Terre Haute, Ind., May 28, 1904.
_To the S. D. Herald_:
The brief article I had in the _Herald_ of April 9 in reference to the
wage reduction forced upon the coal miners by the mine owners, assisted
by the national officers of the United Mine Workers, has not been
ignored as Mr. Mitchell said it would be when it was first brought to
his attention. It required Mr. Mitchell to summon the aid of his
colleagues, six weeks of time and several columns of space to point out
the “misstatements,” and so hopeless did they find the task that they
had to confess failure in vulgar resort to personal detraction.
The alleged reply consists wholly of words. From first to last it is a
quibble over minor points. Every material fact is evaded; every
irrelevant detail is brought out and made to do duty in the circular
procession.
The essential truth of my statement has not and will not be denied. It
cannot be answered by personal abuse, nor extinguished by a deluge of
meaningless words.
Suppose I were foolish enough to pose as a “martyr,” what has that to do
with the case? Does it alter the fact that Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Wilson and
Mr. Lewis used all the power of their official positions to help the
operators reduce the wages of the miners, and this after Mr. Mitchell
had proved conclusively that the reduction was “unwarranted” and after
he had declared he would never consent to it?
Never mind about the “diseased imagination,” the “crucified martyr,” and
the particular hour of adjournment. Is the above statement true or is it
false?
Mr. Mitchell virtually admits it and his explanation places him in the
attitude of a general on a field of battle, first assuring his soldiers
that their cause is just and that they must face the enemy like men, and
then, on the eve of the fight, turning about and saying to the same
soldiers who had so lustily cheered him: “I have been in conference with
the general on the other side and he has convinced me that we are taking
desperate chances of being whipped, and so I advise that you accept the
terms of the enemy and retreat from the field without a fight.”
As to the personal insinuations which are supposed to serve where
argument fails, I regret as much as Mr. Mitchell seems to enjoy the
meagerness of my service to the working class, but little as that
service may amount to, I have the satisfaction of knowing that it is not
of a quality to inspire the capitalist press to convince me that I am
the greatest labor leader on earth.
And little as I may claim, as compared with Mr. Mitchell, there is yet
enough to include an almost fatal sunstroke, sustained on a public
highway, the only place allowed me under a federal injunction, while
rallying a body of coal miners to unite in the fight for an increase of
wages and join the United Mine Workers of America.
Mr. Mitchell claims that I accused him of dishonesty. I deny it. No such
charge was made by me. I am concerned with acts and facts and not with
motives. Mr. Mitchell’s honesty is not in question. Let that be
conceded. Results remain the same.
Now what are the questions in controversy?
First—In my article of April 9 I incorporated a press dispatch sent out
by the Pittsburg _Post_ on March 6, saying that it, the _Post_, had it
upon the “best authority” that there would be no strike, that the miners
would accept the reduction, and that a two years’ contract would be
signed.
The dispatch was sent out after the convention of miners at Indianapolis
had turned down the ultimatum of the operators, and a strike seemed so
imminent that the press uniformly declared that “only a miracle could
prevent it.”
The prediction made in the dispatch came true to the letter. There was
no strike, the reduction was accepted and the contract was made for two
years.
The dispatch was undoubtedly sent out on the “best authority.” It was
true prophecy. Now, the question is, Who is the “best authority” as to
whether the miners will strike or not? Did the _Post_ speak upon such
authority? The outcome verifies it. Again, did the _Post_ have such
authority, or did it lie? The _Post_ is friendly to Mr. Mitchell; will
he say it lied? Will he have the _Post_ name its “best authority”?
I inferred that the _Post’s_ “best authority” was Mr. F. L. Robbins,
leader of the mine owners, who lives in Pittsburg, where the _Post_ is
published, and I then asked, “Did Robbins, leader of the operators, have
an understanding with Mitchell, president of the miners,” and I
answered, “It must be admitted that it looks that way.”
This is the point that excites the wrath of the union officials. I now
repeat it. To me it looks that way. I cannot avoid that conclusion.
The only error I made was in the date of adjournment. The convention
adjourned March 7, not the 5th. Upon this point I stand corrected, but
it is wholly immaterial. The convention refused the ultimatum of the
operators on the 5th, the press reports saying “the vote was cast in the
face of the opposition of President Mitchell and the other national
officers.” Next day the _Post_ sent out its prophetic dispatch. That is
the point at issue, the action of the convention and the _Post’s_
prophetic announcement next day. The date of adjournment does not alter
the fact in the smallest degree.
“But,” says Mr. Mitchell, “Mr. Robbins had not returned to Pittsburg and
therefore could not have given the _Post_ the information—that disposes
of the ‘misstatement.’” Not quite. The _Post_ had a representative at
Indianapolis and there are telegraph wires between there and Pittsburg.
When I said that in my opinion there was an “understanding” between
Robbins and Mitchell I simply meant what I said. The men are on friendly
personal terms. There is nothing wrong about that. When “they shook
hands in the presence of the delegates and engaged in earnest
conversation and were loudly applauded by the convention” there was no
objection to that.
But the miners voted down the operators in spite of Mitchell’s protest.
That is a fact, is it not?
And when the operators were voted down Mitchell and the national
officers of the union appealed to the referendum.
Would they have resorted to the referendum if the delegates had voted to
accept instead of rejecting the reduction?
The national officers also had themselves authorized by the delegates to
“explain the situation” to the local unions in sending out the vote, and
this “explanation” took every form that could be devised to whip the
rank and file into submission to the operators.
As an instance of this “explanation” the speech of Mr. Lewis at Linton
was a shining success. He was given full credit by the capitalist press
for having turned defeat into victory and carrying the day for the
reduction and against the strike.
But to complete the evidence. When the operators were turned down by the
miners’ convention and a strike seemed inevitable, the Pittsburg _Post_
coolly declared that it had it upon the “best authority” that there
would be no strike, that the miners would give in; and then it went on
to state precisely what the basis of final settlement would be and that
the contract would be signed for two years. Less than two weeks later
all these things came to pass to the very letter.
Now this “best authority” was doubtless Robbins speaking through the
“returning operators” mentioned in the dispatch, who knew that the
matter would go to the local unions, and had the assurance that Mitchell
and the national officers would use all their influence in favor of the
reduction and that with the national officers on their side the
referendum vote would defeat the strike and enforce the reduction.
In other words, the operators felt certain that the union officials
could and would swing the vote of the organization and the prophecy that
was fulfilled was made accordingly.
But even if Mr. Mitchell gave the operators no single word of assurance,
his actions and utterances were sufficient and the fact remains
unchanged. They knew his position and counted on his influence, and he
did not disappoint them.
Notwithstanding this more than 67,000 members of his organization,
representing its highest intelligence, voted against the reduction,
rejecting his advice and impeaching his leadership, and I happen to know
that a large proportion of them heartily approve and are ready to stand
by every statement contained in my article.
Here are a few lines just received from a member of the Miners’ Union:
“I want to thank you for telling the truth about the settlement. The
operators beat us with the help of our own officers. Six months ago a
man would have been mobbed if he had said a word about Mitchell in this
neighborhood. Now you can hear him condemned everywhere. You have more
friends among the miners here today than John Mitchell.”
The four alleged “misstatements” Mr. Mitchell claims to have disposed of
in his attempted denial are in fact one and the same, and hinge upon the
simple error in the date of adjournment, which, as I have shown, is
utterly inconsequential and has no bearing whatever upon the material
facts of the statement which stand as wholly unimpeached as when they
were first written down.
To sum up, here is substantially what I stated: That Mr. Mitchell led
the miners in their conference with the operators; that he said: “This
year the demands of the miners referring to the absolute run of mine
basis and the present wage scale must be met or the mines will cease to
produce coal,” that he demanded a uniform wage for all inside and
outside labor and a 7-cent differential; that he advised his followers
to stand firm; that he declared he would never yield; that the United
Mine Workers would take no backward step; that the reduction proposed by
the operators was unwarranted and would not be accepted; that last
year’s earnings of the Pittsburg Coal Co. were $20,000,000, showing a
large increase in profits; that he and the miners were “terribly in
earnest,” etc., etc.
I have the reports before me and the proof that this was his attitude
and these his utterances is simply overwhelming.
What next? Why, a few days later, we hear him saying to his followers:
“Your national officers want you to accept this cut.”
What do you think of it, Mr. Mitchell?
Would it be possible for an enemy to place you in a more unfavorable
light than you are placed by your own official words and acts?
You said all these things and did not mean them. You yielded one point
and then another, after declaring you would not yield; finally when you
had surrendered all your demands you declared that you would insist upon
the old scale, and that you _would not recede_ from it. But you _did
recede_ from it. You not only yielded everything you originally demanded
but you agreed to a reduction. Not only this, but _you did all in your
official power to enforce that reduction_.
Are these facts or are they falsehoods, and if they are facts they
accord perfectly with your capitalistic philosophy that “there is no
necessary conflict between capital and labor.” It is only necessary for
labor to have leaders with the civic federation label upon them and
peacefully submit to slavery and degradation.
What right has Mr. Mitchell to talk about the capitalist press as the
“paid agents of capital”? Is it not the capitalist press that has poured
out its fulsome eulogy upon Mr. Mitchell and heralded him as the
greatest leader of labor in all history?
It is my right, Mr. Mitchell, to arraign that press as the enemy of
labor, but not your right, for you are a prime favorite with that press
and the class who own that press, and when you denounce it you are
guilty of ingratitude to the power that largely made you what you are.
Is it a sure sign that I am trying to destroy the Miners’ Union because
I am opposed to the reduction of the miners’ wages? Is this the best
specimen of pure and simple labor union logic these gentlemen have to
offer?
What I am really trying to destroy is the mine owners’ influence in the
Mine Workers’ Union. To that I plead guilty and there I draw the line.
The operators know it and hate me accordingly. The mine workers, most of
them, do not, as yet, know it and they share the hatred of their
masters. But I can wait.
It is true that the district convention of miners, held here, denounced
me; it is also true that I said in reference to such action that “labor
may generally be relied upon to crucify its friends.” This Mr. Mitchell
is pleased to call a “whine.” These words were used to characterize the
action of the men who said, “We have got to denounce Debs to set
ourselves right with the operators.” They understood me and this is
sufficient. And mark me, Mr. Mitchell, and don’t forget it, that body of
miners, or their successors, will rescind those resolutions, and when
they are finally directed where they properly belong you may have less
occasion than you fancy you now have, even with the operators on your
side, for self-congratulation.
In the meantime I have no resentment but entire sympathy for those who
denounced me. They acted for their masters and simply emphasized their
own wage slavery.
Mine Owner Robbins was wise when he said to the miners’ delegates: “The
union between the operators and miners has been a partnership for
several years that I have been proud of.”
There is a whole volume in that paragraph.
And there is another in the utterance of Vice President T. L. Lewis of
the United Mine Workers when the strike seemed certain: “If Senator
Hanna had lived there would have been no strike. His influence would
have been powerful enough to force the operators to listen to reason.”
What a commentary upon the United Mine Workers and its leaders!
Operator Robbins and labor leader Mitchell and his colleagues, Governor
Peabody and President Gompers, David Parry and Sherman Bell all belong
to the same capitalist political party that supports the same capitalist
administration that assassinates eight-hour and anti-injunction bills
and treats labor like a galley slave.
To me it seems not only like sarcasm but positively tragic to hear Mr.
Mitchell and his colleagues boast of the “great benefits” that have come
to the miners and the “substantial” things they are now enjoying in face
of the fact that thousands of them are totally idle, that those employed
in the coal fields of Indiana today do not average above two days of
work a week, that they are in debt, housed in shacks and eke out a
miserable existence as the coal digging victims of wage slavery.
These miners get 85 cents for digging a ton of coal for which the people
in that immediate vicinity pay $3.50. The operators, of course, get
rich; the miners, of course, stay poor. Truly, an ideal arrangement.
Small wonder that the “interstate movement” perfectly suits the
operators, that the United Mine Workers under the leadership of
Mitchell, Wilson and Lewis is so satisfactory to them that they agree to
collect its dues by deducting them from the wages of the miners, without
which the union would go to pieces; and this is one of the reasons why
Mr. Mitchell did not dare to break with Mr. Robbins, and why Mr.
Mitchell helped Mr. Robbins to force the wage reduction upon the miners.
Mr. Mitchell has profound regard for the good will of the capitalist and
great consideration for his feelings, interests and general importance,
so great that he issues a proclamation to the miners of the country
calling upon them to refrain from work while a capitalist is being
buried, with not the remotest thought of showing such extreme respect to
the memory of the dead when instead of a rich capitalist it is only a
hundred and eighty poor coal diggers, stark and mutilated, blown up in a
mine through the criminal negligence of the capitalist owners for whom
they were digging up profits.
Mr. Mitchell sees “no necessary conflict between labor and capital.”
Then why the United Mine Workers? What excuse has it to exist? Its whole
record is one of conflict, honorable conflict, waged under difficulties
and involving hunger, rags and death, and every page of it tells in
harrowing phrase of the necessary conflict between the capitalist and
the wage worker, the exploiter and his victim, the master and his slave.
If there is no “necessary” conflict, why any at all? Why do not the
operators raise wages instead of lowering them? What have the miners
been striking for all these years? Is it not because they have had to
fight tooth and nail for every particle they have ever received? Has all
this been unnecessary? Does Mr. Mitchell draw salary as president of the
Mine Workers to continue this “unnecessary” conflict, or to put an end
to it by letting the operators control his union and advising the miners
to thankfully accept what the operators see fit to allow them?
It is doubtless because he sees no “necessary” conflict between capital
and labor that Mr. Mitchell is a Republican in politics. He also claims
to be a friend of President Roosevelt—and so is Sherman Bell.
Mr. Mitchell’s friend Roosevelt hasn’t the power as chief executive and
commander-in-chief of the nation to prevent the snuffing out of a state
constitution, the brutal banishment of Mother Jones, the burial alive of
that real labor leader, C. H. Moyer, and the murder and mobbing of
miners in Colorado by the military criminals in authority.
Grover Cleveland served the capitalists by invading the state of
Illinois and Theodore Roosevelt serves them just as loyally by keeping
out of Colorado.
President Roosevelt may be your friend, Mr. Mitchell, but he is not the
friend of the exploited class you are supposed to stand for. He is not
my friend, nor do he and I belong to the same party, or stand for the
same principles.
Mr. Mitchell says “there is no necessary conflict between capital and
labor.” I say there is no possible peace between them. Every hour of
truce is at the price of slavery. This is Mr. Mitchell’s fundamental
error. From this all others spring and he has yet to face their
consequences.
Personally, I have not the slightest feeling about the matter. There was
a time when I admired and applauded Mitchell’s leadership. I thought I
saw the coming of a man. But alas! Little by little I have seen him
succumb to the blandishments of the plutocrats. He is today their beau
ideal as a labor leader.
The man was never born who can honestly serve both capitalist and wage
worker, both master and slave.
Time will tell!
There is a mass of evidence and other matter I have had to omit. Space
will not allow its use and I have already exceeded proper bounds. I have
a proposition:
Messrs. Mitchell, Wilson and Lewis allude to themselves as “men who are
the equals of Mr. Debs physically, morally and intellectually.” Good!
Now, then, I want the truth and shall assume that these gentlemen want
the same. There is not space in a paper for full discussion of this
question, nor is such discussion satisfactory or final. I aver that the
essential facts set forth in my article in the _Herald_ of April 9 are
true and can be maintained by overwhelming proof. Mr. Mitchell says
there is scarcely a truthful statement in the entire article. He also
says “there is no necessary conflict between capital and labor.” I
challenge Mr. Mitchell to meet me upon these issues before the members
of his own organization, the miners of Illinois, his own state, and of
Spring Valley, the city in which he lives. Mr. Mitchell may have both
Mr. Wilson and Mr. Lewis to help him.
Let the case be presented to the miners whose union I am charged with
attempting to destroy and let them render the verdict.