It is quite apparent that matters which were of purely internal concern were much more narrowly interpreted than in the orthodox union. Most things affecting one craft are frankly declared to effect all crafts--even all industries--and only a few matters like by-laws and other routine affairs were considered to be of merely local concern. The constitution was built up around the socialistic motto, "An injury to one is the concern of all." The document was merely provisional, and in a crude way served as an initial guide for drawing up a more comprehensive and permanent constitution later on.
That the constitution was at least acceptable to most of the delegates was evidenced by the fact that it was adopted by a six to one vote,[161] and more definitely proven on roll-call for installation of organizations under the new constitution. Besides the five leading organizations--the Western Federation of Miners, the American Labor Union, United Brotherhood of Railway Employees, United Metal Workers, and the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, six local unions and thirty-nine individuals (representing no organization) unanimously voted for installation.[162] Having elected its officers and chosen Chicago as its headquarters, the Convention adjourned, _sine die_, July 8, 1905.
Delegate Kiehn (representing the Longshoremen of Hoboken, N. J.), among others, refused to install his union. He explained his vote, stating that in his opinion the constitution was "not according to the spirit of the manifesto." He believed that dividing the industrial activities of society into thirteen divisions meant the creation--not the destruction--of craft lines, and also that "it [the constitution] gives the President or the Executive Board of this organization czarish powers that are not given to the executive officers of any pure and simple organization in this country."[163]
Unquestionably the outcome of the convention was very different from what those most interested had anticipated. In its final form, the preamble and constitution were not exactly shaped to the provisions of the January manifesto--at any rate they did not seem to satisfy the authors of the latter document. This is partly to be explained by the significant fact that Daniel DeLeon was not present at the January conference, although the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance and the Socialist Labor party were represented by one of their organizers--Frank Bohn. We have seen that the fear of Socialist Labor party domination or Socialist Labor party wire-pulling and the fear of the influence of DeLeon were one and the same. A. M. Simons declared several months before the Convention that "nothing could more thoroughly damn the work of the conference which meets in Chicago next June than the prevalence of the idea that it was an attempt to revive the S. T. & L. A...."[164] These fears were to a certain limited extent realized. The same writer says that "At the first conference [the June convention] Daniel DeLeon with a crowd of followers obtained such power in the organization as to destroy its original point of view. Later he was thrown out, or resigned, or threw the others out [according to who is telling the story]."[165] In precisely what way the original point of view was destroyed is not easily determined. Even Simons admitted that "the only line of cleavage between bodies representing any strength was over the method of organization." And "even here," he believed that "the difficulty was much less fundamental than the heat of the debate would indicate."[166]