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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. W. W. Membership—First Year[210]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER V
The Coup of the "Proletarian Rabble"
(1906)

The second convention was the occasion of the first split in the ranks of the Industrial Workers of the World. At this time the friction seemed to be chiefly personal, whereas the second schism in 1908 was primarily due to differences in regard to principles and policies. It is true that principles and policies were involved in the feud of 1906, but they lurked obscurely in the background, while personal antagonisms—charges and counter-charges of graft, corruption and malfeasance in office—held the center of the stage. From the inception of the movement the year before a smouldering dissension developed between the poorer and less skilled groups of workers—largely migratory and casual laborers, the "revolutionists" or the "wage-slave delegates" as they were called in the second convention—these on the one side, and the more highly skilled and strongly organized groups called (by the other side) the "reactionaries" or the "political fakirs." It might be remarked in passing that, in this ultra-revolutionary I. W. W., the "conservatism" of the "reactionaries" ought to be heavily discounted and the radicalism of the "revolutionists" raised to the nth degree to get the true perspective! Involved with this group hostility was the trouble stirred up by various members of the two Socialist political parties.

But all this internal antagonism was very obscure. It evidenced itself chiefly in the personal fight between the Sherman-Hanneman-Kirkpatrick faction and the Trautmann-DeLeon-St. John faction at the second convention, which finally resulted in the deposition of C. O. Sherman as General President. Mr. St. John has described the situation as it appeared from his side of the controversy. At the second convention it soon developed, he says,

The revolutionists, who were referred to later by their opponents as the "proletarian rabble" of the "beggars," held a pre-convention conference in Chicago on August 14, 1906. This little "curtain-raiser" was called by Local Union No. 23 of the Department of Metal and Machinery which on July 20 sent out a letter to the various I. W. W. locals in Chicago, which declared that "developments during the past year have proven to us that the constitution does not come up to the requirements of the rank and file ...," and urged a preliminary conference to consider the following propositions:

The conference met with delegates present from about sixteen local unions and unanimously decided that a president was unnecessary, that all organizers, lecturers, etc., should be nominated by the local unions and elected by the "rank and file," that each local should receive reports of all Executive Board sessions, which, moreover, should be open to the rank and file, and that every local union be represented at the approaching convention by at least two delegates.

Commenting on the conference, J. M. O'Neill remarks that "there is a vast difference between being class-conscious and being class-crazy."[226]

An inkling of the beautifully chaotic condition of affairs no later than December, 1905, is given by the comments of Max Hayes in the International Socialist Review for January, 1906.

The principal charge against President Sherman was that of misdirected and generally extravagant expenditure of the funds of the organization. The auditing committee at the 1906 convention reported that "the expenditures of the ex-General President show gross extravagance and strong evidence of corruption. During a period of thirty-three days he flung away on a junketing trip, not a single local being organized by him at any time, the sum of $731.55...."[228] William. E. Trautmann, the General Secretary-Treasurer, reported that he was "compelled to pay bills under protest for services never rendered, or for such things as should be considered an insult and outrage against the entire membership."[229]

The opponents of Sherman did not believe that these alleged offenses were either the most important or the most dangerous of his pernicious activities. When the case finally came before the Master in Chancery, there was among the affidavits filed in the case of St. John versus Sherman one by a certain Lillian Farberg,

The foregoing charges were flatly denied by J. M. O'Neill, the editor of the Miners' Magazine; at the fifteenth convention of the W. F. M., he repudiated these and other accusations made by the "DeLeon coterie" and offered $500 reward for the establishment of the truth of any of them.[231] Delegate Parks, one of the "wage slave" delegates, declared that

Immediately on the adjournment of the 1907 convention, ex-President Sherman issued a statement "to officers and members of all local unions and all departments of the Industrial Workers of the World" in which he declared, "that the recent convention ... violated the constitution in various ways"; "that the convention was controlled by the members of the Socialist Labor Party under the leadership of Daniel DeLeon," and that this "most disgraceful gathering" was "illegal and unconstitutional."[233] A month later Sherman issued on his own behalf a letter to the I. W. W. membership, in which he denied the various charges of extravagance and connivance at illegal tactics on his part. In this letter Sherman says that "not a vote was cast on any important matter in this so-called convention until DeLeon had been consulted, or he had given them the 'wise business wink.'"[234]

As far as parliamentary convention tactics are concerned there is no doubt that both factions displayed a lofty contempt for parlor etiquette. Several months later William D. Haywood wrote to St. John in regard to this matter. He emphatically condemned "Shermanism," but goes on: "You were entirely too harsh, unnecessarily so; the Gordian, presidential and other knots that you cut with a broad axe were only slip knots that could have been easily untied." "In this way," he concludes, "much dissension could have been avoided."[235] An anarchist sympathizer with the "proletarian rabble" frankly writes: "Some might claim that the action of the convention of 1906 was illegal ... [but] in a crisis there is no question of legality. It is the time for deeds...."[236]

Seven days had elapsed since the opening of the convention before the reports of officers were given. During this time—nearly half the time the convention was in session—almost nothing was accomplished. This delay made very plausible indeed the accusation made by the "wage slave" delegates that the reactionaries had deliberately planned to force them out of the convention by resort to these dilatory tactics. Whether or not the Sherman faction had decided on such tactics, there is no question but that the freezing out of the "wage slaves" would be a very natural result. Article VI. of the Constitution provided that "the expenses of delegates attending the convention shall be borne by their respective organizations." Now many of the local unions could afford to provide their delegates with adequate expense money; others could afford but very inadequate provision for expenses. Thus, most of the delegates from unions in the Mining Department—and those in general from the relatively better established unions—were quite well provided for, the Miners' delegates, e. g., receiving mileage plus five dollars per day expense money for every day they were away from home. The great majority, however, were paid nothing but mileage and were obliged to pay their own expenses and had come with funds absolutely insufficient for a prolonged meeting. Delegate Lingenfelter, in a speech in support of an unsuccessful motion to allow proxies to delegates who were compelled to leave on account of lack of funds, said: