Whereas, the day is at hand [runs their resolution] when we must abolish anything that pertains to aristocratic power or reactionary policy, the office of president of a class-conscious organization is not necessary. The rank and file must conduct the affairs of the organization directly through an executive board or central committee ... and, whereas a president can only be in one place at one time and can only personally organize the working class in the district in which he is; he, therefore, can only act in the capacity of an organizer.... [Moreover], the expense of a president [$150 per month] would support at least four class-conscious organizers....[225] Commenting on the conference, J. M. O'Neill remarks that "there is a vast difference between being class-conscious and being class-crazy."[226] An inkling of the beautifully chaotic condition of affairs no later than December, 1905, is given by the comments of Max Hayes in the _International Socialist Review_ for January, 1906. I am told by a prominent member of the I. W. W. [he says] that not all is lovely in that organization, that the original industrialists and the departmentalists are lining up to give battle, and that in some places where the DeLeonites and the Anarchists had combined and held control the Socialists obtained possession of the machinery.... "If a convention were held next month," an industrialist writes, "the element in control in Chicago last July wouldn't be one, two, three, and I predict that at the next convention the academic vagaries forced upon us by the DeLeon-Anarchist combine will be dropped for a plain fighting program that everybody can understand and conjure with." Rumors are in the air that the Western Miners and President Sherman and his friends are souring on DeLeon and Secretary Trautmann and his followers.[227] The principal charge against President Sherman was that of misdirected and generally extravagant expenditure of the funds of the organization. The auditing committee at the 1906 convention reported that "the expenditures of the ex-General President show gross extravagance and strong evidence of corruption. During a period of thirty-three days he flung away on a junketing trip, not a single local being organized by him at any time, the sum of $731.55...."[228] William. E. Trautmann, the General Secretary-Treasurer, reported that he was "compelled to pay bills under protest for services never rendered, or for such things as should be considered an insult and outrage against the entire membership."[229] The opponents of Sherman did not believe that these alleged offenses were either the most important or the most dangerous of his pernicious activities. When the case finally came before the Master in Chancery, there was among the affidavits filed in the case of St. John _versus_ Sherman one by a certain Lillian Farberg,