For several years prior to the outbreak of World War I, the agitational tactics of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) among the lumber, mine, textile and agricultural workers had aroused the intense fears and bitter hatred of the American middle class. In some districts, local authorities had attempted to stamp out the movement.1 It was the “free speech” fights in San Diego, California, in the first six months of 1912, however, that really introduced the IWW to the American public, and made the name of this small group of predominantly homeless men and women a household word, no less discussed and no better understood than the angry words “socialist” and “anarchist.”2
The Industrial Workers of the World was formed in Chicago in 1905. Doctrinal differences and struggles for power had by 1908 split it into two distinct groups, and the existence between 1908 and 1915 of two national labor organizations bearing the name IWW, with bodies closely paralleling each other in scope and structure despite their differences in doctrine and tactics, led to ambiguity concerning the goals of each segment.3 One group allied itself with the Socialists; the other preferred to remain outside normal political procedure. The Socialists believed their objectives could best be achieved through the ballot. The IWW advocated more direct political action such as general strikes. They believed that workers had to make the machinery with which they labored unproductive.4
The most advertised IWW faction in the United States was the “Direct-Actionist” or “Anarcho-Syndicalist” wing. This branch of the IWW became actively interested in the free speech, fight in San Diego. They were the “Wobblies” of the West and advocated direct action as opposed to the kind of indirect and legalized action demonstrated by political parties and in the election of parliaments, congresses and senates. Instead of delegating authority to others to act as their representatives, the “Wobblies” wanted the working class to work for itself.5 The Wobblies were not entirely alienated from American traditions, however; in reality, most IWWs, and particularly the Western Wobblies, could not vote. Many were migrant workers, especially in California, which meant that they could not meet local residency requirements for voting; others were not citizens of the United States.6
Foreigners, new to America and speaking alien tongues, made up a large proportion of the human bloc at which the IWW aimed its propoganda.7 The IWW was the only labor organization at the time which did not discriminate on the basis of race or sex in seeking new members.8 It disputed the older, more established unions which organized only skilled workers and excluded Orientals, Mexicans and women, among others.9 Although they hoped to create a huge union to include all types of workers — a union with few scruples against violence or bloodshed to stand in its way — it essentially limited itself to the organization of the migratory and unskilled workers in the lumber and mining camps, on construction jobs and in agriculture and fruit growing districts.10 Their financial resources were extremely limited, and one of the most effective and frequently used means by which they gained publicity, recruited new members and educated the unemployed was through an inflammatory speaking campaign known as “free speech.”
But why the San Diego free speech movement? Neither agriculture nor industry in 1912 was important in the economy of San Diego.11 A class struggle was nonexistent in this town of 40,000 people. Although considerable wealth had accumulated in the city, the rich were, on the whole, community conscious. The rapid growth of persons with middle class incomes tended to offset individual riches, and class disparity was not extreme.12 The San Diego economy, based on tourism, land speculation and commercial enterprises, was on an upswing, and the city, proud of its past accomplishments, eagerly anticipated its future. The Chamber of Commerce had launched an intensive advertising campaign in national magazines to attract not only tourists, but permanent residents as well.13
A widespread antipathy toward unionism existed throughout much of Southern California, due mainly to the anti-union position taken by Harrison Gray Otis, owner of the influential Los Angeles Times, plus a memory of turbulence that characterized the history of industrial relations in California during the early years of the twentieth century.14 In direct contrast to the bitter opposition in the Los Angeles area, a distinctive attitude existed in San Diego that was reasonably tolerant toward organized labor. This atmosphere was due, in no small part, to the feeling of leading San Diego families toward unions. Their philosophy was one of live and let live, and they were not willing to crusade against unions.15 John F. Forward, a former mayor and prominent citizen, had stated that the unions were the salvation of the working man, and even at the height of the free speech fights, the San Diego Union, a conservative newspaper, editorially supported the passage of child labor laws.16 Such thinking was liberal, if not radical, for the time.
In addition, an intense rivalry existed between San Diego and Los Angeles in their efforts to become Southern California’s leading city. Los Angeles had surged ahead and both patronizingly and contemptuously referred to San Diego as its “little sister.” San Diegans, said the Los Angelinos, had perversely approved of unions if for no other reason than to irritate their northern neighbors.
A chapter of the IWW had, in fact, existed in San Diego as early as 1906, but not until 1910 had it become active enough to warrant public attention. It tried in August of 1910 to organize Mexicans working for the San Diego Consolidated Gas & Electric Company and did effect a favorable and peaceful settlement of a brief strike against the company. But most Mexican workers left shortly thereafter to take part in the Mexican Revolution led by Francisco Madero. Their departure left the local IWW membership at an estimated fifty individuals, but this number had been doubled just prior to the free speech movement.17
San Diegans up to the winter of 1911 tolerated the IWW. The main section of town at that time concentrated at the intersection of Fifth and “E” Streets, and from all four corners speakers attempted to “sell” the passing populace on the truth of their messages. Single taxers, socialists and the Salvation Army, among others, all used the “soapbox corner.” The IWW for a year and a half prior to 1912 successfully used this corner to help enlist manual laborers in and about the city.18
There were fifteen free speech fights of considerable importance in the United States between 1911-1913, but dwarfing them all was the San Diego episode.19 The wind that apparently fanned the flames in San Diego was the affiliation of the IWW with the socialist revolution in Baja California, Mexico, which culminated in the capture of Tijuana by the “socialist army.” Social revolutionaries became active in Baja California during the first half of 1911 under the flag of the Mexican Liberal Party, directed by the brothers Ricardo and Enrique Flores Magón from Los Angeles. They had begun a prolonged struggle at the turn of the century against Porfirio Díaz, dictatorial president of Mexico. They believed, however, that Mexico’s social problems would not be solved only by eliminating the men in power — economic problems also had to be attacked and rectified. They aimed to distribute land held by a favored few and acquire the means of production for all the workers. Their ideology had slowly evolved into one of social-anarchism, and their struggle became one against “Authority, Capital and the Church.” Similarity of political thought brought the Flores Magón brothers into an alliance with the IWW.20 Most members of the “socialist army” were apparently from the United States and had no Mexican heritage. One estimate divides the force into 155 IWW members and seventy-five Mexicans, and predominate general opinion presented its composition as basically American IWW members, with a scattering of Europeans and Mexicans.21 After Mexican federal troops retook Tijuana on June 22, 1911, all the socialists, regardless of nationality, were considered rebels and were relentlessly hunted down. Some one hundred individuals escaped to the Mexican-United States border, and on June 26, 1911, the United States Army took them into custody and interned them at Fort Rosecrans in San Diego. Upon crossing the frontier many of the men destroyed their weapons as an act of defiance to the United States government which they considered to be pro-Díaz. “I saw one man break the gun over his knee. Said he wouldn’t let the damned United States have anything he owned. But he wouldn’t stay down there and get hung.” After a short internment, however, Colonel George Ruhien, on duty at Fort Rosecrans, reported: “… we were ordered to release the people — so we just turned them loose on San Diego — which was a dirty trick.”22
From this element came the fuse that finally touched off rioting in San Diego.23 The street speaking at Fifth and “E” became vindictive and offensive words were hurled at the despicable “capitulists” (as many an unschooled speaker called them.)24
As early as November 10, 1911, local authorities attempted to dispurse the audiences that had gathered to hear the “Wobblies,” but no violence occurred. IWW contempt for order increased as members slashed automobile tires and made things so unpleasant for pedestrians that people began to avoid the area to the detriment of commercial establishments.25 An IWW speaker told a committee of the First Baptist Church:
We are opposed to the existing order; we are against it from bottom up. We do not respect the laws or flag of the United States. It is a symbol of oppression; . . . It floats over the vilest places and has no message for us. We do not believe in the system of wages. We propose to overthrow the whole system and give every man a chance. We do not believe in a God. The preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ has been the greatest curse in the world because it preaches submission to the present order, promising something better in a future life.26
This “verbal overkill” aimed at God, Country and Constitution clearly frightened middle class Americans everywhere. Yet San Diegans had additional cause for alarm. Overthrow of city government was no hollow threat to many who had observed the results of the insurrection in Tijuana first hand. Sightseeing excursions had been arranged to visit the ravaged city, and by paying a dollar at the border to a “socialist army” member, San Diegans had been given permission to enter and further pillage the town. More than a few upstanding citizens took the opportunity to do a little “freelance” shopping.27 “Sightseers,” rather than the IWW, were primarily responsible for the looting of Tijuana.28 The threat of anarchy practiced by the same element which had taken Tijuana became a possibility in the minds of many San Diegans. This threat, coupled with the public nuisance created by the IWW, compelled the city authorities to action.
The City Council on January 8, 1912, passed an ordinance that prohibited all public speeches in a six block square area, the nucleus being Fifth and “E”. It was patterned after a similar ordinance devised in Los Angeles which had already been declared constitutional by the California Appellate Court of Appeals. The San Diego law was due in part to a meeting held a few days before its passage between San Diego businessmen and Harrison Gray Otis in which the newspaper editor argued for concrete action, particularly the need to suppress street speaking. Otis owned land in Baja California, ownership of which the social revolutionaries might not recognize if they ultimately won out. He did not want San Diego as a base of support for the Mexican revolutionaries and their IWW supporters.29 At the same City Council meeting, however, the members voted temporary relief for the many unemployed men who had been arriving in San Diego.30 Because of its mild climate San Diego had long been a favorite wintering spot for migrant workers and the unemployed, and in the winter of 1911 an additional surplus of men was created by the continuing influx of IWW members. San Diego sought to secure jobs for them, the Salvation Army being particularly active in this regard. It was genuinely believed that when the IWW realized there were jobs in San Diego, they would stop coming.31 (I Won’t Work was one of the many puns on the initials of the IWW.) There is no evidence though that any IWW ever went on relief or accepted the jobs that were offered.
Influencing San Diego’s attempt to maintain a peaceful city was the international exposition planned for 1915. Ground had been broken on July 19, 1911, for a fairgrounds that would herald the opening of the Panama Canal and San Diegans anticipated that their celebration would bring their city widespread acclaim. Some anxiety existed, however, as San Francisco was also planning a similar tribute and the Federal government had given more visible support to San Francisco by inviting foreign countries to participate in that affair. While in preparation for her debut as an important cultural and seaport city, San Diego could not afford to allow radicals to disrupt her labor force and flood her streets with inflammatory speakers of questionable “moral” character.32
After the passage of the ordinance on January 8, Chief of Police Keno Wilson announced he would wait until January 10 before he enforced it.33 On January 9 a quickly formed chapter of the California Free Speech League, comprised of 2,500 San Diegans of various political persuasions opposed to the ordinance, retained attorney E. E. Kirk, a well known San Diego socialist, to represent the IWW and the battle plans were drawn. Kirk stated: “A dozen persons have volunteered to act as ‘martyrs’ to the cause and will attempt to speak tonight . . . Bail money will be waiting . . . at the city jail.”34
The 3,000 people who showed up the night of January 10 to witness a showdown were disappointed, however. At the last hour City Attorney W. R. Andrews decided that in spite of an emergency clause in the ordinance allowing immediate enforcement, he still doubted whether it could legally go into effect before a thirty-day waiting period. He advised Wilson not to enforce it until February 8. Law enforcement officials set their jaws, endured the taunts of the IWW, and grimly anticipated the day the waiting period would end.35
On the night of February 8, each side turned out in full strength. Police arrested thirty-eight men and three women that evening.36 Eugene C. Skinner stated: “They would step on the box; the police department would rush them down to jail; another would step up and they would be rushed down to the jail, and so on.”37 Police Chief Wilson stated:
All these men have violated some law, whether they are street speakers or not, of that I am sure. So I am going to charge some with disturbing the peace and others with offenses which I shall figure out tomorrow.38
What offenses he “figured out” soon became apparent. The street speakers believed they were to be arrested for disturbing the peace or for merely violating a city ordinance, both misdemeanors. Instead, the prosecuting attorney charged them with the felony charge of conspiracy to violate a law.39
District Attorney H. S. Utley stated that any man who had no job should be put in jail, particularly if he wanted to talk about it.40
Some 175 people had been jailed by February 21; more arrests came every day. The Free Speech League, at this point, proposed to glut the jails and then to demand individual jury trials which would clog the courts and bring the legal machinery to a standstill. This idea appealed to the IWW which sent out word via their newspapers to come to San Diego.41 “On to California. Flood the jails of the Pacific Coast with unemployed” became the rallying cry.42 The general secretary of the IWW, in a letter to Mayor James Wadham, threatened: “This fight will be continued until free speech is established in San Diego if it takes 20,000 members and 20 years to do so.”43 >From every corner of the United States the Wobblies began to converge on the city. San Diegans girded themselves for the onslaught; they were determined to repel the agitators.44
At the end of February San Diego’s city government made one last effort to settle the matter peacefully. District Attorney Utley offered to release those prisoners accused of conspiracy who remained in jail due to a lack of bail money, if the IWW and its allies would agree to terminate street speaking in the restricted area. Attorney Kirk advised his clients to accept the proposal, but the IWW refused to compromise.45
Mass hysteria descended upon San Diego. Governor Hiram Johnson refused an appeal by the city for state troops. Political opposition to Johnson in San Diego had been intense, and the Governor decided that if San Diego had got itself into the mess, it could “damn well” get itself out.46
The Free Speech League, along with the trade unions and socialists, maintained their moral and legal support for the IWW, but ended their active participation as a pitched battle between the IWW and the citizens of San Diego grew imminent.47
A horsewhip vigilante committee to deal with the hordes of IWW members had been proposed as early as February 10 by Clark Braly, a former park commissioner. “These fellows believe in popular government,” he said. “Now let’s give it to them.”48
San Diegans at that time thought that the police could handle the matter, and no one took the proposition seriously. By the end of the month, however, the citizenry understood that the IWW was succeeding in its endeavor to make law enforcement impossible.49 Misdemeanor trials kept the police and township courts clogged: it took approximately five days for each trial. The conspiracy trials for thirty-eight of the first-night violators had not even begun as it had proved impossible to impanel an impartial jury to hear the cases.50 The Courthouse was situated next to the jail, and in the din of screaming, singing inmates drowned out courtroom talk making it impossible for regular court sessions to be held. The free speech issue had become a matter of law and order versus lawlessness. At least, that is how many San Diegans viewed the issue.51
Cells in the city jail experienced unhealthy overcrowding — 175 in space for seventy-five — and stockades were erected about the city to confine the daily increasing number of prisoners.52 A deaf ear was turned on any complaints from the incarcerated, and sentiment followed that of the San Diego Evening Tribune:
They are deliberately defying the law by forcing the police to arrest them, and then howling for mercy against the discomfort of over-crowded jails. Their appeal is in itself unjustifiable because they have deliberately created the conditions under which they suffer.53
It is estimated that over 5,000 men came to San Diego during the free speech fight, and some prisoners, due to the crowded conditions in San Diego, had to be moved to jails in next door Orange County, California, by March 1.54
There was talk of trying the conspirators on the grounds of treason. The Evening Tribune believed that such proceedings would confer too much dignity upon the vagrants; it would diminish the stature of the nation’s famous traitors, men like Benedict Arnold, if the motley lot in the jails were tried for the same crime. The Tribune, however, did not shy from the possibility of capital punishment:
Hanging is none too good for them, and they would be much better off dead; for they are absolutely useless in the human economy; they are the waste material of creation and should be drained off into the sewer of oblivion there to rot in cold obstruction like any other excrement.55
The County Supervisors, acting on recommendation of the San Diego grand jury, on March 7 authorized a mounted patrol of citizens to guard the county line in an attempt to prevent further IWW infiltration into San Diego.56 This was more than the IWW could contend with and on March 8, the Wobblies offered a compromise: If the ordinance was repealed, they promised to refrain from any further street speaking at Fifth and “E”. The offer, unfortunately, came too late for San Diego was no longer in a mood to compromise.57 Outright war between the vigilantes, in cooperation with law enforcement officials, and the IWW erupted. Never noted for their mutual cooperation, this incident probably marks the first time in the history of San Diego County that the police chief, the sheriff and the marshal had willingly worked together in the interests of law enforcement.58
The first major clash came on Sunday afternoon, March 10. IWW members who yet enjoyed their freedom surrounded the city jail to join their confined comrades in songs of the workers’ revolution. An observer noted, “They were acting like crazy men. I have never heard such a din in my life.” Despite continual pleas by the police to avoid the downtown area so the work of the law enforcement officials would not be hampered, a crowd of “respectable” citizens gathered to witness the inevitable clash. To disburse the IWW, Chief of Police Wilson ordered firehoses turned on the crowd, “Wobblies” and spectators alike. More arrests for disturbing the peace followed.59
Newspaper headlines on March 18 announced the formation of a Committee of 1,000 citizens who planned to cooperate with the police.60 Businessmen organized the committee, not only because they doubted the ability of the courts to adjudicate the cases “favorably,” but to avoid the increasing drain on city finances caused by the cost of maintaining the prisoners and salaries for additional policemen. The vigilance committee was composed of businessmen and citizens, as well as common thugs hired by those individuals who did not wish to participate personally.61
The vigilantes, by the first of April, regularly were meeting the freight trains at the town of San Onofre on the county’s northern line. Since most of the IWW were migrants and indigents, “riding the rails” was their usual mode of transportation. The vigilantes pulled the men off the trains and drove them back across the line using horsewhips and canes to speed any stragglers and to discourage any thought they might have of returning.62 And still they came.
Camps of migrant workers in San Diego County were broken up and destroyed.63 Authorities became especially excited when they received a report that IWWs had established a camp in Balboa Park, near downtown San Diego. A roundup was prepared to oust the intruders, but to the chagrin of officers it was discovered that this “typical” hobo camp in reality was that of a boy scout troop.64
San Diego’s citizenry generally ignored the police brutality; newspapers printed by the IWW, as well as those of any labor or socialist organization, were confiscated and the sellers arrested. Michael Hoy died on March 28 from what fellow-prisoners and one physician charged was a kick in the stomach.65 Newspapers reported that stolen dynamite from a local store was part of an IWW bombing plot; the “plot” theory was discounted when the missing explosives reappeared in a further inventory.66
The violence crested on April 5. Police Chief Wilson solved the dilemma of the overcrowded jails by ordering the prisoners transported by trucks to the city limits in the Sorrento Valley district. Vigilantes then took charge of them and subjected the prisoners to “inspirational” lessons on patriotism including the forced singing of the “Star Spangled Banner.” Each false note sung merited the prisoner a blow from the handle of a pickax wielded by one of his tormentors. The Wobblies were being “taught” the wisdom of never returning to San Diego.67 Such wanton barbarism had predictable results:
There were a good many of them [IWW] beat up pretty bad, and there are some unmarked graves up there on the rifle range. Of course this was cruel, but they had to be cruel. It was a question of defending their homes and property and the county against these people who were sent in here.68
For awhile the vigilante tactics encouraged, rather than discouraged, the IWW. One Wobbly indicated that they would continue to go to San Diego even though they realized that some would be clubbed to death; their cause was more important than loss of life.69
The vigilantes also kidnapped A. R. Sauer, editor of the San Diego Herald, a sensationalist sheet that favored the IWW, and took him to Los Angeles with the warning never to return.
When Emma Goldman, a nationally known anarchist, came to town along with her manager, Ben Reitman, a mob of 500 gathered around her hotel. Her visits to San Diego in previous years had caused no alarm, but on this occasion, as Reitman sat casually in a third floor window of the Hotel Montezuma, the crowd became threatening. Police, for her own self-protection, escorted Miss Goldman to the train station, while the mob transported Reitman to the county line, stopping only long enough along the way to tar and feather him.70
The outcry of state and national public opinion against such vigilante tactics forced Governor Johnson by the end of April to send a special commissioner, Harris Weinstock, to San Diego. Weinstock experienced difficulty developing his report on the situation, as public opinion generally backed the vigilante committee.71 Although he disapproved of the cooperation between the vigilantes and the law enforcement officials, he also reprimanded the tactics and intentional legal violations by the IWW. He compared the San Diego government to the regime of Czarist Russia in its attempt to suppress free speech, and yet he could not excuse the IWW their disregard of law and order. His report indicates his own difficulty in his attempt to fix the blame for the riots:
The question naturally arises, therefore, who are the greater criminals; who are the real anarchists; who are the real violators of the constitution; who are the real undesirables; . . .72
Thoroughly confused by the entire situation, Weinstock condemned both the vigilantes and the IWW, and suggested to the Governor that perhaps Attorney General Webb could pacify the district.
On his arrival in San Diego, Webb, under orders of Governor Johnson, attempted to secure indictments against the vigilante leaders. He threatened to take action against the San Diego grand jury when they failed to return any indictments. The foreman, John Forward, told Webb that any further efforts by Webb to coerce the grand jury would result in their indicting the attorney general for attempting to intimidate the jury. Webb promptly left town and no prosecutions followed.73
It was clear by the middle of May that the repression exercised by San Diego’s city government in concert with the vigilante activities had put the Wobblies to rout. At least the influx of IWW men had abated. An IWW member had on the evening of May 7 attacked two off-duty police officers, resulting in the death of the IWW member and injury to one of the police officers. While this incident was not the first recorded attack on a police officer by the IWW, it was the first with an apparent intent to kill, and sounded the death knell for the free speech fight. The Wobblies had finally exceeded their limits, and that night, in response to riot whistles from the electric power plant, 1,500 citizens turned out within minutes to aid law enforcement officials. The final forced exit of IWW members gained momentum and by May 9 the San Diego Union announced that the city’s troubles with the IWW were coming to an end.74
The pressure of public opinion in time produced police moderation in further dealings with the IWW. An uneasy peace had settled over the city by June, and on September 12, 1912, the IWW held its first undisturbed meeting.75 A stain remained on the free speech area, however, and Fifth and “E” was gradually deserted. As if to avoid unpleasant memories, the main business district slowly moved to another location. The business district had been expanding north and south along Fifth Avenue until 1912, but afterwards the direction changed to east and west along Broadway.76
San Diego’s “victory” over the IWW was not a case of law and order conquering lawlessness as many San Diegans, then and now, prefer to believe. Victory belonged to the stronger of two violent mobs. The IWW never developed an organization effective enough to control its own members. What had started out as only an exercise in civil disobedience, had aborted into uncontrolled riots. Peace came only through the exercise of illegal force.
The impact of the free speech movement in San Diego, however, extended far beyond the confines of the immediate area. The San Diego affair influenced the framing of criminal laws aimed at containing syndicalism in twenty-four states, including California, between 1917-1924.77 Although entirely without cause, there was a vague connection in the minds of people between the “red scare” that followed the Russian Revolution and the IWW. The criminal syndicalism laws were specifically directed against the doctrines and philosophy of the IWW, but the result was the persecution and prosecution of all people who disagreed with or criticized the “American System.”78 The fear and violence that San Diego had experienced spread to other regions of the nation, and “free speech” was indeed placed in jeopardy. The lesson is clear, even today. By restricting the speaking rights of one group, however detested, the rights of all had been undermined.
1. Woodrow C. Whitten, Criminal Syndicalism and the Law in California, 1919-1927 (Philadelphia, 1969), p. 3.
2. Paul F. Brisseden, The I.W.W. A Study of American Syndicalism (New York, 1919), p. 284.
3. Ibid., pp. 57 and 259.
4. A report of Hiram Weinstock, commissioner to investigate the recent disturbances in the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego, California, to his excellency, Hiram W. Johnson, Governor of California, Sacramento, 1912, p. 5.
5. Brisseden, IWW, pp. 259 and 278.
6. Joseph Robert Conlin, Bread and Roses Too, Studies of the Wobblies (Westport, Connecticut, 1969), p. 71.
7. Brisseden, IWW p. 158.
8. Grace Miller, “The IWW Free Speech Fight: San Diego, 1912,” Typescript, p. 6, San Diego History Center Collections, Serra Museum and Library, San Diego.
9. “When You Couldn’t Talk at Fifth and E,” San Diego Magazine, September, 1950, p. 18.
10. James Mills, “Comes the Revolution: San Diego 1912,” San Diego Magazine, October 1959, p. 67; Whitten, Syndicalism, p. 5.
11. Miller, “Free Speech,” p. 2.
12. Frederick L. Ryan, The Labor Movement in San Diego, Problems and Developments (San Diego State College, 1959), TSS, p. 8.
13. Miller, “Free Speech,” p. 2.
14. Whitten, Syndicalism, pp. 4-5.
15. Ryan, Labor Movement, p. 7.
16. Personal interviews in April, 1971, with Charles H. Forward, attorney and member of a prominent San Diego family. He was 25 in 1912 and present on several occasions at happenings described herein. His father, John F. Forward, had been mayor of San Diego and in 1912 was foreman of the San Diego grand jury; hereinafter cited as ‘Forward interview.’ San Diego Union, January 26, 1912, p. 4.
17. Miller, “Free Speech.” p. 8; “When You Couldn’t Talk,” p. 19. The Maderista Revolution is treated in an article by Margaret Secor entitled “San Diego Looks At the Maderista Revolution in Mexico,” Journal of San Diego History, Vol. XVIII, No. 3, Summer 1972.
18. “When You Couldn’t Talk,” p. 19; Mills, “Comes the Revolution,” p. 66; A Report of Hiram Weinstock, p. 8.
19. Brisseden, IWW, p. 283; Whitten, Syndicalism, p. 6.
20. Pablo L. Martinez, A History of Lower California (Mexico, 1956), p. 462, 464-5.
21. Herbert C. Hensley, “Hensley’s Memoirs,” 1946, TSS, p. 30; Deane T. Conklin, “A Border Town: Genesis and Early History,” TSS (A paper given before the Associated Historical Groups of San Diego County at Hotel Del Coronado, January 14, 1966.) p. 4; San Diego Union, September 16, 1962, p. G7; Forward interview.
22. Interview of Col. George Ruhlen by Fred Hastings at the Ruhlen residence, 3440 Park, San Diego, on April 12, 1961, Junipero Serra Museum and Library; interview of Eugene C. Skinner by Fred Hastings at the Skinner residence, 3124 Laurel St., San Diego on March 24, 1959, p. 19, hereinafter cited as Skinner interview.
23. Forward interview.
24. Mills, “Comes the Revolution,” p. 67.
25. Miller, “Free Speech,” p. 9; Forward interview.
26. San Diego Union, April 25, 1912, p. 9.
27. Forward interview.
28. Conklin, “A Border Town,” p. 4.
29. Miller, “Free Speech;” Forward interview; In Re May Thomas, 10 Cal. App. Rep. 375. 30. San Diego Evening Tribune, January 9, 1912, p. 4.
31. San Diego Union, January 7, 1912, p. 3.
32. Kate Hanrahan Taylor, “A Crisis of Confidence: The San Diego Free Speech Fight of 1912,” TSS, Masters Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, 1966, p. 8; Also on general subject see Charlotte Benz Villalobos, “Civil Liberties in San Diego: The Free Speech Fight of 1912,” Masters Thesis, TSS, San Diego State College, 1966.
33. San Diego Evening Tribune, January 10, 1912, p. 1.
34. San Diego Evening Tribune, January 10, 1912, p. 1.
35. San Diego Evening Tribune, January 11, 1912, p. 1; Mills, “Comes the Revolution,” p. 83.
36. San Diego Union, February 9, 1912, p. 1.
37. Skinner interview, p. 16.
38. Mills, “Comes the Revolution.” P. 83: “When you Couldn’t Talk,” p. 32.
39. San Diego Evening Tribune, February 12, 1912, p. 4.
40. Mills, “Comes the Revolution,” p. 83.
41. “When You Couldn’t Talk,” P. 32; Mills, “Comes the Revolution,” p. 99.
42. Whitten, Syndicalism, p. 6, quoting Solidarity, March 16, 1912, p. 1.
43. Mills, “Comes the Revolution,” p. 99.
44. Ibid., p. 66; “When you Couldn’t Talk,” p. 19.
45. Taylor, “A Crisis of Confidence,” p. 66.
46. Mills, “Comes the Revolution,” p. 100.
47. San Diego Evening Tribune, February 14. 1912, p. 1.
48. San Diego Union, February 10 1915, P. 5.
49. Mills, “Comes the Revolution,” p. 100.
50. Taylor, “A Crisis of Confidence,” p. 64.
51. Forward interview.
52. Mills “Comes the Revolution,” p. 100; Forward interview.
53. San Diego Evening Tribune, February 14, 1912, p. 4.
54. Miller, “Free Speech,” p. 20.
55. Editorial, San Diego Evening Tribune, March 4, 1912, p. 4.
56. Miller, “Free Speech,” p. 20.
57. Taylor, “A Crisis in Confidence,” p. 68.
58. Forward interview.
59. Taylor, “A Crisis in Confidence,” p. 83; Forward interview.
60. San Diego Union, March 19, 1912, p. 1.
61. Ryan, Labor Movement, p. 22; Forward interview.
62. Forward interview.
63. “When You Couldn’t Talk.”
64. Theodore Schroeder, Free Speech for Radicals, (New York, 1919), p. 159.
65. Taylor, “A Crisis in Confidence,” p. 91.
66. San Diego Union, March 18, 1912, p. 1
67, James Mills, “Revolution: 1912, Enter Emma Goldman,” San Diego Magazine, November 1959, p. 74.
68. Interview of George Waddell Brooks by Fred Hastings at the Brooks’ residence, 2354 Garnett, San Diego, on September 7, 1960, Junipero Serra Museum and Library.
69. San Diego Union, April 4, 1912, p. 8.
70. Forward Interview; San Diego Union, May 15, 1912, p. 1.
71. Don M. Stewart, Frontier Port (Los Angeles, 1965), p. 79; Forward interview.
72. A Report of Hiram Weinstock, pp. 7, 8, 12, 19 and 20.
73. Whitten, Syndicalism, p. 7; Forward interview.
74. San Diego Union, April 3, 1912, p. 11; May 8, 1912, pp. and 7; May 9, 1912, p. 6.
75. Whitten, Syndicalism, p. 7.
76. Forward interview.
77. Whitten, Syndicalism, p. 4.
78. Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, Vol. LVII (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1939), p. 25.
Rosalie Shanks is a 1972 graduate of California State University, San Diego, graduating with high honors and distinction in history. She is presently a first year student at the University of San Diego, School of Law. Her article appearing here was an award winning paper presented at the San Diego History Center 1971 Institute of History. Miss Shanks expresses her thanks to Dr. Paul J. Vanderwood and Dr. Richard T. Ruetten of the History Department, California State University, San Diego, for their assistance during the preparation of this article.