Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-10-22
ROOSEVELT INVITED BRYAN
To DEFINE LABOR PLANK

| Congress" is perfectly clear and def
| mite statement.
The remedies" which Mr. Gompers
has already submitted to Congress are
| tion of his remedy" against injunctions
| In labor disputes ts easy and certain.
This remedy" is embodied in House
| bill No. "a of the first session of the
Sixtieth Congress, the complete text OF
which is hereto appended.
| The gist of the bill, as can be seen
by referring to the complete text. Is
| this:
| judge to issue restraining order for
an injunction in any labor dispute ex-
cept to prevent irreparable injury to
property or a property right, it speciH.
cally provides that no right
to carry on business of any particular
kind. or at any particular place, or at
all, shall be construed, held, considered
or treated as property or as CONSTITUTE
ing a property right
Second-It provides that nothing
agreed upon or done by two or more
| parties in connection with a labor dis
pute shall constitute conspiracy or
other criminal offense or be prosecuted
as such unless the thing agreed upon
or done would be unlawful if done by
a single Individual
The bill here described is not only
the remedy" that Mr.. Gompers has
| ALREADY submitted to Congress- but
he and those associated with him In
his present movement have announced
that they will accept in the matter OF
his grievance against the courts on the
| injunction issue.
Both on Record.
The counsel for the American Fedora
| ton of Labor and Mr.. Gompers, its presi-
dent, are both on record to this effect.
At a hearing before the House commit
tee on judiciary the counsel for the
American Federation of Labor. February
:, 1908 (as appears from the printed hear
ings). stated:
THE bill was considered by at least
two sessions of the executive council or
that organization and unanimously ap-
proved. 1t was considered by two of its
national cOnventiOns-the two latest-and
by them unanimously Endorsed. And In
the face of many propositions to amend
it, in the face of many proposed substi-
tutes, in the face of pressure from every
direction from high sources and sources
not SO exalted. the organization has stood
by. and is today standing by, this Dill
without amendment"
Mr.. Gompers himself, i'm discussing this
bill before the same committee February
%. 1908 Gas appears from the printed
hearings) went on record as follows:
Events have demonstrated clearly TO
my mind that there is only one bill before
the committee that can at all be effective
to deal with this abuse, with this inva-
sion Of human rights, and that Is the
Pearre bill"
Further on in the same page of the
hearings Mr.. Gompers states:
II will say this, that 1 think I will try
to make my position clear, that the Amer1-
can Federation of Labor has SO declared
itself that it must insist upon the prin-
ciples involved in the Pearre BILL and
that 1 explained as best l could the po-
sition of labOr-that we would rather be
compelled to bear the wrongs which we
have for longer period than to give our
assent to the establishment of wrong
principle believing and knowing that
time would give the justice and relief to
which labor-the working people-are en-
titled
This bill, then. and none other. repre-
sents exactly the relief that Mr.. Gompers
demands in the way of anti-inJunctfon
legislation; and if the statement in his
letter is correct this bill represents what
Mr.. Bryan and his party are pledged to
in the matter of anti-injunction Iegisla-
ton.
The injunction plank in the Bryanite
platform may sound vague and hazy;
but there is nothing vague or hay about
this bill.
1t is more than bill: it is a program
of the most fixed and definite kind: and
if Mr.. Gompers is correct this bill be-
comes, as 1t were, an authorized appendix
to Mr.. Bryan's platform, or footnote ex-
injunction plank in that platform.
Does Mr.. Bryan Accept
Does Mr.. Bryan accept it as such?
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 him.
Mr.. Gompers announces publicly that
Mr.. Bryan's party has made this 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 anti-iniunction leg
islatiOn or those who drafted his party's
platform in their haste failed to make the
promise SO clear that the general public
would understand it precisely as Mr..
GOmperS understood 1t.
Mr.. Bryan failed in his letter of ac-
ceptance to discuss this labor plank of his
party's platform. So far as I am aware
he has failed to discuss it since
There should be such discussion as q
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 ex-
actly where he stands in this matter of
regulating injunctions.
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 it inn
perative that Mr. Bryan declare himself.
This bill. to the principle of which he
says Mr.. Bryan is pledged. declares that
the right to carry on a lawful business In
lawful way shall not be regarded as
property right or entitled to the protec-
ton OF a court OF equity through the pro-
cess Of an injunction and that the right
to such protection. which admittedly now
exists under the law. shall be taken away.
The counsel for the American Fedora
ton Of Labor in his argument before the
House committee February 3 at which
very frank illustration of what he and
Mr. Gompers perceived to be the conse-
quences Of that provision OF this bill
which says that the right to carry on
business shall not be entitled to protec-
ton as property right.
His words are: Suppose that work.
ingmen by some operation or proceedings
in the community 0et us say by violence
of persuasion or picketing away from the
premises) reduce those works to state
of utter helplessness and there was not
a wheel moving nor a process In opera
ton and this company had no help at all
that would be an interference with his
right to do business, and for that say
he has no right to be protected BY in
junction"
Challenged to Answer.
Is Mr.. Bryan In reality pledged to this
point Of view?
VIII he definitely say either in writing
or in q public address whether he believes