The Survey, Volume 30, Number 3, Apr 19, 1913

The strikers claim that the new system will cause unemployment, as did the installation of the two loom system together with other improvements in the mechanical equipment of the loom some years ago, and that the logical consequence will be the employment of unskilled women and children in place of the skilled weaver, and a forcing down of the level of wages until the Paterson average of $11.69, as given in the federal report for the year 1908, becomes as low as the Pennsylvania average of $6.56. As the percentage of women employed in Paterson mills has increased in the last few years and as the average of wages given out by the manufacturers this year is under $10, there is basis for these fears. Nor do the manufacturers deny these possibilities; they claim that the loss of skill is an inevitable accompaniment of improved processes, and the replacing of men by women and children is only in line with the development in all the textile trades.

Some of the claims of the strikers are thus summarized by the Paterson Evening News:

“The best information obtainable appears to show that the alleged mechanical advantages of the new system have not proved themselves sufficient to offset the additional strain to which the care of three or four looms subjects the weavers; that the premium wages first paid as an inducement to users of the system have been pared down; that at present a day’s work under the system is proportionately less well paid than a day’s work at two looms; and, finally, that the wages of two loom workers have been depressed with the scaling down of the piece-rate paid to the three and four loom workers.”

In spite of the fact that it is only the large manufacturers who propose to install the new system, the strike is general. The multiple looms, which are large and equipped with automatic devices, can only be installed in large mills. By this system cheap silks alone can be made; the smaller mills must use the Jacquard or other small looms fitted to the making of the fancy grades of silk for which Paterson is famous. The small manufacturer, therefore, does not fear the installation of the new system in the large mills; but he does feel strongly that he has a grievance toward the workers in his mills who struck sympathetically for a wrong not their own.

But it is a very real fear that the entire industry will be undermined that has made the workers stand together, regardless of individual grievances.

While the desire to keep up with industrial progress and to realize large profits is the reason for the importing of the four loom system into Paterson; the desire to save their present standard of living and prevent their industry from coming into the hands of women and children like the other textile trades is the reason for the workers’ opposition. Today Pennsylvania and New Jersey present different phases of the industry, and New Jersey has had a higher wage standard; tomorrow with the triumph of the four loom system they may tend to an equalization of conditions.

The outstanding features in the strike now in its seventh week are lack of violence and disorder, the refusal of the employers to meet or confer with the strikers, aggressive repression by the police and the city government and the efforts of citizens to bring about a settlement. Although practically all the workers in the major industry of the city are on strike, there has been little disorderly conduct attributable to the strikers. There have been reports of the breaking of a window by a stone in a house occupied by a boss dyer and at least one attempt was made to damage a house by means of a bomb, but responsibility for these acts has not been fixed.

CITY OFFICIALS ADOPT REPRESSIVE MEASURES

In striking contrast to the order maintained by the rank and file of the strikers, there have been actions on the part of the city officials that leading newspapers outside of the strike district have not hesitated to characterize as anarchical. Soon after the strike began and it became known that it was to be conducted under the auspices of the I. W. W., the police began to arrest strike leaders and others who addressed meetings of strikers, regardless of whether they had yet been guilty of any illegal act. Several of them were held in jail for a time and then so great was the outcry raised that for a period of two or three weeks these tactics were abandoned.

On Sunday, March 30, however, the police resumed their former tactics. William D. Haywood, the leader of the strike, had announced that he would speak at an open air meeting, and a large crowd gathered to hear him. As Haywood was going to the meeting place to speak he was approached by members of the police force. They told him that the chief of police had issued an order forbidding any out-door meeting. According to all reports, including testimony given by the police authorities themselves, Haywood acquiesced at once and passed the word to the assemblage that the meeting would take place in Haledon, an independent borough just outside the city limits of Paterson. Accordingly, Haywood started to walk down the street in the direction of Haledon and he was followed by the crowd. Just before he reached the city limits, a patrol wagon bore down upon him. Together with Lessig, another strike leader, he was arrested, taken before the Recorder’s Court, charged with disorderly conduct and unlawful assemblage under the English act of 1635. After being held in jail in lieu of $5,000 bail, both were found guilty of unlawful assemblage and were sentenced by the recorder to six months’ imprisonment.

A writ of certiorari was immediately sought by Haywood’s attorneys and a hearing on this appeal was held by Supreme Court Justice Minturn. When the evidence, most of it furnished by the police department, was in, Justice Minturn ordered the release of Haywood and Lessig. He was unable to find that there had been any unlawful assemblage. The evidence tended rather to show that Haywood was co-operating with the authorities in an endeavor to carry out their orders. At the time of this resumption of their activity the police began also to arrest pickets. From twenty to one hundred a day were taken to headquarters. After Judge Minturn’s decision, all those held in jail were discharged. Since then, while the arrest of pickets has gone steadily on, Recorder Carroll has refused to hold them.

Throughout the strike to date the manufacturers have consistently refused to meet with a committee of strikers or to discuss terms with them in any way. At one time a delegation of clergymen endeavored to get them to meet a committee of strikers in order to discuss grievances. This suggestion was instantly voted down. Last week, when a public meeting of citizens was held to consider whether or not the strike could be brought to an end, the manufacturers, through their representative, stated their position in just two propositions: First, the employers will refuse to meet any committee of strikers “dominated as they are by the I. W. W.”; second, they will meet any of their individual employes “who are not dominated by the I. W. W.”

All along there has been a lively public interest in the strike. Ministers and public-spirited citizens have at different times endeavored to ascertain the underlying causes and to co-operate in restoring harmonious relations. These efforts reached their most formal stage when last week at the call of the president of the Board of Aldermen a public meeting was held in the high school auditorium on Wednesday evening to which employers, strikers, church organizations, the board of trade, organizations of bankers and professional men, and the general public were invited. Representatives of the strikers explained their grievances, a single representative of the employers stated their position as just quoted, and the ministerial association came forward with a proposal for a legislative investigation. Finally, a committee of the Board of Aldermen proposed in a series of resolutions that a committee of fifteen be appointed to discuss a basis upon which the strike could be settled, the committee to consist of five representatives of the strikers, five representatives of employers and five men to be appointed from the membership of the Board of Aldermen. The resolution was passed by the unanimous vote of an audience two-thirds of which were strikers. The strikers appointed their committee. But the employers, in line with their official policy which has been against any meeting with any body of men even to discuss a settlement, refused to do so.