This vote-catching machine of which the previous speaker from America (A. M. Simons) is so proud, will stoop to anything and _go to any length to secure votes_. They have defended a lot of scab unions of the A. F. of L. in California, have endorsed resolutions condemning the Japanese and asking for their exclusion from America, although we find that the Japanese, with very little education in revolutionary unionism, make better union men than the sacred contract scab of the A. F. of L. At the other end of the continent, in New York, they place their candidates on the same ticket as Randolph Hearst, a Democrat, a trust-buster of the Roosevelt type. I have in my hand here a card ... asking the workers to vote for "Hearst and Hillquit." "Hearst and Hillquit" for good government? "Hearst and Hillquit" for socialism? No. "Hearst and Hillquit" for votes! Hillquit, the "revolutionist," one of the leading stars at this congress, the chief representative of this vote-catching machine: Hillquit, who has fed you on lies concerning the Industrial Workers of the World. If this is the way to get socialism, I hope that such a damnable brand will never be ushered in in my time. What bearing has this criminal work on our grand old slogan, "Workers of the world unite"? In America we have two kinds of unions, one is known as the American Federation of Labor and the other is the Industrial Workers of the World. One has a million and a half members and the other has over 70,000 members including the Western Federation of Miners, that is 40,000 miners and 30,000 directly chartered members from the headquarters of the Industrial Workers. The larger one is called by the capitalist masters and their agents, "The bulwark of Capitalist Society," and the chiefs at the head of this scab arrangement were classed by Mark Hanna as his "able lieutenants," and that is what they are.[331] DeLeon and Heslewood endeavored to put through a resolution in condemnation of the general position of neutrality taken by Socialist parties in their relation with labor organizations. They believed that a Socialist party should definitely endorse radical or socialistic trade unions and officially frown upon all reactionary unions, and especially condemn and discourage reaction wherever it might appear among labor organizations. "Neutrality towards trade unions," reads their resolution, "is equivalent to neutrality toward the machinations of the capitalist class."[332] The resolutions on this subject which were finally adopted by the congress were much less militant in tone than the I. W. W. statement. The prevailing resolution read in part as follows: