The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-05-02
WORK OF DAVENPORT
PREVENTS ACTION ON UNION
 @ LABOR BILLS.
Failure of Congress to Act on Anti Injunction and S-Hour Meas ures 6 Disappointment
 to Agitators.
Advertiser Bureau, Colorado Building.

Dnis at the session just closed has been keen disappointment to the leaders of organized labor.
 These measures have been before several Congresses and have hereto Tore been passed by the House during the long session. This time the Senate and House Committees postponed &C., ton on them until the short session, which precIudes the possibility of their enactment during this Congress. It was not only a defeat for Messxs Gompers. Furnseth. Fuller and the oth- CT representatives of the American Federation. of Labor, but rout, which they are frank enough privately to admit. Their resentment at the treat ment accorded their measures, is heightened by their belief that 1t was largely due to the unjustifiable charge that labor unions are infested with so- cialism, that the proposed measures were ssocialistic in character and that by enacting them, or in any way fa- voring them. Congress would be set ting the stamp of approval upon the doctrine of socialism.
 It Is believed that because of the progress made in Europe and this country by. the socialistic movement in the last few years and the thinness of the line, which, to many minds, sepa- rates socialism from anarchy, the leg isiative mind was peculiarly receptive to this charge and was affected by it, adversely to the bills.
 The alignment of union labor and socialism was made by Daniel Daven- port, an attorney of Bridgeport, Conn.,, and executive agent of the American Anti Boycott Association, who attrac- ted much attention at the hearings be- fore the various committees by his l%illiant and scathing arraignment of tN labor unions, ana his efforts to pro\e that, while not openly avowing the s\ialistic principles. the unions mainta\ed and supported the same doctrines MT. Gompers recognized the dangerous character of this mode of that repeatedly the Federation by overwhelming vote, had repudiated so- cialism in Its national conventions. MT. Davenport continued this line of argu- tnent. however. producing the consti- tutions of various labor organizations to show their socia1istic origin and in every way sought to impress upon the committees his charge that favorable consideration for these measures would be interpreted as encouragement for the socialists.
 But while the labor leaders are too accustomed to parliamentary practice to take umbrage at the skillful em- ployment of this weaSon against them. however, unjust they regard the | charge, they are disgusted at the promptness and avidity with which the socialists seized upon 1t to bring them selves into prominence as the defend CTS of the measures iE question and the advertisement which certain of their speakers have thus secured. While not denying that some socialists be- long to labor unions and that some union laborers are avowed socialists, | the labor leaders are anxious to have | the country know that they draw the 1 line against socialism and repudiate Mr. Davenport's charges singly and in | whole. Had the discussion been confined mere ly to the committee rooms the effect would not have been so great nor so annoying, but the socialists have taken advantage of the prominence into which MT. Davenport has been brought by rea- son of his clashes with Messrs. Comp CTS and Furuseth before the congression- al committees to challenge him to a ser. les of debates on questions affecting socialism, two of which have already been held What is especially irritating is the fact that Mir. Davenport, on both occasions. took pains to explain that he appeared to sustain his charge that the eight hour bill and the anti-injunction bill were socialistic In character tnd thre- fore harmful. Thus. the debates while ostensibly on socialism, pure and simple. developed into an attack on these two bills by MT. Davenport and a quasi de- fense of the same by the socialist speak CTS.
 The first debate took place at Bridge port, Conn. a hotbed of socialism, and a stronghold of labor unionism. On this occasion Sol Fieldman was selected to represent the socialist cause and he was supported by an audience of several thousands in thorough sympathy with his ideas. at the start at least. During this debate MT. Davenport repeated some of the scathing remarks apropos of soc- ialism which he had made before the Senate and House Committees and then propounded to his hearers the question so forcibly demonstrated their disapprov- al of such principles that MT. Davenport apparently had the better of the argu- ment.
 The New York socialists were vexed at the result of the Bridgeport debate and challenged Mir. Davenport to appear in that city and defend his position This challenge he also accepted and some nights ago the debate was held in Coop CT Union. the socialist speaker being Benjamin Hanford. an eloquent and mag netic orator. formerly candidate of the Social Democratic party for Governor On this ocasion the audience which filled the large hall to the doors. although mani- festly partisans of Mir. Hanford. liberal ly applauded his opponent As result of this debate the organ of the socialist labor party in New York has repudiated Hanford. claiming he Is not a true social ist. and did not present socialistIc doc trines. So that the outcome of the dis cussion inaugurated in Washington this winter has been the repudlation of the socialists in general by the leaders of organized labor and of the Social Demo- cratic party by the Social Labor party.
 Meanwhile, Mir. Davenport Is repeat ing his charge that the labor unions are socialistic and that socialism is danger ous. and professed his willingness to meet In debate any speaker the socialists may select at any time in any place, so far as his business engagements will per init.
 The next debate will probably take ! place in Chicago. where the socialists are numerically very strong
 R. HI WATKINS.
 MAY STRAIN RELATIONS.