Los Angeles herald., 1908-09-11
BEGINS
HIS CAMPA
FIRES FIRST GUNS AT HOME
IN DANvlLLE
ATTACKS BRYAN AND ooMPERS
IN SPEECH
Sees Two Paramount Issues In Ma
tional Politics: the Tariff and
Independence of the
Judiciary
By Asso ,iated Press.

DANvILLE, ILL.,, Sept. 10.-Speaker
Joseph G.. Cannon, opening his cam
paign for reelection TO congress from
the Eighteenth district of Illinois TO-
night, delivered a speech dealing with
the leading issues of the national cam
paign, devoting considerable attention
to William j. Bryan and to Samuel
Gompers. The speech in part took
the form of reply to Mr.. Gompers
attack on Speaker Cannon, made in a
speech in Danville on Labor day.
In leading up to reply to Mr. COM
pers Mr. Cannon said that there were
two paramount issues in this cam
paign: One was the tariff and the
other the integrity and independence OF
the judiciary. After devoting consid-
erable attention to the position OF the
two leading parties on the tariff ques-
tion and discussing the prosperity and
the prime place held by the United
States in commercial affairs, Mr.. Can
non concluded that the depression of
last October did not affect the farmers,
who constitute one-third of the popu-
lation. and that the people In the ag-
gregate were never in so good con-
dition to withstand a depression and
that the country was fast recovering
from it's effect He believed that pros
perity equaling that of the last few
years had already returned.
Injunction Issue
Mr.. Cannon then took up the history
of the demand for anti-injunction leg
islation and pointed out that the de-
mand for a jury trial in proceedings
of contempt came first after the pun
ishment of Eugene V. Debs, now can
didate for president on the Socialist
ticket, but in 1894 the leader OF the
railroad strike
He referred to the calling of federal
troops to Chicago by President Cleve-
land and recited the history of the at
tempt by various congressman to pass
a law in 1896 to take from the courts
the power to grant injunctions in labor
disputes and their power to punish
contempt.
He said that while the bill was passed
by a Democratic senate on June 10.
1895. the day the Fifty-fourth con-
gress adjourned, and although the
Democratic party indorsed such legis-
lation in it's platform of 1895, both
actions were accepted by the people as
an attack on the judiciary and aided
materially in the overwhelming defeat
of Mr. Bryan. The Republican house
stood against such legislation in 1896,
and the people sustained Its action.
Mr.. Cannon pointed out that In 1898
the Democrats might have passed such
an anti-injunction law; that they con-
trolled both houses and had a Demo
cratic president: that Mr.. Bryan was
member OF that congress, but he was
silent regarding injunctions by a fed
eral court, although a court in Louis
lana had at that time decided that
labor organizations were amenable to
the Sherman antitrust law
"Mr. Gompers complains" said
Speaker Cannon. that the supreme
court of the United States has placed
new Interpretation on the Sherman
antitrust law in the decision of the
Oanbury hatters case. Mr. Gompers
is mistaken. Like other special plead
ers, he puts into that decision things
that were not written or decided or
considered. The hatters case was a
complaint against an interstate boy
cott The American Federation of
Labor had ordered boycott through
out the United States against the Dan
bury Hat manufacturers because of a
refusal to unionize their shops. The
was against the boycott as
a restraint of interstate commerce and
in defiance of the Sherman law. The
case was decided on that ground and
the opinion of the supreme court sus-
tanned the decision a lower court had
rendered on that ground.
MIR. Gompers says that this decision
for the first time brings labor unions
under the restrictions of the Sherman
law. He is mistaken. The United
States courts, district and circuit, have
in numerous cases held that the law
applied to labor organizations. In the
opinion of the supreme court, Chief
Justice Fuller, a Democrat, cited sew
eral of these decisions"
Mr.. Cannon referred again to the
case in which the United States court
of Louisiana in March, 1893, issued an
injunction against striking members of
the workingmen's amalgamated coun-
ell of Louisiana and held that the
Sherman law applied to combinations of
workers as well as to combinations of
capital.
Decision Fifteen Years Ago
THAT decision said Speaker Can
non, "was rendered fifteen years ago,
before the Pullman strike in Chicago,
and it has been the Interpretation of
the law ever since.
Mr.. Bryan was in congress for two
years after that decision and although
the Democrats controlled the govern
ment we fail to find anything in the
records to show that he or his party
tried to amend the Sherman law or
make any protest against the action or
the court. The decision of the Dan
bury hatters case was that the boycott
was in restraint of trade and that the
exempt from the laws made for all. 1t
is an unwarranted assumption that this
decision in any way affects agreement
between employees and employers or
that it even touches the right OF en-
ployes to quit work or strike"
Speaker Cannon then told of the ap-
pearance of Mr. Gompers before the
house committee on judiciary, while 1t
was considering the Hepburn bill, to
ask for an amendment that would au-
thorize the boycott. He said Gompers
was asked whether an amendment sug-
gested by him was meant to relieve the
labor unions from the operation or the
Sherman antitrust law as construed IN
the Danbury hatters case.
Upon Mr.. Gompers replying yes,
the chairman asked him:
do you, as the representative OF or
ganized labor, favor the boycott, both
as interstate and local proposition y
Mr.. Cannon said that Mr.. Gompers
replied, Il do, SIR
"It will be seen," said Mr.. Cannon,
that Mr.. Gompers' complaint was d.
rect as to the decision of the court on
the boycott. not as to what 1t might
lead to interference with agreements
between employers and employees or as
to the right of employees to strike. His
contention is for the right to boycott,
II use the influence he has with great
organization which he says has mem
bership of more than 2,000,0,9 men, to
boycott the product of any man or any
firm for any cause whatever and to use
the publication under his control to In
jure 8, mans business for any cause.
That would be illegal in any publication
by any man, and II is difffcult TO see
how it can be made above the law or
how Mr.. Gompers can be exempted
f.ff H.