THE CAPITOL BOYCOTT: A STUDY IN PEACEFUL
LABOR TACTICS
The material covered in this paper has been drawn largely from
three sources, the excellent files of the Granite Cutters' Inter-
national Association of America, a copy of which their office at
Quincy, Massachusetts, has been kind enough to furnish; the rec-
ords of the Federal Circuit Court sitting in the West Texas District
which are in the Federal Court Building in Austin; and the
report of Testimony taken by the Select Committee of the House
of Representatives on alleged violations of the Laws prohibiting
the importation of contract laborers and printed as House Miscel-
laneous Document 572, 50th Congress, 1st Session, 1888.
Newspaper reports have given a background and have aided in
organizing the connected story. Quotations from newspapers are
used only when substantiated by official records. No specific refer-
ence will be made except in instances where other than the major
source material mentioned above is used.
In 1882, the legislature of the State of Texas contracted with
Mr. Mattheas Schnell of Rock Island, Illinois, for the building
of a state capitol. He was to receive as compensation 3,000,000
acres of public land. Twelve days later Mr. Schnell "for valuable
consideration" transferred three-fourths of his interest in the con-
tract to the firm of Taylor, Babcock & Co., afterward known as the
Capitol Syndicate. Five months later for additional "valuable
consideration" Mr. Schnell transferred his remaining interest to
the same company.
1 Members of the Syndicate in addition to
Amos Babcock were Chas. B. Farwell, United States Senator from
Illinois, John B. Farwell, his brother, and Col. Abner Taylor, a
representative to Congress from Illinois.
Apropos of the undertaking for which the Capitol Syndicate
now became responsible, Mr. Forrest Crissey has remarked:
Before the Farwells had fairly started on the actual building
they had reached the conviction that operating a great wholesale
house and holding a seat in the United States Senate were mere
kindergarten stunts in business and statesmanship alongside
building a capitol for Texas. First they had to build a railroad
not quite a hundred miles long to the native granite; then they
discovered that it was impossible to get enough American Stone-
masons who were able to work in granite. Consequently, they
sent to Scotland for granite experts--and found themselves in
the United States Courts charged with importing labor under
contract, which was a little hard on a United States Senator.
2
It was not the scarcity of American stonemasons, however, which
necessitated the importation of alien labor, but the conditions under
which the Capitol Syndicate required their stonemasons to work,
and thereby hangs one of the interesting tales of Texas history.
The original intention was to build the superstructure of lime-
stone upon a base of two courses of granite. Texas could not fur-
nish the needed amount of limestone and it was evident that sup-
plies must be brought from Indiana. Granite quarries at Burnet,
Texas, were just beginning to attract attention. The opportunity
to build a home industry gave additional reason for changing the
specifications to hard stone throughout. In view of the substitu-
tion, the Legislature made amendments to the appropriations.
But other problems arose because the depression of 1883-85 made
difficult, if not impossible, the speedy liquidation of the 3,000,000
acres of land. In view of these circumstances, the Capitol Syn-
dicate protested their inability to fulfill their contract even though
failure meant forfeiture of a quarter of a million dollars. Belief
was offered in the form of convict labor from the state prisons
which might be used to quarry the stone and build the railroad
necessary for transportation from Burnet to Austin.
Operations had scarcely begun when Mr. Gus Wilke, the sub-
contractor in charge of the work antagonized the stone cutters'
organization by his labor policies. In the Journal
of
the
Inter
-
national
Association
of
Granite
Gutters,
appeared in August, 1884,
an advertisement for thirty granite cutters "on red granite, steady
work climate good and healthy. Union Wages." The following
month this journal carried a notice that "granite cutters were re-
quested to keep away from Austin State Capitol until further
notice." In the same issue Mr. H. Z. A. Laporte, secretary of the
local union in Austin, referring to the advertisement of August,
gave the information that no union man had been employed, and
there was very little work to be done. He warned against union
men being "gulled" by descriptions of the climate which actually
gave a foretaste of General Sherman's classic description of war.
During the next few months the afore-mentioned change in
plans was made and the proposal to use convict labor roused the
granite workers to active opposition. In September, 1885, the
monthly circular of the Granite Cutters' International Union
stated the question and asked for instructions.
Having received information from our Graniteville secretary
that it is contemplated by the syndicate who have the granite
work, and have the contract for the Capitol Building to put on
200 granite cutters and 100 convicts about November 15, we
consider that there is a vital principle involved in the matter,
so we lay it before the union for instructions. If 200 granite
cutters work with, and teach 100 convicts the trade the prob-
ability is that in twelve months time there would be but 100
granite cutters and the number of convicts would be increased
to 200, and in two years time there would be 300 convicts and
no free granite cutters whatever employed on the job, for if free
granite cutters learn the convicts the trade, after the first lot is
taught they will be put to teach other convicts, and thus drive
out free labor altogether, for we have been reliably informed
that the state officials of Texas have agreed to supply the con-
tractors with 500 convicts. The National Union Committee
therefore ask the Union what shall be done in the matter.
Question--Shall the National Union Committee issue an order
in the name of the Union to granite cutters against working with
convicts on the Texas State Capitol at Austin?
A month later the National Union Committee announced its
decision to be guided by a vote of the members. A letter from
Mr. Wilke informed the organization as to his attitude.
... I will pay about the Graniteville bill of prices, the changes
in my bill will be but trifling, and will not affect the earnings,
as I have to make a bill adapted to the class of work I have to
do. I need about 100 granite cutters, and shall hire any good
mechanic whether he be a scab as you call it or not. I will not
permit you, nor any society, to dictate whom I shall employ,
whether they be convicts or free labor, I had experience enough
with unions and will not permit them to manage my business.
The cutting will be done at Burnet, fifteen miles from the
quarry, under shed, and men will be treated same as last fall.
I will employ convicts to quarry and also to dress stone at quarry,
which will not interfere with the granite cutters in my employ
that I can see.
The vote was 500 to 1 in favor of a boycott, which would forbid
union granite cutters to work on the capitol building. In Decem-
ber, 1885, the boycott circular was published in Austin. It read
in part as follows:
Granite Cutters, keep away from Austin, Texas, until the
contractors stop hiring convicts on the Austin state capitol
building.
The sub-contractor said he would hire convicts, scabs and im-
ported contract labor. Granite Cutters of America, show this
Great-I-Am Gus Wilke, and his employers . . . that free men
will not submit to the introduction of slavery into our trade
under the guise of contract convict labor, and that you will not
teach convicts our trade to enrich these schemers, who care for
nothing but the almighty dollar and now seek to degrade our
trade to fill their own pockets.
The Austin State Capitol having been declared a scab job by
the Granite Cutters' National Union, granite cutters are cau-
tioned against cutting granite for it before the difficulty is
settled satisfactorily.
Boycott the Austin, Texas, Capitol Building.
3
In the meantime union representatives had conferred with Mr.
Wilke, and as a result the following telegram was sent to the
National offices:
If Granite Cutters' National Union will accept Quincy prices,
I will guarantee no convicts will cut a foot of granite on the
Texas Capitol.
4
Now the custom of the Association in determining wages "was
that wages in new quarries were set at the level of the nearest
competitive quarry, in this case Graniteville, Missouri. There
wages were $3.50 a day. The wages in Quincy, Massachusetts, were
$2.75 to $3.00 a day. The official wage for the Austin branch
was given in December, 1884, as $4.00. The National office of
the Association telegraphed in answer that
the National Committee cannot sanction the Quincy bill of
prices. Graniteville is nearer Austin than Quincy. Austin has
a bill of its own.
5
By this time, December, 1885, there were approximately 500
convicts working for the Capitol Syndicate at a contract price
of 65c a day.
The boycott seems to have been effective. Skilled granite workers
refused to work on a "scab" job. Mr. Wilke turned elsewhere for
labor. On May 2, 1886, there appeared in one of the local papers
in Aberdeen, Scotland, this advertisement:
Wanted--Fifty more granite cutters. Apply at Spare Room,
Northern Friendly Hall from 10 A. M. to 10 P. M. tomorrow,
Saturday. George Berry.
Mr. George Berry, accredited as the personal representative of
Mr. Wilke, was in the city to find 165 men, 150 granite cutters and
15 blacksmiths and tool sharpeners. Wages promised were $4.00
a day for a minimum period of eighteen months. It was certified
that board would be $16.00 to $20.00 a month. Each worker paid
"earnest money"
6 as a guarantee of his intention to come to Amer-
ica and was furnished an order for passage. The cost of trans-
portation was to be repaid in two monthly payments.
7 Mr. Berry
acknowledged to inquirers in Scotland that convict labor was
being used but only because free labor was not available in suffi-
cient amounts. When they had secured the needed workers they
would use no prisoners. Mr. Berry's course was not clear even in
Scotland. Two blacksmiths who had paid the "earnest money"
were notified that they would not be needed. The matter was re-
ported to the sheriff, and Mr. Berry was arrested. The attendant
costs were £10
8. The visit to Aberdeen netted only 86 workers.
When they with Mr. Berry arrived at Castle Garden, they were
met by representatives of the New York local of the National Asso-
ciation and the Deputy United States Marshal. Mr. Berry was
taken to the office of the United States District Attorney where
investigation showed no proof of a contract. Conversations of the
union officials with the new arrivals led twenty-four of them to
refuse to go further. They stated that each one of the Scotchmen
had a written contract given him by Mr. Berry. The officers con-
sidered this clear evidence of violation of the law which provided:
That from and after the passage of this act it shall be un-
lawful for any person, company, partnership or corporation, in
any manner whatsoever, to prepay the transportation, or in
any way assist or encourage the importation or migration of any
alien or aliens, and any foreigner or foreigners, into the United
states, its Territories, or the District of Columbia, under con-
tract or agreement, parole or special, express or implied, made
previous to the importation or migration of such alien or aliens,
foreigner or foreigners, to perform labor or service of any kind
in the United States, its Territories, or the District of Columbia.
9
Their decision was that suit must be brought in Austin. In
the meantime sixty-two Scotchmen were on board ship going to
Galveston. Notice was sent to the Knights of Labor in Richmond,
Virginia, asking them to meet the vessel and attempt to dissuade
the workers from continuing their journey. A message was sent
also to the Knights of Labor in Galveston, advising them to meet
the ship and if the men were still aboard to take legal action. The
steamship Comal
which had left New York City carrying the
Aberdeen men arrived in Galveston but no Mr. Berry and Scotch-
men were aboard. The group had left the ship at Newport News
as immigrants, going to the interior of Virginia. They boarded
a train and, arriving quietly in Houston on May 2, were imme-
diately transferred to the Austin car. The contract called for the
completion of the building by December 31, 1889, under heavy
penalty for failure and Mr. Wilke could run no risks.
In July charges were filed by United States District Attorney
Rudolf Kleberg against Gus Wilke, J. V. and C. B. Farwell, Abner
Taylor, and Amos Babcock for violation of the law passed by the
Congress of the United States to "Prohibit Importation and Im-
migration of Foreigners and Aliens under Contract or Agreement
to Perform Labor in the United States, its Territories and the
District of Columbia."
10 Suit was based on the plea of one Alex-
ander Moore. Judgment for the government was asked for the
sum of $1,000 and costs. Verdict for the plaintiff in the first
instance meant conviction in the case of all sixty-four immigrants.
Hearing of the case was postponed until the following year
(August, 1887) and Knights of Labor groups began a drive for
funds to finance the prosecution. The General Assembly of the
Knights of Labor in 1887 refused to sanction the boycott. The
Great Southwest Strike on the Gould lines had broken their faith
in their power to punish powerful financial interests. But frankly
expressing their feeling that the federal officers were not using
their best efforts to secure action, they did vote to appropriate the
sum of $5,000 for the purpose of meeting the expenses of prose-
cution.
11 This was done by vote of the General Assembly itself
which refused to accept a report of the Committee on finances who
recommended that the matter brought up from District Assembly
78 (the Texas District Assembly) be referred to the Executive
Committee with the advice that only $2,000 be appropriated. The
overriding of the Committee report indicates the strong feeling
on the subject, for Texas was not the only state in which prisoners
were used in the competitive labor market. The action was in
harmony with the statement made at the Assembly meeting in 1886
of the official program of the Knights of Labor in regard to convict
labor. All convict-made goods should be plainly labeled "Prison
Made"; hours of labor in penal institutions should be shortened
to six hours a day; and all work performed for the United States
government should be done by free labor.
12
By August, 1887, when the matter came again before the court,
depositions in the cases of sixty-five of the Scotch stone cutters
were presented. But again there was no trial, this time on motion
of the District Attorney to strike from the indictment the names
of the two Farwells and Mr. Amos Babcock. This called for an
amending of the information presented and cases 2020 and 2026-
2088 were again set for hearing in August, 1889. The Committee
in Austin who had charge of the prosecution for the Knights of
Labor reported that the trial was postponed first because the
United States Marshal had been unable to serve papers on Mr.
Taylor, one of the parties named; second, Congress had failed to
appropriate money to carry on the Court. The judge ordered that
testimony be taken before the United States Commissioner in
Austin as the men who had been working at Burnet were leaving
the State. On the day set for taking testimony the District At-
torney was out of town and the Knights had to employ lawyers
to take the testimony. Lawyers for the defense were present and
cross-examined the deponents.
Since this, case was the first
13 test of the Alien Contract law
it had attracted attention from all sections of the country. A
Committee of the House of Representatives appointed to "in-
quire into the violation of the laws prohibiting the importation of
contract laborers" began its hearing in July 1888. The Granite
Cutters supported by some of the Scotchmen in person and others
by deposition gave testimony.
14
The dropping of the names of the members of the Capitol Syndi-
cate from the prosecution left Gus Wilke to stand trial alone and
when the case finally came to a hearing in August, 1889, Mr. Wilke
withdrew demurrer and pleas and admitted the plaintiff's proofs.
Judgment was rendered for $1,000.00 and all costs with the provi-
sion that the defendant be granted twelve months stay in order that
he might appeal to Washington for relief. If this relief were not
secured in twelve months, he should have a further stay of six
months. Parallel judgments were rendered in each of the other
sixty-three cases.
This decision meant that Mr. Wilke was liable to fines amount-
ing to $64,000.00 and costs which were approximately $1,000.00.
The provision for a stay of execution in order that executive
clemency might be sought brought instant protest from both the
Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor. A plea
was made to President Harrison asking that the fine should be
collected immediately and in full.
15 It read:
To the President of the United States of America:
Sir: We, the undersigned citizens of the United States, here-
by call your attention to the attempt now being made to defeat
the ends of justice in the case of the U. S. vs. Gus Wilke, just
decided in the United States Circuit Court, Fifth Circuit and
Western District of Texas, at Austin. The defendant, Wilke,
pleaded guilty, and the judge fined him the full penalty and costs
for violation of the law prohibiting the importation of foreign
labor under contract, but granted a stay of proceedings for
twelve months, to enable him to apply to the authorities in Wash-
ington for relief from the penalties. We look upon this as an
attempt to defeat the law, and, if it is possible, to render it null
and void of effect, and therefore we most earnestly and em-
phatically protest against any interference with the law by the
authorities at Washington, there being no provision in said
law that we were aware of to warrant any such interference.
We call upon you, as the chief executive of the Nation, to see
that the law is not tampered with, but carried out to the full
extent, the same as if the defendant was a person without in-
fluence of a syndicate backing him up in his law-breaking
schemes, as we have reason to believe he is being backed up by
certain interested and influential persons.
We hope you will give due consideration to this protest and
not interfere or allow of any interference with the law, and the
decision of the Judge, but use your influence to see that the
law is fully carried out, and the penalties collected by those whose
duty it is to see that they are enforced.
We can only surmise from incidental items what went on behind
the scenes in Washington. In the files of the Federal Court of the
Austin District is the following letter written by Mr. F. A. Reeve,
Acting Solicitor, United States Department of Justice, to Mr.
Andrew J. Evans, United States District Attorney for the Austin
District, under date of August 29, 1890:
At the request of Hon. Gilbert A. Pierce, United States
Senator from North Dakota, you are authorized to cause a stay
of execution upon the judgments obtained in your District
against Gus Wilke et al, until February Term, 1891, provided
the interests of the Government will not be prejudiced by such
course.
Why should the Senator from North Dakota have been inter-
ested in the plight of a sub-contractor of Austin, Texas? Presi-
dent Harrison showed no sign of awareness until the week before
he went out of office. On March 8, 1893, the Clerk of the District
Court in Austin received information from Washington that Mr.
Wilke was liable for no more than $8,000.00 and costs.
But the Granite Cutters' Union had their own means of dealing
with recalcitrant employers when they were of as little impor-
tance as the sub-contractor on the Texas Capitol. In 1889, Mr.
Wilke had tried to make peace, going to the National offices in
New York and asking how he could "square up" for he was "tired
of fighting the Union." Opinion in the Union was divided as to
whether he should be fined $1,000.00 or $500.00. It was voted to
leave the amount of the penalty to the National Union Com-
mittee.
In 1890 the International Association offices received a telegram
from a Mr. Bell in Chicago offering to change a job there from
soft to hard stone if they could send fifteen good granite cutters.
The officers were suspicious and upon investigation found as they
suspected that Mr. Wilke was handling the job. The committee
had assessed a penalty of $500 against Mr. Wilke before they would
deal with him again. He asked if an agreement to employ only
union workers would not satisfy them. They were adamant and
Mr. Wilke sent a draft for $500. The Union closed their private
account.
For chastising Mr. Berry the International adopted another
method. When the Scotchmen were leaving Burnet and scattering
over the country the Granite
Cutters'
Journal
published a list of
"those sons of Esau so that our members will not be deceived by
them." The list included the name of Mr. Berry with a descrip-
tion accompanied by his portrait. The Baltimore Free
Press
com-
mented as follows:
A new phase of blacklisting at once striking and one which
cannot fail to prove effective, has been adopted by the Granite
Cutters' Journal. It consists of an insertion of the likeness of
the scab who receives unenviable notoriety by antagonizing
organized labor. A brief sketch of the scab accompanies the cut
representing his features. In last week's issue of the Journal the
picture of one Berry labeled a "scab Hunter" is inserted together
with an account of his actions in connection with the stone
work on the Austin (Texas) State Capitol.
Mr. Berry also paid $500 to the International Union to close his
account. Neither of these payments affected the legal action of
the International and the Knights of Labor.
It might be held that the results of the, at that time nationally
famous, boycott with its attendant court action demonstrated the
power of a union to protect its members. But the conclusion is
scarcely valid as being based upon superficial information. It
seems safe to assume that we have little else in the published facts,
The Union never faced open opposition from a powerful employer.
They never considered Wilke more than an employee of the Capitol
Syndicate, and they certainly felt that failure to secure prosecu-
tion of that group was a large measure of defeat. The acceptance
by the Syndicate of the action in the first two cases would indicate
their acceptance of legal responsibility for the acts in question.
For members of Congress it was certainly the profitable course to
clear their own skirts and let the case go by plea of guilty on the
part of their agent. But since it is never wise for any one in
public office to be subject to legal investigation unless his life
is so blameless as to be immortal, this action cannot be taken as
proof that they had aided and abetted Wilke. But the inference
is clear that here is no proof that peaceful pressure is an effective
weapon in the labor struggle.
The University of Texas.
FOOTNOTES:
1, 1885, Appendix, Exhibit A.
March 1, 1913.
mony Taken by Select Committee to Inquire into Alleged violation of Laws
Prohibiting the Importation of Contract Laborers," p. 140.
1885, entitled "An Act to prohibit the importation or migration of for-
eigners and aliens under contractor agreement to perform labor in the
United States, its Territories, and the District of Columbia."
1887, p. 1749.
1886, pp. 301-2.
March 11, 1886, in the Eastern District of Michigan, but ended in a com-
promise on June 28, 1886.
Ruth Alice Allen.
How to cite:
Ruth Alice Allen, "Capitol Boycott: A Study in Peaceful Labor Tactics", Volume 42, Number 4, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online, http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v042/n4/contrib_DIVL4732.html
[Accessed Thu Dec 4 12:31:18 CST 2008]
