Reply to John Mitchell

              Reply to John Mitchell
By
EUGENE V. DEBS
Sixty copies of this book, or sixty socialist books
no two alike, mailed for $ 1.00
CHICAGO
CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY
CO- OPERATIVE
SOCIALIST PERIODICALS
The International Socialist Review is the greatest
Socialist monthly in the world, and is the only
illustrated magazine that is of, by and for the working
class. Every month it publishes articles telling of the
recent events that most vitally affect wage- workers,
together with photographs from the scene of action.
Circulation doubled twice within two years. Ten cents
a copy; $ 1.00 a year. To Canada, $ 1.20 a year: to
other countries, $ 1.36
The Chicago Daily Socialist gives six times a week
the real news that the capitalist dailies suppress. $ 3.00
a year, $ 1.00 for four months. For sample copy ad-dress
Workers’ Puhlishing Society, 180 Washington
street. Chicago.
The Appeal to Reason is the greatest Socialist
weekly in the world. It has half a million circulation
and is steadily climbing toward a million. For sample
copy address J. A. Wayland, Girard, Kansas
Three for the Price of One. For $ 3.00 we will
mail to any address in the United States the Review a
year, the Daily a year, and the Appeal forty weeks.
We do not receive subscriptions for the Daily or
Appeal to foreign countries.
CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY
118 West Kinzie Street, Chicago.
REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL
BY EUGENE V. DEBS
The fifteenth annual convention of the United Mine
Workers of America met at Indianapolis, Ind., January
18th and continued in session to and including January
27, 1904.
The regular convention was followed by a special
session. ( from March 5th to March 7th inclusive) made
necessary by the failure of the regular convention to
effect a satisfactory’ renewal of the interstate
agreement with the operators which expired March 31,
1904.
For a time a strike seemed imminent, there being
intense opposition to the wage- reduction which the
Operators declared to be their ultimatum.
The convention rejected the ultimatum of the
operators, but the matter was finally referred to the
local unions, and the latter, yielding to the
importunities of the national officers, voted to accept
the terms of the operator; and the threatened strike was
averted.
A few days later Eugene V. Debs wrote the
following letter in reference to the matter which
appeared in the Social Democratic Herald of
Milwaukee, Wis , in its issue of April 9, 1904:
MR. DEBS.
Terre Haute, Ind., March 31, 1904.
To the S. D. Herald:
Now that the threatened coal strike has ended in a
tame surrender, and a two years’
3
4 REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL
scale at a reduction of wages has been virtually forced
upon the miners by a coalition of their leaders with the
operators, a certain small and obscure press dispatch—
a mere word to the wise, yet sufficient at the time—
takes on immense significance.
The delegates to the late Indianapolis convention of
miners whom I had occasion to address, will no doubt
remember my words, and those who were angered
because I told them in plain terms what has since come
true almost to the letter, will perhaps be willing to
forgive me.
But to the dispatch. Here it is just as it was sent out
by the Associated Press from Pittsburg under date of
March 6, and just as it appeared in the morning dailies
of that date:
“ Pittsburg, Pa., March 6— The Post tomorrow will
say:
“ There was by no means a hopeless split among
the returning coal operators from the Indianapolis
convention with the miners which closed Saturday
with a disagreement.
From the best of authority the Post was informed
yesterday that the break in the negotiations between
the two interests is not a permanent one and that by
March 21, another meeting of joint sub- committees
will be held quietly. The whole matter will again he
discussed among them and a solution to the present
difficulty sought. It was further said that there was
every reason for believing that the ultimate end of the
whole matter would be the acceptance of the lower rate
by the miners, or the 85 cents a ton base for pick
mining, for the next two years.”
Here we have it that operators knew in advance that
there would be no strike and that the miners would
accept the reduction. and this they knew
notwithstanding the fact the convention, by a solid
vote at the states had refused to accept the reduction
and virtually declared for a strike.
Let us examine the situation a moment. The
REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL 5
joint convention of miners and operators adjourned
sine die March 5. No agreement had been reached. All
negotiations were ended. A strike, so the papers
declared, was inevitable. Only a miracle could prevent
it.
The miners and operators returned to their homes.
Preparations began for war. It was at this juncture that
the above dispatch went out from Pittsburg. It was
doubtless intended as a ‘ tip” to the capitalists and stock
gamblers of the country, and was issued immediately
upon the return of the Pennsylvania operators from the
Indianapolis convention.
Pittsburg, be it remembered, is the home of
President Robbins of the Pittsburg Coal Co. and floor
leader and spokesman of the operators in all joint
conventions with the miners. It is quite evident,
therefore, that “ the best of authority” quoted in the
above dispatch was none other than Robbins and it is
equally evident that he knew what he was talking
about, for his prediction of surrender, made in face of
the fact that the national convention had virtually
declared for war, was fulfilled to the letter.
The question is, did Robbins. chief of the operators
have an understanding with Mitchell, president of the
miners? It must be admitted that it looks that way.
Proof may be lacking, but the circumstances combine
to make that conclusion almost inevitable.
When the miners first met in convention President
Mitchell and the other leaders were quite aggressive.
They were going to sweep all opposition before them
and get what they wanted for they had an organization
that could and would carry the day.
A set of demands. including increased wages, was at
once formulated and the performance began, Mitchell,
taking the floor for the
6 REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL
miners, proved by the facts and figures that they were
asking only what was reasonable, that the financial
reports of the coal companies showed large increases
in profits over the preceding years, that the operators
could well afford to make the concessions and that
they, the miners, were “ terribly in earnest” and that
the United Mine Workers of America would under
no possible circumstances “ take a backward step.”
As the fight progressed the leaders of the miners
made one concession after another until they’ had
finally surrendered everything. But the operators
were not satisfied. They had come with love in their
hearts and a made- to- order, warranted- to- fit
reduction of wages in their grips, just because they
were all in the same economic class and their in-terests
were therefore identical, and to prove it they
permitted their own leaders to scale down the bulging
wages of the opulent coal diggers.
But the delegates, having given up everything.
balked at last. Even Mitchell’s “ masterful effort” in
behalf of the operators fell flat.
The reduction would not go down.
The convention voted to fight and the delegates
went home to prepare for hostilities.
Now read the dispatch again in the light of what
followed.
As soon as the convention adjourned, the leaders
of the miners began to work upon the rank and file,
very many of whom are so pitifully ignorant that they
look upon a union official as a Chinaman does upon
his Joss.
President Mitchell, from being “ terribly in earnest”
in behalf of the miners, became the special pleader of
the operators.
Oh, what a transformation!
REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL 7
Mitchell, the labor leader, and Robbins, the labor
exploiter, pooling issues and joining hands to force
down the wages of the mine slaves!
Oh, what a spectacle!
With all possible haste the national and state
leaders made their rounds among the faithful. The
“ dangerous” locals and districts were all visited and
mass meetings held to save. the operators.
The slaves had instinctively rebelled against the
wage cut, and the rebellion must be put down by their
own leaders if they expected the plaudits of the
capitalist exploiters and the “ well done” of the pulpit,
press and public.
Alternate pleas, warnings and threats were- turned
on until the fires were put out and the day was saved
for the operators.
Only a little while ago Gompers warned the
capitalists that reductions of wages would not be
tolerated and solemnly enjoined his followers to resist
to the last.
Mitchell, Shaffer and other lieutenants of Gompers
are the active allies of the capitalists in enforcing
reductions.
Watch the developments!
To conclude: The United Mine Workers of
America has been struck by lightning.
Eugene V. Debs.
This letter was answered by Mr. John Mitchell and
his colleagues in a communication which appeared in
the same paper on May 21, 1904, as follows:
MR MITCHELL AND HIS COLLEAGUES.
Indianapolis, Ind., May 7, 1904.
Editor Social- Democratic Herald:
In your issue of April 9th you publish an
8 REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL
article over the signature of Eugene V. Debs
containing a mass of misstatements with the apparent
purpose of making your readers believe that the
officials of the United Mine Workers of America, and
particularly President Mitchell have betrayed the trust
reposed in them by their constituents by using their
official position for the benefit of the employers
instead of for the welfare of the employees.
Mr. Debs’ knowledge of mining affairs is limited,
by virtue of his lack of time and opportunity for
personal investigation, and must of necessity be
general and superficial. He has not sufficient
knowledge of the mining industry to be a competent
critic of our trade politics, and yet, if he had confined
himself to a criticism of those policies, they might
have passed unchallenged, so far as we are con-cerned.
But when, without investigation of the facts,
he takes an Associated Press dispatch, distorts it to
suit his own purpose and jumbles it up with a number
of other things that never existed except in his own
diseased imagination, in order to prove that the
officials of the United Mine Workers are dishonest,
we believe that justice to ourselves and the
organization we represent demands that his
statements shall be refuted and his purpose laid bare.
Men of experience in the labor movement usually
pass by, unheeded, the insinuations circulated by the
paid agents of capital for the purpose of destroying
their influence and weakening the power of resistance
of their organization, but, when those insinuations are
uttered and circulated by a man who for years has
leaned upon the sympathies of the wage workers as
the crucified martyr of a lost
REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL 9
cause, the halo of glory he has painted about himself
cannot shield him from the contempt of honest men.
What is this wonderful press dispatch around which
Mr. Debs’ imagination has built such a magnificent
net work? We reproduce it from his own article:
“ Pittsburg, Pa., March 6, 1904.
“ There was by no means a hopeless spirit among
the returning coal operators from the Indianapolis
convention which the miners closed Saturday with a
disagreement.
From the best authority the Post was informed
yesterday that the break in the negotiations between
the two interests is not a permanent one and that by
March 21st another meeting of joint sub- committees
will be held quietly. The whole matter will again be
discussed among them and a solution to the present
difficulty sought. It was further said that there was
every reason for believing that the ultimate end of the
whole matter would be the acceptance of the lower
rate by the miners, or the 85 cents a ton base for pick
mining, for the next two years.
“ Here,” says Mr. Debs, “ we have it that the
operators knew in advance that there would be no
strike.” That statement is false. The dispatch does not
assert that the operators knew there would be no
strike and nothing but a warped mind could so
construe it. The United Mine Workers convention on
March 7th passed a resolution submitting the ac-ceptance
or rejection of the ultimatum of the
operators to a referendum vote of the members
affected. The vote was taken on the afternoon of
March 15th. It was sent by the local tellers in sealed
envelopes to national headquarters, and these
envelopes were not opened until the national tellers
opened them on March 17th. It would have been
impossible for the Pittsburg correspondent, Frank
Robbins, John Mitchell, or even the versatile and
prophetic Mr. Debs to have known on
10 REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL
March 6th what the result of that vote would be.
That is misstatement No. 1 refuted.
In a subsequent interview in the Terre Haute
Sunday Tribune Mr. Debs dares anyone to put his
finger on a single word that is not true or deny a
single allegation. There is scarcely a truthful
statement in the entire article. Let us be specific. The
joint convention of Miners and Operators adjourned
sine die March 5th. No agreement had been reached,
but negotiations were not broken off as asserted by
Mr. Debs. When it became apparent that the
operators would not move from their final pro-position
of five and fifty- five one hundredths per
cent, reduction, and the miners must either accept that
proposition or strike, the sub- scale committee,
composed of two delegates from each of the four
states represented, selected by the representatives
from those states, and eight operators selected in a
similar manner, publicly withdrew from the
conference for a few minutes and held a consultation.
As the miners had not yet decided upon their line of
policy and might not be able to do so for some time,
it was decided that the scale committee should re-convene
on March 21st at which time the operators
would be notified whether the miners had decided to
strike or not. Consequently negotiations were con-tinued.
This is misstatement No. 2 refuted.
Mr. Debs says. “ The miners and operators returned
to their homes. Preparations began for war. It was at
this juncture that the above dispatch went out from
Pittsburg.”
The dispatch was sent out from Pittsburg March
6th. The miners’ convention did not
REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL 11
adjourn until March 7th and the delegates could not
have been at home preparing for war at the time
alleged.
That is misstatement No. 3 refuted.
Again Mr. Debs says, ‘ Pittsburg, be it re-membered,
is the home of President Robbins of the
Pittsburg Coal Co. and the floor leader and
spokesman of the operators in all the joint
conventions with the miners. It is quite evident,
therefore, that ‘ the best authority,’ quoted in the
above dispatch, was none other than Mr. Robbins.”
When the joint convention adjourned on March 5th
the miners immediately went into convention to
outline their policy. It did not finish its work until the
afternoon of March 7th. A delegation of operators
remained in Indianapolis awaiting the result. Frank
Robbins was one of that delegation. He did not leave
Indianapolis until the evening of March 7th and could
not, therefore, have been the returning coal operator
quoted in the dispatch.
That is misstatement No. 4 refuted.
We quote further from Mr. Debs, “ The national
convention had ( On March 5th) virtually declared for
war” and further on he says: “ The convention voted
to fight and the delegates went home to prepare for
hostilities.” It had done nothing of the kind. Mr. Debs
knows as well as any man that the declaring of a
strike does not always mean success to the strikers.
His experience in 1894 is conclusive proof of that
fact. A repetition of the strike of 1894 would have
been as disastrous to the United Mine Workers of
America as that strike was to the American Railway
Union. Many of the delegates believed that it would
be better for the miners to accept the reduction
offered than to take the chances of war, es
12 REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL
pecially when the employers had selected the battle
ground, but they were bound by instructions and
could not violate them. When the officials were
approached by these delegates they advised them to
obey their instructions. To meet this situation the
convention on March 5th selected a committee
composed of two members from each district to
formulate plans to meet the crisis. The committee
reported on March 7th and recommended that the
ultimatum of the operators be submitted to the miners
affected for their acceptance or rejection, the vote to
be taken between the hours of one and six P. M. of
March 15th, and the mines to be idle that afternoon in
order to give every member an opportunity to vote
who desired to. The officials supported that pro-position
and it was agreed to by the convention. It
will thus be seen that there was no virtual declaration
of war on March 5th and that the convention had not
voted to fight.
That is misstatement No. 5 refuted.
These are the alleged truths upon which Mr. Debs
builds his flimsy insinuations and attempts to destroy
the reputation of honest men. We have refuted them.
Every delegate who attended the convention knows
our statements are true. There was no secrecy about
these actions. If Mr. Debs had wanted to know the
truth, a simple investigation would have revealed it to
him. It is very evident that he was not seeking for the
truth. The innuendoes used by Mr. Debs clearly
prove this assertion. Here are some of them:
“ The question is, did Robbins, chief of the
operators, have an understanding with Mitchell,
president of the miners?”
“ But the delegates, having given up every-
REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL 13
thing, balked at last. Even Mitchell’s ‘ masterful effort’
in behalf of the operators fell flat.”
“ As soon as the convention adjourned the leaders of
the miners began to work upon the rank and file, many
of whom are so pitifully ignorant that they look upon a
union official as a Chinaman does upon his Joss.”
‘ Mitchell the labor leader, and Robbins, the labor
exploiter, pooling issues and joining hands to force
down the wages of the mine slaves. Oh, what a
transformation!”
There is some more along the same line, but that is
the gist of it. Neither Mr. Debs nor any other person
ever heard Mr. Mitchell make a “ masterful” or any
other kind of an effort in behalf of the operators. Every
effort he has ever made has been in behalf of the wage
workers. The miners have something substantial to
show for these efforts in directing their organization.
Even after the reduction they have accepted has been
taken off they have over seventy per cent, higher
wages than they had in 1897, from two to four hours
per day less labor, improved conditions in the mines,
and the privilege of expressing their opinion on all
social, political and religious questions without fear of
discharge. We doubt very much if Mr. Debs with all
his organizing ability, dynamic energy, prophetic
vision and brilliant oratory can show results for his
labor equivalent to these for the present generation of
men. If higher wages, shorter hours, healthier and safer
conditions of employment and greater freedom of
speech is the result of “ pooling issues with Robbins,
the labor exploiter,” it would seem to be a very
profitable pool for the wage workers. But Debs knows
that no such pool exists. He knows, or at least ought to
know, that these
14 REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL
results have been obtained through a strong
organization intelligently directed. If we were
disposed to use the same methods as Mr. Debs we
could with perfect propriety assert that “ Proof may be
lacking, but the circumstances combine to make the
conclusion almost inevitable” that he is being paid by
the operators to destroy the United Mine Workers in
order that the operators may dominate the miners as
they did prior to 1897. We would not be mean
enough to even insinuate such a thing. Debs asserts
that many of the miners are “ so pitifully ignorant that
they look upon a union official as a Chinaman does
upon his Joss.” He knew that statement was wrong
when he made it. There are degrees of intelligence
amongst miners as there is amongst all classes of
people. Taken as a whole their intelligence will
compare favorably with any of our citizens, rich or
poor. They are men that cannot be led about by the
whims of anybody. Any proposition presented to
them for consideration must appeal to their intelli-gence
before they will support it, and they do not
hesitate to take issue with a union official whenever
in their judgment the union official is wrong. Some
of them undoubtedly love and respect their officials,
but not one can be found who looks upon them as a
deity or as a Chinaman looks upon his Joss.
The entire expression is an insult to men who are
the equals of Mr. Debs physically, morally and
intellectually. He speaks about the prophecy made in
his speech at Indianapolis during the Mine Workers’
convention. What was that prophecy. He asserted that
we had reached the crest of the wave of so- called
industrial activity, that the turn of the tide was
downward, and no matter how strong
REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL 15
our organization might he; we would be compelled to
accept reductions in our wages. This prophecy was
made while negotiations were pending with the
operators and they were still insisting upon a reduction
of fifteen per cent. If Mr. Mitchell had made a public
utterance of that kind at the time Mr. Debs made it, the
miners would have been compelled to accept a fifteen
per cent reduction instead of a five and one- half per
cent. The public can judge for itself who is the person
that betrayed his trust, whether it was Mr. Debs, who
announced that the miners must accept a reduction
when the operators were clamoring for fifteen per cent
off, or Mr. Mitchell, who fought the issue until the last
possible penny had been obtained. Mr. Debs
apparently assumes that as a friend of the miners it was
his duty to inform them of the perfidy of their officials.
What a wonderful friendship his must be. The position
of Mr. Mitchell and his associates was expressed in the
miners’ convention of March 5th and was carried by
the afternoon papers of that date. The dispatch which
he quotes was published in the morning papers of
March 6th. On March 7th the mine workers’ con-vention
decided to submit the acceptance or rejection
of the proposition to the miners themselves, and
instructed the national officials to send a copy of their
recommendation to every local union. If Mr. Debs was
the friend of the miners that he pretends to be, and if
he had any proof of dishonesty on the part of the
officials, or of collusion between them and the
operators to reduce the wages of the miners, he should
have furnished them the evidence of it before the vote
was taken. Mr. Debs had no such proof and we know
that it did not exist.
16 REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL
When the bituminous miners of Indiana in
convention at Terre Haute, knowing the facts, passed
a resolution condemning the action of Mr. Debs, he
immediately began to whine. In the interview
published in the Terre Haute Sunday Tribune, above
referred to, he asserts that “ Labor may always be
relied upon to crucify its friends.” What a woeful
wail coming from the lips of a man who started the
cry of “ crucify them” against Mr. Mitchell and his
associates.
Much more might be said in reply to the falsities
contained in his article, but enough has been told.
Whether he is alone in this attack or is merely
carrying out a preconcerted plan to destroy the trade
union movement we do not know. He may succeed in
injuring us personally, but the trade union movement
is based upon eternal principles of evolutionary
development and he can no more destroy it or divert
it from the fulfillment of its destiny, than he can
destroy the waters of the Mississippi with a stone or
change its channel with a Chinese chopstick.
JOHN MITCHELL.
T. L. LEWIS.
W. B. WILSON.
This was followed by the reply of Mr. Debs in the
issue of the Social Democratic Herald of June 4th
and republished in the issue of June 25th, as follows:
MR. DEBS.
Terre Haute, Ind.. May 2S, 1904.
To the S. D. Herald:
The brief article I had in the Herald of April 9th in
reference to the wage reduction forced upon the coal
miners by the mine owners, as-
REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL 17
sisted 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 hope-less
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 can not 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 ex-planation
places him in the attitude of a general on
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
18 REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL
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 assure
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 the question.
Let that be conceded. Results remain the same.
Now what are the questions in controversy?
First— In my article of April 9th I incorporated a
press dispatch sent out by the Pittsburg Post on March
6th, saying that it, the Post, had it upon the “ best of
authority” that there would be no strike, that the
miners would accept the reduction and that a two
years’ contract would be signed.
REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL 19
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
at Pittsburg, where the Post is published, and then I
asked, “ Did Robbins, leader of the operators have an
understanding with Mitchell, president of the min-ers,”
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 ad-journment.
The convention adjourned March 7th, 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 saving “ the vote was cast in the face of the
opposition of Presi-
20 REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL
dent 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.
REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL 21
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 high-
22 REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL
est 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
REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL 23
last years 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
24 REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL
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.
REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL 25
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 capitalistic 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 the 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.
26 REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL
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. Mit-chell
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 hundered 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
REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL 27
not because they 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 the 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 capitalist 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
28 REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL
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 es-sential
facts set forth in my article in the Herald of
April 9th 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.
Eugene V. Debs.
REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL 29
Supplementary to the above the following and
final letter of Mr. Debs appeared in the same paper,
July 2, 1904:
MR. DEBS.
Terre Haute. Ind., June 24, 1904.
To the S. D. Herald:
Some time ago I said that John Mitchell, president
of the United Mine Workers, and Francis L. Robbins,
president of the Pittsburg Coal company, understood
each other perfectly in reference to the settlement of
the threatened coal strike which reduced the miners
wages; and that Mr. Robbins and the operators had
the assistance of Mr. Mitchell in enforcing the
reduction and ‘ were able to predict it with accuracy
long before it was finally agreed to by the rank and
file of the miners. Mr. Mitchell denied it over his
signature and Mr. Robbins, according to the
Pittsburg Labor World, said it was a “ contemptible
lie.”
The Pittsburg Dispatch of June 7th has an
extended account of an incident that may not be
corroborative, but it is certainly significant, and like
the proverbial straw, shows which way the wind
blows.
Mr. Mitchell has gone to Europe and it is not my
purpose to attack him in his absence, but simply to
put this incident on record for future reference.
The article in question is headed with a five
column cut of an elaborate banquet scene, the guests
consisting of mine owners, mine workers and
capitalistic politicians. At the table of honor are Mr.
Mitchell and Mr. Robbins, with Patrick Dolan,
district president, between them, as the central figure
and toastmaster of the evening.
30 REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL
Mr. Dolan’s boast is that he has never read a book
on economics and he proves it daily in his works. In a
recent action for libel brought against a local paper by
a couple of organizers for the Socialist Labor Party,
Mr. Dolan testified for the defendant. In answer to a
question he said that Socialism and anarchy were one
and the same thing. Asked how that was, he said:
‘ They are both against the flag.” If the rearmost
straggler in the rank and file were as far advanced as
Mr. Dolan, his leader, the darkness would be
complete and the cause of labor all but hopeless.
Such a leader is conclusive evidence that there are
vast stretches between his followers and daylight.
What Mr. Dolan does not know about labor makes
him hate Socialism and fits him to preside at a
banquet where workers are used as dummies to renew
allegiance to the reign of their masters.
The Dispatch article has the following double
head- lines:
“ MINERS START A BOOM FOR COMBINE
LEADER”—“ F. L. ROBBINS APPROVED FOR
UNITED STATES SENATOR AT DINNER IN
HONOR OF LABOR OFFICIALS’—“ THEIR
GRACEFUL COMPLIMENT.”
The account in part follows:
‘ In the presence of the recipient of the honor, coal
operators and organized coal miners of western
Pennsylvania formally proposed Francis L. Robbins,
president of the Pittsburg Coal company, for the
United States senate at a banquet last night at the
Henry hotel. The banquet was in honor of John
Mitchell, president of the United Mine Workers, and
District Secretary William Dodds, to wish the two
godspeed on a European tour they are about to make
in the
REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL 31
interest of their organization. Even Mitchell joined in
the tribute to Robbins, which was taken up by
others.”
“ Although hailed as the next senator from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Robbins confined his remarks to a
eulogy of Mitchell and Dodds.”
* * *
“ Mitchell and Dodds were presented with
diamond mementoes of the esteem of the operators
and miners.”
“ Secretary Dodds started the Robbins movement.
Dodds is secretary of a district of 37,000 organized
miners. He formally proposed Mr. Robbins for
United States senator. The coal president was cheered
for several minutes. He said he attended the banquet
to do honor to two friends.”
“ The presence of operators and miners,” said Mr.
Robbins, ‘ defines the proper relation between capital
and labor, employer and employed. One thing has led
up to the present slate of affairs: Miners recognize
that conservative men must he placed at the head
of their organization.” * * *
“ If the future shows a change it will be because
labor does not continue to put conservative men at the
head of their organization.”
“ THE ONLY MENACE TO ORGANIZED
LABOR NOW IS SOCIALISM, AND SOCIALISM
MUST BE RELEGATED TO THE REAR.”
“ Mr. Mitchell then spoke and among other things
is reported as saying that:
“ He believes harmonious relations between
organized capital and organized labor can be obtained
without labor surrendering any of its rights or
capitalism surrendering its rights.”
The foregoing appeals strongly for comment,
especially the statement of Mr. Robbins, coal baron
and labor leader, that Socialism is a menace to
organized labor, but I will only say that Mr. Robbins
knows quite well that Socialism is a menace only to
the class suggested by his name and that this prompts
him to assail it while he places diamond decorations
upon the “ conservative” leaders of his coal- digging
wage- slaves.
32 REPLY TO JOHN MITCHELL
The fact that Mr. John Mitchell, labor leader, sees
nothing wrong in accepting a diamond badge from the
rich and designing exploiters of his poor and pilfered
followers; that he evidently has not the least
conception of what such a testimony really symbolizes,
may serve sufficiently in mitigation to shield him from
merited contempt and condemnation.
Eugene V. Debs.
The editions of the Herald containing the letters
were speedily exhausted, and as there seemed to be an
increasing interest in the controversy, it was finally
concluded to publish the correspondnce in pamphlet
form to supply the great demand.