whole. This is not offered as an amendment. The motion is that the resolution be referred to the incoming Executive. Board.
DEL. FRYE: I understand that to be an amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is at this time ready to accept any amendment to this constitution. The Chair will not entertain any resolutions.
DEL. FRYE: I understand that, but I understood you to say that a motion was in order to adopt this constitution. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
DEL. FRYE: Now, I believe that the Constitution Committee have done their work perhaps faithfully, but I believe they have overlooked a number of matters that might facilitate the work of this convention after we adopted them in that constitution. For instance, I supposed the Constitution Committee had provided a way by which amendments ought to be made in the convention, but they have neglected that. If they had done that in this case and we had had time, these delegates could have gone with their recommendations to them and had them before them in writing and acted on them intelligently. I believe something of that kind is necessary.
DEL. HAGERTY: I will state for information that the Constitution Committee does not submit this as the finished constitution. There are one or two other matters that have to be discussed at the next meeting of the Constitution Committee, and that will not take very long, which I think will probably cover the present point.
DEL. DILLON: I move that the constitution be adopted as amended.
Motion seconded by Delegate Dinger.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will not entertain a second from any delegate unless he rises and addresses the chair.
DEL. ROSS: For the benefit of Delegate Hagerty I would move that the adoption of the constitution as a whole be deferred for a few hours until they can make the necessary recommendations, and let the committee get together to do that now.
DEL. POWERS: I understand from what Comrade Hagerty says that the constitution is not yet complete and that they have more to do.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is not complete.
DEL. POWERS: I do not see how we can do any more with respect to the constitution. We have already adopted the last section read, and we cannot adopt it as a whole until it is reported as a whole. I think that is all we can do with respect to the constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: I did not hear any second to that motion. DEL. FERBER: I will second that motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the further consideration of the report of the Constitution Committee be deferred until such time as they are prepared to bring in a completed report. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the convention voting by a roll call now on the adoption or rejection of so much of this constitution as has been adopted by acclamation or by roll call vote. If that is done it will be a guide for your Constitution Committee to cover some other points that they have not yet acted on; and I believe, and as one member of the Constitution Committee I ask you to vote on the adoption or rejection of this as it is now, by roll call.
DEL. WHITE: Would it be in order to move that this constitution be adopted by acclamation?
THE CHAIRMAN: A motion is at the present time before the convention to defer until the report of the committee is complete.
DEL. WHITE: Then it would not be in order?
THE CHAIRMAN: A motion to adopt by acclamation would not be in order.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I wish to ask for information. A few days ago I presented a resolution in regard to the eligibility of membership, and I understood that that resolution had been referred to the Constitution Committee, but up to the present time I have heard no disposition of it. I wish to know at this time whether I can bring in a like resolution or amendment, or whether the Constitution Committee is going to tender another report before the final adoption.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is of the opinion that there has been no provision made in the constitution to carry out the spirit of the resolution. An amendment would be in order.
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: If my recollection serves me right, there are several resolutions before the Constitution Committee, and I infer from the motion now pending that the Constitution Committee desires an opportunity to complete its work and report on those resolutions. I don’t see why we should do anything else except to give the Constitutional Committee a chance to complete its work.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I only wished to ask this question because I did not wish to take up any of the time unnecessarily, but I knew that as the committee had not yet reported on this resolution that I have referred to, and others, it had not been acted on; therefore I would like to know, and that is the reason I asked the question. However, if the report of the Constitution Committee is not going to be acted on finally at this present time, I am perfectly willing to wait until the resolutions are read.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion at this time is that the further consideration of the report of the Committee on Constitution be deferred until such time as they bring in a completed report. Those in favor of the motion will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The Chair is in doubt.
At Delegate Dinger’s request the Chairman stated the motion again.
DEL. LUELLA TWINING: A point of information. I have a clause that I would like to have inserted in the constitution. Shall I present it before the convention now, or present it before the Constitution Committee?
THE CHAIRMAN: Not now, not before the Constitution Committee; but after we are under the head of new business your amendment may be presented.
DEL. TWINING: All right.
THE CHAIRMAN: Those in favor of the motion will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The ayes seem to have it, and the motion is carried.
The Committee on Resolutions and Committee on Ways and Means announced no reports to make.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee on Literature and Press.
DEL. SIMONS: I think Comrade Brimble has something. Is he here ?
A DELEGATE: He has gone home.
DEL. SIMONS: I think Comrade Brimble has something. It is something which was passed on by the whole committee, and they are ready to report on it. Has that been read already? If it was, I was absent.
THE CHAIRMAN: It was.
The Committee on Organization announced that it had nothing further to report.
THE CHAIRMAN: Committee on Label and Emblem.
DEL. HENION: Your Committee on Emblem and Label desires to make a verbal report, submitting to the convention an emblem decided on by your committee. Your committee has decided upon an emblem based on the sphere of a globe with the name of the organization inscribed, “Industrial Workers of the World.” Your committee recommends that such an emblem be adopted by this convention for the official emblem of this organization, and that the globe be in its natural colorings, probably with the tint of green, and with a ribbon across the globe which shall be red with the name of the organization, “Industrial Workers of the World,” in white letters. They further recommend that the official label of the organization shall be based upon the emblem; that the union label shall be practically the same as the emblem, only marked “union label.” This is the verbal report. We have no written report. We simply submit this for your consideration. If this is adopted by the convention, of course we will present our written report to the Secretary so as to be part of the minutes of this meeting.
DEL. DINGER: In order to bring it before the house, I move you that the report of the Committee on Label and Emblem be adopted as the sense of this convention. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the report of the committee with the description of the emblem and label be adopted as the sense of this convention.
DEL. SIMONS: I rise to a question of information. I would like to know if the committee has discussed with the craftsmen from various trades the possibility of utilizing that in certain industries where it will have to be used in the form of a stamp of different forms. In some cases the coloring will be well nigh out of the question, I believe, and I ask if they have taken that into consideration.
DEL. CRONIN: That has been done, I believe. Of course, the committee realizes that the label may not, where it is stamped on, be put on in different colors, but it can be used just the same. Your constitution recommends, and the report has been adopted by this convention, that we have a universal emblem and label. Therefore, the committee desired to recommend for your consideration something that was of a universal form for the different crafts. It was also taken into consideration that we should build the union label upon the proposition of representing certain industries, or certain departments of an industrial organization; but we came to the conclusion on account of the action of the Constitution Committee, that it would be impossible to do so.
DEL. SIMONS: Another question of information. Do I understand that the adoption of this report adopts this label or adopts anything specially at all? It seems to me that this is something that ought to go before the Executive Committee and ought to be considered by them.
DEL. CRONIN: Refer it to the Executive Board. I don’t care which you do.
DEL. SIMONS: I would move to refer this to the Executive Board, as far as I am concerned; it may be all right as it is.
DEL. KLEMENSIC: Mr. Chairman and Brother Delegates, inasmuch as we cannot take the world as it should be we must take it as it really is. We know it is round, and we cannot put it on a piece of paper so as to be round. Now, we might have on one side Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia, and on the other side America, and the two hands between the old continent and the new continent. This would be then the Industrial Workers of the World. But if we are talking about the world, then to only get the American side of it, we get only one part of it. I think it would be plausible that we ought to have on one side the old world and on the other side the new world, with the two hands from the old world and the new world bound together, and that would be, I think, the sentiment we are representing here.
DEL. WHITE: If it would be in order at this time, I desire to offer an amendment that the report of the committee be referred for the consideration of the incoming Executive Board.
DEL. SIMONS: I would second that. I just made that motion.
The motion to refer the report of the Label and Emblem Committee to the incoming Executive Board was put, and the Chair announced himself in doubt. A vote by show of hands resulted aye, 30; no, 18.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is carried; that is, the amendment. Now the question occurs on the original motion; that is, that this emblem be the sense of this convention, and that it be referred to the Executive Board for their consideration. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). Those in favor will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried. Have you any further report from the Label and Emblem Committee?
DEL. CRONIN: No further report.
The Committee on Ritual announced no report.
THE CHAIRMAN: Unfinished business? New business?
DEL. TWINING: Is this the time for my amendment to the constitution ?
THE CHAIRMAN: Anything under the head of new business.
DEL. TWINING: I would like to have inserted in the constitution a clause that appears in the Manifesto: “The Industrial Workers of the World is organized to subserve the immediate interests of the workers and effect their final emancipation.” That does not appear in the constitution.
DEL. WHITE: I move to refer that to the Constitution Committee. (Seconded.)
DEL. ROSS: Isn’t that provision made in the Preamble?
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not know that it is in in just those words.
DEL. TWINING: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that this amendment to the constitution be referred to the Constitution Committee. Those in favor of the motion will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried.
DEL. DINGER: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my resolution now be taken up. I made the motion before.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, brother, your motion is offered as an amendment to the constitution, as I understand.
DEL. DINGER: I understand it was not referred, because it was not the proper time.
THE CHAIRMAN: No. It can be taken up at this time.
DEL. DINGER: Will the Secretary read my resolution there? I ask that it be read.
At the request of the Chairman, Delegate Dinger again read his resolution, as follows:
“Resolved, That it be the sense of this constitution that the rules regarding dues and initiation fees be not strictly enforced in cases where the average wage of the workers in any industry to be organized falls below $9 per week. In these cases the amount of dues and fees shall be regulated by the G. E. B. in accordance with the ability of such workers to meet such financial obligation.”
DEL. WHITE: I move you that that be referred to the Committee on Constitution. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that this be referred to the Constitution Committee.
DEL. JORGENSEN: I think this should not be referred to the Constitution Committee. I think this convention at this time should act upon it. Of course we will afterwards vote upon it, and I would like to hurry that into the constitution and have it in before. We have found out that it is necessary to regulate expenses all over the country in accordance with the earnings of the people. It is not impossible to regulate expenses for a city like Chicago, where they will get organized workingmen, especially in the building lines, receiving fifty cents an hour; they can very well afford to carry a high expense, which they are doing. But among the carpenters we have found that all through the country we have to regulate dues and initiation fees in accordance with the earnings and the expenses in the different localities. That plan has met with success all the time. I cannot for the life of me see that we can place the expense at a high standard upon people affiliated with this body, when they get, as the delegate reported, not more than $8 a week. It is the same thing, you may say, as to say that a man that has no money shall pay no fare on the street car. It is just exactly the same thing. But having those people carry equal expense organized in a place in the country the same as where wages are good, would be a great injustice, and I doubt if those organizations can carry that out successfully. I hold that that is one of the main principles that this Constitution Committee should look after, and I presented a recommendation to that effect in the constitution meeting, that we consider that particular point in the constitution.
DEL. DINGER: I would like to ask the consent of this body to insert the words “in any one locality,” realizing that in different localities the same trade may draw different wages. So I would like to insert, with the consent of this body, “in any one locality.”
THE CHAIRMAN: There seems to be no objection to the words being inserted.
DEL. WHITE: The reason I seconded that motion is that I have also a resolution before the Resolution Committee providing that the dues for female wage earners and foreigners be only one-half that of other classes of labor.
THE CHAIRMAN: Those in favor of referring this to the Constitution Committee will say aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried. Is there anything else under the head of new business?
DEL. FERBER: I think, if I am in order, that I will now move you that at the assembling this afternoon we make a special order of business of the election of officers for the coming year.
DEL. HELD: I wanted to bring out something under the head of unfinished business, but I did not get in here on time, and I would like to bring it up again, with the permission of the convention.
Motion of Delegate Ferber seconded.
THE CHAIRMAN: It occurs to me that that motion is out of order at this time.
DEL. FERBER: I don’t think so.
THE CHAIRMAN: Unless the adoption of the constitution is effected, the election of officers is premature.
DEL. FERBER: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: There seems to be no objection on the part of the convention. We may take up something else.
DEL. HELD: There is a report of the Ways and Means Committee which is on the Secretary’s table, and which it is absolutely necessary that this convention take up at an early date, and that is about this stenographic report, which has been deferred until the Constitution Committee had made a report. Now, it seems to me that the report of the Constitution Committee has gone far enough to enable the members of the Ways and Means Committee or else the convention to take action upon the report that has been deferred. Now, I would move, Mr. Chairman, that the report of the Ways and Means Committee which has been deferred be taken up again now. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you refer to the report with reference to levying an assessment of one dollar?
DEL. HELD: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the Ways and Means Committee’s report be taken up at this time. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. HALL: It seems to me the Chair ruled once before that we cannot take up that report of the Ways and Means Committee until after that order of business has been disposed of relating to the installation of unions and individuals into the new organization. It seems to me that if this report contemplates the taxing of the membership, the future membership of this organization, it cannot be taken up very well until after the organization have regularly installed themselves into the new organization as provided in the rules on order of business. Now, the adoption of the constitution does not mean the admission of those organizations. There is a time set apart when organizations and individuals may be initiated into the new organization, and it occurs to me that this should lie over until after that time.
THE CHAIRMAN: It occurs to me that the point of Delegate Hall is well taken, and the report of the Ways and Means Committee will be deferred until such time as the organizations are regularly and permanently installed. Is there anything else under the head of new business?
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: If I am in order I would like to ask if that delegate is present in the hall who got up yesterday while we were voting on some amendment to the constitution and made a statement on behalf of the Paper Hangers that they withdrew from the convention. He was here this morning and he didn’t make his full statement, and I would like to hear from him.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is the delegate from the Painters and Paper Hangers present? (No response). Is there anything else under the head of new business? If not, the Chair at this time will entertain a motion to adjourn.
DEL. DE LEON: I move that we adjourn.
DEL. BAKER: I have a proposition that I would like to offer relating to the ratio of the vote: That a section be added to the constitution distinctly stating that a majority vote shall decide in all cases where a vote is taken, either by the Executive Board, a local, national or international union or a referendum vote of the entire membership of this organization. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: This resolution will be referred to the Committee on Constitution. Is there any other new business?
DEL. ROSS: Mr. Chairman, simply a suggestion under the head of new business. If the convention will support me in it, I want to ask that we appoint a committee to be furnished a copy of the constitution as now framed, and assess ourselves twenty-five cents apiece for it, and take it to a printing office so that each member can take a copy home with him. If I can get a second, I make that as a motion. (Seconded.)
DEL. HAGERTY: I desire to second the amendment of the brother delegate. I think it would be well that we have copies of the constitution so that no false statements or misrepresentations may prevail in certain localities.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has no objection to putting that motion, but it would seem that it would be well to have the report of the constitution complete first.
DEL. ROSS: When it is complete.
THE CHAIRMAN: Will you kindly state your motion again?
DEL. ROSS: That the delegates of the convention assess themselves twenty-five cents apiece to pay for the printing of a copy of the constitution so that we can have it to take hone with us.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question. (Question called for). It has been regularly moved and seconded that the delegates of this convention assess themselves twenty-five cents apiece for the printing of the constitution so that we can have a copy to take home with us.
DEL. SULLIVAN: I am of the opinion that that would not be the proper action to take at this time. Reason would cause us to believe that the organization will have copies of the constitution printed as soon as may be, and I am not in favor of the motion. I deem it unnecessary to enter into any discussion on it.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I am in favor of having the constitution printed and in favor of paying for it; and if it can he shown that twenty-five cents is necessary to pay for it, I am willing to pay that twenty-five cents or more; or even if this party making the motion will show that the difference between the amount paid for the constitution and the amount received will go into the hands of your officers, I would be willing to pay for that. What I would like to ask is this: Is it necessary to pay twenty-five cents simply to cover the expense of one constitution for each delegate?
DEL. ROSS: I believe my suggestion or motion carried with it this, that we appoint a committee to have that done, and if they find it is more or less they can regulate it.
The motion was put, and the Chair declared the result of a viva voce vote in doubt. A raising of hands showed that the motion was carried by a vote of thirty-nine to seven.
THE CHAIRMAN: I will appoint on that committee Delegates Ross, M. P. Haggerty and Saunders.
The Committee on Mass Meeting to be held on the evening of July 7 asked for volunteers to distribute handbills advertising the meeting.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further business before the convention?
DEL. JORGENSEN: I have got a question to ask. There is an old saying that one fool can ask a question that it would take ten wise men to answer. It seems to me, as an individual delegate, now the constitution is almost completed, and yet it isn’t clear in my mind what report I can give that would be satisfactory to my local assembly here. I certainly don’t like to give a report that they should not like. I am inspired by the convention to give a report that shall be favorable to the majority, but the majority in my organization is married to the old organization, and the principal doubt will hinge upon how to get a divorce.
DEL. MORRISON: Get it. There is ground for a divorce.
DEL. JORGENSEN: I ask the question: Can a bona fide old organization now join this organization and still be a member of the Chicago Federation of Labor, or must it take a divorce first from the Chicago Federation of Labor before they can marry in here?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is a question that the Chair would think can best be answered by the incoming Executive Board. I do not want to undertake to answer it at this time, or until such time as the perfect constitution is adopted.
The convention then adjourned until one o’clock P. M,
• Day 10, Afternoon Session : Friday, July 7
The convention reconvened at 1.20 P. M.
THE CHAIRMAN: When the convention adjourned it was under the head of new business. There being no further new business, we will take up the reports of committees.
DEL. SAUNDERS: As a member of the Auditing Committee I beg leave to submit the report of that Auditing Committee, if there is no objection. Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates, your Auditing Committee wish to say that we have gone over the books thoroughly and taken a great deal of time; not only going over the books, but we might say that we have gone over them two or three times in order that there should be no mistake; that there would be no mistake on either side; and we find that not only have the books come out correct, but in going over the books we find that a great deal of work has been done—preparatory work in order to bring about the consummation of this convention. The Secretary, Brother Trautmann, will render a report which will to some extent coincide with a part of this Auditing Committee’s report in regard to some financial items, I think before I go into the report proper I would like to say that in my judgment—and I believe that I speak for the committee when I say that—Brother Trautmann deserves a great deal of credit for the efficiency and the untiring efforts that he has expended as this committee has gone through the books, in order to bring this work to its culmination. Your Auditing Committee wishes to submit the following report:
(For the report of the Auditing Committee, see appendix.)
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the report of the Auditing Committee. What is the pleasure of the convention?
DEL. SHURTLEFF: I was listening intently to that report, but I heard no mention of the Musicians’ Union. That union made a contribution. I would like to have mention made of that in the report.
SECRETARY TRAUTMANN: The Musicians’ Union contributed $25, and that can be inserted. There is certainly a credit on the books. But the Musicians’ Union is an organization that is connected with the progressive organizations, and I expressly mention in the report those organizations that are connected with the progressive organizations. I still continue to get in funds for organization and for the preparatory work before this convention, and all those figures and the expenses of the convention will be published perhaps in one or two labor papers, so that everybody can see what the receipts were and what the expenses were; because some organizations will be contributing even after the convention is over. So the Musicians will be given credit in the report.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I move that the report of the Auditing Committee be received and the recommendation concurred in and the committee discharged. (Seconded.)
The motion was put and carried.
Secretary Trautmann then presented the following report:
(The Financial Report was then read by Secretary Trautmann. For this report see appendix.)
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the report of the Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Industrial Conference. What is the pleasure of the convention?
Delegate Dinger moved that the report be accepted and placed on file. (Seconded.)
DEL. SAUNDERS: As I understand the reading of the report there are recommendations there, or a request that this convention take some action. Am I right?
SECRETARY TRAUTMANN: Yes. That goes to the Ways and Means Committee, I understand.
DEL. KIEHN: I move that the report be received and placed on the minutes.
THE CHAIRMAN: There is a motion to that effect. It is moved that the report be accepted. Are you ready for the motion? (Question called for). Those in favor of the motion will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried, Are there any further reports of special committees?
The various standing and special committees announced that they had no reports.
Delegate Shurtleff requested that the Ritual Committee meet at once in an adjoining room, in order to complete some details before making the report. Delegate Murtaugh, at his request, was excused from attendance on the committee.
Del. Arnold asked for some reason why Delegate Murtaugh should be excused, but no reason was given.
On motion of Delegate Fitzgerald a recess of ten minutes was taken to enable the Ritual Committee to be ready to report. Later an adjournment was taken until three o’clock P. M.
At three o’clock the convention reassembled.
THE CHAIRMAN: When the convention adjourned we were under the head of reports of committees. Standing committees. We will now listen to the report of the Committee on Constitution.
Secretary Hagerty, of the Constitution Committee: The Committee on Constitution reports further as follows: That there shall be added to Section 2 of Article I, paragraph A, the insertion adopted thereunto, namely, “Shall be composed of thirteen industrial divisions, subdivided in industrial unions of closely kindred industries in the appropriate organizations for representation in the departmental organization,” the following words: “The subdivisions, international and national industrial unions shall have complete industrial autonomy in their respective internal affairs; provided, the General Executive Board shall have power to control the industrial unions in matters concerning the interests of the general welfare.”
And “Article IV. Section 1: The General Executive Board, or not less than ten local unions in at least three industries, may initiate a referendum on any matter to be submitted to the convention.
“Section 2. A majority of the votes cast shall rule, both in the general organization and its subordinate parts, except as otherwise provided for in this constitution.
“Section 3. None but actual wage workers shall be admitted as members-at-large.
“Section 4. 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.”
“Your Committee on Constitution recommends that this convention elect a provisional Board of Seven to conduct the affairs of this organization until the next national convention. Said provisional Board shall consist of the National President, National Secretary-Treasurer and five other members, two of which five to be elected at large, one to be elected from the Western Federation of Miners, one from the United Metal Workers, and one from the United Brotherhood of Railway Employes. When the Western Federation of Miners, the United Brotherhood of Railway Employes and the United Metal Workers elect their members to the General Executive Board, the provisional delegates from their respective organizations shall withdraw. The Provisional Board shall also have the duty of a committee on style to revise the constitution and submit the report to the next convention.
“We, your committee, further recommend that in so far as it is feasible the general offices of the international industrial divisions shall be located in the same place as the general headquarters of the Industrial Workers of the World.”
The report is signed by the Chairman, Mr. Moyer; Charles O. Sherman, Albert H. Williamson, J. C. Sullivan, T. J. Hagerty, Max Eisenberg and Daniel De Leon.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the report of the Committee on Constitution. What is the pleasure of the convention?
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: I move that the report be considered seriatim. (Seconded.)
The motion was put and carried.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the amendments in the order in which they occur.
Secretary Hagerty: There is only one amendment. The other is a new article. Shall I read the amendment first?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
The section was read as follows:
“Article I, Section 2, Paragraph A. And shall be composed of thirteen international industrial divisions subdivided in industrial unions of closely kindred industries in the appropriate organizations for representation in the departmental administration.”
DEL. HAGERTY: This is the addition:
“The subdivisions, international and national industrial unions shall have complete industrial autonomy in their respective internal affairs; provided, the General Executive Board shall have power to control these industrial unions in matters concerning the interests of the general welfare.”
DEL. GILLHAUS: I move that that be adopted. (Seconded.)
DEL. SAINER: A point of information. Does the constitution anywhere provide for the question of contracts between employes and employers; whether local unions may contract with their employers or not?
THE CHAIRMAN: It does not in this particular section under discussion at the present time. It has been regularly moved and seconded that the amended section be adopted as read. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). Those in favor will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried and the section adopted.
Article V, Section 1, was read as follows:
“Article V, Section 1. The General Executive Board, or not less than ten local unions in at least three industries, may initiate a referendum on any matter to be submitted to the convention.”
DEL. FITZGERALD: I move its adoption. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the section be adopted as read. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. HALL: I just want to ask a question, to bring out the sense of that amendment. Does that mean that ten or more local unions cannot initiate a movement except through the convention of the organization?
DEL. HAGERTY: Not at all. The sense of this section is this, as was explained in the Constitution Committee: to cover the entire legislation with the referendum would require a volume; it is simply designed to get at the principle of this thing. Since in the last analysis all referendum work must go to the convention and be decided on, and afterwards submitted to the membership-at-large, it seems to me it is sufficiently covered. If you want more elaboration then a new constitution might have to be provided filling volumes. The purpose of the committee was to specify the main principles of an initiative and a referendum for the membership. Now, the interpretation of that will necessarily be in accordance with the spirit there.
DEL. HALL: Do you mean to say then that a convention will decide as to the advisability of any referendum that the membership wishes to have?
DEL. HAGERTY: Not at all. They may initiate a referendum on any matter to be submitted to the convention. It is stated beforehand in this constitution that the things which are discussed have to be submitted afterwards to a referendum of the membership-at-large. That is understood when you speak of a referendum of the convention. It is already stated in one or two places that those vital matters shall be submitted to the membership-at-large.
Question called for. The motion was then put and carried, and the section declared adopted.
The next section was read, as follows:
“Section 2. A majority of the votes cast shall rule, both in the general organization and its subordinate parts, except as otherwise provided for in this constitution.”
On motion of Delegate Wilke, duly seconded, the section was adopted.
The next section was taken up and read, as follows:
“Section 3. None but actual wage workers shall be admitted as members-at-large.”
It was moved by Delegate Gillhaus, and seconded, that the section be adopted.
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that this section be adopted. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. JORGENSEN: What will you do with a man that has been working so long that he will not need to work any longer? Will you chase him out?
DEL. HAGERTY: I would like to answer the question. I think he could take a withdrawal card, probably.
DEL. JORGENSEN: That would practically compel every man to work, wouldn’t it? I make that point. He may be willing to take a rest. Now, I don’t see that every man that belongs and joins this organization should be compelled to work all his lifetime, and not be allowed to take a rest from work for a time and still be a member of this organization. How long is he going to work? Till he is eighty or eighty-five or ninety?
THE CHAIRMAN: Permit the Chair to say that this does not say anything about a man remaining in the organization, but it says that no man shall come into the union at large unless he is a wage worker.
DEL. JORGENSEN: Unless he is a wage worker when he comes in?
THE CHAIRMAN: Unless he is a wage worker when he joins.
The motion was then put and carried and the section adopted.
The following section was then read:
“Section 4. So soon as there are ten local unions with not less than 3,000 members in any one industry, the General Executive Board shall immediately proceed to call a convention of that industry and proceed to organize them as an international division of the Industrial Workers of the World.”
Delegate Gillhaus moved the adoption of the section. (Seconded.)
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: A question of information. I would like to know whether it is the intent there that it shall be “industrial international unions” instead of “divisions.”
DEL. HAGERTY: No; the intent there is “international industrial divisions,” as far as I understand it; that is, in regard to constituting that division.
DEL. SMITH: Another point of information. Does this division, when organized, pay a per capita tax as an international industrial union? I ask the Secretary of the committee. This division, when organized, would pay a tax, would it, as an international industrial union?
DEL. HAGERTY: As an international industrial division. It would pay the general dues to the general administration of the Industrial Workers of the World, as I understand it.
DEL. SMITH: I understand that when you come to the revenues of this organization the divisions don’t pay anything in dues to the general organization.
DEL. HAGERTY: General dues occurs several times in the constitution.
DEL. SMITH: If the international industrial unions pay eight and one-third cents per month, it is contradictory, for the amendment to Section 2, Article I, provides absolutely for international industrial unions and international industrial autonomy, and I simply wanted to know if it would not be incorrect to have this part of the constitution conflict with the part preceding.
DEL. HAGERTY: I do not see how it conflicts with any part of the constitution, because Section 3 of the constitution states distinctly that “the financial and industrial affairs of each international industrial division shall be conducted by an Executive Board of not less than seven nor more than twenty-one, selected and elected by the general membership of said international industrial division,” whatever the subdivision may be, and they conduct the industrial and financial affairs of that division. The provision is already made in the constitution for general dues to come through that division as a clearing house.
DEL. SMITH: The thing that I have reference to is Section 2, Article I, as amended by the committee, which precedes the section just read by the secretary of the Constitution Committee. If I am not mistaken it precedes that section; Section 2 of Article I.
THE CHAIRMAN: I may say to the secretary of the committee, I believe the delegate wishes to know whether or not, when there are 10,000 in one industry, if they would not take their place as an industrial union in that division.
DEL. HAGERTY: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Instead of being another division.
DEL. HAGERTY: No, they will take their place in the division in which they belong.
DEL. SMITH: That is the question. They will then act when chartered directly from the Industrial Workers of the World as an international industrial union?
DEL. HAGERTY: As an international industrial division.
DEL. SMITH: That is the point, Mr. Chairman. If the Chair is able to get out that point easier than I can I would like to have him do so.
DEL. HAGERTY: Will you ask me that question now?
DEL. SMITH: I know that the Chairman understands the point that I wanted to make clear, and he attempted to bring that out from the secretary of the Constitution Committee. If he can bring that out easier than I can I would be glad to have him do so.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think that you can state your inquiry as clearly as the chair.
DEL. SMITH: The Chair asked the secretary of the Constitution Committee if, within a division, a sufficient number of persons confined to a particular industry should desire a charter, would they be chartered as an international industrial union, with international industrial autonomy?
DEL. HAGERTY: As I read this section, it means the establishment of divisions when there are 3,000 workers in ten local unions to constitute a division. Now, that division is here further illustrated in Section 2, together with its subdivisions. For instance, one of the divisions—
DEL. SMITH: Just a second, if you please. I should not like to have the secretary of the Constitution Committee read the succeeding part of this constitution, the basis of organization, but I should like to have him read the first part before that, laying down the basis of organization, which I believe is in Article I, Sections 1 and 2.
DEL. HAGERTY (reading): “Section 2. And shall be composed of thirteen international industrial divisions, subdivided into industrial unions of closely kindred industries in the appropriate organizations for representation in the departmental administration.” It further states what that departmental administration shall consist of.
DEL. SMITH: Proceed, if you please.
DEL. HAGERTY: Then follow these divisions.
DEL. SMITH: Will the secretary please continue to read from just where he stopped reading, about a minute?
THE CHAIRMAN: Read the complete section.
DEL. SMITH: Yes.
DEL. HAGERTY (reading): “The subdivisions in national and international industrial unions shall have complete industrial autonomy in their respective internal affairs; provided, the General Executive Board shall have power to control these industrial unions in matters concerning the interests of the general welfare.”
DEL. SMITH: Now, I will say only a few words, and nothing more during this session. I am going to say that it is clear to me that this section as read by the secretary provides for the chartering of international industrial unions with international industrial union autonomy over their internal affairs. And as providing that, I am entirely satisfied with the constitution, notwithstanding the fact that the secretary of the Constitution Committee interprets parts of the constitution farther along as not in agreement with my idea of this section of the constitution. This is the foundation of the organization, in my judgment, and lays the foundation of an organization in exact agreement with my ideas on the subject, and I am entirely satisfied with the constitution on that account.
DEL. WILKE: Just a question. Do I understand that under this clause, if it is adopted, each trade may be organized under its own head? For instance, the carpenters, if they join as an industrial organization, will be organized by themselves; the machinists will be organized by themselves; the wood workers will be organized by themselves, and still all will be affiliated with the Executive Board? Do I understand that that is the way it is?
THE CHAIRMAN: Not at all. This is an industrial movement, not a craft union movement. The carpenter will belong to the building industry; the machinist will belong to the metal industry; the wood workers will belong in that industry where they are working outside of the building industry. They, however, will have a chance to have local unions if they desire, that they may belong to that industry. That is my interpretation. Is that correct?
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: The mining industry takes in coal mining and other kinds of mining. Will the coal miners have their own department, their own subdivision, and elect their own officers, and pay their own per capita tax into their own subdivision in that department of mining?
DEL. HAGERTY: While the mining division or mining department has control over its own financial and industrial affairs, it elects a General Executive Board of not less than seven and not more than twenty-one members on the committee, and those seven or twenty-one are the Executive Board of that department and guide the administrative workings in that division; and so far as I understand the interpretation of this, so far as I understand the sense of the committee that wrote this constitution, it did not have in mind the splitting up of the mine workers except inasmuch as their economic groupings might demand it. They did not have in mind splitting them up into rope men, timber men, or crafts of any kind, but that it is left entirely to the workers in that department as to how they shall group themselves and arrange themselves, and it is not the purpose of this convention to say how they shall do it. The Western Federation of Miners to-day is an economic organization; with their experience they will settle that matter, and settle it right. They are not new in the business; they have been at it a long while, and they will be able to determine the economic groupings.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I would like to know, before I report back, if this is carried through, whether the miners are chartered directly from the national Industrial Workers of the World, or whether they can be chartered by the Western Federation of Miners, or from the mining department, or where?
THE CHAIRMAN: If I may state, it is my understanding of the constitution that for the time being they will get their charter from the mining industry; but that in the event of the organization growing to such proportions that it becomes cumbersome for one department, that then this convention, or a coming convention of this organization, may subdivide that industry; that is, if it becomes cumbersome. That, I believe, is the sense of the Constitution Committee. That is the way I look at it.
DEL. HAGERTY: Yes.
DEL. HALL: I only want to ask a question or two, if the secretary will permit me. I don’t like to impose upon him. I only talk of my department now. The amendment to Section 2 specifies that when 3,000 members in ten or more locals shall have formed in one industry they may be granted a charter by the General Executive Board of the United Workers of the World. Is that correct?
DEL. HAGERTY: Yes.
DEL. HALL: Now, in that case the department or division of transportation, as provided by the original report of the committee, is divided into four subdivisions or natural divisions. Now, the United Brotherhood of Railway Employes will probably enter that division. Now, I understand that as long as we are the only economic body in that division, we have autonomy and are connected directly with the General Executive Board. Now, when ten unions—
DEL. HAGERTY: Just a moment, Brother Hall.
DEL. HALL (continuing): —with 3,000 or more members organize a marine shipping department, say, will they get their charter directly from the General Executive Board or will they be a part of the department of transportation and have a financial system of their own?
DEL. HAGERTY: When your 3,000 members are organized into the division of transportation, you are the division of transportation until you fill up. If the transport workers in New Jersey come in they will belong to your division. This provides for the formation of the division, of the industrial division.
DEL. HALL: That is all right; that brings out that point.
DEL. HAGERTY: When you have 3,000 members, then you are the industrial division until you form the railroad men.
DEL. VEAL: So that the United Mine Workers shall understand this question, I think it ought to be made more explicit. The delegate from Montana wants to know exactly what division his coal miners would belong to. Now, the Western Federation of Miners is the only division that is recognized, according to the Industrial Workers of the World, as the grouping in that division. Now, then, we, the United Mine Workers, are recognized, but we are not working as the United Mine Workers; we are under immediate obligation, if we unite ourselves under the Industrial Workers of the World, to go under the division of the Western Federation of Miners. Isn’t that the sense?
THE CHAIRMAN: There isn’t any other place for you.
DEL. VEAL: There is no other place. What I want to be clear on is this: The United Mine Workers who are sent here as delegates will recognize, when we go before the members of our craft, that that is the place where they have to go. I want that to be made plain here, so that we won’t have any misunderstanding when we go before the slaves of the mine.
DEL. MORRISON: I would like to ask a question. When you speak of the miners, does that mean the metallurgical miners?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is not the question before this convention.
DEL. MORRISON: I insist on my question, because I want to know.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let the secretary read this and see whether your question is covered in this section.
DEL. HAGERTY (reading): “So soon as there are ten local unions with not less than 3,000 members in any one industry, the General Executive Board shall immediately call a convention of that industry and proceed to organize them as an international industrial division of the Industrial Workers of the World.”
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, what is the question?
DEL. MORRISON: I want to know: the mining department is divided up into some industrial groups, as I understand; metallurgical mines, coal mines, sulfur mines, diamond and all other mines. Now, I want to know whether the organization was going to be chartered in an industrial organization to become an international industrial union, being represented in a department known as the groups originally discussed.
DEL. HAGERTY: I think that is the sense; within this division.
DEL. MORRISON: Within the division.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would say that all miners in all industries would be in the mining department; and five years from now we will take up the question that you propound. (Laughter.)
DEL. MORRISON: I thank you. I wish him to give me the information now.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will go ahead.
DEL. MORRISON: I ask, if the coal miners would come to you, seeing that the Western Federation of Miners now have 27,000 members, and the coal miners came with a complement of 3,000 members in the ten respective unions required in that particular paragraph of the constitution, would they be required to come to this Industrial Workers of the World and ask for their national or international industrial charter? That is what I want to know.
DEL. HAGERTY: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: I would say no, because that would be too cumbersome.
DEL. KIEHN: The section says a division shall be subdivided into national and international industrial unions, and the other section says that when there are ten or more locals organized in one division they can organize as an industrial division. How many international and national industrial organizations does it require to organize an industrial division? Suppose a whole existing organization wishes to affiliate with this body, how would you place them?
DEL. HAGERTY: It seems to me that those are questions of practical administration that must come before the General Executive Board. It will be their duty to discuss those things and shape them up according to the spirit of this constitution. I would suppose that. The men in the shops in America in the different trades will fix those things. The members of the local unions would know more about it than the members of the committee would know.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: Just one more question. Would it not necessitate the calling of a convention of the coal miners of this country to organize another department; four or two, or whatever it is?
DEL. HAGERTY: That convention is now holding.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: Where?
DEL. HAGERTY: Right in this hall. At least that is its purpose. A convention made up of representatives of the miners of America, so far as they are revolutionary unions, is now holding in Brand’s Hall.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: As I understand, this is a convention to organize a national organization subdivided into thirteen other departments.
DEL. HAGERTY: The national organization is made up of thirteen divisions.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: Would it not necessitate all the miners to organize into a separate division?
DEL. HAGERTY: Brother Fairgrieve, wasn’t that question decided at Salt Lake City?
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: Not at all.
(Question called for.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Those in favor of adopting the section as read will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried and the section adopted. The Secretary will read.
DEL. HAGERTY: The rest are changes, recommendations of the committee relating to parts of the constitution. The committee further recommends certain things for the consideration of the convention.
THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.
DEL. HAGERTY (reading): “Your committee further recommends that this convention elect a provisional Board of seven to conduct the affairs of this organization until the next convention. The said Provisional Board shall consist of the National President, National Secretary-Treasurer and five other members; two of these five to be elected at large from this convention; one to be elected from the Western Federation of Miners, one from the United Metal Workers, and one from the United Brotherhood of Railway Employes. When the Western Federation of Miners, the United Brotherhood of Railway Employes and the United Metal Workers elect their members on the General Executive Board, the provisional delegates from said respective organizations shall withdraw.
“The Provisional Executive Board shall also have the duty of a committee of style to revise the constitution and submit a draft to the next convention.
“We, your committee, further recommend that in so far as it is feasible the general offices of the international industrial divisions shall be located in the same place as the general headquarters of the Industrial Workers of the World.”
DEL. HAGERTY: Shall they be taken up seriatim?
THE CHAIRMAN: I believe it wise to take them up seriatim.
DEL. SAUNDERS: If I understand the Secretary of the Constitution Committee aright, the constitution as proposed was finished before these last proposed recommendations. Therefore I believe it would be in order and would expedite matters to consider the adoption of the constitution as read and amended before action upon these further recommendations. If I am in order I would move that we adopt the constitution as a whole as amended. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the constitution be adopted as a whole as amended.
DEL. SULLIVAN: I ask for a roll call on this question.
DEL. COATES: Will you allow me just a question of information?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
DEL. COATES: I want to ask this question of the Chair or of the Constitution Committee; either way, I don’t care, as long as we get it. As I understand this constitution now before the convention for adoption, the only charters that will be issued by the general Industrial Workers of the World will be thirteen charters to thirteen industrial divisions.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you ask the Chair?
DEL. COATES: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: In the opinion of the Chair, inasmuch as these thirteen divisions are composed of industrial unions, those unions will receive charters from the Industrial Workers of the World. That is the interpretation of the Chair. If that is not correct, if there is any member of the committee that wants to correct that, he may do so.
DEL. COATES: Mr. Chairman, your position is that all industrial unions, national or international, organized by the Executive Board of this organization, will be chartered directly from the Industrial Workers of the World?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is the opinion of the Chair.
DEL. COATES: Yes. Now, I want to ask the Secretary of the Constitution Committee if that is his interpretation.
DEL. HAGERTY: You ask my private, personal opinion about this matter, I take it.
DEL. COATES: No, sir, I ask you as secretary of the committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: You spoke to the Chair. Now, if there is any member of the committee that takes exception to the Chair’s interpretation or construction of this constitution, let him state it.
DEL. COATES: I am satisfied with your interpretation of that as the official interpretation of the convention.
THE CHAIRMAN: Unless some member of the committee says otherwise.
DEL. WILKE: It is your interpretation, I believe, that the General Executive Board shall be empowered to charter locals?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, sir, the General Executive Board will also be empowered to charter locals—
DEL. WILKE: That is what I thought.
THE CHAIRMAN (continuing) :—where there is no industrial union. And they will also he empowered to initiate members of the union at large.
DEL. HAGERTY: Don’t I understand the Chair to maintain too that the international industrial unions apply for the charter to their department to the General Executive Board?
THE CHAIRMAN: That may be the construction of the General Executive Board, that the charter will come directly from the Executive Department of the Industrial Workers of the World.
(Question called for.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is now that the constitution as a whole as amended be adopted. Are you ready for the question? (Question asked for). Those in favor—
DEL. DAVIS: Roll call.
THE CHAIRMAN: Those in favor of the motion will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. Do you desire a roll call still?
DEL. SULLIVAN: I do.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is it the unanimous consent of this convention that this constitution be adopted as a whole? DELEGATES: Yes.
DEL. COATES: No.
DEL. SULLIVAN: As a member of the Constitution Committee I will say there were at least two members of that committee that for the last day or two refused to sit with the committee. There was one delegate on the floor—he is to-day—that sat with the committee one day. He raised strenuous objections to some part of the constitution on the floor when it was under consideration, and I ask a roll call vote before it is finally adopted, so that they can answer to their names yes or no.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question before the convention is the roll call on the adoption of the constitution.
A DELEGATE: As a whole?
THE CHAIRMAN: As a whole as amended.
The roll call was then taken up by the Secretary of the convention, during which the following occurred:
DEL. FITZGERALD: I move that Brother McCabe cast the vote of the United Brotherhood of Railway Employes.
DEL. HOPKINS: I object to that at this time.
THE SECRETARY: The entire delegation, “yes, 2,800 votes.”
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: Mr. Chairman, I wish to explain my vote. I want to give the reason why I am going to vote as I do. I am a revolutionist and trade union man, and I came here for the purpose of trying to launch an organization that would differ somewhat from the American Federation of Labor; and I want to tell the delegates here that when I go back to the people who sent me I am going to tell them that I have not been an accessory in imposing upon them the same form of organization with the same laws controlling it as the American Federation of Labor has at the present time. I came here not to be Gompersized, and I am going back the way I came. Now, this was supposed to have been a convention of revolutionists in the trade union movement; a movement inaugurated to try and get something to emancipate the working class. I find that we have sat here now for two weeks, and you put before us here a constitution with the same laws and rules, some worse if anything, than what govern the American Federation of Labor, and you have practically put in the hands of a few men who control the trade union movement the power to govern this organization. Now, I want first to take up the financial part of it, and I want to show you where you are working an imposition on the working class of this country. You say you believe in the principles of trade autonomy locally, and that you believe in an equality of government. Now, I claim that you haven’t anything of the kind here, and I want to show it to you. The American Federation of Labor, in its instructions says one-half of one cent taxation shall be collected from the members belonging to international and National unions. There were 2,000,000 members, or there were 1,400,000 represented in the Boston convention that paid something like $60,000 per capita tax in one year. The 82,000 who are in unions locally chartered by the American Federation of Labor paid $51,000 taxation, nearly as much money as the entire one million and a half paid, and those one million and a half control the destiny of the American Federation of Labor. The ones who paid the $51,000 tax for that year had not a single representative on the Executive Board of the American Federation of Labor, and never can get any representatives. Now, I sat in that convention in Boston and I saw 101 men cast 14,000 votes, and I saw 115 men cast 161 votes in that convention. That is your democratic czarism of the American Federation of Labor, and that is what you men have adopted by your votes here to-day, the same practically as is in use in the American Federation of Labor to-day. You people here have even gone a step worse than the American Federation of Labor. The American Federation of Labor to-day gives one vote for each 100 members in good standing in its international and national organizations. You have given a vote to every fifty members to be represented by a certain few that shall cast the vote of the organization. That is what the American Federation of Labor does. I sat there and I saw five men control that organization for two weeks. You people have done the same thing, because your big international divisions or subdivisions as you call them can send one or two men here, and, regardless of the small locals sending them, they would have control of it. Now, you go to work and impose a tax. The A. F. of L. only taxes members five cents a month.
DEL. J. C. SULLIVAN: I rise to a point of order.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I am explaining my vote.
DEL. SULLIVAN: I rise to a point of order. We are not working under the general good and welfare of the organization; we are working under a roll call, and I hold that a member is exceeding his privileges when he rises under parliamentary rules to make a speech in explaining his vote.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I am explaining my vote, Mr. Chairman, and I have that right. The American Federation of Labor only costs five cents a month to the members in local unions. It gives them a representation of one vote for every 100 members or major fraction thereof. You people here have voted twenty-five cents a month tax on local members, and then you give a vote to every 200 members or major fraction thereof. I say you go one better than the American Federation of Labor. Fifty thousand members in the local unions would pay a tax of $150,000 a year; 500,000 members of internationals would pay a tax of $49,000 a year, but these men have no representation on the Executive Board; you have deprived them of that right. You are now doing the same as our forefathers fought against during the Revolutionary war; established taxation without representation on the national board, and I won’t stand for it. I shall make my report to my local union when I go back to Montana that the convention has followed the system of the American Federation of Labor, only a little worse, as I said before. I believe if we are going to be revolutionary we have got to have a different kind of an organization, and not take up the same system that has been in use by the American Federation of Labor. You people here, you Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance men, you trade unionists who come here for freedom, you have made your system more cumbersome than ever. You are doing the same thing over; you are placing power in the hands of the few men who are likely to go to the conventions. That is what I came here for, to try and do away with that if I possibly could. But I can’t do it with what you have laid down here, but I take this chance to explain my vote and the reason I am going to vote as I do. I want to see an organization that will protect the rights of the under man if I can. Let us have no subdivision or any other kind of division, like the American Federation of Labor. I don’t want to take up any more of your time, because I know you are going to carry it anyhow. I am going to vote against this industrial suicide, because that is what you have done. I vote no.
THE SECRETARY: Twenty-seven votes.
DEL. WHITE: As Secretary of the Committee on Credentials I want to say there are no twenty-seven votes on the credentials. I want to say that all the Secretary can find is twenty-three votes.
THE SECRETARY: That was on the committee’s report.
DEL. WHITE: There are twenty-three votes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed with the roll call.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I only cast one vote, for myself.
DEL. MCDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I desire to explain my vote. I feel that if the constitution provided for the issuance of charters the same as the Chairman stated in his interpretation of the constitution I would vote yes. But I am satisfied with my interpretation of the constitution, that the constitution does not provide for that proposition. Consequently, in support of my judgment, I am obliged to vote no.
THE SECRETARY: 1,675 no.
DEL. CRONIN: I wish to explain my vote against the report of the Constitution Committee of the constitution as a whole. I believe it is not specific enough to set forth what it really means. I believe that every time you will want an interpretation of the constitution you will have to send for some of the official heads of the organization to give a correct interpretation of the same. Consequently I vote no.
DEL. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, I will have to be placed under the necessity of asking you just one question before I can vote my sentiments truly on this question. That is, when you rendered your decision a while ago, you stated that if this committee did not speak adverse to you it would be the sense of this convention, and that your interpretation would be the interpretation of the constitution. Do I understand that to be the case?
THE CHAIRMAN: I gave my interpretation, and asked, if I were not correct, that the Constitution Committee would correct me.
DEL. MORRISON: Then that becomes the sense of the convention. There was no dissent.
THE CHAIRMAN: I take it that the interpretation was correct, because there was none of the Constitution Committee that took exception to the interpretation.
DEL. MORRISON: Then as long as that is the sense of the convention, that your interpretation was correct, I vote yes on the question. Otherwise I would vote no.
DEL. BOSKY: I wish to explain my vote. The policies to be followed by this organization not being in harmony with the spirit of the Manifesto, which called for an organization of the workers on the lines of the class struggle. I do not vote.
DEL. SIMONS: With the understanding that the interpretation of the Chairman is correct, I vote yes.
THE SECRETARY (to Mother Jones): How do you vote on the adoption of the constitution as a whole as amended?
DEL. MOTHER JONES: I was not here when the report of the constitution was read, but I have sufficient confidence in the makeup of the Constitution Committee to commit my destinies to them, and therefore I vote yes.
DEL. PARKS: Mr. Chairman, I have been here during the entire convention. I want to voice my inability to understand and interpret this constitution. Therefore I will not vote.
THE CHAIRMAN: The result of the vote is, 42,714 yes; 6,995 no. The constitution is adopted as a whole as amended. (Applause.)
[For detailed vote on roll call, see appendix.]
THE CHAIRMAN: Has the Ritual Committee any report to submit?
DEL. MILLER: The Ritual Committee desire to say that we have agreed on the ritual up to the installation of officers. They expect to be able to report on this matter to-morrow morning. The committee were a unit in recommending that the report of the Ritual Committee be referred to the incoming Executive Board.
DEL. WILKE: I believe that the Constitution Committee had various recommendations to make. It would be policy to take them up now and get through with them.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think so.
(Here Delegate Miller was called to the chair to preside.)
DEL. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, I want to offer a resolution, if it is in order.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: A point of order. We want to get through. The report of the Constitution Committee is not yet accepted. It is only the constitution that is accepted, but the complete report of the Constitution Committee has not yet been acted on.
DEL. MORRISON: My resolution has specific relation to the constitution as now adopted.
DEL. HAGERTY: I insist on my point of order.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: If you will permit me, Comrade Morrison, it seems to me that it would be in order to act on the report of the Constitution Committee.
DEL. MORRISON: To act now, immediately, on the constitution?
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Yes.
DEL. MORRISON: Well, I will abide by your ruling.
Del. Hagerty, of the Constitution Committee, read the following:
“Your committee recommends that this convention elect a Provisional Board of seven members to conduct the affairs of this organization until its progress at the next national convention. The said Provisional Board shall consist of the National President, the National Secretary-Treasurer, and five other members; two of these five to be elected at large, one to be elected from the Western Federation of Miners, one from the United Metal Workers, and one from the United Brotherhood of Railway Employes. When the Western Federation of Miners, the United Brotherhood of Railway Employes and the United Metal Workers elect their members to the General Executive Board, the Provisional delegates from their respective organizations shall withdraw.”
DEL. HAGERTY: That is one recommendation. Do you want to, hear it all read?
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Does the convention desire to act upon the report of the committee seriatim, or to hear the complete report and then take it up seriatim?
DEL. DINGER: It was read. I move that that be adopted as the sense of this convention. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: It has been moved and seconded that this section of the report be adopted as the sense of this convention. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. BAKER: I would suggest that the word “international” be used there wherever “national” occurs; as, “national president” and “national secretary-treasurer” have no place here.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Comrade Baker desires that the word “international” be used wherever “national” occurs.
DEL. HAGERTY: It says, “Said board shall consist of the General President and General Secretary-Treasurer of the Industrial Workers of the World and five other members,” as already stated here.
Question called for.
DEL. CRONIN: I am opposed to the motion, for the reason that the Western Federation of Miners, the United Metal Workers and the U. B. R. E. are not apart of this organization yet, and consequently should not be selected to represent this organization until such time as they are part and parcel of it. I have another objection to the Metal Workers being given recognition on the Executive Board, for the reason that I believe they are not an industrial organization, but a class craft organization. Therefore I shall vote no on both propositions.
DEL. MCCANN: I rise to say in regard to the Metal Workers that we have revolutionary members of an organization that belongs to my international organization that are opposed to their affiliating themselves with the Industrial Workers of the World, if they will come under the division of the Metal Workers. They have as much right to vote for this man that will represent them on this Executive Board as the Metal Workers who have representatives in this subdivision.
DEL. HAGERTY: There are three bodies or parties here that are already practically industrially organized and may be considered so. One of those divisions, in all likelihood, will immediately become a part of the Industrial Workers of the World as an organization.
DEL. KNIGHT: I wish to say as a member of the committee that these delegates to be elected by the convention are provisional. If this organization is to be affiliated with this new industrial union movement, everybody will come into that division under its proper head, and they will elect a delegate to take his place on this Provisional Board. Those members will have an opportunity to vote for that member, as I understand the constitution.
DEL. MORRISON: I understand that these are to be elected from the organizations as now organized, and not from the transportation department, say, as it may be organized. It would be well to select a member from all the metal trades as represented here, without reference to the Metal Workers as representing the trade entirely. We have some United Metal Workers here. There may be some Longshoremen here. They belong properly in that department of transportation. But you specify there that this Provisional Committee shall be selected from the U. B. R. E., for instance. Now, I am a member of the U. B. R. E., but I don’t like to have an organization placed out of its place. I believe the member ought to he selected from those that will make up the representation here on the department of transportation, and not from the U. B. R. E.
DEL. J. C. SULLIVAN: The Constitution Committee was told, whether it is correct or not I do not know, that there were but three organizations at the present time that were ready to enter the new organization, and they were the U. B. R. E., which will be a part of the transportation division; the United Metal Workers, which are a part of the metal industry, but the rest of them, on the advice of the Constitution Committee, are not prepared to-day to enter this organization; but we were informed that the United Metal Workers are. The same applies to the Western Federation of Miners. Therefore your committee believed that those that were ready to enter should be represented provisionally, and when that department saw fit to elect a representative, then that representative should take the place of the provisional member.
DEL. CLEMENS: I am perfectly satisfied with that explanation, but that is not what it says in the document. It says that this member shall ’be appointed or elected at the present time, but later on the United Metal Workers shall elect their man to take the place on the Executive Board. Now, I construe that to mean the United Metal Workers as they are organized at the present time.
DEL. HAGERTY: No, the United Metal Workers is under that one division, and the division shall afterwards elect their member. That is already specified in one of the divisions.
DEL. CLEMENS: I am satisfied with that, but I would like to amend by a motion to lay the recommendation of this committee over for the information of the local unions.
DEL. FITZGERALD: Some of these delegates came into this convention under a resolution that they would come into this Organization if, in the opinion of the delegates present, it was what they expected, and vote as a unit. That power has been given this delegation. The United Brotherhood of Railway Employes has voted as a unit on this constitution. Therefore I say that we are now, practically speaking, a part of this new organization. (Applause.)
DEL. POWERS: Sure.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: There was a motion made that the Chair did not understand was seconded.
DEL. DINGER: There was no second.
The motion was seconded.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The question occurs on the adoption of this section of the committee’s report. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). As many as are in favor will make it known by saying aye. Contrary no. The ayes have it and it is adopted.
The next paragraph of the recommendation was read by Secretary Hagerty, as follows:
“The Provisional Executive Board shall also have the duty of a committee on style to revise the constitution and submit the draft to the next convention.”
DEL. WHITER: I move the adoption of the clause as read. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: It has been moved and seconded that the clause as read be adopted. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). As many as are in favor will make it known by saying aye. Contrary no. The ayes have it and it is adopted.
Secretary Hagerty read the next recommendation, as follows:
“We, your committee, further recommend that in so far as it is feasible the general offices of the international industrial divisions shall be located in the same place as the general headquarters of the Industrial Workers of the World.”
DEL. GILLHAUS: I move that we concur in the recommendation. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: It has been moved and seconded that the convention concur in the recommendation of the committee. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). As many as are in favor will make it known by saying aye. Contrary no. The ayes have it.
DEL. HAGERTY: That is the end of the report of the Constitution Committee. What is the pleasure of the convention in regard to the committee?
DEL. GILLHAUS: I. move that the report of the Constitution Committee be received.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Received as a whole, you mean?
DEL. GILLHAUS: As a whole.
Motion seconded by Delegate Dinger.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: It is moved and seconded that the report of the Constitution Committee be accepted as a whole.
DEL. KIEHN: Mr. Chairman, in the first days of this convention I introduced a resolution in reference to individual political action of the members, and it has been referred to the Constitution Committee, I believe. I do not know whether it has been pigeon-holed or where it has gone to. I have a right to demand a report on the resolution.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The question occurs on the adoption of the report of the committee as a whole. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for.)
DEL. MORRISON: I should like to ask what was done with that resolution that was referred first from this body to the Ways and Means Committee, and then re-referred to the Constitution Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: I believe, comrade, that a discussion of that matter will be proper to come up after the acceptance or rejection of the committee’s report.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: This report of the committee as a whole, what do you mean by that? Is it a vote on the report of the committee or on the recommendations?
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: These are all recommendations of the committee.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: This is the recommendation of the committee and not the report of the committee as a whole.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: As many as are in favor of accepting the recommendations of the committee as a whole will make it known by saying aye. Contrary no. The ayes have it and it is adopted.
DEL. MORRISON: May I ask then at this time with propriety what was done with the resolution that was re-referred, sent to the Ways and Means Committee of this house and back to the Constitution Committee?
DEL. DE LEON: What was it about?
DEL. J. C. SULLIVAN: As one member of the committee I will say that the sub-committee of which I was a member had a number of resolutions that were referred to the Constitution Committee. They were read and considered by the sub-committee, and the subject matter contained in some of them was incorporated in the constitution. Others were not concurred in. It was my individual desire that the committee report on each resolution that was passed to them, with a recommendation concerning it; but the secretary of the Constitution Committee forgot to bring them from his room this morning, consequently your committee was unable to act on them at to-day’s meeting. He stated that it would take two hours for him to go and get them, and he did not care to leave the convention that length of time to-day. The convention, in my opinion, can have them in the morning. I don’t know, but that is my personal opinion.
DEL. M. P. HAGGERTY, BUTTE: Mr. Chairman, on the first day of this convention I introduced a resolution asking that fifty per cent. of the proceeds of this body be set aside for educational purposes. I certainly wish to enter my protest against that resolution being left in anybody’s room. It seems to me it is important enough to come before this gathering. Now, the purpose of that is to establish an educational bureau comprising two departments, one for the circulation of literature and the other for the erection of a lecture bureau. If this organization is not going to be educational, it certainly is going to be nothing. (Applause). If we are going to proceed along the same lines, keeping the working class of the United States in ignorance as former organizations have done, I ask you, where is your superiority over those organizations? I think, in justice to my union and to this convention, that that resolution should be read and let this convention dispose of it in any way that this convention may see fit. I ask that the question be taken up and the resolution be brought in here for action. It is not fair to sidetrack or dispose of a resolution of that kind.
DEL. J. C. SULLIVAN: In the absence of the Chairman I will state that the Constitution Committee has not sidetracked the resolution. The subject matter in that resolution was included or touched on under that part of the constitution pertaining to revenue, if you please. The Constitution Committee as a committee did not concur in a division of the fund. They believed that there should be one fund. Now, I have explained as one member of the committee regarding those resolutions, and I certainly protest against any insinuations from any member of this convention to the effect that this committee has evaded or is trying to evade any of its duties. We have been busy, as busy as a committee ordinarily can be, and devoted as much time. From the simple fact that a member of the committee who was acting as secretary forgot to put some papers in his pocket, he certainly is not entitled to the condemnation of every member of this convention nor of the convention itself for being human. I believe he is the same as every individual, and is liable to forget some things though he does not desire or wish to. (Applause.)
DEL. WHITE: I rise to a point of information. What is all this talk about? Do the delegates want their resolutions reported, or papers, or what is it? The committee has reported.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: There were some delegates who were simply asking that their resolutions be brought before the convention.
DEL. WHITE: But my point of order is—
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The Chair simply wishes to state that it probably will be impossible for you to get those resolutions this evening, and it seems to me it would be just as well to stop any further discussion upon that subject now.
DEL. MORRISON: But you forget to realize that if a man is killed accidentally he is just as dead as if he were killed on purpose. Now if you defer action until the convention shall have adjourned, even though it may be due to negligence on the part of a human being, and equally inherent in any individual, yet it is prevented from coming before the convention.
A DELEGATE: The convention has not adjourned yet.
DEL. MORRISON: And for that reason I would rise and ask as a question of personal privilege to address the convention briefly on what I intended to get before this convention, and the reason why I wanted it before this convention. We have heard a great deal of revolutionary—
DEL. HELD: I rise to a point of order. I believe that this talk of this delegate is not in order so long as we are under the report of the Constitution Committee,
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: I beg your pardon, but that has been passed on.
DEL. DE LEON: I would like to ask the delegate to wait till to-morrow morning.
DEL. HELD: If we are under the head of committees, the report of the Committee on Ratification Meeting would come under that head, and as the chairman of the committee I want to say that I have a report to make.
DEL. SHERMAN: As one of the Constitution Committee I wish to state that I can concur in the remarks of Brother Sullivan, and will state that I believe that that committee should handle those resolutions before they are discharged. I believe that it is the duty of that committee to handle those resolutions and take final action thereon. I believe that that is what this convention decided they wanted us to do, and I as one individual want to serve this convention as they desire me to do as one of their servants.
DEL. MORRISON: I will yield the floor for other pressing business if it is understood that this proposition is the first to be voted on in the morning.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The Chair would simply like to state that if it is the sense of this convention that we are under the head of committee reports we will proceed to call for committees in the regular order as adopted by the Committee on Rules. The next committee is that on Resolutions.
DEL. JORGENSEN: Is any newspaper reporter prohibited from taking down whatever is said in this convention, or are only delegates allowed to come here? Is this convention open to all kinds of news reporters?
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: I do not think that the doors of this convention have been closed to any one.
DEL. DANIEL MCDONALD: We have all kinds here, bad as well as good.
DEL. JORGENSEN: Well, I would like to deny what the Tribune has said, that this place was full of beer.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: That is all out of order.
DEL. FREY: The idea that the brother wishes to instill into the minds of the delegates is that there are several reporters in this city that have no regard for anybody at any time or place. They come into the hall and gather news that is not for the betterment of the Industrial Workers at any time or place. There is a Literature and Press Committee, and I believe all news ought to go out through the Press Committee. There should be no reporters coming and gathering news from members and taking it out. It should be done through the committee. That has been done time and time again throughout the convention, and I don’t believe it is right.
DEL. WHITE: I would like to ask a question through the Chair of some of the Chicago delegates here.
DEL. CRONIN: I rise to a point of order. What head are we under?
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The Chair was trying to get under the head of committee reports, and I wish the inspiration to speak would not strike us so often and hard. Has the Committee on Resolutions any report to make at the present time?
DEL. COATES: As far as I know we have completed our business, and we have no resolution or anything else to report.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: And the Committee on Ways and Means?
DEL. HELD: The Committee on Ways and Means has nothing to report any further than they will meet on the stage immediately after adjournment.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The Committee on Literature and Press?
DEL. DE LEON: The Committee on Ways and Means made a report, and that report was laid on the table to be taken Up after the report of the Committee on Constitution was acted on. Now that the report of the Committee on Constitution has been acted on, I think the report of the Ways and Means Committee comes properly before the convention. I simply submit it to the decision of the Chair.
DEL. DANIEL MCDONALD: They just said that they were not prepared to report.
DEL. DE LEON: But they did report, and it was laid on the table temporarily until the Committee on Constitution had done its work.
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: The Chair is informed that the report of the Committee on Ways and Means was laid over until the installation of officers.
DEL. DE LEON: Have the organizations been installed?
THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: They have not.
DEL. PAT O’NEIL: I was a member of that Press and Literature Committee. There was a portion of the report brought in here, and on motion of Mr. De Leon it was tabled to be referred to the Executive Board. It is simply an answer to the charges made in various papers with regard to the calling of this convention and the reason it was called. There was also an address written which has never been brought before the convention, and there was also an indictment drawn. I do not know where the balance of the committee are outside of Comrade Henion and myself. Here is one member; have you got that indictment?
DEL. KLEMENSIC: It was read before the convention.
(Here Chairman Haywood resumed the duties of the Chair.)
DEL. PAT O’NEIL: The indictment was not read before the convention?
DEL. KLEMENSIC: Yes.
DEL. PAT O’NEIL: No, it was not. It was the answer to Gompers that was read here, wasn’t it, Brother Smith?
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: I have a suggestion to clear up this proposition, that all members of the Literature and Press Committee meet on the stage immediately after adjournment, so that we can prepare to make a complete report to-morrow morning, if that is satisfactory, Comrade O’Neil.
DEL. PAT O’NEIL: Yes, that will do me.
DEL. HELD: Can I be allowed to make a report under the head of special committees?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, make your report.
DEL. HELD: The special Committee on Arrangements for the Ratification Meeting recommend that a collection be taken up at the meeting to cover the expenses incurred. We have not seen any other way to pay the expense that has been incurred by the committee, except by taking up a collection, as some of the members have not been in favor of charging any admission, and for that reason we present this report for your consideration.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the report of the Committee on Ratification Meeting. What is your pleasure?
DEL. SHURTLEFF: I am opposed to this organization starting out by having a meeting and taking up a collection. I would like to find out from the committee what is the cost of having the meeting.
DEL. HELD: The cost of the hall has been placed at $15. It has been understood that we could have the hall provided we paid for the lights, and the lights come to about $15, I am informed. The total expense. will probably reach $25. We ask for the recommendation of this body here.
THE CHAIRMAN: Will this be a collection at the meeting or where?
DEL. HELD: A collection at the ratification meeting.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the report of the committee. What is the pleasure of the convention?
DEL. WILKE: I move that the report of the committee be concurred in. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the report of the committee be concurred in. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: I move as an amendment that a committee of three be appointed to go to the delegates here and make them dig up and provide funds for the expense. We have been around on the streets and distributed hand bills and given the people the assurance that we would have free lectures here. It certainly would put us in a false position at this time to meet those people if this convention should look to those people to pay the expense. Therefore I move that a committee be appointed to take up a collection from this convention. (Seconded.)
The motion on the amendment was put and carried.
A DELEGATE: A point of information. I would like to know where the delegates can get a copy of the constitution, if it is to be provided?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is a matter in the hands of the incoming Executive. Board, to have the constitution printed as soon as possible.
DEL. ROSS: While speaking of that, I was the mover of a motion in a former session that we have the constitution in dodger form so that we would all have a copy to take home with us. But I consulted with Secretary Hagerty a few moments ago, and he said it was impossible to furnish a copy of it.
DEL. HAGERTY: No, no, not at all; I didn’t say that.
DEL. ROSS: At the present time.
DEL. HAGERTY: I didn’t say it would be impossible to furnish a copy. I said it would be impossible to furnish individuals a copy, I think.
DEL. ROSS: I think they should take it and get it printed.
DEL. HAGERTY: That rests with the secretary and officers of this convention.
DEL. ROSS: I asked a question inn regard to getting it. If you will let me explain I will explain.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right.
DEL. ROSS: I have been approached by two or three delegates, and they said it would be impossible to get it printed. If the convention will let me, and if the man who seconded the motion will let me, I will withdraw the whole thing and let it go, because I believe that we are not going to get the copy in time to take it to the printers and get it printed in time for the delegation to take home with them as proposed in the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: I would suggest to the delegate that he might report to that effect.
DEL. ROSS: Now?
THE CHAIRMAN: Now.
DEL. ROSS: I am trying to make an explanation, and I shall so report. I am informed by several delegates that we would not be able to get it, not having a copy in our hands to take to the printers in all probability for some hours, and probably not before to-morrow morning. I want to withdraw the motion with the consent of the second.
DEL. BRADLEY: I withdraw the second.
DEL. ROSS: And leave it in the hands of the Executive Board to print the constitution whenever they have time and opportunity.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee on Ratification Meeting will take up a collection in the hall to defray the expenses of the meeting to-night.
DEL. PAT O’NEIL: I move that we suspend the present order of business and proceed to the election of officers.
THE CHAIRMAN: That would be impossible until we get to the installation of the organizations. We have to wait for the ritual. The collection to defray the expenses of the Ratification Meeting was then taken up from the delegates.
DEL. PAT O’NEIL: I move that we adjourn an hour earlier than common to-night. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that we now adjourn until nine o’clock to-morrow morning.
DEL. DINGER: I believe there is some work before this convention. I don’t see why we should adjourn any earlier. There is some more work to come up here, and I am opposed to it.
The motion to adjourn was put and declared apparently lost.
DEL. DE LEON: I desire to know when the organizations will be installed?
THE CHAIRMAN: We are waiting for the Ritual Committee, or would have had them installed before now.
DEL. DE LEON: The committee recommended. that this matter be referred to the incoming G. E. B. Isn’t that so, Mr. Chairman?
THE CHAIRMAN: There was no action taken on the report of the Ritual Committee.
DEL. DE LEON: No?
THE CHAIRMAN: They said they would have the ritual completed in a very short time.
DEL. WILKE: I would make a motion to adjourn now, to call the meeting at eight o’clock to-morrow morning, so that some of these delegates can get away by to-morrow night by starting in an hour earlier. (Seconded). A delegate just tells me that there is some business of theirs that they want to see done. Most of us members have got to leave to-morrow night, and be back to work for Monday morning, and we want to get started early to-morrow morning.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a second to the motion?
DEL. DANIEL MCDONALD: I move you that we make the installation of the unions into the new organization and the election of officers a special order of business for ten o’clock to-morrow morning. (Seconded.)
The motion of Delegate McDonald was carried.
DEL. DANIEL MCDONALD: I move that we adjourn. (Seconded.)
DEL. WILKE: Will you entertain an amendment to that motion, to adjourn until eight o’clock to-morrow morning? I believe we have got a good deal of work on hand, and we ought to get here at eight o’clock to-morrow morning. I make that as an amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is that we adjourn until eight o’clock to-morrow morning.
DEL. DE LEON: That “when we adjourn” we adjourn until eight o’clock.
The motion was then, at five o’clock, put and carried, and the convention adjourned until eight o’clock A. M.
• Day 11, Morning Session : Saturday, July 8
Owing to the slowness of the delegates in gathering, the convention was not called to order until shortly before nine o’clock A. M.
The minutes not being present at the opening, the reading of the minutes of the previous day’s proceedings was postponed.
On motion the roll call of delegates was dispensed with. Communications were called for, but there were none to be brought before the convention.
The Credential Committee announced that it had no further report to make.
Special committees were called for.
DEL. WHITE: Under the head of special committees, I will say that we are $5 short on the expenses of the meeting last night. The meeting altogether cost $20. We only succeeded in raising $15, and $5 has got to be made up here.
DEL. JOHNSON: I suggest that the same committee that took up the collection yesterday take up another collection to make up the deficiency; that is, after the bulk of the delegates come in. (Seconded.)
The motion was put and carried.
The Committees on Constitution and Resolutions announced that they had no further reports.
The Committee on Literature and Press, through Delegate Pat O’Neil, submitted the following report:
Old as the story of wealth is the story of oppression, and that oppression has always been leveled at, and heaped upon those who have produced all the wealth—the laboring class.
To-day the warfare of the struggle between the classes is as merciless, fierce and bloodthirsty as it ever was in the past.
Your employer may be personally your friend. He may be a man of the best intentions, and really desire to better the condition of those he employs. But when his competitor cuts wages, he in turn must cut yours or go out of business.
This is the iron law of business, the law of competition, and the class struggle.
Can you not see the futility, therefore, of fighting individual employers ?
The whole method must be swept away, until in the hands of the laboring class rests the control of the tools of production and distribution.
For this, the most important of all questions, insists upon being answered, and must be answered without evasion.
Who are entitled to the ownership and control of the industries? Those who perform the labor and produce the wealth; or, those who produce nothing yet claim ownership after production, because they have permitted part of your product to return to you in the form of wages?
The natural law of labor and wages, as laid down by all the great authorities, beginning with: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,” is that the result of labor belongs to that one who performs the labor. Thus the ownership is by right of labor alone.
Naturally, then, follows this question: Who shall fix the wages? Those who labor with the machines of production and distribution, or those who laboring not at all, demand a portion of the product?
Many men who claim to be our friends tell us there is a harmony and identity of interest between the laboring and the master class. Let us see. You are interested in getting the largest possible returns for your labor. The master is interested in getting your labor for the smallest wages.
Can you imagine harmony or identity of interest here?
This industrial union has been brought into existence because those who organized it recognized there could be neither harmony nor identity of interest, but instead, a never-ending and merciless conflict, until the wage system is swept away.
This organization has come into the field for the purpose of giving you a weapon with which to wage a contest for better returns for your labor than you now enjoy, and that in all conflicts you can offer an unbroken front of all labor to your enemy,—the master class.
Also by becoming members of this organization you do your part toward bringing into life and action a solidified workers’ union, —a union that, recognizing the solidarity of the working class, unites instead of dividing the workers.
All the efforts of labor organizations of the past have been directed toward benefiting a few of the laboring class.
Just the skilled workmen of the various trades, as cigar makers, carpenters, engineers, etc.
And after these men have joined their various unions, they seem to feel they have become of another class than their fellow workers, and seem to think those fellow workers are not entitled to the same treatment, conditions and pay as they demand for themselves.
The industrial union, however, offers to all the workers the same advantages the older organizations offer to only a favored few.
Recognizing that the common laborer is as valuable to society as the most skillful mechanic, we offer to him the same shelter, the same assistance and the same comradeship the older unions offer to only a few tradesmen.
In the past, these bodies of union men have been kept divided and at enmity by leaders who either ignorantly or willfully assassinate the welfare of their followers for the benefit of the master class. By these divisions and the strife, thus brought about, these unions have wasted upon each other the strength which should have been expended against the common enemy.
But the industrial union, embracing all workers, gives no opportunity for craft conflict, nor can unscrupulous leaders embroil the branches in wrangles over trade autonomy.
A uniform label for all products of union labor makes impossible wrangling between trades over their labels. It will end corrupt bargaining between capitalists and labor officials to further the label of one group of workers above that of another.
Such a union label is truly a weapon of defense for the workers; instead of an advertisement for favored manufacturers and to assist in the formation of monopolies to further oppress working class purchasers.
Divided in resources and fighting strength as are the forces within the present unions, nearly every strife becomes a battle, not between laborers and capitalists, but between different divisions of the working class.
But the industrial union concentrates all its force upon any one point, financially or any other way.
It is the business and duty of the industrial union to wipe out all imaginary boundary lines or divisions between the workers by bringing them within the lines surrounding all the workers in this and other countries.
Neither must a worker serve an apprenticeship to man or machine, nor “stand and deliver” an enormous initiation fee to become a member of this union.
In this industrial union there is room for and no bar against any worker on account of race, sex, creed or color, and an earnest invitation is extended to every worker to enroll him or herself a member of this union.
At the time craft unions were organized trades were of importance, and individual employers were the rule. Inventions and developments upon the industrial field have wiped out the trades. Craft unions have refused to keep up with the progress of economics. They have served their time. Their usefulness has ended, and they are to-day only deadweights on the forward movement.
Would you not think a nation foolish that would go to war with bows and arrows against machine guns. Yet that is the condition of the trades unions to-day on the industrial field, its members rushing unarmed and divided to do battle with a unified, disciplined and merciless employing class.
Divided into small crafts they are helpless, for many crafts are employed in one industry.
Betrayed by their leaders, these crafts are led singly to battle and destruction, for all other crafts of that industry assist the master in crushing their brothers. Just think how easy it is done.
Union hod carriers go on strike, and union bricklayers carry brick and mortar for themselves.
Union coal miners strike. Union railroad men haul scabs to the mines and scab coal away from the mines.
Officials of the miners’ union order members of that union to unload machinery loaded by scab teamsters.
We recognize that injury to one is injury to all, and that the workers should be organized as a whole; thus avoiding such treason among themselves.
In this way only an entire industry becomes a branch of the organization, and the day of craft troubles will disappear.
For the uniform union label will mean uniform union conditions to all.
And when you join any union, your card is good in any other union without another initiation fee.
We see that the defeats of the past that have met us at every turn were only because of our lack of unity.
For these reasons this organization has come into being. We earnestly entreat you to enroll yourself with us.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the report of the Committee on Literature and Press. What is the pleasure of the convention?
DEL. DAVIS: I move its adoption.
DEL. HALL: I move that it be turned over to the incoming Executive Board. (Seconded).
Motion put and carried, and report referred to the Executive Board.
THE CHAIRMAN: Has the Ways and Means Committee any further report to make?
DEL. HELD: Yes. The Committee on Ways and Means recommend that this convention assume the indebtedness contracted by the convention, and further, that the matter be referred to the incoming Executive Board.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is that the Conference?
DEL. HELD: All preliminary financial transactions; that is what it is meant for.
Del. Pat O’Neil moved the adoption of the report. Motion seconded by Delegate A. W. Morrow.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is it to be understood from this report of the Ways and Means Committee that they recommend that the Industrial Workers of the World assume the indebtdedness that was incurred during the preliminary work of the Industrial Conference?
DEL. HELD: Yes. I want to make an explanation, that I would like to have the Chairman of the committee here to explain the situation. I did not write out the report myself, and this was presented to me by the Chairman to read out, so that I would like to have him make the explanation or explain the situation so that there will be no misunderstanding about it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is the Secretary of the Ways and Means Committee present?
DEL. HELD: The Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
DEL. MCCABE: I don’t think the Chairman is here just now. That was his understanding; that was the understanding of the committee, that this report should be made out with the understanding that we assume the indebtdedness of the original committee, the preliminary work for this convention.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does this include the work and the indebtedness contracted by this convention?
DEL. HELD: Yes.
The motion was put and carried.
THE CHAIRMAN: Have the Committee on Ritual prepared their report?
DEL. MILLER: As a member of the Committee on Ritual, I will state that we finished up to the installation ceremony last night, but the committee has had no meeting this morning. I got here at eight o’clock and saw one or two members of the committee, but no more.
DEL. WHITE: I move that the report of the Ritual Committee be accepted and referred to the incoming Executive Board. (Seconded).
Motion put and carried.
DEL. DANIEL MACDONALD: The Committee on Organization desire to submit the following: Your committee realize that the subject referred to them is of vast importance to the growth and welfare of this organization, and under the circumstances we gladly offer certain recommendations as our judgment would best prompt. We, further realize that the suggestions that we offer will involve the expenditure of money, and the organization is without funds, and that many demands will be made upon it in the near future. Under these conditions we believe the interests of the organization can best be served by refraining from imposing a burden of instructions prior to the provisions being made for carrying out the same. We therefore recommend that the matter of organization for the ensuing term be left in the hands of the Executive Board, with full power to act.
(The report was signed by Delegates McDonald, Baker, Mother Jones, Bradley, Fitzpatrick and Hopkins).
On motion of Delegate Dinger the report was adopted.
The Committee on Label and Emblem, being called on, announced no report.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any unfinished business? New business.
Secretary Trautmann read the following resolution:
“The delegates to this convention from the International Painters’ Union of America, Local 359, would advise every member of this organization to recognize that it is his privilege as an American citizen to have weapons in his possession, and they should use them when the capitalists force us to use them.”
(Submitted by Delegate Samuel).
Delegate Dinger moved that the resolution be laid on the table. (Seconded).
THE CHAIRMAN: The chair does not entertain the resolution, as we are not under that order of business at this time. This will not appear in the minutes of the convention until it comes under the proper head.
THE CHAIRMAN: The installation of Organizations. The representatives of the different local unions, international unions and individual members who are to take part in this new movement will so announce by rising to their feet.
The respective representatives and individuals rose.
THE CHAIRMAN: Individuals, all who take part in this new movement, either representing themselves, their local unions or other national bodies.
The delegates rose almost unanimously.
THE CHAIRMAN: I, as Chairman, hereby duly install the respective individuals and the representatives of the local unions as a part of the Industrial Workers of the World. (Applause).
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: I desire to know if those who did not stand did not participate in becoming a part of this organization. In other words, Mr. Chairman, I want to know if those who did not install themselves and did not participate in installing their organizations at this time, shall have a voice or a vote in this organization from this time on.
THE CHAIRMAN: Those who have not become installed have neither a voice nor a vote from this time on.
DEL. SMITH: I believe it would be well to have a record of those.
THE CHAIRMAN: To make a record of the delegates, or of those present?
DEL. SMITH: To make a record of those who have installed themselves in the organization. Several delegates representing organizations with instructions to install did not rise or participate in the installation.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the roll call and proceed to make a record of the delegates and their organizations that have been installed.
Secretary Trautmann then called the roll and took the answers, as follows (dashes represent no response):
Western Federation of Miners—W. D. Haywood, yes. Charles H. Moyer, yes. Charles H. McKinnon. Albert Ryan—J. H. Baker, yes.
Milling and Smeltermen’s Union, Butte, Mont.—
Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance—Duncan McEachren, yes. August Gillhaus, yes. Samuel J. French,— Thomas J Powers, yes. Thomas H. Jackson, yes. Paul Dinger, yes. Theodore Bernine, H. J. Brimble,— John T. Remley,— Joseph Scheidler, yes. Octave M. Held, yes. Daniel De Leon, yes. Carl U. Starkenberg, yes. Walter Goss,— Max Eisenberg, yes. (Delegate Eisenberg requested to be called under the organization to which he belonged.)
Industrial Workers’ Club, Cincinnati— Max Eisenberg, yes.
Industrial Workers’ Club, Chicago— Thomas J. Hagerty, yes. Robert Larson, yes. Mark Bartlett, yes. Bert Sainer,— John E. McEachren, yes. Gus. Bartlett,— Mrs. Bohlman,— Mrs. Isora Forberg,— Mrs. Lillian Forberg, yes. Robert C. Goodwin,—Miss Libby Levinson, yes. M. B. Quinn,—
W. J. Knight, Pueblo,—
DEL. WHITE: Mr. Knight informed me as Secretary of the Credential Committee that he had to leave, and he left a notice for the brother from Illinois to act in his stead. He wants to install his union, and left a written notice under his signature to that effect, that he wanted to install his organization. He left last night.
THE SECRETARY: That will be so recorded. The United Mine Workers, Kansas, John Veal—
DEL. GRAHAM: I wish to say that the peculiar circumstances under which I was sent to this convention would not justify me, in my opinion, just now in installing the men that appeared on my credentials; for the reason that I belong to a big local of the Federation of Miners and there were only a few, about 40 names, given on my credentials, as men that were in favor of this movement as far as they understood the movement. They sent me for the purpose of finding out what this movement was; what were its intentions and object; and I have to go back to them and take them a report. Now, I feel that I would not be justified in installing those men by voting “yes;” but on my own account, and installing myself into the organization, I will vote “yes.”
The roll was continued:
United Brotherhood of Railway Employes—J. Fitzgerald—Thomas de Young, yes. E. T. Eastman— A. H. Williamson— J. Churchfield— J. S. McDonald— Frederick Dean— M. E. White, yes. Ferd Hopkins, yes. Frank McCabe, yes. William Hickey, yes. A. W. Morrow, yes. H. M. Kyle— William Benning— Thomas Hansberry,— W. L. Hall, yes. W. J. Bradley, yes. Ferd Henion,— John Plummer—
Montreal (Canada) Wage Earners’ Union— R. J. Kerrigan— (The Secretary stated that Delegate Kerrigan was absent, but was empowered.)
Punch Press Operators’ Union, Schenectady— J. W. Roff—
THE SECRETARY: I will state that Delegate Roff, before he left, gave me authority to either write out or explain or communicate to this convention that the Punch Press Operators’ Union of Schenectady will install into this new organization, and another statement by him was that somebody should be sent to Schenectady in order to get the other organizations installed into this new Industrial Workers of the World. So I can report him “yes.” He gave me power to report that way. .
(Roll call continued):
United Mine Workers, Red Mount, Montana—
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I explained my position some time ago, and I have seen no reason to change my views since.
Flat Janitors’ Local, Chicago— George U. Miller— Andrew Anderson—
Journeyman Tailors’ Union, Pueblo, Col.,— A. Klemnsic, yes.
United Metal Workers of America— Charles O. Sherman— Charles Kirkpatrick—
Journeyman Tailors, San Francisco— George Nesbitt, yes. American Labor Union— W. D. Haywood, yes. Daniel McDonald, yes. William Shurtleff,— David C. Coates, yes. John Riordan, yes. Henry S. Davis, no. Charles H. Moyer, yes. F. W. Cronin, yes. Ferd Clemens, yes. Clarence Smith, yes.
Cloakmakers and Custom Tailors—absent.
Charles O. Sherman, United Metal Workers, “here.”
DEL. MOYER: I would like to ask the Secretary how he recognizes him as voting.
THE SECRETARY: He answered “here” to the roll call. He has not voted on the matter of installing the organization in this industrial movement.
DEL. SHERMAN: “Yes.” (Applause.)
Roll call continued: John Beuchert, no. Longshoremen’s Union, Hoboken— Charles Kiehn—
DEL. KIEHN: May I be permitted to explain my position? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
DEL. KIEHN: I wish to explain to this convention that I was sent here with no definite instructions, but since I have been here I got instructions to install my organization on condition that this organization shall not depart from the spirit of the Manifesto. Since I have heard and know the constitution that has been adopted, in my opinion it is not according to the spirit of the Manifesto. In the first place, the plan of dividing the industrial activities of society into craft unions, into thirteen divisions, appears to me as the creation of craft lines.
DEL. HELD: I enter an objection to a member making a speech on explaining his vote.
DEL. KIEHN: Can’t I explain my position?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think so. Yes, Brother Kiehn, we would like to know your position.
DEL. KIEHN: Another objection to the constitution is that it gives the President or the Executive Board of this organization czarish powers that are not given to the executive officers of any other pure and simple organization in this country. Practically we install ourselves in the hands of a few individuals, In this particular I wish to pay my compliments to the delegates of the Trades & Labor Alliance, who, in my opinion, have turned a complete somersault on the teachings and the principles that they have been promulgating for the last ten or fifteen years. It appears to me that the organization that has been created by the constitution—whether only for a time or whether it is forever does not matter—but it seems to me that this organization is a second edition, but not an improved edition, of the American Federation of Labor. I have been sent here to assist in creating an organization that will be something different from the American Federation of Labor, and since the adoption of this constitution I have made up my mind that there is no difference, excepting that it may be a little worse. It has been left to the Executive Board, and we know by experience what an Executive Board is; the Executive Board in interpreting the constitution consists of the President and General Secretary; we have always found that out, and the constitution they can stretch as they please; it is a rubber band, and they can stretch it as they please, and we are not, in my opinion, and the members that I represent, to comply with the rules arbitrarily interpreted or laid down by a few men. We wish to hold the organization to ourselves, and that is why I take the stand that I will not undertake to install any organization that I represent.
THE SECRETARY: Not install?
DEL. KIEHN: Not install.
THE SECRETARY: Now come the individuals. Mark Ord,— H. Ferber, yes. M. Glasgow—
DEL. GLASGOW: Allow me to explain briefly. I have raised the matter before the union that I belong to, with 1,700 members, and after considerable discussion and opposition, and with the aid of Brother Saunders, succeeded in having that union send five fraternal delegates to this convention. Of course we have no power in any manner to install here by initiating as an organization or union into this convention. Individually I feel this way: I represent that union in the Painters’ District Council, and also in the Chicago Federation of Labor. I know that if I become a member of this as an individual I will be denied the privilege of representative in those two bodies. I also do not know what position my own union may take, provided I become an individual member. I feel that I can do more for the industrial organization upon the lines which we have succeeded in adopting by being able to attend those bodies and advocating the principles whenever an opportunity may present itself, in such a way that it will not debar me also in my own union. I therefore feel that I must refrain from identifying myself with it as an individual.
Roll call continued: J. J. Johnson— Robert Nelson— J. W. Saunders— Otto Ulrich— Lincoln Wright, no. T. J. Hitchings, no. F. P. Cranston— J. A. Sturgis— Frank Kremer— W. P. Clarke— A. F. Germer— Alexander Haenny— M. Rappaport— F. W. Rowe— N. C. Marlatt— H. Arthur Morgan— P. Samuels— H. S. Doon— John Spielman, yes. E. Weintraub— Robert Rives La Monte— Wilbour M. Wolfe— B. Burgess— Mary Z. Breckon— Lorenz Kleinherz— Michael Tracey— Juile Mechanic— Joseph Clossy— Rosa Sullway— W. C. Critchlow— Emma F. Langdon, yes. Theodore Rickey J. Peuchert, as an individual, yes. Philip Veal—
DEL. VEAL: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates, I wish to state the position which the local holds that I represent. In that mine there are 400 miners working. There are seven locals in the United Mine Workers represented in this mine. The local I belong to sent me here. It is known as the radical local, the Edgmont local. Now, then, I know that I express the sentiments of those men, that they would come in as far as that local is concerned, but the moment that they would, these other men who are working there would go and scab on them. Hence I am not going to take the responsibility of saying that those men will come in, but as an individual I am going to take the responsibility myself, and will work; and I don’t propose to bore from within either; we are going to smash them from without. I want Mr. Wright, the delegate from Local 99, who works in the same mine, to state before this delegation the position that he is going to take when he returns back and reports before the local.
Roll call continued: Philip Voegtle— Evan Evans— J. Walker— John Green— Philip Veck— H. C. Perry— Tom Burke— W. Thopham— Duncan McDonald— W. D. Ryan— R. J. Robinson, yes. Ferd Shotak— J. Fox— Florence Basora— Joseph J. O’Brien— J. L. Fitts, yes. C. L. Spiegel, yes. L. L. Thompson— W. F. Davis, yes. H. M. Richter— Gust. Herwarth— J. W. Johnson, yes. Ben Frankford, yes. J. W. Saunders— Charles Schoeller— James Smith, yes. Pat O’Neil, yes. C. W. Sunagel—
DEL. SUNAGEL: In the position I am in I cannot install the organization I represent. They sent me to see the work done here. Probably if they think the constitution is all right they will go into the organization. If not they will not. Therefore I cannot vote.
THE SECRETARY: Individually how do you stand?
DEL. SUNAGEL: Individually I am in favor of the movement.
Roll call continued: R. M. Scutt, yes. C. F. Martin— W. E. Scoggan, yes. Evan J. Dillon, yes. R. Sullivan— James Murtaugh— J. C. Sullivan, individually yes. C. H. Becker— Joy Pollard— Frank W. McCormick, individually yes. W. F. Weber— Charles McKay, yes. A. Jorgensen—
DEL. JORGENSEN: As an individual yes, but as to my local I am somewhat in the same position as the individual from the Painters’ Local. Although I would like to say yes, I would install myself individually in the new organization, but in accordance with our instructions in our organization, and in accordance with the ideas that I was sent here with, I do not see that it would do any good for this organization to do anything for a month or two in that body. If I can go back to the organization and report the work of this new organization and its proceedings they will see for themselves, and we may try to start a club and work in the same way after as we started that local when we first started twenty years ago. I think it will be more beneficial to this organization if I remain silent after this. I can assure you that the impression that I have got from this organization, and also my colleague, Brother Thompson, is that the only thing for the trade unionists and any other men that toil on this earth for a living is to join a movement of this kind. (Applause). Trade unions, the fighting sort that they have in there, seem to be getting weak. That due book and due card seems to be getting so weak that it is all riddled full of bullet holes that have been shot in them whenever they have showed that card and made any demands. Another card fifty times as big as the card I carry in my pocket is the card of injunction that has been posted on all the wagons of industry, so it seems to me that we have got to have the ball opened and that weapon of the industrial union for our organizations. I must criticize a member or the members on this floor that will say that we don’t see that this organization will have more in its future for organized labor than the American Federation of Labor. I will say that the American Federation has only one good thing, and that is this, that Gompers is a doctor who gives the members of that organization a box of pills, and tells them to take one pill at a time. The cover on that box is put on so tight that they can’t get the cover off the box.
DEL. BRADLEY: A point of order.
DEL. JORGENSON: I am about through. The tighter the cover on the box, the longer the pills last.
DEL. BRADLEY: I object to his making a speech in explaining his vote.
DEL. JORGENSEN: Well, I am through.
Roll call continued: Pat O’Neil, yes. J. A. Ferguson— Thomas Schwartz— John Cren— Edward Payment— John Brown— Luella Twining, yes. Charles Hibbard— Edward Rody— Joseph Gilbert, yes. Ad. S. Comm, yes. W. F. Morrison—
DEL. MORRISON: I simply want to ask for information this: I am a member of the United Brotherhood of Railway Employes. Will it be necessary at this time for me to say “yes” as an individual delegate on the floor?
THE CHAIRMAN: It won’t do any harm.
DEL. MORRISON: Then I will say “yes.” The only reason was I did not want to go on and say “yes” for the organization:
Roll call continued: W. Tunningly— Bessie A. Hanan— Mrs. E. C. Cogswell, yes. Albert S. Cogswell, yes. C. C. Ross—
DEL. ROSS: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates, I only ask for a moment. Being heartily in accord with every line and every word of the Preamble of this organization, that is its platform, I feel satisfied that any man who analyzes it will never be called to task for the faithful performance of his duty as I heard our worthy chairman Comrade Haywood and fellow delegate Brother Sherman explain last night. As far as the constitution for governing the organization is concerned, I am willing to leave that to the wisdom of the Constitution Committee and to the members of this organization, in the belief that if in time to come it proves insufficient it will be amended; and accordingly I vote “yes.” While I have the floor I want to call the Secretary’s attention to the roll call on the constitution yesterday. He omitted my name and I was recorded as not voting, whereas I voted “yes.”
THE SECRETARY: I called the name right upon the roll call. It is the same roll call that I have got in my hand now.
Roll call continued: W. Harry Spears— E. Bosky— E. J. Morrow— J. L. Schatzke— J. W. Ryan— Michael Tracey— C. A. Payne—Joe Corna—
DEL. CORNA: I desire to state that I am placed in a very peculiar position, for the local that appointed me to represent them here did not give me power to install them. As far as joining this organization as an individual, I would be very glad to take part in it if social conditions would permit me to pay the dues in both organizations. That is something I cannot afford to do at the present time, for we have been working about twelve hours per week during the last three or four months. Consequently, I am willing to use my best judgment and devote my ability to propagate this new industrial movement, but at present I do not know whether it would be advisable for me to become a member or not.
THE SECRETARY: Not voting?
DEL. CORNA: No; I vote “no.”
Roll call continued: A. Wrink— A. M. Simons, yes. E. V. Debs, absent. Mother Jones, yes. W. E. Trautmann, yes. John O’Neil, absent. Carl Koechlin—
THE SECRETARY: He left a letter with me before he left empowering me individually to announce that he would become a member of this organization.
Roll call continued: W. Roscoe Parks, yes. E. D. Hammond—Marion Brown— R. D. Tobias— T. Kleinman— Lucy E. Parsons— Charles Frey, no. T. N. Ricke— W. V. Hardy— A. G. Ristol, yes. A. Kohn— Anton Andra, no. J. D. Mac— John Matthews—
DEL. S. J. FRENCH, NEW YORK, S. T. & L. A.: S. J. French, absent when called, asks to be recorded as present and ready to install. So recorded.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any delegate in the hall who has not heard his name announced?
DEL. WILKE: Have you got my name? I want to go on record as saying that I realize that by becoming a member of this organization I will be made the target of every political and labor fakir in the city of Milwaukee. I am prepared to stand their shocks and go against them on the lines as laid down in the Industrial Workers of the World. (Applause.)
DEL. SHURTLEFF: I would like to be recorded as voting “yes.”
DEL. JOHNSON: I want to be recorded as voting “yes.”
DEL. HOPKINS: I was not here when my name was called. I would like to be recorded as voting “yes”; Hopkins, of the U. B. R. E.
DEL. SAINER: Delegate Sainer of the Industrial Club, Chicago, “yes.”
DEL. BARTLETT: I also. I would like to state that the Industrial Workers’ Club, consisting of fifty-four members, have instructed us to put all the members on that list. I have the list ready and will send it to the Secretary.
DEL. G. M. YOUNG: I would like to be recorded as voting “yes,” from the Longshoremen, Detroit.
DEL. MILLER: I should like to he recorded as voting “yes.”
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any other delegate who has not heard his name called, or who came in after his name was called? Those delegates who came in after the installation will please rise to their feet; any of the delegates who came in late.
Delegates Sherman, Kirkpatrick and French rose.
THE CHAIRMAN: Brother Sherman and Brother Kirkpatrick. Any other delegate that has not been installed?
DEL. FRENCH: I had my name quietly recorded. I voted on my position. I did not know about the installation; I was out.
The individuals ready to install rose.
THE CHAIRMAN: Brothers, as Chairman of the Industrial Workers of the World, I hereby announce that you, as individuals and as representatives of your respective locals and internationals, are hereby duly installed as members and as parts of the Industrial Workers of the World. (Applause). The next order of business is the report of the Committee on Ways and Means.
DEL. DE LEON: Now, Mr. Chairman, I move you—
THE CHAIRMAN: Brother De Leon, the special order of business this morning is the election of officers.
DEL. DE LEON: All right, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: The next order of business is the election of officers. Nominations for President are in order.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: I nominate Albert Ryan, of the Western Federation of Miners, of Jerome, Arizona, as President. (Seconded by Pat O’Neil.)
DEL. DANIEL MCDONALD: I have in mind a member of this convention, and a friend of labor and brother of mine, that I desire to place before this convention. He is a man that requires no recommendation and no introduction from me; a man who has been associated with the labor movement for years; a man—
A DELEGATE: I desire to know whether the brother voted to install.
DEL. MCDONALD: What was the interruption?
THE CHAIRMAN: He asked whether you had voted, when your name was called, to install.
DEL. MCDONALD: I did not think I would be accused of that much impudence. I desire to place before you for the favorable consideration of this convention a man of determination; a man who, though modest, is a man of force and activity; a man that has been tried and stood the test; a man that has contributed as much if not more than any other single individual in this convention to the consummation of this organization; a man who, in my judgment, will contribute as much if not more, in the next year, to the success and growth and development and perpetuation of this organization than any other individual or combination of individuals could do; a man, I say, who is charitable, who is kind, who is tender, who is extremely modest. I desire to place this gentleman in the hands of this convention for your kind, serious and favorable consideration Mr. Charles H. Moyer, President of the Western Federation of Miners. (Applause.)
DEL. MOYER: I want to thank Delegate McDonald for the confidence he has expressed in me by nominating me as President of the movement which we have just installed. But I want to say to Brother McDonald that I fully appreciate the nomination, and without making a speech at this time and without going into details in regard to the reasons that I may give to this convention, I will say that it is absolutely impossible for me to accept the nomination. In declining the honor conferred I wish to place in nomination a delegate in this convention in whom I have the utmost confidence; a man who, I believe, if elected to lead this movement which has just been launched, will not be found wanting; a man who, I believe, is prepared at this time to go up against the American Federation of Labor and fight it to the finish that is going to be absolutely necessary; a man who I believe has been instrumental in drawing, more than any one other man, his organization away from the American Federation of Labor in order that they might be installed as a part of the Industrial Union; a man in whose hands I am willing to place my organization, the Western Federation of Miners as a part of this organization. I have the pleasure, and I believe I make no mistake, in placing before this convention the name of Charles O. Sherman as President.
DEL. GILLHAUS: I rise to second the nomination for the same reasons given by Brother Moyer.
DEL. GUY MILLER: Briefly I rise to voice my own preference. When one realizes that the battle is to be hard and bitter, one wants to know that the man who is to lead that movement will stand the hardest blows and be able to give as much as he receives. The man whom I name is one who has the power to do and the courage to dare in larger measure than any other man identified with the labor movement in America. I name that peerless Secretary-Treasurer of the Western Federation of Miners, William D. Haywood. (Applause.)
DEL. FERBER: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates, I rise not to make a nomination, but to second the nomination made by Guy E. Miller. I second the nomination of the man who has acted as our Chairman; a man whom I consider one of courage; a man whom I think and I trust the capitalists of this country and of the world will not point their fingers to with scorn, but a man who will not be afraid to go to the bull-pen if necessary.
MOTHER JONES: And lick the militia.
DEL. FERBER: Yes, and lick the militia. (Applause). I admired his speech last night when he said that if he were a Negro he would be worth $3,000, and I thought then that he was a priceless jewel for labor. That is the opinion that I have formed of him since we assembled here. I am not here for the purpose of throwing bouquets. I am not here for the purpose of having my little speech taken down by the stenographer. I am not here for the purpose of seeing my name in print. But I am here as my brother Wilke from Milwaukee said, to make a target of myself also for capitalism. Since I have been here in this convention I have lost my job. I make this declaration, as I made on the Fourth of July, that from this time on, so help me God in heaven, I shall make myself a target for capitalism, and I shall devote every life-blood drop for the upbuilding and the emancipation of labor. (Applause.)
DEL. GILBERT: I am not going to take up much time, neither am I going to make a nomination; but now that I have become a member of this organization, although I do not represent any body of workers, I do not consider it presumption on my part as an individual to say a few words. Probably some of you here to-day do not fully realize the work that we have done. Probably you do not fully realize what a tremendous fight we are going up against. I want to tell you, fellow delegates, that we are going up against the greatest thing that has ever been, as you are going to see the tragedy of the ages enacted if only we all do our duty. Therefore, on the threshold of that fight we have got to develop men in whom we all have absolute confidence. I am not going to say that to cast any reflection upon any others; only I will say this, that while there may be other men just as good as one who has been nominated here to-day, that we have got to judge a man by what he has done, and when we consider one of these men who have been placed in nomination here to-day, we know that he is made of material that will not flinch when the time comes requiring a stout heart. We also know that he possesses the utmost integrity of purpose. We also know that he possesses one of the qualities I firmly believe in, and that is idealism. And therefore this convention could not do a wiser thing than to make the election of William D. Haywood unanimous. (Applause.)
DEL. SIMONS: When we first heard of the Western Federation of Miners, we knew that the man who now occupies the chair and whose nomination I am going to second in a moment, possessed courage, possessed those characteristics that made him feared and hated as but one or two others, if any others in America, are feared and hated by those who are our enemies and the enemies of our class. I know personally, from the experience I have had with him in the conference and on the committee in this convention, that he is a man whose counsel is of value; a man who sees widely and clearly; we know him to be a man who has sat in this convention largely apart from the factions that may have arisen within it; and for all those reasons, plain, practical but strong reasons, I want to urge, as the gentleman who has just sat down, that we make his election unanimous.
DEL. HAYWOOD: Brothers and sisters, I realize the honor that has been conferred upon me by being placed before this convention as a candidate for the presidency of this organization; but it is impossible for me to accept the nomination. I have but recently left Salt Lake City, where the Western Federation of Miners held their thirteenth annual convention, and was there reelected as Secretary-Treasurer of the Western Federation of Miners. I was elected in good faith by the membership of that organization. I accepted the office in good faith. When you stop to consider the condition of other officers in other labor organizations that have been involved in trouble, and think what it means to the officers of that organization to have been reelected, you will understand where my duties lie at the present time. I want to stay there with the Western Federation of Miners to fill out the term for which I have been elected. In doing so I believe I can assist the Industrial Workers of the World. You can depend upon me at every turn in the road. You can crush me on the wheel, if you will; I will do everything I can to carry my part of the burden. But owing to the condition of my family making it impossible—or rather I do not desire to be away from home as much as an office of this kind would entail upon me. I cannot move my family to where the headquarters are likely to be located, and believing that that family is the first consideration, I must decline the nomination.
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: I decline the nomination; I was downstairs when I was nominated.
DEL. KLEMENSIC: I think we have men in this convention who are willing to do what is right, who have undoubtedly shown their ability in the labor movement and devoted their time to it. I would like to mention here for nomination Comrade Coates. He has been one of the staunch fighters for the last many years, and he would do as good as anybody. (Applause. Nomination seconded.)
A Delegate moved that the nominations be closed. No second.
A DELEGATE: I would like to ask, is Eugene V. Debs a member of this organization?
THE CHAIRMAN: Brother Debs not having been duly installed, it would occur to the Chair that he is not at this time regularly installed.
DEL. BARTLETT: I would like to place in nomination Daniel De Leon, of New York.
DEL. DE LEON: I decline. I beg to request the convention to drop my name. I have other work to do for which I am better fitted than to be the head of an organization of this nature. I decline.
THE CHAIRMAN: Charles O. Sherman and David C. Coates are nominees. If there is no further nomination—
DEL. COATES: I want to kindly thank Delegate Klemensic for this nomination, but I wish to say that I absolutely and positively decline to be a candidate before this convention for any position, President or in any other official capacity in this organization at the present time.
DEL. ROSS: I now move that the nominations be closed, and there remaining but one nomination, that of Delegate Sherman, that this convention make his nomination unanimous. (Motion seconded by Delegate T. J. Hagerty.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the nominations be closed and that Delegate Sherman be declared the unanimous choice of this convention for President. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for.)
DEL. DE LEON: By a rising vote.
THE CHAIRMAN: Those in favor of the motion will please rise to their feet. (The entire convention arose). Those opposed. The Secretary will cast the ballot of the convention for Delegate Sherman.
THE SECRETARY: Charles O. Sherman elected by unanimous vote President of the Industrial Workers of the World.
(Applause and calls for Sherman.)
DEL. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, Brothers and Sisters: As I never was placed in a position of this kind before, it is difficult for me to find words fitting for the occasion. I believe that this is the first time in my life that I have been untrue to myself. For the past six months I had resolved within myself and announced to my friends and the world that I was serving my last official term for labor, and I will assure you that the position that I am placed in makes it so embarrassing that it is hard to find words fitting for the occasion under those circumstances, and had it not been for the many warm friends that I have had a great many years in this movement and those that I have made in this convention; had it not been for them bringing the pressure to bear upon me that they did, I should certainly have declined this most honorable election. I feel that I have been honored with the greatest trust that any man was ever honored with in years (applause), because I feel that no man was ever offered an executive office or any position where the principles were involved that are involved in the Industrial Workers of the World. I feel that it was the greatest honor that could be bestowed upon any man when the Western Federation of Miners laid their vote at my feet, realizing as I did the vast material that they have got in their organization that I feel is superior to myself for a position of this kind; realizing the great education that they have had, and when they absolutely refuted to furnish a candidate and laid the force and the vote of that organization at my feet, I felt that it was the greatest honor that could be bestowed upon me. I trust, sisters and brothers, that you will realize as keenly as I do the responsibility that you have put upon me. As Mother Jones remarked, we are up against the real thing. But I feel that if I get the same cooperation of the sisters and brothers that there has been in this convention, if they give the same cooperation to the administration of this organization that they have to this convention, there will at the next convention be plenty of candidates for the executive head of this organization. (Applause). Because I feel that with the assistance of those who are joining this organization at the present time and those that will join between now and the next convention, we are going to have an industrial organization second to none in the world. I realize too keenly that there will not be one moment of quietude, there will not be one moment but what there will be a contest or fight on somewhere, but I will say to you, brothers, that as long as there is one drop of blood left in my body, if my constituents will stand by me they will find me on the battle line supporting the banner. (Applause). If we do not succeed, it will not be because we will recede from the position, but because we will be crushed. We will succeed or they must kill us. (Applause). The watchword must be, “There is no defeat. We must and will win.” (Applause). I hope and trust, as I said before, that every sister and brother, whether he or she may be close to the President of this organization or in other parts, that they will remember their obligation to the organization, that they will constitute themselves an organization, and if they do I am confident that we will win. As President of your organization I feel that it is my duty to carry out the laws of the constitution that you have adopted in this convention. I will exercise my right as given to me in those laws, and try to administer those laws and rules in a way that will be satisfactory to all who have endorsed this constitution. It will be the height of my ambition to see our organization grow, and our treasury, so that we can at as early a date as possible institute an educational bureau whereby we can reach with literature those who need education, and enlighten them on this work and upon the principles of industrial unionism based upon the class struggle. I will feel that it is my duty to look after all these things that we have pledged ourselves to do in the way of resolutions and in the way of the constitution, and do such other work as I believe will be the making of the organization. Now, I say, sisters and brothers, that I am opposed to having any office, whether it be the industrial or a political organization. I feel that I am now only your hired man and your servant, and I will try to conduct myself in that way; and I say to you that it is not the time to receive any applause or brass bands, but wait till my office has expired, and then if my work shows that it is worthy of a brass band or applause, then it is up to you to say whether I receive them or not. (Applause). If I deliver the goods along with the constituents and the membership, then we will join hands and feel that we unitedly are entitled to praise. I thank you most sincerely. (Applause.)
President Sherman was then called before Chairman Haywood, to be installed.
CHAIRMAN HAYWOOD: President Sherman, the Ritual Committee, have prepared a pledge. “You have been selected by the members of this organization to assume the responsibilities of office. The place of difficulty and danger is the post of honor. It is neither to be sought nor shunned. All that the world has gained is the gift of the toilers. They stand with empty hands, but they are coming to claim their own. It is your duty to carry out the policies that will best defend their interests. Your devotion and courage will hasten the day when those who have known only toil and gloom shall enjoy the sunshine and the beauty of the world. Let neither praise nor slander take you from the path of duty. The measure of your service will be the measure of our love. Guard well the interests confided to your care.”
President Sherman then assumed the duties of President, amid applause.
PRESIDENT SHERMAN: Sisters and Brothers, I subscribe to the charge in full, and will, to the very best of my ability, carry them out to the letter. I would like to say, however, that a remark was made here on the floor of this convention that the American Federation of Labor was going to be one of our opponents. My position would be this: that in any open fight or battle or battles that they wish to challenge us to, if they will come in the open and discuss the proposition we are willing to leave the decision to the rank and file. (Applause). I believe the next order of business will be the nomination and election of a General Secretary-Treasurer.
DEL. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I desire to place in nomination for this responsible office a man whom I know personally, and whom the world knows to have made a great personal sacrifice for the industrial union movement at a time when he had no encouragement to do so; a man who has asked for nothing; a man who has taken upon himself the work of furthering this movement without any idea of personal gain. I am satisfied that when I mention the name of the person whom I wish to place in nomination there is not a person in the United States who has kept himself familiar with the labor movement but will say with me that he stands almost peerless in the way of a personal sacrifice to the interests of the working people, and that man is William E. Trautmann, of Cincinnati. (Applause.)
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: In seconding the nomination of William E. Trautmann I would say that from the time of the issuance of this Manifesto the entire power of the machinery of the American Federation of Labor was brought to bear upon William Ernest Trautmann; that his organization, the United Brewery Workers, although voting overwhelmingly to retain him in his position as the editor of the “Brauer Zeitung,” was itself cheated out of the services of Brother Trautmann by the casting of fraudulent ballots against him; that as editor of the “Brauer Zeitung” he was in the fore front of the radical labor movement of the world, and by reason of his intimate familiarity with the labor movement not only of America, but of all continental Europe, by reason of his personal relations with the secretary of the International Labor Bureau at Berlin, of his personal relations with Emilio Pauget of France, of his personal relations with the labor movement of Italy, of Denmark and of Germany, he is known not only in this country as a man absolutely familiar with the revolutionary economic spirit of the world-wide working class, but his name is not unknown in foreign lands, where he is recognized as standing by the principles of the Industrial Workers of the World. And I move you, if it is not out of order, in seconding this nomination, that his election be made by acclamation of this entire congress here. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: I will rule that at this time the motion would be out of order. Any other nominations?
DEL. MORRISON: In view of what has been said I rise to second the nomination that is now before this body. In the labors that have been performed by our worthy brother, W. E. Trautmann, I desire to say this: To my mind, the power and the integrity and the wisdom that he has displayed in his everyday life and in his connection with this movement from its incipiency do not in any degree reveal to me the character of a weak stream which searches out some little channel in which to wind its fickle and sickly course. And again, my brothers, they do not remind me of the headlong torrent which carries havoc in its mad career. But his every act and his ability resemble, to me, the mighty ocean which this organization must manifest to the world; an unceasing power, ever restless upon its bed, heaving the mighty waters to the shore. And, my brothers and sisters, he to-day represents that particular emblem of majestic power. And as a mighty ocean, this man and this movement identified together will prove their power and their efficiency by their common action. I believe W. E. Trautmann represents to this organization the individual who should administer the affairs of this office and to the best interests of this organization. (Applause.)
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: I have known Brother Trautmann since last September only, but since last January I have been intimately associated with him in the work of the Executive Committee that has prepared for this convention. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that in my opinion there are two requirements for an official position in this organization. One of them, which is the less of the two in my opinion, is perfect familiarity with the work with which he has to contend or meet, and the other, which is the most important of all, is the willingness to meet any test to which he may be put. I believe that the members of this organization, particularly the members of the Executive Board and its officers, are going to be placed in a position where, if they perform their work properly, they will be the target, not for the American Federation, as has been referred to on this floor, so much as the target for the capitalist class. And I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that in my judgment the fight of the capitalist class in Colorado against the Western Federation of Miners will, by the side of this that we are approaching, be the mere skirmish, and this is to be the battle. I believe that when men are to place particularly their lives in the hands of other men, we should have men who can be absolutely trusted with the lives of those men with whom they are associated. I do not know any other man with whom I would care to place my life if I were to be associated with this movement, than William E. Trautmann, the man who has been nominated. (Applause). I move you that the nominations now be closed and that the President cast the ballot of this association for William E. Trautmann as the unanimous choice of this organization for Secretary-Treasurer of the Industrial Workers of the World. (Seconded.)
DEL. POWERS: I rise to second the motion; and I will say on the nomination of Brother Trautmann, that the people I represent here are familiar with the name of Comrade Trautmann. We know that he is one of the pioneers of this movement. We know also of the great sacrifices he has made, and I know also of the work that he has done in this convention, and the hardly comprehensible amount of work which he has done in the launching of this organization. It is hardly conceivable to me how a man could go through all the work which he has gone through since this movement took its initiative step. I think, also, comrades, that when the workingmen of America have an opportunity to see the typical workingman represented by Comrade Trautmann, and to know by his speech and by his actions that he is the real everyday workingman, the man who has got the education necessary as a worker and all that sort of thing they will feel that the work of this organization is in the hands of the right man. Now, comrades, I do not feel equal to the emergency; I do not feel equal to the task of giving Comrade Trautmann the credit which properly belongs to him, but I heartily endorse on behalf of the Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance and heartily second the motion of the comrade to close the nominations and make the election of Comrade Trautmann unanimous. (Applause.)
DEL. FERBER: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates, I am not rising to place in nomination a new candidate, but I am simply here for the purpose of giving my second to the nomination already made. This is not because I agree with him politically and that I am affiliated in the same craft, but it is because we meet on the same economic field; that is why I second the nomination.
DEL. HAYWOOD: Mr. Chairman and Delegates: Considerable stress has been laid on the fact that some of the nominees that have been mentioned have received the support of the Western Federation of Miners. I take this opportunity of seconding the nomination of Brother Trautmann, and assuring him, believing that I voice the sentiments of the representatives of the Western Federation of Miners, of our entire support. We will render every assistance to himself and the President in carrying out the work of this organization, and we will expect him to give us full returns. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the nominations now close and that we make Brother Trautmann’s election unanimous. Those that are in favor of the motion will signify the same by rising to their feet. (The entire convention rose, amid applause). I will instruct the Assistant Secretary to cast one ballot for Brother Trautmann.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY LANGDON: I hereby cast my ballot as the unanimous choice of this organization as Secretary-Treasurer for W. E. Trautmann.
(Calls for Secretary Trautmann.)
SECRETARY TRAUTMANN: My comrades, in the early days of my life, confronted by the conditions of being raised from the slums of this proletarians of the world, I have known the class conflict on all its sides in every part of the world, and I was made by cruel conditions a slave, but a class conscious slave of the working class. In Russia, when the first lashings were administered to me in the same city where to-day the revolution arises, from that day I have become, not by the mere study of the works of the economists, not by a study of the conditions as they are shown in the books, but by the cruel, barbarous conditions under which my class has been evolved, I have become a class conscious wage worker and a wage slave. (Applause). Driven from one part of the world to another: born in a country which is considered to be free, in New Zealand; my father himself being a miner and crushed to death in the mines; from that day on my family was separated and I became a victim of the present system, and as a victim I became a warrior against the conditions that have made me a victim. (Applause). I came to this country, where my father was a citizen until he was forced to emigrate to New Zealand. When I entered upon the shores of this country, I found the same conditions prevailing as I found over in Russia, in Germany, in all the countries of the world wherever I had a chance to travel as a wage earner. I was a member of the United Brewery Workers, an organization of which I am proud because the rank and file are in it. When a member of that organization that to-day stands foremost in all the battles of the wage earners of this country, I went through all the struggles with them and have seen defeats and have seen victories. And today, I say as a United Brewery Worker that I know the rank and file will pretty soon be ready to become a part of the Industrial Workers of the World. There were days in this country when we had to work sixteen and eighteen hours a day. I saw the progress that that organization made under the leadership of progressive men in those early days, and I saw how this organization was later on, through the instrumentals of the capitalist class, made an auxiliary of the capitalist system of society, not by the fault of the rank and file themselves, but by their ignorance to observe and their having too much confidence in leadership. (Applause.) I have seen in this country, in the strikes and lock-outs, the spirit of the men and women crushed. I have seen them stand on the picket line. I have seen them when they were making their masterly fight against the capitalist class, and I have seen the labor lieutenants of the capitalist class crush the spirit of the men in those days, with the assistance of a man who to-day is paraded as a leader of labor, and I swore to myself that the fight we have to make is against the capitalist system as well as against those who are becoming and have been made the agents of the capitalist class. The aim of this organization will be to fight against the capitalist class with all its emissaries, and the cooperation of every man and woman in this land is necessary in order to make the battle successful. In accepting this office in the Industrial Workers of the World I realize the confidence that the representatives of the working class of this country have placed in me. I realize also that the storm and the fight will begin from this day on. Through all my life I have tried to be on the right side, although I was always in the minority, but it is not a shame or a disgrace to stand with the minority, because a time will come when the minority will be the majority. (Applause). The industrial organization of the working class is going to be the strongest of the class conscious toilers of this land; and when the message goes before the toilers, when they realize what has been done at this convention, when they realize that within them will lie the power of this organization in the referendum vote, when they know that this organization is going to spread, the men will become class conscious and will take up their place as members of this organization, knowing that we are building a structure that will be lasting and will not fall to pieces as other organizations have done. We know that the foundation of this organization is right; it is correct, and we are bound to build up upon this foundation a structure whose foundation is individual integrity, and while we have to go through all these fights and the everyday struggle, we know that our goal will be reached, and will be reached by the cooperation of those who are longing for a better form of society. I look to see the day when the working class will be their own masters, and not the slaves of a master class; and with that object clear before my eyes I pledge to this organization of the working class, not to the representatives at this convention only, but to the entire working class, the devoting of my energies to the interests of the victims of the capitalist system of society, of which I have been one. I thank you. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Brother Haywood, will you please take the Chair?
DEL. HAYWOOD: Have you got tired already?
THE PRESIDENT: I was tired before I came here.
(Delegate Haywood took the Chair.)
CHAIRMAN HAYWOOD: There are two members at large of the Executive Board to be elected. Nominations will now be in order.
DEL. COATES: As I understand the recommendation of Committee on Constitution on this matter, it provided that the convention elect five members of the Executive Board, and not two. It seems to me that we should pursue the course laid down by the committee; that is, select one of them from the Western Federation of Miners, one from the U. B. R. E., and one from the United Metal Workers, and then two at large. I believe that was the line laid down in the recommendation, and I think that we ought to follow that.
THE CHAIRMAN: I followed the instructions of the President.
DEL. COATES: Oh, you did?
THE CHAIRMAN: This recommendation reads: “Your Committee on Constitution recommends that this convention elect a Provisional Executive Board of seven to conduct the affairs of the organization until its progress at the next national convention. The said Provisional Board shall consist of the General President, the General Secretary-Treasurer, and five other members; two of these to be elected at large, one from the United Metal Workers and one from the United Brotherhood of Railway Employes. When the W. F. M., the U. B. R. E., and the United Metal Workers elect their members on the General Executive Board, the provisional delegates from their respective organizations shall withdraw.”
DEL. COATES: Then I am simply mistaken. The two general officers then come first.
THE CHAIRMAN: The two general officers have been disposed of.
DEL. COATES: The two at large come first. Your apology is accepted, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Nominations for delegates at large are in order.
DEL. MORRISON: I would nominate as Delegate at Large Brother Pat O’Neil of Arkansas.
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: I was going to do the same thing. I want to second the nomination of Pat O’Neil.
DEL. WILKE: I want to place in nomination before this convention as a member of that executive committee one who is conversant with the class movement of this country; who has participated in its strifes and struggles; who I think is duly qualified for the position. That man is the textile worker of Providence, R. I., Thomas Powers. (Applause.)
DEL. WHITE: I desire at this time to place in nomination a brother who is well known in the northwest and Chicago, and especially Canada; Brother John Riordan of Phenix, British Columbia.
DEL. BAKER: I rise to lend my voice in seconding the nomination of Brother Riordan. I want to say that during the entire period of my official connection with the Western Federation of Miners I have had the pleasure of being in intimate and close association with Brother Riordan, and I have always found him what I believe an organization desires in an executive officer.
DEL. COATES: As I understand it now, we are to elect two on the same ballot?
THE CHAIRMAN: At this time.
DEL. COATES: Yes, we are to select two at once?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
DEL. COATES: Well, Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates, I have no desire to waste the time of this convention in oratory as to the qualifications of the candidate whom I wish to name. I only want to say that he is well known in a heart of the jurisdiction of this organization that will bring, I think immediately, its greatest strength if it is properly and early looked after; a man who is well known there for his work in organization. I wish to place before the convention the nomination of F. W. Cronin of Butte, Montana. (Applause.)
DEL. BARTLETT: I would like to place in nomination a brother who knows a good deal about the form of organization that we have established, and I think he belongs there on the executive committee. I place in nomination Thomas J. Hagerty.
DEL. HAGERTY: I decline.
DEL. DE LEON: I rise to second two of the nominations, without disparagement to the others. The spirit of the resolution under which we are working provides for a temporary representation on the Executive Board by the organizations that have come instructed to affiliate with this body. Of these organizations three are already industrial organizations; they are the Western Federation of Miners, the Brother of Railway Employes, and the Metal Workers. The three are recognized by the resolution and allowed to choose their representatives, so we are bound to have representatives from them. But there are two other organizations that will be ripped up after this convention adjourns, and both of them have come with instructions to affiliate. These two organizations are the A. L. U. and the S. T. & L. A. Now, in obedience to what I consider to be the spirit of the resolution under which we are working, I rise to second the nomination of Delegate Riordan of the A. L. U., and Delegate Powers of the S. T. & L. A. (Applause.)
DEL. FERBER: I rise to second the nominations of the two delegates who have already been placed in nomination, and I think both have been seconded; they were the delegate from Arkansas who has introduced the Arkansas hog, and I also wish to introduce the little fat pig from Rhode Island, Delegate Powers. (Laughter.)
DEL. GILBERT: It seems to me an effort should be made to have an element represented that will not be represented by the other three. I am not going to say a word against those who have been nominated. I know some of them, and I am fully certain that they possess all the necessary qualifications, but for the sake of having a broader representation I desire to place in nomination an individual here who is very well known and who has had the courage to ally himself with this organization in spite of the fact that he occupies to-day an official position with the American Federation of Labor; a man who is well known by the masses; a man who has done considerable work for them in our mining states. That man is Charles L. Spiegel of the Utah State Federation of Labor. (Applause.)
DEL. MORRISON: I move you that the nominations be closed. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved that the nominations now close. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). Those in favor will signify it by saying aye; contrary no. The nominations are closed. I will appoint as tellers Brother White, Brother Ross and Brother Klemensic.
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: I would like to ask what arrangements have been made for casting our ballots.
THE CHAIRMAN: There has been no provision made.
DEL. RYAN: I think there ought to be something done in the matter before, we go any further, to avoid any possible confusion.
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: Mr. Chairman, if I understand the resolution of the Constitution Committee, these members of the Board are to be voted upon by those delegates who do not represent the organizations that have already selected their representatives, or are they to be voted on by all of the delegates?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Smith, the spirit of the resolution of this organization clearly sets forth that the administration shall rest in its entire membership. Every Board member or officer elected on the floor of this convention will be elected by the entire convention.
DEL. SMITH: It is not an argument on my part as to how they should be elected, but simply a question of information. I had understood the resolutions to say that the other delegations should withdraw pending the selection. I simply wanted to be put right in the matter, that is all.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not so understand it. (The Chairman again read the provisions.)
DEL. DE LEON: As I understand the motion as to the method of voting, I perceive that there is going to be some difficulty here. I move you that the Secretary call the roll, and that the delegates as their names are mentioned state their preferences, and in that way we will ascertain where the majority lies. Then the tellers can count them if they like. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded that in the election of officers the Secretary will call the roll, and the delegates will announce their choice, and the tellers will so record it.
DEL. DE LEON: The number of votes.
DEL. COATES: I wish to make an amendment to the motion, that the election be by ballot; that the Secretary will call out each delegate’s name with the number of votes, and that he writes the number of his votes on one side of a piece of paper and his choice on the other side, and as he deposits the ballot in the hat he shall show the tellers the number of votes that he casts, so that every one just casts his own vote. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded as an amendment that the election shall be by ballot; that the Secretary shall call the roll, the delegate will write the name of his choice on one side of a slip of paper and the number of votes on the other, and that he shall show the tellers the number of votes when he deposits the ballot.
DEL. WILKE: I rise to speak against the amendment. I contend that in so far as no ruling has been taken on any vote taken for the election of officers, and in so far as this amendment is virtually a roll call with a subterfuge to dodge the record, I hope this amendment will not prevail.
DEL. DE LEON: I oppose the amendment for the reason that it will create confusion. Take for instance our own delegates. We have been instructed to give the vote of our organization. We have twelve ballots. Now then, if I cast a ballot I would not know what share of the votes I would be casting. We have been doing that during this convention, and this is a late hour to establish a different method. We have during this convention been voting the delegation as a unit. Now, by what process except one that will keep us here all day almost—by what process are we every time to find out who are the delegates present, and how many happen to be absent, and in that way allot the vote of our organization? I imagine that the same thing will happen with some other organization. I fail to see what is accomplished by putting the thing in shape of a ballot. If the Secretary calls the roll as he has done hitherto, every time a man’s name is mentioned you know the vote he is casting, and they can mention their candidates, getting up as they are called up. The ballot system will confuse the matter, and besides confusing it it will make it a long-drawn process.
DEL. COATES: Mr. Chairman, the only purpose I had in making my motion was this: that this convention in the election of the two officers that it has elected has followed absolutely the system of balloting. Each of the officers that have been elected have been elected on motions that an officer of this convention cast the ballot of this convention. Practically I have never been in an organization that elected its officers any other way than by ballot. Now, in answer to the argument of the last speaker—or not exactly in answer to the argument, but my position on the vote is this, that if any group here desires to vote its unanimous vote for any candidates it can so agree among itself, and one of that group can cast its entire vote for the candidates it decides on; as the S. T. & L. A. delegate gets up to cast his vote the Secretary will simply announce that the S. T. & L. A. casts 1,400 votes, or whatever the number is, and the delegate will simply show to the tellers that he is casting that number of votes, so there cannot be any confusion about the thing. They are entitled to their delegation vote, and they can cast it either separately or all together as they please.
The question was put by the Chairman. Before the result was announced Delegate Coates called for a division. A rising vote was taken, resulting: yes, 37; no, 30. So the amendment was carried.
The Chairman announced the candidates as Pat O’Neil, Thomas Powers, John Riordan, Frank W. Cronin and Charles L. Spiegel. The delegates then deposited their votes in the manner provided for in the amendment.
Delegate Miller was called to the chair to preside in place of Delegate Haywood.
DEL. DINGER: If it will be in order, I move you that we continue in session till we get through. I do not think there is much business before the house, and I think we can get through before adjournment. (Seconded.)
DEL. LANGDON: Mr. Chairman, as there are resolutions to come before the house to be reported on, I object to that.
The motion was put and carried.
DEL. HELD: As the convention this morning has given power to the Committee on Arrangements for the Ratification Meeting to take up another collection in order to cover the deficit, I would like to have you announce from the Chair that we shall take up the collection at the present time.
THE CHAIRMAN: That will not be in order till after this vote is taken.
DEL. PAT O’NEIL: To expedite matters, while they are counting the vote I have a resolution. May I read it?
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think it would be in order, comrade.
DEL. O’NEIL: All right.
THE CHAIRMAN: The convention will listen to the report of the tellers.
The result of the ballot was announced by Delegate White, as follows:
Pat O’Neil: 8,278
John Riordan: 40,446
F. W. Cronin: 33,554
Thomas J. Powers: 7,189
C. L. Spiegel: 401
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegates Riordan and Cronin having received the highest number of votes, or a majority of all the votes cast for members of the Provisional Executive Council, I declare them elected.
DEL. PAT O’NEIL: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see the vote cast as it was. Those men come from the two organizations that have made this industrial organization possible. I thank the delegates for the complimentary vote that was given me, who came here empty-handed and alone. I can follow the work I do now. I came here recognizing that the men who came here with organizations behind them were the bone and sinew of this movement, and I heartily congratulate those two men on their election, and if I am not out of order I would like to make a motion that the election of these two men be made unanimous. (Seconded.)
The motion was put and carried.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, the next thing in order will be the selection of members of the Executive Board by the delegations of the Western Federation of Miners, the United Metal Workers and the United Brotherhood of Railway Employes.
DEL. WHITE: I want to say, as chairman of the delegation, that the United Brotherhood of Railway Employes yesterday afternoon in session elected Brother Frank McCabe as their choice on the Executive Board.
DEL. DINER: I move you that Brother Frank McCabe be the choice of this convention on that committee. (Seconded.)
The motion was put and carried, and Delegate McCabe’s selection declared ratified by the convention.
DEL. SHERMAN: As a representative of the United Metal Workers I desire to place before this delegation the name of Charles Kirkpatrick, of the United Metal Workers, as their representative on the Executive Board.
DEL. HOPKINS: I move you that the recommendation of the United Metal Workers be concurred in by this convention, and that Brother Kirkpatrick be the unanimous choice of this convention to represent the United Metal Workers on the Executive Board. (Seconded.)
The Chairman put the motion and it was carried, and the selection of Delegate Kirkpatrick was declared ratified by the convention.
DEL. BAKER: On behalf of the Western Federation of Miners I wish to say that the unanimous choice of our delegates is our worthy President, Charles H. Moyer.
DEL. PAT O’NEIL: I move you that he be the unanimous choice of this convention also. (Seconded.)
The motion was put and carried, and Delegate Moyer’s selection declared ratified by the convention.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: The Committee on Constitution desires to get through with its work and be discharged by this convention.
DEL. WHITE: I move that we proceed with the installation of those officers.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is necessary to put the motion. The next thing in order will be the installation of the officers. It seems to me that the platform here is the proper place for the members of the Executive Board, the Secretary-Treasurer and the President of the organization as well. In the installation this morning the Chairman overlooked the obligation.
The officers and members of the Executive Board proceeded to the platform and arranged themselves before the Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN (addressing the candidates): You have been selected by the members of this organization to bear the responsibilities of office. The post of difficulty and duty is the post of honor. It is neither to be sought nor shunned. All that the world has gained is the gift of the toilers. They stand with empty hands, but they are coming to claim their own. It is your duty to carry out the policies that will best defend their interests. Your devotion and courage will hasten the day when those who have known only toil and gloom shall enjoy the sunshine and beauty of the world. Let neither praise nor slander take you from the path of duty. The measure of your service will be the measure of our love. You will now raise your right hand and repeat after me:
“I. . . . . promise to fulfill the duties of my office to the best of my ability. I promise to deliver all books, papers, money or other property entrusted to my care to my successor in office or faithfully account for the same. I shall obey the constitution of the Industrial Workers of the World, in letter and spirit. I further promise to use all my efforts to secure unity of action among the workers, on both the political and economic field, and never by any act of mine create dissension in the councils or division in the ranks of the workers. To all of which I pledge my sacred honor.”
The obligation was taken by all the officers.
THE CHAIRMAN: The officers and members of the Executive Board of the Industrial Workers of the World are duly installed. (Applause).
DEL. HELD: Are we under the head of unfinished business yet?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the next thing in the regular order is the selection of the meeting place.
Here Delegate Miller retired and President Sherman took the chair.
DEL. HALL: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that the business of selecting the headquarters of this organization is now under consideration?
THE PRESIDENT: I did not understand that there was a committee appointed to select headquarters. I understood it was to be left to the convention.
DEL. HALL: Then is that the matter before the convention now?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DEL. HALL: Well, I am going to make a suggestion. I am going to nominate a place for the headquarters of this organization. I do not care to occupy too much of your time, but I would like to go just a little into details in order to show you why I am making this selection. Now, the natural conclusion of a person is that the headquarters of an organization of this kind should be at the industrial center of the United States, but I do not agree with that opinion. It occurs to me that it should be closely situated to the industrial center of the United States, but I believe that to establish it directly within the industrial center of the United States has a bad effect upon the organization itself. I have been at a number of points and cities where the headquarters of the different organizations have been, and I have always found that it has a baneful influence upon the organized labor of that particular point. You take the cities of the United States where the headquarters of any organization that is well known is located, and you will find that the laboring people are not organized in that place. I would cite to you Indianapolis, one of the headquarters cities of the United States, and I venture to say that it is one of the least organized cities in the United States to-day; and I believe that if you will look over the ground you will find that that applies in every city where there is a headquarters of an organization that really amounts to anything. Now, I do not attempt to say why this is, but I believe it is due to the fact that too much dependence is placed upon the general headquarters by the membership of the organization when they are immediately in contact with it. Now, we want for a headquarters a place where offices can be equipped and maintained cheaply; a place where printing can be done cheaply, and a place where we have easy connections with the industrial centers of the United States. Now, I am going to suggest the town of Joliet, Illinois, as the headquarters of the industrial union movement, for this reason: We have several railways connecting with Joliet; we have a number of electric lines connecting with Joliet; and I venture to say that all the printing that is done for the organization will probably be done in Joliet because it can be done cheaper and be done better; and then the office rent in a city like Joliet is much lower than any place else, and that is going to be a considerable item for an organization in locating itself. Joliet is a well-advertised city. There isn’t anybody in the United States but what knows of Joliet, and it has easy access from all parts of the United States, just as much so as Chicago. And then if there is any baneful influence coming from the headquarters of the organization, for instance, taking the board of directors that was just initiated into this organization, I have never seen any place better guarded if we wanted to seclude those men as much as possible from public gaze. Therefore I suggest Joliet, Illinois, as the headquarters. (Applause).
DEL. BRADLEY: I am not much in favor Joliet. You know what they have got there. I think Joliet is a very safe place for the headquarters of the Industrial Workers of the World, but I don’t see that that is any reason why we should go there. I have in mind a little town nearly as big as Joliet, but it will probably be more serviceable for the purposes of the Industrial Workers of the World, and that town is Chicago. (Applause).
DEL. FERBER: I want to nominate a town which has been placed upon the map several times—Milwaukee.
DEL. COATES: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a motion that the selection of headquarters of this organization be left with the Executive Board of this organization. Now, I do this at this time for this reason: We all more or less have had experience in the labor movement. We realize that from now on the struggle will become more and more intense. We, realize that this organization is going to grow and be powerful; that it is going to be surrounded by every condition that opposition can bring. Now, personally I am opposed to the headquarters being in a large industrial center or a large town, for this reason, that you are surrounded on every hand by all kinds of spies and detectives, and it is almost impossible for the headquarters to protect itself against them. In large towns you will find them by the hundreds. I think any small place contiguous and accessible to a big town is preferable for the headquarters; I think that there the headquarters can guard itself absolutely against the outside, and I want the Board to take these things into consideration, and that is the reason I make the motion that the selection of the headquarters be referred to the Board.
DEL. J. C. SULLIVAN: I will willingly second the motion of Delegate Coates that the selection of a city wherein the headquarters of the Industrial Workers of the World are to be located for the ensuing year be left to the Executive Board. I have confidence in the Executive Board selected by this convention. I believe that they will be guided by reason, and that they will select such a place as the conditions under which we are to continue the struggle for the emancipation of mankind shall make most appropriate and most convenient for conducting our affairs. While I am an insignificant factor in this convention, I again second the motion of Delegate Coates that the selection of the headquarters, of the city or place within which the headquarters of the organization shall be left with the Executive Board.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I am in favor of Chicago, and I will tell you why. A remark was made by Delegate Coates that the capitalists will have their spies about us in a large industrial center. But if you take the headquarters to Quincy or some other small town, do you suppose the capitalists would not keep spies on you all the time? Is it the purpose of this organization to evade the eyes of capitalist spies? We have nothing to hide from them. We state our purpose in the Manifesto. Our purpose is ostensibly to take control of the means of life. That is what we are working for. Chicago is the proper place. It is the place where all can come. Read French history and you will find that Paris is always the center of the revolutionary spirit. We want Chicago as the headquarters because it is going to be the center of the economic revolution. If we place the headquarters at Joliet we will have to come to Chicago first, any way. Chicago is centrally located. It is the center of two million people. It is the industrial center of the United States. Delegate Coates said—maybe I am a little out of order—the gentleman said that if there was any opposition to this organization that it would not last another year. He goes on and says it is going to grow.
DEL. COATES: I did not say any such thing.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I beg your pardon. You said it might last another year, and I will leave it to the delegates.
DEL. COATES: I didn’t say any such thing.
DEL. SAUNDERS: That was your argument. I will leave it to the delegates.
THE PRESIDENT: The selection of a location for headquarters is the business before the convention, and two towns have been placed in nomination. If I understand the proposition right, any delegate has a right to place in nomination any town that in his judgment would be a proper location.
DEL. MORRISON: A point of order. Isn’t there a proposition before the house, and a second?
THE PRESIDENT: I rule the motion out of order.
DEL. WILKE: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that at this time we should dump everything onto the incoming Executive Board. I believe the time has come for decisive action. We know what we want and we know how we want it. I do not believe in making motions to refer everything to the incoming Executive Board. Their load will be heavy enough before they get through with their labors, without encumbering them, with the insignificant proposition of selecting headquarters. It is immaterial to me where the headquarters are situated. What concerns me most is the action of the men that will constitute the Executive Board at that headquarters; that is the vital point, and I hope a decision will soon be reached.
DEL. PAT O’NEIL: Mr. Chairman, I have just a suggestion to make, and that is this: The men elected on that National Executive Board come from the west and northwest, with the exception of two. The great bulk of this organization lies in the west and northwest, and at the present time and for the next year the headquarters of this organization should be near the body behind it. That is the only idea that I have got about this thing, and I would suggest that for the first year at least the headquarters of this organization be somewhere further west, four or five or six or seven or eight hundred miles west of here where the body of its strength is.
DEL. GILBERT: I was going to suggest a point very similar to what Del. Pat O’Neil has, for this reason: There is no doubt at all in my mind but what this organization, if it is to be successful, must be in touch with the people where it wants to do something, and that will be west of Chicago unquestionably. But while we are discussing the idea of the place I wish to offer a suggestion that might be adopted later on, and that is that after you have got a strong influence built up for the organization there is only one place, in my estimation, that should be considered for the permanent headquarters, and that is the place that we expect to capture in a little while, Washington, D. C. We ought to get right there under the shadow of the capitol. (Applause). Don’t be sentimental about this. There is something more than sentiment attached to it. There we are not at a seat of industry. All of you men who have had a great deal of experience know that it is a good thing that we are away from the conflict. You want to be away from that, and you also want to be where you can have good postal facilities and also good transportation facilities, and Washington, D. C., offers you those things, and the fact that it is already the headquarters of the American Federation of Labor shows that in my estimation it was a good thing to go there, and that when we camp right on their trail we will also be where we can keep our hand upon the whole pulse of the labor problem and upon the legislation of this country. But I think that for the first year at least it would be a great deal better to place the headquarters further west, and I think it would be very much better to have them in a city like Denver for the first year.
(Delegate Haywood was called to the chair).
PRESIDENT SHERMAN: I would like to say a word on this, Mr. Chairman and Brother Delegates. I believe we have in nomination three points—four now; Joliet, Chicago, Milwaukee and Denver. The objection has been raised to Joliet on account of the high walls. Perhaps it would be all right to have them nearer the high walls, and I want to say to the brothers that if it ever becomes necessary to put men behind the high walls it would not cost anything for the transportation and they could get us there very quick. But I think the brother who is talking about Washington is afraid that the Executive Board and the officers of the Industrial Workers of the World will perhaps desire at certain times to exercise their right at the ballot box, and he is trying to disfranchize them by locating them in a town where they cannot vote, which is Washington, D. C. A brother laid great stress on the fact that the bulk of our organization force was in the west. It is at the present time, but I feel that the baby has only been born, and it is going to grow, and before the next convention we are going to have strength all around Chicago in every direction. I can concur in Brother Coates’s remarks as to a large industrial center for a labor organization, and especially a National labor organization, and while I appreciate with all kindness the other brother who stated that they wanted the headquarters at the seat of war, which is very good, yet I want to say to you, brothers, that you have imposed a burden upon the officers and the Executive Board of this organization such as has never been imposed upon a set of officers in any labor organization in the past. I want to say to you, brothers, that that matter will be taken up when we get to work and get to talking about handling the welfare and the progress of this organization; and while I as President will always grasp the hand of any sister or brother, I realize the fact that in a large industrial center the enthusiasm of the rank and file of the sisters and brothers will naturally draw them to our office many times for nothing more than to pay their respects, but at the same time when they are paying their respects they may be taking up some of the most valuable time that we have got, which might be used in doing the work that should be done. So I realize keenly that a small town near an industrial center is far superior for those whom you have chosen to serve you, because you want them to do the work and you expect them to do the work. Hence, if you place them in a place where they will naturally be subjected to the more or less unnecessary paying of visits you place them in a position where they will not be able to carry out the work that they could and would like to do and that which you expect them to do. Hence, if I could entertain the motion of Brother Coates I should have done so: not with the idea, by any means, that this Executive Board should have any power not vested in them by the Constitution, but that they might use their own good judgment. I presume we will have to have a temporary office to begin with, any way. I expect that, owing to the position that we are in financially. We are not at the present time in a position to go to any town and there rent any particular headquarters, and I do not see the necessity of it at the present moment. Owing to the fact that the United Metal Workers has quite a large office on West Madison street, I will say that the Industrial Workers of the World may have the rent of it free for the benefit of the organization. (Applause.) But I realize this, that those who never occupied an official position realize very little the amount of company that has to be entertained in those offices, and every moment, every second, sometimes, is worth dollars while a brother or sister may be there with a very important message, or you perhaps at that very moment are just at the point of writing some very important telegram and have called a boy over to take the telegram; a message that you want to go into the field where there is a battle and where the receipt of that message may have an effect on that battle. Hence I say, brothers and sisters, that I have realized keenly for years from my own experience and from the experiences of those who have held executive office, that a small town near a large industrial center, where they have good access to the mail and communication and transportation, is superior to a large industrial center. If you will talk to those who have had experience they will make the same statement to you. Now that is all I desire to say on that, and I thank you.
DEL. COATES: I do not desire to go into an argument, because I want to save time. I want to do what I think the best thing for the organization. And I am not going to appeal from the decision of the Chair. But, for the life of me, I cannot understand why you ruled my motion out of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: For the reason that the Chair announced that the convention was to have the naming of the headquarters or locality for the headquarters, and I had accepted nominations previous to your making the motion. Now I would feel that it would be necessary for the nominees or those who have placed the different towns in nomination, to withdraw their nominations, and then your motion would be in order.
DEL. COATES: All right, I think my motion is still in order, because the convention has the power at any time to delegate its powers to the Executive Board. We have done that time and time again by resolutions before the convention.
DEL. WILKE: I rise to move the previous question. (Seconded.)
DEL. FERBER: For the sake of harmony, though Milwaukee is so close to Chicago, and I think when the electric lines are finished Milwaukee will be superior to Chicago, I withdraw my choice of Milwaukee.
DEL. WHITE: I move as an amendment to Chicago, Washington, Joliet and other towns, that these places be referred to the incoming Executive Board for their consideration. (Seconded.)
DEL. WILKE: I moved the previous question, and it was seconded.
The motion of Delegate White was seconded.
DEL. J. C. SULLIVAN: I desire at this time to offer a substitute for all the motions and amendments, namely, that the matter of the selection of a headquarters for the provisional government of the Industrial Workers of the World be left to the Executive Board. Now, before I relinquish the floor I would ask if the Chair would entertain that motion as a substitute.
THE CHAIRMAN: I believe it would be in order.
DEL. SULLIVAN: That is all I desire to know.
A DELEGATE: I second the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: A substitute has been offered to leave the selection of headquarters to the incoming Executive Board. Are you ready for the question? (Question asked for). Those in favor of the same will signify it by saying aye. Contrary minded no. The ayes have it and it is so ordered. I will announce now that the temporary headquarters will be at 148 West Madison street, Chicago, until further notice.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: I ask for the consideration of this report so that we will get through with it, as one of the Constitution Committee cannot remain here more than ten or fifteen minutes longer. The committee yesterday did not finish their work on the constitution report.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Constitution Committee has a further report to make.
DEL. HAGERTY: A further report, and I think that will be all.
THE CHAIRMAN: We will hear the report of the Constitution Committee.
Del. Hagerty, of the Committee, read the following report:
“We, your Committee, further recommend that Delegate Haggerty’s resolution, from the Butte Milling and Smelter Men’s Union, receive the careful consideration of the General Executive Board, and that as soon as possible an educational system appropriately financed be established for the purpose of training the workers in the principles of industrial unionism.”
DEL. GILLHAUS: I move to concur in the recommendation of the committee. (Seconded.)
The motion was put and carried.
On motion of Delegate Held the Committee on Constitution was discharged.
DEL. COATES: The Resolutions Committee has completed its work, and I ask that the Committee be discharged by the convention. It was moved and seconded that the Committee be discharged with a vote of thanks.
DEL. WILKE: Cut out the thanks. The proletarian doesn’t need any thanks for his services. (Applause.)
The motion was put and carried.
The Committee on Literature and Press being called for, announced that it had no further report to make. On motion of Delegate Coates the Committee was discharged.
DEL. HOPKINS: A point of information. Now that we have elected and installed our President, our Secretary-Treasurer and the Executive Board, what compensation are they going to receive? I failed to hear of any compensation for our executive officers or any provisions made for the compensation of our President or Secretary-Treasurer in our Constitution. While I was absent a few hours from this convention this morning they may have made some provision of that kind but I failed to hear it. I want to know if this convention desires that our President and Secretary-Treasurer and other executive officers are to serve the Industrial Workers of the World without any compensation. I would like to have that question settled before we adjourn, and not leave it to the officers themselves to fix their own compensation and thereby raise dissension among the rank and file.
THE CHAIRMAN: I will state for the benefit of the brother that I believe the constitution provides for the President and General Secretary-Treasurer, if I am not mistaken. There is no provision made for the members of the Executive Board. As you remember, only those who come from at large come from the organizations. There is no provision made, to my best recollection, for the members of the Executive Board, as to their remuneration for services.
DEL. HELD: Will you announce that there is a collection to be taken up for the deficit from the ratification meeting, a shortage of five dollars.
THE CHAIRMAN: The brother states to me that there was a shortage of meeting the expenditures of the Committee on Ratification of something about five dollars, and he asks the privilege of taking up a collection. We will proceed to take up a collection at the present time.
DEL. MOTHER JONES: Owing to the fact that there is no money in the treasury to start this organization with, it seems to me it would be good policy to leave the decision of the salaries to the incoming officers. I for one am not afraid to trust those officers with fixing the salaries that will compensate the officers, and I think it will be satisfactory to the body as a whole. I do not know that this body here could now decide what is best to do with regard to the salaries, as long as we have no funds to begin with. When the funds grow larger and it is worth while making a decision about that, I believe that is time enough for us to begin. (Motion seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, Mother, will you please state that motion again? Just make the motion so that I can understand it.
DEL. MOTHER JONES: My motion is to refer the salary question to the incoming officers, the Executive Board. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the salaries of the members of the Executive Board be referred to the executive officers. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. BRADLEY: Am I to understand that the Executive Board itself is to fix the salaries of the members of the Executive Board and the others?
DEL. JOHNSON: I would like to offer as an amendment to the motion that the compensation of the Executive Board shall be in accordance with the wages that the different members of that board receive, and in addition the extra expenses connected with their work. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: There has been an amendment made to the motion, but I wish you would make that amendment again, as short as possible.
DEL. JOHNSON: I offer an amendment to the motion, that the compensation of the members of the Executive Board shall be equal to the wages that they receive in their respective vocations, and in addition to that the expenses incurred by their work.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the amendment to the motion, which has been duly seconded. Are you ready for the question on the amendment? (Question called for). Those who are in favor of the same will signify it by saying aye. Contrary minded no. The ayes have it and it is so carried.
DEL. KLEMENSIC: As a member of the Press Committee I have been approached by several delegates in view of the fact that the Daily People published the doings of this convention and an article that after I read it I took it as a direct slap at the convention; it is a slap at practically myself. I want to read the article, how it was written in regard to the session, and which it published as the eighth day session, taken up with the Coates amendment destroying the principle of industrial unionism.
DEL. DE LEON: I rise to a point of order. I would be perfectly willing for any one to take up the question of the Daily People or any other paper if we had time to discuss it. At this late hour the convention would have no such opportunity. The capitalist press and all other papers hostile to this convention have been lying about us, misrepresenting us, and no action has been taken upon that. What does this move mean of trumping up a charge against the Daily People at this late hour when the convention is on the point of adjourning? To do so, in this way, at this time, is out of order because the convention cannot have sufficient time to consider the matter. I raise that as a point of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. The Chair rules that we are under the regular order of business at this time, and there is unfinished business, the report of the Ways and Means Committee, to be heard.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Ways and Means Committee made a report. That report was that there be an assessment of five cents levied on the membership of this organization, which was amended that there be an assessment of one dollar, to pay the expenses incurred in launching this organization and to provide for a stenographic report. An amendment to the amendment was offered providing for an assessment of one dollar and that the stenographic report be not considered. What is the pleasure of the convention with regard to this report as amended and the amendment to the amendment?
DEL. DINGER: I move that the recommendation of the committee be concurred in. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is out of order. The question before the convention at this time occurs on the amendment to the amendment, which provides for a one dollar assessment on the entire membership of the organization.
DEL. WHITE: Would a motion be in order at this time as a substitute for the whole?
THE CHAIRMAN: A motion would be in order as a substitute.
DEL. WHITE: I move as a substitute for the whole that this matter of these recommendations and amendments be referred to the Executive Board for their consideration. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded as a substitute that the proposition of levying an assessment, the report of the Ways and Means Committee, be referred to the Executive Board. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for.)
DEL. DE LEON: I am opposed to the substitute because the matter of the stenographic report is involved.
THE CHAIRMAN: Not in this amendment.
DEL. DE LEON: Not exactly, but the substitute for the whole refers the whole thing to the incoming board, doesn’t it?
THE CHAIRMAN: It refers the entire matter to the incoming board.
DEL. DE LEON: And the stenographic report likewise.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
DEL. DE LEON: For that reason I am against the substitute. If it is decided to have a stenographic report let us find it out. The Board has work enough on hand and will not be able to undertake it. The Board starts out without a cent in the treasury. The stenographic report so far, since we have had anything to do with it, is the property of the Daily People. I stated when the convention opened that since the expense would be larger than anticipated we were willing to make it the property of the convention if the convention would pay the difference. Now, if this thing is referred to the incoming board or to the President of this organization, as stated by one comrade here, the stenographic report will be ancient history by the time it is published. Now as a matter of right this stenographic report is the property of the Daily People, and we can put it through quickly, long before the Board can have come to a decision and long before it can have raised the funds for that. The stenographic notes are valueless as they are now. They are valuable only if we have stenographic notes transcribed. You all know that it takes time to collect funds, and a person who works wants to know who is going to pay him for it. I am authorized to say that the stenographic report can be published, that the publication of it can be begun immediately by the Daily People. Consequently I am against the substitute. If the substitute fails I shall move to lay the whole matter upon the table, so that the stenographic report remains where it was when this convention opened; my reason being that in no other way can the stenographic report be published in time to be of interest. My purpose is to publish it as soon as the report can be transcribed, running it every day in the Daily People until we are through with it, and that will not be effected if you pass it over to the incoming executive board.
THE CHAIRMAN: Your motion is to lay the matter on the table?
DEL. DE LEON: No, I argued against the substitute motion for the reasons I have given.
THE CHAIRMAN: Did you make a motion to lay the entire matter on the table?
DEL. DE LEON: No, I could not make such a motion after arguing on the substitute. I stated that if this substitute motion is defeated I shall then make a motion to lay the whole thing upon the table, the motion on the assessment and the motion on the stenographic report and everything.
A DELEGATE: I wish to speak on the motion. The Ways and Means Committee recommended to the convention that the report be adopted. In preference to the position that the brother takes on this matter, that the stenographic report is not going to be printed, we might just as well start in right. There are other things besides the stenographic report here. There was over $100 borrowed from one individual to carry on the preliminary work of this convention, and I think that is much more important. for this convention than the stenographic report at the present time.
DEL. DE LEON: I understand that any other motion is out of order without the consent of the convention. I would request that I be allowed to divide the question. I agree with the delegate that the matter of this stenographic report has been jumbled up with the matter of the assessment. Will the Chair allow me to make a motion to divide the question? There are two distinct questions in that report of the committee and in all the amendments. One question is the question of the assessment, and another question is the question as to the stenographic report. I beg leave to divide that question into two. Will the Chair or the convention allow it?
THE CHAIRMAN: It occurs to me that such a motion would be placing the Chair in rather a peculiar position.
DEL. DE LEON: All right.
THE CHAIRMAN: I would rather not put this motion.
DEL. DANIEL MCDONALD: I understand the motion before the house is the motion to refer the entire matter to the incoming Executive Board.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
DEL. MCDONALD: I am in favor of that motion. I believe the Board is in a position to know exactly the amount of money they will have in a very few days and be able to make a recommendation and report to this organization. They will know exactly about the amount of money that can be raised and how quick they can raise it, and I am in favor of referring the entire proposition to the incoming Executive Board.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate McDonald, did you take into consideration the statement of Delegate De Leon, that it is desired that they be given property in this stenographic report so that they can take up the publishing of it? Did you understand that?
DEL. MCDONALD: I am not in favor of giving them that power. I think this should become the property of the Executive Board, and if the delegate desires to use this he may get it with the consent of the Executive Board after it is given to the Executive Board.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, but it is the property of the Daily People at the present time; they have paid their money for it.
DEL. MCDONALD: Well, with the proviso that if the convention desires the report. Now, the Executive Board can determine as to whether they desire it. If they desire not to have the report, then leave the proposition to them.
DEL. DE LEON: For that very reason the result would be to place the convention in an awkward position, whether the Executive Board decided that they do want it, or that they do not want it. Suppose they decide that they do not want to publish it, that would prevent us from publishing it in time, because we would have to wait until their decision. You put it, by such a motion, in a rather awkward position and put yourselves in an awkward position. What is the position in which you place yourselves and those who have already borne the expense thus far? Without their work in this direction there would have been no stenographic report, because this man was not going to work on tick, on promises to pay. He has been paid already for last week, and is to be paid to-day. We pay this bill, and yet you put yourselves in the absurd posture of saying that what we have paid for becomes your property; and you try to maneuver us into the unjust position of not having anything at all. Suppose on the other hand that it is finally decided by the Board that they do not want the report, what would be the situation if your motion prevails? At the late hour when the Board may decide that it does not want the report, it would have become stale matter if we then start its publication. Or is it your purpose to try and deprive us even then of the right to publish it. We are ready to go on with it right here. If the delegate will explain to me what sense there is in that motion I may be willing to accept his view of it, but as the motion now stands we and you, especially you, are put in an absurd position. This report is the property of the Daily People. You rejected the motion of Delegate Smith; you rejected the motion of the Committee on Ways and Means: and had we acted on the spirit that disposed of those motions we would have discharged the stenographer on the spot, and then there would have been no stenographic record of the transactions of this convention. But we saw the value to the Movement of preserving this record, and so, while you were hanging fire and this convention was making history, we continued the expense of the stenographer’s fees. Now, it is a matter of courtesy on our part to consider this thing any further in the hands of this convention; it is a matter of pure courtesy; and knowing that, I hold that the only legitimate way for this convention to act is to defeat the motion of Brother White. If that motion is defeated, I shall then make a motion to lay upon the table so much of the committee’s recommendation as concerns the stenographic report. Then the rest of the motion can be taken up afterwards.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate De Leon, to get the sense of this question properly before the convention, the Chair will entertain a motion to divide the question.
DEL. DE LEON: That is just what I asked leave to do. Then I move that the question of the stenographic report and the question of the assessment of one dollar involved in this motion and in the amendment and in the amendment to the amendment be divided. (Seconded.)
The motion to divide was put and carried.
DEL. DE LEON: Now I move you that the matter of the stenographic report be left where it was when this convention opened. (Seconded.)
The motion was put and carried.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion now will occur on the substitute, which is to refer the Ways and Means Committee’s report, that regarding the assessment, to the incoming Executive Board. Are you ready for the question? (Question asked for). Those in favor will signify it by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried.
DEL. ROSS: Mr. Chairman, repeatedly in the last few moments it has been declared from the floor of this convention that the incoming officials have nothing in the way of finances to do anything with. On this eighth day of July, one hour ago, we ceased to be a convention and became an organization. I move that every member of this organization that has been installed at this time and place, as the Secretary shall call the roll, shall come forward and pay his first month’s dues of fifty cents, and thereby put something in the treasury.
A DELEGATE: You have got to pay it to the respective organizations.
DEL. ROSS: When he gets back home it will appear on the record here that his dues are paid for a month, won’t it?
DEL. POWERS: Is there anything more to come before the organization?
THE CHAIRMAN: I know of nothing further.
DEL. HELD: The Ways and Means Committee has not been discharged, and the Committee on Ratification has not been discharged.
DEL. DE LEON: I move that they be discharged. (Seconded.) THE CHAIRMAN: Did the Committee on Ratification Meeting get enough money to pay their bills?
DEL. HELD: They did not get enough money, but the proprietor of the hall took what we got and called it square.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would say that the committee should not be discharged until they had liquidated all their debts.
DEL. HELD: We have got the bill and the debts have been liquidated, and we owe absolutely nothing to anybody.
The motion to discharge the committees was carried.
DEL. WHITE: I move that we now adjourn.
THE CHAIRMAN (DEL. HAYWOOD): Just a moment. I want the President here when we adjourn. Is there any further business to come before the convention?
DEL. COATES: Have we decided on the place where the next convention is to be held?
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not believe it has been decided.
DEL. COATES: Of course the constitution, as I understand it, fixes the first Monday in May, doesn’t it?
THE CHAIRMAN: The first Monday in May is the date, but the place has not been named.
DEL. DE LEON: I move that this matter be referred to the incoming Executive Board. By that time they will know what organizations have joined and in what place it would be advisable to hold that convention; they will be in a much better position to decide. (Seconded.)
The motion was put and carried.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, delegates, the temporary Chairman has a request to make of this convention. At the opening of the convention I was presented by some one with a gavel. I do not know to whom that gavel belongs, but I would very much like to retain it, and I would like to ask the privilege of this convention to do so.
DEL. MORRISON: I move that the request be granted.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: I move that the Chairman take possession of that gavel in the name of this organization, of the Industrial Workers of the World. (Seconded.)
DEL. POWERS: Before you put the motion I wish to state that there is another comrade there at the door that has got the stick that Comrade Haywood called the meeting to order with, so that he has got a rival in Chicago to that gavel.
DEL. PAT O’NEIL: I have a resolution that I would like to offer and move its adoption:
“Whereas, During the period from the issuance of the Manifesto to the convening of this congress of industrial workers, the Miners’ Magazine, the Chicago Arbeiter Zeitung, the Crisis, the Cleveland Arbeiter Zeitung and the Daily People have uncompromisingly advocated our cause; therefore be it
“Resolved, That we, the Industrial Workers of the World, express our thankfulness to the above mentioned journals for their support of industrial unionism.”
Motion seconded.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the reading of this resolution. What is your pleasure?
DEL. POWERS: Question on the gavel.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is my request in regard to the ownership of the gavel granted?
DEL. SHURTLEFF: I would like to state that that gavel is the property of the International Machinists’ Union. It has been carried by me all over the country from the West to the East. Personally I am willing for the Chairman to keep it. I don’t think there will be any question about it, and really I would rather see him keep it than any other man.
THE CHAIRMAN: I thank you very much, Delegate Shurtleff. I will put this with the chart and the chairman’s badge, in one group. What is the pleasure of the convention in regard to this resolution?
DEL. COATES: I have no objection to the resolution at all, except I know of a number of other papers, that I cannot call by name just now, which have done valiant service for this Manifesto and for this organization since the issuance of the Manifesto. A number of them are small papers out in the community or in the part of the United States in which I live, and I think, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to do this, if we are going to offer thanks to somebody that in my opinion simply did their duty, let us include them all. Let us not only name four or five that are the most prominent and exclude a number of others that are entitled to the same thanks, but let us include them all. I am in favor of that motion.
DEL. DE LEON: I move, to amend that resolution by adding the words: “and all other papers that have upheld the cause of industrial unionism.” If any one can name them, let them be placed in that resolution, so as to include them all. (Amendment seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment is that the names of all other papers that are known be added to this list? Is that it?
DEL. DE LEON: The amendment is to add “and all other papers that have stood for the cause of industrial unionism.”
THE CHAIRMAN: “And all other papers that have stood by the cause of industrial unionism.”
DEL. FITZGERALD: If I am not out of order I would like the Voice of Labor inserted in there.
DEL. GILBERT: I think this is all out of order. The Crisis was the first paper to champion this cause, and I prefer not to put in any names. As the delegate here said, we only did our duty, and therefore what do we want a vote of thanks for? Therefore I move as a substitute that the whole thing be laid on the table. (Seconded.)
DEL. DE LEON: Is he to be allowed to make a speech on a motion to lay on the table?
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: I object to the substitute, on the ground that there are very few labor papers in this country that have endorsed the Manifesto. By looking at the labor exchanges we can find out the names of the other labor papers or journals that have endorsed this working class movement, and it seems to me right and proper here that we should express some recognition of the fact; that these papers and whatever other papers may be known be recognized as supporting our cause. If there are other papers, it ought to be no great matter to find out their names. Every man here who has been in the labor exchanges since the issuing of that Manifesto can find that out. As soon as the other papers outside of the Voice of Labor are known, I think they can very easily be specified, and not make any error in the names. There are a number of papers that have supported the movement, but I personally do not know any others outside of that, and I have been in the labor exchanges since the issuance of the Manifesto. I would like to know the names of those that support this Manifesto and have them added to that resolution.
The motion on the substitute to lay on the table was lost. The amendment of Delegate De Leon was then carried, and the resolution was adopted.
DEL. J. C. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately the Assistant Secretary of this convention incurred some loss, partially, I suppose, owing to the fact that she was acting as Secretary of this convention; that is, she lost some effects, and the matter was presented to this convention yesterday. Whether or not the loss has been recovered or replaced I am unable to say, but I believe that the work that she has done and the attention that she has given to the duties of Assistant Secretary of this convention are worthy of consideration and a just and fair recompense. I move you at this time that the Executive Board be instructed to pay out of the first money available in the treasury of the Industrial Workers of the World a just, fair and equitable compensation for the services rendered to this convention by the Assistant Secretary, Mrs. Langdon. (Seconded.)
The motion was put and carried, and the Chairman directed the Executive Board to take notice accordingly.
Chairman Haywood retired and President Sherman resumed the Chair.
There being no further business to come before the convention, the President at 1.20 P. M. declared the first convention of the Industrial Workers of the World adjourned sine die.
• Appendix, Part 1
A meeting to ratify the work of the Chicago convention in forming the Industrial Workers of the World, was held at Brand’s Hall, in that city, on Friday evening, July 7, at 8 o’clock. The hall was completely filled, and many people were compelled to stand throughout the meeting. The greatest enthusiasm was manifested as the different speakers explained the purposes of the organization. Miss Luella Twining, of Pueblo, Colorado, representing the American Federal Union, presided and introduced the speakers.
In opening the meeting Miss Twining made the following speech:
Fellow workers:—We have come to celebrate and ratify the organization of the Industrial Workers of the World. Industrial unionism stands for the solidarity of labor. Under industrial unionism it would not be possible that the Western Federation of Miners, when on strike, could be shot down by the militia hauled by trainmen. Industrial unionism stands for solidarity. I will not explain the principles of industrial unionism further, for there is no one on the program but who is celebrated as an exponent of these principles. The first speaker on the program will be Thomas J. Hagerty, of the Industrial Workers’ Club of Chicago. You all know of him; he is a celebrated speaker. (Applause.)
After the applause had subsided, Hagerty spoke as follows:
I do not want to take up much of your time to-night, because I know some of the men here, the everyday workers from the shop and the mill and the factory, have a message to deliver to you tonight that rings true, because it comes from the lips of revolutionary workingmen. The preamble upon which they stand sets forth very clearly the reason of this ratification meeting, namely, that there are two classes in this country, and that they have nothing in common. Many of the workers have been misled into the belief that they have many things in common with the shirking class. I have met men, workers, who said to me: “Why, I haven’t any objection against my employer; he is a good fellow; when he meets you on the street he shakes hands with you just the same as with any other sort of man, and I am opposed to this talk about war between the classes. That is not true, because I am well treated by my boss.” The man who is in this state of mind towards the class struggle reminds me always of a story that I am fond of telling. It was originally told me by a long, lank, raw-boned Kentuckian on the Oklahoma, Choctaw and Gulf Railway in Indian Territory three summers ago. It is very hot in the Indian Territory in the summer time. One of the speakers who will talk to you is from Arkansas, and he can tell you something about Indian Territory after a while. The man who told me the story said he noticed a fellow sitting under a water tank one day, scratching himself very vigorously. After a good deal of squirming around he finally brought something to the light and looked at it very carefully and cautiously and intently from every point of view, and then just as carefully put it back again in the same place. The man standing alongside of him turned around and said: “Why, you blamed idiot, why didn’t you kill the darned thing?” The first fellow looked around at him in amusement and said: “Why, that wasn’t the one that was biting me.” (Laughter). And so there are workingmen to-day who keep on putting the parasite back because it does not happen to be the particular one that was biting (applause)—failing to realize that the whole parasite system is draining their life blood, and thinking, because a particular parasite is not at a particular time biting them, that therefore there is no class struggle.
The Industrial Workers of the World, then, is founded on the class struggle. Its members know from their own bitter experience just what it means to be exploited. They are not able always to put their knowledge into fine technical phrases; they do not know very much about that sort of thing, but they know what they want. They know that the other fellow is now putting the boots to them, and they want to wear the boots themselves. They know when they go out upon the streets that the man who does the least work has the most of the good things. They walk out on Sundays with their wives and their little ones, and they see the wives of their employers rustling in silks and satins. They hear the rush of the oncoming red devil wagon and the toot of its horn, and they know instinctively that between the class that have all these good things and do not labor for them, and their own class which has none of these things, their own class which must get out of the way of the wheels at the toot of that horn, their own class which is in calico when the other class is in silks—they know that between these two classes there is a war and a struggle, and that that struggle must go on, as the Preamble setting forth the principles of the Industrial Workers of the World states, “until all the workers come together on the political as well as on the industrial field and take and hold that which they produce by their labor, through an economic organization of the working class without affiliation with any political party.” (Applause). They know what they want, and when a sufficient number of them know what they want, then the Industrial Workers of the World proposes, in conjunction with all other workers, through united public action to take and hold that which belongs to them.
The Industrial Workers of the World have nothing to conceal from the rest of their fellow workers. They do not smother their purpose in any fine American Federation of Labor phrases about the community of interest between the capitalist class and the working class. They stand four-square to the true interests of the workers, on a platform that is unmistakable, on a platform that recognizes no aristocracy of labor, that recognizes a T-bone beefsteak has as much nourishment value in it to the stomach of a hod-carrier as it has to the stomach of the most aristocratic Typographical Union man (applause), and that fundamentally, at bottom, there are the same human wants of food, shelter and rain. It is agreed upon all those things. It is agreed on them, not because some of the workers are better paid than others, but it is agreed upon them because these are the ground demands of the working class to-day, and until they are obtained the working class must remain in want, hunger and misery. It is primarily an educational movement to show the workers that their interests are common in every part of the world.
The other day, according to the newspapers, the International Harvester Company was involved in Odessa; some of its property was in danger. The Russian workingman out on strike in Odessa is exploited by the same employer as the workingman out on strike in this city here at the works of the McCormick Harvester Company and those of the International Harvester Company. There is a world-wide exploiting class, and so any movement against that class must stretch out all over the world. (Applause). The letters received at this convention from foreign industrial union movements, from France, Germany, Denmark, show conclusively that this is not something new in America. About five years ago in Spain such a convention, such a congress of the workers as has been holding here during the past week was held in Madrid, and the last congress held last month in Madrid issued a manifesto along the same lines as the manifesto that called the workers to this convention, and for the same ultimate object. So that in spite of petty national lines, in spite of international division lines, the workers the world over are coming together on the ground of their common working class interests, without regard to race, color, creed or flag, and they are coming together because the earth and all that the earth holds and all its possibilities are theirs—are theirs by right of muscle, are theirs by right of labor, and they propose to take them and to enjoy them for their class, from antipode to antipode. (Applause.)
The Chairwoman:—The next speaker will be Thomas Powers, of the textile workers, of Providence, R. I. You all know the condition of the textile workers. I take great pleasure in introducing Thomas Powers, who will speak to you of them. (Applause.)
Madam Chairman and Fellow Workingmen of Chicago:—I never indulged the thought that I would ever become important enough to be introduced at a meeting of this kind. A workingman twelve hundred miles east of this great city comes here to make common cause with workingmen twelve hundred miles to the west of this city. From all points of the compass workingmen have come to this city to make common cause with one another. And what is the common cause? The common cause is that which grows out of the organization of capital; or, I might say, to put it more plainly, the rampant nineteenth century madness of greed which it induces. Do you know—of course you do—and I want to tell you that I talk about it in order that you may know—as I know and every man in Rhode Island knows—that the successful man of to-day, the successful man who is measured as we measure success to-day, by his dollars, thinks, and is sustained in the thought, in his every act by the so-called intellectual class, that it is his right and that it is perfectly proper that he should look upon society as something for him to prey upon, something for him to exploit. To what end? To the end that he might have countless dollars, that he might have power. Let as look at what he has done with his countless dollars. Let us look at what he has done with his power. Take up the daily papers of Chicago to-day, and you will find that he has dominated the halls of the legislature of this State. Take up any paper or read the Associated Press dispatch news and you will find that this money-grubber has dominated the institutions of American citizenship from one end of this land to the other. His curse, his demoralizing influence, flows from the executive chair of the nation into the sewer department. (Applause). It is for this that he is piling up his dollars. It is for this that he is seeking power. Was it for this that the men of the American revolution pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor? Was it for this that the men at Concord bridge in 1776 and the men at Lexington Green, the men on whose hands were the callouses that resulted from driving the plow and using the hammer, spilled their blood in order to give this republic birth? Was it for this that this government was instituted, to breed the most accursed, the most demoralizing horde of money-grubbers that the world has ever produced? (Applause.)
This has grown out of what we call capitalism. It is to fight this, among other things, that we are organized. And this same cold-blooded, bloody thing is at work in Ireland, is at work in England, is at work in France, in Belgium and in Germany. I believe there is not a part of the civilized world where the influence of this coarse, this cunning, this brutal man, this money-grabber, is not felt. You hear in common talk this old adage, that in the society of to-day it is every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost. Now, don’t you believe any such thing. The devil will do nothing of the kind. The devil wouldn’t know what to do with the hindmost, he wouldn’t know where to put him. (Laughter). The hindmost, if many of them got into his dominions, would be the means of dethroning him. But instead of taking the hindmost, he will take the foremost, for he will find them men of his own heart. (Applause). Yes, and he will use them to perpetuate his reign. He will give them places and use them for ornamentation in the council chambers of hell. (Applause.)
Now, workingman of Chicago, I am a textile worker, and I don’t pretend to understand anatomy; I know nothing about that knowledge that physicians possess, but there is not a day, there is not a time that I walk the streets of the city in which I live but I am pained by the spectacle that is presented by the men and women who follow the calling I follow. They are pale, they are emaciated, they are not properly fed, they do not earn enough to give them good food in order that they might have good blood, in order that they might be strong; and in the city of Fall River it is even worse than it is in the city in which I live. I often wonder how it is that a physician can live in Fall River. I often think how a man who can read, who can understand what this spectacle means, how he can live and have this horrible sight presented to him day after day; women with thin faces and thin arms, little boys eleven and twelve years of age, with their thin arms and their thin legs—little old men. They are exploited, and who is the exploiter? Why, he is a refined gentleman—a capitalist. (Applause). When he comes out on the street you would know him by the cut of his clothes and his refined appearance. You will see him come into the mill at eight o’clock in the morning, and you will know that he had a bath before he left his family hotel. That man can fatten; that man can live and send his children to the private school; he can send them to the college, and he can do this and see other children denied even the substance to produce strong and healthy growth. This I see every day. I do not need to go to any other man to furnish me with the reason why I ought to be in this revolutionary organization of the working class. I can see it everywhere I go.
A few nights ago in your city I was asked to speak at one of those meetings out on the street corner, and a number of men assembled around there, and I thought that if only those men could be lined up and walk the streets of Chicago what a spectacle they would present, and what a story their appearance would tell. Would I could write the story their appearance would tell, that story would put our so-called boasted civilization to shame. There were men assembled around that meeting whose necks are in that crooked position (illustrating), whose shoulders are pulled out of shape, who have the ox appearance, men who are deformed by the curse-stained hard labor which they do. (Applause.)
We have asked that these little children in the mill be protected by the law. We have asked that laws be made to prohibit their employment under twelve and fourteen years of age. But as I said, the “get there” class, the men who are going to get there, who are going to keep out of this impoverished world—the employing class—what have they done? They have brought about such a state of affairs through their influence among the machine politicians that these laws are not enforced. There is not a State in this country that enforces its child labor laws, because of the influence of the employing class among the legislators.
Let me tell you what has happened in Fall River; it was told to me by one of the spinners there. “Twenty-five years ago,” this man said, “we had 2,000 men in our union, spinners, and there has never been a time since then that a spinner working in that city did not belong to our union,” and he felt proud of his union. He was asked “how many power mules have you here now?” and he answered “About 350.” Now, this is what has happened: In these twenty-five years the number of mules had decreased from 2,000 to 350. What has become of them? They have been carried to the scrap heap, and their places have been taken by the spinning frame, and the father is out on the street looking for a job at whatever he can get, and the child is in the mill working at spinning. I want to tell you about the loom, the Draper loom. No one would nave been more surprised at this than the textile worker of twenty five years ago. To-day in the town of Waterville a cotton weaver is running forty looms. Do you know what that means? Well, that means ten times as many looms as the weaver in India ran ten or twelve years ago. That means four times the number of looms that the most expert cotton weaver ran in the city of Fall River ten years ago, and is nearly four times as many as they are running there to-day, but that loom has not come there as yet. If the manufacturers in the cotton industries in this country decided to keep in employment the present number of weavers and would give to each the number of looms which it is possible for them to run with this new loom, they would have to increase the other departments of the plants about three-fold. I doubt very much if there is cotton enough grown in the world to supply the production which is made possible through the introduction of this loom.
Now, then, the men who compose this organization take these things into consideration. They recognize the changes and improvements which result through invention, and they tell the workingman that he must band together with every other workingman. They tell him that his cause is not only common with the man in another department, in another branch of trade, but they tell him that his cause is common with the men in every country in the world. Workingmen, this organization, this Industrial Workers of the World, will do more than educate people on economic lines. It will open up to their minds many thoughts which are sleeping now. It will open up in their minds thought that will dispel the national prejudices which have caused them to stand apart. It will little by little tell them this story “You Englishman, your great-grandfather went over to Ireland and he fought the Irishman; and he did it for whom? Why, for the king. He did it to uphold the throne of William of Orange. And don’t you know that this king is God’s anointed? Did this thought ever strike you? Yes, he is God’s anointed, because God created the first king, and the first king was the devil, and every king that has succeeded has been a devil also, and their entire wake has been a sea of blood. They have caused prejudice to run on generation after generation, to keep apart the sons of the men who met in the death grapple, and who when it was all over went home to shed the tears and pay off the war debt. This organization will spread the thought that will remove that prejudice. It will tell the workingmen how they have preyed upon each other to promote capitalist interests, how they have been played upon by those men who have been responsible for their condition, and will tell them also how they are preyed upon by the wise American capitalist class. Do you know that there is nothing which has more to do with planting in the mind a refined madness than capitalist greed? When you see this American flag waving, did you ever stop to think what it represents? Did you ever stop to think of what is going on in the country over which it floats? On the Fourth of July I saw on the State House in the City of Boston the great flag waving, and three months before that time one of the most powerful men in that State openly declared that the members of that Legislature were sold like fish in the fish market (applause). Within the shadow of Bunker Hill this is going on. Down in Plymouth, I stood upon the celebrated Plymouth Rock that they call the birth-place of the nation, and I stood on the streets of that city and saw there in the faces and on the bodies of the men who passed along the evidence of the work of this nineteenth century industrial pirate, the money-grubber—the capitalist. Everywhere you go you can see him. He has no country, he has no God, he has no love, no consideration. The only thing that he knows, the only thing that he works for, is the wealth power of the world. Mankind is his field of prey. Organize to overthrow him, is what we have done.” (Applause.)
The Chairwoman:—The next speaker will be William D. Haywood, president of the Western Federation of Miners. In Colorado the capitalists hate him. When Peabody spoke of William D. Haywood as a labor fakir he represented the capitalist class and voiced the thought of Gompers. I take great pleasure in introducing William D. Haywood, president of the Western Federation of Miners. (Applause.)
Fellow Workers:—The first thing that it is necessary for me to say to you this evening is to correct the introduction of out little chairlady. I am not the president of the Western Federation of Miners, but am holding the position of secretary-treasurer at the present time. The president of the Western Federation of Miners is as close to me, however, as any man can be, and I very much regret that you will not this evening have the opportunity of listening to the president; a man who has suffered as much for the cause of labor as any man in this country was ever called upon to suffer.
The theme for this evening is “Industrial Unionism.” For nearly two weeks there have been assembled in this hall over 2 men and women gathered in your city for the purpose of organizing, not a rival to the American Federation of Labor, not a rival to any other organization—but to organize a labor movement for the working class. Those of us who have studied conditions in this country recognize the fact that up to the launching of this organization there was not a labor organization in this country that represented the working class. (Applause). This industrial union is an organization that stands with the gates wide open to take in every man and woman, and, if necessary, child, that is working for wages with either brain or muscle. (Applause). This organization is broad enough in its scope to take in the men who works in the sewer, or our journalistic friends here on the platform who think that they are professional men. (Applause). There are a great many professional men who don’t know the difference between a professional man and a laborer. For instance—begging the pardon of the journalists—there are some scrub reporters that are working on a police assignment who imagine they are professional men working for a salary. They get about $15 a week, and are lucky at that. There are a great many skilled artisans that are getting $3.50 and $4 a day, who recognize their position as workingmen, and their remuneration, their compensation, as wages. (Applause). I simply want to demonstrate that a $3 a day hod-carrier is just as good as a $15 a week reporter, and it does not make a bit of difference whether he is a negro or a white man. (Applause). (A voice:—”As long as he is a union man”). It does not make any difference whether he is an American or a foreigner. (Applause). Although I am an American, it is no fault of mine. I am still of the opinion that an American is just as good as a foreigner as long as he behaves himself, and no longer. (Laughter.)
The organization that has been launched in your city recognizes neither race, creed, color, sex, or previous condition of servitude. (Laughter). We came out of the west to meet the textile worker of the east. We men of the west are getting more wages per day than those men are getting. We recognize the fact that unless we bring them up to our condition they of necessity will drag us down to theirs. (Applause). We propose that this industrial movement shall provide, for every man and woman that works, a decent livelihood. Is that something worth working for? Now, understand me—or rather, do not misunderstand me. I do not mean that this organization is going to improve the condition of purely the skilled workers, the bricklayer, the carpenter or the type-setter; but I mean that we are going down in the gutter to get at the mass of the workers and bring them up to a decent plane of living. (Applause). I do not care the snap of my finger whether or not the skilled workers join this industrial movement at the present time. When we get the unorganized and the unskilled laborer into this organization the skilled worker will of necessity come here for his own protection. (Applause). As strange as it may seem to you, the skilled worker to-day is exploiting the laborer beneath him, the unskilled man, just as much as the capitalist is. (Applause). To make myself better understood, the skilled laborer has organized for himself a union, recognizing that in unity there is strength. He has thrown a high wall around that union which prohibits men from joining the organization. He exacts that a man to become a member of the labor union must of necessity serve an apprenticeship to develop his skill. What for? For the benefit of the union? No, but for the benefit of his employer, who is a member of the Citizens’ Alliance (applause), and who is trying to crush out of existence that same union that has endeavored to develop skilled mechanics for the benefit of the capitalist class. (Applause). What I want to demonstrate to you is that the skilled mechanic, by means of the pure and simple trades union, is exploiting the unskilled laborer. I think that will be easy for me to do. The unskilled laborer has not been able to get into the skilled laborer’s union because that union exacts that a man must needs have served a term of years as an apprentice. Again, there are unions in this country that exact an initiation fee, some of them as high as $500. There is the glass blowers’, to be specific, how long would it take a man working for a dollar or a dollar and a quarter a day and providing for a family, to save up enough money to pay his initiation fee into that union? Why, he might just as well figure on a trip to “Paree.” To demonstrate the point that I wanted to get at, it is this: That the unskilled laborer’s wages have been continually going down, that the prices of commodities have been continually going up, and that the skilled mechanic through his union has been able to hold his wages at a price and upon a scale that has insured to him even at these high prices a reasonably decent living; but the laborer at the bottom, who is working for a dollar or a dollar and a quarter a day, has been ground into a state of destitution. (Applause.)
Now, ladies and gentlemen, this condition does not exist as generally throughout the west as it does here and farther east, and especially is this true in the camps where the Western Federation of Miners is thoroughly organized, because in those camps we have established a minimum wage of $3 a day for every man or boy that is employed around the mines. Now we have no objections to a man getting as much more as he can, hut we exact that he shall get at least those decent wages that will justify him in maintaining a family and doing it respectably, and we are coming here to Chicago and we are going further east to see if it is not possible to bring the common laborer up to a plane something like we enjoy in the mining camps of the west. (Applause). And that can only be brought about by organization. Not an organization with $500 initiation fee; not an organization that demands that you shall serve a three years’ apprenticeship to any trade for the benefit of a member of the Citizens’ Alliance, but an organization that has the doors wide open so that any man that is working at any calling can come in and join hands with us. (Applause). Though we are enjoying very good conditions, we recognize, as I stated before, that our conditions can only be maintained by upholding the conditions or endeavoring to uplift the fellow who is at the bottom.
Now, don’t get discouraged, folks, you of the working class, because here in Chicago you have lost some strikes. Remember that you never could have lost those strikes if you had been organized industrially as the workers in Russia are organized (applause)—organized into an organization that takes in every man, woman and child working in an industry. For instance, in the packing plants, the butchers’ organization was one of the best organizations in this country, reputed to be 50,000 strong. They were well disciplined, which is shown from the fact that when they were called on strike they quit to a man. That is, the butchers quit, but did the engineers quit, did the firemen quit, did the men who were running the ice plants quit? They were not in the union, not in that particular union. They had agreements with their employers which forbade them quitting. The result was that the butchers’ union was practically totally disrupted, entirely wiped out. Now, presuming that every man around the packing houses, from the printer to the pig sticker, belonged to one union; that when they went out on strike the engineers, firemen and men that ran the ice plants all quit; that millions of dollars of produce were in a state so that it would rapidly perish, don’t you believe that those packing house companies would have capitulated? Don’t you believe that if to-day the organized workers of your great city would not go on strike, but that they would stay home for three or four days, that the teamsters would win the strike that they are now engaged in? (Applause). One union man is no better than another union man, and any union man that will stand back because a company has an agreement with him, and who will scab on his fellow union man, he may be a union man, but in my opinion he is a technical scab. (Applause). On the Santa Fe Railroad some time ago the telegraphers went out on strike, and they presented their grievance to the company. The company says: “We cannot do anything for you.” They appealed to the different brotherhoods of railroad men. Those various brotherhoods appointed their grievance committees to see the management. When they went to the management the management said to them: “Gentlemen, haven’t we schedules with you?” The committee said “Yes.” “Well,” said the company, “you carry out your schedules with us and we will attend to the telegraphers.” They attended to the telegraphers to the extent that there is not a union telegrapher on the Santa Fe system. Then the machinists went on strike on the same system, and they appealed to the brotherhoods, and the brotherhoods in the same manner appealed to the management The management called their attention to their agreements, and told them to attend to their business and carry out the rates and rules of those schedules, and they would attend to the machinists; and the machinists to-day are the victims of the sacred contract of the union man with his employer. There never was a contract so sacred, drawn up between a union and an employer, but what the employer would break it if he felt it was to his interest to do so. (Applause.) So that in my opinion and in the opinion of the delegates that have assembled here, no union will have the right or be empowered to enter into a contract with any company or corporation unless that contract is in keeping with and to the welfare of the general labor movement. (Applause.)
Some of the labor leaders of this country have been quoted as saying that it is possible for the capitalist, the corporationist—or the employer, if you will—to get together with the working-men and adjust the conditions that exist between them. Some of them have said that if we only sit down at a table and look each other in the eye and talk these matters over that there would never be another strike. Well, now, that proposition of looking each other in the eye suggests to me that out in Colorado and further west this is a sort of a poker player’s game. (Laughter).
A man sitting behind a full hand of four aces looks the other fellow in the eye and tries to make him believe he has only got two deuces. (Laughter.) Now, the capitalist is always ready to sit down and look the other fellow in the eye, and he has always got the best of it. Why? Because he owns the tools that the other fellow works with. (Applause). Without the tools the other man could not live, and when a man or a company or corporation has possession of the tools, the means of production, the economic power, the means of life, he has your life absolutely in his possession. (Applause). Why, folks, rather than be one of the residents of the ghetto down here, a place that I was through last night I would rather be a big buck nigger on a plantation in the south before the days when chattel slavery was wiped out. Why? Because—size me up pretty well now—I would be worth about $3,000 to a plantation holder. It would be to his interest to provide me with good shelter, with suitable clothing, with proper food, with proper medical attendance, because I represent to him a monetary value of $3,000. Suppose I was to go to some plantation owner to-day-and we have not any slavery in this country. He would size me up and he would say: “You are worth just about $2 or $1.50 a day to work on this ranch. If you get sick you take care of yourself. If you die it is no loss to me. I care nothing about your family. Your little pickaninnies, there is no value to them. Your little redheaded girl does not represent five cents of value to me.” Is this system more cruel than that of slavery days? A hundred thousand times more. (Applause). The wage system is worse than chattel slavery.
Now, are there any of you who feel that your interests and the capitalist’s interests are identical? Don’t you know that there is not an employing capitalist or corporation manufactory in this country that if it were possible would not operate his or its entire plant or factory by machines and dispose of every human being employed? (Applause). The corporation does not hire you. The employer never looks at your face; he never looks you in the eye. He cares nothing about your feelings. He does not care anything about your surroundings. He cares nothing about your twinges of anguish or your heartaches. He wants your hands and as much of your brain as is necessary to attach yourself to a machine. (Applause). Remember, that to-day there are no skilled mechanics. Down in the packing house there are no butchers. There is a train of specialized men that do just their part, that is all. The machine is the apprentice of yesterday; the machine is the journeyman of to-day. The machine is rapidly taking your place, and it will have you entirely displaced pretty soon, and it is a question as between you and the capitalist as to who is going to own and control and manipulate and supervise that machine. (Applause.)
That is the purpose of this industrial union. Now, let no man make a mistake. While we are going to do everything that we can to improve and take advantage of every opportunity that is offered to us to improve the condition of the working class as we go along, the ultimate aim of this organization is to get control of the supervision of industry. (Applause). We propose to say to the employing class what the hours of labor shall be and what the remuneration shall be. We are the people who do the work, and we have got tired of those who do nothing but shirk, reaping all of the benefits. That is the definition of industrial unionism; the absolute control and supervision of industry. And when the working class are sufficiently well organized to control the means of life, why then the system that the speaker before me told you about, the ownership of legislatures and senates and militias and police will be of little avail to them, because a condition such as exists in Chicago at the present time could not exist: The army or police that would raise a hand, a club or a gun against a workingman would have to leave this community or starve to death. (Applause). And we are going further than that. We are going to say to the employer: You must take your place in the productive system of this country or you will starve. (Applause.)
Now, remember, that we fellows out west were once east; that if we don’t know what we are going up against, our fathers probably did. My great great-grandfather lived in Boston. My great-grandfather came as far west as Ohio. My grandfather lived in Iowa. My father carried the mail in Colorado before there was a railroad. I have been still farther west, until they told me that it was only a few miles to the rolling billows of the Pacific, and I concluded that the Haywood family had better turn back, that we had been driven to the frontiers until there were no more frontiers. So I have come back to Chicago, and am still on the frontier; that is, on the frontier of this industrial union movement, which I hope to see grow throughout this country until it takes in a great majority of the working people, and that those working people will rise in revolt against the capitalist system as the working class in Russia are doing to-day. (Great applause.)
The Chairwoman:—I called Brother Haywood president inadvertently, but you will all admit that while he has not been president he would make a good one. The next speaker on the program will be C. O. Sherman, secretary of the International Metal Workers. (Applause.)
Madam Chairman, Sisters and Brothers :—As stated by the previous speakers on the platform this evening, we have participated for the last two weeks in a convention that has been held in this hall. I do not know as it is necessary to make any apology when I tell you that we have been so busy that we owe an apology to the laundry girl and to the barber, as we did not find time to look after either one of them. We have no apology for the birth of this international organization known as the Industrial Workers of the World. We participated in this convention, and we propose to father this organization because we believe the condition of the producing class demands an organization of this character. Its basic principle is the class struggle, and we expect the organization to be built up with the producing class, such portion of them as realize at the present time that there is a class struggle. (Applause). We will say, however, that there is one fundamental principle of this organization that will always be lived up to. There never will be a member of this organization, whether holding a local or national position, or even a humble member, that will be eligible to the Civic Federation. (Applause.)
We have not come here to make war upon individuals. We are not here to make war upon organizations. But we have formed an organization to make war upon the system that exists at the present time. (Applause). We believe that through the past bitter experience that labor has suffered, workingmen are ready for a change, that they are ready to unite their forces in one class-conscious industrial organization; recognizing that the powers that are against the producing class are organized as a unit, and that it is absolutely necessary, in order to gain the rights of the producing people, that they must be organized on the same basic principle. (Applause). I have no fault to find with the individual capitalist, no matter whether he is a small capitalist or a large one. If he is a millionaire or a multi-millionaire it is not his fault, but it is the fault of the people because they foster a principle that permits him to become a millionaire. (Applause.)
We believe the hour has come when the people are ready for education on the lines that will unite their economic forces with a solidarity that will mean something in this country. We believe that those that have passed through labor organizations and are in labor organizations at the present time have through their bitter experience reached the realization that there is nothing to be gained by division. (Applause). We hear people complain of the capitalists. What is a capitalist? Nothing but a common human being. He came into this world just the same as the common workingman, just as helpless, and no matter what he possesses while here on this earth, no matter what special privileges you give him that permit him to reign over you, when the hour comes that the Index Finger of the Universe points down to his heart and says “Stop,” the minute that command is made that millionaire is on a level with the tramp. (Applause): He is where he began. Can you blame him or can you blame the system? How many of you that are here to-night that are not struggling to get on a level with the millionaire? (Applause). How many of you would miss the opportunity to make a deal in a speculative proposition, or trust your little savings and take a chance? You will take a chance every day on the games that the capitalists set up for you to play, and the stickers go in and bite. And how willingly you run in and bite because you think you are going to make an easy dollar. But when you get through and you come to figure up your earnings, it is the same as the white man does with the nigger down south. When the end of the week comes he has had four or five pounds of cornmeal and a sleep for himself, while the bag of potatoes goes to the barn and the boss has figured all to the white man and nothing to the nigger. (Applause). And that is your position. And you are worse off in comparison to what you have produced; there is nothing for those who have produced.
Now, that one individual whose name may appear over the factory or place of business—tell you why it is that he can be called a millionaire when thousands of men and women are employed by him? How is one individual capable of sweeping out of your production eighty-five per cent, of that which you produce? Why does he do it? Is it from his power of muscle that you are afraid of him? No, you are not afraid of him. But the system under which we live has educated you to the belief that it is necessary to pay tribute to him in order that you may be permitted to live. (Applause.)
We believe the working people are waking up to these propositions. We are not charging any organization with anything, because there is not a man or woman on this platform but knows that there has never been one step or progress ever taken by labor except through organized labor. Unorganized labor never met anything but contempt. Hence for every step of progress that has been made credit must be given to organized labor. We do say, however, had they been organized on a united basis, in a manner where their power could be used if necessary at one time, that their condition would be better. Now, comparisons have been made between different people, and the brother who preceded me, I think it was he, took a kink out of our brothers of the press that were sitting around the table. Now, the other fellows are slaves just the same as they are. (Applause). And I want to say to you that they have more hardships than even the mechanic. If a bricklayer lays so many bricks in a day, when night comes the foreman or boss gives him credit for laying so much brick. Now, one of these poor fellows will go out and cover a meeting and work like a dog and get up a lovely report and lay it down before the master, who will take a blue pencil and scratch two-thirds of it out and throw it in the waste basket. (Laughter). Which goes to show the position that they occupy and that their labor is not appreciated by their master. Now, the reason why they put the blue pencil through the work of the boys is this: It is simply because they took the right to tell the truth, and the press of this country doesn’t want the truth. (Applause.) It is a common occurrence, when you hear people misquoted to lay it to the boys who take notes at the table, but I want to tell you that with very few exceptions the man that reverses even the notes that were taken and cuts out the sentences and spoils the whole proposition is not the man who is here, but the man that sits at the desk in the office and receives their work. He is the man that does that. (Applause). So I would rather be a hod carrier than one of those fellows. A hod carrier works only eight hours a day. These fellows scab twenty-four hours often. (Applause). They have to do it. They haven’t got an organization. The hod carriers are sensible enough to organize. They did that years ago. (Applause). As a general proposition, when you see a young man running around with a pencil over his ear and wearing a No. 10 cuff for a collar you can’t expect very much of him anyway. (Laughter.)
But now, let us get down to practical work here for about three minutes, and then I am going to let you go. This organization, as stated to you, is broad enough for every workingman. Provisions are made so that quarrels can be settled among yourselves as to jurisdiction. There is no room for jurisdictional quarrels in this organization. And we believe that the working people are coming into it. We are going forward with the work of this organization with no quarrels with any other organization or any hatreds. We are going ahead with our work, and if anything gets in our way we are going to push it out of the way, for we are going on. (Applause). We need an organization of this kind in Chicago, because if we had it the policemen would have to walk their beats, and under the present system that is in vogue here now they ride. (Laughter). I have often thought: “I wonder what poor Ireland would say if she could only see her sons protecting a negro scab.” (Laughter). And sometimes we see negro policemen protecting white scabs. A beautiful spectacle in America, when we can hire one-half of the producing class to shoot down the other half. (Applause.) Is that because of the solidarity of labor, or the division of labor? It is because of the division of labor: It is because of the aristocratic organization that we have been drilled in in the past; the organizations that have told you as certain mechanics that you are better than the other mechanics. I want to say to you that there is no mechanic any better than the common laborer. (Applause). If we had no common laborer the structures of any city would not rise unless the mechanic went down and played common laborer. (Applause.)
The common laborers are the founders of this country. They are the ones that make it possible for civilization to exist. It was the common laborer that took the ax and saw and went into the forest, chopped down the timber and brought it to the mill. It was not skilled labor, but it was common labor that put it on the carriage and sent the saw screeching through it and made the material that these buildings are made of. Common labor put it up when it reached the place where it was going into our mansions. Then the aristocrat of labor got hold of it. Wait till I tell you what they did. The “aristocrats” go to work and build the beautiful structure. They carry it on till they get it covered on all sides and on top. Then the glazier comes around and sets the beautiful glass in the sash. The decorators come inside and decorate and beautify it for somebody. And when it is all in shipshape and ready to be occupied, labor has done every bit of it. Common labor went into the forest and got every bit of it. Labor went into the earth and got the stones and the material for the foundation. Not one stroke was struck upon the building by a man who may be called a capitalist. And then the last man that does the setting of the hinges and the trimmings is the locksmith. When he gets through and he has all the windows fixed so that no one can get in, then he goes to the front door and takes his chisel and hammer and sets the lock, and when he finds that it works perfectly he goes on the outside of that building that he with his brothers has built and finished and he turns over the house key to a master that never struck a blow. (Applause). There the master resides, but when you want to find those whose blood stains are around that building you must go into the districts where you find the hovel, the chanty and the little cottage. There you find the men with brawny arms and red flannel shirts on Sunday afternoon sitting around the house smoking their little pipes and resting so that they may be good and strong producers on the next day. Why have they none of these things they produce? If these things are built by labor, why does not labor own them? (Applause). Simply because they occupy the same position as the trained brute. There is no one man could hold a horse if the horse knew his own strength. No one man could equal the power of the horse. When you see a spirited horse driven by a lady, it is not because of her power over the horse, but because he submits through fear. And that is the reason why the producing class permit themselves to be driven. It is because of fear. It is because they are afraid that their brothers will not stand by their side when the pull comes. (Laughter.)
Chicago in the past four months has been in a turmoil. We have had a little experience here that I believe has opened the eyes not only of the union men, but of the business men. I believe business men are disgusted with the present form of organization. I believe they in fact wish they could either get licked or lick the other fellow quickly and have it over with. The present fight that is going on in Chicago reminds me of a story. There was a German who had a very nice little dog, and he made up his mind that if he would clip its ears it would make a nicer looking dog. But he thought that if he cut it off all at once it would pain the dog too much, so he said: “I just will cut a little off each day so that it wont hurt so much each time.” And that is the way it looks about this strike; they don’t want it to hurt so much each time. If labor was organized the way it should be in Chicago, last January when the garment workers struck, the teamsters connected with those factories would have quit also. (Applause). And then organized labor would have served notice on the governor and on the mayor of the city of Chicago that the first time armed troops were seen on the streets of the city of Chicago all labor would quit in the city of Chicago. (Great applause). We will get you organized if you will be as liberal with your support as you were when I first worked with you. Because you need it in Chicago, and we don’t need to go to Fall River, where the brother came from, and where it was reported by the American Federation of Labor that an excellent settlement was made, but they never reported that they got a twenty per cent reduction the day after the settlement was made. You don’t need to go to Fall River to find sweat shops or conditions that are not right for the working people. You can find them right here in Chicago. (Applause). Right here in the city of Chicago little children, little girls, are trudging every morning to the factories when they should be around their mother’s skirts and going to school five days of the week. (Applause.)
The main object of this organization, as stated by the previous speaker, is to reach down and get the fellow that is down and bring him up to the level of the fellow that is well paid now. We are not looking at the top laborer, because we know he sticks up in different places where there are “aristocratic” bunches, and he goes down again like that (illustrating with a gesture). We want to heave up these hollow places, and level it all along on the bottom. We want a minimum. (Applause). If we get the minimum up here, if the mechanic is worthy of elevation, his work will show it and he will elevate, and as soon as he does he will get right under the common fellow and shove him right up to the side of him.
This is up to you. This is up to labor. If labor wants those things it can get them by concentrated action. If we want to remain unorganized or divided, why then the conditions will exist just as they are at the present time. There never was a strike in Chicago where there should be more credit given to men for making a hard fight than the present fight that is in existence, the teamsters’ strike. (Applause). I have been here twenty-five years, and during that time I have seen a great many struggles. I have never seen anything to equal the sacrifice that has been made by the teamsters. The men have sacrificed and bled. I have seen them go and face fifty policemen and put their wagons across the street when they knew that it was impossible for them to escape the policeman’s club. I say that men who have the courage to do that kind of work are fit for a revolutionary movement. (Applause). The great trouble with the boys that are out on strike is this: They are doing their part, but the trouble is on the other end where they meet so-called union men of another organization that hasn’t got a grievance yet, and they wont have till the drivers are licked, and then the bosses will skin these other fellows. On the other end we find union men at the freight house doors welcoming the loads of scab freight. They unload the freight and stow it away, and then they pass down the line to the out-going freight, and there the union men load up the scab wagons and make sure the loads are safely tied on before they go away. (Applause.)
When labor is organized right, when the scab backs up he won’t find anybody there to take care of the freight. We don’t propose to organize only the common man with the callous hands, but we want the clerical force, we want the soft hands that only get $40 a month, those fellows with No. 10 cuffs and collars. We want them all, so that when a strike is called we can strike the whole business at once. (Applause). The Industrial Workers of the World is an organization built on that policy, a movement that can be handled so that all those who are members of that organization can, if we desire, be got to stop work in thirty minutes. (Applause). I am quite confident that before we adjourn this convention we will get something very nice in the way of a nice motto written up in, respect to what we have done for labor, from the Managers' Association of Chicago, because I think that they will enjoy an organization built on the lines of solidarity. (Applause). I am expecting it every day. While the press has been a little bashful about giving us much credit, I expect before long that these boys who broke out with their applause will be found in an organization of their own, connected with the Industrial Workers of the World. (Applause.)
Now, there are other speakers to follow me, and as I have another meeting to go to, I am not going to hold you any longer. I want to say that I thank you very kindly for your attention, and I will ask you to go out and spread the gospel as to the aims of our organization, and show the same spirit and the disposition as you have toward the speakers to-night. If you do, if you constitute yourselves each and everyone of you an organizer, I .am confident it will be only a few months till the city of Chicago will see an organized condition such as never has been enjoyed in the past. I thank you. (Great applause.)
THE CHAIRWOMAN:-The next speaker will be William E. Trautmann of the “Brewery Workers.” (Applause.)
My Friends and Comrades:—-The former speaker has indulged in theories as to what the industrial union movement can accomplish. I wish to point to some facts to show what the industrial union movement of the world has already accomplished in other countries upon the globe. We see to-day, and stand amazed perhaps, at the solidarity of the proletarians of Russia. We see to-day one set of workers, as in Warsaw or in St. Petersburg, or in any other part of that country, lay down their tools for three or four days and again resume the operation of the industries; keep on the operation for about a week and, as if guided by a common thought, again lay down the tools and leave the owners of the tools to keep thinking what the working class really does want. Although that country may be classed as reactionary, as being backward, yet we see the working class organized on the lines of industrial unionism,. where the working people, not bound by the sacredness or the sanctity of a contract, not bound down by the labor leaders, not bound down by the commands and dictation of a few, are ready any time to lay down their tools and dictate to the employers and the rulers of the world what they really want. You may say that that may be a chaotic strike without organization. You may say that those who to-day rebel against conditions as they exist in Russia have not even heard about organization or industrial unionism as we are trying to introduce it upon the American continent. Yet the fact remains that the workers of Russia have been organizing for the last ten years on the same lines the American working people are going to organize on; on the lines of industrial unionism, on the lines of the economic organization of the working class, with the power and the determination to lay down the tools at any time when they see fit, and with the power and determination to take up work again when they see fit, when they have either lost or won a fight against the owners of the tools of production and distribution. On exactly the same lines the workers of the world are organizing in every civilized country of the world. It is not the weapon of the barbarian, but it is the weapon of civilization that the workers of this country should use in their fights against the owners of the tools. It is the fight of those who to-day produce everything that is of value. And by reason of their having the power in their hands; by reason of their knowing that they produce everything; by reason of their realizing the fact that they can organize and operate the tools of production and distribution; by reason of these facts and these facts alone have they organized in every community, in every region, in every country, industrial unions such as the Industrial Workers of the World of this country are trying to organize.
We claim that the producers should also have the right to stop production, and by stopping production., all at the same time, they will show the power of the organized working class, and will simply force into submission if necessary those who to-day control the means of life and the means to obtain what is good and necessary for all the members of the working class. (Applause). The workers of Russia have not the ballot. They cannot have it. They use their economic power, and with an economic organization on the same lines as the industrial union of this country is going to be organized on, they will use that power of the producers to show those who to-day control the destinies of this country that there is a class consisting of millions that can dictate conditions to the few who to-day can and do exploit those millions. (Applause). They have shown in other countries that only by organization on economic lines, by an organization that is based on a recognition of the class conflict in society, on a recognition of the fact that there are two classes, one the exploiting and the other the exploited class, on a recognition of the fact that there will be a class war until we, the workers of the world, are determined to end that war, can we succeed—and it is on this recognition that the workers have organized the economic powers of the world. We must say, and repeat again, that it is time in this country to organize the workers on the same line as they are organized in all countries, in all nations, in all parts of the world, with the same object in view, with the same goal in view, that only by the use of our economic power will we be able to wrest from those who own the tools that which belongs to the producers of all the wealth. (Applause.)
I do not deny that we have other weapons. I do not ignore the political class struggle, or the class struggle on political lines; yet at the same time I say that every Socialist or every man who believes in Socialism has no apology to offer for the formation of an economic organization of the working class that is going to be the training school for the workers of the world in order to enable them to operate the tools of production and distribution in a cooperative commonwealth. (Applause.)
We see to-day in Russia how men lay down the tools for two or three days, again resume operations for about a week, again lay down the tools, and keep the employers all the time in a state of irritation. We see to-day that the workers who are organized on the right lines, on the principles of class solidarity, do not care anything about the sacredness of contract. We see to-day that workers simply go out in a body, in community, and in recognition of the class solidarity and class community of their fellow men—out on strike without recognition of the sacred rights of those who exploit us. And we see to-day that there are growing numbers of those that do not recognize the rights of those who have exploited us for centuries. And why? Because of the recognition of the class conflict that these organizations have been organized upon; because every man who has become the head of an organization realizes the fact that he must become the pillar of the organization. Realizing the fact that he has the interests of his fellow men at stake in the battle between the capitalist class and the wage workers’ army, he becomes a warrior in that army and always remains with it until the victory. Such an army, whatever may come, whatever may be the result, will always be an army of men that will always stick to the colors, and will always remain a fighting army until the goal has been reached.
There is a difference between pure and simple or craft unionism and an industrial union organization. We simply proclaim that a man should be a member of an organization of his shop fellows, and when he knows why he is organized he never will desert the organization. (Applause.) When he knows that a defeat stares his shop fellow men in the face, he will know that the proper time has come to go back to work. Although he may be oppressed and ostracized and persecuted, yet he knows with his fellow men in the same factory, in the same mine, in the same shop, that the proper and opportune time will come when he, without the consent of the employer, will take up arms against him and fight against him. The difference between craft unionism and industrial unionism lies in the fact that the craft unionist recognizes the sacredness of contract. He allows the employer to choose the battle ground, and when the contract expires the employer is prepared to take up arms and take up the battle against the employes. He has prepared everything to defeat them, and when the contract is signed the employer does not recognize the committee of the union. You all know, without the necessity of proof, the conditions as they exist. The industrial unionist, on the other hand, will consider and study the economic conditions of the country, and will always be prepared for a fight, and will always be ready to take up the battle against the employing class, always ready to take up arms, always ready to help his fellow workmen in the same industry. Here is the difference between a man bound down by the sacredness of contract and a man who is bound to his fellow men in the same industry and in all industries by class solidarity, by the recognition of the solidarity of interest of all men who toil in the sweat of their brow. And this recognition alone will make the industrial union movement a success. The sacredness of contract idea should not prevail in this organization. The workmen should always be ready to take up the fight against the employing class; any time be ready to support the men in the shop, in the same industry, in all industries if necessary, to fight the battles against those who exploit us, against those who grind out of our labor power all the luxuries of their own life and do not allow us to enjoy what nature has given to all mankind. (Applause.) Not the difference in forms, but the difference in the means employed should be the distinction between craft unionism and the industrial union movement. It should be the distinction between the methods and the final aim and goal.
The industrial union movement recognizes the fact that labor must always be exploited as long as the system of wage slavery exists. The industrial unionist recognizes the fact that, unless he overthrows the system of capitalist exploitation, he will always be a wage slave. The industrialist will recognize the fact, does recognize the fact, that with all the power at the command of his fellow workers in the same shop, in all industries in the world, he has only one aim, one goal, one object before his eyes—the overthrow of the capitalist system. Although he may fight the battles of to-day just as effectively, just as fiercely, just as successfully as the old craft unionists have fought them for the last ten years, the difference only is that we see to-day the capitalist pitting one section of workers against another section of workers. We see to-day how union men can take the places of other union men. We see to-day the wood workers taking the places of the carpenters; we see to-day the engineers in one industry taking the places of the engineers in another industry. We see how, by the abetting of the capitalist class and through the aid of the labor leaders, one faction of the working class is being used against the other part of the working class, and by the systematic effort of the capitalist class, the working class is kept divided and at loggerheads. (Applause.) The industrial union movement proposes that there should be solidarity upon the economic battle ground. The workers should recognize that the common worker who sweeps the streets and the man who earns $5, $6 or $8 a day in the iron and steel works, are equal, one as good as the other; that they both have one interest; that they have one foe to fight, and that is the owners of the tools of production and distribution. (Applause). By recognizing this fact the industrial union movement proclaims and the Industrial Workers of the World proclaim that we, the working class, must use our efforts to get and keep the working class united on the economic battle field in order to enable them to control the means of life, the means of production and distribution, so that the workers may be able to operate the industries of this country, not for the benefit of the few, but for the common good of all. That is the final aim of industrialism. (Applause.)
The Chairwoman:—Before I introduce the last speaker I will state that Eugene V. Debs is out of the city, and Daniel De Leon was unable to come on account of sickness. The last speaker will be Pat O’Neil, the man from Arkansas.
Madam Chairwoman and Fellow Slaves :—I do not intend to keep you here very long, because you have sat quite a while under a fire of oratory and I expect you are tired; if you are not now you will be mighty soon when I get going. We have heard every speaker here this evening mention the class struggle, but no one has yet defined what is the class struggle, so that if there is any one here who has any wonder or any doubt as to what the class struggle means he may go away not knowing unless it is explained.
Now, just imagine yourself as a workingman on friendly terms with your employer. He probably is a man of the very best intentions but remember that, when his competitor cuts wages, he in turn must cut yours or go out of business. That is the iron law of competition and of business. On the other hand, some labor leaders in the United States undertake to convince us that there is a harmony or identity of interest between labor and capital. Now, you are interested in getting the largest possible wages in return for your toil, while the employer is interested in getting your labor for the least possible amount. Is there any harmony or identity of interest in that? Can there be? Now, that is the class struggle; the struggle of those who produce all and have nothing, to have larger and larger returns for their labor.
The natural law of labor and of wages is laid down by all the great authorities, beginning with the sacred writings, that “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread”; not in the sweat of another man’s face, but in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread; that is, that the result of labor ought to belong to those who do the labor. That is the natural law of labor and wages. Adam Smith repeats it as such. John Stuart Mill copies this law, and so do all the great writers from that early time up to the present. I will admit that we have some men who write to the contrary, but they are not great writers. (Applause). I want you to get that idea into your minds, as it constitutes the class struggle. It is very plain when you once come to see it, very plain.
Another thing. They were jollying the members of the press here to-night, and I have just one thing to say about that. I am satisfied that we have been organizing here on exactly correct lines, exactly class-conscious lines, because there is only one newspaper in the city that has told the truth about what you did (applause), and that is the German newspaper, which has given us a fair deal because it is a workingman’s paper. The other papers all belong to the employing class, and they have lied like thieves. (Laughter and applause.)
Now, I just want to ask you a straight-forward question. I saw a sign down here the other day, “Diamonds, jewelry, etc.” Now, just suppose that you were down there and your wife came in and found you buying a diamond necklace and a watch and chain and pendant with a nice motto, for some other woman, don’t you reckon there would be something doing at your house pretty soon? Well, now, I want to tell you that that is exactly what you do every day; you buy the diamonds and silks and satins for the other fellow’s wife, and the calico rags for our own. (Applause). And by the gods, if that wife of yours had a lick of sense she would go on strike and make you move your washing till you got some sense. (Applause.)
As you were told a moment ago, I am from Arkansas. We raise lots of things down in Arkansas; we raise some curious things. We raise cotton, corn and mules—two-legged and four-legged (laughter)—and we raise children and whiskey and hell. (Laughter). A short time ago I was talking with a gentleman down there, and he says to me: “Why, you are crazy; you want to pull mankind all down to your level.” I says: “No, no, I can’t understand it that way. I want to reach down and get the fellow that is in the hole and bring him up a ways. The trouble with your intellect is that it runs right down in the mud like a hog’s nose.” And that is a fact. You take a man whose intellect follows the line of his nose that is down all the time, he imagines that the only way to level humanity is by pulling down; but a man whose intellect looks upward towards the light, he recognizes that there is only one way of leveling mankind, and that is by leveling them up. (Applause.)
Some curious things occur in the labor field. I have lived quite a while in this world, seventy-five years the second of last month. I have been a laborer now a little over sixty-eight years since I was bound up to a trade, and I want to call your attention to some curious facts. You have been addressed to-night by workingmen: Hagerty, of laboring stock; Haywood, an actual laborer; Sherman and others. Now, Roosevelt is having some sort of hysterics about race suicide. I will admit that his class runs to cigarettes, collars and cuffs, but when you want men you go to the laboring class and find them. (Applause). Take that man Bill Haywood; the women who go to monkey dinners don’t have that kind of sons. (Applause). I don’t wonder. I don’t wonder the men who associate only in the class to which Roosevelt belongs fear race suicide. Luckily this climate is not good for monkeys.
Now, I don’t want to talk statistics; that is dry business; but I want to call your attention to one fact, that your employers’ figures show that every workingman in the United States produces wealth to the value of about $2,500 per annum on the average. We find that we have returned to us, including salaries of the high-priced superintendents, presidents of railroads and men of that class bunched in with the laborers—that we get a return of about $437 per annum. Now, then, I have got a question that I want to ask some of you fellows that don’t believe in this class business: Who in the Sam Hill gets the other $2,100? What was it produced for? And by what right does the individual who produces nothing at all relegate to himself the greater portion of that which labor has produced? Looking backward, as I said a while ago, we see that labor alone can produce wealth, and that the smaller part called wages is all that goes to those that toil. Then we find that the right to property comes by labor and through labor. Talking with a right nice Johnnie boy some time ago, whose father left him quite a little wad of money in the way of railroad stocks and the like of that: “How did all these things that you have, come to belong to you?” “Why,” he said, “my father gave them to me.” I said: “Well, where did your father get it?” “Why, my father made it in business, sir, and accumulated it.” “He did? And that is the way you come to inherit it, because he accumulated it? Well, sir, I want to tell you something. My father did not accumulate, but he produced, and I have been robbed of my inheritance. The law of inheritance is all right, but it should run through the line of production, not through the line of accumulation.” Of course, he couldn’t see it that way. I don’t blame him, because he was at the wrong end of the telescope, and I looked powerful small to him. (Applause.)
But see here, do you believe there is any truth in that story of the Carpenter of Nazareth? If you do, ask yourselves this question: How many kinds of a fool was He when He spoke this prayer that I want to give you: “Our Father who art in heaven, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Now, I want to ask you a question: If you believe He was here for that purpose, and that He was a true representative of your cult, I want to ask you who owns the corner lots and the oil wells in Heaven? (Laughter and applause). While they have been talking and praying about His will and His kingdom on earth as it is in heaven, we have had nineteen centuries of Christianity and jails. (Applause). I don’t believe that kind of praying will do anybody any good.
I am like Dean Swift and his man Jock. One morning the Dean said: “Jock, did you black my boots?” “No,” said Jock, “I blacked them yesterday, and that is enough.” After a bit, about dinner time, the Dean said to him: “Jock, I wish you would go and saddle my horse and your pony,” and while Jock was gone the Dean ate his dinner, and when Jock brought the animals around to the door the Dean was ready to ride. “Well, but,” said Jock, “Master, I didn’t have my dinner.” “Oh,” said the Dean, “you ate yesterday, and that will do for you to-day.” Well, they started riding down the road, and while Jock was riding ahead he met a friend, who said: “Where are you going?” “We are going to heaven,” Jock replied. “How do you make that out?” “0h,” said Jock, “I am fasting and my master is praying, and if that is not the way to get to heaven I don’t know how you would get there.” Well, it is that way about Christianity and the jails. It is all either prayer or fasting for the working class. (Applause.)
But as I said to you, I did not intend to keep you here long. We have come here to hold a ratification over the organization of the first industrial movement in the United States. For eighteen years I have been agitating on this one particular line, asking my fellow laborers to get together in an organization which recognized really, not just simply through word of mouth, that an injury to one was an injury to all. They have at last got to the place where they recognize that. (Applause). And now, you who are here, I ask you to ratify it by giving three good hearty cheers for industrial unionism.
The meeting then closed with three rousing cheers for the Industrial Workers of the World.
Chronology :
January 18, 2021 : The 1905 Proceedings of the Founding Convention of the Industrial Workers of the World -- Added.
January 06, 2022 : The 1905 Proceedings of the Founding Convention of the Industrial Workers of the World -- Updated.
HTML file generated from :
http://revoltlib.com/