tion was made at the third convention to strike out the words italicized. It was defeated by a vote of 113 to 15.1

The "political clause" of the preamble was the subject of extended discussion. At this time all efforts to alter the preamble were unsuccessful. The debate was significant, however, in foreshadowing the much more serious. struggle which was to take place a year later when the I. W. W. was literally split in two over the question of the retention or the elimination of the "political clause." Daniel DeLeon was a member of the Committee on Constitution and made a long speech in opposition to the motion to eliminate from the preamble all reference to the "political field," declaring that "the position of the I. W. W. is that when the day [der Tag of the Socialists, the day of the Revolution] shall come it shall itself project its own political party." DeLeon was supported in his position by George Speed, who later became a member of the Genera! Executive Board of the so-called anti-political-or Chicago -faction and who has been prominent in the activities of the I. W. W. on the Pacific Coast. Delegate E. J. Foote took the same stand and made a cogent argument for retaining the political clause.

3

[The word] "political" [he said] does have a meaning. . . The point is raised that the working class will not have a "government." With that I might agree, but they will have an industrial administration . . . and that administration must be

1 R. Katz, "With DeLeon since '89," Weekly People, Nov. 27, 1915, p. 2, col. 6. See also, Proceedings, Third Convention (Official Report No. 3, p. 5.)

2 Proceedings Third I. W. W. Convention (Official Report No. 3. passim.

3 Ibid., p. 5, col. 3.

* Proceedings, Third Convention (Official Report No. 3, p. 3, col. 5).

political in the sense that it is controlled by the ballot on the inside of your own organization.1

The constitution committee presented a resolution declaring that "the I. W. W. seeks its political expression only in its own industrial administration." This is vague, and it may have been made designedly so. It might have been brought in to appease those who feared that the I. W. W. would be made the tail to some political party kite."

1 Proceedings, Third Convention, loc. cit., p. 2, col. I.

2 Ibid., p. 1, col. 5.

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 was 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. 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. . . 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. 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

1 Cf. supra, p. 123.

2 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."

union which aimed to include all the wage-earners in the community. “We proceeded," 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." 1

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, 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 the A. F. of L. locals in the camp on the one side, and the locals of the Industrial Workers of the World and the Western Federation of Miners on the other." 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,* sought the services of strike-breakers to scab on the newsboys'

1 Industrial Union Bulletin, March 30, 1907, p. 2, col. 1.

2 Ibid.

3 Report of Acting President Charles Mahoney to the Fifteenth Convention W. F. M., Proceedings, p. 33.

4 Ibid., pp. 33-35. This was in the autumn of 1906.

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.1

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."

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

Report of Acting President Mahoney to Fifteenth W. F. M. Convention, Proceedings, p. 33.

2 "Review of the facts in the situation at Goldfield," Industrial Union Bulletin, April 6, 1907, p. 1, col. 3.