Important subdivisions of the organization were the Industrial Councils. These had been constitutionally defined as "central bodies composed of seven or more local unions in two or more industries."[276] Such central bodies had been organized during the first year in New York, Chicago, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Paterson, N. J., and Flat River, Mo., and were, according to Secretary Trautmann, "in process of formation in Cleveland, Seattle, and Toronto, Canada."[277] Steps had also been taken toward the formation of the Arizona (state) District Industrial Council. These bodies had a definite future rôle as well as an immediate function mapped out for them. Here is given some little conception of the anticipated _modus operandi_ of one part of the coöperative machinery of a future industrial society--of which the Industrial Workers of the World is proposing to be the framework. The work of the industrial councils, present and future, is explained by Wm. E. Trautmann as follows:
If it is the final object of the Industrial Workers of the World to prepare the government for the coöperative commonwealth, then likewise should provisions be made to organize the agency, through which the administration of cities and rural districts [can] be conducted. The Industrial Council should, therefore, be organized for that purpose, and the territory to be covered by such organization should be determined by the central administration.... While the future functions of such councils will consist in the administration of the industries by the chosen representatives of the various industrial unions, their present-day duties should be to direct the propaganda, the organizing work, the education through central agencies, the direction of strikes, and other means of warfare between the workers and the shirkers, and the supervision of organizers; in fact, all such functions as will yield better results, if carried out by a collective direction, should come within the jurisdiction sphere of such councils.[278]
The original constitution had provided for thirteen international industrial departments, which could be organized in any industry so soon as it contained ten locals with a membership of not less than 3,000 members.[279] The reaction against the departmental idea at the second convention was sufficiently strong to carry an amendment to the constitution making the prerequisite to departmental organization in any industry "ten locals with a membership of not less than 10,000 members." This change was partly the result of a general feeling that the departmental system was not as practicable as had been at first believed. Moreover, it was believed that, so long as departments could be organized on the basis of a membership of only 3,000, departmental autonomy would be an absolute farce, and simply resolve itself into local union or locality domination. The defenders of the departmental idea rightly insisted that that idea be given a fair chance to work itself out. Another group--industrial unionists who laid great stress on the local industrial union as _the_ division which should first of all be possessed of complete autonomy--felt that this change was a change in their favor in so far as it made the attainment of the departmental status more difficult and the existing number of departments actually less. The departments, thought DeLeon,