The Yakima herald. [volume] (North Yakima, W.T. [Wash.]) 1889-1914, 1908-03-18

7, tion of Mr.. Taft for president by the
Republican convention. He will be
nominated. Will you support him
| will, and so will Senator Ankeny.
will support the principles enun-
ciated at that convention. so will
Senator Ankeny. Will you?
Yes, voted for the ship subsidy
bill. Don't fail to look at page 2551
of the Record, first session. fifty
ninth congress, where you may be
surprised to learn that Senator An
keny also voted for it. This is a
new point you mention to show my
unfriendliness to labor. What was It
In the bill that was considered espe-
cially inimical to labor?
At page 1926 of the Record, Sec
ond session. fifty-ninth congress, a
letter is printed from Mr. Gompers
in which he says: 81 had occasion
to appear" etc, conveying labor's
protest against the passage of the So
called ship subsidy bill particularly
upon the ground that it contained
provisions which make CONSUMPTION
| compulsory naval service of sea-
mem a condition precedent to their
employment on privately owned YES
sells"
| You probably did not know that
this Objectionable provision was
stricken out before the bill came up
! for passage, but this was the case.
! While | was a member of the mer-
chant marine committee l was one
of the three Republican members
that opposed the bill then presented.
| The bill | voted for was about the
least Objectionable that had ever
been presented. l doubted its eff
cheney, and still do so, but l voted
for it, hoping that it would tend to
restore our shipping and our flag 10
the seas. There certainly is room
| for honest difference of opinion as
to the merits of a proposition of this
kind, and it is unreasonable to class
a man as an enemy of labor by rea-
son of a vote for it,
| You say that voted for the Lit
tlefield anti-pilotage bill. That is
true. never received a single labor
petition against it. 1t did not affect
our state. 1t affected only the ports
south of Cape Henry and was OPP
posed not on the ground that it in
jured labor but because it would af-
feet life and commercial interests.
This was denied by those who sup
ported it. l was not on the commit
tee that investigated the subject.
Democrats and Republicans of the
committee alike supported the meas
ure and there appeared to be no rea-
son why different system should be
applied to Washington than to vir-
ginia and the other states south. 1t
was also supposed the states could
attend to the subject and the Vir-
ginia legislature has acted, so I am
told.
You refer to my statement to Mr..
tGompers that l doubted the wisdom
of curtailing the power of injunc-
Ition. That, however, was not all
said. I agreed with the president
in the main on this proposition. 1t
is most important one to labor, as
well as to other interests. That it
is abused there is no doubt. but
| hardly believe any law can be passed
that will not or can net be abused.
will go as far as any man to pro-
tect labor and labor organization in
the peaceable and legal efforts to
better and improve their conditions
and secure their advancement and
high aims, and if a law can be
framed that will aid in this most de-
sirable endeavor will support It.
You say labor is not divided on
the essentials. My experience
teaches me otherwise. The Gilbert
bill, in my judgment, would have
been passed last congress except for
the opposition of Mr.. Gompers. 1t
was an important step forward and
had the support of large labor or
CARNATIONS. Mr.. Gompers must
have considered it radically wrong
because he opposed it, and he defeat
ed it. 1t might not be impertinent
TO ask ii he is an enemy of labor
because he did not support a bill
which had the approval of large
part OF labor I now have on my
desk number of petitions from la
Dor unions of our state urging me to
support bill different from Mr..
Gompers' bill. Must l be classed as
an enemy of labor simply because
do not support the identical measure
that Mr.. Gompers advocates? I
trust not | will support a measure