Anna LoPizzo

by

The Great Bread and Rose Strike of 1912 — Conclusion


By the first of March, the 7th week of the strike, it seemed as if the strike would go on forever. Neither side had flinched and no progress was made at any of the meetings held in Boston. But one thing had changed, the federal government became involved. On March 2 the U.S. House Committee on Rules convened a special session to hear testimony about the strike. The mill owners were represented, the unions were represented, and the strikers were represented by about a dozen operatives who had traveled to Washington to give testimony before the committee. The committee was headed by Rep. Robert L. Henry, Democrat from Texas. The committee had nine members in all plus a clerk.

Also on March 1st the mill owners, probably seeing trouble ahead with the federal government’s involvement, offered the strikers a 5% raise. But they were not willing to give in on any of the other strikers’ demands, particularly on the premium system which William Wood characterized as being “all right” just like it was. This was Wood’s response to IWW strike committee member Annie Welzenbach, the only woman on the committee. Ms. Welzenbach responded, “No Mr. Wood, we know that the premium is all wrong.” (“I.W.W. Strikers Firm,” (Lawrence) Evening Tribune, March 2, 1912) The owner of the Brightwood Mill in North Andover whose operatives were not striking, announced on March 4 that he was giving his workers a pay raise immediately. Similar raises soon followed in the mills of New Bedford, another city with many thousands of textile workers. The raises were generally around 5%.

In an attempt to sabotage the strike, the Wood Mill and the Arlington Mill announced 5% pay raises for any operatives who returned to work.

During the month of February, the AFL had given some assistance to the strikers but on March 4th announced it was withdrawing its assistance as it once again took an anti—strike stance.

What follows are excerpts from the U.S. House Rules Committee hearings held from March 2 – 7, 1912. (House of Representatives, 62nd Congress, 2nd Session, Document No. 671 – The Strike At Lawrence, Mass. – Hearings Before The Committee on Rules of the House of Representatives on House Resolutions 409 and 433)

“Statement of Hon. William B. Wilson, A Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania: ‘Mr. Chairman, a few days ago the entire country was startled by the story . . . [that] the police powers of the State of Massachusetts . . . were being used to forcibly prevent the children of strikers from being sent out of the city . . . [to] where homes had been provided for them . . . so far as I know, there has never occurred in the history of trade disputes . . . any conditions approaching or even approximating the conditions which are alleged to exist at Lawrence . . . there is hunger and suffering on the part of those who are making the contest . . . and [they] feel that their children would be better provided for . . . by sending them to the homes of others . . . In my judgment it is the height of cruelty to prevent them from sending these children to such places . . . [and] there should be no power on the part of any State to prevents the parents from sending their children . . . so long as they are not deserting these children . . . ‘”

At this point a long series of resolutions from cities and states from around the U.S. are read into the record. Each resolution is a condemnation of the treatment of the strikes and a number of resolutions asking Congress to send monetary aid to the strikers, among other things.

During the afternoon session the committee heard the testimony of Samuel Lipson, a skilled worker from Lawrence who worked in the Wood Mill. He was questioned by Rep. Victor Berger of Wisconsin, a socialist. Lipson was queried about his pay, his hours and the regularity of his work. Then he was asked by Rep. Berger:

Berger: “Were the strikers clubbed (by the police)?

Lipson: “[yes but] it always happened that the police started the trouble.”

Berger: “In other words, it was sufficient to be a striker in order to be a criminal in the eyes of the police of Lawrence?”

Lipson: “Yes sir.”

Berger: “That was the crime?”

Lipson: “Yes; and that is why the trouble always starts, you know.”

Berger: “Now, just tell me, do you know the name of the woman that was killed?”

Lipson: “Anna Lapizzo.”

Berger: “Who killed her?”

Lipson: “I will tell you . . . our witness swore (at the Ettor trial) that they saw the policeman, Benoit, fire from his revolver and the shot that killed the woman. . .”

(Later in his testimony)

Lipson: “And some other ministers tried to speak to their people against the strike, saying if the did not return to work they would never be in heaven . . .”

Berger: “No ministers on your side?”

Lipson: “No.”

(still later)

Berger: “[in court] You mean the striker does not get credence? His evidence is not believed in court?”

What follows is the testimony of John Boldelar, age 14, of Lawrence.

Rep. Campbell: “How many rooms are in your house?”

Boldelar: “Three.”

Campbell: “How many stoves?”

Boldelar: “One.”

Rep. Wilson: “What furniture have you in the house?”

Boldelar: “A couple of beds, that is all.”

Rep. Pou: “I have heard quite a number of people living on bread and water. Has there ever been a time when you were compelled to live on bread and water?”

Boldelar: “Yes, sir. . . sometimes we did not have enough money to buy bread one or two days.”

What follows is the testimony of Tony Bruno, 15 years old, of Lawrence.

The Chairman: “What is the smallest pay you ever get?”

Bruno: “About $1.”

Chairman: “$1 a week?”

Bruno: “About $4.”

What follows is the testimony of Camella Teoli, 14 years old, of Lawrence. Her testimony is considered some of the most compelling of the entire hearing. As with the others she is queried about the size of her family and the pay and conditions of her family.

The Chairman: “Now, how did you get hurt, and where were you hurt in the head; explain that to the committee?”

Teoli: “I got hurt in Washington.”

Chairman: “In the Washington Mill?”

Teoli: “Yes, sir.”

Chairman: “What part of your head . . . how were you hurt?”

Teoli: “The machine pulled the scalp off.”

Chairman: “The machine pulled your scalp off?”

Teoli: “Yes, sir.”

Chairman: “Were you in the hospital after that?”

Teoli: “I was in the hospital seven months.”

Chairman: Did the company pay your bills while you were in the hospital?

Teoli: “Yes, sir. . . the company only paid my bills; they did not give me anything else. ”

Chairman: “They only paid your hospital bills; they did not give you any pay?”

Teoli: “No, sir.”

Teoli testified later that her father had been arrested because he had gotten papers saying she was 14 when she was actually 13. This was found to be rather common practice however.

It became increasingly clear to everyone in Lawrence, and the nation, that the strike needed to be settled in favor of the strikers. Sentiment was no long on the side of the mill owners and they knew it.

William M. Wood, of the American Woolen Company, came to feel the wrath of the committee when it, the committee, decided that a special committee be formed to specifically investigate the American Woolen Company which he owned and was the president. The committee very pointedly stated that the American Woolen Company had benefited greatly from the U.S. Government’s purchases from it, in particular the U.S. Army. But additionally, the committee was told to investigate any trusts that had been formed, they were illegal, investigate excessive capitalization, fictitious capitalization, stock speculation and conspiracies, and its controlling the price of labor. Wood no longer had anywhere to hide, nor did the several owners of the other Lawrence mills.

On March 13, 1912 a settlement between the mill owners and the strike committee was reached. And on March 14, 1912, the strikers voted to end their walkout. What follows is the concessions won by the strikers:

  1. All people on job work, 5% increase flat
  2. All those receiving less than 9 ½ cent an hour, an increase of 2 cents an hour
  3. All those receiving between 9 ½ and 10 cents an hour, an increase of 1 ¾ cents
  4. All those receiving between 10 and 12 cents an hour, an increase of 1 ¼ cents per hour
  5. All those receiving between 12 and 20 cents per hour, an increase of 1 cent per hour
  6. No discrimination will be shown anyone

(“Accept Wage Increase,” (Lawrence) Evening Tribune, March 13, 1912.

The one concession the strikers were unable to get was elimination of the premium system. The mill owners did agree, however, to pay the premium even two weeks instead of every four.

A few years later the strikers realized they had settled for far less than they could have gotten had they held out for all their demands, particularly the 15% pay raise and elimination of the premium system. For decades following the strike many felt shame over what might have been and chose to not speak of the strike. For that reason, there is precious little verbal history on the strike.   Most of what we know from the striker’s position comes from the U.S. House’s investigation and what the newspaper reporters wrote.

But the Lawrence strike helped invigorate unions all over the United States. A few months after the Lawrence Strike ended the operatives of the Paterson, NJ mills went on strike for much the same reason. The IWW faded from the American landscape after 1912 as the AFL finally accepted unskilled labor into its ranks. The Knights of Labor, led by Samuel Gompers, had no part in the strike, but Gompers himself showed up at the committee hearing and gave a mildly favorable nod to the strikers. The Knights died out completely shortly thereafter.

To its credit, the IWW had led the way in how to conduct a successful strike. It had engineered the first sit down strike in Rochester NY which ended successfully. And then its inclusiveness at Lawrence empowered the non-socialist unions around the United States giving rise to unions such as the teamsters, mineworkers, steelworkers and dock workers. Each took the IWW’s lead in conducting their strikes and turned their former poor record of winning around.

The Lawrence Textile Strike did not become known as the Bread and Roses strike until some time after its end. It gained that moniker via a protest song of the same name which was sung by the strikers in Lawrence during their ordeal.

As for Ettor and Giovannitti, as I said earlier they were held over for trial in Salem.  When the trial commenced in October 1912, it was obvious the men were guilty of nothing and were soon set free.

The Lawrence Police Department, the Massachusetts Militia, the mill owners, none received even a rebuke as a result of the strike.

 

 

by

The Great Bread and Roses Strike of 1912 — Part 3


On January 25, 1912, a full 2 weeks after its beginning, the strike was showing no signs of ending. Members of the strike committee met with mill owners in an attempt to end the strike but failed. The strike committee represented operatives from every mill but the mill owners, in a statement to the Boston Globe (Boston Globe, January 26, 1912, p. 1) said, “. . . agents . . . have had . . . full authority to meet and discuss any grievances or complaints with the employes of the several mills.” This reflects the manner in which mill owners had historically dealt with union members from the AFL. Additionally, the AFL had formally stated it would not partake in the strike, that any grievances would be voiced through the Local 20 to the mill involved. And so you had a union backing the position taken by the mill owners. William Wood stated firmly that he absolutely would not deal with any general committee representing the strikers.

The tack being taken by the mill owners was a basic divide and conquer. They felt that by holding fast and demanding to only hear grievances from employees of their particular mill the resolve of the strikers would be weakened. They also claimed to not know what particular grievances the strikers had even though a list of five grievances had been submitted to them on January 16.

The strikers demands were:

  1. A 15% pay raise on the 54-hour pay basis
  2. That the premium system be abolished
  3. That all of the mills shut down for three days in order that a settlement could be reached
  4. That double time be paid for all overtime
  5. That no striker would be punished for walking out upon settlement

The “premium system,” to which they referred, was a complicated system of paying a worker according to his output. The idea was to hold a carrot out to improve productivity. But in fact, the workers had little control over their output. They were of course at the mercy of work available, the speed at which a machine ran, and how frequently a machine broke down. The latter was the worst because the various machines broke down with some regularity. The machine attendant who usually tended to 5 machines, saw his output drop while repairs were made. The company made no concessions for such instances.

During those two weeks almost daily meetings of the strike committee were held. All ethnicities were represented with Joseph Ettor leading the meeting. Ettor had assured Mayor Scanlon at the very beginning of the strike that he would implore his people to obey all police directives and to not cause trouble. Ettor reiterated this at the meetings. At two weeks there had been virtually no violence and certainly no strike. But the city of Lawrence felt like it was in a state of siege with not only a very visible police force, but three companies of Massachusetts militia stationed around the mills, rifles in hand. What the strikers did not know is that William Wood had hired the Pinkerton Detective Agency to send men ostensibly to ferret out the possibility of vandalism. But their unstated mission was to cause trouble, rabble rouse, at any and all IWW gatherings. But try as they did, they failed.

If the strikers in Lawrence felt they were going it alone, they were correct. The Massachusetts state legislature, Gov. Foss, the Massachusetts militia, police forces and even the general public were aligned against them. Then, as now, people believed whatever they read in the newspapers. The Lawrence newspapers, the Lawrence Eagle and the Lawrence American, were decidedly against the strike. But what struck most hurtfully at their core was the fact that the most powerful priest in the state, Cardinal O’Connell, had commanded his priests to preach against the strike at mass. Considering at least 90% of the strikers were Roman Catholic, this hurt them greatly. The spiritual head of the Catholic Church in Lawrence, Father James T. O’Reilly, spoken vehemently against the strike.

But January 25 was important for another reason, removed from the strike negotiations going on in Boston. On that day 150 children we put aboard trains bound for Boston and then changed for trains going to New York. The IWW in New York City had managed to gain sympathy from some of the city’s elite who in turn offered to sponsor those 150 starving children coming to them.

The picture below shows noted suffragette Margaret Sanger in Lawrence with the departing children.

3b44256r

Figure 1 Children preparing to leave Lawrence

It was well known and well documented that the strikers and their families were starving. But when the children from Lawrence arrived in New York City, those who were there to receive them were shocked at what they saw. Not only was the children’s malnourishment obvious, but their threadbare clothing shocked them. Their clothing was barely enough to cover their bodies but far short of what was necessary to fend off the cold weather. The New York Times covered the event and word of the condition of the children quickly became national news.

child-parade

Figure 2 Lawrence children paraded down a New York City street

Other cities quickly offered to taken in more children, most prominently Philadelphia. Public perception was quickly changed, the Lawrence strikers finally had national support.

Around 4:30 in the afternoon of January 29 a large crowd had gathered near the Everett Mill on the corner of Union and Common Streets. The strikers had gone there to try to convince people who were still working in the mills to join the strike. What happened next was detailed by a Boston Globe reporter:

“The soldiers clubbed their guns, and swung them hard, so hard that they smashed the butts of two rifles on strikers’ heads. The police clubbed right and left, and the crowd broke and ran.” It was at that point a single gunshot rang out, striking and killing Anna LoPizzo. Her assailant was unknown, to this day, but on January 31 Joseph Ettor and Arturo Giovannitti were arrested and charged with murder. This was in spite of the fact that the two men were over a mile away at the time at a union meeting. When the police realized the murder charge would not hold up they changed the charge to inciting to riot, again, even though the two were nowhere near. They were taken into custody and held in the Salem County jail until October when their trail was finally held and they were of course exonerated. But the police and mill owners had done what they had wanted all along, rid themselves of the ostensible strike leadership. The IWW, however, had planned for just such an occurrence which is one of the reasons the council of 56 was formed. They were the true leadership of the strike and even without Ettor present, they were more than capable of continuing the strike.

The mill owners stood firm, however, even as they felt control over the strike slipping from their grasp. The Lawrence strikers had been buttressed by small sympathy strikes at the Steven’s Mill and Brightwood Mill in North Andover and at the Marland Mill in Andover. Those mills were also textile in nature so they had an interest in a favorable strike outcome for the strikers.

By the first of February, even though the AFL was still against the strike, some of its Lawrence membership had joined the strike. The Lawrence strikers were also joined by the firemen. In this case fireman refers to the men whose job it was to keep the giant mill furnaces burning to power the mills.

And also by February, Bill Haywood in his travels around New England had gathered considerable monetary support which went directly into the strike fund and thence to feeding the strikers and getting them some coal for their stoves. But even more importantly, after the children had arrived in New York City, people from around the nation began to send money to the strike fund. The sums were not great but they were enough to keep the strikers fed.