Several months before the 2nd Convention, the Alliance, under the direction of the adroit chief of the Socialist Labor party, Daniel DeLeon, planned to take possession of the administration of the I. W. W., and by means of a skillful manipulation of the delegates, succeeded in obtaining a majority for itself in the convention. The Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, indeed, dominated the convention. It completely modified the constitution of the organization, abolished the office of General President, and chose a new Executive Board from among its friends and adherents. But the triumph of the Alliance did not last. In conformity with the constitution of the I. W. W., the acts of the convention are not valid unless ratified by a referendum of the members.... The leaders of the Alliance refused to submit the acts of the convention to a vote of the members, and the old officials immediately declared them null and void. The division was therefore complete in the ranks of the I. W. W. The two factions maintained rival bodies of officials and the dispute was carried to the courts, which pronounced in favor of the old administration [Sherman, _et al._]. The great majority of the members supported the original organization directed by Mr. Sherman in the capacity of President, while the number of adherents to the DeLeon faction did not exceed 2000 members.[249] Vincent St. John offers some interesting testimony against the allegation that DeLeonism dominated the second convention: It is my opinion [he says] that they [the Shermanites] are, because of lack of argument with which to sustain a wrong position, hoping to cause the prejudice which exists against DeLeon and the Socialist Labor party to blind many to the true state of affairs, a prejudice to which I plead guilty to having had, but which I was unable to justify upon investigation, a prejudice which exists against this organization and man because it and he stood upon the ground that we now occupy fourteen years ago, struggling against grafters and traitors, and for which they have paid the penalty in being slandered and vilified. This is no eulogy of DeLeon or the S. L. P.... It is my conclusion.[250] These conflicting opinions are presented for what they are worth. On both sides they should be taken with salt. The writer makes no attempt to pass judgment except to point out that the Socialist party report to the Stuttgart Congress is obviously in error in claiming that the Master in Chancery pronounced in favor of the old (_i. e._, the Sherman) administration.[251]