Biography
William Murdoch was one of the leaders of the 1928 New Bedford, Massachusetts textile strike, jailed repeatedly on charges of "disturbing the peace" and serving months in the city jail for his picket-line activity, as the ILD's Labor Defender reported through the strike. (Recorded as William T. Murdoch)
Daily Worker, November 3, 1928, page 2: The new National Textile Workers Union executive-meeting notice identifies him as one of 662 sentenced New Bedford strikers. It supplies no individual new sentence length, admission or release date and is attached to the existing 1928 strike history. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1928/1928-ny/v05-n261-NY-nov-03-1928-DW-LOC.pdf
The Bethlehem sedition trial was scheduled for February 10. This January report refers retrospectively to a May 16, 1929 arrest, inconsistent with the earlier May raid reports; it is preserved as a source discrepancy rather than overwriting the earlier documented raid date. The announced trial is prospective. Daily Worker, January 30, 1930, page 3. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1930/v06-n281-NY-jan-30-1930-DW-LOC.pdf
The New Bedford report describes Murdoch’s arrest among six at an anti-Weisbord meeting at Monte Pio Hall, followed by release while a crowd had waited four hours. The crowd’s waiting period is not entered as his exact custody duration. This is separate from the earlier textile-strike and Bethlehem arrests. Daily Worker, June 11, 1930, page 4. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1930/v07-n140-NY-jun-11-1930-DW-LOC.pdf
His signed account distinguishes a Saturday arrest with Beal and five others, indicating May 26, from another arrest after Monday’s picketing, indicating May 28. They are separate episodes, not an assumed continuous May 26–28 confinement. The May 31 bulletin reports a three-month imposed sentence and a planned appeal and effort to obtain release; it does not establish that bail succeeded or that three months were served. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1928/1928-ny/v05-n129-NY-jun-01-1928-DW-LOC.pdf#page=2
The August 24 report describes Murdoch as recently released and addressing workers; its August 22 dispatch already places him out of prison. This establishes release by August 22, without proving that day as the physical discharge or assigning it to one of his separate arrests. The August 15 report’s planned August 20 reception remains prospective. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1928/1928-nat/v05-n201-NAT-aug-24-1928-DW-LOC.pdf#page=5 Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1928/1928-ny/v05-n193-NY-aug-15-1928-DW-LOC.pdf#page=5 Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1928/1928-nat/v05-n201-NAT-aug-24-1928-DW-LOC.pdf#page=1
The November 12 textile-defense report explicitly says Murdoch had already served two months. It separately lists new six-month and other imposed terms under appeal. The reported two months are retained as actual service in prose, without converting them to sixty days, adding them to other recorded totals or assigning them between the distinct May 26 and May 28 custody phases. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1928/1928-ny/v05-n268-NY-nov-12-1928-DW-LOC.pdf#page=4
The May 9 report describes completed May 7 release after his May 4 Bethlehem arrest, with Morris Birnbaum. The three elapsed days already belong to his recorded case. Its description of treatment in custody and the appearance of a worker surnamed Brown are contemporary allegations, not a second Bethlehem case or an independent full-name expansion. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1929/1929-ny/v06-n053-NY-may-09-1929-DW-LOC.pdf#page=5 Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1929/1929-ny/v06-n053-NY-may-09-1929-DW-LOC.pdf#page=1
Page 3's Pennsylvania sedition roundup names the Bethlehem trio with a December trial forecast, alongside the Wilkes-Barre Gorman and Woodlawn cases. This is prospective scheduling in the existing antiwar prosecution, not a new arrest, December conviction or completed term. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1929/1929-ny/v06-n213-NY-nov-12-1929-DW-LOC.pdf
The July 4 report printed a letter from strike organizers William T. Murdoch and Fred E. Beal in New Bedford jail. It said Murdoch had a ninety-day term and Beal a thirty-day term for peace disturbance. It described efforts to obtain their release and appeals for newspapers and letters. These are imposed terms, not demonstrated completed service. Daily Worker, July 4, 1928, original PDF page 5. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1928/1928-ny/v05-n157-NY-jul-04-1928-DW-LOC.pdf#page=5
Additional custody episode: Contemporary reporting identifies William T. Murdoch, the textile organizer, in the Bethlehem raid. A separate case records May 4 arrest and detention and May 7, 1929 bail release, calculated from the May 8 dispatch's reference to the previous night. His New Bedford record is unchanged.
Sources: Daily Worker May 7, 1929, pages 1 and 5; May 9, 1929, pages 1 and 5.
The Daily Worker of February 26, 1930, page 2 (the archive URL is dated February 25), reports that the Bethlehem sedition trial of William Murdock, Anna Burlak and William Brown had been dismissed because the prosecution failed to make a case. It says sixteen people had been held four days after the May meeting raid, and that the three later defendants were out on bail. Dismissal is distinct from their earlier bail release. Conflicting May 1/May 4 chronology and bail amounts already in the records are not silently resolved, and no extra day counter or release endpoint is inferred.
Daily Worker, November 3, 1928; relevant page stated in the accompanying profile note.
The March 26 Boston bulletin describes the March 25 East Boston immigration hearing in the deportation cases of Berkman, Devine and Murdoch, identifying all three as National Textile Workers’ Union officials and Lawrence strike leaders. It attributes to the defense concern that officials were preparing sabotage allegations against the union and a possible Essex County conspiracy indictment. These are hearing and defense-warning details; a predicted new indictment is not treated as an accomplished conviction or a newly dated arrest.
Daily Worker, November 12, 1929; relevant page stated in the accompanying profile note.
