Minutes of the IWW Founding Convention - Part 3
Industrial Workers of the World
Wednesday, June 28
The convention was called to order at nine A. M. by Chairman Haywood.
Delegate White, of the Committee on Credentials, presented a report, in connection with which certain delegates were requested to appear before the Credentials Committee and explain their credentials. The committee recommended that J. W. Sunagel, representing the German Central Labor Union, Chicago, be given one vote, and that the case of that organization be referred to the convention to take such action as might be deemed proper. The report was acted on a little later in the session, in detail, and will be found
in full at that place in this report.
DEL. WHITE: In connection with C. C. Ross’ credentials the Committee begs to have his credentials read before the convention: “C. C. Ross, native of Virginia; occupation, railroad employe, thirty-five years, first a machinist, second, a shop foreman, and third, locomotive engineer; labor agitator; Socialist lecturer, with the world as my field and humanity as my theme.”
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the report of your Committee on Credentials. What is the pleasure of the convention?
DEL. HALL: I move you that with the exception of the delegates representing the German Central Council of Chicago the report of the Committee on Credentials be accepted, and that the credentials of the delegates representing the Central Council be taken up separately and acted upon. (Seconded.)
DEL. PHILLIP VEAL : Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates : In accordance with the Manifesto, every one who is to participate in this convention is supposed to be in a position to recognize the class struggle from the standpoint that the working class must be true to their economic interests and the delegates who are sent here. I do not want to go on record to begin with fighting in this convention, but I want you delegates to understand something about some of the individuals who are here and how they conduct themselves when they are among the slaves of the mines. I know that this convention is prepared by the Manifesto to be so strong as to put these men outside of being in a position to direct or in any way to control this convention. You showed that yesterday when you became a working power. As a member of the United Mine Workers who has advocated the class struggle and the idea of a class union for seven years, and especially in the Belleville district for the last three years, I want to enter a protest against certain persons being received here. Last fall in that district two members of the United Mine Workers were arrested in the City of Belleville and taken to prison, and a member of the United Mine Workers’ organization in that same district sat on a jury and brought in a verdict of guilty against them, and not a member, not a district officer, dared raise his voice as a protest against that abominable outrage perpetrated upon the members of the working class. Would you seat in your body a member of the Western Federation of Miners who has sat on a jury and on that jury became a pliant tool of the capitalist class? I say no. When the Western Federation of Miners was on trial in the Telluride and Victor strike the question came up and one of the men, Sam Carter, was asked what he meant to do, he says, “It is for you to find guilt”; and be absolutely refused to answer that question. The result was—
A DELEGATE: A point of order.
Del. Veal: I am coming to the point of order.
A DELEGATE: What is the question before the house?
THE CHAIRMAN: The question before the house is the adoption of the report of the Committee on Credentials.
DEL. VEAL: Am I out of order?
THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. Go ahead.
Del. Veal: Now then, the United Mine Workers’ officers refused absolutely to take action, but by remaining silent they sanctioned the action of those men, and for that reason one of them to-day has a job at $3 a day, and the other has a policeman’s club to use on the heads of the slaves. The strong point which I am going to make here is this. Here is a communication from Local Union No. 304. A notice was served on William Andreas, an advocate of the industrial union idea in the Belleville district, as follows:
“Dear Sir and Brother: I am instructed by Local Union 304, United Mine Workers of America, to request you to appear at our next regular meeting on May 31, 1905, to answer to the charge preferred against you by the German Local. The charge is that you called our International President, John Mitchell, a traitor and a labor fakir, and that he was a union man because he had to be; also that the present unions were no good and saying that they ought to be broken down in your industrial movement. Most respectfully, Edward Owens, Recording Secretary.”
That man was given a trial before Local 304 last week. Over 304 men refused to vote. Thirty-eight men decided that the case ought to be dropped. Thirty-six of those men, under the influence of the Citizens’ Alliance, said that he ought to be ousted the same as Robert Randell. That white-headed old labor leader over there, John Green, was the character who got up and said that they ought to do the same to Andreas as they did with Robert Randell, and that is why the slaves of the mine have sent me here to put these labor fakirs on record. (Applause.)
Now, another one who sits in this convention. You know something about Robert Randell. The New York Labor News Company has seen fit and the A. L. U. have seen fit to send that pamphlet, “Mitchell Exposed,” into every miners’ camp and in every industry in this country to show where Robert Randell,, a slave of the mines, appeared in Indianapolis and on the floor of the convention charged John Mitchell with being a member of the capitalist class, of wearing diamonds, and with receiving money, $5,000, from R. L. Robinson, and he admitted that he received it. What do the operators of America give their money for? To keep one part of the slaves working and scabbing on the other. And in spite of that, that convention expelled Robert Randell. In spite of that fact we, as slaves of the mines’ recognize the fact that the United Mine Workers of America is not the expression of the united mine workers’ rank and file, nor the expression of the working class of this country. (Applause.)
The delegate who moved to expell Randell is here. Delegate Walker, and he has the audacity to come in front of a body of representative men who understand the class struggle. To me it shows that the man is an arrogant fool or he has no sense of propriety whatever, or he would never be in a place like this where we can get recognition. (Applause). Yes, they are among the miners to-day telling them that they believe in industrial unionism, and they think they have the whole machine here from the top down. But that machine hasn’t got the oil in it; it can’t operate like it did in Indianapolis’ because this is a slaves’ movement and the slaves are going to keep it straight no matter whether it is a mistake or not. (Applause). And I want to tell you labor fakirs how I am here. One of them coming up on the cars says to me, “Veal, you are inconsistent to the United Mine Workers.” I says, “I have not been in the United Mine Workers’ Local for two years.” But do you know what they did in my district? They said, “We want you to take your card out of that conservative local and put it in a fighting one,” and I put it in here, and they sent for me to come and represent the Edgemont Local. They said, “We want you to go to that convention and show up these fellows who sit as wall flowers in the convention. Show them up, and if that convention won’t send them back and condemn them as parasites, we, as members of the working class who are class conscious, are going to stand by you.” And I am not here as a representative of the United Mine Workers, but a representative of the working class and a revolutionist who never can get these fellows to face us before the rank and file. Now we are here, face to face. This is the place where we can meet face to face, and I want to say that I know that from Ryan down they dare not come before you; they dare not. And the industrial union idea that they are talking, what is it? They go out and tell these workingmen that they believe—
THE CHAIRMAN: Brother Veal,, will you kindly confine yourself to the question as to the adoption of the report of the Credentials Committee?
DEL. VEAL: Fellow Delegates, I am not going to say whether they are to be seated or not. That remains with you. But these are the men who are claiming that they are in favor of industrial unionism. These are their actions, and they stand with the Mitchell machine and always have, ever since the Manifesto and before the Manifesto. Now they are talking about industrial unionism.
DEL. DE LEON: I rise to make an amendment to the motion. I understand that the motion is that the report of the Committee be accepted and those delegates seated. Is that the motion?
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the report of the Credentials Committee be accepted with the exception of the German Local, which will be acted on separately.
DEL. DE LEON: My amendment is that the Secretary read one organization after another and that the convention take action upon them.
THE CHAIRMAN: That the report be acted upon seriatim?
DEL. DE LEON: Seriatim. Will you allow me to explain? It is very clear from this that already there are objections regarding one local or one set of delegates, and there may be more. I cannot remember them all. They are a lump. Let us act upon them seriatim.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the amendment. Are you ready for the question?
(Question called for). Delegate Clark claimed recognition.
THE CHAIRMAN: Brother, we will get along faster if you permit us to put this amendment.
Del. Clark: There are more of them here like that.
THE CHAIRMAN: I understand, but they are in a peculiar position, as not having a voice in the convention. (Question called for.) The amendment is that the report of the Committee on Credentials be taken up seriatim. Brother Hall has the floor.
DEL. HALL: It occurred to me that the matter can wisely be left to the Credentials Committee with power to examine witnesses and make a report on any cases where there are charges preferred. It seems unnecessary to waste the time of the convention in trying cases of this character. There isn’t any arranged method of procedure except under parliamentary laws which are rather tedious, and as the gentleman suggests, that we take up the consideration of these individuals that are not representing organizations, if we take up a consideration and discussion of these individuals applying for seats in this convention, seriatim, it is going to occupy the time of this convention for the next two days in trials. I think these trials should be had by the Committee and that the report on these trials should be presented to the convention, and when it comes here it will be concise and not occupy the time of the convention. Now it seems to me that the charges could be preferred where they should have been preferred to the Credentials Committee. These men that are here opposing the seating of these delegates should have had these charges preferred before the Credentials Committee, and they have wasted time in not doing this before. It occurs to me that we can make up now by appointing a trial board or Credentials Board and let them consider the charges before that Committee and let the Committee report to the convention in a condensed form. That will permit us to act upon it in the quickest possible manner. Therefore I move a substitute. Well, I may be a little out of order, but I would like to see a substitute for the motion and the amendment offered by some one, that would permit the matter to go before a special committee.
DEL. DE LEON: I think my motion implies that. There is nothing in my motion to exclude the idea of having such matters referred to the Committee on Credentials. The adoption of the report of the Credentials Committee would imply that everybody is to be seated except the organization that is objected to. Then after sustained charges would have to be brought, and if the charges are sustained the men would have to be ousted after being seated. I think this is cumbersome. The best way to do it is to go through here with these names one after another, and if there is any objection raised, refer them back to the Committee and act upon them in that way. For instance, I cannot hold myself blamable if a certain name that I believe I have heard is presented here as a delegate. I did not imagine that he would have the audacity to come to this convention as a delegate. It seems to me I have heard his name mentioned. Shall I go before the Committee on Credentials with charges against any man who did not present himself as a delegate? I have to wait, and I will wait. I believe we should act seriatim and let the names be read, and if there is no objection the man or organization is seated. If there is objection the matter is referred back to the Committee on Credentials. That is all implied in my motion, that we take them up seriatim.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: If we adopt this as a whole we are doing a wrong to men who are here representing local unions, for the simple reason that we would give Mr. Haggerty, of Butte, the power to represent his local and cast the vote of the entire local.
A DELEGATE: No, no.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: Yes, you do. Now, by the report of your Committee here you are tying these men down to one single thing. You would be doing these men whom the Committee have reported on this morning, a wrong in doing that. If it is right to give one man that many votes, then it is right to give the men and women who are here representing A. L. U. Locals and Western Federation of Miners Locals, the same privilege you gave him. I move that we take it up seriatim and pass upon it. If we could do it yesterday we can do it this morning.
THE CHAIRMAN: Permit me to correct your impression with regard to what was done with Brother Haggerty. His credentials were read and accepted. He would cast the number of votes stated until such time as we become permanently organized. The motion is on the amendment to take up the report of the Credentials Committee seriatim. Are you ready for the question?
The question was called for, and was put and carried.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion occurs now upon the original motion as amended, to adopt the report of the Credentials Committee, and that it be taken up seriatim. Are you ready for the question ?
(Question called for, and motion put and carried.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will commence the reading of the report.
A DELEGATE: I would like to offer a motion before we enter upon any other business.
THE CHAIRMAN: No motion will be accepted at this time.
THE DELEGATE: Brothers, there is a letter before this convention. It is something in my opinion of the greatest Importance.
Objection was raised on a point of order.
THE DELEGATE: I am interested in this. There is a letter—
The point of order was again raised.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a moment. We will have the reading of the report of the Credentials Committee before the reading of any letters or any other business.
Delegate White, of the Committee on Credentials, then presented the following report:
REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON CREDENTIALS.
We, your Committee on Credentials, beg leave to submit the following report: We recommend
J. S. Ayers, J. N. Vail, F. D. Pryor, representing Paper Hangers and Decorators’ Union No. 584, Chicago, eighty-seven votes.
THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection to these delegates the Secretary will continue to read.
(The reading of the report was continued as follows)
Lorenz Kleinherz, Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance, Louisville, Ky.
W. C. Critchlow. International Protective Laborers’ Union, Dayton, Ohio.
Emma F. Langdon, Typographical Union No. 49, Denver.
J. Clossey, Central Labor Union, North Adams, Mass.
Theodore N. Ricke, District Lodge No. 8, Machinists, Chicago.
Charles Frey, District Lodge, Machinists.
DEL. FREY: I understand that those names that are read off there are to be voted on in this convention?
The Chairman. Yes.
DEL. FREY: My name is Frey. I am a machinist. We are here to investigate and go back to the District Council. If we have a vote I want it understood.
THE CHAIRMAN: According to the report of the Credentials Committee you are entitled to one vote. You are entitled to all the privileges and courtesies of the floor of this convention. If you object to taking that vote it will be so recorded and referred back to the Credentials Committee.
DEL. FREY: Then I will understand it that way.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will make a note of that fact.
(The reading of the report of the Committee on Credentials was continued as follows)
J. C. Sullivan, Miners, Victor, Colo.
J. Pollard. Council of Miners, Colorado, nineteen.
Charles Kiehn, International Longshoremens’ Union, No. 271, Hoboken, N. J.
Frank McCormick, Blue Island Lodge, Switchmens’ Union, No. 29, Chicago.
Wm. F. Weber, Iron and Brass Molders’ Union, Schenectady, N. Y.
Chas. McKay, Metal Polishers, Buffers and Platers, No. 6. Chicago.
A. Jorgensen, Carpenters and Joiners, No. 181, Chicago.
J. W. Saunders, Scandinavian Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers, Chicago; M. Glasgow, J. J. Johnson, Otto Ulrich, Robert Nelson.
Mark Ord, United Mine Workers, No. 503, Westville, Ill.
Lincoln Wright, T. J. Hitchings, United Mine Workers of America, No. 99, Belleville, Ill., 425 members.
F. P. Cranston, Central Council, A. L. U., Chicago.
J. A. Sturgis, Barbers’ Union, No. 275, Sharon, Pa., and United Labor League, Sharon, Pa.
C. L. Spiegel, Utah Federation of Labor, Salt Lake City, Utah.
L. L. Thompson, Carpenters and Joiners, No. 181, Chicago.
F. W. Davis, No. 22o, Goldfield, Western Federation of Miners; A. L. U. No. 510, Goldfield, Nev.; L. U. No. 235, W. F. M.; Newsboys’ Union, No. 555.
Ed. Payment, John Brown, International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths and Helpers, No. 110, Chicago.
Miss Luella Twining, Federal Union of A. L U., No. 252, Denver, thirty wage earners.
Chas. Hibbard, Edward Rody, International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, No. 324, Pullman, Ill.
J. Peukert, A. Arnold, Journeyman Painters and Decorators, No. 257, Chicago.
Chas. Nickolaus, Brewery Workers, No. 9, Milwaukee, 850 members.
Joe Corna, United Mine Workers, No. 2, Spring Valley.
Marion Brown, United Mine Workers, No. 320, Westville, Ill.
Anton Andra, No. 43, United Mine Workers, Dist. No. 12, Spring Valley.
Phil. Veal, Local o8, Miners, French Village, Ill.
Edward Evans, John E. Walker, Peter N. Christenson, No. 12, District No. 3, United Mine Workers, Westville, Ill., headquarters,
John Green, Phil Voegtle, Local 304, United Mine Workers, Ill., Belvile.
H. C. Perry, Thomas Burke, W. D. Ryan, Duncan McDonald, District 12 of lllinois United Mine Workers.
W. T. Leach, R. J. Kerrigan, Federation Canadienne des Cordonniers de Canada, and Cloakmakers and Tailors, Montreal.
T. W. Rowe, W. P. Clarke, American Flint Glass Workers’ Union, Toledo, Ohio.
Alex. Haenny, A. F. Germer, Local 728, United Mine Workers, Mount Olive, Ill.
M. Rappaport, Journeyman Tailors, No. 5, Chicago.
Frank Kremer, Tanner and Currier, Chicago.
Gustav Harwarth, Herman Richter, No. 2161, S. T. & L. A., Detroit, Mich.
Ben Frankford, Local 103, S. T. & L. A., East St. Louis, Ill.
J. W. Johnson, Local 3, S. T. & L. A., St. Louis, Mo.
W. H. Ferber, Commercial Men’s Association, Court No. 1093, Milwaukee.
A. Wrink, Electrical Worker, Chicago; Rosa Sullway, Chicago; Daniel T. Hart, Laboring Man, Chicago; Wade Roscoe Parks, Laborer, Bonita, Kan., and J. Ferguson, Cigarmaker, Helena, Mont.
R. J. Robinson, Local 87, United Brotherhood of Railway Employes.
Fred Shotak, Bohemian International Musicians’ Union, No. 26, Chicago.
Adolph S. Cornm, Bakery Worker, Chicago.
Joseph J. O’Brien, Hotel and Restaurant Workers, Chicago.
J. R. Fitts, East St. Louis.
Florencio Basora, Iron Molder, St. Louis, Mo.; J. Fox, Wood Worker, Chicago; Carl Koechlin, Peoria, Ill.; Wm. Tunningly, Carpenter, Cleveland, Ohio; Fred Ricke, Topeka, Kaiis., and A. Hanan, Teacher, Sakund, Ohio.
E. J, Morrow, Amalgamated Association of Street Railway Employes, Division No. 288, Chicago.
Frank R. Wilke, Printing Press Union, Milwaukee.
Guy E. Miller, Miner, Telluride, Col.; F. H. Phalen, Electrical Worker, Terre Haute, Ind.; J. T. Mack, Electrical Worker, Chicago; R. D. Tobias, Tradesman, Chicago; E. D. Hammond, Machinist, Chicago; Lucy E. Parsons, Chicago; Tobias Kleinman, Printer, Chicago; Joseph Gilbert, Salt Lake City, Utah; W. F. Morrison, Houston, Tex., Blacksmith; Julie Mechanic, Garment Worker, Chicago; Mrs. E. C. Cogswell, Kansas; Albert S. Cogswell, Kansas. Cigarmaker; Jos. S. Schatski, Denver, Colo., and C. C. Ross , Railroad Employe.
R. N. Scutt. M. E. Scoggan, C. T. Martin, 15 Unions from Lead City, South Dakota.
J. W. Sunagel, German Central Labor Union, Chicago.
George N. Young, Longshoreman, Detroit, Mich.; C. E. Payne Laborer, North Dakota; Evan J. Dillon, Glass Worker, Marion, Ind.; D. Burgess, Mary H. Breckon, Chicago; W. Harry Spears.
OBJECTION TO UNITED MINE WORKERS FROM BELLEVILLE.
DEL. VEAL: Mr. Chairman: I object to Mr. Wright, of 29 Local, John Green of, 304 Local of the United Mine Workers of America, and Philip Jackson, Local 304 of the United Mine Workers of America, and J. H. Walker, of West Belleville, and the delegate from Mount Olive, on the ground that they are not—
THE CHAIRMAN: Which delegate from Mount Olive? There are two I think. What is his name?
DEL. VEAL: This young man that sits right over here? (Indicating a delegate). What is his name? State your name, will you please, to the convention? I don’t know his name. I want to state the grounds. I object to them on the grounds that these men are untrue to the economic interests of the working class.
THE CHAIRMAN: That matter will be referred to the Credentials Committee. Just hand in the names.
DEL. FREY: I would like to ask if that report goes to the press that was read over there?
THE CHAIRMAN: It becomes a part of the printed proceedings.
DEL. FREY: My idea in asking that question is this. As I said before. I am simply here to investigate the proceedings of this convention. I am not acquainted with this idea as yet, but if it appears favorable to us we are willing to go back to our District Council and report favorably and recommend them to come into this body. But in the meantime we don’t want to take any action or go on record if it is going to jeopardize our position with them. If it appears that we can get better conditions and better wages, perhaps they will adopt the idea. In the meantime I don’t want to jeopardize our position with them and I don’t want it to go out that we are approving this body.
THE CHAIRMAN: A protest has been entered against the following names of delegates: John Green, Phil Jackson, Mr. Wright, Mr. Walker of Westville, and Mr. Ryan, Secretary of the U. M. W. A. You have heard the reading of the report of your Committee on Credentials.
Del. Kremer: I understood that my name was on that list.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is not on the list.
DEL. VEAL: Include that in the list, too.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the reading of the report of your Committee on Credentials. If adopted it will be with, the exception of the names just read. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for). Those in favor of the adoption of the Committee’s report will signify it by the uplifted right hand. Contrary by the same sign. The motion is carried. The delegates whose names have been objected to will please appear before the Credentials Committee.
DEL. CRITCHLOW: I would like to have the Secretary make a record in his minutes of the fact that our organization as an organization have decided to send a representative here, not for the purpose of installing the union as such into the organization, but simply for the purpose of making a searching investigation of this proposed organization, for the purpose of seeing how the I. R. U. can be fitted into the industrial organization. If we decide to become a part of it we are not afraid to take the stand. We are not afraid to be known as participating in this convention, because our organization as such has been an independent organization since its inception and has had to fight every inch of its way in the face of opposition from all sources, and has built up its present membership through the fights that have been waged on behalf of us men. But still those who are not in touch with the Laborers cannot probably be alive to the fact that the laborers are unduly suspicious of any proposal that was made to them, because of the class or craft hatred, because of the abuse that has been heaped upon them by other trades in the past. Consequently they will take an opportunity to look into this carefully. They are like the fellow from Missouri, they have to be shown, but after they are shown and convinced then they are ready to act. Of course, I would not take any advantage of the privilege of voting in the convention because it would be contrary to the understanding of the organization in sending me. But still we want to take part in an advisory capacity, and after the convention is ended and the organization makes up the report, then if they want to become a part of this organization they have an opportunity to do it. I simply want to make that explanation so that it will he understood, as we occupy practically the same position as the delegates from the machinists’ organization who have just previously made their statement.
DEL. WHITE: We have a further report to make.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Credentials Committee has a further report.
DEL. WHITE, ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE: We recommend James Smith, New York, representing 29 A. L. U., with one vote. I would like to ask if E. Bosky is in the house and whether he is from New Ulm.
DEL. BOSKY: Yes.
DEL. WHITE: Is C. Boudin from New York, in the house?
MR. BOUDIN: Here.
DEL. WHITE: I will say that a protest has been filed by some one with the Committee against that name. We wanted to know whether he was from New York. We recommend J. W. Ryan, printer, Lowell, Mass., one vote; Michael Tracy, shoe worker, Massachusetts, one vote; George Forbes, newspaper man; Wilbur M. Wolf, laborer, Chicago; James Murtaugh, representing the following Iron Molders’ Unions of St. Louis district: Iron Molders No. 59, St. Louis; 119, East St. Louis; 182, Belleville; 412, Granite City; 406, St. Louis; total membership, 464, one vote; Pat O’Neil.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the further report of your Committee on Credentials.
DEL. DE LEON: The names that have been read by the Secretary, are they accepted?
THE CHAIRMAN: With the exception of the name of Boudin, from New York.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I heard the Secretary read the Iron Molders, and they are given one vote.
THE CHAIRMAN: They have been given one vote.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: Is that right?
THE CHAIRMAN: They are not with power to install.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: Oh, I see.
Del. Pat O’Neil, Arkansas: My name was read just a moment ago. I want to make a statement, and the Committee can do as they like. When I left home on Monday morning my train went in the ditch—
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a moment. Appear before the Credentials Committee and don’t take up the time of this convention.
DEL. MURTAUGH: The Secretary read a report including delegates with eighty-seven votes. After that he read names without including the number of votes, and the last names read he mentioned one vote. I would like to know whether all of those names read just after the names that represented eighty-seven votes were names with one vote each?
DEL. WHITE: I desire to state that it includes one vote for each delegate. The rest had the privilege of installing their unions. There are members here from unions with 1,500 votes, but they have no power to install them. Where the organization has full power the Committee on Credentials have given the amount of votes that they represent in the organization.
DEL. KERRIGAN: I move you that the Secretary be instructed to call the roll of delegates who are entitled to sit and who have already been voted upon. I understand that those other names have been referred back to the Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the report of the Credentials Committee that has just been read. What is your pleasure?
DEL. STARKENBERG: I move that the delegates be seated except the ones that protests have been entered against (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded that the delegates whose names have been read be seated, except the ones against whom protests have been entered. Are you ready for the question? (Question called for.) Now, remember that all you folks are all the same; you are as much entitled to the inside tables as the other delegates. Those in favor of the motion will signify it by raising their right hands. Contrary by the same sign. The motion is carried; you have accepted the report of your Credentials Committee and your organization is perfected. The next order of business is the election of permanent Chairman. Nominations are in order.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS.
DEL. DE YOUNG: I nominate Brother Haywood.
DEL. POWERS: I move that the nominations for Chairman now close. (Seconded.)
DEL. DANIEL MCDONALD: I wish to place in nomination a man well known throughout the trade union movement, especially in the west; a man known to be. fair and honorable in all his dealings; a man who has had experience in handling large bogies and presiding over them. I take pleasure therefore in nominating David C. Coates, President of the American Labor Union.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: I rise to second the nomination of W. D. Haywood.
THE CHAIRMAN: D. C. Coates and W. D. Haywood have been placed in nomination for permanent Chairman.
DEL. COATES: I am obliged to the delegate that mentioned my name. I want to make a motion that W. D. Haywood be elected Chairman by acclamation.
Motion seconded with applause.
DEL. COATES: Is the convention ready for the question? (Question called for). All those in favor of the motion will say aye. Contrary no. Brother Haywood is Chairman of the convention. (Applause.)
DEL. HAYWOOD: Brothers and Sisters, in accepting the chairmanship of this convention I am going to ask that every delegate will assist me as much as is in your power by keeping order and by not asking too much in the way of parliamentary law from your presiding officer. I haven’t either Robert’s Rules or Cushing’s Manual nor any other volumes of rules, but with a convention such as this where there is or should be no factions and where you are all in hearty accord and are working for the same purpose, there should be no reason for any wranglings or any personalities, and I hope that there will be none indulged in, because in so far as it is within the power of the chair they will not be tolerated. (Applause). The election of a permanent Secretary is now in order.
DEL. SCHATSKI: What do I understand by permanent Secretary? A permanent Secretary just for the convention or for all the time of the Industrial Union?
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary is simply for this convention until the election of your regular officers.
Del. Eisenberg: I nominate Comrade Trautmann. (Seconded.)
DEL. SCHATSKI: I nominate Brother T. J. Hagerty.
Del. De Young: I move that Brother Hagerty be elected by acclamation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any more nominations?
DEL. RIORDAN: I wish to place in nomination Brother Hall, of the United Brotherhood of Railway Employes.
DEL. HALL: Since we have already established a precedent for this mode of procedure I move that Brother Trautmann be elected by acclamation. (Seconded). All in favor of that signify it by saying aye. Contrary. Carried.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a moment. That was tolerated, but—(laughter). Just a moment, brother delegates. Permit me to say that that might be tolerated if there were only one in the race, but there is Comrade Hagerty here, who may object to your putting him out of the field altogether.
DEL. HALL: Just a point of personal privilege. It is recognized that I am out of order. I simply spoke upon the precedent set just now. I wish to apologize for the action I have taken. I didn’t mean it in that way. I simply meant it as following out the precedent established. Now I offer an apology and ask that my motion be put by the chair, that Comrade Trautmann act as permanent Secretary of the convention.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is impossible for me to do that. Don’t you recognize the fact that there are two other nominees, one T. J. Hagerty and the other W. L. Hall? Assuming that one withdrew, there are still two, and neither of them has withdrawn.
DEL. WILKE: I move that the nominations be closed and that we proceed to ballot. (Seconded.)
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: Do I understand that I have been nominated?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Have you been in the convention hall?
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: I have, but I thought it was the other man with the additional “G” in his name, from Montana. I withdraw in favor of Comrade Trautmann.
DEL. JORGENSEN: I object to Comrade Hagerty withdrawing. He was in the room, and I have a suspicion that he heard his name. I think he ought to stay.
THE CHAIRMAN: The convention will proceed to ballot. I will appoint as tellers—
DEL. ROWE: I move that Del. Hagerty be permitted to withdraw his name from the race. (Seconded.)
The motion was put and carried.
A motion was mane and seconded that Delegate Trautmann be elected Secretary by acclamation. Motion carried.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, the accumulation of work on the Secretary’s desk will make it necessary to have an assistant secretary.
DEL. O’BRIEN: I move that the chair appoint an assistant. (Seconded.)
DEL. MOTHER JONES: I would place before the convention the name of Mrs. Emma F. Langdon, of Denver. (Seconded.)
The motion that the chair appoint an assistant secretary was put and carried.
THE CHAIRMAN: A suggestion has been offered that Mrs. Langdon be appointed. That meets with the approval of the chair. Mrs. Langdon is appointed as assistant secretary.
DEBATE ON STENOGRAPHIC REPORT.
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: I would like to ask what is the business before the convention at this time?
THE CHAIRMAN: The reading of the additional credentials that have been handed in.
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: I would like to ask first, as a point of information, have we got any official record of the proceedings of this convention up to this time?
THE CHAIRMAN: We have an official record, yes; I believe it is being taken down by the stenographer—
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: Is he in the employ of this convention?
THE CHAIRMAN: —or by your Secretary.
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: Is he in the employ of this convention, this official stenographer?
THE CHAIRMAN: No.
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: Well, there is a point I wish to raise at this time. I believe the proceedings of this convention are of sufficient importance that they should go on permanent record. As I understand it, the stenographic report here does not belong to this convention. I believe the stenographer is in the employ of the S. T. & L. A. or the S. L. P. While I have no objection in the world to that, I believe that this convention should choose a person as official recorder of the proceedings of the convention. As I understand it, all the notes that he is making here will belong to the parties who employ him, and while I have no objection to it as I stated before, I believe this convention ought also to have its own official recorder. I therefore move, if I can find a second, that this convention do here and now employ a stenographer. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Now to avoid any complications and any unnecessary debate, I will call the attention of the delegate that has offered the motion to the effect that there be an official stenographer appointed, to the fact that there must first be arrangements made for a Ways and Means Committee.
A DELEGATE: Well, if I am in order I wish to say that so far as ways and means are concerned, I as one, and I am sure there are many others in this hall, that are perfectly willing to go down in their jeans and raise the expense.
DEL. DE LEON: We realized that a stenographer was necessary, and when I came to Chicago I endeavored to obtain one. Before that I had put myself into communication with our Secretary Trautmann, and we found out pretty soon that the expenditure necessary to secure a reliable stenographic report would be an expensive affair. After several conferences held at the A. L. U. headquarters with Brother Smith, Brother Hagerty, Brother Trautmann and some others, whom you may refresh my memory upon, we decided upon this method: that a stenographer should be engaged at the rate of $7.50 a day, and that he was to be paid besides thirty-five cents per page for the transcript. We figured that it would take about 1,500 pages, and that consequently, what with the stenographic notes and the transcribing, the cost would amount to about $600. We, of the Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance, had established a fund and had been collecting moneys to this end. The amount of money that I was authorized to pledge did not come very near that figure. I was authorized to pledge $200 towards the stenographic expense so as to have this convention’s actions recorded in order that every man interested in the movement who could not attend would be given an opportunity to do the next best thing and find out exactly what happened, as soon as it can be done. Therefore, we agreed that this ought to be presented to the convention by the Secretary and to ask the convention whether it cares to have a stenographic report, in which case the other organizations should be asked to contribute the difference, which would be about $400. Those are the figures of the stenographer. So as to make sure that we would have a stenographic report in case the convention decided to pay for it, he has been engaged by us; he has been engaged to take the stenographic notes, and it now depends upon the convention whether it cares to have the transcript made of the stenographic report, in which case they will have to contribute $400 in addition.
DEL. SIMONS: I rise to a point of information. I would like to know whether, if we pay this $400, the stenographic notes become the property of the convention or the property of the S. T. & L. A.
DEL. DE LEON: I understand that they become the property of the convention. The S. T. & L. A. only engages to reduce the expense. The notes so far are contributed gratis, and when they are transcribed and edited by the Secretary and considered to be correct they are to be published and become the property of the convention. I stated to Brother Smith that if it is his wish to supplement it in any particular that some arrangement would have to be made by which the work could be done, because the burden of handling and expediting it is rather cumbersome.
DEL. SIMONS: I want to know whether if any other paper should wish it, it could have the report by paying for it.
DEL. DE LEON: We never copyright anything of this kind.
SECRETARY TRAUTMANN: I was written a while ago as to whether any arrangement had been made for a stenographer. I wrote back that we were short of funds. In fact, the committee making preparatory arrangements went into debt about $150, but I suggested to the manager of The People that we take it up with our Executive Committee and perhaps some arrangement could be made. Four weeks before the convention I came to Chicago, and the committee members who were present agreed that we would co-operate with the Daily People of New York, providing the stenographic report becomes the property of the convention, and then a recommendation would be made by the temporary committee that part of the expense be defrayed by the new organization. If the new organization will become responsible and if we can perfect the arrangements, then the stenographic report becomes the property of the new organization. That was the understanding, and the letters of Comrade Chase, manager of the Daily People, will bear me out, that the arrangement was satisfactory to The People. I believe that is correct, so that the arrangement is in black and white that in case the convention assumes the responsibility for paying the stenographer the records of this convention will be the property of the new organization.
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: I would like to ask Comrade De Leon one plain question that will set me clear on the matter, and that is whether, up to the present stage, all the proceedings of the convention as recorded by your stenographer are the property of the convention.
DEL. DE LEON: I hope they may become the property of the convention.
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: I mean pending action by the convention, up to the present time.
DEL. DE LEON: Strictly speaking, technically speaking, they are our own property until the convention acts. But if we did not engage some one in advance the stenographic report would not be made, and it would be virtually useless to us unless you raise the $400 in addition to the $200 that we raise, making the $6oo. That is to say, upon the theory that there will be 1,500 pages. If it should be fewer the amount would be reduced. The funds that we have may be left in the hands of a responsible person, an officer of this convention, and then this stenographic report becomes the property of this convention.
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: I have not had an answer to the question yet, who owns the record at this time? Is there any person in this hall vow who can say that this record is owned now by any one?
DEL. DE LEON: The person making the record will recognize the Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance, because nobody else has made any arrangement with him, but that can be taken out of our hands when you make the arrangement. Is the question answered?
DEL. RYAN: Yes, the answer is satisfactory.
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: The temporary committee was written a letter by the Daily People asking if arrangements for a stenographic report of the convention had been made. The committee replied that no arrangement of that kind could be provided by the committee for want of funds. The proposition then came from the Daily People that they would guarantee $200, which would more than pay for taking the notes of this convention, provided the committee would recommend to the convention that the balance of the fund necessary to have the notes transcribed would be defrayed by the convention. Understand this clearly now. They guaranteed $200, providing the committee would simply recommend to the convention that the further amount necessary be raised to transcribe the notes. As to the ownership of the notes, if no further fund is provided by the convention, we understand that the notes are paid for by the Daily People and will become the property of the Daily People. If the notes are paid for, if the transcription is paid for by the convention, it is the understanding of the committee with the Daily People that the notes and the transcript will become the property of the convention and of the organization, and the only thing in addition to that is that the Daily People has the privilege of using one of the transcripts for publication. That, I think, is the whole truth of the matter in a nutshell.
SECRETARY TRAUTMANN: That is correct.
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: I understand that this convention has no funds and can guarantee nothing at this time. I therefore make a motion that it is the sense of this convention that it desires a stenographic report of the proceedings of this convention.
Motion seconded by Delegate White.
DEL. ALBERT RYAN: I have a motion pending.
THE CHAIRMAN: Then this will be an amendment.
DEL. SCHATSKI: Fellow Delegates, the motto of the Standard Oil is secrecy. They don’t keep any records. Their conventions are secret, to crush labor and suck the last drop of blood out of you. But this convention has been called to represent labor all over the world. The delegates here are workingmen united under one banner, the banner of opposition to privilege on the part of those who take what we produce. Therefore, I say, let that money question go. We need a report of everything that is going on in this convention. We need it and we have got to have it. I make a motion that we have it.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the amendment The motion is that we have an official stenographer. The amendment is that it is the sense of this convention that we should have a stenographic report of the proceedings.
DEL. MURTAUGH: If I understand correctly, we are to have a stenographic report, whether or no the convention votes for it. If I understand correctly, the stenographic report is to be taken for the New York People, and in the event there is a new organization formed, if this convention sees fit to let that organization for $400 take that stenographic report, it then becomes the property of this convention. If I understand correctly it means that and nothing else, that it is the sense of this convention that we have a stenographic report. If that is carried, I understand somebody is responsible for the cost of that stenographic report. Who that is, I don’t know, but it seems to me that we cannot pledge any amount of money here until such time as the new organization is formed, if one is formed.
DEL. MORRISON, HOUSTON, TEXAS: I fully concur in what the gentleman has just said. I believe I realize the responsibility that the amendment to the motion devolves upon the individuals of this convention, and as a substitute for the whole I desire to make a motion that the chair appoint a committee of five to provide ways and means and to report to-morrow morning a system by which the funds can be raised for this purpose. Now, there will be some method suggested by which it can be done. As was suggested by one of the comrades on the floor, if this could be distributed among other papers for publication and for other uses it would return a revenue to this convention, and as we have no funds at our disposal we cannot pledge anything. Therefore we cannot hold out a false inducement to the stenographer. I will offer that as a substitute.
DEL. COATES: Will a motion now be in order on the amendment?
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment that was offered by Brother Smith is now the original motion. That is that it be the sense of this convention that we have a stenographic report. That amendment takes the places of the original motion that was withdrawn by Brother Ryan and his second. The motion offered by this brother (Del. Morrison) as a substitute has received no second.
DEL. COATES: Mr. Chairman, just as a point of information, before I vote. Do I understand that if the motion is carried it will involve this convention to the extent of six or seven or eight hundred dollars to take the stenographic report?
THE CHAIRMAN: It is my understanding that it does not involve the convention to any extent unless such arrangements can be made. The motion is that it is the sense of this convention that we have a stenographic report. Now, I would take it that if there were no ways and means provided by which you could pay for it, that it would not make any difference whether it was the sense of this convention or not that we have a report.
DEL. COATES: The only reason I ask is that I want to get a Motion before the convention. It seems to me the motion now fore the convention is not the proper motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: An amendment will be in order.
DEL. COATES: If we are going to have a stenographic report, for heaven’s sake let us raise the money first, and let us not get the cart before the horse. That is all there is to this proposition. The motion I want to make is simply this—but I want to make a few remarks before I make the motion. I have had some little experience in this stenographic report business as far as a general convention is concerned. There is no one on this floor, perhaps, who would more prefer a stenographic report and a record of every utterance upon the floor of this convention than I, and if there is any one here that is able to do that, they have my consent, and I would be very glad indeed if they would do it; but as a delegate on this floor, as a part of this convention, I want to oppose a stenographic report, solely on the point of expense. To the delegates of this convention or to the laboring people of this country it means an expense anywhere from two to three or four thousand dollars; that is what it means. If we are to have any benefit, if we are to have any use of this stenographic report, it means its publication by this convention; that is what it means. It does not mean simply six or seven or eight hundred dollars to take it and transcribe it. It means another thousand or two thousand to publish it and circulate it throughout this country if it is to be of any use. I want to say, Mr. Chairman and Fellow Delegates, that before this new movement will get into a position where it can afford to spend two or three or four thousand dollars to send out this information the information will be absolutely too old, and it will never get the returns back for the expenditure of that amount of money. I do not believe that we ought to put that millstone around this new organization that we are going to create at this time. The Secretary will take absolutely everything that is essential. We will get an official record of this convention as far as its acts are concerned, and that is all that will be of any use sixty days from now. I would like to read a stenographic report of this convention every day, either in the Daily People or some other avenue of information, but I want to say I think we are making a mistake at the very beginning when we try to saddle upon this new organization without authority two or three or four—yes, even five thousand dollars before this information can be gotten to the people, and then not gotten to them within six months or a year or year and a half after this convention has adjourned. I move you that as far as this convention is concerned we do not make an arrangement to have a stenographic report and add the expense to this body. (Motion seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The original motion is that it be the sense of this convention that we have a stenographic report. Do you offer that as an amendment or substitute?
DEL. COATES: It ought to come properly as an amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: As an amendment?
DEL. COATES: Yes, a substitute is merely an amendment, that is all. It acts as a substitute, however.
THE CHAIRMAN: That it be not the sense of this convention?
DEL. COATES: Mr. President, I do not want the idea to go out that I have any objection to anybody else taking a stenographic report at all. If somebody else wants to modify the motion he. has my consent. I simply do not want to saddle this organization with such an expense, that is all.
DEL. CLARENCE SMITH: My motion is that it is the sense of this convention that it desires a stenographic report. I will be as brief as possible, yet I want it clearly understood by the delegates present that that motion does not involve this convention or the organization proposed to be formed in any expense whatever. It seems to me that the persons who have employed a stenographer to take the notes, at an expense of $200, have done so upon the understanding or with the expectation that the notes might be transcribed by the organization afterwards; and it seems to me that if we do decide right now that the convention does not desire a stenographic report at all, the persons who have arranged for the notes being taken might stop the contract right now and end the expense, and that was my purpose in putting the motion to this convention. I am not going to make any argument as to what it will cost to get this report printed, but I am going to say that it won’t cost anything like the expense that has been stated to this convention. I am not going into an argument now, but I believe a stenographic report should be bad, and so long as this motion does commit the convention to any expense, but simply indicates that the delegates present desire a stenographic report, it may serve as an encouragement to have the notes taken at this time, and when the funds are available the organization might decide for itself whether it wants a stenographic report or not.
DEL. WILKE, MILWAUKEE: I do not see where this convention will be benefited one iota by endeavoring to hide its light under a bushel. (Applause). To-day the proletarians of America are spellbound in their expectations of the actions that are to be taken here. They want information. I want to say that a stenographic report is absolutely essential to place before the workingmen of this country our acts and deeds as we have done them here. (Applause.) I am not ashamed of what I am going to do here, and the man that is would not, of course, like to see a stenographic report. As regards the expense incurred in publishing this report, you lose sight of the fact that the Daily People of New York is furnishing you with the composition virtually at cost, because the matter is retained as live matter in the printing office and can be bought almost for what it cost in the way of metal. Now, then, I say that in order to interest workingmen in this new movement, I must show them what the actions of this convention have been, and the only way that I can do that is to let him know what my colleague from Colorado said and what my co-worker from New York thought about it. When you place before him a verbatim report of all the deeds and actions of this convention you have placed before him a clean case, and I want him to be the judge whether the merits of our action warrant him in giving us his co-operation. I thank you. (Applause.)
DEL. M. P. HAGGERTY, BUTTE.: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Industrial Union, I certainly am in favor of a detailed report of every utterance that sounds in this hail. What for? So that the great mass of the working people everywhere may know in detail what we are doing. You cannot get from a Secretary’s report the real sense and the real meaning of a gathering of this kind; far from it. Where does this great expense come from? You would think you were in one of the corrupt municipalities. Talking about printing the addresses, we don’t propose to get this out and send it all over this country, but we do propose, and I think I can assert that we have got plenty of papers to print the proceedings: the New York People, the Salt Lake Crisis, the Socialist and the Herald, and all those publications that you men are issuing here in Chicago to carry the tidings and carry everything that comes from this convention to the common people. The estimate of expense is preposterous. Five hundred dollars will do it. I know what this kind of work costs. Don’t get frightened, don’t get intimidated by a great colossal show of cost. It is nothing of the kind. See and mark the magnificent effort made by those few men here. Already they have raised $200, and the great body outside is asked to raise a paltry three or four hundred more, and we shuffle and shake and get frightened. I know besides that there is spirit enough here, that there is generosity enough here among the delegates to raise the balance that is necessary to pay for it. (Applause). None of us are rich. We are not giving from our abundance, but we can make up a balance of that kind. Let us have a detailed statement of every utterance here, so that when we go from this hail and go back to our locals every member of every organization, when it is printed, may lay it out before him and go over it quietly and steadily and soberly, and then if any man wishes to make a false statement as to what this convention is or has done, here is the proof, verified by the officers of the organization, and sworn to by your stenographer if necessary, and there is no man that will be able to draw to himself or appropriate to himself unduly that which he is not entitled to. Let every man here go before the working people of this country upon his true merits. If he is afraid to do that, let him convert himself into a good man and let him do something for the people. (Applause.)
Del. Schatski: If every member of this new organization will give the price of one meal we can have this report. I move that we shall have this report.
DEL. GUY MILLER: A statement has been made here that this is a very generous convention. That is undoubtedly true. We are long on generosity, but we are short on cash. Now, when it comes to getting the report of this convention before the people, you and I who don’t talk any buncombe know perfectly well that the great mass of the people will never wade through a stenographic report of the proceedings of this convention. You know that the knowledge of the proceedings will practically be confined to a few. It is a question of in what manner we can best use the limited funds that can be raised for the propagation of the unionism of the new industrial movement. I insist that when we view the question from that practical standpoint we will consider that the expense is beyond our reach. It is going to cost more than it is worth to us. We must husband our funds; we need those. Therefore, it seems to me that the motion of the gentleman from Idaho is the one that should find support in this convention.
DEL. THOS. J. HAGERTY: Mr. Chairman—
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not believe that there is a delegate on this floor but what knows whether he or she wants this report, without taking up any further time. The substitute is that we do not have a stenographic report of the proceedings of this convention. Those in favor—
DEL. COATES: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to stand for any precedent like that. As long as any delegate wants to be heard on this or any other question, he has a right to be heard. I object to the Chairman shutting off the debate.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have already spoken on this question.
DEL. COATES: Yes, but I simply don’t want to prevent this question being fully debated before this convention.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have been heard. If there is any other delegate that has not been heard who takes exception to the decision of the chair, he should be allowed to speak.
A DELEGATE: I take exception.
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY, CHICAGO: I want to say a word. I am in favor of publishing this report, not in the interest of the few who are here, but in the interest of the great working class at large who cannot come here. They have a right to be heard here. They have expressed through the Daily People their desire to have a report. They have expressed that desire in the form of $200. That does not mean 200 men; it means 2,000, or perhaps ten times that number of working men. They have a right to know what this convention has done, and they have a right to judge this economic organization that is proposed by the things that have transpired here. They cannot judge it simply by a summed-up report of a secretary, which is always colored by the personality of the secretary, and which may very often be colored against the interest of the working people. We know the reports of some conventions that have been held pretendedly of working men, and we know whether they were correct. (Applause.) We know how their reports have been tampered with, although they were supposed to be stenographic, and I want to go on record here personally as in favor of a stenographic report. I know that the Mill and Smeltermen’s Union of Butte, Mont., that my worthy namesake represents on this floor, itself alone, if this question were up to it, would stand for the whole thing. (Applause.) They raised $500 for Texas. The people want literature. The working men do read these things, and they want to read them, and they want to know what is going on. I want to go on record as favoring a stenographic report, and as personally expressing my gratitude to the Socialist Trades and Labor Alliance for bringing this thing up, and for contributing $200 toward putting it out before the working class of this country.
Question called for.
DEL. DEAN: I have a substitute for that—
THE CHAIRMAN: There is already a substitute before the convention.
DEL. DEAN: I offer an amendment to the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: There is already a substitute before the convention. The question has been called for.
A DELEGATE: I move the previous question. (No second.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The substitute is that we do not have a stenographic report of the proceedings of this convention. Those in favor of the substitute will signify it by saying aye. Contrary by the same sign, The substitute is lost. What is now the original motion, the amendment of Delegate Smith, is before the convention, that it be the sense of this convention that we have a stenographic report. Those in favor of that motion will signify it by the voting sign. Contrary by the same sign. The motion is carried.
DEL. DE LEON: I move you that the Chair be empowered to appoint a committee of five on ways and means to raise the balance necessary so as to transcribe and publish this stenographic report. (Motion seconded.) The stenographer informs me, in figuring it together with Delegate Smith, that it will cost $600 to get his stenographic notes finally transcribed, with two copies, one for us and one for your use. We contribute $200, and $400 more as a maximum will be needed. I move you that the Chair appoint a committee of five on ways and means to raise the $400. (Motion again seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the Chair appoint a committee of five as a committee on ways and means to raise the balance of the fund necessary to have this report made.
A DELEGATE: I move as an amendment that the committee be instructed to engage a stenographer in connection with this body. A stenographer has not been selected by this body yet. If we select a stenographer he should be selected officially by the Executive Committee or by the action of this body. My motion is to engage a stenographer, so that the stenographer who makes the stenographic report is an official stenographer.
DEL. SHERMAN: I make an amendment that the Chair appoint on the committee delegates who have spoken in favor of this report. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It would not be necessary to put that motion, because the Chair has already got the committee selected. There is an amendment to the motion, that the Chair select the delegates who have spoken in favor of the report. Do you want to hear the motion? (No call for the motion.) All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. Contrary no. Carried. The motion is that a committee of five be appointed to provide ways and means for the making of this report. Those in favor of the motion will signify it by the voting sign, raising their hands. Contrary by the same sign. The motion is carried. I will appoint Brother Albert Ryan, Brother Rowe of the Flint Glass Workers, Brother Clarence Smith and Brother Schatzki. The Secretary will proceed with the reading of credentials.
DEL. LUCY PARSONS: I suggest that the Chair ought to appoint a woman to the committee, as women are usually very good beggars in cases of this kind. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection on the part of the convention, a lady will he added to the committee, and this sister will act in that capacity, Mrs. Lucy Parsons.
No objection was heard.
Secretary Trautmann then presented the following report on credentials, and it was ordered received and placed on file:
The report presented credentials of C. W. Roff, representing the Punch Press Operators’ Union, with power to install, and three or four other organizations without power to install. Also credentials of F. W. Weber, from the Electrical Workers’ Union, and four or five other organizations, all without power to install. Also communications from four or five other Schenectady organizations stating that they were in favor of the new movement, and had taken a referendum on the question of joining it, and were awaiting the outcome of the referendum, one of the unions making a donation of $20 toward the new organization.
The report was taken from the Secretary’s desk and has been lost, therefore cannot be presented here in full.
A communication was received in Italian from the Italian Progressive Society of the Socialist Labor Party of New York City. Delegate Kiemensic, by request, presented the following translation to the convention:
“To the Laboring Men Who Are United in Chicago for the Purpose of Organizing an Industrial Union: This Socialist circle of the lower city of New York of the Socialist Federation of Italians in the United States, has not means enough to send a delegate to represent it here. They express their sincere hopes that this organization will be strictly on industrial lines. They state that their own organization is on political lines, but they see that the economic is more necessary even than the political, because they see that the man who controls our bread will control our politics, and that we all have to work for our bread. They call attention of this convention to the necessity of paying particular attention to foreign speaking tongues, to the French, Germans, and Italians and all those that are unable to speak the English language. They hope that some steps along that line may be taken here in this convention in order to diffuse the literature on a proper scale and in order to make understood the revolutionary condition and the sentiment of this body. The great importance which Italians are attaching to this comes from the simple fact that this industrial union is willing to co-operate with the revolutionary organizations throughout Italy and France, and in this way a brotherhood feeling for the condition of workingmen everywhere may be shown by the fact that we are united not only in theory but by acts and deeds. It is one of their wishes that this organization will start an official organ in the Italian language so that they may be able to read in their own paper the important doings of this organization. They will give it their whole support and promise to organize and educate and co-operate in every particular as far as this group is concerned, and will give their aid, material and financial and moral, to organize trade unions throughout the United States in sympathy with the new idea; and while they are doing this they want us to come there and start the work and they will push it forward. Finally they are for revolutionary Socialism and the international brotherhood of the working people.” (Applause.)
COMMITTEE ON RULES.
THE CHAIRMAN: The election or selection of a Committee on Rules of Order will be the next business of the convention.
DEL. FAIRGRIEVE: I move that the chair be empowered to appoint a Committee of five on Rules of Order. (Seconded.)
Motion put and carried.
THE CHAIRMAN: The chair will appoint on that committee Brothers Fairgrieve, Spiegel, Simons, Kerrigan, and Guy Miller.
DEL. DE LEON: Mr. Chairman, is there any reason why the other standing Committees should not be appointed now?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, I see no reason why that cannot be done at this time.
DEL. DE LEON: Then I move you that we proceed to the appointment of the remaining standing Committees. (Seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection on the part of the convention the chair would very much prefer to defer the appointment or election of Committees until such time as the Committee on Rules of Order reports, suggesting the various committees that should be appointed or elected by the convention.
DEL. DE LEON: Then you would postpone action upon that?
THE CHAIRMAN: I would postpone action.
DEL. DE LEON: All right.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else to come before the convention?
DEL. RICHTER: I want to ask a question of information. One of the paragraphs of the Manifesto says, “all power shall rest in. the collective membership.” Now it seems to me that the mode of appointment of committees by leaving it to the chair is not in accordance with the declaration of this Manifesto. It seems to me the delegates to this convention should have a chance to say who they will have upon the Committee. (Applause.) No matter how fair the chair may be, or how far his knowledge may reach as to the proper qualifications of those acting on those Committees, it is certain that in line with the principle of this Manifesto the Committees should be elected instead of appointed.
THE CHAIRMAN: I agree with the delegate that all Committees should be elected from the floor, and the convention would confer a favor on the chair and relieve him of a good deal of embarrassment if you would elect your own Committees.
DEL. DE LEON: I regret to see that the chair agrees with that. That statement that was quoted was made for the benefit of the organization, and the organization is not there for the benefit of that statement.
THE CHAIRMAN: I understand.
DEL. DE LEON: We want Committees that will be able to proceed to work within a reasonable time. Now, if the membership of this body is to elect the Committees I think it is safe to say that there will be no Committee in existence with the expenditure of less than two hours, and the moment we do that we sacrifice the substance to the shadow. As to the objection raised by the delegate that the convention should have something to say, that goes without saying. I do not believe that if the chair appoints a person on a Committee that is objectionable the convention is deprived of the opportunity of objecting. I think that any individual can rise here and object and make a motion to exclude a certain person appointed by the chair, so that all that the delegate states is covered by a common sense interpretation of that; whereas his literal interpretation would simply tie us down and we would not be able to do anything within the next ten days.
DEL. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman—
THE CHAIRMAN: There is nothing before the house. What is it? A point of information?
DEL. SAUNDERS: No, I want to make a motion. I move that all committees be elected instead of appointed. (Motion seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been regularly moved and seconded that all committees be elected instead of appointed. Are you ready for the question?
DEL. SAUNDERS: I wish to say that my reason for making the motion is this: First of all’ to be in accord with that declaration, not only with the spirit of the organization as it may be formed, but to go along right from the inception; and further, that the chair, no matter how fair he is—not that he maybe, but that he is—does not know all the delegates in the convention, and that the delegation as a whole know more about the delegates themselves, and therefore I think that notwithstanding the time that it might take up, it should be left to the convention instead of to the chair.
DEL. HALL: The appointment of a committee to work on constitutional work being such an important proposition, I do not think that it could be left safely to the general convention. Neither do I think it could be left safely to the Chairman of the convention and have all the departments represented on the committee. I am going to offer as a suggestion in the shape of a motion that the organizations, bona fide organizations that are represented by delegates in this convention be permitted through their delegations to elect their representatives on the Constitutional Committee and act on the Constitutional Committee as an organized body instead of individuals. I think that by that means we can get a general expression from all departments represented in the convention, and then if necessary we can provide that individuals be admitted to the Constitutional Committee by consent of the delegates seated in accordance with the plan that I have suggested. That is, that each organization represented in this body be permitted to elect its own representatives on the Constitutional Committee, and not leave it to the general convention and those members. The Committee thus formed may, if they decide it wise, select individuals to assist them in this work. I offer that as a motion. (Motion seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Will you kindly state the motion?
DEL. HALL: The motion is that the organizations represented by delegates in the convention be permitted to select through their delegations their representatives on the Constitutional Committee. I understand that the Western Federation of Miners is represented here as an entire organization, and I think the Western Federation of Miners should select their representatives on the Constitutional Committee. The United Brotherhood of Railway Employes is represented here by several delegates, and I think they should be permitted to select their representatives on the Constitutional Committee. There cannot be any objection offered to that idea, for all departments will then be represented, and I think that is the only way that we can get a general representation on the Constitutional Committee. If the chair appoints he does not know who to select from the various delegations to act as a representative member of the organization. If the convention elect they do not know who wants to be represented on those committees, so I think the wisest way is the suggestion that I have made.
THE CHAIRMAN: Brother Hall, will you please state your motion? I am not going to make a speech when I put the question.
Del. Hall: I made the motion at first. I think the chair was not listening. My motion is that the organizations represented by delegates in the convention select their own members of the Constitutional Committee.
A DELEGATE: How many? One?
THE CHAIRMAN: Do I hear a second to the motion?
DEL. T. J. HAGERTY: I desire to second the motion that one member from each department form the body to make the Constitution, and that the delegates representing that department make that selection. I rise to second the motion that this gentleman has made.
DEL. DE LEON: I rise to make an amendment to Brother Hall’s motion. There is a motion, I understand, that Committees be elected by the body of the convention, and there is Brother Hall’s amendment that the Committee on Constitution consist of one man elected by each delegation. Is that the motion?
Del. Hall: Yes.
DEL. DE LEON: My amendment is that the same system apply with regard to the Committee on Resolutions and the Committee on Preamble. If I understand the Hall amendment correctly it is wise. It is an assistance to the chair. It removes the mob feature of the original motion, and enables the organization—not individuals, but the organizations represented here by delegates, to select the members. They are here and know the delegates and the men who are fitted for that particular function. I presume that Brother Hall has the constitution at heart, but he has overlooked the fact that there are other things that should be at heart as well, and I consider that the Resolution Committee and the Committee on Preamble are of that nature. So my amendment is to the amendment, that the same system shall prevail with regard to the Committee on Preamble and the Committee on Resolutions. I believe that I am right when I say that you reported a proposed plan to that effect, that there should, be a Committee on Preamble. I wish to be corrected by the Secretary. My recollection is that the original conferees reported, a Committee on Preamble.
DEL. TRAUTMANN: Yes, we did.
DEL. DE LEON: And also a Committee on Resolutions?
DEL. TRAUTMANN: Yes.
DEL. DE LEON: My amendment is to extend the Hall amendment to all the standing Committees.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is that? Your amendment is that the Committee on Resolutions and Committee on Preamble be included in the same manner as provided in the amendment of Brother Hall?
DEL. DE LEON: Be provided according to the same system.
Delegate Do Leon’s amendment was seconded.
THE CHAIRMAN: I want to say to the delegates making the motion and the amendment that the chair does not feel that the amendment to the amendment nor the amendment can be entertained. My position is this, that there are a large number of delegates here who are here as individual members and who should be permitted an expression on the Committee on Preamble, the Committee on Resolutions and the Committee on Constitution. I do not believe that the largest delegation nor the smallest delegation in this convention should prohibit any individual member from having an opportunity to express himself on the most important committees. (Applause). Unless some arrangement is made whereby the individual members that are here—it may be only as fraternal delegates at this time—unless some arrangement is made by which they can be given an opportunity of expression on those committees the chair will not entertain either the amendment to the amendment or the amendment.
DEL. DE LEON: In order to give the amendment and the amendment to the amendment a chance, I want to remind the chair that every objection which he has to the method proposed by the amender and the amender to the amender would exist in the other case. Supposing this whole convention elects five men, would the others be excluded likewise?
THE CHAIRMAN: I don’t think so.
DEL. DE LEON: Why not?
THE CHAIRMAN: They will have an opportunity of being nominated.
DEL. DE LEON: Very well, but that is what the capitalist class tell us, that we have an opportunity of voting for a candidate that they put up for us, and the result of it is that small minorities can carry the day. Now, the point that my question aims at is this, that it stands to reason in parliamentary practice that no committee in the measure of its importance will presume to close the door to anybody who wants to appear before it and be heard upon what he has to say. The idea of Committees is to present a digested thing before a body. Consequently we want those men who are known by their delegations to do the digesting. But they should have something to digest, and consequently they will invite all those who have ideas on the subject to appear before them. I do not believe that a committee, however you appoint it, should exclude them, and consequently anybody who has any ideas upon these matters would have an opportunity to be heard in the Committee, and a second opportunity to be heard on the floor in case his views do not prevail, or in case they do prevail and he wants to emphasize them by a speech. If my point has been made clear I hope the chair will re-consider its decision. These men would have ample opportunities to be heard. The Committees would listen to them and they can be heard in Committee and out of Committee. It is a method of expediting business. I presume that all of us at this convention have been at conventions before, and you know what it means when a body of men are to vote upon a ballot, containing many names: it means all-day work. We want to have justice and democracy, but we surely don’t want to sacrifice the essence to the shadow, seeing that all the essence can be obtained together with the shadow by the experience of the human race upon such matters.
DEL. HALL: In making the motion, while I recognize the final principle that has been brought out by Brother De Leon in his argument, the principle that animated me in making the motion was this, that the organizations which have delegates in the convention are the ones that express the largest force in the convention, in the appointment of the committee to form a Constitution, and when it would come in to the convention the vote that would determine the acceptance of that Constitution or that report would be the membership who are not here. This convention is not a matter of individuals. It is a matter of units made up by individuals who are representing a membership that is not here, and they are the real force of the convention. It is the absent member and not the present member that we must consider. Now I say that any other method adopted to elect the Committee on Constitution might leave out a delegate who was representing a number of people away from the convention. Now, as Brother De Leon says, if an individual wishes to be heard he can be heard by the Committee at any time. I am pretty sure they will make provision for that.
DEL. DE LEON: And on the floor.
DEL. HALL: I am sure the Committee will give such individuals an opportunity to come and be heard; but on vital principles before the convention it is the weight of the membership represented and not the individuals that will determine the acceptance of the report. For that reason I think we could reach a report that would be acceptable to the convention quicker by letting those men who are the real force in the convention determine through their delegation the character of Constitution that they want to adopt.
DEL. DE LEON: I would like to make another suggestion in line with this.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just permit me to state that I again reassert the position that I have taken, that when the organizations that come here with delegations presume to select a member from their delegations on the Resolution Committee and the Committee on Preamble, and to confine it within the representations that are here by delegation, the chair objects to it. I do not believe that it is democratic. I believe that every individual member of this convention should be allowed a voice and vote and place on any committee. (Applause.)
DEL. DE LEON: I desire information. How are those Committees to be elected? By individuals or by the number of votes represented by the individuals who vote?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is a matter to be determined.
DEL. DE LEON: All right; you will have to settle that if you want to have democracy.
DEL. KERRIGAN: I understand that this convention is to be based on the class struggle. Hence it is essential to make the working class class-conscious, and if we are going to proceed along those lines we cannot be pestered with all kinds of sentiments such as democracy and discussions on psychology and theosophy and other little questions that may be considered of importance by the various delegates to the convention. You must understand that you have to proceed along revolutionary lines, and the revolutionary pathway does not always make concessions to sentiments that may surround its field, and this democratic sentiment we will have to overlook for the time being until you get organized. We don’t want to come here to preach democracy, but we come here to preach working class interests, as I understand. I came too far to be thrown off the track by a pandering to democratic sentiment or to the sentiment of fraternity, equality and all those other issues that may be raised by the various freak delegates to this convention. The working class is not interested in those freakish movements. I am in a hurry to get home to work, and hence I want to place myself on record in support of the motion offered by the delegate that you appoint a committee, even the chair shall appoint a committee. It is all open to question afterwards when it is presented before the convention. All the work of that committee should he open to question again, and then if you desire to tolerate a whole lot of talk and raise constitutional objections and so on and fritter away the time of the convention about those matters, you can do so, but don’t fritter it away right here at the outset. Appoint a committee; take some member here in your own midst as chairman, and then if you are not sustained it is up to the convention to decide. But I for one feel that I can’t waste much time here listening to what I know will be sprung on this convention. What I would like to know is if everybody here is in favor of the class struggle, and I don’t propose to waste much more time to find out whether they are or not. There may be delegates here who are trying to advocate the cause of any “opathy” in which I am not interested.
A DELEGATE: Or osteopathy.
DEL. KERRIGAN: I shall not go any further because I find that I am taking up some of your time myself, but I am drawing this to your attention to show that we cannot take up our time with democratic sentiments and things of that character.
A DELEGATE: What is the motion now before the house?
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion before the house is that Committees be elected from the delegations.
DEL. DE LEON: Then you rule the amendments out of order?
DEL. ROSS: I move as a substitute that each faction represented in this convention select one member on the Committee on Constitution and By Laws to govern this organization, and the same to constitute the Committee as a whole.
A DELEGATE: That is the same motion as Brother Hall’s.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is practically the same.
Del. Ross: Yes; I put it plain, that is all.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is practically the same as the original motion.
DEL. ROWE: Do I understand now that the motion before the house is that this convention elect a committee of five as the Constitutional Committee?
THE CHAIRMAN: No motion of that kind has been made. The motion was that the Committee be elected from the delegates.
A DELEGATE: All committees. That was the original motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: That all Committees be elected by the delegates.
DEL. ROWE: I would like to make an amendment to that motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: An amendment has already been offered by the delegate here that each delegation be represented on the Constitutional Committee.
Del. Rowe: I understand that you ruled that out of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: Not this motion. The two motions that have been made by Delegates Hall and De Leon were ruled out of order.
DEL. SCHATSKI: It seems to me that the motion is as plain as can be, and I do not see why any delegate present cannot understand it. The convention should sustain the ruling of the chair on this matter. The motion plainly calls attention to the principle that should underlie this movement if it is to be successful after this convention. I regret very much the remark of one of the delegates that it would give the proceedings a mob feature. Certainly all action by the working class for some time to come will contain the features of the mob until it has freed itself from some things that surround it and until they can act as men of intelligence and as understanding will dictate. But in order to do this a certain time is essential for development and growth that will make their action manlike and not as a mob. This convention, if it is to be of the importance it is proposed to be, should at once discard the idea that some men have been endowed by nature to predigest the mental is essential for development and growth that will make their action food which the working class requires in the various lines of information and give it to them just in doses sufficient as the condition permits. We must recognize that the lack of proper action on the part of the working class is because they are prevented from enjoying those advantages which enable them to act as men, and this convention should make provision if it is possible and not force on this country anything that will prevent its success. Therefore the motion should be carried.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hour of 12 o’clock having arrived, a motion to adjourn is in order.
A motion to adjourn was made.
DEL. GOODWIN: I want to ask this question: If each organization and each union shall select its own representative, what about the individual delegates here?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is not the question before the house at all.
DEL. GOODWIN: I think that was the substitute.
THE CHAIRMAN: There is no such substitute.
DEL. GOODWIN: Was that ruled out of order?
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment is that the various factions represented on the floor of this convention practically place every delegate on the floor on the Constitutional Committee.
DEL. SAUNDERS: A point of information. Didn’t I understand the substitute would take in each and every individual faction? I would like to ask, am I not right?
DEL. SAUNDERS: Therefore the brother would be in order, provided that is so.
DEL. DINGER: I desire to appeal from the decision of the chair. (Seconded). I desire to appeal from the decision of the chair that the motion made by the brother over there is out of order, and I wish to state my reasons therefor.
THE CHAIRMAN: State your reasons.
DEL. DINGER: I believe that those of us who have been sent here to represent a body are empowered to install that body in the new organization. The chair has referred to the individual delegates who come here to represent themselves, as individuals. He decided against this motion made by the brother on the ground that it would be undemocratic. Now, remember what you are doing. We are empowered to install those whom we represent in this organization, and those few men who come here as individuals are not so empowered. They come here, as you have just heard from a member, simply to investigate. It would be doing an injustice to the members of the working class that we represent to give them an equal voice, each one of them, with those that represent a large body. Therefore, I believe that the decision of the chair is unjust.
DEL. ROWE: I rise to a point of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: The decision of the chair has been appealed from. The Secretary will—
DEL. COATES: Just a moment. I was just going to appeal to the members of the convention not to vote on the appeal, if you will just allow me a moment.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is a matter of privilege.
DEL. COATES: The matter is muddled, and I am going to try to clear it up. Some member made a motion to elect from the floor of the convention with the idea that that is going to give a democratic organization. I want to tell that brother that there are about six or eight of us in this convention that can knock all this democratic idea galley west when you go to mention theory. I have got about 1,600 votes, and when you go to elect delegates it means simply that five or six hours will be consumed in casting votes, when the result rests with twenty or twenty-five men sitting on this floor. I simply want to point out that feature, that is all. You are making a mistake in trying to say that you are going to select and that everybody is going to have a chance in selecting the committees from this floor. I have got about 1,600 votes, I think; I don’t remember, as I haven’t read the credentials lately, but when it comes to voting I am going to have every vote, not one vote, but 1,600. There are five delegates from the Western Federation of Miners that cast something like four or five thousand apiece. I tell you there are fifteen or twenty of these men, and we might as well realize it now as later on in the convention. It is a mistake and it is a waste of time in the convention to attempt to select delegates in that manner. You might as well say to four or five organizations on the floor to go back on the stage and select the Committees of this convention, because that is all the motion means. I want to ask the brother over here to withdraw his appeal and see if we can’t straighten this out in a simple manner that will be satisfactory to everybody. I would ask the Secretary how many organizations are represented here with more than one delegate.
THE SECRETARY: Seventeen.
DEL. COATES: Something like seventeen; that is about the way I estimated. I am going to make a motion that those seventeen bodies or units of men select their representation on this Committee—I mean all Committees now. My motion is that these bodies of men representing organizations other than themselves shall select a member of all Committees named by this convention.
DEL. SAUNDERS: A point of order.
DEL. COATES: Just a moment. I will give the brother a chance when I get through.
DEL. SAUNDERS: The point of order is this: The brother has no right to make a motion when he has been given the privilege of the floor on a question of appeal from the decision of the chair.
DEL. COATES: No, I am trying to straighten this thing out, that is all I meant. You just wait till I get through, will you? Now, Mr. Chairman, he doesn’t know what I am going to include. He didn’t wait till I got through.
DEL. SAUNDERS: Make the motion.
DEL. COATES: Wait until you know what the motion is.
THE CHAIRMAN: You understand that unless this brother withdraws his appeal this motion will not be put.
DEL. COATES: I know it. My motion is this: That each one of these delegates select member of all Committees appointed by this convention, and that the chair appoint three from the individual delegates in this convention to each one of these Committees.
DEL. SAUNDERS: Do you withdraw your appeal?
Del. Dinger: I withdraw my appeal on condition that that motion will be sustained by the chair.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you offer that as a substitute?
DEL. COATES: Yes, that the chair add three individual delegates to each one of these Committees, making the Committees twenty members, or whatever number it is.
THE SECRETARY: Suppose you reduce that to writing.
The motion of Delegate Coates was seconded.
DEL. DE LEON: What is the chair’s ruling on that motion?
THE CHAIRMAN: The chair’s ruling is that this motion will be in order.
DEL. DE LEON: All right,
Question called for.
DEL. SAUNDERS: The argument that Brother Coates made in regard to having 1,600 votes in one mass to cast for this particular resolution or this particular motion, would apply to any other motion that might come up in this convention. Therefore it would exclude these delegates on the opposite side of any motion that the delegate should support.
A DELEGATE: I object. The question has been called for and the delegate is out of order. He has no right to debate the question at all; when the question is called for, you must always put it.
DEL SAUNDERS: I will say this: If the original motion to elect instead of appoint prevails, it will give an opportunity at least to those delegates who are only individual delegates and fraternal delegates to see how these men that represent 1,600 votes are going to deposit their votes. It would at least do that. Therefore that is the only purpose of the motion. But if you are going to run on the idea that there is no need of this democratic business at all, if you have everything cut and dried, saying that “I have 1,600 members in my possession and there are half a dozen other delegates in the same fix,” why should we delegates have a vote on any question?
Question called for.
DELEGATE HALL: I rise to a point of information. What is the difference between the motion accepted by the chair and the motion offered which he ruled against? Does it lie in the fact that the Committee is all to be selected from the floor by the convention, only one member from each department, or does it mean that each department has the right to elect its Committee? That is what I want a ruling on.
THE CHAIRMAN: The only difference between the amendment that you made and which the chair did not entertain and the substitute as offered by Delegate Coates, is this: That Delegate Coates provides that the chair appoint or give the outside delegates an opportunity to have three members on each Committee that is appointed, and you provide that only the delegates that are selected by the delegation shall be represented on Committees.
DEL. DE LEON: I desire information —
DEL. SCHATZKI: Has it been decided that the delegates shall have as many votes as the unions have?
THE CHAIRMAN: The rules provide that the delegates shall represent the entire organization.
DEL. SCHATZKI: Does that mean that he shall cast as many votes?
THE CHAIRMAN: He casts as many votes as he represents individually. If he is an individual he casts one vote. If he represents a union with ten members he casts ten votes. If there are 10,000 members of his organization he casts that many votes.
DEL. DE LEON: I wish to ask Delegate Saunders through the chair whether he was not present here when these various delegations voting more than one individual vote was seated, and whether he himself did not vote for them being seated with those additional votes; in other words, whether he did not himself vote for the admission of men with more than one vote.
DEL. SAUNDERS: I will answer that no, because we wanted—
DEL. SCHATZKI: A point of information. I want to find out, if this motion is carried, whether only those who are representing certain organizations have got all the right here. If so, let all the individual members attending here that cannot have a voice here, let them take their satchels and go home right now.
DEL. MORRISON: I would like to have that motion read that was reduced to writing.
THE SECRETARY: “Each delegation to select one member of each Committee elected by the convention, and that the chair appoint from the individual members three other members of the Committee.”
DEL. MORRISON: That changes the matter somewhat. We did not understand it here when Comrade Coates was making his motion. I want to say that some of the organizations which are numerically—
A DELEGATE: How do you know? What is your organization? [line missing from original transcript] represented here by delegations overlook one important feature that seems to me essential in this grand movement that we are here to inaugurate, and that is that of all the organizations of labor unions in the United States there are only about 240,000 members represented, while in the whole industrial group that is seeking for redress there are twenty millions, and those who come here come to represent the twenty millions as a whole, and not any special group. (Applause). Therefore, in the selection of your Committee to draft a constitution you are not allowing these people representation. I do not say that you do it intentionally, but I feel that you are making a mistake in thinking only of your own organization. These other men are sufferers just the same as all other organizations. It seems to me that those who represent only organizations are not seeking the support of the entire class of workingmen.
A motion was made to adjourn.
DEL. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman—
DEL. HALL: I have a privileged motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sullivan has the floor.
DEL. HALL: I have a privileged motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have asked for a question of privilege?
DEL. HALL: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is it?
DEL. SULLIVAN: Just a moment. The brother there got on the floor, but it is not on this question, and I claim the right to be heard.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sullivan, the brother will not be permitted to speak on this question. He asks a question of privilege.
DEL. HALL: I move that we take a recess until 5.30. (Motion seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: A motion to adjourn is always in order. Delegate Sullivan has the floor. Those in favor of the motion will say aye. Contrary no. The motion is lost. Brother Sullivan has the floor.
DEL. SULLIVAN: In the first place, I want to take exception to the ruling. Delegate Sullivan did not yield the floor, and when a delegate does not yield the floor a motion to adjourn is not in order. (Applause). The question seems to be centered around one point only: Are individual delegates here to be delegates in theory only, or delegates in fact? If you deny them a right to participate in the work of this convention they have no business here. They are here at their own expense, their individual expense, and if they were not interested I presume that they would not be here. The vast majority of them at least can ill afford to bear their own personal expense, for they are wage slaves to-day. Now, if they are to participate in this convention let us settle this question. If they are not, let us say so, so that they can curtail that expense and go their way rejoicing. I move you the previous question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Permit me to say that when the delegate takes exception to presenting a motion and then makes a speech himself, it will not be entertained.
DEL. POWERS: I propose to speak on the motion. I do not come here to represent myself. I come here to represent the working class. I have never found an organization yet but what deserved some support. If the members of that organization were not up to my standard it would become my duty to go into that organization and bring them up to my standard. And that explains the reason why I am one of those who are going to vote for principle. It would appear from the discussion of the gentlemen on this side that in order to be democratic the thing we ought to do is simply to resolve ourselves—those of us who have been unfortunate enough to come here as the representatives of organized labor—to resolve ourselves into a body and surrender and submit the whole thing to you who are members of no organizations.
DEL. POWERS: Now, Comrades, here is a situation that cannot be avoided. If there is anything disagreeable about it we are not responsible for it. The proceeding is exactly in accordance with the call and in accordance with all previous labor organizations. The only thing that we can do if we would become democratic in the way you would have us to is to make each representative here consider his vote one vote. That is all we can do. Now I am not opposed to that at all. Now I want to say here to you gentlemen who come here to represent yourselves and you ladies who come here to represent yourselves, and who come here to give this convention the best that you know of, will you, when this convention is over, put your names individually on the files of this organization? Will each one of you, as soon as this convention is over, find a place where you can go and become a member of this order? Will each of you individually form an organization of your own craft? What proof have we that when this meeting is over you will contribute anything towards its support? And another thing: Are you afraid that these men who are here from the mines, many of them crippled; are you afraid that these men who come here from the close atmosphere of the cotton mill, are not aware of the slavish conditions of the working class? Are you afraid that they have not sand enough to fight? What are you afraid of?
A DELEGATE: What are you afraid of?
DEL. POWERS: What occasion have you to be afraid to put the deciding power of this convention into the hands of such a man as this (pointing to Delegate Veal), who bears on his body the marks of capitalist oppression? What occasion have you to be afraid? You are guilty of an expression of narrow mindedness that you ought to be ashamed of. That is the situation, and those men ought to prevail. It is perfectly fair, and I do not see any reason why there should come from this side of the house a breath of suspicion that we will do something undemocratic. And then one claimed to represent the twenty millions. Why, among that twenty millions there are men who care absolutely nothing about the working class. The men who are here are men who have been in this movement for years. I myself have been in it twenty-one years. The men that are here are men who are to be trusted, and it is not fair on the part of those other men to insinuate that we are trying to narrow this thing down or that we are trying to shut you out from taking any part here. Why should we do it? We have no desire to do it. The situation is such that we must rise or fall with you. Now I say the only way that we can make this thing democratic is as we are doing. There isn’t any one that can find any fault with it. It is unfair to say to a member who represents 5,000 to 20,000, that his vote shall count one, the same as the member who only represents himself and his vote. And that is called patriotic and fair. Why, there are men here who have given this movement the best years of their lives. Comrades, we are proceeding perfectly patriotic and democratic. We are proceeding consistently in the way that the convention originated, and I do not think it is fair on the part of those men to insinuate that we are trying to narrow the thing down and that we are trying to make it undemocratic. And I want to say to you men, you intellectuals if there may be any here, if you don’t belong to an economic organization then that is a proof of one of two things: That you are either so intelligent that the company of the average workingman is distasteful to you, or you have not the sand to get up and show your colors. (Applause.)
DEL. MORRISON: I rise to a question of personal privilege.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hour of 12.30 having arrived, the convention stands adjourned until 2 o’clock.
Adjourned until 2 o’clock P.M.