The Billings gazette. [volume] (Billings, Mont.) 1896-1919, 1908-10-23

his. present movement have an
nounced that they will accept In the
matter Of his grievance against the
courts on the injunction issue.
THE counsel for the American Fed
Grafton Of Labor and MI. Gompers, Its
president, are on record to this effect.
AT . hearing before the house com.
mittee on judiciary the counsel OF the
American Federation OF Labor on Feb.
ruary s, 1908, Gas appears from the
printed hearings) stated:
"The bill was considered by at
least two sessions Of the executive
council Of that Organization and unan-
imously approved. It vas considered
by two of its national conventions
the two latest-and by these unani-
mously endorsed. And in the face of
the many propositions to amend 1t,
in the face Of the proposed substitutes,
in the face Of pressure from every d.
rection, from high sources and sources
not so exalted, the organization has
stood by and is today standing by this
bill without amendment
"Mr. Gompers himself introducing
this bill, before the same committee
on February 28th, 1908, las 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 cause,
with this invasion of human rights,
and that is the Pearre BILL
Further o in the same page of the
hearings, Mr.. Gompers states:
Il will say this, that 1 think I will
try to make my position clear that the
American Federation of Labor has SO
declared itself that it must insist up
on the principles involved in the
Pearre bill and that I explained as
best could the position Of labor
that We would rather be compelled to
bear the wrongs which we have for
q longer period than to give our as
sent to the establishment of a wrong
principle believing and knowing that
time would give the justice and re
lief to which labor-the working peo-
.ple-are entitled
MN <s-.4,4H. ~. ..NtEH gY4F. EGLN NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
"This bill, then, and non other, rep
.resents exactly the relief that Mr..
Gompers demands in the way of anti
Injunction legislation and if the state
ment in his letter is correct, this bill
represents what Mr.. Bryan and his
party are pledged to in the matter Of
anti-injunction legislation.
THE injunction plank in the Bry-
ante platform, may sound vague and
hazy, but there is nothing vague or
hazy about this bill.
ut is o than = bill; it is a pro.
gram of the most fixed and definite
kind; and if Mr.. Gompers is correct,
this bill, becomes al 1T were, an appen-
dix to Mr.. Bryan's platform, or a foot
note explaining in detail the briefer
and wagner injunction plank in that
platform.
Does Mr.. Bryan accept it as such?
"Mr. Bryan should state publicly
whether he in fact accepts the princi-
OF this bill, which is the oncial
program Of Mr.. Gompers and those
who stand with him.
MI. Gompers announces publicly
Mr.. Bryan's party has made this
program its own. Is Mr.. Gompers cor
in this statement?
Either Mr.. Gompers is mistaken as I
to what Mr.. Bryan's party has prom
ised in the matter of another injunc-
ton legislation or those who drafted
his party platform, in their haste, fail
ed to make his promise SO clear that
the general public would understand
It precisely as Mr.. Gompers under
1t.
Mr.. Bryan failed in his letter OF &C.
ceptance to discuss this labor plank
Of his party's platform. So far as
am aware he has failed to discuss
Il since.
There should be such discussion as
matter Of common fairness. not only
labor, but to all citizens alike. On|
question of such grave consequence
The people are entitled to know where
Mr.. Bryan stands.
MI. Taft has repeatedly explained
exactly where he stands in this mat
of regulating injunctions.
Are we not entitled to know with
equal clearness exactly where Mr..
Bryan stands? Ess $s@
Mr.. Gompers' public statements as
TO what his party promised make It
that Mt. Bryan declare
himself.
This bill, to the principle Of which
be says MI. Bryan Is pledged. declares
hat the right to carry on a business
n q lawful way shall be not regarded
rs a property right or. entitled to the
protection Of q court Of equity through
bhe process Of an injunction and that
right to such protection. which ad-
mittedly now exists under the Law.
shall be taken away.