The Cairo bulletin. (Cairo, Ill.) 1???-1928, 1908-09-11


whclming defeat Of Mr.. Bryan. The
Republican, house stood against such
legislation in 1896 and the people SIS
taincd its action Mr. Cannon pointed
ort that in 1896 the Democrats might
have passed such an injunction law;
that they controlled beth horses AMI
bad Democratic president, that Mr.
BRYAN was a member of that con-rass,
bus he was silent regarding iniunc-
lions by a federal court, although a
court in Louisiana hal at that iime
decided that labor organ cations were
iamcnable to the Sherman anti trust
law
Gompers Mistaken.
"Mr. Gcmpers complains. sal /
Speaker Cannon that the supreme
iccmt Of the United stat s has place |
4 now Interpretation on the Sherman
antitrust law in the decision CT t e
Dabbury hatters' case. Mr. Gompers
is mistaken. Like other sOecial
ipleaders, he puts into that dec sion
things that were not writ an, CT de.
cided or considered. The hatters cas- >
! was q complaint against an inter stat
! boycott The American Federation of
} Labor had ordered a boycott t'r ugh
! out the United States against the
| Danhury hat manufacturers because
! Of refusal to uniOniZe their shops
I The complaint was against the b Y.
cott as a restraint of interstate com
Ime"cc and in defiance of the Sherman
law The case was decided on that
ground aud the opinion Of the SUI
preme court sustained the decision of
the lower court on that ground. Mr..
Gompers says that this decision r
the first time brings the labor unions
under the restriction of the Sherman
law He Is mistaken. The United
States courts, district and circuit.
have in numerous cases held that the
law applied to labor organizations II
the opinion of the supreme court,
Chief Justice Fuller Democrat.
cited several of these decisions"
Louisiana Case.
Mr.. Canpon referred again to the
case in which the United States c.r.
.cuit court of Louisiana in March 1898
issued an injunction against striking
members of the Workngmen Anal
galnated Council of Louisiana, ana
held that the Sherman law applied II
combinations Of workers as well as e.
combinations of capital That de-
cision.' said Speaker Canon, was
rendered fifteen years ago, before the
Pullman strike in Chicago and it has
been the Interpretation of the law
ever since Mr.. Bryan was in congress
fo.' two years after that decision and
although the Democrats controlled
the government We fail to find any.
thing in the records to show that he
or his party tried to amend the Sher-
man law or make any protest against
the action of the court. The decision
of the Danbury hatters case was that
tho boycott was in restraint of trade
AMI that the American Federation of
Labor was not exempt from the law
made for all 1t is an uuwarranted
assumption that this decision in any
va affects agreements between EN-
plCyes ana employers or that it eveI
tonches the right of employees to qui
work or strike"
Gompers Wants Boycott.
Speaker Cannon then told of the ap
pearance of Mr Gompers before the
house committee on judiciary white
ii was considering the Hepburn bill.
To ask for an amendment that would
authorize the boycott He said Mr..
Gompers was asked whether an
amendment suggested by him was
meant to relive labor unions from the
operation of the Sherman law as con
strued in the hatters case Upon Mr..
Gompers replying yes the chairman
hal asked him: DO you, as repre-
sentative of organized labor favor the |
boycott both as an interstate and q
loca, proposition Mr. Cannon said |
that Mr.. Gompers replied, II do. sir" |
IT will be seen said Mr. Cannon |
that Mn Gompers' complaint was |
direct as to the decision of the court |
ON the boycott not as to what it |
might lead to in interference with |
fle ffiii'lliN ''NN''b 'hlIibHtl tUI 1
employees. or as TO the right Of cm- |
ploycs TO strike. His contention is |
for the right to boycott, to use the |
influence ne has with n great orgaui |
zation, which he says has member |
ship of more than two million men. |
to boycott the product of any man |
or any firm for any cause whatever |
and to use the publication under his |
control TO iniure any mans business |
fOr any cause or whim that pleased |
him. That would be illegal I'm any
publication by any man and it is diff |
cult to see how il can be made above |
the law or how Gompers can be OK
empted from the operation Of the law
that applies to all men
Not Against Organization.
The federal corrts have not laid
any bar in legal decisions AGAINST
agreements between employers and
mployes. or against peaceahle strikes
to procure an increase in wages
do not believe that the supreme court
viii ever decide against such agree
mente or strikes. When il does. I
shall go hot-foot to aid in CHANGING
the law for believe in organized