The Grenada sentinel., 1906-10-06
IN His. TRUE LIGHT. :
SPEAKER CANNON REVEALS HIM
SELF TO THE PEOPLE.
Practically Announces That He Favors
Government by Injunction and
Resort to Star Chamber
Methods of Procedure.

and noble cause Of trust supremacy
Speaker Cannon made a speech on the
10th OF August which is likely to cost
his party as dearly as anything that
happened in connection with the
Homestead affair in 1892. Mr.. Cannon
not only upheld the tariff law of 1897
under which the trusts of the present
day have grown up, but he made vi
cious assault upon the American in
stitution of trial by jury and eulogized
the system of trial without juries in
criminal cases which prevailed in the
English court of star chamber. He
did not mention trial by jury or the
star chamber but he denounced the
opponents of government by injunc-
ton; and government by Injunction
means the elimination of jury trials
and resort to the star chamber
method of procedure. BY indirectiOn,
by fraud, and by tricks, the speaker
assaulted the constitution, the Demo-
cratic party, and organized labor all
at once. He also misstated facts. He
says:
Mr.. GOmpers, with Mr.. Stillings,
his attorney, advocated a bill intro
duced by request by Representative
Pearre."
This statement is untrue. Mr..
GOmpers did not advocate any bill
but H. R. 4445. introduced by Mr.. Lit
tie of Arkansas. At page 40 of the
hearings before the judiciary commit
tee of the house of representatives,
fifty-ninth congress, first session, in
relation to anti-injunction and re-
straining orders, Mr.. Gompers is re-
ported as saying:
"The judiciary committee of the
house of representatives has recon-
mended the passage of the bill which
1 advocate-H. r. 4445. The house
passed it once" Again in the same
volume, at page 26, Mr.. Andrew Furu-
seth, speaking for the Federation Of
Labor, is reported as saying: 1--WE
want H. r. 4445 We don't want H. R.
$685."
Now H. R. 4445 is a literal copy of
the Hoar-Grosvenor bill which passed
the house May 2, 1902. with Mr.. Can
mons approval Immediately after it
had been read in the house, the fol
lowing proceedings took place.
"Mr. Ray, of New York: Mr..
Speaker, if there is no comment de-
sired move the previous question.
THE Speaker: The gentleman from
New York moves the previous ques-
ton.
THE previous question was ordered
and under the operation thereof the
bill was ordered to be engrOSSed for
third reading, and being engrossed, it
was accordingly read the third time
and passed. Congressional Record,
Vol. So, p. 1895.
Mr.. Cannon was in the speakers
chair and approved the whole proceed
ing.
The bill did not pass the senate, but
It would be unjust to assume that the |
majority of the house Of |
knew in advance that |
It would fail, and voted for it perfid-
ously, in order to deceive the labor
ing men of the country. Mr.. Cannon
IS now doing his best, however, to
force that view upon the public. In
lis speech at Danville, ILL.,, August 16,
1906, he said:
"Mr. Gompers claims that in con-
ests growing out Of strikes or lock
outs he is opposed to violence on the
)art of any one connected with the
/ will not question the
good faith Of the claim, but 1 do say
hat if the legislation he demands
we're enacted, destruction of property
~ irresponsible persons in such con-
rOversies would increase. Again, if
uch legislation were enacted, under
is cover vicious and irresponsible per-
ons belonging to the criminal class,
ot engaged in labor or seeking to (
abor, would avail themselves of the
pportunity, as they have in many in
tances, in the name Of cOntesting
abor, of destroying property, and the
wner thereof would be without rem
dy. The legislation that Mr.. Com
Cl 0ClAdhUo tul IL AoOoC al | 4
ines of trouble the criminally dis
osed."
If this is true to-day, why wasn't it ,
rue on the second day of May, 1902, .
yhen the identical bill which Mr.. !
ompers advocated before the COM >
littee on March 4, 1906, was passed
y the body over which Mr. Cannon 9
resides, and which he practically con- !
oils; he and every other Republican 6
nd every Democrat in that body as =
snting to it? Why did he and the
epublican majority agree to give i
lch an opportunity to vicious and
responsible persons belonging to the i
'iminal class" at that time? Why n
ID he and his party then agree to y
urn loose in times of trouble the n
'iminally disposed?" Are the labor G
g people any worse now than they O
ere then? Or is he simply slander- v
g those people now, besides impugn g
g the honor of every Republican q
ember of the fifty-seventh congress? o