posed agreement required that the members of the Employers' Association cease discrimination against members of the unions, and employers who were willing to employ union men only. The men who had quit work were to be restored to their positions, and were to obey all orders concerning the work to be performed. In case of difficulties, the strike or lockout was not to be resorted to until an effort at arbitration had failed.181 For our purposes it will hardly be profitable to attempt an account of the events of this three months' contest between the great opposing organizations of capital and labor. The employers continued to make increasingly successful efforts to enlist an adequate force to take the places of the strikers, while the pickets of the labor unions lost no opportunities to turn away prospective workers before they could reach the city, or to persuade those already engaged to desert. As the strain became greater with the prospects of failure, the union leaders found it more and more difficult to restrain violence, particularly as among the large number of special police there were many irresponsible men who frequently provoked contests.

On October 2 Governor Gage suddenly appeared in San Francisco, saying that he had been requested by the parties most concerned to attempt a settlement of the difficulty. He sent for the officers of the Draymen's Association and of the Brotherhood of Teamsters, and after a conference, it was announced that terms had been agreed upon and the strike declared off. The next day the men went quietly back to their work. The terms were not made public, but since the teamsters returned to work with such of the non-union employees as cared to retain their places, it is evident that they did not attain the immediate object of the strike. But we have seen that the real motive of the struggle was the desire to check what was believed to be a systematic campaign against the unions. This prolonged contest, with its disastrous effect on the business of the state, and the subsequent political successes, made it evident that the overwhelming victories of 1891-4 were no longer possible. To quote from Macarthur, who was a member of the executive committee of the City Front Federation: "In letter 181 Coast Seamen's Journal, July 31, August 7, 1901.

the agreement provided merely for a mutual cessation of hostilities, but in spirit it was understood to convey a renunciation by the Employers' Association of any design to prosecute an attack upon the unions with the object of disrupting them. The City Front Federation had vindicated the 'right to organize', and its members returned to work in a spirit which, if not that of complete victory, was one of profound confidence of future peace between employer and employe. This confidence has since proved to be fairly well justified.”

Ray Stannard Baker, who made an investigation of the labor situation in San Francisco a few months later, wrote of the results: "On paper the employers were successful in their main contentions; they avoided 'recognizing' the union; their workmen came back without reference to their affiliation with any labor organization; the right of free contract was established. But it was a barren victory. Practically the union. won the day. There is a kind of fighting which makes the enemy stronger: that was the method of the San Francisco Employers' Association. It was an example of how not to combat unionism.

9182

THE LABOR UNIONS IN POLITICS.

The municipal election of 1901 came a few weeks after the settlement of the strike. As in 1878, the working people had been thoroughly aroused and united; as at that time class issues had been strongly emphasized. Not only was there the same. stimulation of class consciousness, but there was also a similar bitter dissatisfaction with the city government. Throughout the contest the strikers complained that the municipal authorities were fighting on the side of the employers.

Although the labor leaders made sincere and earnest efforts to check disorder, there can be no question that there was much violence, particularly during the latter stages of the strike. The policy of the city authorities in dealing with this disorder was bitterly criticised by the laboring men, and that a large number of disinterested citizens sympathized with their point of view seems evident from the results of the election,

182 McClure's Magazine, Vol. 22, p. 368, February, 1904.

which furnished the first opportunity for an expression of the overwrought public feelings. In brief, the acts complained of

were:

First-The placing of policemen on the drays with the nonunion drivers. It was claimed that the business of these teamsters was all in the center of the city, and that policemen stationed in the streets could have given ample protection. The strikers declared that the policemen directed the non-union drivers who were unacquainted with the city, and assisted them in various ways with their work.

Second-The rough handling of the men on the waterfront caused much indignation. The leaders of these unions had determined to do all in their power to prevent strike-breakers coming into the city, and at the same time guard against violence. They organized a large and effective force of pickets, who were on the lookout for new men who might be persuaded to give up their plans of seeking work in the city, and were at the same time charged with the duty of preventing disorderly conduct on the part of their fellow trade-unionists. It was claimed that these men were roughly handled by the police without cause, and that many arrests were made of men whose only offense was their membership in the unions, merely for the purpose of clearing the docks.

The third cause of complaint was the swearing in of a large number of special police who were paid by the employers. Many persons not engaged in the controversy questioned the wisdom of this policy. The resolutions of the Federation of Mission Improvement Clubs set forth the point of view of these critics:

"Resolved, That the action taken by the Police Commission in appointing a large number of irresponsible and inexperienced men to exercise the duties appertaining to the enforcement of police regulations is in our judgment injudicious and a menace to the peace, security, and order which should be maintained by the constituted authorities. We desire to direct attention to the fact that men employed as police officers paid by private contribution will serve the contributor and cannot perform police duty impartially. In our opinion the Police Commission should draw upon the urgent necessity fund, when necessary to employ such additional policemen, who should be solely under the control of the constituted authorities, and thereby be required to perform impartially this high and important duty.''183

183 San Francisco daily papers, August 16, 1901.

The Union Labor party was not officially recognized by the labor organizations, and at first was even discouraged by some of the men who had been most prominent in the strike. It was partly a spontaneous expression of this dissatisfaction with the city government, and partly the product of the insight of shrewd politicians, who seized the opportunity to utilize the social forces generated by the previous controversy. The strike had been an effort to check further aggression by a demonstration of power. Its lack of entire success was believed to be due to the fact that the influence of the city authorities had been used on the side of capital. The coming election furnished another opportunity to show the strength of the labor movement and, at the same time, to weaken the employers by obtaining control of this powerful ally.

This was the second election under the new charter which to an unusual degree centers power in the Mayor. At the election immediately following the strike the new party captured this important office, their candidate receiving 21,774 of the 53,746 votes cast. They also elected three of the eighteen. supervisors.

The older parties at once realized the strength of this new influence in politics, and in subsequent elections combinations were made which resulted in placing a number of these joint candidates in office. In the state election of 1902 the Union Labor party nominated a judicial, congressional, and state legislative ticket,184 The influence of the party was confined to San Francisco, no attempt being made to elect a general state ticket. The party elected one state senator, seven assemblymen, the San Francisco Superintendent of Schools, and two Congressmen. With the exception of one assemblyman, all of the successful candidates carried Democratic endorsements, and ran in districts where the influence of this party was strong.

In the elections of 1903-4 it was clear that the new party was losing influence; the class issues raised in 1901 were being forgotten, and men were returning to their former allegiance to the older parties. It is true that Mayor Schmitz was reëlected

184 The author is indebted to Walter Macarthur, editor of the Coast Seamen's Journal, for much of the material used in the account of the political activities of the labor unions.

by a vote of 26,050 in a total of 59,767, thus showing a gain in strength. One supervisor, who owed his success to the support of the saloons, and a few candidates receiving endorsements of the older parties, were also elected to municipal offices. But in the state elections there was a decided loss of strength. One Superior Judge who ran on both the Democratic and Union Labor tickets, three assemblymen and three senators carrying the Republican endorsement were successful. The congressional representation secured two years before was also lost.

But in 1905 there was a sudden accession of strength which gave the Union Labor party complete control of the San Francisco municipal government. An analysis of the causes of this success would take us far from the history of the labor movement, and necessitate an examination of the manifold sources of corruption in the government of American cities. The Union Labor party had been managed from the outset by a very able and utterly corrupt boss. The use of the great power of the Mayor's office for four years had made possible the development of a powerful political machine. From the outset the administration of the Union Labor Mayor had been subjected to hostile criticism. During his second term there was much circumstantial evidence in support of the charges of graft, but a thorough Grand Jury investigation failed to reveal any ground for the indictment of the leaders of the party, so it was easy to convince its many honest supporters that Schmitz was the victim of class prejudice and malicious persecution.

The Union Labor ticket was opposed by a combined ticket of Democrats and Republicans. While this fusion party made graft the chief issue of the campaign, and was nominally a movement of reform, it soon became evident that it was largely an effort of politicians to regain their power, and it failed to arouse any enthusiastic belief in its ability or sincerity. The influence of the party was also weakened by the fact that the Citizens' Alliance, an organization which was regarded as the successor of the Employers' Association, lost no opportunity to make known its support. By emphasizing this connection the managers of the Union Labor party were able to appeal to all the passions aroused in the previous struggle.