Chapter VIII: "job Control" at Goldfield

It was in a Nevada mining camp that the I. W. W. made the first notable application of its principles of revolutionary industrial unionism. During the years 1906 and 1907 Goldfield as the scene of bitter disputes between the mine operators on the one hand and the Western Federation of Miners and the I. W. W. on the other.[342] These disputes were caused, chiefly, by a more or less successful effort on the part of these two local organizations to supplant the traditional craft unionism in Goldfield by the "new unionism."

The Western Federation of Miners was quite strongly entrenched at Goldfield by the time the I. W. W. made its _début_ in the labor world. Its local union at Goldfield, No. 220, was an _industrial_ union, that is, its membership comprised, as provided for in the W. F. M. constitution, "all persons working in and around the mines, mills and smelters...."[343] Early in 1906 the I. W. W. had a flourishing local (No. 77) composed of the "town workers" of Goldfield. The American Federation of Labor had almost no foothold in Goldfield at the time, the only A. F. of L. locals in the camp being the carpenters' union and the typographical union. The I. W. W. local was a more comprehensive organization even than an industrial union. It was a _mass_ union which aimed to include all the wage-earners in the community. "We proceed," says an editorial in the I. W. W. official journal, "without force, without intimidation, without deportations and without murder, to organize all wage workers in the community.... In the organization were miners, engineers, clerks, stenographers, teamsters, dishwashers, waiters--all sorts of what are called common laborers."[344]

It was apparently this unconventional type of unionism along with the very radical socialistic leanings of both town unionists (I. W. W., No. 77) and the mine unionists (W. F. M., No. 220, affiliated with the I. W. W.) that brought trouble. The I. W. W. accused the A. F. of L. unions of beginning it,[345] but the controversy was primarily with the Mine Operators' Association. Vincent St. John, in a letter published in the same issue of the _Industrial Union Bulletin_, says that the carpenters and typos were used "by the Mine Owners' Association as a nucleus to colonize the camp against the Western Federation of Miners and the I. W. W." The dispute began in a "controversy which arose between the _Tonopah Sun_, supported by A. F. of L. locals in the camp the one side, and the locals of the Industrial Workers of the World and the Western Federation of Miners on the other."[346] The _Sun_ attacked the I. W. W., whereupon the I. W. W. (including the W. F. M.) boycotted the newspaper, and the newsboys, who were organized in the I. W. W., refused to sell it. The _Sun_ then, according to this W. F. M. version of the affair,[347] sought the services of strike-breakers to scab on the newsboys' union, but were unsuccessful. The miners' union (No. 220. W. F. M.) now called a meeting at which they decided

that local No. 77, Industrial Workers of the World, which
comprised all the town workers with the exception of the
building trades, cease doing business as a local and go
into local 220 of the Western Federation of Miners ...
[and thus place] all wage-earners in the camp in No. 220
with the exception of the newsboys who held a charter from
the Industrial Workers of the World, and a portion of the
building trades, who held membership in their international
organizations.[348]

St. John says that this merger was made at the instigation of the Mine Owners.

The plan was finally broached [by them] to consolidate the
I. W. W. local--cooks, waiters, teamsters, bartenders, and
clerks--with the W. F. of M. This was looked upon with favor
by the Mine Owners, as they looked upon the I. W. W. local ...
as the radical organization of the district, and the miners
... were in their opinion more conservative, and they reasoned
that if the 1,500 miners had a voice and vote on any demands
made by the 400 radicals--the conservativeness of the 1,500
miners could blanket the efforts of the 400 radicals. The
miners, on the other hand, thought they saw an easy, quick and
satisfactory solution of what promised to be a serious struggle.

It was voted on and carried.[349]

At first the project was apparently favored by the employing interests of the district, but they faced about when they saw that the miners' union (No. 220) "practiced solidarity" and apparently used the carpenters' union as their tool. At any rate the miners' union "passed a motion that all men working in and around the mines as carpenters must become members of the Miners' Union." This demand was ignored.[350] The Mine Owners now issued a statement setting forth that because of the "unreasonable agitation" by the I. W. W. "... we hereby pledge ourselves to absolutely refuse to employ any man in any capacity who is a member of the Industrial Workers of the World, ..." and "that the Mine Owners will recognize any miners' union, that is independent of the Industrial Workers of the World...."[351]

Pressure from the Mine Owners' Association finally brought about a referendum on the question of unscrambling. A canvass taken on March 20, 1907, showed a large majority in favor of the miners and the town workers meeting separately but continuing in other respects as one union.[352] Nevertheless, the situation continued to grow more acute, and during the spring the I. W. W. and the W. F. M. were involved in a desperate struggle for their existence in Goldfield.[353] From March 10, 1907, according to St. John's account of it,

until April 22, the W. F. M. and the I. W. W. at Goldfield,
Nevada, fought for their existence (and the conditions they
had established at that place) against the combined forces of
the mine owners, business men, and the A. F. of L. This open
fight was compromised as a result of the treachery of the W. F.
M. general officers. The fight was waged intermittently from
April 22 till September, 1907, and resulted in regaining all
ground lost through the compromise, and in destroying the scab
charters issued by the A. F. of L. during the fight. The fight
cost the employers over $100,000.[354]

The American Federation of Labor locals in Goldfield during this period were more or less at the mercy of the I. W. W. and the Western Federation. It is admitted that A. F. of L. men who were obnoxious to the I. W. W.s were handled without gloves. Some A. F. of L. members were forced out of town by the more radical unionists who confessed that "they were probably not provided with all the luxuries of modern civilization."[355] This I. W. W. account of the situation continues:

The I. W. W. and the W. F. of M. were on strike for a
considerable time in Goldfield and had the town thoroughly
unionized. The bosses, realizing that they were up against
a rebel class of workers, conferred with their good friends
and tools, the A. F. of L., and the result was that _the A.
F. of L. sent their own members into Goldfield to scab on the
strikers_. This did not happen once, but continuously, and
the strikers ... did use a little direct action by giving
the "union" scabs orders to the effect that their room was
preferable to their company.[356]

In April it was reported that "seventy-five per cent of the business men of Goldfield have locked out the members of No. 220. They shut down their places of business and told their help they had to join the A. F. of L. or there would be no work...."[357] The situation steadily grew worse, and finally, in December, Governor Sparks telegraphed to Washington for Federal troops and they were finally sent.[358] The Governor's second telegram to the President (dated Dec. 5. 1907) read in part:

At Goldfield ... there does now exist domestic violence and
unlawful combinations and conspiracies, ... unlawful dynamiting
of property, commission of felonies, threats against the lives
of law-abiding citizens, the unlawful possession of arms and
ammunition, and the confiscation of dynamite with threats of
the unlawful use of the same by preconcerted action.[359]

Soon after the troops were sent President Roosevelt dispatched a special commission[360] to investigate the trouble at Goldfield. The salient facts of the situation are set forth by this commission as follows:

There has existed at Goldfield, which is exclusively a mining
town of an estimated population of between 15,000 and 20,000
in South Nevada, for over a year past, and especially since
the spring of 1907, a disturbed industrial situation, due
to frequently recurring labor difficulties between the mine
operators on the one hand and the miners on the other. The two
sides were represented almost completely by the Goldfield Mine
Operators' Association, ... on the one hand and by the local
union of the Western Federation of Miners on the other, a union
comprising substantially all the miners in Goldfield. This
union, known as Goldfield Miners' Union No. 220, is a branch
of the general organization known as the Western Federation of
Miners. It has carried on its rolls a membership estimated
at above 3,000 men, which number, however, included members
of crafts in Goldfield other than workers in and about mines.
Figures furnished us by the mine operators showed that about
1,900 mine workers went on a strike on Nov. 27, 1907. Although
a number of strikes and minor difficulties had occurred during
1907, the only acute situation arising prior to the call for
troops existed in the spring of 1907. This controversy involved
not only a dispute between the mine owners and the miners
at Goldfield, but also between the members of the miners'
union and the members of other crafts in Goldfield affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor. The Goldfield Miners'
union was also affiliated with the organization known as
the Industrial Workers of the World, and an effort was made
to force members of other crafts not affiliated with this
organization to join its ranks. Not only the Mine Owners'
Association and members of the miners' union went armed, but
members of crafts not affiliated with the Industrial Workers
of the World felt it necessary to carry arms to protect
themselves while at work. The condition of Goldfield at that
time was that of an armed camp, and for a time a serious clash
seemed imminent. The controversy resulted in the murder of a
restaurant keeper[361] and aroused such opposition against the
Industrial Workers of the World that a ban was practically put
upon them, and the organization under that name was forced to
abandon Goldfield. This acute situation disappeared before
the spring of 1907. A succession of miners' strikes, however,
had taken place throughout 1907, some of them with apparently
little justification; and although the operators had yielded to
nearby all the demands of the union, it seemed impossible to
secure any settled industrial conditions.

The mine operators insist that the socialistic doctrine adopted
and preached by the Western Federation of Miners practically
justified the stealing of ore by the miner.... The industrial
situation was further aggravated by the fact that the Goldfield
Union would not enter into any contract governing working
conditions for any specified length of time, and the mine
operators, therefore, could have no assurance at any time
that any settlement of a dispute was more than a temporary
makeshift, nor could they secure any assurance of stable
industrial conditions for any fixed length of time. Moreover,
the Goldfield Miners' Union embraces in one single union not
only the various crafts working in and about the mines, but
also clerks, waiters, bartenders and other miscellaneous crafts
and avocations in Goldfield. On Nov. 27, 1907, a strike of the
miners was inaugurated and is still in effect. This strike grew
out of a refusal on the part of the miners to accept cashier's
checks in payment of their wages. The miners insisted upon some
form of guaranty by the mine operators of whatever paper was
accepted in lieu of cash. Various propositions were made, but
no basis of agreement was reached.[362]

The commission reported that there was no adequate excuse for the request for Federal troops.

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:

For Governor, Thos. B. Casey, miner, W. F. M.

For State Treasurer, J. W. Smith, waiter, I. W. W.

For Register, General Land Office. T. Chambers, laundry worker,
I. W. W.

For Regent, State University, Frank Myrtle, shoemaker,
I. W. W.[372]

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.

FOOTNOTES:

[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.