The Harrison times. (Harrison, Boone Co., Ark) 1876-1938, 1908-09-12
BRYAN 10 Iuut1nlr.4
DELIVERS NOTABLE ADDRESS AT
CHICAGO CELEBRATION.
Defines the Difference Between Planks
in Democratic and Republican
Platforms-Justloe for
the Toiers.

speaker, and had for am audience many
thousands of worknlen MIR. Bryan said
in part.
Labor day is a legal holiday and Il was
made so BECAUSE the legislators thought
the Wage-earners worthy to have a day
seetiialE set apart for the consideration
OF themes that concern those who toll,
! appreciate the compliment paid me by
the program committee of this city In in
afelhg me to participate in the ceremonies
because Chicago is the second city in the
union, aud as a labor center 1t is scarce
~ second to any city in the world
II II We're proper to speak from text,
! would select passage from Proverbs,
Tor know of no better one than that
furnished by the words of Solomon when
ne declared that AZ man sthnketh in
flne; 1t is common sense, and it is hu-
man experience, We think in our hearts
as wei as in our heads-out 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-
GIN my speech with this proposition be-
cause l want TO Impress 1t upon the
MINDS or those who listen to me, and up
on those who read what | say to you,
Ihe labor question Is more moral than
an intellectual one,
A long step toward the elevation OF
labor to its proper position In the ma
ton 3 deliberations is TO be found in the
establishment of a department of labor,
with cabinet officer at its head, The
wage earners deserve this recognition,
and the executive is entitled to the as
sistance which such an official could
render him, | regard the Inauguration
of this reform as the opening OF Il new
era in which those who toll will have
q voice i'll the deliberations of the presi-
dents council chamber,
The labor organization has been seri-
ously handicapped by the fact that 1t
has heen-and | am not sure that 1t has
not been done unWittnsly-yoked UP with
the industrial combinations known as
trusts. The proneness of trust de-
Tenders to use tie labor organi-
cation IS an excuse for combinations
in restraint of trade has aroused the sus-
pteion that they have been elassed to-
gether for the purpose or shielding the
combinations of capital As the result
of Is years of antitrust legislation. only
one man has been given a penal sem
tenGe for violating the federal law on
this subject, and that man was menu
Der of a labor organization rather than
trust magnate. The laborng man is jus
titled 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
err to amass swollen fortunes, while no
one will say that the labor organization
has as yet secured for its members more
than their share of the profits arising
from their work But there are funda-
hinatiOn of dollars; the labor organlza-
ton is an association Of human beings,
III Il trust a Few men dllGNlpl To NbU-
troll the product Of others; in a 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 a part Of
them, The trust deals with dead NATTER
| 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-
emntion 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 Cnrnering Of q commodity or
| the torestNhuE of the market.
shall not speak nt the eiGht-hour
| DAY. or of the employers liability act
because both of the leading parties have
| Endorsed these reforms the only CUES
! ton to he considered: which party
| can best be trusted II secure these re-
/ fogmsa need hardly tn assure You
| that I am heartily i'll favor OF both
There are two questions. however in
| tmately connected with the labor prob
| lem upon which the Democratic and Re
| publican parties do not agree and / not
only feel at liberty 10 discuss these. but,
under the circumstances, have no
| right to ignore them one relates to the
! issue of fnunetions and the other to con-
| tempt eases arising under tnjuncuons;
/ The Republican convention did not deal
/ eandidly with the laboring man on the
| rotary Taft has endeavored to amend his
platform in this respect and 10 make
| some promises, which are not supported
| by his platform, but his promises oiler
! nothing substantial in the way OF reform
| and are not binding on Republican sena-
| tors and members. The Republican con-
| gress has already made record on la
| Dor questions, and the Republican party
! cannot escape from that record.
Mr. Tafts speech may be considered
as binding upon him. but the convention
NtFlo ffh coll l{tnIltlftHn candidates
] Endorsed the Republican plntturm-not
Mr. Tutts personal views. The Repunu-
! can platform. while pretending To plruSe
! some mobilization of the law contains
! an exception clause which reitrrates the
| very language of the law. whether TINS
| exception clause was Inserted by accident
! or design. the effect is the same. II
| merely provides In substance. TINT re-
| straluius orders shall not issue without
| notice except where such order can now
! issue without notice. The platform was
| a triumph for those who have been OPP
! posing the laborng man, and they have
! been boastng Of their victory,
The Democratic platform on this sub
! ject copies the language which the labor
| organizations submitted 10 the Republic
! can and Democratic conventions. Mr..
| Taft In his notification speech, objects TO
| the language. lie charges that the anti
| Injunction plank was loosely drawn,
| and framed for THE especial purpose NJ
! rendering il susceptible To one interpre-
/ tation by one set of men, and diamet-
| rically opposite Interpretation by an
| other" As Mr.. TAFT has had long eN-
| uerienCe on the bench, and lis tserefOre
! skilled in the Interpretation of language,
! J ask him to give us, IN he can, two up-
| pOsite interpretations Of the language.
| That plank demands that all parties to
! AN judicial proceedings shall be treated
| with rigid impartaUtN' surely he can
| not find two interpretations to the phrase
| rigid impartlality'
! Speaking Of Industrial disputes, the
! platform declares that "injunCtions shall
| not be issued in any cases in which in
! functions would not issue Il no Industrial
! dispute We're involved How can that
! language he miscOnstrued or msinter-
! preted2 N words mean anything, that
| plank means that an Industrial dispute
| shall not. in itself, he regarded as a sui
! fipieut cause for an injunction. If an in
! junction issues In an Industrial dispute,
! il must be based upon acts which would
! justify an Injunction If there We're no
! Industrial dispute involved. There IS
! nothing ambiguous about it; there is
| nothing that can be misconstrued or mis-
| interpreted even by one desiring 10 ma
| a double meaning, why DO the Rcpuu-
! licau leaders attempt to read ambiguity
| into those words? simply because they
cannot meet the proposition presented.
One of the great problems to-day is
! To secure an equitable distribution OF the
| proceeds Of toll. The material wealth Of
! this country is largely Joint product;
! in factories few people work alone. and
| ON the farm a certain amount Of Cos
| operatfon is necessary, Where men work
| together, tfe army organization applies
] 10 some degree, that is, some direct,
| Others are directed. The difficulty has
been to divide the results fairly between
! the captains Of Industry and the privates
| in the ranks As the dividing is done
| iargelv bv the captains. II is not UNI
| natural that they should magnify their
| Part and appropriate too large share,
! neither is II unnatural that there should
who think that their recompense Is in
! sufficient