The action of the mine operators [said the commissioners] warrants the belief that they had determined upon a reduction of wages and the refusal of employment to members of the Western Federation of Miners, but that they feared to take this course of action unless they had the protection of Federal troops, and that they accordingly laid a plan to secure such troops and then put their program into effect.[363]
Although at the time the I. W. W. and the W. F. M. made common cause, after the final separation of the two national bodies the Federation was not only critical but bitterly denunciatory. The editor of the official organ of the W. F. M.—J. M. O'Neill—was derisive in his comments on the rôle of the I. W. W. at Goldfield. "The I. W. W. took root at Goldfield, Nevada," he says, "and a vast number of the miners became the victims of the sophistry and fell for the propaganda of the spouting hoodlums.... Other mining camps of Nevada became infected with I. W. W.-ism...." But he comes thankfully to the conclusion that "the labor movement of Nevada is slowly recovering from the pestilence of I. W. W.-ism...."[364]
Charges of a very different character were hurled at the I. W. W. and its Goldfield activities from financial circles in Chicago. It was stated that "detectives have substantiated allegations of a conspiracy to commit ten murders, a conspiracy formed and fostered within the hierarchy of the I. W. W...." And that "leaders of the I. W. W.... have been using this labor trouble as a lever for stockmarket jobbery...."[365] This last charge was reiterated in another issue of the same paper, in which it was suggested that "certain stock brokers were working hand in glove with the leaders and agitators at the head of the I. W. W. to break the market...."[366]
A member of the I. W. W. now living in Goldfield, and who took part in the industrial struggles of 1906 and 1907, sends the following brief comment:
In September, 1906, at the behest of the mine owners, 220 of the W. F. M. took a vote to take the town workers, No. 77 of the I. W. W., into their fold. It was carried with the assistance of the church, and 220 and 77 were amalgamated. The first cry on the streets before they even held a meeting was that the cooks and waiters were running the miners' meeting; then followed the dissensions mapped out by the mine owners, the Citizens' Alliance, the stool-pigeons, spies and gum-shoes, till the following September the convention expelled the W. F. M. for non-payment of per-capita tax and the W. F. M. sent organizers of the Sherman faction, but the dual unions did not last long, and in fact 220 itself was shaking, till finally it went down and the only cry you hear from those whom the powers that be cannot control is the one big union, and it is only a matter of a short time till the workers get aroused, and then there will be something doing.[367]
The I. W. W. and the W. F. M. did win important concessions from the Mine Operators in Goldfield and that, according to officials of the I. W. W., was the reason why they were so roundly abused. "The chief crime of the I. W. W. in Goldfield," said St. John, "was that they had secured the eight-hour day with wages from $3.00 to $5.00 and board for all restaurant and hotel employees; a ten-hour day with $5.00 wages for clerks, and an eight-hour day with $6.00 per day for bartenders."[368] Most I. W. W. leaders point to the Goldfield situation in those early days as a conspicuous illustration not only of improvements gained in wage and hours, but also of the possibilities of job control by the workers. An I. W. W. who was an active participant in the Goldfield achievements of the I. W. W. and is now a district organizer on the Pacific Coast, writes:
At that time we had job control in many mining camps. At
Goldfield, I. W. W. miners received $5.00 for eight hours; bakers, $8.00 per eight hours and board; dishwashers, $3.00 per eight hours and board. After three years of I. W. W. prosperity the Nevada employers, with the aid of the A. F. of L. scabs and organizers, conservative Irish-Catholic I. W. W. members(!), detectives, spies, state police and Federal troops, broke up the I. W. W.[369]
St. John also looks back to the Goldfield period as a kind of an I. W. W. Golden Age. In his historical sketch of the I. W. W., he writes:
Under the I. W. W. sway in Goldfield the minimum wage for all kinds of labor was $4.50 per day and the eight-hour day was universal. The highest point of efficiency for any labor organization was reached by the I. W. W. and W. F. M. in Goldfield, Nevada. No committees were ever sent to any employers. The unions adopted wage scales and regulated hours. The secretary posted the same on a bulletin board outside of the union hall, and it was the LAW. The employers were forced to come and see the union committees.[370]
The I. W. W. member quoted above does not agree with St. John as to the cause of the downfall of the I. W. W. in Goldfield. The latter attributes it to the occurrence of a strike during the financial panic of 1907.[371]
Oddly enough, these anti-political, direct actionist I. W. W.s figured rather prominently in Nevada state politics at this time. Among the candidates on the Socialist party ticket in 1906 were the following:
Despite the success which mass organization met with in Goldfield, the I. W. W. was not at that time at all partial to the idea of mass organization. F. W. Heslewood declared that he was opposed to taking into one local union every worker around a town, believing as he did that the Goldfield practice was contrary to "the very fundamental principles of industrial unionism...."[373] Another member said:
I claim that we have left the field of mass organization and have got down to the field of industrial integral organization. I claim that industrial organization as it shall be exemplified by the Industrial Workers of the World is of an organic nature.... We recognize that mass organization is a thing that is to be abjured when we come into an industrial organization.... The difference between a mass organization and an industrial organization is that the mass organization is destructive ... [whereas the integral] industrial organization is constructive. It proposes to recognize the laws to the minutest details that environ, govern and control the working class.[374]
The reality of the sentiment in favor of some modification of the original structural form of the I. W. W. in the direction of a more simple or mass form of organization is evidenced by the long discussion on the floor of the convention of a proposal to abolish the departments. Since 1908 the I. W. W. has had a precarious foothold in Goldfield. The combined effects of the exhausting struggles which have been described and the financial panic of 1907 were overwhelming for an organization which at the best had little in the way of reserve resources. "The strike of the W. F. M. in October, 1907," says St. John, "took place during a panic and destroyed the organization's [i. e., the I. W. W.'s] control in that district."[375]
There is at this time (1916) a struggling local in Goldfield—Metal Mine Workers' Union No. 353, organized in August, 1914. The author recently wrote to the secretary of this local, making inquiries in regard to the present labor situation in Goldfield and the condition of the local union. He replied: "The economic conditions of this camp forbid the answer of the question you ask.... I trust ... it will not be long before 353 can meet openly and above board."[376]
The organization continued to over-indulge in strikes. It was more or less involved in the strike of the Electrical Workers of Schenectady in December, 1906. In 1907 it was involved in the following strikes among others: textile workers, Skowhegan, Maine, February to April; silk workers of Paterson. N. J., March; silk workers of Lancaster, Pa., fall of 1907; piano workers of Paterson, N. J., April; the loggers in Eureka, Cal., May, 1907; the saw-mill workers of Portland, Ore.; the sheet steel workers in Youngstown; the tube-mill workers in Bridgeport, Conn.; the miners in Tonopah, Nevada; the foundry workers in Detroit; and the smeltermen in Tacoma, Wash., in the summer of 1907. Goldfield, of course, was the scene of an almost continuous epidemic of strikes during the years 1906 and 1907.
In his report to the third convention the General Secretary-Treasurer says that
Not counting the strike and lockout in Goldfield, ... we had 24 strikes in which approximately 15,500 members participated. Most of these strikes lasted two to six weeks, one nine weeks, two lasted ten weeks and longer, and the strike of the Tacoma smeltermen lasted over six months.... Out of all these strikes ... two [those at Tonopah and Detroit] must be considered flat failures.... All other strikes ended either in compromise or in the complete attainment of what the strikes had been inaugurated for.[377]
The strikers at Schenectady made use of syndicalistic tactics which have been strongly advocated in the I. W. W. literature. "At two o'clock Monday," [December 10] it was reported, "about 3,000 men struck. They did not walk out, but remained at their places, simply stopping production."[378] Reports of this strike from I. W. W. sources give the impression that the American Federation of Labor bodies in Schenectady did much to block the efforts of the I. W. W. It was said that on December 12 the local Trades Assembly of the A. F. of L. sent a statement to the press repudiating the I. W. W. and declaring that the A. F. of L. was not concerned in the strike and that "as to any individual organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor going out on a sympathetic strike, such action would result in the forfeiture of its charter."[379] In both the Bridgeport and Youngstown strikes, according to St. John, failure resulted from the alleged obstructive tactics of the American Federation. In both cases the loss of the strike is attributed to "the scabbing tactics of the A. F. of L."[380] The strike of the Portland (Ore.) saw-mill workers in March and April is worthy of more than passing notice. On the first of March 3,000 men walked out on strike, for a nine-hour day and an increase in wages from $1.75 to $2.50 per day. It is not probable that any great proportion of these men were members of the I. W. W. at the time they went on strike. However, I. W. W. leaders soon came upon the scene and most of the strikers very soon joined the organization.[381] The strike lasted forty days.
On account of the exceptional demand for labor ... most of the strikers secured employment elsewhere and the strike played out at the end of about six weeks. [Nevertheless, the employers] were forced indirectly to raise the wages and improve conditions [and] ... this strike gave much impetus to I. W. W. agitation in the western part of the United States.[382]
During this strike the I. W. W. opened an employment office and a restaurant for the benefit of the strikers.[383] The I. W. W. reports of the duration of the strike and the number of men out may be exaggerated. John Kenneth Turner, in his "Story of a New Labor Union," says "that more than 2,000 were out for over three weeks."[384] The Portland saw-mill strike really marked the début of the I. W. W. before the public of the Pacific Northwest, and it was something of a surprise to the community. The I. W. W. was promptly written up as a feature story for the Oregon Sunday Journal by John Kenneth Turner. The opening paragraphs of his article read:
Portland has just passed through her first strike conducted by the Industrial Workers of the World, a new and strange form of unionism, which is taking root in every section of the United States, especially in the West. The suddenness of the strike and the completeness of the tie-up are things quite unprecedented in this part of the country. These conditions did not merely happen—they came as direct results of the peculiar form and philosophy of the movement that brought the strike into being. "If the street-car men had been organized under our motto, together with all other A. F. of L. men, the street-car strike would have lasted ten minutes," says Organizer Fred Heslewood. The boast is not an extravagant one. Wherever the Industrial Workers of the World are organized they can paralyze industry at almost the snap of a finger. It is the way they work.
"Well, you've tied us up. I didn't think you could do it, but you did. You're clever; I'll give you credit for that. I didn't think any union could close this mill," one of the mill owners is reported as having said to Organizer Yarrow. "You yourself have taught us all we know," replied Yarrow. "We organize on the same plan as you do and we've got you."
One peculiar feature about the great mill strike was that ... there was absolutely no violence, no law-breaking and no crying of "scab." Just one man was arrested for trespassing, and he imagined that he was standing in a public street. Other strange features were the red ribbons, the daily speech-making and the labor night and day shifts of organizers who received not a red cent for their services.[385]
In September, 1907, there were undoubtedly not less than 200 locals in the I. W. W.[386] Between September, 1906, and September, 1907, one hundred and eighteen charters were issued to local unions,[387] making the total number of locals chartered since the launching of the organization not less than nine hundred and twenty-eight. It is evident that in this period also the "turnover" of I. W. W. locals was very heavy. There is apparently one report showing the number of locals disbanded during this period. The average membership for 1907 was considerably lower than it was for 1906 and was probably about six thousand.[388] The financial condition of the I. W. W. at this time was indicated by the report of the Secretary-Treasurer to the third convention. For the period from October, 1906, to August, 1907, receipts were given as $30,550.75 and disbursements as $31,578.76.[389]
Considerable progress had been made in organizing the coal miners. Secretary Trautmann reported to the third convention that "fourteen unions of coal miners were organized in Illinois, four big organizations in Pennsylvania, three in Texas, two in Kansas, one in Colorado—a total of twenty-four unions with an approximate membership of 2,000 ...," and he went on to the optimistic conclusion that "the wedge has been driven into the unholy alliance between operators and the United Mine Workers."[390] Later on, when the convention was discussing the United Mine Workers and the conditions in the Illinois coal mines, Trautmann commented on the remarks made by a delegate of a United Mine Workers' local (No. 1475) which had apparently swung to the I. W. W. He (Trautmann) said:
He represents by a vote of the United Mine Workers an element that is today in rebellion against the United Mine Workers of America, that element being not only that one local which is in rebellion, but three or four or five, and very likely [it] ... will be followed by at least one-third of the locals in the state of Illinois.[391]
A few of the problems of policy and internal organization which were discussed at the third convention deserve consideration. Not least important of these was the problem of the Japanese in California. From the very first the I. W. W. had taken a definite stand against any and all discriminations based upon race, color or nationality. Among the first words uttered by Wm. D. Haywood in calling the first I. W. W. convention to order were words of criticism of the American Federation of Labor for its discriminations against Negroes and foreigners. From that day to this the organization has been unique in the constancy and strength of its appeal to and attraction for foreigners. This particular phase of the I. W. W.'s activities has been given endless publicity in connection with the Lawrence and Paterson strikes. At the third convention, George Speed, a delegate from California, quite accurately expressed the sentiment of the organization in regard to the Japanese question. "The whole fight against the Japanese," he said, "is the fight of the middle class of California, in which they employ the labor faker to back it up."[392] He added, however, that he considered it "practically useless ... under present conditions for the Industrial Workers of the World to take any steps" to organize the Japanese. This primarily because he felt that the organization had more work on hand than it could well attend to.[393] The North American Times, a daily paper published in the Japanese language in Seattle, printed in the spring of 1906 an editorial on the I. W. W., which ran in part as follows:
To promote the rights and happiness of the workers they have the intention to make ... a grand success so that the I. W. W. will finally become the most powerful labor organization in the world. In the American history of labor there has never been such a union that may contain the laborers of every nationality in its membership.[394]
A reaction from an excessive indulgence in strikes, or at least a sign of the consciousness of this excess, is evident from two resolutions adopted by the third convention:
Resolved, that the convention instruct all our organizers to discourage strikes and strike talk, and to impress upon those whom they are organizing the necessity of realizing that the conquest by the workers of the power to retain and enjoy the full product of their labor should take precedence in their minds of all smaller ameliorations of our conditions.[395]
Resolved, that during this, the constructive period of the I. W. W., no portion thereof shall enter into any strike, unless conducted in an industrial plant which is thoroughly organized in the I. W. W....[396]
In regard to the general organizing activity of the I. W. W., it was proposed in one of the resolutions adopted, that the organization confine its work for the time being to the smaller cities where the A. F. of L. was comparatively weak, and in connection with this that efforts in organization be concentrated for the present on certain selected industries.[397] Fred Heslewood, member of the General Executive Board, in his report to the convention, said:
I believe it is an entire waste of money at the present time to keep said organizers in cities where the A. F. of L. has the workers divided and organized into crafts. We are not financially able to tear down this barrier of fakerism at present. I do not mean that we should not fight it. I mean that we should pay special attention to the lumber industry before they [sic] are rent into fragments by the American Federation of Labor.[398]
It was urged that special attention be directed to the mining and lumber industries and that for the general organizing propaganda one-half of the income of the general administration be devoted to the payment of organizers and the printing of literature.[399] The editor of the official organ of the I. W. W. declared that the third convention was
free from the sentimentalism and bourgeois reaction which characterized the gathering of 1905, and the pure-and-simple, destructive tactics of the [1906] assembly; ... [that] it marked a distinct advance in an understanding of the philosophy and structure of the movement and was a gathering typically working-class and loyal ... to the workers....
and that for these reasons there could be no possible doubt of the stability of the organization.[400]
A few weeks after the third convention had adjourned the panic of 1907 struck the country. The I. W. W. was nearly wiped out of existence. Its only organ, The Industrial Union Bulletin, was obliged first to appear fortnightly instead of weekly and finally to suspend publication. "Its locals dissolved by the dozens and the general headquarters at Chicago was only maintained by terrific sacrifice and determination...."[401] The report of the General Secretary to the fourth convention explained that when the third convention closed, General Headquarters expected to collect the moneys due from the local unions, but before collections could be arranged "the industrial panic struck the country with all its force, and the misery following in the wake of that collapse was mostly felt in places where the Industrial Workers of the World had established a stronghold." The Secretary went on to say that the revenue for December, 1907, was not more than half what it had been the year before.[402] To aggravate the situation still more were rumors of internal friction between a group of Socialist Labor party followers of Daniel DeLeon and the rest of the organization. Indeed, very soon after the convention, charges were made that the Weekly People, the official organ of the Socialist Labor party, was being used against the I. W. W.[403]
This was the beginning of the most serious internal fight in the career of the I. W. W. It was to turn on that same vexed question that seems eternally to plague those who want to construct labor organizations along radical lines—namely, the relationship that should exist between the union and the political parties, especially the Progressive, Labor and Socialist parties. The second clause of the Preamble (spoken of among the "Wobblies" as "the political clause") held the seeds of discord in its apparently harmless assertion that the class struggle "must go an until all the toilers come together on the political as well as on the industrial field." Here we have the phrase which, at the 1908 convention, was to make the revolutionary syndicalists see red and which was finally to result in a bifurcated I. W. W.
[342] Cf. supra, p. 123.
[343] Article I, Section 1, W. F. M. Constitution (1910). In 1916 the Federation changed its name to "The International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers."
[344] Industrial Union Bulletin, March 30, 1907, p. 2, col. 1.
[345] Ibid.
[346] Report of Acting President Charles Mahoney to the Fifteenth Convention W. F. M., Proceedings, p. 33.
[347] Ibid., pp. 33-35. This was in the autumn of 1906.
[348] Report of Acting President Mahoney to Fifteenth W. F. M. Convention, Proceedings, p. 33.
[349] "Review of the facts in the situation at Goldfield," Industrial Union Bulletin, April 6, 1907, p. 1, col. 3.
[350] Report of Acting President Mahoney to Fifteenth Convention W. F. M., Proceedings, p. 34.
[351] Ibid.
[352] Ibid., p. 35.
[353] See Tridon, The New Unionism, pp. 105-6. Tridon states (p. 105) that in April a compromise was reached owing to the weakness of the W. F. M. officials. However, it settled nothing, for the struggle continued intermittently through the summer and fall.
[354] St. John, I. W. W., History (1917 ed.), p. 18.
[355] "What happened at Goldfield," The Industrial Worker, Aug. 27, 1910, p. 3, col. 1.
[356] Ibid. Italics in the original.
[357] Industrial Union Bulletin, April 20, 1907, Special Correspondence.
[358] Labor troubles at Goldfield, Nevada, 60th Congress, 1st Session, House Document No. 607, pp. 3-5.
[359] Ibid., p. 4.
[360] Consisting of Lawrence O. Murray, Herbert Knox Smith and Charles P. Neill. Their report as well as other data bearing on the matter are printed in House Document No. 607, 60th Congress, 1st Session. "Papers relative to labor troubles at Goldfield, Nevada." Their report is reprinted in the Congressional Record, Feb. 3, 1908. pp. 1484-1487, vol. xlii, no. 35.
[361] The reference is to the killing of Tony Silva by M. R. Preston (a member of the Socialist Labor party and its candidate for President of the United States) who was on picket duty for the I. W. W. and the W. F. M. The I. W. W. has always insisted that Preston shot in self-defense and the weight of evidence seems to justify that contention. See "Preston's Crime," The Weekly People, July 18, 1908, p. 3, col. 1. (Author's note.)
[362] 60th Congress, 1st Session, House Document No. 607, Labor troubles at Goldfield, Nevada, pp. 20-21.
[363] Ibid., p. 21.
[364] Editorial, Miners' Magazine, Aug. 1, 1912, p. 7, col. 1.
[365] Special correspondence, Journal of Finance, Chicago, reprinted in the Weekly People, June 1, 1907, p. 2, col. 5.
[366] Special correspondence, Journal of Finance, reprinted in the Industrial Union Bulletin, May 18, 1907.
[367] Letter to the author, dated October 21, 1912.
[368] "The Goldfield Situation," Weekly People, April 6, 1907, p. 1. He tells here the complete story of the Goldfield labor troubles of 1906-07. It was also claimed that the I. W. W. forced the wages of railroad laborers in this region from $1.75 for ten hours to $4.50 for eight hours. Industrial Worker, Jan. 29, 1910. p. 1, col. 5.
[369] Letter to the author dated April 22, 1916. For the Goldfield situation in general, vide, "Papers relative to labor troubles at Goldfield, Nev." 60th Congress, 1st Session, Document No. 607, and St. John, "Review of the facts in the situation at Goldfield," Industrial Union Bulletin, April 6, 1907, p. 1.
[370] St. John, op. cit., p. 18. So capitalized in the original.
[371] See infra, p. 203.
[372] Miners' Magazine, vol. viii, no. 161, July 26, 1906, p. 13.
[373] Fifteenth Convention W. F. M., Proceedings, pp. 832-3.
[374] Delegate E. J. Foote, Proceedings, 3rd Convention, Official Report, no. 3. p. 2, col. 1.
[375] St. John, The I. W. W., History, Structure and Methods, p. 18.
[376] Letter dated April 19, 1916.
[377] Industrial Union Bulletin, September 14, 1907, p. 7, col. 4.
[378] The Weekly People, Dec. 22, 1906, p. 1. This paper is to be considered as virtually an I. W. W. organ between July, 1905 and September, 1908. After the latter date, of course, it backed the Detroit I. W. W.
[379] Weekly People, Dec. 22, 1906, p. 2, col. 5. In the same column is a dispatch containing this statement: "... the general foreman of the turbine department was called upon to fill the places of the strikers; he said he would sooner resign than fill the places with other than I. W. W. men. We may witness in the near future that foremen will join the I. W. W., and then—good-bye, capitalism!"
[380] St. John, The I. W. W., History, Structure and Methods, p. 18.
[381] Industrial Union Bulletin, April 27, 1907, p. 2, col. 4-5.
[382] St. John, The I. W. W., History, Structure and Methods, pp. 17-18. A similar estimate is given in the Industrial Union Bulletin of April 27, 1907, p. 2.
[383] Industrial Union Bulletin, loc cit.
[384] Industrial Union Leaflet No. 16, p. 1.
[385] "Story of a new labor union," reprinted from the Oregon Sunday Journal as Industrial Union Leaflet No. 16, p. 1. This article was also reprinted in the Industrial Union Bulletin of April 27, 1907.
[386] This number was reported to the Third Convention by Secretary Trautmann, Official Report No. 1, p. 2, but in the "Report of the I. W. W. to the Stuttgart Congress" (1907) we read: "... the organization has now 362 industrial unions and branches organized in thirty-seven states and three provinces of Canada." Industrial Union Bulletin, Aug. 10, 1907, p. 3, col. 3.
[387] Industrial Union Bulletin, Sept. 14, 1907, p. 7, col. 1.
[388] Secretary-Treasurer St. John put it at 5,931, (Letter dated Feb. 1, 1915); Prof. Barnett makes it 6,700, (Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. xxx, p. 846.) Apparently the administration included the Western Federation of Miners when they reported to the Stuttgart Congress, 28,000 members. (Industrial Union Bulletin, Aug. 10, 1907, p. 4.)
[389] Third Convention Proceedings, Official Report No. 8, p. 2, col. 4.
[390] Industrial Union Bulletin, Sept. 14, 1907, p. 8, col. 3, 4.
[391] Proceedings, Third I. W. W. Convention, Official Report No. 1, p. 4.
[392] Proceedings of the Third Convention, Official Report No. 7, p. 1, col. 2.
[393] Ibid.
[394] Reprinted in English in the Weekly People, June 2, 1906, p. 1.
[395] Proceedings of Third Convention, Official Report No. 7, p. 2. col. 3.
[396] Ibid. Official Report No. 4, p. 5, col. 1.
[397] Proceedings, Third Convention, Official Report No. 5, pp. 4-5.
[398] Industrial Union Bulletin, Sept. 28, 1907, p. 2, col. 5.
[399] A few weeks later the editor of the Industrial Union News wrote (in the issue of Nov. 9, 1907, p. 2, col. 1) that the I. W. W. "accomplished the organization of a body of metalliferous miners, nearly 3,000 strong, in the far-off territory of Alaska since the third annual convention which adjourned September 24."
[400] "Reflections on the Third Annual Convention," Industrial Union Bulletin, Oct. 5, 1907, p. 2.
[401] "The I. W. W., its Strength and Opportunity," by "The Commentator," Solidarity, Feb. 25, 1911.
[402] Industrial Union Bulletin, Oct. 24. 1908.
[403] Rudolph Katz, "With DeLeon Since '89," Weekly People, Dec. 4, 1915, p. 2, col. 4.
For a period of nearly two years following the financial panic of 1907, the I. W. W. had a precarious and for the most part uneventful existence. The organization made practically no headway with its recruiting and propaganda work. Indeed, it probably lost ground. There was a falling off in the number of locals in the organization and, at least for 1909, in the number of local union charters issued. Vincent St. John, at that time General Organizer, said in his report to the fourth convention: