The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-12-18
THE FUTURE OF THE DEMO-
CRATIC PARTY.
Continued from Page one.1

ON Page One.1
solicitation of railroads, it must be re-
membered that the case was decided
by majority of one, and that the JUS
tice who cast the deciding vote rested
his decision upon arguments that may
not apply to the next case; and ii must
also be remembered that the leading
Republican papers have advocated
such an amendment to the Sherman
Antitrust Law as will legalize the
very thing which the Merger decis-
ion has temporarily restrained. The
justice appointed by President Roose-
welt dissented from the opinion rem
dered by the majority.
The trusts which have been given
unbridled license. are much more dan
gerous than the railroad merger. me
people have it in their power to reg
ulate railroad rates, although their eff
forts have several times been nulli-
fed by the Supreme Court; but the
Industrial combinations are subject TO
no regulation whatever and are VIC
lating the Antitrust Law with impun-
ity
The Democratic party, no longer un-
der the influence of corporate wealth
of those who would conciliate the
predatory classes is in position to
me Ike this issue sharp and distinct,
and to present the moral phases of the
trust question.
The Labor Question In Politics.
The labor question presents pre-
eminently a moral issue. The relation
between employer and employee is be-
1iI0cr cfp 9
the gulf which separates them seems
to be ever widening. The Industrial
situation cannot be viewed with un-
concern, and the Republican platform
suggests no remedy. The fight of the
people, acting as a whole, to prohibit
the employment of child labor in fac
tories is no longer disputed, but the
right of the State to protect working
men from the evil effects of long
hours is still a matter Of controversy.
Those who oppose such legislation rest
their arguments upon what they call
the right of private contract. and they
assert that the government cannot
legally interfere with contract be-
tween employer and employee. But
those who make this argument are
strangely blind to the fact that a con-
tract to be binding must be free and
voluntary contract. No contract can
be properly described as free and vol
untary when one party to the contract
is under practical duresS. If any en-
ployer were to shut an emplOye up in
prison and starve him into signing q
contract, no court would enforce the
contract 1t is not necessary that an
employee should be in prison to be
under an effective duress. The ties
that bind the laboring man TO his
family. not TO speak of the necessity
for food for himself, surround him
with invisible walls as strong as prison
walls. and often compel him to sub
nit to such terms as the employer may
dictate.
Nearly all the States have usury
laws which interfere with the free
dom of contract so far as interest is
concerned Why? Because 1.-The Dor
rover is servant to the lender and is
not in a position to make a free and
voluntary contract. Even if the bor-
rover SUCCESS the rate of interest and
pleads for the money as PERSONAL
favor the lender cannot collect more
than the legal rate. The same argu-
ments that are employed 20 defend a
usury law can be employed to defend
a law that limits the hours of labor.
To say that the employer can arbi-
trarily dictate terms to the employee
offenders against every enlightened
conscience. The right to live which is
included by the Declaration of Inde
pendence among the inalienable rights
of man, must not be construed merely
as the right to a bare existence; it
must be construed according to the
rules that are applied TO others. 1t
means that the laboring man has
right to live and TO labor under such
conditions as will enable him to make
reasonable use of his own life; and
also to make suitable provision for
those dependent upon him.
Injunction or Arbitration.
And this brings us to the disputes
between capital and labor. How can
they be settled? Not by the capital
list alone, because his selfishness may
lead him To take advantage of the ne
cessities OF his employees and exact
from them too large a proportion of
the joint product of labor ana capital.
Neither can the questions in dispute be
left entirely to the employee. for they
may be biased in their own favor, and
may insist upon terms which are un-
just. Arbitration, like the court of
justice, recognizes the selfiShness and
the bias that are liable to exist on both
sides, and substitutes an impartial
board for the weighing of the evil
dence to be presented 1t is not ne
cesSary that the finding of the arbi-
tration board should be binding upon
either party. As rule. public opin-
ion is a very potent force in settling
such difficulties. The very fact that
either party could compel the other to
go before an arbitration board would
in itself prevent many disagreements,
because neither side would risk arbi-
tration unless convinced that it's con-
tention was just.
The writ of injunction is now en-
ployed to coerce employees into ac-
cepting the terms Of employers. It's
purpose is to deprive the labOring man
of trial by jury, and the Democrats
have favored, and must still favor, leg
islation which will deprive the courts
of the power to thus suspend jury
trial; but a permanent arbitration
board would greatly lessen the number
of strikes and thus mitigate the evils
OF government by injunction. Arbi-
tration is, therefore, an urgent need.
How else can capital and labor be
brought into harmonious co-opera-
ton? Surely this is a question that
appeals To the conscience of the peo-
pie. Even more, it is a question which
involves more distinctly and directly
than any other question the Christian
doctrine of brotherhood.
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
myself is a platform uponrwhich all
or1oI,f fn hn willing RI or II