The One Big Unionin Washington

BY DAVID JAY BERCUSON

Canadian scholarshave long been aware of the For at least two decades, westerntrade union- tremendousimpact of the Americanlabor move- ists had grown increasinglydissatisfied with the ment on , but only rarelycan it be dem- leadership of their international unions. The onstrated that Canadian influenceshelped to nature of westernindustry, the numericalweak- shape events in the United States. Nonetheless, ness of westerntrade unions, and the tensions some studentsof labor in westernCanada and caused by rapid industrializationand urbaniza- the northwesternU.S. are now beginningto con- tion createda radical union movement.Western clude that the 49th parallel was not a real bar- Canadian workersincreasingly sought industrial rier to the flow of people and ideas that con- unionismand Socialistpolitical action but found nected events and movements in the two no room for either within the confinesof the countries.This is merelybelated recognitionof AmericanFederation of Labor and its Canadian facts acknowledged by the workersthemselves subordinate,the Trades and Labor Congress. three-quartersof a centuryago. When, in 1901, At the September 1918 Trades Congresscon- the hard-rockminers of Rossland, British Co- vention held at Quebec City, westernersintro- lumbia,joined in a cross-borderstrike with smelt- duced resolutionsfavoring industrial unionism, ermen in Northport,Washington, the secretary condemning the war effort,and calling for an of the Western Federation of Miners local in end to governmentexcesses such as the jailing of Rossland observed:"There is no 49th parallel of war opponents. Every motion was defeated,and latitudein Unionism.The Canadian and Ameri- the westernersdecided to call a caucus of west- can workingmenhave joined hands across the ern and progressiveeastern union membersto boundaryline fora commoncause againsta com- meet just before the next national convention. mon enemy."1 But in the monthsfollowing, Quebec City radi- Canadian influencein the northwesternAmer- cals, led by membersof the Socialist party of ican labor movementwas strongin the spring Canada, placed themselvesat the head of the and summerof 1919. Beginningin June and for new wave of protestand succeeded in having a several monthsthereafter, the WashingtonState full-fledgedconvention called for March in Cal- Federation of Labor seriouslyconsidered reor- gary.At that meetingdelegates representing over ganizingitself into a , followinga 50,000 workers,almost all fromwestern Canada, path only recentlyembarked upon by tens of decided to hold a referendumon the question of thousandsof westernCanadian union members. secession,and the OBU was createdin a four-day This One Big Union was not an offshootof, or a meetingat ,Alberta, June 7-10.3 stalking-horsefor, the IndustrialWorkers of the Far differentfrom the IWW, the One Big World but was a much more fuzzy concept Union consistedof skilled workerswho had left hatched in the minds of several westernCana- 1 dians. The IWW took great pains to separate it- "Account of the Labor Troubles at Rossland," Aug. selffrom the Canadian OBU, and the advocates 20, 1901,p. 11, PAM HD 6521 W2R61, Universityof British of the One Union in Canada disavowedboth Columbia Library(UBCL). Big 2 Canada of Annual on La- of the IWW.2 Department Labour, Report the aims and methods bour Organizationin Canada (Ottawa, 1920), 67. C. Berg to W. Rollings, May 2, 1919, R. B. Russell Papers, Strike Trial Records, Provincial Archives of Manitoba David J. Bercuson is professorof historyat the University (MPAV 3 of Calgary. He teaches Canadian labor and radical history These events are covered in several sources, including and is the author of Confrontationat Winnipeg (1974) and David Jay Bercuson, Confrontationat Winnipeg (Mon- Fools and Wise Men: The Rise and Fall of the One Big treal, 1974), 90-102,and Martin Robin, Radical Politics and Canadian 1880-1930 178-98. Union (1978). Labour, (Kingston,1968),

127 JULY 1978 theirAFL craftunions en masse,and it madelit- 1919 recoveringfrom an automobileaccident tle effortto organizethe unskilled labor in har- and hobnobbingwith statesmen and politicians, vestfields or loggingcamps. The OBU was basi- the taskof conductingan anti-OneBig Union cally a syndicalistunion withits revolutionarycampaign fell to FrankMorrison, AFL secretary. - - thrustblunted by an almostunquestioning faith A good, faithful,and more important thatrevolution as forecastby Marxwas inevita- effectiveservant, Morrison knew by late March ble. It was not necessaryto activelypromote or thatspecial measures would be necessaryto com- takepart in revolutionsince Marxist predictions, bat theOBU. He quicklyhired Alfred Farmilo, a the OBU leadersbelieved, were infallible. The prominentofficial of the EdmontonTrades organizationwas antipolitical,but its constitu-Council and theAlberta Federation of Labor,to tionalpreamble contained nothing more radical act as special AFL organizerin the Canadian thanthe assertion that workers must prepare for west.5 the inevitablerevolution through organization Morrisonthen began to circulatenews of the and education.OBU ideasreflected the ideologi- OBU to the executivecouncil, and he tookthe cal sterilityof the Socialistparty of Canada, of unusualstep of withholdingsome payments on whichmost OBU leaderswere members.The the mortgageof theAFL headquartersin order OBU's constitutioncontained a mechanismfor to providemonies for his program.This, he told resortingto generalstrikes in industrialdisputes Daniel Tobin, AFL treasurer,was necessarybe- butnot a hintof the revolutionary cause theOBU and IWW werebecoming active so essentialto revolutionarysyndicalism. Al- in "northwesternCanada" and theU.S. at a time thoughit pledgeditself to industrialorganiza- when the federation'speace missionto Europe tion,the OBU also promotedorganization and tied up AFL finances,and he believedthat "it affiliationby geographicarea (not unlike the was the partof wisdomto have a considerable Knightsof Labor) and, in fact,created very few fund available for organizingwork" at home. industrialunions. In mostcases, old craftdivi- Morrisonwas soon looking for a second or- sionswere perpetuated in thenew OBU on a lo- ganizerand bymid-May hired William Varley of cal basis.Consistent in fewthings, the OBU suf- Toronto,a memberof the StreetRailway Em- feredfrom massive ideological confusions which ployees Union. Morrison'sactions, combined weakenedit internallyand helped its enemies withthe laterhiring of specialorganizer R. A. destroyit.4 Rigg by the Trades and Labor Congress,put But in 1919 westernCanadian workerswere threepaid roadmenbacked by a specialfund at readyfor a radical alternativeto replace the thedisposal of the AFL, as wellas manyorganiz- AFL-TLC. The overwhelmingmajority of ersdispatched to thearea by individual unions.6 workersdid notrealize that the OBU was so ill- On theNorthwest Coast, none of thesemoves defineda program- theyheard the rhetoricof had any immediateeffect. , B.C., was radicalismand saw onlythat years of talk had a bastionof OBU strength,and thelabor move- finallybecome action. By January 1920, some 50,- mentin thiscity was close in spirit,as well as 000 to 70,000trade union membershad taken proximity,to that in Seattle.Seattle attracted out OBU cards.The new organizationat first thousandsof workerswho were preparedto swepteverything before it. It capturedthe Brit- maketheir fortune on thenorthwest frontier in ish ColumbiaFederation of Labor; theVancou- muchthe same fashionas thosesettling in the verTrades Counciland its newspaperthe Brit- citiesof westernCanada. Theyread each other's ish Columbia Federationist;District 6 of the newspapers,listened to the same speakers,and InternationalUnion of Mine,Mill, and Smelter harbored similar resentmentstoward eastern Workersin the B.C. interior;District 18 of the trade union leaderswho showedlittle under- UnitedMine Workersin easternB.C., southern standing for western problems. Canadian and central Alberta, and southwesternSas- 4 For OBU constitution,see Constitutionand Laws of katchewan;and the WinnipegTrades Council the One Big Union, Box 160-1,Mine Mill Collection, and its newspaper,the WesternLabor News. UBCL. ForOBÜ failure,see DavidJay Bercuson, "Western The holdoutswere the Calgary and LabourRadicalism and theOne Big Union:Myths and Re- onlymajor alities," Journal of Canadian Studies (May 1974), 3-11. Edmontontrades councils and theAlberta Fed- 5 F. Morrisonto P. M. Draper, April 7, 1919,Frank Mor- erationof Labor. rison Letterbooks,Vol. 508, p. 417, Perkins Library,Duke University(hereafter cited MorrisonLetterbooks). 6 Morrison to AFL Executive Council, April 9, 1919; to D. J. Tobin, April 14, 1919; and to Draper, April 30, 1919, The AFL viewedthe OBU withalarm. Because Morrison Letterbooks,Vol. 508, pp. 496, 593, and 930. R. AFL PresidentSamuel Gompersspent most of Rigg to J. Winning,July 30, 1919,Rigg/Rees Papers, MPA.

128 PACIFIC NORTHWEST QUARTERLY secessionistswere, therefore, determined to make surethat Seattle heard the OBU message. In April1919, the Seattle labor movement was readyto listen.Workers had been increasingly restlessfor some time. The IWW had stronglo- cal influencebecause of theextensive logging in- dustryaround Puget Sound. Though nominally loyalto Gompersand theAFL, thelabor move- mentbegan to displaydisquieting signs of inde- pendence.The mostdramatic of thesewas the generalstrike of February6-10, 1919, called by theSeattle Central Labor Councilin supportof shipyardworkers locked in a disputewith the government-ownedEmergency Fleet Corpora- tion.This walkoutwas stronglycondemned by theAFL, whichalso tookpartial credit for end- ing it, to the disgustof the Seattlelabor move- ment.7 But the generalstrike was only one sign of Seattle'srefusal to play by AFL rules.Another was "Duncanism,"a movement- named for JamesA. Duncan,Central Labor Councilsecre- tary- which stood for strongcontrol of local PhotographyCollection, Untverstty of WashingtonLtbrary unions the council,close among FrankMorrison - he organizedthe AFL's by cooperation to crushthe OBU movement. kindredtrades, and simultaneousexpiration of campaign agreementswithin a singleindustry. A campaign ard,a longshoremanand longtimeSocialist party launchedby theCentral Labor Councilin early member,and VictorMidgley, secretary of the March 1919 standardizedthis informalsystem OBU organizingcommittee, appeared before the intothe Duncan Plan, a proposalto reformthe CentralLabor Councilin Aprilto speakabout AFL fromwithin. Nothing less than a direct theOBU. They receiveda "tremendousburst of challengeto thecraft union nature of theAFL, applause"when they declared that "a classcon- the Duncan Plan called upon AFL membersto scious labor movementmust at once take the voteon thereorganization of thefederation into place of the old craftform of organizationin 12 industrialunits in orderto providethe unions whichone setof workers[is] pittedagainst . . . with a more effectivestrike weapon. Clearly, another."The councildid notdebate the merits there was significantdissatisfaction with the of the OBU idea, but Midgleycame awaywith AFL in Seattlejust at thetime that western Ca- the beliefthat Seattlewould eventuallybreak nadianworkers were rising in revoltagainst the withthe AFL. On thesame trip, Pritchard spoke Gomperssystem. It was naturalfor some Seattle to a largegroup of longshoremenand laid plans workersto look withmore than passing interest fora laterexpedition to Tacoma.9 at theOne Big Union.8 Thoughthe Canadians did notrealize it, they werebeginning to figurein a localargument over the Duncan Plan. HarryAult, of the Seattle WhenCanadian OBU leadersreceived inquiries Union Record,supported Duncan and triedto about theircampaign from Seattle, they decided makeit appear thatPritchard and Midgleydid to go thereto telltheir story. William A. Pritch- also. Afterthe two B.C. mendeparted from Seat- 7 tle,Ault publishedan interviewwith Pritchard, Robert L. Friedheim, The Seattle General Strike (Seat- Anna Louise in whichthe tle, 1964), 139-40,152-54. conductedby Strong, 8 Ibid., 48-49. Seattle Central Labor Council circular, Canadian reportedlyobserved that the Duncan March 12, 1919,'The King v. William Ivens et al" evidence, Plan was bestfor normal times but that the crisis Ivens Papers, M PA. 9 was at hand in Canada. "If theDuncan R. B. Russell to V. Midgley,April 11, 1919,and Midg- already ley to J. Taylor, April 21, 1919,One Big I'nion (OBU) Pa- plan succeeds,"he was purportedto have said, pers, MPA. British Columbia Federationist,April 25, 1919. "wewill be backin thereorganized A.F. of L. al- Minutes of the Central Labor Council meeting,April 16, mostautomatically." This storyupset OBU sup- 1919, Box 8, King County Central Labor Council Records, in who wrotePritchard university of Washington Library (hereafter cited CLC porters Seattle, quickly Minuteswith appropriate date). to let him know what was happening.They

JULY 1978 129 insistedthat he send a letterof denial as soon as sion movement."The council was not, at this possible and that he send it not to Ault (who moment,ready to entertainsuch notionsand re- was a "God Damn Labor Faker") but directlyto solved to "ignore all communicationsand per- them for insertionin the paper. Pritchardcom- sons advocating secession from the A.F. of L." plied, declaring:"Since . . . timeis denied us, and But this was only a temporarysetback for OBU the problem demands, and will continue to de- supporters.The big prize was the Washington mand, immediateaction, it seems . . . the height State Federation of Labor itself,and OBU sup- of follyto expect any sudden move [to reform] porters made considerable effortto send large on thepart of theA.F. of L."10 delegationsto the state federation'sannual con- When Canadians appeared beforeWashington ventionscheduled to open in Bellinghamin mid- labor bodies to talk about the One Big Union, June. William Short,president of the federation, they were essentiallyoutsiders, at the mercyof warned Frank Morrisonthat One Big Union ad- rules and gavel. But when they participatedin vocates planned to control the federationand meetings as delegates, their influence was "replace presentofficers with officers favorable to greater.In fact,it was as representativesto the this policy . . . ." As the conventiondrew near, May 1919 conventionof the PacificCoast District policy and ideological issues narrowedto a fight of the InternationalLongshoreman's Association over the election of executiveofficers. Short and that theywere able to firmlyplant the OBU seed Charles PerryTaylor, federationsecretary, repre- in Seattlesoil. JosephTaylor of Victoriawas dis- sented the "more conservativeelement," while trict president; other Canadians, from Prince Thomas Russell of Tacoma and L. W. Buck of - Rupert south, attended includinga friendand Seattlewere the "progressive"candidates.13 colleague of Pritchardin the ILA and Socialist party,OBU leader Jack Kavanagh. Determined to "use his influenceon behalf of the O.B.U.," On Monday, June 16, 1919, the Washington Kavanagh deliveredone of the opening addresses State Federationof Labor met in its 18thannual at the convention,telling the gatheringabout convention.It was evident fromthe beginning the OBU and outliningthe plans under which it that delegates were in a boisterous mood and somewhatdefiant of AFL proposed to operate. While in Seattle, he also were feeling authority. the first of the voted spoke to the SeattleCentral Labor Council; after On morning gathering,they the of Seattle Local 40 of the Steam explaining why westernCanadian workerswere to back fight international who resortingto secession,he claimed that "the one Engineers against its officers, the business for big union idea [was] growing by leaps and had suspended agent boosting and strikes. bounds, and [had] applications formembership the Duncan Plan advocatinggeneral fromlocal unions fromthe Atlanticto the Pacific The discussionclearly indicated that manywere to their coast." Even though he attacked the popular using the opportunity express support Duncan Plan, he was "listenedto with great in- forthe general strike of the previousFebruary.14 the usual attention terest"and received"much applause."11 Canada receivedmore than was back, this Kavanagh and the other Canadian delegates at this meeting.Jack Kavanagh as of the British did a thoroughjob. The ILA conventionwent time in his capacity president on record "in favor of formingan industrial Columbia Federation of Labor, to address the 'One conventionon the Canadian strikesituation. He union patternedafter the BritishColumbia " sub- told that the Canadian did Big Union' and declared its intentionof delegates government dare to send into and Van- mittingan OBU proposal to all ILA locals and not troops Winnipeg all dock work and marine transportunions on couver, where general strikeswere in progress, forceswith the the coast. Shortlyafter the convention,Taylor is- because the soldiers mightjoin declared that his sued an explanatorycircular to districtmembers. strikers.Kavanagh colleagues In it, he noted thatthe proposedAmerican OBU had nothingto do with the IWW since the Ca- 10Seattle Union Record, April 18 and May 5, 1919. J. W. Pritch- nadians who had met at Calgary in March and Lighterto Midgley,April 19, 1919,and "Billie" to the to the coast ILA conventionwere ard, April 18, 1919,OBU Papers. delegates 11 Union Record, May 5 and 8, 1919. Midgley to Russell, have been in the Trade Union Move- al" "men who April 21, 1919,"The King v. William Ivens et evidence, mentfor many years."12 Ivens Papers. CLC Minutes,May 7, 1919. 12 Union 9, 1919. ILA circular,n.d., Box 7, Having been converted, the longshoremen Record, May the word. In late Ivens Papers. now set out to spread May they 13CLC Minutes, May 28, 1919. W. Short to Morrison Labor communicatedwith the Seattle Central (telegram), May 9, 1919, Box 41, WashingtonState Federa- Council, urging"consideration of Canada's seces- tion of Labor Records, Universityof Washington Library

130 PACIFIC NORTHWEST QUARTERLY were on strikenot so much against the employ- time,and debate over the OBU heated up as vot- ers but "against the governmentof Canada" be- ing began. There was bitterdivision, reflected in cause it had interferedon the side of the employ- a stormy,two-hour session of the Tacoma Cen- ers in Winnipeg. He appealed for financial tral Labor Council, where a motion was intro- assistanceand was rewardedwith "a heavy col- duced to spend council funds to spread the lection," as the convention pledged "its full referendummessage. Conservativesdemanded a moral and financialsupport to the general strik- roll-call vote, while OBU supporters,led by ers of Winnipeg, Vancouver and all Canadian Harry Wright, threatened to publish the re- cities."15 corded votes in the council newspaper. Many In the elections William Short was reelected, OBU opponentsstormed out of the meetingand but Charles PerryTaylor was defeatedby L. W. threatened to withdraw their unions if any Buck. Taylor's defeatwas not, however,a clear money was spent on OBU propaganda. The victoryfor the progressivebloc because Taylor, a council presidentstruck a compromiseby order- paid AFL organizer,had made many personal ing AFL organizerW. J. Beard to do the job of enemiesover the years,and Buck, a Socialist,was acquaintinglocals withthe importanceof the ref- not of the "ultra-radicaltype" as Shortput it. On erendum.This debate over fundsechoed several the last day of the convention,however, when days later in a Seattle machinistlodge, where it many Short supportershad departed, the pro- was charged that moneyraised to supportCana- gressives scored their major victory. Harry dian strikers was being channeled into the Wright,a Tacoma longshoremanand secretary OBU.17 of the PacificCoast Districtof the ILA, proposed To facilitate an exchange of views on the a resolutionthat called fora referendumon the OBU issue,Ault opened the columnsof the Seat- holding of a One Big Union conference.Despite tle Union Record. HarryWright took the oppor- the opposition of the convention resolutions tunity to explain his position at length. The committee,the delegates adopted the proposal movementin Washingtonwas, he claimed, "en- by a wide margin. Short's fears had been real- tirelydifferent in its inception and fundamen- ized; theOne Big Union was launched.16 tally differentin nearly everyway fromthat of Though Wright and other OBU supporters Canada." A vote forthe OBU conferencewas not borrowedmuch of their ideas and terminology a vote to secede fromthe AFL, Wrightassured. fromCanada, no actual connectionbetween the He believed that the labor movementcould be Canadian and WashingtonOBU existed. Cana- changed fromwithin and that it would be folly dian speakers supported the American move- for anyone to try to destroyit. Thousands of ment,lent theirideas to it, and in part provided workerswere calling forreform of some kind; to the example, but theygave no real leadership.It preventreal splits fromoccurring, he had pro- was in their intereststo see the One Big Union posed the referendumas a means of providinga succeed in Washington,and a link-up with the forumfor the thrashingout of issues. AmericanOBU would have been almostinevita- Wright emphatically denied that the OBU ble, but Canadians were fullypreoccupied with had anythingto do with the IWW but argued theirown battlenorth of the border.For the mo- that even IWW involvementwould be no reason ment, they could do little but cheer from the to oppose the OBU, any more than an American sidelines. flagshould be thrownaway because it was made By mid-July,after one falsestart, the statefed- in Japan. His OBU would organize the unorga- eration's executive board settled the details of nized, reconstructthe labor movementalong in- the referendum,and the printingand distribu- dustriallines, assure that agreementsin kindred tion of ballots began. The One Big Union issue tradesexpired at the same time,eliminate juris- was, as HarryAult observed,the mostimportant dictional squabbles, and establish a universal it question that had faced the unions in a long transfercard. Above all would never secede. His was the veryvoice of moderationand reason. Short him. In a lettersent to all (hereafter,State Federation Records). Union Record, June But challenged 14, 1919. affiliated locals and the Union Record, he 14 Union Record, Tune 16, 1919. out that if the resolution a con- 15 1919. pointed passed, Ibid., June 19, would be called to form "One 16Short to R. L. Guard, July 29, 1919, State Federation vention Big Records. Union Record, Tune23, 1919. Union along industriallines." This meant seces- 17 Minutes of the WashingtonState Federation of Labor sion, and secession,Short claimed, meant failure 10 and Box Executive Board meetings,July 12, 1919, 60, and defeat as in as it did in State Federation Records cited EB Minutes with surely Washington (hereafter The resolutionvoted at appropriatedate). Union Record,July 14, 18,and 22, 1919. Canada. upon Belling-

131ó JULY 1978 ham,he charged,was "an exactcopy of theone AFL ExecutiveCouncil by mail to seekadvice. introducedin the Calgary conferencewhich The firstvice-president, James Duncan (no rela- broughtabout the WesternCanadian O.B.U." tion to JamesA. Duncan of Seattle),suggested Charles Perry Taylor supportedShort: "We thatthe state federation be orderedto cease the don'twant any O.B.U. What we wantis closer referendumimmediately or have its charterre- affiliation.The coloredgentleman in thewood- voked. W. D. Mahon, sixth vice-president, pile [is] theI.W.W The O.B.U. is on a par agreed.He believedany organization holding an with the generalsympathetic strike in Seattle, AFL charterhad no rightto submitsuch a refer- which,as the Union Recordsaid, is going'no endum to its membershipand should be ex- one knowswhere.' "18 pelledfrom the AFL fordoing so. He urgedMor- Wrightdisavowed secession and claimedthat risonto takea firmstand and bringthe "one big he had neverseen theCalgary OBU resolution, unionnightmare to a closeas soon as possible." but the secessioncharge was the mosteffective Matthew Woll echoed his fears: that could use to beat back weapon opponents We must preventthe poison now injected in the movement the OBU tide.Robert Harlin, President of Dis- of the northwestfrom spreading to other parts and we must trict10 of theUnited Mine Workers, speculated put out the smoulderingfires now raging in that part of the thatbehind wereother individuals who country which may at some future time blaze up into a Wright in of our industrialcenters.21 hoped"by trickery" to securea favorablevote. If great conflagration many therewere moves afoot to the AFL "stampede" On August2 Morrisonsent a toughlyworded membership,he threatened,a day of reckoning letterto thestate federation. He remindedmem- wouldcome.19 bersof theirstatutory obligations according to the AFL constitutionand told themthat the WashingtonState Federation of Labor had "ig- While the battleover the referendumraged in nored its to and the hard-rockminers in Mon- pledge recognize support Washington, Butte, principleof the autonomyof the Nationaland tana,laid plansfor a One Big Unionconference. International unions . . . ." The statefederation Labor councilsin theNorthwest were invited to had no to assume that be- send to discussthe of form- authority powers delegates feasibility longed solely to the individualunions that ing a stateOBU in Montanaprior to theestab- theAFL, Morrisonwrote. If therefer- Morrison comprised lishmentof a nationalorganization. endum now under way was not immediately reactedquickly. He wiredthe Silver Bow Trades halted,the AFL ExecutiveCouncil would re- and LaborCouncil in Buttenot to sendany dele- voke the statefederation's charter, establish "a to OBU and to withdrawcre- gates the meeting bona fidestate organization" in its place, and dentialsalready issued. He also sentas manyin- seek to have the national and international ternationalorganizers as possibleto the area. unionsaffiliate with the new state federation.22 his intothe send- Gompersthrew weight battle, The orderitself, coming like an edict from ing messagesto thepresidents of themachinists, createdalmost as muchdissention as and electricalworkers to enlist Olympus, boilermakers, the referendum.Short, who had opposed the aid in the of their their maintaining integrity OBU movementall along, was upset by the unions.But even withthese efforts the conven- tionwent ahead, and theButte Miner welcomed "Bolsheviki"delegates from Canada and the 18 Union Record, luly 31, Aug. 1 and 5, 1919. PacificCoast, and OBU organizerJoseph Knight, 19 of ,Alberta, delivered the ad- Ibid., Aug. 9, 1919. keynote 20 Morrison to F. J. Hayes, June 30, 1919, and to J. dress.There was no IWW representationat the Green,July 5, 1919,Morrison Letterbooks, Vol. 509, pp. 654 meeting,even thoughthe IWW was thelargest and 707. CLC Minutes,June 25, 1919. S. Gompers to W. H. union in the one local Johnston,to L. Weyand, and to C. Ford, July 11, 1919,Sam- miners' area; Wobbly Vol. Uni- invitedto to the declared uel Gompers Letterbooks(microfilm), 256, p. 67, leader, speak delegates, versityof North Carolina Library. Union Record, July 24, that his union would not with the 1919. cooperate 21 OBU. The conferenceaccomplished little, The correspondence,including votes and communica- therewas discussonof theOBU tions from AFL Executive Council members,is found in though linking Morrison to AFL Executive Council, Aug. 20, 1919, Morri- ofWashington and Montana.20 son Letterbooks,Vol. 51 1, p. 462 and passim. 22 As theOBU challengemoved south of theCa- Morrisonto C. P. Taylor, Aug. 2, 1919, MorrisonLet- nadian border,the AFL intervened. terbooks,Vol. 510, pp. 298-300. Secretary 23 Union Record, Aug. 11 and 12, 1919. 24 Morrisonobtained an assessmentof the situation Ibid., Aug. 14, 1919; CLC Minutes, Aug. 13, 1919; EB in Washingtonfrom Short, then canvassed the Minutes,Aug. 14, 1919.

132 PACIFIC NORTHWEST QUARTERLY abruptnessof the ultimatum. He had assured mands of the largestlabor body in the stateeven Morrisonthat the situationwould not get out of thoughmoving ahead with the OBU vote meant hand and asked thatthe statelabor movementbe secession.The state federationwas now caught allowed to handle the matterin its own way. He betweenthe Seattle labor movementand the na- believed that "the level-headedunionists would tional federation.24 steer. . . throughthe dangerouschannel without On the following day, the state executive disruption." Harry Ault sympathizedwith this board met at Seattle to decide its futurecourse. view. The "unfortunatewording of the resolu- Faced with the power of the AFL, uncertainof tion," which implied secession,had misled the the extent of grass-rootssupport for the OBU, AFL Executive Council. In a front-pageedito- and weakened by serious internalopposition to rial, he appealed forcalm assessmentof the new the entire referendum,it succumbed. Letters, realities facing labor in Washington and sug- telegrams,and resolutionsfrom locals and coun- gested another referendumcalling for a confer- cils condemningthe AFL were to no avail, and a ence to discuss closer the cost of motionwas to Morri- affiliation, high * unanimouslyadopted obey living,and othermatters.23 son's instructions.But the executiveboard mem- The Seattle Central Labor Council refusedto bers did not submit meekly:they told Morrison give in to AFL dictation.At its August 13 meet- that they would obey his orders because, as ing, it considereda resolutionsubmitted by the officersof the AFL, theyhad no choice, but that longshoremencondemning the AFL action and they objected to the way the matterhad been demanding a continuation of the referendum. handled. They asserted that they should have There was an attempt,supported by Secretary been consulted about the order and expected Buck, to shelve the motion by passing it directly such considerationin future.The OBU referen- to the executive board of the state federation, dum issue was being handled satisfactorilyprior but this was easily defeated,and the resolution to the AFL's interferenceand would have been was carried. Some council delegates maintained resolvedwithout disruption. Now, theycharged, that federationofficers could not ignore the de- therewould be seriousdifficulties:

ON

JULY 1978 133 Your action . . . has precipitated a situation that will re- nized craftunion movementwas concerned,the quire the most careful handling to avoid serious injury to OBU in sustaineda fatalblow.26 both state and national bodies. We action Washington regret your The One Union in Canada and the Pacific exceedingly,and sincerelytrust that in future. . . you will Big at least ask for advice from. . . those of us who are on the Northwestrepresented a greaterpotential threat 25 groundshere to the AFL than any otherrival movementup to that time, including the IWW. OBU advocates Whether or not theseemphatic statements were were not bums or bindlestiffsbut skilled trades- simplyintended to assuage local feelingand keep men, veteransof craftunionism, who attacked the statefederation's rank and file behind solidly fromwithin; they included the Canadians, who an executiveboard that after committed was, all, withdrewtheir locals, lodges, councils, and fed- to the AFL is not The board's action important. erationsfrom the AFL, and the Washingtonians, reflecteda strongresentment of outside interfer-who claimed that secessionwas not theirintent. But even had Short'sassessment been cor- ence. The WashingtonOBU strategywas surelya pipe and had the OBU matterbeen under con- rect dream, if not a ploy, because a state-basedOne the AFL could not have allowed the vote to trol, Big Union could not have existed within the federationcould vote on continue. That a state AFL and would not have been permittedeven if an OBU resolutionwithout swiftAFL reaction it could have survived.The OBU failedin Wash- to the would have been seriouslydamaging AFL, ington,as it did in Canada, because its support- for it would have indicated a dangerousdrift of ers had no clear idea of what theywere tryingto In the craftunion its leadership. August 1919, accomplish,and because the AFL knew exactly cause was beset by secessionin Canada, internal what it had to do to remainin power. the extremesof the Red divisionin the U.S., and Wright'sstrategy, designed to attractthe mod- Aimlessness have Scare in both countries. might erates,was simplywishy-washy. The Canadians, meantdisaster. at least,knew thatthey had to destroythe AFL if With the state federation'ssurrender, opposi- they were to succeed, and they never tried to tion to the AFL faded rapidly. The last great hide that reality.The OBU in Washingtonwas, battle was foughtin the Seattle Central Labor therefore,too uninspiredto appeal to the well- Council on the eveningof August 20. OBU sup- established radical strengththat existed in the executive porterscondemned the statefederation state,but radical enough to scare Short,Taylor, board's action and demanded that the Central and those who believed in the viabilityof the Labor Council take over the conductof the refer- AFL. Without solid, grass-rootssupport, the endum and stop its per capita paymentsto the OBU movement collapsed with the firstAFL federation.A letter from Harry Wright urged counterattack.It became littlemore than a pecu- that the Seattle and Tacoma labor councils con- liar incidentin the developmentof trade union- tinue the vote and proceed to organize the OBU ism in WashingtonState. themselvesif the majorityof the rank and fileso decided. But Wright and his supporterscould not overcome Short and his contingent,which 25 EB Minutes, Aug. 14,. 1919; Union Record, Aug. 15, Buck and Duncan. In the 1919. included L. W. James Indus- 26 of Agent 106,Aug. 20, 1919,Records on final vote, a resolutionto uphold the action of Report CLC trial Espionage, Universityof Washington Library; board a wide mar- 1919. Mor- the state executive passed by Minutes, Aug. 20, 1919. Union Record, Aug. 21, Union advocates Box 10, State Federation Rec- gin, even though the One Big rison to Short,Aug. 27, 1919, had "considerablefollowing." As far as the orga- ords.

134 PACIFIC NORTHWEST QUARTERLY