Hot issues in 1906 elections: labor and rum

These lines from a New York newspaper summed up Maine’s place in the national election process a century ago. Maine held its state election in September, and the results usually reflected what was going to happen in the national election in November.

The Pine Tree State didn’t disappoint in 1906. Maine Republicans made a clean sweep on Sept. 10, as did most Republicans in November in the midterm elections. But what actually happened in Maine was far more complex. Labor unions and “demon rum” – the hottest issues – got all mixed up in a political punch that sent Republicans reeling. The result left political pundits arguing for months.

Samuel Gompers, the powerful head of the American Federation of Labor, had targeted U.S. Rep. Charles E. Littlefield, one of Maine’s four representatives, for defeat because of his anti-labor sentiments. It was the first major political campaign that the AFL had ever waged, according to historian Charles A. Scontras, whose book on the congressman’s battle with Gompers is the best source on the subject.

Littlefield, who represented Rockland and Lewiston in a district that cut across the state from Knox to Oxford counties, had angered the unions. “Of all the members of Congress, no one stood more conspicuous as an antagonist to the interests of Labor and the people,” wrote Gompers. Littlefield was “the exponent and defender of predatory wealth.” He was an “advocate … of the trusts, corporations, and monopolies.”

Among the issues was the use of court injunctions to crush strikes. Another was federal antitrust legislation that sought to define labor unions as “trusts.” Littlefield had worked in his youth as a carpenter, a millwright and a foreman in the granite works at Vinalhaven. He had some friends in the labor unions.

He derided Gompers as an outside agitator. He said his opponent, Daniel J. McGillicuddy of Lewiston, was a tool of powerful out-of-state unions. The labor movement was far from united, and Gompers’ path was blocked by radicals who didn’t believe in negotiating with capitalists, and by conservatives who felt politics had no place in union activities.

One of the bitterest campaigns in Maine history erupted. McGillicuddy proved to be a weak candidate. The Republicans brought in such celebrities as U.S. House Speaker Joseph G. Cannon, Secretary of War William Howard Taft and Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts to campaign for Littlefield.

The result was not the “stinging rebuke” Gompers had hoped for. Instead, Littlefield was re-elected to his fourth term. Gompers claimed “a moral victory,” however. Littlefield had squeezed by McGillicuddy by only 1,362 votes out of 36,000 cast. That marked a major decline from his margin of 5,391 votes in 1904.

Thus, to continue the bit of doggerel printed at the beginning of this column, the New York News chortled “Littlefield got it in the neck and all his measley crew.” A “moral victory” was better than nothing, and it might signal things to come. But, alas, other political currents muddied the water. Had demon rum or Sam Gompers engineered this “moral victory”?

Littlefield blamed his low margin of victory on the newly created Sturgis Commission, a state body that had the power to send lawmen into counties and cities that were failing to enforce the state’s liquor law. Prohibition had been nearly immortalized years ago by being included in the state constitution, but it had become a joke or a scandal in places like Bangor where enforcement was sporadic and ineffectual. The Sturgis Commission had alienated many Republican voters who preferred local incompetence to state control.

As a result, many Republican office seekers lost votes, not just Littlefield. For example, Gov. William T. Cobb’s plurality dropped from nearly 27,000 votes in 1904 to 8,000 votes out of 133,500 cast in 1906. He even failed to win in Rockland, his hometown.

“The greatly reduced vote which Gov. Cobb received Monday … may be taken as a rebuke to his arbitrary views regarding prohibition and to his determination to enforce the Sturgis law … instead of listening to the just and reasonable demands of a large number of the best citizens in the state,” chided the Bangor Daily Commercial, a Democratic paper opposed to prohibition. Littlefield was associated in the public mind with prohibition. He was a strong supporter of Cobb and the Sturgis law.

Maine’s early election in 1906 looked like clear sailing ahead for Republicans, just as in the past. But anyone who looked at the numbers and followed the vitriolic debate saw storm clouds on the horizon. Two things were apparent. One was that organized labor was entering politics. The second was that people would accept prohibition only as long as enforcement was controlled locally. In the years ahead, organized labor would become a tremendous national political force, but the prohibition lesson never quite sank in at the national level – or even in Maine – for many years.

Wayne E. Reilly can be reached at wreilly@bangordailynews.net. For information see “Samuel Gompers and The American Federation of Labor vs. Maine’s Congressman Charles E. Littlefield, 1900-1913” by Charles A. Scontras.