The announcement that Vincent St. John would speak in Uhlich’s Hall, Chicago, last Saturday night, drew together a large crowd anxious to hear, but owing to his not being able to reach the city before Sunday morning, they were for the time being disappointed. In his absence, the Saturday night gathering was addressed by General Secretary Trautmann on the form of organization and principles of the Industrial Workers of the World. This meeting was presided over by Henry Jager. On Sunday afternoon, at 2:30, Uhlich’s Hall was comfortably filled. The chairman, A.S. Edwards, referred to the verdict rendered in the trial of Wm. D. Haywood and presented the following message, which, amid enthusiastic cheers, was ordered sent to Boise, Idaho:

“July 28, 1907. Wm. D. Haywood, Boise, Idaho:

“Meeting of Chicago workingmen and working women, under auspices of the I.W.W., and addressed by Vincent St. John, this afternoon, in Uhlich’s Hall, where, on March 13, 1906, the first Moyer-Haywood conference was held to protest and take concerted action in the matter of your arrest, sends greetings and congratulations on your complete vindication and escape from a foul conspiracy of the capitalists of Colorado and Idaho.”

The chairman then briefly referred to the coming labor congress at Stuttgart, Germany, stating that the rank and file of the I.W.W. had elected Fellow Worker St. John as their delegate to that congress. Owing to the fact, however, that St. John was under bonds of $10,000 in connection with the trouble arising out of the struggle at Goldfield, and the refusal of the state’s officers to consent to his leaving the country (although they were willing to let him go scot free provided he would leave the state and never return, which he declined to do), it would be impossible for him to go. His place would be filled by Fred W. Heslewood, who had received the second largest number of votes.

Vincent St. John was then called upon, and spoke for nearly two hours. He expressed great pleasure in being able to join in celebrating the release of Wm. D. Haywood, and immediately took up a discussion of the principles of the I.W.W., showing that if the A.F. of L. correctly represented the working class there would be no need of the I.W.W., or any other labor organization. The I.W.W. is opposed to the policy of the A.F. of L., which claimed there was an identity of interest between the employer and the employe. The I.W.W. was also opposed to the form of organization of the A.F. of L. on craft lines in special operations of industry. Still further is the I.W.W. opposed to the A.F. of L. for its justification of the “sacred contract,” the allowing of working people who perform different operations in different industries and enter into contracts irrespective of the interests of their fellow workers in other operations of the same industry.

Bitter experience had shown that the officials of the A.F. of L. took advantage of the craft form of organization in order to betray the workers to the employers. St. John showed that because the United Brewery Workers refused to allow themselves to be divided up into crafts, they were compelled not only to fight the employers, but also the paid agents of the A.F. of L.

Referring to the recent trouble in Goldfield, Nevada, the speaker said the agents of the A.F. of L. were placed squarely before the working class as the paid agents of the capitalist class. Profiting by the experience of the past, an attempt was made to build an organization that would withstand the assaults of the employers. They had organized under the W.F. of M. and the I.W.W. The camp was organized from one end to the other, but the employers were not asleep and the usual efforts to combat the workers were begun. The Tonopah Sun was especially chosen to slander the organization. The paper was placed on the unfair list and the mine owners responded with a lockout, giving the men to understand that as soon as they withdrew the boycott the mines would reopen.

The mine owners reasoned that the I.W.W. was the more radical organization and traced every step of progress that had been made to them. They used the carpenters’ union of the A.F. of L. to precipitate trouble. The carpenters’ union was officered by contracting carpenters and was a pliant tool. St. John then rapidly passed in review the conspiracy as he had already written it for The Bulletin. He showed how M. Grant Hamilton, an organizer of the A.F. of L., was called in and given the use of the rooms of the swell club of Goldfield, the meeting place of all the parasites that infest the mining camp. Hamilton’s meetings at first were open, but afterwards became select, and the men who dared to open their mouths or to question anything said by the capitalist agent in the employ of the A.F. of L were thrown out.

Lesser “lights” followed Hamilton to the number of a score, but in spite of all they could do there was no result to show that benefited the workers. Industry workers, who under the I.W.W regime, received $4.50 per day, dropped down to $3.

“The Industrial Workers of the World recognizes that there is no middle ground m this conflict, and is going ahead on the principles it has espoused until it is able to overthrow the cause of the class struggle. If there is an identity of interest between the employer and the employed, then a labor organization has no right to exist. The fact of there being; an identity of interest would make It necessary for both employer and employed to be in one organization, and we better all join the Civic Federation and have done with it. The principle on which the A.F of L. was founded fits it to be an essential part of the Civic Federation. In spite of all the obstacles that were put in the way of the I.W.W and the slanders that are continually circulated against it, this organization is forging ahead. It is not teaching that we can get a glorious social system for our children or for our grandchildren, but that by working together we can get what we want for ourselves. Being now relieved of the demands made to satisfy the hungry maw of lawyers, the workers can give more their time and means to propagate the doctrines of the I.W.W. The future calls for courage and determination, and the victory of our class is in sight in our time.”

Transcribed by Revolution's Newsstand

The use of the injunction in labor troubles is recognized today as the trump card in the employer’s hand. Its paralyzing effect has been felt in every struggle of any importance between the working class and the employer. The one possible exception is the anthracite coal miners’ strike of 1902. In this instance the conciliation dope of the board of arbitration was used in its place. It has been more effective than the services of Strikebreaker Farley. It has paralyzed the efforts of labor to a greater extent than the hunger of the men and women on strike. In spite of its disastrous effect the real remedy for the evil has been given little publicity.

Adequate notice to the defendants before issuing the temporary restraining order; non-issuance except in such cases that it would apply were no strike or lockout involved; trial by jury of those charged with violation of the injunction are being put forth as a means to overcome its evil effects against labor. None of these methods of procedure provides even a semblance of relief, to say nothing of a cure. Each in itself is but another means of making the injunction effective in obtaining the result for which it was invoked. All these involve the organizations of labor in the tedious and costly processes of the employer’s courts. In the meantime the purpose of the injunction is accomplished. The workers, browbeaten and coerced by the illegal use of judicial power, become disheartened and are defeated. Deprived of every effective means of offense and defense, they are finally forced back to slave pens on the employer’s terms. The “privilege” of being granted a “hearing” before the writ is issued does not alter the case a particle. Nor will the “hearing” prevent the issuing of an injunction, if the interest of the employer demands, that it be issued. Trial by jury for those charged with contempt of court does not invalidate the injurious effect of the injunction in the least. All that it accomplishes is to force the employer to the additional expense of packing the jury to secure a conviction. At the same time the workers and their organization are involved in the additional heavy expense necessary to protect the rights of its members on trial. A law prohibiting the use of the injunction in labor troubles except in such cases where it would apply were no strike or lockout involved would be a farce. This the workers would soon discover to their cost. The very most that it would accomplish would be to force the employer to provide grounds upon which to base his plea for a restraining order. This, the past history of the labor movement proves, would be an easy matter.

No matter what victories might be won in court proceedings growing out of the use of the injunction, no matter how many jury trials resulted in freeing those charged with contempt, no matter how many restraining orders were set aside, it would not act as a bar to issuing of further injunctions in other instances or even in the same case. In all instances the delay of the “legal” processes and the lawyers’ fees and court costs would result in accomplishing the object for which the injunction was invoked–the defeat of the workers’ effort to better their condition.

All of this but demonstrates that the concessions sought and gained by the representatives of organized labor from the political parties representing the different groups of employing interests are without value to the worker. Their only effect will be to involve the workers and their organizations in an endless chain of court proceedings. The result will be to bankrupt their organizations and defeat their efforts for better conditions. Well might the employing interest grant this worthless boon to their humble petitioners.

There is but one method by which the workers can hope to defeat the use of the injunction. That method will not entangle them in the tedious and costly processes of their opponents’ courts. That method is continued and open disregard of the injunction; by the exercise of every right that it seeks to abridge. That disregard should be practiced by every member of the organization involved. If necessary to make the resistance of an injunction effective, every member of the working class in the locality should join in disregarding the same. Numbers, and concerted, determined action will make this method productive of results. For example, when Oily John’s man, Grosscup, issued the infamous restraining order in the American Railway Union strike of 1894. had every organization affected resisted its illegal provisions; had that resistance, if necessary, spread to every member of the working class, the injunction would have dismally failed as a weapon to defeat the A.R.U. Not only that, but it would have, ere this, been discarded as useless. Suppose that an injunction is issued against an organization of 10,000 members, restraining them from picketing, advertising, speaking to, or interfering in any manner with their employer or such employes as remain in his employ. Such a writ destroys all opportunity for the workers to make known their side of the difficulty to their fellow workers. Such a writ deprives the workers of all chance to gain the support of their fellow workers in their struggle. In short, but a writ deprives the workers of rights, that in equity, are as inalienable as the right to life itself.

Such a writ has no justification for its use except commercial necessity. Its violation is a duty that must be performed if the workers are to progress in their struggle toward ultimate freedom from wage slavery.

If these 10,000 workers, instead of following the usual course of allowing a few of their number to be selected as victims by the employers, and making a test case out of their arrest, would, as a body, ignore the court’s order, the injunction would be as powerless as a puff of wind. To accomplish this is an easy matter. Let every member take his turn on the picket lines and assume an equal share of the responsibility of nullifying the injunction. Instead of having to deal with six, ten, or twelve of the most active members of the union, the employer and his agents would be confronted with the task of proceeding against the entire ten thousand. This number, moreover, can, with proper organization and effort, be increased many times. The expense of finding jail room, of feeding, and of prosecuting so great a number of men becomes the means of breaking once and for all that particular injunction. Its intention is defeated by the overwhelming extent of the organized numerical opposition.

This plan of defeating the injunction also serves to call attention to the struggle as no other course would. It exposes the evil as it has never been exposed. It will compel the employer to cease the injunction method of defeating strikes. The cost to the workers in defending so many numbers would be materially less than any other line of action, regardless of the increased number involved, as one defense could be made for all. Furthermore, the fact that the expense of housing and feeding and prosecuting so great a number of people that would bankrupt any public treasury, would be driven home to the employers in vastly increased taxes.

This line of action brings out the task or organization and discipline necessary to make it a success. However great that task may be, it is one that must be carried out. Until this task shall have been completed, the injunction will continue to serve to defeat labor in every struggle of importance on the industrial field. To the task of organization and education, fellow workers, so that the victory may be brought near at hand!

Transcribed by Revolution's Newsstand