to prevent a repetition of the defeats that occurred in the previous period. Thus, while the unions, generally speaking, lacked the experience that might have obviated many errors, both in their demands and in their tactics, the defensive features of the movement, as conducted by the older men, were based upon a justifiable presumption of their opponents' object. This difference in the particulars of the situation in 1900, as compared with that of 1890, is important as an explanation of much that transpired in connection with the strikes and the political events incidental to the latter. ''176

In other words, the men who had been through the previous conflict were unwilling to permit the Employers' Association to pursue a policy of "divide and conquer." It was felt that it would be better to bring on a general engagement before the forces of labor were demoralized by the continued defeat of the weaker unions. As Professor Page remarks, "The insecurity of the situation, the vague feeling of uneasiness, the nervous tension of men facing a dubious prospect, were more intolerable and exasperating than open hostilities could be. Both sides, therefore, were determined to precipitate a struggle as soon as it could be done without sacrificing any strategic advantage. Under these circumstances the opportunity could not long be delayed."

TEAMSTERS' STRIKE OF 1901.

The strike of the teamsters in July afforded an unusually favorable opportunity for this great trial of strength. The immediate cause of the strike was trivial in comparison with the real issues at stake. The Epworth League was to meet in San Francisco, and a non-union firm had obtained the contract to deliver the baggage. But the manager of this firm had a brother who was a member of the Draymen's Association, and who sometimes assisted the delivery company when work became too heavy for its teams. The Brotherhood of Teamsters and the draymen had entered into an agreement by which the draymen were pledged to employ only union men and to handle no goods for firms who were not members of the Association.

176 From an unpublished manuscript by Walter Macarthur.

When the

teamsters employed by the union drayage company were ordered to assist in hauling the baggage which the non-union firm had contracted to deliver, they refused on the ground that to do so would be a violation of their agreement. A lockout of the teamsters so refusing quickly followed, and, as the Brotherhood persisted in its refusal to haul for non-union firms, or for firms whose men were locked out, it was only a matter of a few days before a large percentage of the members had left their work. The three hundred remaining members were then ordered out by the executive committee of the union.

The Employers' Association now made its first public appearance, announcing through its attorney that it approved of the course of the draymen and proposed to assist them in the controversy. Here again the labor men claimed that the draymen did not willingly resign the control of the situation to the Employers' Association. Their account asserts that when the Draymen's Association met, it at first decided by an overwhelming majority that the Brotherhood of Teamsters had a right to refuse the work of the delivery company. It is claimed that members of the Employers' Association then filed articles of incorporation of a new draying company, and confronted the draymen with a probable loss of business,177 and so induced them to fall in line with the policy of the Association.

Of all the unions represented in the Labor Council, the teamsters had the greatest power of working injury to the business of the city. Many of the docks were without railway facilities, and but few factories and wholesalers could be reached by spur tracks. Had the unions been able to control the outside supply of labor as they did that in the city, this strike might have accomplished their purpose. The business of the city was at first seriously crippled, but the Employers' Association held everyone firmly to the policy of refusal of recognition of the unions. Extra pay and a bonus for continued service during the trouble were guaranteed, and an employment bureau for furnishing help for the draymen established. Army teamsters recently returned from the Philippines, and help from the coun

177 From an unpublished manuscript by Ed. Rosenberg, secretary of the Labor Council.

try were soon procured and quickly trained to do the work of the teamsters.

The labor men throughout the city looked upon this contest as the decisive one; they must win now or sacrifice all chance of future gains through their newly-perfected organizations. Some hot-heads in the Council were in favor of a general strike, but more conservative advice prevailed. It was decided that only the unions of the City Front Federation, in which the Brotherhood of Teamsters were represented, should be called on for help. Among the fourteen unions composing this federation were some of the oldest, best disciplined, and richest in the city. Their leaders were not slow in reminding the members of the results of the contest of 1893-4, and no urging was necessary to secure an enthusiastic endorsement of a sympathetic strike by every union in the federation. On July 30th the sailors, longshoremen, marine firemen, porters, packers, warehousemen, pile-drivers, hoisting engineers, ship and steamboat joiners, steam and hot-water fitters, marine cooks and stewards, and coal-cart teamsters, in all about 13,000 men, left their work. To these were added the boxmakers and sawyers, and sand, rock, and gravel teamsters in San Francisco, the dock laborers of Oakland, Redwood City, and Benicia, and the warehousemen handling the grain crop at Crockett and Port Costa.

The business not only of San Francisco but of the entire state was at a standstill. Many innocent parties saw themselves confronted with financial ruin. The situation was particularly hard for the fruit growers and the farmers. The supply of boxes and tin cans necessary for handling the crops was cut off, and the fruit could not be marketed or sent to the large canneries of San Francisco and Oakland. The warehouses at Port Costa were soon congested with grain, so that the farmers feared that they would be unable to get their crops under shelter before the rains.

Throughout the struggle many earnest efforts were made to effect a reconciliation of the contending forces, or at least secure a conference between the leaders. Civic bodies of all kinds, groups of business men, the clergy, the supervisors, the Mayor, and other prominent individuals all made repeated attempts to

bring this disastrous warfare to an end. To all of these advances the representatives of the labor interests responded heartily, but from the first to the last it was impossible to meet the members or the executive committee of the Employers' Association. Professor Page concludes his account of this feature of the contest thus: "Eventually the Employers' Association absolutely declined to consider any proposition coming from disinterested parties, and through its attorney requested that no further negotiations or mediations be offered by anyone. By such severity it undoubtedly injured its cause in the eyes of the public. It was widely believed that if a conference could be arranged between the executive committee and the labor leaders a settlement would not be difficult. Its stern reserve gave color to the complaints of the workmen that the employers were intolerant, arrogant, and tyrannical. ''178

It seems probable that the fear of the boycott had much to do with this persistent refusal. The employers were determined to make no concessions, and a conference would necessarily have revealed the membership of the Association. The labor men were making great efforts to discover the names of persons or firms in the Association, and in July the boycott had been declared against nine members. The secretary of the Council testifies that several hundred thousand boycott circulars were sent out during each week of the strike, and that the working people of neighboring states kept up the "most thorough boycott ever prosecuted." It has also been suggested that men with political ambitions could not have been induced to join any but a secret organization, and that this policy would secure a more harmonious and united support of the diverse interests represented. 179

In response to the efforts of the Mayor and a committee of the supervisors, two statements were issued through their attorney, throwing some light on the point of view of this profoundly secret association. They sent the following response to the Mayor's request for the terms on which they would be willing to settle the strike:180

178 Page, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, p. 682, December, 1902. 179 Ibid., p. 669.

180 For the account of these efforts of the Mayor, see the San Francisco daily papers, July 30 to August 6, 1901.

T

"The Employers' Association is willing to recommend to the members of the Draymen's Association that they fill all present and future vacant positions in their service by such persons as may apply for work, irrespective of whether the applicant belongs to a union or not, upon the following terms:

"I. That the employee shall obey all lawful orders of the employer.

"II. That the employee will not, directly or indirectly, attempt to compel a fellow-employee, against his will to join a labor union, nor to compel his employer to employ none but union men.

"III. That the employee will not engage in or support any sympathetic strike or boycott."

The committee of the Board of Supervisors appointed by the Mayor to endeavor to bring about a settlement of the strike wrote to the Association declaring that they merely asked for a conference, and expressing their conviction that public opinion was crystallizing against the Association because of the unwillingness to discuss the terms of settlement. The reply stated that, while they were willing to treat with the strikers individually at any time, any meeting with the representatives of the unions would mean the surrender of the principles at stake. This principle, the right of the employer to control his business, might be surrendered, but could not be compromised. A conference would but prolong the contest by inspiring hopes. of a settlement on the terms of the strikers.

These statements show clearly the attack on the united activities of the labor organizations; the boycott, the sympathetic strike, the efforts to enlist new members, must be relinquished, and from the first to the last the employers refused to recognize in any way whatever the authority of representatives of large groups of workers. As the labor men maintained throughout the contest, the issue at stake in support of which 20,000 men had abandoned their work was "the right to organize."

The trade-unionists would under no circumstances forego their legal right to strike, nor were they willing to relinquish that equally powerful weapon, the boycott, or to cease their efforts to enlist fellow-workmen in the unions. Their pro