The San Francisco call., 1908-10-22

eaiiA provides that no right
tioS - on business OF any particular
-5-~, cr a. any particular place. or at
81 snall be construed. held, considered
- lesteo as property or as constitut-
-A property right
Cehu, Z provides that nothing
~s-Seo upon or done by two or more
80 tieS IN connection with a labor dis
49, snal constitute a conspiracy or
osiltt CRIMINAL offense or be prosecuted
= such unless the thing agreed upon
i,,sg--q4soe iq Pc unlawful II done by single
The bin here described is not only
remedy that Mr.. Gompers has
elteaoy submitted 10 congress- but II is
tne one and only remedy which he
sAn lAose associated with him in his
hleselt movement have announced that
e--Fs VIII accept in the matter ef his
a.see against the courts on the
The counsel for the American fedora
s.eH or labor and Mr.. CIompers. its pres
-es-t' are on record TO this effect
~ hearing before the house com
llftee on judiciary the counsel Of the
American federation Of labor. on Feb
r-s-- -S ., lses tas appears from the
~ t.-Sed hearlngsl. stated.
he bin was considered by at least
tNo sessions of the executive council OF
mat organization and unanimously ap-
proved j was considered By two of
us national conventions-the two latest
ana by these unanimously indOrsed.
Aho - the face OF the many PROPOSE
IONS 10 amend II, in the face of many
proposed substitutes, in the face Of
pressure from every direction from
nleh sources and sources not so exalt-
90. TIE organization has stood by and
IS today standing by. this bill without
amendment"
Mr. Gompers. himself. introducing
1--ts nfl before the same committee on
rehruary p. 1905 las appears from the
printed hearlngsl, went on record as
follows
INSISTED ON BILL
IN ORIGINAL FORM
"a 4 .-Tx
ny mind that thea is only one bill
-lore the committee that can AT all
e euectlve 10 deal with this abuse.
Win rms invasion Of human rights
and that is the Pearre bill
furtner on IN the same page Of the
hearingss M Gompers states:
VIII say this, that ] think viii
lI4 70 make my position clear that the
american federation OF labor has so
declared itself that it must insist upOn
nc principles involved in the Pearre
could the position OF labor-that we
would rather be compelled TO bear the
wrongs which We have for a longer
period than 10 give our assent to the
establishment Of wrong principle
peneylng and knowing. that time would
give the justice and relief 10 which
iaeorIthe working people-are en-
This bin then. and none other. repre-
sents exactly the relief that Gompers
demands IN the way Of anti-injunction
-ettef Is correct, this bin represents
what Brysrn and his party are pledged
= IN the matter OF anti-injunction
legislation The Injunction plank IN
the Bryanite platform may sound
vague anc hazy, but there is nothing
vague or hazy about this bill
II IS more than q bill; il is a pro
gram OF the most fixed and definite
kind; and IL Mr.. Gompers is correct
lhis biu becomes as IL We're. an ap-
Pelolx 10 Mr. Bryan's platform or a
lootnote explaining IN detail the briefer
snd Faguer Injunction plank in that
Does Mr.. Bryan accept 1t as such?
Mr. Bryan should state publicly
whether he in fact accepts the prin-
ciple of this bin, which is the oficial
program OF Nj GOmpers and those
who stand with him.
Mr. Gompers announces publicly that
Mr. Bryans party has made this pro-
yam its own Is Mr.. Gompers correct 4
? this statement
Either Mr. Gompers is mistaken as TO /
what M BrEans party has promised
Ia the matter OF further Injunction
legislation, or those who drafted his
party platform in their haste failed to
make his promise SO clear that the
general public would understand II
precisely as Mr.. Gompers under
LABOR PLANK WAS
AVOIDED By BRYAN
Mr.. Bryan failed in his letter Of ac-
ceptance 10 discuss this labor plank
of his party's platform So far as
am aware he has failed 10 discuss il
siBce.
There should be such discussion as a
matter OF common fairness. not only 10
labor, but 10 all citizens alike. On a
question OF such grave consequences the
people are entitled 10 know where Mr..
BRYAN stands.
AR Taft has repeatedly explained
where he stands in this matter OF reg
ulating in5unctions-
Wit
equal clearness exactly where Mr..
Bryan stsnds2
ar. Gompers' public statements as
tQs what MS party promised, make It
imperative that Mr. Bryan declare him
self.
This bill. TO the principle. of which
he says Mr- Bryan Is pledged, declares
that the right 10 carry on a business
ia 4 lawful way shalt be not regarded
rs property right or entitled TO the
protection Of q court OF equity through
the process OF an injunction and that
the right 10 such protection. which ad-
mittedly now exists under the law,
shall be taken away.
The counsel for the American feder-
alton OF labor, in his examination be-
fore the house on February 5, at which
Mr. Gompers himself was present, gave
q very frank illustration Of what he
and Mr. Gompers believed 10 be the
consequence Of that provision OF that
biH which says the right 10 carry on
business shall not be entitled TO. pro-
His words are.
suppose that working men by some
operation Of proceedings IN the CON-
luunity let us say by violence or per-
s1asion or pickering away from the
premises) reduce those works to a
state Of utter helplessness, and there
was not a wheel moving, nor a process
IN operation. and this company having
no help al all-that would be an inter
ference with his right TO 90 business;
and for that / say he has no right TO
be protected by injunction"
Is Mr. Bryan IN reality pledged 10
hss point Of view2 VIII he definitely
say either in writing or in q public
address. whether he believes with Mr..
G0mpers that the protection heretofore
afforded by the courts OF equity 70 the
right 70 carry on a lawful business in
2 lawful way is despotic power, and
that the judges who exercise that
power are irresponsible despots2
BELL WOULD MAKE
BLACKLTSTS LEGAL
So far as the second section of the
bill is concerned, il is perfectly clear