The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-10-22

Mr.. BRYAN should state publicly whether
he, in fact, accepts the principle of this
bill. which is the official program of
Mr.. Gompers and those who stand with
1 him.
| Mr.. Gompers announces publicly that
| Mr. Bryan's party has made his pro-
gram its own. Is Mr.. Gompers correct
| in this statement?
| Either Mr.. Gompers is mistaken as to
| what Mr.. Bryan's party has promised
| him in this matter of injunction legis-
lation. or those who drafted his party's
| platform. in their haste failed to make
the promise so clear that the general
public would understand precisely as
Mr. Gompers understands it.
Mr. Bryan failed in his letter of ac-
ceptance to discuss this labor plank OF
his party's -latform. So far 1 am
aware he has failed to discuss it since.
There should be such discussion as
matter of common fairness, not only to
question of such grave consequence
the people are entitled to know where
| Mr. Bryan stands
| Mr.. Taft has repeatedly explained ex--
actly where he stands in this matter OF
regulating injunctions. 49,
| Are we not entitled to know with
equal clearness exactly where Mr..
Bryan stands?
Mr. Gompers' public statements as to
what his party has promised make IL
imperative that MI Bryan oeciare niln
| self This BILL to the pfinciple of which
he saws Mr.. Bryan is pledged, declares
! that the right to carry on business Ill
| a lawful way shall not be regarded as
| a property right or entitled TO the pro
| lection of a court Of equity through the
process of an Injunction: ana h siJ, s sde
right to such protection wnich al
| mittedly now exists under the law
shall, be taken away.
The counsel for the American FEEDER
alton of Labor in his examination be
| fore the house on February 5, at when
Mr. Counters himself was present, gave
a very frank illustration Of what he
ana Mr. Gompers believed to be the
consequence of that provision or ina,
! bill which says the right to carry on
business shall not be entitled TO pro-
| lection as property Tight
His words are:
"Suppose that working men by some
oneration or proceedings in the COM
munity Qet us say by violence or per
suasion or picketing away from the
premises) reduce those works 10 state
of utter helplessness, and there was
not a wheel moving, nor a process In
operation. and this company had no
helm at all-that would be an Interior
ence with his right to do business; and
| for that I say he has no right 10 De
protected by injunction"
Is Mr.. Bryan in reality pledged TO
this point of viey? Will he definitely
| say. either in writing or in pubic ad-
| dress. whether he believes with MI.
Gompers that protection heretofore al
| forded by the court of equity to the
right TO carry on a lawful business In
a lawful way is despotic power. and
that the judges who exercise that pow
er are irresponsible despots?
| So far as the second section of this
| bill is concerned, 1t is perfectly ciear
that 1t would legalize the blacklist ana
| the sympathetic boycott carried to any
| extent. 1t would legalize acts which
khave time and again been declared OPP
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 the
labor movement that agrees with
him has the right morally and
should be given the right legally to
| paralyze or to destroy with i'm
4 mnnifv the business of an innocent
third party. against whom he or they
have no direct grievance, simply be-
cause this third person refuses to JOIN
with them aggressive1y in labor con-
troversy with the real merits OF Wnlcn
4 he may be utterly unacQuainted, be-
cause he refuses to class as MS
enemy any and every other employer
whom they point out as their enemy
because he refuses, merely upon the
peremptory order, to excommun1-
all business relations with him Inc
black list and the secondary boycott
are two of the most cruel forms OF
oppression ever devised by the wit
of man for the infection of suffering
on his weaker fellows. No court
could possibly exercise any more
brutal. unfeeling, or despotic power
: than Mr.. Gompers claims for himself
and his followers in this Legislation
. which would permit them without lei
or hindrance of any kind to carry or
! every form and degree of the second
airy boycott.
Form of Boycott.
The anthracite strike commission
as fair minded and distinguished q
body of men as ever passed judgment
on an industrial question; mus reIer.
to the secondary form of boycott, thai
is. the boycott of innocent third per-
sons for refusing to take an agrees
sive part in a controversy when they
have no concern;
ITO saw this is not to deny the
legal right of any man or set of men
voluntarily to refrain from social in
tercourse or business relations with
any persons whom he or they, with OF
without good reason, disllkes. rms
may some times be un-Chrlstlan' pu'
it is not illegal But when 1t Is g
concerted purpose of a number OF
persons not only to abstain them
. selves from such intercourse, but te
, render the life OF their Vlctlm mis-
cradle by persuading and intimidatins
others to refrain. such purpose is
malicious one, and the concerted at
tempt to accomplish 1t is a conspiracy
at common law and merits and shoulc
receive the punishment due to such E
crime"
The commission further states tina
this boycott can be carried to ar
extent (which was condemned by Mr.
Mitchell. president of the United
Mine Workers of America. in his
testimony before the commission ano
which certainly deserves the reproba
ton of all thoughtful and law-abidlnt
citizens"
Does Mr. Bryan agree with Mr.
| Gomners that all existing legal re-
straint on the enforcement of every
| degree of the boycott should be