The San Francisco call., 1899-09-10
SOME BRYANISMS.

advance tnat the antl-lmper1al SeluHI"ht VI 'iiN
try cannot be- and will not be, used to elevate Mr.
Bryan to the Presidency.
In discussing the platform OF 1000 he said; 10
you doubt that the demand for arbitration between
labor and capital is stronger to-day than 1t was IN
1896? believe it is stronger and that the demand or
arbitration will grow until the arbitration OF dlsPuteS
between corporate capital and employees OF capital
will be well sysematzed and practicable as is the
OF justice to-day for the settlement OF disputes
between man and man" Now all that is high sound
ing and implies great Grievance existing some
where to cure which this Don Quixote appears, with
a BARRIERS basin for the helmet of Mambrlno and
Eastwood stick for the sword OF Mundarra, offering
himself for Office for the healing OF the nations MS
talk arbitration in apparent ignorance OF the TACT
that it is in constant operation between employers
and employed The essence OF arbitration IS that Ii
is voluntary That is the difference between 1t and
court Of Justice When issue goes to court tree
will ceases 1t is no longer a voluntary matter lhe
plaintiff has stated his case and in his petition has
demanded his remedy. The defendant must appear at
the bar and give his in avoidance OF Judgment
II these are not good in law, judgment rests upon hl
and is enforced by the court. II the defendant re-
fuse neglect appear he IS IN default, ana )udg-
ment is entered against him. In the arbitration OF
differences it for both parties to assent or tor either
TO refuse That is the OF It, the mutual con-
sent OF the parties to the issue joined lhis makes
the difference between arbitration and the courts OF
Justice and the difference is radical Keeping IN mind
this element Of consent and OF a tribunal in which
there is neither plaintiff defendant, one may well
ask. What does Mr. Bryan mean when he speaks OF
demand for arbtration?" Does he mean that there
is TO be a Federal or State statute compelling one
party to arbtrae when the other desires it? II So he
will do awav with the difference between arbitration
and the courts for free consent will disappear, plaintiff
and defendant will reappear, and there will arise an
other series Of courts OF justice with the same powers
now exercised by those which we have. The Bryan
arbitration by compulson plan must OF course
have power to enforce its judgments, for why compel
an unwilling and unconsenting party to appear un-
less the finding can be enforced?
1t will be noticed that he speaks of corporations
and their employees if differences ever arise be
tween individual capital and the labor it employs!
That is the demagogue way OF putting 1t, and Mr.
BRYAN cannot change his habits and methods. Let
us accept his idea of compulsory arbitration which is
paradox to juggle with and therefore suits him.
When corporate capital and its labor differ labor will
have the right to force the corporation to arbrae,
but that right will be valueess unless the desplsed
corporation can be compelled to submit to the Judg
ment II labor want s. day instead OF $I.5o the
corporation must be compelled to take back its en-
rloyes and pay them s. II it cannot be made to do
this Mr. Bryans paradox OF compulsory arbitration is
to labor delusion and snare and to capital Idle
and diotic threat. But if labor can compel capital to
arbitrate and submit to judgment, under the same
compulsory processes capital compel labor to ar
bitrate and submit to Judgment II capital be
forced TO take men back into its employ at a wage
fixed by arbitration, men can be compelled to work
for capital at wage fixed by arbitration. How will
labor look at that side OF Mr.. Bryan's paradox
Many laborers, no doubt cheered him to the echo,
but how would they like to be driven to work for
certain employer at a wage fixed by his plan Of COM
pulsorv arbitration? Do they not that it takes
rights from labor exactly in proportion as it abrdges
the rights of capital and that the only arbitration
must be by consent and cannot be by compulson?
Mr. BRYAN next took up government by inunc-
ton" opposition to which he declared would in
crease until the people of this nation, acting through
the constitutions and the laws, will make impossible
to take away from people accused OF crime the right
Of trial by Jury to determine the guilt innocence"
There is material at hand for testing this high sound
ing sentence The writ of injunction is used to pro-
tect the rights of property The people OF the Feather
Yuba Bear, Sacramento and San Joaquin river
valleys have been living under government by injunc
ton since Judge Sawyer's time. Hydraulic mining in
the mountains disturbed the equilibrium OF their dirt
and powders and washed both into the river beds,
causing floods and covering the valley farms with
slickens To protect their property the valley people
applied to Judge Sawyer for permanent injunction
forbdding hydraulic mining anywhere that it imper
lied the streams. Judge Sawyer granted the injunc
ton and the valley farmers of Butte, Sutter, Yuba
Colusa and other counties have since lived under
government by injunction. They have enforced their
rights under that government. The Anti-Debrs As
socation has been watchfu and when the injunction
has been violated in contempt of the court that made
it perpetual the offender has been taken to San Fran
cisco and the court has punished him by fine or in
prisonment for contempt OF its judgment. Now what
Mr. Bryan demands is that there shall either be no
Injunction all that the violators OF it shall be
tried by jury drawn from the vicinity OF the oense
as the constitution requires in the OF jures Do
not the valley farmers that under such system
they are deprived OF all of protecting their
property by law? What chance would the Anti
Debris Association OF Sutter County stand prose
cutting hydraulic miner before Nevada County
Jury? Yet that is the alternative offered by Mr.
Bryan for the present protection by injunction and