The Rice belt journal. (Welsh, Calcasieu Parish, La.) 1900-19??, 1908-09-11
BRYAN TO WORkMEN
DELIVERS NOTABLE ADDRESS AT
CHICAGO CELEBRATION.
DEFINES the Difference Between PIanks
in Democratic and Republican
Platforms-Justice for
the Toiiers.

|
| speaker, and had for an audience many
thousands of workmen. Mr. Bryan said
! in part:
| Labor day is legal holiday and it was
| made so because the legislators thought
| the Wdge-edrnerS worthy to have a dav
specially set apart for the consideration
| or themes that concern those who toll
appreciate the compliment paid me by
| the program committee of this city in in
Vlting me to participate in the ceremonies
OF TINS day, and it was gladly accepted,
| because Chicago is the second city in the
union, and as labor center it is scarce
| ly second to any city in the world
| II II were proper to speak from q text,
| ! would select passage from Proverbs
tor | know OF no better one than that
| furnished by the words of Solomon when
he declared that as a man "thinketh in
| ms heart, so is he" This Is Bible doc
! trine; 1T IS common sense, and it is hu-
man experience. We think in our hearts
! as we'll as in our heads-ont of the heart
are the issues of life" 1t is a poor head
that cannot find a plausible reason for
| doing what the heart wants to do. | be-
| sin 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 | say to you
The labor question is more a moral than
| an intellectual one.
long step toward the elevation of
labor to its proper position in the ma
tons deliberations is to be found in the
establishment of department of labor
with cabinet officer at it's head. The
wage earnerS deserve this recognition
and the executive is entitled to the as
| Ststance which such an official could
| render him. | regard the inauguration
of this reform as the opening of new
era in which those who toll will have
a voice in the deliberations of the preSi-
dents council chamber
The labor orpa MIA tion hoe haan cari
ously handicapped by the fact that it
has been-and | am not sure that it has
not been done northumberland up with
the industrial combinations known as
tenders to use the labor organi-
cation 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
of ]S years of antitrust legislation, only
one man has been given a penal SEN
! tence for violating the federal law on
this subject, and that man was a men,
Der of labor organization rather than a
trust magnate The labOrng man is JUS
tilted in his demand that a distinction
shall be drawn between the labor or
ganization and the industrial monopoly.
The trust and the labor organization
! cannot be described in the same language.
The trust magnates have used their pow
er 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 a COM
bination Of dollars; the labor organiza-
ton is an association of human beings.
In trust few men attempt to con-
troll the product of others; in 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 part Of
| them The trust deals with dead matter:
the labor organization deals with life and
with intellectual and moral forces. NO
impartial student of the subject will de-
ny the right Of the laboring man to eX-
empti0n from the operation Of the eX-
| listing 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 forestalling Of the market.
I shall not speak of the. eght-hour
day, or of the employers liability act,
because both of the leading parties have
Endorsed these reforms; the only ques-
ton to be considered: which party
can best be trusted to secure these re-
forms? l need hardly to assure you
! that I am heartily in favor Of both
reforms.
There are two questions, however, in
tirnately 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, | have no
right to ignore them. One relates to the
issue of injunctions, and the other to con-
| tempt cases arising under injunctlOns.
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 ms
/ 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 binding on Republican se ena
gress has already. made record on Ia
Ror questions, and the Republican party
cannot escape from that record.
Mr.. Taft's speech may be considered
as binding upon him, but the convention
which selected the Republican candldatess
y Mr.. Taft's personal views. The Repu6ll-
| can platform, while pretending to pledge
some modification of the law, contains
an exception clause which relterates tne
very language of the law Whether ne ea,d ms
or design, the effect is the same 1t
merely proVides,Ein substance. that re. re-.
straining,, orders shall not issue without
notice except where such order can now
issue without notice The platform was
triumph for those who have been OPP
posing the laboring man. ana they nave
i been Boosting of their victory.
The Democratic platform on TINS 81, SUP
iect copies the language which the labor
organizations submitted to the Repunll-
can and Democratic conventions. MT.
Taft, in his notification speech, opJects 10
the language He charges that the anu,
Injunction plank was loosely drawn, ,
and framed for "the especial purpose OF
rendering it susceptible to one interpre-
tation by one set of men, and dlanet-
really opposite interpretation by an
other" AS Mr. Taft has had long ex-
perience on the bench, and Is therefore
skilled In the Interpretation or language'
I ask him to give us, If he can; Two op-
posite interpretations of the language.
That plank demands that AL parties 70
all judicial proceedings, shall De treated
with rigid impartiality.' surely ne can,
not find two interpretations to the phrase
rigid impartiality .,,o
Speaking of industrial disputes, tne
nlatform declares that 'injunctions shall
not be issued in any cases IN when IN,
functions would not issue If no industrlal
Sljspute were involved" HOW can tna'
language be misconstrued or mslnter.
nrete1? If words mean anything; that
pianIs means that an industrial dispute
Ha VAC rHpn