quist (Sweden), but by Legien, Bauer and Sassenbach (Germany), Hueber (Austria), Jasza (Hungary) and Sakaroff (Bulgaria), as well as by representatives from Denmark, Norway and Finland, inviting the American Federation to an adjourned meeting. They received a non-committal cable in reply asking what international trade union centers were to be invited. The reader cannot escape the impression that the presence of socialists rather than of Germans in such an international gathering was Gompers' reliable touchstone! He cabled Appleton that it was impossible for him to answer the invitation definitely at once; meanwhile he would be pleased to have word from him. The adverse position of the British Federation was learned, and the executive council of the A. F. of L. on June 27 in turn rejected the trade union Stockholm project "as premature and untimely"; it could "lead to no good purpose." 1

None the less, in May, James Duncan, first vice-president of the American Federation of Labor, had carried a letter of greeting from American labor to the "workers and people" of Russia, as a member of the Root Mission, and on June 13, Gompers cabled him:

Cablegrams from Petrograd published in American newspapers of June II contain information that a conference has been called at Petrograd to consider advisability of calling a congress of socialistic bodies and federations of trade unions of the world. The credential issued to you by Executive Council, American Federation of Labor, authorizes you to participate in such conference, and if invited, you are advised to accept and participate. The American Federation of Labor is the most democratically organized and controlled labor movement in the world, and of course you will insist upon acceptance of fundamental principles of democracy for every country; also the necessity for all the peoples of each country, large and small, to live their own lives and work out their own destiny. The cause for which America entered the war was to safeguard these principles, and much as we desire peace, no false notions should prevail. The world cannot longer endure half autocracy and half democracy; either the one or the other will prevail, and American labor is in the fight for the destruction of autocracy and for the victorious universal establishment and maintenance of democracy.

In July (1917) the cables to America fairly hummed with invitations from Huysmans at Stockholm, inviting the A. F. of L. 'Human nature cropped out in the concluding paragraph of Gompers' reply to Lindquist :

"If an international trade union conference is to be held, it should be at a more opportune time than the present or the immediate future, and in any event the proposals of the American Federation of Labor for international conference should receive further and more sympathetic consideration. Shall be glad to continue correspondence."

to the postponed international conference called by the socialist neutrals in regard to which Gompers wanted more information; from Jouhaux at Paris (July 23), asking his opinion on the summoning of "all organized factions by the Russian Soviet,"—which Gompers held could not "at this time or in the near future be productive of good"; from Appleton, at London, urging the A. F. of L. to attend the inter-Allied trade union conference he had arranged with the French C. G. T. for September 10 in London,— which, as we have noted, Gompers accepted; from Henderson, at London (July 26), inviting delegates to an Inter-Allied and Socialist Conference of August 8-to which Gompers cabled regrets as the time was too short; and from Henderson in reply, setting the dates over to August 28 and 29. Nor were dates the only thing at issue.1 Clearly there was a jurisdictional dispute on, such as has been the order of business in labor conventions since the beginning of time, but on an international scale worthy of such past masters as Gompers and Henderson. Gompers wanted to bar out the American Socialists and bring in the British General Federation. Henderson replied that they would not "exclude American Socialist Party" and "that the Labour Party and the Trades Union Congress represented British organized labor." As a matter of fact, Henderson's August (1917), conference did not get anywhere [Chapter II], Apple

1 Gompers' reply read:

"It is possible American Federation of Labor delegates can reach London August 28, and if entering into conference cannot submit to representation of any other body claiming to represent United States Workers. American Trade Union movement has three and one-half million members and cannot divide responsibility with any other body claiming to represent American labor movement."

In the meantime Appleton had cabled:

"General Federation of Trade Unions not consulted concerning Labour Party Conference. Russian delegates made no communication officially or unofficially to Jouhaux or myself. Management committee still opposed to conference with enemy delegates unless conference is preceded by German government's undertaking to evacuate France and Belgium and make reparation."

Gompers replied to Appleton:

"Your cablegram received. Have also received cablegram from Henderson strongly urging our federation delegates to attend conference 28, 29. I have sent him following cable reply:

"Appleton informs me neither British General Federation Trade Unions of Jouhaux of Confédération Générale du Travail, France, have been consulted in calling or preparing for or participating in the conference your party has called. How can American Federation of Labor regard such a conference as representing labor?

66

'Our delegates will attend London conference labor representatives of Allied countries beginning September 10. Delegates are John Golden, James Lord.'”

ton's September (1917) conference apparently died aborning; and it was a full year before the American Federation of Labor and the two great British bodies sat in session together. Then each dominant group, apparently by tacit agreement and against the manoeuvering of the British right on the one hand, and the French left, on the other, was left master in its own house. Neither the American Socialists nor the British Federation as such were among those present!

But this American-Allied conference (London, September, 1918; Chapter XXII) was a reconvened meeting of that InterAllied Labour and Socialist Conference (London, February, 1918, Chapter VIII) which the British had built up in the teeth of bitter resistance and prejudice when, at Blackpool, they determined to make a fresh start, distinct on the one hand from the efforts to secure an international socialist conference along pre-war lines at Stockholm and distinct, on the other hand, from the efforts to secure an international trade union conference along pre-war lines at Berne. It was this new front of Allied labor, closed ranks of socialists and trade unionists alike, resistant to German militarism and insistent on outflanking it with an offensive of democratic ideas, which, throughout the intervening twelve months, American labor was "out of."

THE BREAK ON PROCEDURE

Throughout this period (September, 1917-September, 1918) the British leaders believed they were in close step with President Wilson in their war aims and cited the common ground covered by their memorandum of December 27, 1917, and his fourteen points of January 8, 1918. At a time when the American president was taking the lead in a freer and more democratic statesmanship, American labor hung back in throwing its weight alongside Allied labor in the new alignment of the forces for democracy among the Allied nations.

True, at its Buffalo convention in November, 1917, the American Federation of Labor had adopted the following formulation of peace

terms:

1. The combination of the free peoples of the world in a common covenant for genuine and practical coöperation to secure justice and therefore peace in relations between nations.

2. Governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed.

3. No political or economic restrictions meant to benefit some nations and to cripple or embarrass others.

4. No indemnities or reprisals based upon vindictive purposes or deliberate desire to injure, but to right manifest wrongs.

5. Recognition of the rights of small nations and of the principle, "No people must be forced under sovereignty under which it does not wish to live."

6. No territorial changes or adjustment of power except in furtherance of the welfare of the peoples affected and in furtherance of world peace.

In addition to these basic principles, which are based upon declarations of our President of these United States, there should be incorporated in the treaty that shall constitute the guide of nations in the new period and conditions into which we enter at the close of the war the following declarations fundamental to the best interests of all nations and of vital importance to wage-earners:

I. No article or commodity shall be shipped or delivered in international commerce in the production of which children under the age of 16 have been employed or permitted to work.

2. It shall be declared that the basic workday in industry and commerce shall not exceed eight hours.

3. Involuntary servitude shall not exist except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. 4. Establishment of trial by jury.

Early in the new year (1918), British labor sent out its invitations to the Inter-Allied Labour and Socialist Conference in London in February. On the receipt of such an invitation, the executive council of the A. F. of L. drew up a statement on "Labor's War Aims" which contained this paragraph:

The common people everywhere are hungry for wider opportunities to live. They have shown their willingness to spend or be spent for an ideal. They are in this war for ideals. Those ideals are best expressed by their chosen representative in a message delivered to the Congress of the United States January 8, setting forth the program of the world's peace. President Wilson's statement of war aims has been unreservedly endorsed by British organized labor. It is in absolute harmony with the fundamentals endorsed by the Buffalo convention of the American Federation of Labor.

But this statement of the Executive Council (published in the March Federationist) went outside the formulation of war aims at the Buffalo convention of the A. F. of L. in November, and took a position on the question of procedure. This position was adverse to that adopted the same month (February) by Allied labor at London: it discarded the weapon of labor diplomacy. To quote:

We regret that circumstances make impossible continuous close personal relations between the workers of America and those of

the allied countries, and that we cannot have representation in the Inter-Allied Labour Conference about to convene in London.

Their cause and purpose are our cause and purpose. We cannot meet with representatives of those who are aligned against us in this world war for freedom, but we hope they will sweep away the barriers which they have raised between us. Freedom and the downfall of autocracy must come in Middle Europe.

We doubly welcome the change if it come through the workers of those countries. . . .

Just there was the crux of the whole British labor procedureto provoke that change by massing and transmitting evidences of unselfish intentions, coupled with assurances of fair play, should the German workers assert themselves toward the same ends. Shut off themselves for four years from free communication, the British workers did not have to be told how ignorance befriended reaction. Nationalists themselves, they did not have to be told how lack of such assurances must put a damper on political uprising even against an autocracy. These things played into the hands of the Junkers, no less than piling up recriminations and threats which drove a people back upon its instinct for self-defense. The position taken by the American Federation of Labor was of a sort to stall what to the British workers seemed the best chance for getting the contrary message through. They might well have quoted a passage from President Wilson's address at the Buffalo convention:-"A settlement is never impossible when both sides want to do the square and right thing." They wanted to do the square and right thing. But did the German workers know this? They proposed to tell them. Did the German workers want to do the square and right thing? They did not know. And they proposed to find out. The President was talking of labor conflicts, but it was after all their experience in labor conflicts which they were applying to the great war. "Moreover," the President went on,

a settlement is always hard to avoid when the parties can be brought face to face. I can differ from a man much more radically when he is not in the room than I can when he is in the room, because then the awkward thing is he can come back at me and answer what I say. It is always dangerous for a man to have the floor entirely to himself. Therefore, we must insist in every instance that the parties come into each other's presence and there discuss the issues between them and not separately in places which have no communiIcation with each other.

1

In the invitation to the American Federation to be represented 1

The American Socialist Party was specifically excluded from this invitation, to meet the position taken by the A. F. of L.