The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-09-08

pie feel their interdependence. We have no law of primogeniture to sepa- rate the oldest son from ais brothers ana sisters; and we have no law or entail to prevent the alienation of an estate. There Is no aristocraey resting upon tirth or kingly favor; and if sherr she reopls perform their civic ;,, duties, the parie of the dollar. Here the road to advancement is a public highway, and t Is within our rowor 10 kt.2 government is within the control of the people, and no department of the service Is out of the reach of the yot. CT or beyond the influence of pubic
 branches of the government are more
 responsive than others to the pubic
 will, but our government can be con
 trolled by the people, fro mthe organic
 law which we call the constitusion to ssse statute and the courts decree. A long step toward the elevation or labor to its proper position in the ma tion's deliberations is to be found ip
 Labor. with cabinet officer at its head. The wage-earners deserve this recognition, and the executive Is en- tii ed to the assist which such an | official could render him. 1 regard the inauguration of this reform as the op- ening of a new era in which those | who toll will have a voice in the de- liberation of the Presidents council Trusts and Labor.
 The labor organization has been se- 1 riously handicapped by the fact that II
 1t has been-and l an, not sure that It l up with the industrial combinations known as trusts. The proneness or
 trust defenders to use the labor or
 ganization as an excuse for combine | ed the suspicion that they have been 1 classed together for the purpose Of | shielding the combinations or capitai.
 As the result of eighteen years Of an- | ti-trust legislation. only one man has been given a penal sentence for vi- | ciatjng the Federal law on this sub | ject and that man was member or
 q laoor organization rather rather than than ,s s | Justified In his demand that distfnc- 1 tion shall be drawn between the labor l organization and the industrial mo- nopoly.
 | tion cannot be described in the same language The trust magnates have i used their power to amass swollen I fortunes, while no one will say that l the labor organization has as yet se- | cured for its members more than their share of the profits arising from their work. But there are fundamental dif- | ferences. The trust Is a combination | nf dollars; dhe labor organization is | an association of human beings. In | trust a few men attempt to control the l product of others; in labor organi- zation, the members unite for the pro- tection of that which Is their own,
 namely, their own labor, which, being
 necessary. to their existence. Is part
 of them. The trust deals with dead natter; the labor organization deals with life and with intellectual and moral forces. No impartial student Of the subject will deny the right or the laboring man to exemption from the
 operation of the existing antitrust law.
 If the labor organization needs to be regulated by law, let it be reg ulated by law which deals with man as man, and not by law that was aimed to prevent the cornering of a commodity or the forestalling of the market.
 day, or of the employers liability act. because both of the leading parties have endorsed these reforms; the only question to be considered is; which these reforms? need hardly assure you that I am heartily in favor of noth reforms.
 There are two questions. however. problem upon which the Democratic and Republican parties do not agree, and l not only feel at liberty to dis cuss these, but, under the circum- them. One relates to the issue of in- functions, and the other to contempt cases arising under injunctions Tie Republican convention did not deal candidly with the laboring man on the subject of the writ of injunction. Secretary Taft has endeavored to amend his platform in this respect and to make some promises, which are not supported by his platform, but his promises offer nothing substantial in the way of reform, and are not bind- ing on Republican Senators, and mem bers. The Republican Congress has al- oAr II tions, and the Republican Party can not escape from that record.
 MT. Taft's speech may be consider ed as binding upon him. but the coh- candidates endorsed the Republican platform-not MT. Taft's personal views. The Republican platform, while cation of the law. % Contains % an % eDcep- tion clause which reiterateH the very language of the law. Whether this ex- ception clause was inserteds by acci- dent or design, the effect is the same. It merely provides. in substance, that restraining orders shall not issue without notice except where such or der can now issue without notice. The platform was a triumph for those who have been opposing the laboring man, and they have been boasting of their victory.
 The Democratic platform on this subject copies the language which the labor organizations submitted to the Republican and Democratic conven- tions. MT. Taft in his notification speech objects to the language. He charges that the anti-injunction plank was loosely drawn" and framed for "the especial purpose of rendering it susceptible to one interpretation by one set of men, and a diametricalty opposite interpretation by another" As Mir. Taft has had long experience on the bench, and is therefore skilled in the interpretation of language, I ask him to give us, if he can, two op- posite interpretations of the language. That plank demands that "all parties to all judicial proceedings shall he treated with rigid impartiality." Sure ly he cannot find two interpretations to the phrase rigid impartiality."
 platform declares that "injunctions shall not be issued in any cases in which injunctions would not issue if no industrial dispute were involved" How can that language be miscons- trued or misinterpreted? If words an industrial dispute shall not. in it. self, be regarded as 8 sufficient cause for an injunction. If an injunction issues in an industrial dispute, 1t must be based upon acts which would jus- tify an injunction if there were no in- dustrial dispute involved There is nothing ambiguous about 1t; there is nothing that can be misconstrued or misint erpreted, even by one desiring to find a double meaning. Why do the Republican leaders attempt to read ambiguity into those words? Simp. ly because they cannot meet the prop osition presented. Even MT. Taft at tempts to avoid the issue by saying that mo one has ever maintained that the fact that a dispute was industrial