Indianapolis, Ind., May 7, 1904.
_Editor Social-Democratic Herald_:
In your issue of April 9 you publish an article over the signature of
Eugene V. Debs containing a mass of misstatements with the apparent
purpose of making your readers believe that the officials of the United
Mine Workers of America, and particularly President Mitchell, have
betrayed the trust reposed in them by their constituents by using their
official position for the benefit of the employers instead of for the
welfare of the employes.
Mr. Debs’ knowledge of mining affairs is limited, by virtue of his lack
of time and opportunity for personal investigation, and must of
necessity be general and superficial. He has not sufficient knowledge of
the mining industry to be a competent critic of our trade politics, and
yet, if he had confined himself to a criticism of those policies, they
might have passed unchallenged, so far as we are concerned. But when,
without investigation of the facts, he takes an Associated Press
dispatch, distorts it to suit his own purpose and jumbles it up with a
number of other things that never existed except in his own diseased
imagination, in order to prove that the officials of the United Mine
Workers are dishonest, we believe that justice to ourselves and the
organization we represent demands that his statements shall be refuted
and his purpose laid bare.
Men of experience in the labor movement usually pass by, unheeded, the
insinuations circulated by the paid agents of capital for the purpose of
destroying their influence and weakening the power of resistance of
their organization, but, when those insinuations are uttered and
circulated by a man who for years has leaned upon the sympathies of the
wage workers as the crucified martyr of a lost cause, the halo of glory
he has painted about himself cannot shield him from the contempt of
honest men. What is this wonderful press dispatch around which Mr. Debs’
imagination has built such a magnificent net work? We reproduce it from
his own article:
“Pittsburg, Pa., March 6, 1904.
“There was by no means a hopeless spirit among the returning coal
operators from the Indianapolis convention which the miners closed
Saturday with a disagreement.
“From the best authority the Post was informed yesterday that the break
in the negotiations between the two interests is not a permanent one and
that by March 21, another meeting of joint sub-committees will be held
quietly. The whole matter will again be discussed among them and a
solution to the present difficulty sought. It was further said that
there was every reason for believing that the ultimate end of the whole
matter would be the acceptance of the lower rate by the miners, or the
85 cents a ton base for pick mining for the next two years.”
“Here,” says Mr. Debs, “we have it that the operators knew in advance
that there would be no strike.” That statement is false. The dispatch
does not assert that the operators knew there would be no strike and
nothing but a warped mind could so construe it. The United Mine Workers’
convention on March 7 passed a resolution submitting the acceptance or
rejection of the ultimatum of the operators to a referendum vote of the
members affected. The vote was taken on the afternoon of March 15. It
was sent by the local tellers in sealed envelopes to national
headquarters, and these envelopes were not opened until the national
tellers opened them on March 17. It would have been impossible for the
Pittsburg correspondent, Frank Robbins, John Mitchell, or even the
versatile and prophetic Mr. Debs to have known on March 6 what the
result of that vote would be.
That is misstatement No. 1 refuted.
In a subsequent interview in the Terre Haute _Sunday Tribune_ Mr. Debs
dares anyone to put his finger on a single word that is not true or deny
a single allegation. There is scarcely a truthful statement in the
entire article. Let us be specific. The joint convention of Miners and
Operators adjourned sine die March 5. No agreement had been reached, but
negotiations were not broken off as asserted by Mr. Debs. When it became
apparent that the operators would not move from their final proposition
of five and fifty-five one hundredths per cent reduction, and the miners
must either accept that proposition or strike, the sub-scale committee,
composed of two delegates from each of the four states represented,
selected by the representatives from those states, and eight operators
selected in a similar manner, publicly withdrew from the conference for
a few minutes and held a consultation. As the miners had not yet decided
upon their line of policy and might not be able to do so for some time,
it was decided that the scale committee should re-convene on March 21 at
which time the operators would be notified whether the miners had
decided to strike or not. Consequently negotiations were continued.
That is misstatement No. 2 refuted.
Mr. Debs says, “The miners and operators returned to their homes.
Preparations began for war. It was at this juncture that the above
dispatch went out from Pittsburg.”
The dispatch was sent out from Pittsburg March 6. The miners’ convention
did not adjourn until March 7 and the delegates could not have been at
home preparing for war at the time alleged.
That is misstatement No. 3 refuted.
Again Mr. Debs says, “Pittsburg, be it remembered, is the home of
President Robbins of the Pittsburg Coal Co. and the floor leader and
spokesman of the operators in all the joint conventions with the miners.
It is quite evident, therefore, that ‘the best authority,’ quoted in the
above dispatch, was none other than Mr. Robbins.” When the joint
convention adjourned on March 5 the miners immediately went into
convention to outline their policy. It did not finish its work until the
afternoon of March 7. A delegation of operators remained in Indianapolis
awaiting the result. Frank Robbins was one of that delegation. He did
not leave Indianapolis until the evening of March 7 and could not,
therefore, have been the returning coal operator quoted in the dispatch.
That is misstatement No. 4 refuted.
We quote further from Mr. Debs, “The national convention had (on March
5) virtually declared for war,” and further on he says: “The convention
voted to fight and the delegates went home to prepare for hostilities.”
It had done nothing of the kind. Mr. Debs knows as well as any man that
the declaring of a strike does not always mean success to the strikers.
His experience in 1894 is conclusive proof of that fact. A repetition of
the strike of 1894 would have been as disastrous to the United Mine
Workers of America as that strike was to the American Railway Union.
Many of the delegates believed that it would be better for the miners to
accept the reduction offered than to take the chances of war, especially
when the employers had selected the battle ground, but they were bound
by instructions and could not violate them. When the officials were
approached by these delegates they advised them to obey their
instructions. To meet this situation the convention on March 5 selected
a committee composed of two members from each district to formulate
plans to meet the crisis. The committee reported on March 7 and
recommended that the ultimatum of the operators be submitted to the
miners affected for their acceptance or rejection, the vote to be taken
between the hours of one and six P. M. of March 15, and the mines to be
idle that afternoon in order to give every member an opportunity to vote
who desired to. The officials supported that proposition and it was
agreed to by the convention. It will thus be seen that there was no
virtual declaration of war on March 5 and that the convention had not
voted to fight.
That is misstatement No. 5 refuted.
These are the alleged truths upon which Mr. Debs builds his flimsy
insinuations and attempt to destroy the reputation of honest men. We
have refuted them. Every delegate who attended the convention knows our
statements are true. There was no secrecy about these actions. If Mr.
Debs had wanted to know the truth, a simple investigation would have
revealed it to him. It is very evident that he was not seeking for the
truth. The innuendoes used by Mr. Debs clearly prove this assertion.
Here are some of them:
“The question is, did Robbins, chief of the operators, have an
understanding with Mitchell, president of the miners?”
“But the delegates, having given up everything, balked at last. Even
Mitchell’s ‘masterful effort’ in behalf of the operators fell flat.”
“As soon as the convention adjourned the leaders of the miners began to
work upon the rank and file, many of whom are so pitifully ignorant that
they look upon a union official as a Chinaman does upon his Joss.”
“Mitchell, the labor leader, and Robbins, the labor exploiter, pooling
issues and joining hands to force down the wages of the mine slaves. Oh,
what a transformation!”
There is some more along the same line, but that is the gist of it.
Neither Mr. Debs nor any other person ever heard Mr. Mitchell make a
“masterful” or any other kind of an effort in behalf of the operators.
Every effort he has ever made has been in behalf of the wage workers.
The miners have something substantial to show for these efforts in
directing their organization. Even after the reduction they have
accepted has been taken off they have over seventy per cent higher wages
than they had in 1897, from two to four hours per day less labor,
improved conditions in the mines, and the privilege of expressing their
opinion on all social, political and religious questions without fear of
discharge. We doubt very much if Mr. Debs with all his organizing
ability, dynamic energy, prophetic vision and brilliant oratory can show
results for his labor equivalent to these for the present generation of
men. If higher wages, shorter hours, healthier and safer conditions of
employment and greater freedom of speech is the result of “pooling
issues with Robbins, the labor exploiter,” it would seem to be a very
profitable pool for the wage workers. But Debs knows that no such pool
exists. He knows, or at least ought to know, that these results have
been obtained through a strong organization intelligently directed. If
we were disposed to use the same methods as Mr. Debs we could with
perfect propriety assert that “Proof may be lacking but the
circumstances combine to make the conclusion almost inevitable” that he
is being paid by the operators to destroy the United Mine Workers in
order that the operators may dominate the miners as they did prior to
1897. We would not be mean enough to even insinuate such a thing. Debs
asserts that many of the miners are so “pitifully ignorant that they
look upon a union official as a Chinaman does upon his Joss.” He knew
that statement was wrong when he made it. There are degrees of
intelligence amongst miners as there is amongst all classes of people.
Taken as a whole their intelligence will compare favorably with any
class of our citizens, rich or poor. They are men that cannot be led
about by the whims of anybody. Any proposition presented to them for
consideration must appeal to their intelligence before they will support
it, and they do not hesitate to take issue with a union official
whenever in their judgment the union official is wrong. Some of them
undoubtedly love and respect their officials, but not one can be found
who looks upon them as a deity or as a Chinaman looks upon his Joss.
The entire expression is an insult to men who are the equals of Mr. Debs
physically, morally and intellectually. He speaks about the prophecy
made in his speech at Indianapolis during the Mine Workers’ convention.
What was that prophecy? He asserted that we had reached the crest of the
wave of so-called industrial activity, that the turn of the tide was
downward, and no matter how strong our organization might be, we would
be compelled to accept reductions in our wages. This prophecy was made
while negotiations were pending with the operators and they were still
insisting upon a reduction of fifteen per cent. If Mr. Mitchell had made
a public utterance of that kind at the time Mr. Debs made it, the miners
would have been compelled to accept a fifteen per cent reduction instead
of a five and one-half per cent. The public can judge for itself who is
the person that betrayed his trust, whether it was Mr. Debs, who
announced that the miners must accept a reduction when the operators
were clamoring for fifteen per cent off, or Mr. Mitchell, who fought the
issue until the last possible penny had been obtained. Mr. Debs
apparently assumes that as a friend of the miners it was his duty to
inform them of the perfidy of their officials. What a wonderful
friendship his must be. The position of Mr. Mitchell and his associates
was expressed in the miners’ convention of March 5 and was carried by
the afternoon papers of that date. The dispatch which he quotes was
published in the morning papers of March 6. On March 7 the mine workers’
convention decided to submit the acceptance or rejection of the
proposition to the miners themselves, and instructed the national
officials to send a copy of their recommendation to every local union.
If Mr. Debs was the friend of the miners that he pretends to be, and if
he had any proof of dishonesty on the part of the officials, or of
collusion between them and the operators to reduce the wages of the
miners, he should have furnished them the evidence of it before the vote
was taken. Mr. Debs had no such proof and we know that it did not exist.
When the bituminous miners of Indiana in convention at Terre Haute,
knowing the facts, passed a resolution condemning the action of Mr.
Debs, he immediately began to whine. In the interview published in the
Terre Haute _Sunday Tribune_, above referred to, he asserts that “Labor
may always be relied upon to crucify its friends.” What a woeful wail
coming from the lips of a man who started the cry of “crucify them”
against Mr. Mitchell and his associates.
Much more might be said in reply to the falsities contained in his
article, but enough has been told. Whether he is alone in this attack or
is merely carrying out a preconcerted plan to destroy the trade union
movement we do not know. He may succeed in injuring us personally, but
the trade union movement is based upon eternal principles of
evolutionary development and he can no more destroy it or divert it from
the fulfillment of its destiny than he can destroy the waters of the
Mississippi with a stone or change its channel with a Chinese chopstick.
JOHN MITCHELL.
T. L. LEWIS.
W. B. WILSON.
This was followed by the reply of Mr. Debs in the issue of the _Social
Democratic Herald_ of June 4 and republished in the issue of June 25, as
follows: