The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1908-07-06
Trust Buster" Monnett EX-
presses Views on the
Labor Question.
STRONGLY FAVORS
THE BRYAN PLANK
Thinks If Federal Laws Govern
Employment of Children, They
May Govern Injunction.

DENVER, July 6.-An outline OF the
position wEicn Democrats Of the Bryan
school may be expected 70 take in the
discussion Of anti-injunction legislation
5he coming autumn, IS Afforded by
statement by Frank A MOnnett. for
mer attorney general Of Ohio, trust
buster extraordinary, and representa-
tive Of Mr. Bryan in the cOnsidera-
ton OF platform declarations on trust
and railroad regulation, and on anti
injunction.
"Our conservative r pu b Ii n
frienCs,' said Mr. Monnett. have been
I considering child-labor legislation IN
Congress. They have had before them
the Beverage bill, which proposes that
the Federal authority shall assume 70
/ exclude from interstate commerce prod
ucts OF establishments in which chill
dren are employed.
What DO they say 70 that PROPOSE
tion2 Why, they assure Us that this
/ is purely an analr OF the States; that
/ the Federal Government has no bust
! ness interfering But when you turn
I the case aroJnd, and in a labor dis
\ pute undertake II say that there
should be restrictions on the Federal
powers 70 issue an injunction in the
affair OF 4 strike IN that same fac
! tory. on the ground that this is purely
( a State matter they tell Us that inter
state commerce. or diverse citizenship,
/ Is involved. and 50 the Federal courts
| should have the fullest equity powers
! preserved 70 them"
Take Broad View.
some Of the people who have been
I ~ a.
have taken the broad ground that d.
verse citizenship ought 20 be eliminated.
| by requiring foreign corporations 10
| submit 10 the laws OF every state III
I which they do business, and tha- labor
organizations should be IN the same po-
sitlon. Then there could Oe nc question
OF the right OF the State courts 20 as
sumo Jurisdiction. except In cases where
Interstate commerce IS actually and d.
( rectly involved, and the whole business
could be left 20 the state courts, These
II is maintained, would be more chary
! about issuing ujUact.Ons. because tle,
would be amsnabIe 20 local intireUre~
Mr.. Mcnnett makes the point Jhai
there is radical inconsistency between
the position Of the conservatives in tht
matter Of child labor legislation, and
their attitude toward labor disputes
They object u extending the Federal
pOwe-, by legislative process. over tht
child labor question. but they are ir
J favor OF extending II. by judicial pro
cess. over problems involved N strikes
= They say that II a factory is not en-
/ gagged IN interstate commerce when INT
c-1DIovmenr OF child labor is under dis
I Cussion. the same factory Is not en-
gagged in interstate commerce when {
strike OF its employees is involved
Evrlu1a Federal COurts
q They insist that II the Federal Gov
eminent has no power through III
- courts over the problem Of employing
I children. then II has none over the Ques
ton OF employees refusing 70 work-othe
: conditions being similar. II othe
I words these people would exclude III
! Federal courts entirely from considera
7 ton Of industrial disputes except when
? the Observation-Disclosures of Interstate com
Z merce are directly involved
D Mr.. Monnett has been loading him
self on this subject OF injunction legis
- latiOn and an Injunction declaration 4
1.-The platform. He has declared that
if there is going 70 be a night over IN
Injunction declaration. he hasn't bee
= | able thus far 10 locate Il. Nobody ye
! on the ground has squarely declare
THAT he IS going 10 make the dgh
l against the Bryan declaration.
be- On the other hand. he fully expect
= | crow" -that is. the National Manu-
tfacturers' AssOCiatiOn-wiu appear !
due time and be prepared 10 max
3 ! trouble and insist that there be n
/. ever, Mr.. Monnett does not anticiDat
- there viii be difficulty in getting n
plank through the committee or int
I the platform