The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1908-08-12
BlIlG 10 VlH elEiVE.
eays There h Nothing IN Labor Plank
of the Platform TO Antagonl,e BUS
inea Men Of the Country.

A~noVs"s Neo., aus. 6.-W. j. Bryan
Ssusd . statement replying to a cir
eular issued some weeks ago by the
National Association OF Manufacturers
and signed BY James w. Van Cleave.
Mr.. Bryan declares that the pam
phlst of Mr.. Van Cleave raises two
questions: First--Is there anything
In the labor plank Of the Democratic
platform to which business men can
Justly take sxcer lions? second-Is
the labor question % important to
business men - TO justify them In
IGNORING al other issuss?a t
Mr. Bryan declares that the provi-
sica In the Democratic platoon for
the creation Of labor department
with cabinet oaicsr at its head can
not possibly offend business men. He
then Gays:
the platform draws q distinction
bsewser associations OF wage sarnsrs
cesanissd for the protsction OF wages
and the Improvement OF labor condi-
lions and industrial corporations which
aee In restraint OF trade. The differ
s~cs between labor organisation and
. trust b % apparent that no disintsr-
sstsd person viii deny that they
sheuld b treated separately. To
csAss the two kinds or organisations
together and deal with them under
one lsv n bound TO do injustice to one
or ths other. The business men can
have no vital concern In includins the
iAbos organizations In the antitrust
IhwH-
Mr.. Bryan then takes up the plank
providing for trial by Jury In cases Of
Indirect contempt. He insists that this
cannot reise q question OF vital con-
csrn TO business men. because every
nan has . right to jury trial. He
then says: IN
"An attempt has been made to raise
fHlss Issue In regard to the courts
anl 10 make II appear that the de-
rand for trial BY jury 10 IN assault
upsn the integrity Of the courts. Those
who make this argument might a.
veil insist on the abolition Of the
tssy II al cases. for the Jury system
npolf = 1ast - much rejection on
~ beneh - % this dsmsnd for trial
~ jory IN these particular cases.
feDue there u another labor plank
~ n1r. Van clsavs probably has In
-. This 70 Ne plank that declares
90 partiss b ail judicial procssdinss
e1ssi1 ~ treated with rigid impar-
olMsy and thas m injunction should
- issus n sny cess IN which IN In.
1rDetson vsssld not iis if no industrial
1Dsss vess Involved. DO ths bust
- nsa ioast upon partiaiity In
tqGDssA1 Deoeesdlnss7 Do they Insist
- ~ SAst tAat there u IN industrial
lDses sAsuld justify On iAtunctionI
1oot plank dess not stssmpt 10 inter-
80 Win ths issus Of IN injunction
v4ers ethsr conditions justify Il. hut
q osss epp,ss ths i~sus Of an injunc-
sise sssssir Or the purposs OF bring
~ shs courts into the discussion Of
q in1ustrisl dispute.
~nr. Van Clsavs asserts that this
peank rousss 'ciass spirit and con-
<Qe~fss . demand for class favors.'
~ shis q not true. II u . dsclara-
~ that the writ Of injunction should
nes bs used for the purpose Of Great
~ class or favoring . class. The
isborsng men resent an attempt to ais
cnminats against them In favor Of any
other elass." 49,
nr. Bryan In conclusion declares
that Mr.. Van cieave does the business
mAn IN injustice In seeing that his
waking hours are nlisd with fears of
the wage Garner and that his nights
rest IL broken by imaginary disputes
with those who toll.