The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1908-10-31

Mr.. Bryan had propounded to him the
following pertinent questions by the
Omaha Bee Mr.. Bryan did not see
| fit to attempt to answer any Of them.
| The Questions.
l. You, Mr.. Bryan, are making much
Of Democratic friendship for labor.
| Why is it that practically no legislation
| to protect labor has been enacted in
| the southern States in which Demo
Gratis have absolute control? Why are
there no child labor laws In the south:
| Why are there no laws to protect wom-
en- wage earners in the south: You
and your fusion friends had absolute
executive and legislative control of
Nebraska for several years. Why was
no legislation to protect labor passed
| then? Why did the wage workers OF
| Nebraska have to wait for succeeding
| Republican legislatures to remove the
5000 death damage limit, TO get an
equitable employers liability act and
to get child labor law?
.. You, Mr.. Bryan, are trying to
make your paramount issue, Shall the
people rule?' The most advanced
step toward popular rule has been
through the direct primary. Why is
it, Mr.. Bryan, that your fusion friends
| when in complete control did not give
| Nebraska a direct primary law? Why
IS it that the Republicans of Nebraska
had to secure the direct primary law
over the opposition of the Democrats!
| why Is II that lhe progressive h'pun-
| lican States have enacted direct pri-
mary laws 10 prlhg the ming ol o'lces
Closer TO the people, "hlle tne oeIno-
crallc states Oh tHe South HIIecl Pr
mary laws nave oeeh ciacleu "No"'uIH
10 ulSlfahcLlSe Tue people!
3. You, Mr., Bryan, are bidding for
office on your antitrust remedies.
| Why is it that all the effective !cgiSIa-
| ton against illegal combinations have
been enacted by Republican congresses
| and for the most part by Republican
| State legislatures, while the Democratic
States have no effective antitrust leg
| iSlatiOn?
You Mr. Rryon are bidding for
Iabor votes by promising 10 abolish
thn writ Of Injunction in labor dis
nutes DO Won not know that iniunc-
lion oblses have been charccablc rs
much to state corrts as tn federal
coprts9 GAN Won name , SINGLE Demo
,rotic S+oto ,vbi,b hos nossal a low,
IN nrnvent tbe ohusa If Injunction bv
| St,to oourtsq WHY vos No such law
| nossed IN \ohrosl,o when vo1r fusion
| frionds wore in comnIete controI9
,.,,..
:" ~ ~ 80 a.
NoIeS ou Sout ,"''lo - "'''N W
-u''aiitS oA''i,"I'l - 'ne u"'H So
tIlat MAS pit SuVn "a" on 'tS S'''
hooks W ny nave none % 'ne o,l''
''ilocral!c Nl".cS cL"t'e" "tpos'' Su'l
| amy I""S' lou, eSpet'a"S' lH,i"
uuc'h su'h ulIl mo ooh-I tSS III '"'
carry F" why ulu you NOT ErI your
fusion IrI'huS To enact Tue OH as "
state law Nhth IueS were III 'oulP'''N
'"hlrol OF Nebraska: \ uep"S't -u"r'
| amy blii' when you endorsed was
offered IN congress IaSt WINTER rs
SUBSTITUTE Tor lhe NreeIahd oiiI' OUT
only a handful or the Democratic con
SreSsmen voted for IT, the remaining
others voting against II or refusing |"
vote. The only Democratic congress
man from Nebraska was one OF ihoNr
who refused To vote. II Your endorse
ment OF that bill was unable TO make
these Democratic congressman vote Tor
i last winter, how Will YOU be able
to make them vote Tor IL next winter:
t. You, Mr.. Bryan. are trying To
make much of the popular election OF
| uited States senator's. We nave the
| statement OF Mr. Ilhhles, made tire"
wears ago, that large sum of money,