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] Beyond any doubt the influence of the Socialist Labor party (through the delegates of the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance), DeLeonism, as it was called, was wider than this statement would indicate. A "paper" organization, outnumbered by all of the organizations in what we have called the "Big Five," it unquestionably was influential to a degree quite out of proportion to its numbers, and in that way, at least, it dominated the convention. The political clause, which later proved such a rock of dissension and which was not passed in the first convention without considerable opposition, was one mark left in the constitution by DeLeonism. The virtual overthrowing of the "boring-from-within" policy was another mark left _out_ of the constitution by DeLeonism. Both of these departures were of great importance but not the most vital by any means.