New-York tribune., 1908-08-17
VAN CLEAVE TO BRYAN
Shoes Why Business Men Shoutd
Burn the DenUer Party.

James
Association of Manufacturers. In the Issue u
american Industries to be published tomorrow
makes reply to the article of William >. DiSai "
"The Commoner,' which was headed Inc ousi
ness Man and the Masses, and was proush' @ io,'
by a previous article of Mr.. Van CieaVe, eh'''ieO
"Denyer's Appeal to the Business Man"
In the previous article Mr.. Van Cleave said II
was the duty of every business man to bury Bryan
and Organism In his article Mr. Bryan wrote;
Every man who is engaged in work which Is
is5uc Who contributes mt by muscle 70 the
ens ness man Mgai' can an It be said that ali
gagged in any honorable or helpful work have "a
vital concern in the defeat OF the Democrauc
party?
Quoting this Mr. Van Cleave his answer to
Mr.. Bryan writes:
Let tell Mr.. Bryan that have every one OF
Why ali ' Of them should vote against him I ap
peal to every business man in the United states
SaTyISs Bryan EsSsn.s@ under sssh am ava va
have to be done over again In 1912, or ever
Mr.. Bryan wanted to know what there in the
Democratic labor plank to which business men
could take exception, and whether the labor dues-
ton was so important to justify them In ignor-
ing other issues.
Mr. Van Cleave replies that the demand for jury
trial in indirect contempt cases is reflection on
the honesty of the judge and would delay the en-
forcement of the courts DEGREES He says that the
statement in the platform that 'injunctlons snouiu
not be issued in any cases in which ln)uncuohs
would not issue if no industrial disputes were IN
volved" was a charge that Judges are prejudiced
against workers Mr.. Van Cleave challenges Mr.
| Bryan to cite single instance of such preoudice
Continuing the discussion of the labor question:
Mr.. Van Cleave says:
Where does Mr. Bryan get any authority for ms ms
Regarded illegal combinations In restra "a 80
trade LET H hi; dac,sion II ne Of federal court which
gives the shadow of foundation for this accu-
sation
Referring to the decision of the United States
Supreme Court that the American Federation OF
Labor in its boycott of the Danbury halter was an
| unlawful combination Mr.. Van Cleave asks MI
Bryan a straight question and seeks speedy re-
ply. He says:
Mr.. Bryan believe it to be lawful 70 f0T con
| spire to destroy mans business unless ne oISs
hsF ee TO be aw at for Of
attempt to conspire to ruin man business & fas u
sns on me teir terms Does he personally the
| legalization of the boycott?
Answering the question of Mr.. Bryan as to
| whether the labor plank is of enough Importance
to Justify the business in ignoring the other
blanks of the Democratic platform, Mr. van
Cleaye proceeds to poke few holes In some OF
the other planks. He quotes the following from
the platform:
Articles entering into e9mpetion % with no6 trqSf fhe
free list = and graduate reductions should
be Other
sary to restore the tariff to a revenue basis
Then Mr. Van Cleave says:
This expression from the tariff plank of his
platform is not tariff reform" which his plat
form pretends want, but tariff ann1h1latlon-
AS nearly every sort of a business which Is con-
Quoted on a large scale throughout the country
would come under the Bryanite definition or a
trust, what does Mr.. Bryan propose TO do with
the factories which his policy would close!
Where does he suppose the millions OF wage
workers whom he would thus force into idleness
could obtain employment? Unless he proposes
to allow those persons to starve, how much does
he suppose 1t would cost the country for poor
houses in which to keep them?
Taking up another Democratic plank. Mr. Van
Cleave says:
Business men object very emphatically to that
part of the banking plank which pledges the Den
yer party, If successful at the polls, to '1egsla-
ton under which the national banks shall be re-
| quired to establish guarantee fund for the
| prompt payment of the depositors of any 1nsol-
| vent national bank, under equitable system
which shall be available to all state banking in
| stitutions wishing to use it.
Replying to Mr.. Bryan's reference to the alleged
necessity of having labor represented in the Presi
dents Cabinet, Mr.. Van C1eave points out that in
| the Department of Commerce and Labor there is a
bureau devoted particularly to labor, the head OF
which has been active for years in arbitratng the
differences between employers and workers.