The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1907-02-23
=.
A Criticism by
Samuel Gompers,
,Presiident Of the
American Fed
Grafton Of Labor.
Richard Olney on
Labor In Politics

e-e7>->-e-s-e-s-ss-e-s->-s-s0
unions from the established penalties
OF the law, and, in their behalf, to-
break down the safeguards which the
experience of centuries has found 1t
wise to throw about the rights of the
individual citizen. The other notorious
demands Of organized labor are Tor
special privileges of a most offensive
kind. Nothing that the beneficiar'es
Of protection ever asked. or THAT
moneyed obligarchy, thinking itself IN
control Of government, ever greeoliy
sought, is more grossly selfish or dis
eliminates more sharply against. out"
siders, than the avowed aims OF trades
unions"
The dull and ignorant who peruse
this quoted idiotfc paragraph evident
ly assume that, las lawyer" Mr.. Oh
ney must necessarily disapprove OF the
anti-injunction bill "backed by Mr..
Gompers." BY the way, the parentht-
cal words, land by the president"
show that the scribe Is a. malicious
as we'll as an ignorant conversational
list, for it is not true that the presi-
dent and MIR. Gompers have been
packing" the same anti-injunct1on
bill, and even the hasty newspaper re-
porter knows this to be fact.
He either does not know or dishon-
estly affects not to know, that many
excellent lawyers and learned, upright
judges (like the late Judge Tuley; OF
Chicago, and Justice Gaynor, Of New
! York; have taken the labor view of
the injunction abuse. That In England
both houses of parliament have enact
ed an anti-injunction and anti-con-
spiracy law practically Identical with
that backed by union labor, he knows
but dishonesty ignores, as the fact Is
too painful to plutocracy and would
not suit his argument. His own char
acterization of the anti-injunction bill
is as venomous as it is false and men,
dacious.
! With regard to the "other notorious
demands Of organized labor"-the
scribe does not specify them-yet can
only say this his use Of the terms
sgreed" and gross selflshness" in con-
nection with them indicates a depth
Of stupidity which we really cannot be
expected to fathom:
We suspect that Mr.. Parry or one
of his disciples wrote the article from
which we quote. oven the capitalistit
economists have felt constrained tt
recognize the great social value anG
utility Of the organized labor move
ment.
! The labor movement cannot be sci.
fish.
1t cannot benefit unionists withou
benehting Outsiders"
It. cannot raise, wages or shorter
hours or improve labor conditions
without extending these gains to al
laborers.
Moreover, is not: unionism. open t
the outsider"
Is not every union maintaining !.
force or organizers for the express
purpose Of bringing in and helping tn,
non union men to better their condi
tons?
Is this "selfshness?"
Do the trusts pursue this policy? D
the monopolists, rebate payers, AM
rebate takers, the benefciaries of i'm
proper privilege generally-do thes
gentry believe in the "open door," II
increasing daily, hourly, the member
ship of their industrial organizations
Are they paying organizers and speak
ers to induce as many as POSSIBLE
to share in the advantages of collec
tive bargaining, cooperative and de
Tense of common interests.
But we have said too much to tn
probably consciously false and absur
Misrepresentation of the plutocrati
scribe. Our chief object was to direc
attention to Mr.. Olney's wholesom
candid, enlightened view won labor
function and influence in politics. LIE
the hirelings Of plutocracy rave an
rage The very stars in their course
are fighting for liberty and justice AM
right; the cause Of humanity, the caus
organized labor has at heart and which
lis the essence OF its being