[437] Detroit I. W. W. leaflet, _The Two I. W. W.'s._
[438] _Cf._ report of the eighth day's session, _Industrial Union Bulletin_, Dec. 12, 1908, p. 3.
[439] _Ibid._, March 6, 1909, p. 4, col. 2.
[440] H. Richter, General Secretary-Treasurer of the Detroit (S. L. P.) I. W. W., now officially known as the Workers' International Industrial Union, in a letter to the author, dated February 17, 1915.
[441] H. S. Carroll, "The Industrial Workers of the World. A brief sketch of some history of the organization." _Weekly People_, Dec. 21, 1912.
[442] Detroit I. W. W. leaflet. _A message to the membership of the Industrial Workers of the World and the working class in general._
[443] _Weekly People_, Nov. 7, 1908, p. 1, col. 6.
[444] "With DeLeon since '89," _Weekly People_, Dec. 25, 1915, p. 5. The _Bulletin_ was published more or less regularly until the Spring of 1909. The issue of March 6 appears to have been the last. On March 18, No. 1 of Vol. 1 of the _Industrial Worker_ [II] was issued at Spokane, Wash.
[445] _Weekly People_, Nov. 7, 1908, p. 1, col. 6.
[447] _Industrial Union Bulletin_, No. 7, 1908, p. 2, col. 2.
[448] Letter to the author, Feb. 17, 1915.
[449] The referendum on the Chicago convention, sent out by the Trautmann-St. John administration, was published in the _Industrial Union Bulletin_, Oct. 24, 1908. The DeLeonites issued a special referendum circular signed by the _ad interim_ officers.
[450] Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor, _Annual Reports on Labor Organisations_, 1909-1914. _Cf._ also Appendix iv (Table A).
[451] Letter to the author, Feb. 17, 1915.
[452] _Vide Preamble and Constitution_ of the W. I. I. U. (1915), pp. 3-4.
[453] _Syndicalisme révolutionnaire et syndicalisme réformiste_, pp. 13-14.
[454] _Revolution and Counter-Revolution_ (2nd ed., 1904), pp. 109-10.
[455] _Cf. infra_, ch. xiii, where the controversy at the seventh and eighth conventions between the "Centralizers" and the "Decentralizers" is described.
[456] DeLeon, _Industrial Unionism_ (New York: N. Y. Labor News Co., 1918), pp. 8-9.
[457] The author wishes to take this opportunity to express his indebtedness to Emil J. Kern, of the Socialist Labor party, for many suggestive ideas, especially in connection with the DeLeon-St. John controversy. Whatever merit there may be in the above comparison is due to him. On the second point, however, Mr. Kern simply states that the difference was merely a difference of views in regard to _stealing_. St. John, he says, approved of it. (Not per se, of course, but because, as he assumed--[on Kern's hypothesis], it helped the interests of the workers.) DeLeon disapproved of it, not on moral grounds, but for the reasons given above in paragraph 2. The author does not know whether St. John approves of stealing or not. Some color may be given to Mr. Kern's contention by the charges which were circulated in Goldfield, Nev., that the W. F. M. sanctioned the wholesale stealing of ore by its members. _Cf. supra_, p. 198. and E. J. Kern, "Socialism and Direct Action" (_San Francisco Labor Clarion_, May 31, 1912).