The Birmingham age-herald., 1908-10-22
Roosevelt Jumps Into
 The Campaign Again
Attack Made On Samuel Gompers Because the Latter Urges Labor Union Members To Vote For Bryan and Bryan's Motives and Policies Are Questioned Relative To the
 Democratic Party's Attitude Toward Laboring Man

1908, Gas appears from the printed hear ings), stated:
 The bill was considered by at least two sessions of the executive counsel of that organization and unanimously ap- proved. It was considered by two of it's national conventions-the two latest-and by these unanimously indorsed. And in the face of many propositions to amend it, in the face of many proposed substi- tutes, in the faca of pressure from every direction, from high sources and sources not so exalted, the organization has stood by, and is today standing by this bill without amendment
 MT. Gompers himself, in discussing this bill before the same committee on Feb- ruary 2s. 1908, Gas appears from the print ed hearipgs), went on record as follows:
 Events have demonstrated clearly to my mind that there is only one bill be- fore the committee that can at all be effective to deal with this abuse. with this invasion of human rights, and that is the Pearre bill.'
 Further on, in the same page of the hearings. MT. Gompers states:
 "I will say this, that l think will try to make my position clear that the American Federation of Labor has so declared itself that 1t must insist upon the principles involved in the Pearre bill and that 1 explained as best l could the position of labor--that we would rather be compelled to bear the wrongs which we have for longer period than to give our assent to the establishment of a wrong principle believing and knowing that time would give the justice and re- lief to which labor-the working people are entitled
 Relief Demanded
 This bill, then, and none other, rep resents exactly the relief that MT Gom- pers demands in the way of anti-injunc- tion legislation, and if the statement in his letter are correct, this bill represents what Mir Bryan and his party are pledged to in the matter of anti-injunc- ton legislation.
 "The injunction plank in the Bryanite platform may sound vague and hay, but there is nothing vague and hazy about this bill
 Tt is more than bill; . is a pro- gramme of the most fixed and definite kind, and if Mir Gompers is correct this bill becomes, as it were, an appendix to MT. Bryan's platform or a footnote ex- plaining in detail the briefer and vaguer injunction in that platform.
 Does MT. Bryan accept it as such?
 "Mr. Bryan should state publicly whether he in fact accepts the principle of this bill, which is the official pro- gramme of MT. Gompers and those who stand with him.
 "Mr. Gompers announces publicly that MT. Bryan's party has made this pro- gramme its own. Is MT. Gompers correct in this statement?
 "Either MT Gompers is mistaken as to what MT. Bryan's party has promised him in this matter of anti-injunction leg al ..rl,o 1,f ~f.rfr platform, in their haste, failed to make the promise so clear that the general pub lie would understand it precisely as Mir. Gompers understands 1t.
 MT. 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 it since. Matter of Fairness.
 There should be such discussion as a matter of common fairness not only to labor, but to all citizens alike. On question of such grave consequence, the people are entitled to know where MT. Bryan stands.
 MT. Taft has repeatedly explained ex- actly where he stands in this matter of regulating injunctions.
 Are we not entitled to know with equal clearness exactly where MT. Bryan stands?
 "Mr Gompers' public statements as to what his party has promised make 1t im- perative that MT. Bryan declare him- self
 ''Ths bill, to the principle to which he says MT. Bryan is pledged, declares that the right to carry on lawful business in lawful way shall not be regarded as property right or entitled to the protection i of court of equity through the process of an injunction. and that the right to such protection which admittedly now ex- ists under the law, shall be taken away. '"rhe counsel for the American Fedora tion of Labor in his examination before the House on February 5, at which M Gompers himself was present, gave very frank illustration of what he and MT. i Gompers believed to be the consequence of that provision of that bill, which says ; the right to carry on business shall not be entitled to protection as a property right.
 His words are:
 Protection By. Injunction. Suppose that workingmen, by some operation or proceedings in the commun- ity Qet us say by violence or by persua- ! sion or by picketing away from the prem ises) reduced those works to a state of utter helplessness, and there was not a wheel moving, nor a process in operation, and this company had no help at all-that would be an interference with his right to do business, and for that say he has no right to be protected by injunction ''Is MT. Bryan in reality pledged to this , point of view?
 Twill he definitely say, either in writing or in public address, whether he be- lieves with MT. Gompers that the protec- ton heretofore afforded by the courts of equity to the right to carry on a lawful business in lawful way is despotic power and that the judges who exercise that power are irresponsible despots? 'So far as the second section of this bill is concerned, it is perfectly clear that it would legalize the black list and the sympathetic boycott carried to any ex- tent It would legalize acts which have time and again been declared oppressive, l unjust and immoral by the best and most eminent labor leaders themselves. Does MT. Bryan believe with MT. Gom- pers that he and that part of the labor movement that agrees with him has the right morally, and should be given the right legally to paralyze or to destroy with impunity the business of an innocent third person against whom they have no direct grievance, simply because this third person refuses to join with them aggres- siyely in labor controversy with the real merits of which he may be utterly unacuuainted, because he refuses to class as his enemy any and every other em- ployer whom they point out as their ene-, my because he refuses merely upon their peremptory order to excommunicate some other employer by ceasing all business re-