The Green Forest tribune., 1908-09-11
BRYAN TO WORkMEN
DELIVERS NOTABLE ADDRESS AT
 CHICAGO CELEBRATION.
Defines the Difference Between PEanks in Democratic and Republican Platforms-Justice for
 the ToiIers.

>'~ S'iS'
 Chicago.-At the Labor day celebration here Hon. ". ]. Bryan was the principal speaker, and had for an audience many thousands of workmen. MT. Bryan said in part:
 Labor day is legal holiday and it was made so because the legislators thought the Wage-earners worthy to have day specially set apart for the consideration Of themes that concern those who toll. l appreciate the compliment paid me by the program committee of this city in in- Viting me to participate in the ceremonies or thls day, and it was gladly accepted, because Chicago is the second city in the umon, and as labor center it is scarce ly second to any city in the world.
 II it were proper to speak from a text. l would select a passage from Proverbs, for l know of no better one than that furnished by the words of Solomon when he declared that as a man "thinlleth in his heart. so is he" This is Bible doe Urine; 1t is common sense, and it is hu- man experience. We think in our hearts as well as in our heads-out of the heart are the issues of life" It is poor head that cannot find a plausible reason for doing what the heart wants to do. l be- sln my, speech with this proposition be- cause l want to impress it upon the minds of those who listen to me, and up- on those who read what I say to you. The labor question is more a moral than an intellectual one.
 long step toward the elevation of labor to it's proper position in the na- tion,s deliberations is to be found in the establishment of q department of labor, with a cabinet officer at it's head. The wage earners deserve this recognition. and the executive is entitled to the as- sistance which such an official could render him. 1 regard the inauguration of this reform the opening of a new era in which those who tofl will have a voice in the deliberations of the presi- dents council chamber.
 The labor organization has been seri- ously handicapped by the fact that it has been-and l am not sure that it has not been done unwittingly-yoked up with the industrial combinations known as trusts. The proneness of trust de- lenders to use the labor organi zation as an excuse for combinations in restraint of trade has aroused the sus- picion that they have been classed to- gether for the purpose of shielding the combinations of capital As the result one man has been given a penal sen- tenee for violating the federal law on this subject. and that man was a mem- Der of labor organization rather than a trust magnate. The laboring man is jus tified in his demand that a distinction shall be drawn between the labor or sanization and the industrial monopoly.
 The trust and the labor organization cannot be described in the same language. The trust magnates have used their pow CT to amass swollen fortunes, while no one will say that the labor organization has as yet secured for it's members more than their share of the profits arising from their work. But there are funda- mental differences. The trust is com bination of dollars: the labor organiZa- Von is an association of human beings In trust few men attempt to con- trol the product of others; in a labor organization, the members unite for the protection of that which is their own namely. their own labor, which, being necessary to their existence is a part of them. The trust deals with dead matter; the labor organization deals with life and with intellectual and moral forces. No ta1 rt,r1a 1f ,lx T. ny the right of the laborng man to ex- emption from the operation of the ex- isting antitrust laws
 If the labor organization needs to be regulated by law, let it be regulated by a law which deals with man as man, and not by law that was aimed to pre- vent the cornering of a commodity or the forestallins of the market.
 l shall not speak of the eight-hour day, or of the employers liability act because both of the leading parties have tion to be considered: which party can best be trusted to secure these re- forms? I need hardly to assure you that I am heartily in favor of both
 There are two questions. however, in- timately connected with the labor prob lem upon which the Democratic and Re- publican parties do not agree. and not only feel at liberty to discuss these, but, under the circumstances, l have no right to ignore them. One relates to the
 
 tempt cases arising under injunctions: The Republican convention did not deal candidly with the laboring man on the subject of the writ of injunction. Sec retary Taft has endeavored to amend his platform in this respect and to make some promises, which are not supported nothing substantial in the way of reform. and are not binding on Republican sena- tors and members The Republican con gress has already made a record on la Dor questions and the Republican party cannot escape from that record.
 MT: Taft's speech may be considered as binding upon, him, but the convention indorsed the Republican platform-n,ot Mir. Taft's personal views. The Republ- can platform, while pretending to pledge an exception clause which reterates the very language of the law. Whether this exception clause was inserted by accident or design, the effect is the same. It merely provides. in substance, that re- straining orders shall not issue without notice except where such order can now triumph for those who have been op- posing the laboring man, and they have been hoasting of their victory.
 The Democratic platform on this sub ject copies the language which the labor organizations submitted to the Republi- can and Democratic conventions MT. the language. He charges that the anti injunction plank was loosely drawn" and framed for ''the especial purpose of rendering it susceptible to one interpre- tatton by one set of men. and a diamet- rically. opposite interpretation by an- other" As MT. Taft has had long ex- perience on the bench. and is therefore skilled in the interpretation of language, l 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 be treated with rigid impartiality." Surely he can not find two Interpretations to the phrase rigid impartialty
 Speaking of industrial disputes, the platform declares that ''iniunctions shall not be issued in any cases in which in-- i,i"ctions would not issue if no industrial dispute were involved" How can that language be misconstrued or misinter- preted? If words mean anything, that plank means that an industrial dispute shall not, in itself, be regarded as suf- ficent cause for an injunction. If an in- junction issues in an industrial dispute. it must be based upon acts which would justify an injunction if there were no industrial dispute involved There is nothing ambiguous about it. there is nothing that can be miSconstrued or mis- interpreted. even by one desiring to fud iiean leaders attempt to read ambiguity into those words? Simply because they cannot meet the proposition presented.
 One of the great problems to-day is to secure an equitable distribution of the proceeds of toll The material wealth of this country is largely a joint product; In factories few people work alone, and operation is necessary. Where men work together, the army organization applies to some degree; that is, some direct others are directed. The difficulty has