Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1907-09-14
Washington Bureau of
The Ottumwa Courier.
WaShin ptOn Sent 70.


D. M. Parry Of Indianapolis has
Bryan and Senator Albert j. Beveridge
for tneir views on the labor question
as expressed in their debate in the
Reader Magazine, and has prepared a
keen and peppery article, in which he
soning and trucking to the labor vote.
Mr. Parry handles both the Reader
disputants without gloves. He says:
"The real labor question is whether
men in an organized capacity shall "a
be permitted special license to vio-
late law and (2) whether they shall be
granted special favors by government
at the expense of the whole people.
The unions assume the power to deny.
by forcible means IF necessary, the
right Of non-member to work wnert
when and for what he pleases and the
right of the employer to hire when he
pleases and to manage his own capital
as he sees fit under the law. Also the
unions are particularly clamorous for
special favor from government. The
labor question is thus one imposed on
labor to use it power in an illegiti-
of power which occasions all industrial
troubles and constitutes the entire cap
ital-labor controversy. The real labor
question has nothing to do with the
right of labor to organize for legiti-
mate ends, and when combining their
efforts within the sphere Of the lawful,
the unions do in important ways serve
the best ends Of society.
| address themselves to the labor ques-
ton as have stated it? No They
| would not dare to do 1t. The union
labor man Is voter-a very hard
voter to please and still harder to keep
pleased. But horror Of horrors, if he
isn't pleased there is the fatal roll of
the political enemies of labor edited
from day to day by Mr.. Gompers. And
| If Mr.. Bryan or our own dear senator
should get his name on that roll it
would be cataclysmic. Could they tell
the unions that when they strike,
when they abandon their employment,
their members should leave the place
where they had worked and not modest
in any way their former employer or
the man he hires in their stead? Could
they tell them that their proposed
class legislation could not be granted
without virtually annulling the consti
tuition of the United States and substi-
tuting in it's place a code on the SO.
cialistic order Of course not-that
is they could not do 1t from the stand.
point Of public men. Hence We have
labor debate which in point of fact
is mainly rivalistic performance to
see which can smear the political salve
the deepest
But while Mr.. Bryan and Mr.. Bev,
eridge evade the main issue they have
much to say which requires an answer
1t Is only justice to Mr. Beveridge to
say that his views are very much diff
ferent from those of Mr.. Bryan Be
ing a senatorial member Of Mr.. Roose
velt's cabinet, Mr.. Beveridge Is some
what on the defensive-it is largely mis-
object to prove that the national ad
ministration is for labor, but in doing
this he is careful to admit that labor
is not exactly the whole thing in the
universe and that as matter of fac1
capital is also entitled to some con
sideration. This admission is wei
nigh fatal from a labor point of view
as was demonstrated in recent inter
view in the public press wherein 'the
most conservative labor leader in the
country adroitly takes the senator tt
task by declaring with pointed empha
sis that the labor question is the onl.
great question and that all other uues
tons such as tariff, finances, trusts
etc, mentioned by the senator pail
into insignificance beside it, Clearl.
from the labor point of view, Mr.. Bry
an mas utterly routed Mr.. Beverage il
this debate.
"But Mr.. Bryan being of the 'opposi
ton and exceedingly anxious tina
somebody else should become the or
position has no annoying responsible
tiles to contend with and APPARENT
no scruples in further advertising him
lseH as an enemy of capital Organize