The Great Northern strike, the strike of the A. R. U. in sympathy with
the suffering workers at Pullman, the injunction and the proceedings for
contempt, the imprisonment of Mr. Debs and his associate officers for
contempt of court, the trial for conspiracy and many other events which
will hereinafter be set forth in greater detail, developed the vision of
the Labor Leader and turned his mind in the direction of political
action to solve the wrongs of labor.
In a letter to the “Coming Nation,” now the “Appeal to Reason,” November
23, 1895, Mr. Debs first advocated the establishment of the co-operative
commonwealth by the exercise of the ballot.
“Liberty, be it known, is for those only who dare to strike the blow to
secure and retain the priceless boon. It has been written that ‘Love of
Liberty with life is given,’ and that ‘life without liberty is a
continuous curse,’ and that ‘an hour of liberty is worth an eternity of
bondage.’ It would be an easy task to link together gilded periods
extolling liberty until the mind weary with delight, becomes oblivious
of the fact that while dreaming of security the blessings we magnified
had, one by one, and little by little, disappeared, emphasizing the
truth of the maxim that ‘eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.’
“Is it worth while to iterate that all men are created free and that
slavery and bondage are in contravention of the Creator’s decree and
have their origin in man’s depravity? If liberty is a birthright which
has been wrested from the weak by the strong or has been placed in peril
by those who were commissioned to guard it as Gheber priests watch the
sacred fires they worship, what is to be done? Leaving all other
nations, kindred and tongues out of the question, what is the duty of
Americans? Above all, what is the duty of American workingmen whose
liberties have been placed in peril? They are not hereditary bondsmen;
their fathers were free-born—their sovereignty none denied and their
children yet have the ballot. It has been called ‘a weapon that executes
a free man’s will as lightning does the will of God.’ It is a metaphor
pregnant with life and truth. There is nothing in our government it can
not remove or amend. It can make and unmake presidents and congresses
and courts. It can abolish unjust laws and consign to eternal odium and
oblivion unjust judges, strip from them their robes and gowns and send
them forth unclean as lepers to bear the burden of merited obloquy as
Cain with the mark of a murderer. It can sweep our trusts, syndicates,
corporations, monopolies and every other abnormal development of the
money power designed to abridge the liberties of workingmen and enslave
them by the degradation incident to poverty and enforced idleness as
cyclones scatter the leaves of our forest. The ballot can do all this
and more. It can give our civilization its crowning glory—the
co-operative commonwealth. To the unified hosts of American workmen fate
has committed the charge of rescuing American liberties from the grasp
of the vandal horde that have placed them in peril, by seizing the
ballot and wielding it to re-gain the priceless heritage and to preserve
and transmit it, without scar or blemish to the generations yet to come.
“Snatch from the ashes of their sires,
The emblems of their former fires;
And he who in the strife expires,
Will add to theirs a name of fear,
That Tyranny shall quake to hear.”
March 22, 1899, a conference was held at 39 West 26th Street, New York,
attended by a large number of representatives of scattered organizations
having altruistic tendencies, with a view of organizing a new political
party. Mr. Debs attended this conference and in reply to an address made
by the chairman of the meeting, Mr. Debs said:
“I wish to be candid with the gentlemen present. I am a Socialist. I am
one who believes in the co-operative ownership, not only of the means of
production and distribution, but of this planet. Such an amalgamation as
this proposed here cannot succeed, and if it did succeed it would mean
the sacrifice of principle. I have tried to gather together men of
various beliefs. I have tried the step at a time policy, I have been an
opportunist, but after years of experience and work and agitation,
gentlemen, I have finally landed on the bedrock of Socialism and from
that I will not move.”
Dr. W. S. Rainsford, rector of St. George’s Episcopal Church, replied,
saying:
“All great reforms have been the result of compromise. History proves
that beyond question. I realize, as well as anybody else, the need of
radical action, but I also believe that men of kindred sympathies must
sacrifice personal opinions and stand together for the common good of
all the people, hence I am happy to confess that in these matters I am
an opportunist.”
The Rev. Dr. Henry Frank said his experience told him George M. Pullman
was summoned to give some testimony, that all the great men of today
were Socialists, “the statesmen, the writers, the thinkers, and even the
fashionably gowned and the jeweled members of the so-called better
classes in their hearts are Socialists.” It was not a question of
principle as much as a question of program that must be decided upon.
Mr. Debs, who seemed alone in his uncompromising opinions, replied that
the results of the compromises spoken of are wage-slavery, such as the
world never saw. He would rather have 10,000 Socialists with their faces
to the storm and their teeth set, who knew what they wanted and who
stood firm, than a million men of varying opinions held loosely together
in the hope of making a step at a time. He said he did not care if
victory could be given to such men tomorrow. They are not sufficiently
well organized and until that was done all hope of lasting results were
futile.
At the evening session Mr. Debs declined to vote on the resolution
offered to hold the conference at Buffalo, reiterating his belief that
the proposed conference will come to naught unless it comes out for
bed-rock uncompromising Socialism.
The labor movement received its origin from low wages and over-work. Of
the millions who are employed, only a few obtain fair wages. These
constitute the “_aristocracy of labor_.” They care nothing for the great
majority whose wages are so low that under most favorable circumstances
they are only able to barely live. The labor movement then has two
supreme purposes in view,—first, the advance of wages all along the
line; second, the reduction of the hours constituting a day’s work.
These purposes are fundamental, eliminate them and the labor movement
disappears and labor organizations forthwith collapse. We hear much for
and against labor in politics. Why so? Simply because laws have been
enacted by which wages can be forced down and men compelled to work more
hours than is good for soul and body. Who made these unjust laws? The
old parties, Democrat and Republican, are both culpable. Does labor
desire to continue such a policy? The universal answer is “no.” Then why
not vote for a party honestly committed to a policy which would enact
just laws and honestly administer them? No rational reply can be made.
The labor movement is based upon a few simple propositions,—more wages
and a less number of hours for a day’s work, which would inevitably
result in better conditions.
In spite of the fact that during Mr. Debs’ imprisonment in Woodstock
Jail, he had read many books on the philosophy of Socialism, including
Carl Marx’s great work, handed to him by Victor Berger, who visited him
for the purpose of interesting him in this great question, and in spite
of the fact that he advocated the union of workingmen at the ballot box,
he did not see at that time any way of incorporating social economics
into political expression. He was still a democrat, fighting in the
dark, but with the scales gradually falling from his intellectual eyes.
He supported the candidacy of William Jennings Bryan in the campaign of
1896, believing, as millions did, that Mr. Bryan put man above the
dollar, and that Mr. Bryan would truly represent the democratic
instincts of the people and do all in his power to undo the wrongs
heaped upon labor by Grover Cleveland. He did not advocate Mr. Bryan’s
election in any revengeful spirit against Mr. Cleveland, but in the hope
that this fresh, young orator from the West would do all he could to
emancipate the people from the thraldom of the money power.
MR. DEBS REFERS TO THE INJUNCTION IN HIS SPEECH THE EVENING OF HIS
RETURN TO TERRE HAUTE, NOVEMBER 23, 1895.
“In our cases at Chicago an injunction was issued at a time when the
American Railway Union had its great struggle for human rights and they
were triumphant in restraining myself and colleagues from doing what we
never intended to do and never did do; and then we were put in jail for
not doing it. When that injunction was served on me, to show that I
acted in good faith, I went to two of the best constitutional lawyers in
the City of Chicago and said, ‘What rights, if any, have I under this
injunction? I am a law-abiding citizen; I want to do what is right. I
want you to examine this injunction and then advise me what to do.’ They
examined the injunction. They said, ‘Proceed just as you have been
doing. You are not committing any violence; you are not advising
violence, but you are trying to do everything in your power to restrain
men from the commission of crime or violating the law.’ I followed their
advice and got six months for it. (Laughter and applause.)
“What does Judge Lyman Trumbull say upon that subject? Judge Trumbull is
one of the most eminent jurists the country has produced. He served
sixteen years in the United States Senate; he was chairman of the Senate
Committee on Judiciary; he was on the Supreme Bench of the State of
Illinois; he has held all of the high offices but he is a poor man.
There is not a scar nor a blemish upon his escutcheon. No one ever
impugned his integrity. What does he say about this subject? To use his
exact language he says: ‘The decision carried to its logical conclusion
means that any federal judge can imprison any citizen at his own will.
If this be true, it is judicial despotism, pure and simple, whatever you
may choose to call it.’ When the trials were in progress at Chicago Mr.
Geo. M. Pullman was summoned to give some testimony. Mr. Pullman
attached his car to the New York train and went East, and in some way
the papers got hold of the matter and made some publication about it and
the judge said that Mr. Pullman would be dealt with drastically. In a
few days Mr. Pullman returned and he went into chambers, made a few
personal explanations and that is the last we heard about it. Had it
been myself, I would have to go to jail. That is the difference. Only a
little while ago Judge Henford cited Henry C. Payne, of the Northern
Pacific, to appear before him to answer certain charges, and he went to
Europe and is there yet. Will he go to jail on his return? Of course
not. The reason suggests itself. If it were a railroad striker he would
be in Woodstock instead of Berlin.
“Governor Altgeld, in many respects the greatest governor in the United
States, says: ‘The precedent has now been established and any Federal
judge can now enjoin any citizen from doing anything and then put him in
jail.’ Now what is an injunction? It has all of the force and vital
effect of a law, but it is not a law, in and by the representatives of
the people; it is not a law signed by a president or by a governor. It
is simply the wish and will of the judge. A judge issues an injunction;
serves it upon his intended victim. The next day he is arrested. He is
brought into the presence of the same judge. Sentence is pronounced upon
him by the same judge, who constitutes the judge and court and jury and
he goes to jail and he has no right of appeal. Under this injunctional
process the plain provisions of the constitution have been disregarded.
The right of trial by jury has been abrogated, and this at the behest of
the money power of the country. What is the effect upon the workingmen
and especially railway employes to bind them to their task? The
government goes into partnership with a corporation. The workingmen are
intimidated; if there is a reduction of wages they submit; if unjust
conditions are imposed they are silent. And what is the tendency? To
demoralize, to degrade workingmen until they have reached the very dead
line of degradation. And how does it happen and why does it happen that
corporations are never restrained? Are they absolutely law-abiding? Are
they always right? Do they never transgress the law or is it because the
Federal judges are their creatures? Certain it is that the united voice
of labor in this country would be insufficient to name a Federal judge.
If all the common people united and asked for the appointment of a
Federal judge their voice would not be heeded any more than if it were
the chirp of a cricket. Money talks. Yes, money talks. And I have no
hesitancy in declaring that money has even invaded, or the influence,
that power conferred by money, has invaded the Supreme Court and left
that august tribunal reeking with more stench than Coleridge discovered
in Cologne and left all the people wondering how it was ever to be
deodorized. There is something wrong in this country; the judicial nets
are so adjusted as to catch the minnows and let the whales slip through
and the Federal judge is as far removed from the common people as if he
inhabited another planet. As Boyle O’Reilly would say:
“His pulse, if you felt it, throbbed apart
From the throbbing pulse of the people’s heart.”
On January 1, 1897, Debs issued a circular to the members of the A. R.
U. entitled “Present Conditions and Future Duties,” in which he reviewed
the political, industrial and economic conditions and came out boldly
for Socialism. Among other things he said:
“The issue is Socialism vs. Capitalism. I am for Socialism because I am
for humanity. We have been cursed with the reign of gold long enough.
Money constitutes no proper basis of civilization. The time has come to
regenerate society—we are on the eve of a universal change.”
When the A. R. U. held its convention at Chicago in June, 1897, he and
its members favored political action, and the Social Democratic party
was organized June 21, 1897, and this was the beginning of what is now
known as the Socialist party of America.