Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1908-09-25

ganization rather than a trust mag
nate. The laboring man Is justified
in his demand that distinction shal
be drawn between the labor organiza
tion and the industrial monopoly.
The trust and the labor organiza
tion cannot be described in the same
language. The trust magnates have
used their power 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 fun
damental differences. The trust is
combination of dollars; the labor
organization is an association of hui
man beings. In a trust few men
attempt to conrol 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 neces-
sary to their existence, is a part of
them. The trust deals with dead MAJ
ter; the labor organization deals
with life and with intellectual and
moral forces. No impartial student
of the subject will deny the right Of
the laboring man to exemption from
the operation of the existing anti,
trust law.
If the labor organization needs to
be regulated by law, let it be regu-
lated by a law which deals with man
as man, and not by law that was
aimed to prevent the cornering of a
commodity or the forestalling Of the
market.
/ shall not speak of the eight-hour
day, or of the employers liability
act, because both Of the leading par
ties have endorsed these reforms; tn
only question to be considered is:
which party can best be trusted to
secure these reforms? need hardly
assure you that am heartily in
favor of both reforms.
There are two questions, however,
intimately connected with the labor
problem upon which the Democratic
and Republican parties do not agree
and l not only feel at liberty to
discuss these, but, under the cir
cumstances, | have no right to ig-
'aole them One relates to the is
sue of injuhctions, and the other to
contempt cases arising under in
functions. The republican convention
did not deal candidly with the labor
ing man On the subject of the writ
of injunction. Secretary Taft has
endeavored to amend his platform in
this respect and to make some prom
ises, which are not supported by
his platform, but his promises offer
nothing substantial in the way of
reform, and are not binding on re-
publican senators and members. The
republican Congress has already mat,
a record on labor questions, and the
Republican party cannot escape from
that record.
Mr.. Taft's speech may be consider
ed as binding upon him, but the con.
vention which selected the republi-
can candidates endorsed the republi
can platform-not Mr.. Taft's perSo
nal views. The republican platform
while pretending to pledge some
modification of the law, entertain
an exception clause which re
iterates the very language Of
the law. Whether this exception
clause was inserted by accident Oh
design, the effect is the same. II
merely provides, in substance, thaf
restraining orders shall not issue wit
out notice except where such ordel
can now issue without notice. Tht
platform was a triumph for those
who have been opposing the laborins
man, and they have been boastinl
of their victory.
The democratic platform on thil
subject copies the language which
the labor organizations submitted t
the republican and democratic con
ventions. Mr. Taft, in his notifica
tion speech, objects to the language
He charges that the ant-injunctioI
plank was loosely drawn and fran
ed for "the especial purpose Of rem
dering 1t susceptible to one interpre
tation by one set Of men, and a dia
metrically opposite Interpretation
by another" As Mr.. Taft has hat
long experience on the bench, and Il
therefore skilled In the interpreta
ton Of language, l ask him to Civ,
US, II he can, two opposite inter
pretations Of the language. Tha
plank demands that "all parties Il
all judicial proceedings shall b,
treated with rigid impartiality." Sure
ly he cannot find two Interpretation
| to the phrase rigid impartiality."