Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1908-10-24

Pearre bill, and that l explained al
best I could the position Of labor =
that we would rather be compelled t.
bear the wrongs which we have for {
longer period than to give our assen
to the establishment Of wrong prin
ciple, believing and knowing tina
time would give the Justice and relic
to which labor-the working people
are entitled
This bill then. and none other
represents exactly the relief that Mr.
Gompers demands in the way Of anti
Injunction legislation, and If the state
ment in his letter is correct, this bill
represents what Mr.. Bryan and his
party are pledged to in the matter Of
anti-injunction legislation.
Is More Than a Bill.
The injunction plank in the Bryan
lite platform may sound vague ami
hazy, but there is nothing vague o.
hazy about this bill
1T is more than a. bill, 1t is pro
gram of the most fixed and definite
kind; and if Mr.. Gompers is correct
this bill becomes, as it were, an used
appendix to Mr.. Bryan's platform, OF
a footnote explaining in detail the
briefer and wagner injunction plank
in that platform.
Does Mr.. Bryan accept it as such
Mr. Bryan should state publicly
whether he in fact accept the prin
ciple of this bill which is the official
program of Mr.. Gompers and those
who stand with him.
Mr.. Gompers announces publicly
that Mr.. Bryan's party has made this
program its own. Is Mr. Gompers cor.
rect in this statement?
Either Mr.. Gompers is mistaken as
to what Mr.. Bryan's party has prom
1sed him in this matter of anti-injunc-
ton legislation, or those who drafted
his party's platform, in their haste
failed to make the promise so clear
that the general public would under.
stand it precisely as Mr.. Gompers un.
derstood it.
Mr.. Bryan failed in his letter of &C.
ceptance to discuss this labor plank
of his partys platform So far as I am
aware he has failed to discuss it since.
Should Discuss Matter.
| There should be such discussion as
a matter of common fairness not only
to labor but to all citizens alike. On
a question of such grave consequence
the people are entitled to know where
Mr.. Bryan stands.
Mr.. Taft has repeatedly explained
exactly where he stands in this mat
ter of regulating injunctions.
Are we not entitled to know with
equal clearness exactly where MI
Bryan stands?
Mr.. Gompers' public statements as
to what his party has promised make
1t imperative that Mr.. Bryan declare
himself
This bill, to the principle of which
he says Mr.. Bryan is pledged, de-
clares that the right to carry on law
suit business in lawsuit way shall
not be regarded as property right
or entitled to the protection OF court
of equity through the process Of an
Injunction, and that the right to such
protection which admittedly now ex.
lists under the law, shall be taken
away.
"The counsel for the American Fed
Grafton of Labor in his examination
before the house on February g. at
which Mr.. Gompers himself was pres
ent, gave a very frank illustration of
what he and Mr.. Gompers believed to
be the consequence of that provision
of that bill which says the right to
carry on business shall not be entitled
to protection as a property right.
| His words are:
Suppose that workingmen by some
operation or proceeding in the com.
munity (let us say Ly violence or per.
suasion or picketing away from the
'premises) reduce those works to a
state of utter helplessness and there
was not wheel moving, nor process
in operation, and this company had no
help at all-that would be an interior.
ence with his right to do business, and
for that, I say he has a right to be
protected by Injunction
Asks Rryan's Position.
rs Mr.. Bryan in reality pledged tc
this point of view?
WIFI he definitely say either in
writing or in public address whether
he believes with Mr.. Gompers that the
protection heretofore afforded by the
courts of equity to the right to carry
on lawful business in lawful way
Is deSpotic power and that the Judges
who exercise that power are irrespons
ible despots?
SO far as the second section of this
bill is concerned, 1t is perfectly clea,
that it would legalize the blacklist and
the sympathetic boycott, carried to any
extent 1t would legalize acts whici,
have time and again been declared op
pressive, unjust and immoral by the
best and most eminent labor leaders
themselves.
Does Mr.. Bryan believe with Mr.
Gompers that he and that part Of tbs
labor movement that agrees with hin
have the right morally, and should be
given the right legally, to paralyze OF
to destroy with impunity the business
of an innocent third person, against
whom he or they have no direct griev
ance, simply because this third per
son refuses to join with them aggres
sfvely in a labor controversy, with the
real merits of which he may be utter