|
Squabbling
Socialists in Washington State:
A Guide to Factions and Newspapers 1900-1917
by Gary Siebel
Washington State was still
young in 1900 and thought to be fertile ground by many Americans for a
society built from scratch upon principles of socialism. At the 1897
convention of the Brotherhood of the Co-operative Commonwealth in
Ruskin, Tennessee, it was suggested that socialists should move en masse
to capture 1901 Washington State elections.(1)
Thus, colonies such as Home, and Equality, Washington, were carved out
of thick forests by socialists eager for a fresh start.
Titus and
Company
Many "colonists" later became
members of the Socialist Party of Washington. D. Burgess’ name appears
as the editor of Industrial Freedom,
the newspaper for Equality, in 1899, and also in the thick of the
socialist battles in Seattle in later years. Erwin Ault, future managing
editor of
The Socialist
(1908/09), and executive editor
of the
Seattle Union Record
(1912-1928), and
another prominent battler, moved to Equality with his family from back
east at age 14. A main character in the conflict, Hermon Titus, was
apparently a frequent visitor to Equality. (2)
Dr. Hermon F. Titus arrived
in Seattle in the early 1890's, just as the city was about to be
transformed by the Klondike Gold Rush. From 1900 to late 1904, Titus
promulgated and basically sustained the Socialist Party (S. P.) of
Washington through the production and editing of
The Socialist,
a weekly newspaper he
launched in Seattle on August 13, 1900.
For several years, party
headquarters was the newspaper office. The fine print reveals Titus was
paid as a party organizer but not as editor. Founders of the party were
trustees of the paper, e.g., J. D. Curtis, ( secretary), Ida Mudgett
(treasurer), David Phipps (chairman), and Hermon Titus (party
organizer).(3) But Titus, with his wife,
Hattie, retained majority control (which allowed him to later move the
paper to Toledo and back). That may be why, even though the party and
the paper were virtually synonymous for the first few years of the
operation,
The Socialist
was
made the official party organ. (In May 1903 Titus claimed that he had
made up any deficits of the paper to that point.(4))
Sept. 5, 1900, an anarchist
paper,
Discontent: Mother of Progress
(published at Home,
Wa., near Tacoma -- via boat), noted the socialists across the Sound
were "making headway" in organizing themselves into a party, adding an
unintentional harbinger: "They are active,
aggressive, fanatical..." (ital added)
(5) The "aggressive, fanatical" remark
referred to Titus and company. They could have added extremely
contentious to the list, too. The next month, below the headline,
"Impossible Unity," the paper further noted
that , "...the internal strife in the socialist camp is interesting...."
(6). That "strife" was between
"orthodox" and "opportunistic" socialists, later referred to as "reds,"
and "yellows," or "regulars" and "seceders," or even "impossibilists"
and "constructivists," respectively, and it was to continue at least to
the American entry into WWI, 17 years later.
Of course, the battle among
socialist factions was not limited to Washington State, but the
conflicts were so intense and so protracted that on more than one
occasion the National Executive Committee intervened to try to resolve
disputes. Many blamed Dr. Titus for the atmosphere of conflict. A 1914
investigation commissioned by the NEC cited as one of the key problems "
the philosophy so long, ably and persistently inculcated into the minds
of the laborers and socialists of this commonwealth by Herman Titus....
His former disciples are still here and among the strongest of those now
in the movement of this state...." (7)
Titus, who had attacked
Daniel DeLeon, the notoriously sectarian head of the Socialist Labor
Party, for "tyranny," was himself eventually accused of being a "DeLeon."
(8) They both were argumentative and
refused to make political compromises. By the time Titus left Seattle,
he had been personally repudiated by many other reds, his former
disciples, much as DeLeon had been repudiated by many of his followers
in 1900.
But it wasn’t just Titus.
Former Titus disciple and party secretary Franz Bostrom concluded in
another 1914 report "That personal dislikes, slander, cupidity, and
trickery have aggravated the fight and in many instances were the real
cause for lining up on one side or the other is undeniable...."
(9) Titus didn’t cause all the
trouble, he just stood out in all those categories.
From Social
Democrats to Socialists
Following the national
"Unity" convention at Indianapolis in 1901, which produced the S. P.
from the wedding of the Social Democratic Party (S. D. P.), of Eugene
Debs with a breakaway section of DeLeon's Socialist Labor Party (S. L.
P.), the Social Democratic Party of Washington became the Socialist
Party of Washington, initiating a referendum on the proposed party
constitution, a copy of which was printed in
The Socialist
Oct. 13,
1901 (10)
1900-1905
The first year, from Aug.
1900 to the middle of 1901, though already fractious, was the nearest
socialists in Washington ever got to "Unity." That was because
"socialist" was not yet officially defined by party constitution and
pledge. Once defined, expulsions followed.
Titus resigned as party
organizer in November 1900, explaining, on the front page
(11), that he did not have time to both
organize and edit. He would remain as editor.
"scientific
socialism"
By the middle of 1902, Wa.
St. reds had warmed to their cause, which was Marx’s unadulterated,
"scientific socialism." Because Marx had supposedly proved
scientifically that socialism was inevitable, it was presumed to be
a settled question. How could it be wrong? It was scientific !
(Science had considerably more respect in those days. The Titanic had
not yet sunk and nuclear bombs had yet to be invented!) Unfortunately,
the idea that it was inevitable undercut the desire to compromise,
which, in people like Titus, was not strong anyway.
"All hail to
socialism... It is coming just as certain as the rivers find their way
to the sea." Co-operator , July 6, 1901
(12)
Few claims were pushed as
much by Titus et al, as "scientific socialism." Dozens of column inches
were devoted to that claim over the
years. In the third issue of
The Socialist
(13),
in a headline across the back page, we find: "Socialism
Scientific. The Socialism of today is distinguished from the utopian
theories of the past by the fact it is scientific...."(14)
Titus claimed he was an, "...uncompromising
but fair exponent of Scientific Socialism." (15) As time went on, the emphasis was
increasingly on the "uncompromising" part:
"COMPROMISE EMPHATICALLY REPUDIATED," was the page 2 banner
across all seven columns of
The Socialist
May 27, 1905 (16) .
The no compromise
theme was maintained by the reds to the end. In an editorial in the red
party organ, in Seattle, Socialist World,
Mar. 16. 1917 (17). lamenting the
decline of the socialist vote in Washington state in 1916 from 1912, the decline
was attributed to the reds compromising too much rather than too little,
the writer adding, "I am convinced, from
scientific and historic data, that the social revolution is coming
soon." (The writer, Henry Slobodin, first appeared 15 years
previously as a member of "The Century Club," whose members attempted to
sell at least 100 subscriptions to
The Socialist
, in 1902.
(18)
"fusion"
Reds and yellows disagreed
over the tactic of "fusion" or cooperation with nonsocialist parties or
organizations in electoral campaigns. Yellows wanted to win elections.
The reds opposed what they saw as dangerous opportunism (and a violation
of the Party constitution). Judge Richardson, of Spokane, was a target
for "fusion" charges in 1902 for accepting a position on the bench to
which he had been elected. In rebuttal Richardson pointed out his
election was due to more than socialist votes and refused to resign from
either the party or bench. Furious, reds insisted the Spokane local
expel him, and when it refused, the reds conducted a statewide
referendum, resulting in expulsion of the local. But the expelled
members spread into other Spokane locals and made trouble for the state
party so that the problem repeated eventually, in 1911, when D.C. Coates
and his local were expelled for the same reason, and by the same method.
(19)
Art. III, sec.
4, 1901
Washington State Socialist Party
Constitution
The
Pledge
"I, the
undersigned, recognizing the class struggle, and the necessity of the
working class constituting themselves into a political party, distinct
from and opposed to all parties formed by the propertied classes, hereby
declare that I have severed my relations with all other parties; that I
endorse the platform and constitution of the Socialist party, and hereby
apply for admission in said party."20)
The, "severed my relations,"
and the endorsement of "platform and constitution" clauses were the
favored ammunition reds aimed at people as part of "fusion" charges.
Reds were mostly wage workers (with key exceptions such as, Dr. Titus,
and lawyers Hulet Wells, and Nicholas Schmitt), while many yellows were
doctors, lawyers, business men, and as such, considered by reds to be
automatically members of the "propertied classes." Yellows were
castigated by reds, on the one hand for "fusion" tendencies, and on the
other, attacked by conservatives for even associating with the reds in
the first place.
The reds had the two
strongest newspapers and managed to control state conventions and
statewide leadership during the early years. After the July, 1903 S.P.
State Convention, Titus applauded that
"...workingmen controlled everything,"(21).
But the moderates were not without resources. The Co-operator based in Burley, WA
and published by The Cooperative Brotherhood, of the Social Democracy
Colony, spoke out against the radicals like Titus(23):
" ... the
Seattle Socialist and the Social Democratic Herald, ... are
using every means to engender hate of one class toward another...."
(p.1)
And,
"The intolerance of socialism is one of the most startling
manifestations of the time." (p.8)
And again,
"So far as Washington is concerned, henceforth
the socialist party is a class-conscious party and wants none but
class-conscious socialists to belong to it. Plain notice is served on
the great number of men and women... of the Cooperative Commonwealth
that, unless they are class-conscious, the socialist party of Washington
has no use for them."(p. 23)
(22)
The reds had things firmly
under control in Wa. St. through the end of 1904, which may be why Titus
attempted to move to a larger stage. Last available issue of
The Socialist
in Seattle until
it’s return in 1907 was August 28, 1904.
From Toledo, Titus continued the attack, trying to do for America what
he did for Washington. (24)
1906 - 1909
Conflicts between
revolutionaries who followed Titus and moderates who emphasized
electoral campaigns and educational organizing increased after Walter
Thomas Mills, a socialist writer and lecturer of national note, arrived
from Chicago in 1906. It is, however, difficult to sort out the players
and the issues. For one, our information comes primarily from
The Socialist the red side. For
another, it appears there were two separate organizations calling
themselves the Socialist Party of Washington from perhaps as early as
late 1905, and neither of them was willing to yield an inch, or, in some
instances, to even acknowledge the other side’s existence. Also, since
so many of the yellows were formerly considered reds, it is a bit
confusing trying to keep track of who was on which team, and when they
changed sides. For example, D. Burgess, featured as a frequent front
page contributor to
The Socialist
and a long time Titus ally, is later abruptly referred to as if he
had been a long time enemy instead, with no hint he formerly embraced
the red cause. (25) Also, socialists
were apparently expelled and repeatedly readmitted, as a suggestion for
an amendment requiring a six month waiting period for those reapplying
for admission after their second expulsion for "fusion," implied.
In some instances, members of the "rival organization" opposed to the
"regulars" (reds), were implied to be simultaneously within, and outside
of, the party (26) .
Walter Thomas Mills stepped
into that ongoing battle in 1906, and it exploded in 1907. Mills’
Seattle local refused to try him for "fusion," the same as the Spokane
local when they were told to kick out Judge Richardson, and the matter
festered for a few years because the State Executive Committee (S. E.
C.) had slipped from firm red control. It never actually came to a
complete resolution because even after the state party ejected Mills,
and he left the state, the national still accepted him, and ignored the
remonstrance from the reds in Wa. St. protesting Debs and Mills
appearing on the same stage.
The battle of 1907 spilled
over into the state and national convention of 1908. Both sides
importuned the national convention to recognize their faction as
representing the one, true, Socialist Party of Washington. The national
tried to hold a middle ground by calling for a referendum in any state
where two organizations claim to be the Socialist Party. But it made no
difference. Washington socialists had irreconcilable differences and
although they were technically still married, they maintained separate
bedrooms.
The 1909 state law
establishing direct primary elections rather than party committee and
convention selections exacerbated the party’s two-headed beast problem.
Yellows, by then the majority, naturally enough favored the law, while
the reds opposed it. Then yellows managed to hijack the July, 1909
Everett, so-called "Gag" Convention, silencing the reds via questionable
means that the reds later had overturned. As a political dirty trick,
Dr. Edwin. J. Brown, leader of the yellows, warned
The Socialist
linotype man to
force the paper into receivership immediately or he wouldn’t get paid,
which shut the paper down for a few weeks right around the time of that
state convention.
(27)
Reds regained control of the
party in September 1909. The chairman elected by the yellows at the July
convention had snatched the records and played "dodge the subpoena" for
a while, but he eventually gave up. However, Titus bolted the party two
months later, because, as he said:
"...September 7, 1909, the Party in the Nation, by a vote of two to one,
decided to withdraw that part of the Platform declaring for the
Collective Ownership of Land, as well as all other means of production
and distribution...." (28) He
then went on to claim, " There is no Socialist
Party in this state now," which was naked hyperbole, his usual
style. He then tried to have his own "workingman’s party" but few would
come. Titus's long influential newspaper, the
The Socialist
ceased publication
in 1910. He eventually left Seattle.
1910-1914
Revolutionaries and reform
socialists continued to battle after Herman Titus left the party. In
1911 a new Seattle paper appeared, apparently controlled by the
moderates. The
Socialist Voice
was owned by the
Central Committee of the Socialist Party of Seattle which may mean that
the yellows dominated the local party machinery for a time. During its
two years of publication the newspaper was staffed by people close to
E.J. Brown, leader of the reform wing. Much of the editorial
responsibility fell to Brown and M. J. Kennedy, both of whom the reds
would soon expel, evidently for the second time. In addition the
radicals in time managed to take over the newspaper and put it out of
business. The Socialist Voice lasted only a little more than a year.
The other S. P. paper
available at the time, the
Commonwealth,
(published in Everett) offered news from both factions. Many of the
contributors for both Voice
and
Commonwealthhad been with
The Socialist. But in early
1914,
Commonwealth, by
then the official organ of the party, was put into receivership. There
is no telling if it was brought down by a technique similar to Brown’s
against
The Socialist
. Yet it
had more ads than any of the other socialist papers in the region ever
did, so perhaps the state office was using it as a cash cow. One of the
continual complaints about the reds by the yellows was that the party,
particularly HQ, always supported layabouts.
(31)
The continuing factionalism
hurt the party. Electoral successes that Socialists recorded in other
states were less common in Washington thanks to the red faction that
usually disparaged electoral strategies. Eugene Debs did gain over
40,000 votes in 1912 and socialists won some contests, electing school
board and city council members in Everett, mayors in Edmonds and Pasco,
and sending William H. Kingery to the legislature representing Mason
County in 1913. But in Seattle and Tacoma where the movement should have
been strongest, the reds were not interested in electoral socialism. The
chance to join Milwaukee, Butte, Berkeley, and other cities that elected
socialist administrations disappeared in the squabbling that had become
so natural to Washington socialists.
What the factionalism did to
membership figures is hard to say. At its height in 1913, the party
claimed 202 locals and 3,335 members. This was respectable if no where
near the 12,000 members that Oklahoma claimed that year. But the party
was not living up to the expectations of those who had once seen
Washington as such fertile ground. As The
Syndicalist, (of Chicago) formerly known as
The Agitator (of Home, Wa.), but with the same editor, J. Fox, pointed out after the
1913 Washington convention, "The theory of
capturing the state is getting thinner with each recurring party
split...." (April, 1913)
(33)
The expulsions of 1912/13
allowed the reds to completely exclude yellows at the 1913 convention,
which led to a weakening of the party, and the 1914 national party
investigation into the trouble in Wa. St. At that 1913 convention,
Alfred Wageneckt (very red team) prevented the popular Anna Maley
from being nominated as state secretary, and Franz Bostrom and George
Boomer gave rabble rousing speeches in favor of breaking any and all
laws if necessary to establish socialism.
Yellows were appalled The S. P. had peaked at 5.6% of the vote in
the 1912 Debs campaign in Washington. They were already in decline by
1913, but they did not yet know it. It was probably because they kicked
out enough people to start their own party.
1913 Potlatch
Riots
1913 also saw the occurrence
of two events that had an impact on both factions: 1) the so-called
"Potlatch Riots," and 2) the free speech battles with Judge Humphries.
The former was a one day event resulting in damage to both faction’s
offices, while the latter continued for months and had the unusual
effect of briefly uniting socialists and "normal" people in their
support for free speech, and contempt for Judge Humphries.
In the former, on July 18,
1913, a combination of the Secretary of the Navy giving a speech in
town, a number of sailors on leave, some of whom bore resentment for a
thrashing received from loggers the night before, and the encouragement
to riot provided by the hated The Seattle Times, led to what was
called the "Potlatch Riots," during which soldiers and sailors sacked
the offices of both the red and yellow factions of the S.P., a
newsstand, and some I. W. W. offices. It was quite sensational,
drawing a huge crowd, marching back and forth from Pioneer Square
to 7th and Union, and 5th and Stewart, to watch
the sailors tossing out the furniture, harangue the crowd, and set fire
to the pile. Police apparently made no attempt to stop the festivities.
Accusations were made later that, during the riot, members of the
different factions had tried to direct the rioter’s attention to the
offices of the opposing faction, away from their own.(34)
1913 Judge
Humphries
Free speech battles had
erupted in many places in America when the authorities attempted to
silence the "radicals" by arresting them for blocking traffic. It
happened at least twice in Seattle, in 1906-08, and 1912, when trouble
seriously escalated into 1913. In that theater of the absurd, Judge
Humphries managed to make such a complete ass of himself that his fellow
judges sought to have him removed. Each time Humphries threw socialists
in jail for delivering a political speech, it resulted in bigger crowds
and more speakers. Eventually, in a rare act of solidarity, some
non-socialists decided they should go down and get arrested too. Over
500 people had been arrested for obstruction, or contempt, as well as
two qualified lawyers being peremptorily "disbarred" by the judge in the
process of the trial, for attempting to provide a defense to the
socialists, when the governor decided he had better get involved.
Thereupon Judge Humphries, learning that the governor was coming, simply
let everyone go.
1914 -1917
Some attempts at
reconciliation were made in 1914. There were committee meetings and
reports, but few in Seattle were really inclined to negotiate:
"... it is a miracle that the real socialists
have had the patience to negotiate with them for a united party." (35) (Commonwealth 29 Jan., 1914 ) Summertime brought the national investigation and
more conventions, but the socialists weren’t any closer. It is possible
they simply acquired fresh players and continued to battle, because new
names appear, and old ones disappear, from their newspapers.
A fresh socialist newspaper,
Socialist Herald,
was launched sometime
after the demise of the
The Socialist,
but volumes one and two are missing, so we cannot be sure exactly which
team controlled it to start. Perhaps both factions were involved for a
time but in early 1916 fusionist-minded reformers were in control.
Renaming the paper the
Herald, (dropping "Socialist"),
they steered editiorial policy toward the Non-Partisan League, the
fusionist organization which was gaining strength in North Dakota. The
reds wanted none of it. A meeting of angry stockholders in early 1916
forced the newspaper to close.
After the
Herald, was deliberately brought down, two Seattle papers
emerged in it’s wake, one, the
Commonwealth, edited by
the Non-Partisan League yellows, and the other,
Socialist World,
published by reds. Neither lasted long. As American involvement in World
War I approached, attitudes hardened all around. The
Socialist World
ended a few weeks
before the American declaration of war, it’s advertisers having
abandoned it. Washington’s. main political battleground for socialists
shifted to the domain of unions thereafter.
Conclusion
The socialists could not get
along partly because, unlike the unions, it was not necessary for them
to do so. Socialism was a labor of love, meaning it attracted
like-minded people. Labor, on the other hand, was exactly that; work.
And not many people love work.
Union members with radically
different ideas worked side by side because they had to make a living.
Unions recognized that to make themselves political first was to
invite disunity At political party meetings, on the other hand, one
could throw a tantrum and stalk out at no cost. Fiery speeches did not
necessarily lead to, or really mean, anything. If unions had been
politicized they could have ended up like the reds and yellows, in
Washington.
END NOTES
(1)
Industrial Freedom 18 June, 1898
(2)
Bushue, Paul B. "Dr. Hermon F. Titus and socialism in Washington State
1900-1909" Thesis (M.A.) University of Washington, 1967. p.21
(6)(3)
(6) The
Socialist 21 Oct., 1900
Titus added a premature
claim: "The affairs of
The Socialist
have at last been put on a solid business
basis...."
(7)
(4) Titus, Hermon F.
The Socialist
24 May, 1903
Titus wrote:
"I have given my services freely for three
years, besides meeting all deficits...." Then, he adds almost
threateningly, "If you want this paper to
continue you must lend a hand and increase the circulation to twenty
five thousand before Aug. 12...."
(2)(5)
Labadie, Joseph. "Cranky Notions."
Discontent: Mother of Progress 5,
Sept., 1900 :p. 1
(3)(6)
Discontent: Mother of Progress
31 Oct., 1900
(14)(7)
Richardson, N. A., and Motley, S. W. "Report of Committee on
Investigation of Party Differences in the State of Washington... To the
National Committee of the Socialist Party in Session May 10th,
1914"
This committee arrived April
15 and heard testimony, etc. The report then offers a point by point
examination of the conflict in Washington by out-of-state party members.
The reports states the "formal segregation of the party" into separate
organizations started as result of a meeting May 5, 1912. The Seattle
factions were fighting over the "Sadler Affair, " which led to after
midnight meetings and delegate recalls. When Kate Sadler, fervent red
team member, filed for public office as part of the S. P. ticket in
Seattle in 1912, it was discovered she had not used her correct name,
which, in turn led to the discovery she was a married woman living with
a man who was not her husband, which led in turn to the delegate recall.
As evidence of a cultural as well as political divide, the reds were
generally unconcerned, while the yellows tried to use it to drive her
from party office. Instead, when the dust finally settled, it was the
yellows who were squeezed out.
(8)
The Socialist
18
Jan., 1903:
p.2
Titus began a long dispute
with John Wayland, editor of the Appeal to Reason, allegedly
because Wayland "favored public ownership of monopolies instead of
Socialism." After Wayland finally fired back, Titus complained,
"PERSONAL ATTACK ON THE EDITOR OF THE SOCIALIST,"
The Socialist
Jan. 18, 1903:
p.2 Wayland had called Titus a DeLeon. Titus demanded that
Wayland "make good or retract." No retraction was ever forthcoming.
Titus began a long dispute
with John Wayland, editor of the Appeal to Reason, allegedly
because Wayland "favored public ownership of monopolies instead of
Socialism." After Wayland finally fired back, Titus complained,
"PERSONAL ATTACK ON THE EDITOR OF THE SOCIALIST,"
The Socialist
Jan. 18, 1903:
p.2 Wayland had called Titus a DeLeon. Titus demanded that
Wayland "make good or retract." No retraction was ever forthcoming.
(5)(9)
Bostrom, Franz. "The History of the 1913 Session in the Socialist Party
of Washington." March 16, 1914 "Ordered printed by the State Convention
at Seattle, March 16, 1914," a from "Data on File in the Office of the
State Secretary at this Date. January 18, 1914."
(4)(10)
The Socialist
Oct. 13, 1901
(11)
The Socialist,
15 Nov., 1900
(12)
Co-operator
6 July, 1901
(22)(13)
The Socialist
26 Aug., 1900
(23)(14)
Ibid
(23)(15)
Ibid
(16)
The Socialist
27 May, 1905;
p. 2.
(17)
Socialist World,
16 Mar., 1917:
p. 4
(18)
The Socialist
21 Dec., 1902: p. 4
(29)(19)
Bostrom
ibid 16 Mar., 1914
(27)(20)
The Socialist.
13 Oct. 1901, p3
(18)(21)
The Socialist
12 July, 1903
(19)(22)
Co-operator
Aug., 1903
(23)
Schwantes, Carlos. Radical Heritage Labor, Socialism, and Reform in
Washington and British Columbia, 1885-1917 Seattle, University of
Washington Press. 1979, p.169
(12)
(24)
The Socialist
25 Mar., 1905:
p.2
(25)
Bostrom ibid 16
Mar, 1914
(26)
R. Krueger, "Some Local History" The
Socialist 15 June, 1907: p. 2
(13)
(27)
The Socialist
21
Aug., 1909
(28)
The Socialist
Dec. 4, 1909
(29)
Bostrom, ibid
(30)
Tressler, R. "Regular Socialist Party of Seattle Needs Assistance of
Membership."Commonwealth.
15 Jan. 1914: p. 1
(31)
"Reasons for Division in Socialist Party in Washington." 1914
(Anonymous)
A pamphlet put out by the
yellows, it includes a litany of the yellow complaints regarding reds,
in statements from three expelled locals in Bellingham, Spokane, and
Seattle. The 13th ward Seattle points out Wageneckt’s actions
to prevent Anna M Maley from gaining a position in the state party at
the 1913 convention. Another report, from the Lewis County Clarion (Anna
Maley. "Convention Echoes" Lewis County
Clarion 9 April, 1913: p. 3)
claims that the reason Maley did not get the nomination was because she
had been nominated by the Brown faction, and "even Debs himself" could
not have got elected if he had been nominated by Brown.
(32)
Geo. Boomer The Socialist
Mar. 21, 1908: p. 4
(33)
Fox, J.
The Syndicalist
April, 1913
(34)
"Reasons for Division in Socialist Party in Washington." 1914 ibid
(35)
Johnson, William F. "Organization News."
Commonwealth 29 Jan., 1914
Copyright © 2003
by Gary Siebel
|