The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1906-09-22
JUDGE FISH WAS EVASIVE.

les. His name is Daniel Fish. We
think he Is sometimes called Judge
Daniel Fish. But this makes little
difference. The fact that he might
have been Judge once does not give
him any better right to intelligence
than If he was poor struggling law
yer. In fact we know some very poor,
honorably poor lawyers who ought to
be on the bench, and we also know
some dignified, and all-wise looking
judges, who ought to be in Russia
advising the Gear during this trying
hour for Absolutism.
Judge Fish is evidently one Of the
latter kind. Organized labor sent him
series of questions, and asked for
his answer thereto. The very idea Of
committee from organized labor
asking simple candidate for the leg
islature, In the person of an ex-judge,
was resentful in the extreme to this
naughty and dignified person.
Now it has long been the custom for
candidates for office to declare their
position on public questions during a
campaign. In the old convention days
1t was the custom to draft platforms.
But In recent times the primary elec-
ton has provided no means for a dec
laration of principles, and there is no
way to find out a candidates position
until he is questioned and pledged.
Judge Fish would have no hesitan-
cy to stand upon the party platform
of the convention from which he was
seeking the nomination for the legis-
lature, and If this be true why should
he not answer few direct questions
put by labor touching his attitude on
matters that are of paramount i'm
portance to workingmen. He could
at least be courteous in his reply.
But he Is only an ordinary po1lti-
c1an-once judge-and he imme-
diateiy saw an opening to answer Ia
Dor through the press In a manner
which would tickle the public ear,
and as he supposed would enhance
his chances for success at the polls.
A careful and even unprejudiced
analysis Of Judge Fish's position in
his letter to Secretary Deacon of the
State Central political committee of
the Minnesota State Federation of
Labor, which was made public before
being received by Mr.. Deacon, indi-
eating that the Smart Alick" candi-
date wanted little cheap political
advertising, shows plainly that the
gentleman gave the questions put to
him by organized labor but passing
notice before sending his answer.
Before Judge Fish opened Secre-
tary Deacon's circular letter he was
biased on labor legislation. To even
be asked his views on this kind of
legislation was repulsive to him. He
was willing to give an evasive ans
wer, but the idea Of yes or no reply
was 4uoulIl1S. AeL uS SoS WuetQ0T IL
is or not.
If Judge Fish had US on the witness
stand he would be very insistent up
on such an answer. Organized labor
has asked questions before, and it has
received answers just such as Judge
Fish wished to give. We know our
wants, and we know what kind of
answers mean YES" and what kind
mean mo" We are tired Of trim
ming. and would like to know our
positive friends before election, just
as we will find the false promising
ones after election.
That Judge Fish gave our demands
but a passing consideration is evil
dent from the fact that he charges
us with asking for the abolition of
the fellow servants rule in personal
injury cases. There is absolutely no
truth in this. We have simply asked
for a fairer statutary definition of the
rule. The courts have so ABRIDGED
the rule that we now desire rights
which they nave taken from us.
But the all-wise Fish Is not so yir-
tuous as he would make US believe.
A man who cost the State of Minneso-
ia $4,000 in compiling the revised
code talks with poor grace when he
charges union labor with being intol.
Grant. The people of Minnesota were
Obliged to tolerate his extravagance
for three years, and were mighty
pleased when they got an expensive
commission off their hands.
One of the strong points in the or.