The Detroit times., 1908-07-29


are beneficial to the public, In the
proper operation OF composition tue
public viii soon share with the manu-,
facturer the advantage In economy OF
operation and lower prices.
As to uaiawfuI Trusts
Regarding unlawful trusts, Mr.. tart.
after defining a monopoly. brands an
against the law such monopoues as
duct of business toward customers or
competitors. He accentuates that mere
| aggregation of capital IL not NivIa
tion OF the antitrust law ou' r ssu
with all the efficiency OF in)unc,l"e Pr
| cess and the persons engaged IN "a,,n
tanning them should oe pun nrnseeution'
! However, Mr.. Taft claims that 10 ue
stroy them and to eliminate the weaIth
they represent from the pfoa au,ail enor-
nous loss and throw myriads OF isoon
ers out Of employment; which wouIa III
nict far greater punishment upon III ue
innocent than upon. the guilty.
| points out that while the Democra.i.
| platform does not propose out ana on.
TO destroy the plants OF tne tras ,s
| physically IL proposes to do the same
+, thing in a round about way ana tnat II
by taking OF the tarin In all art,oles
coming Into competition Win shose
produced by the so-calied trusts ana 20
| put them on the free list Mr. iait
AYERS that II such course would De
destructive OF the trusts business. ~
|
| smaller competitors business. Atter
] showing that business gradually is ap
preaching healthier tone MI. Ia.
| warns the wage earners OF impendhs
business disaster should Mr.. Bryan De
| placed at the head OF the government
with the Democratic platforms ruin
| GUS" policies. Mr.. Taft expatiates upon
the Republican doctrine OF protection
and declares that this system. Is what
has led to the establishment or rate
OF wages that has greatly enhanced the
standard OF living OF the laboring man.
Necessity for Tariff Revision.
The tariff In a number OF schedules
| continues Mr.. Taft. exceeds the diner
ence between the cost or productioh oi
such articles abroad ana a. hot to the
American producer and the excess over
that difference serves no usefui Pur-
pose. but oners a temp, Az nro oJ
and sale OF such articles In TINS coun
try to profit by the excessive rate On
the other hand Mr.. Tart SLOWS VS. , ,nrig
IL out sufficiently high to give IN, M
measure OF protection which they
should receive upon Repubncan princihd,
be raised. A revision OF the tarin un
dertaken upon this principle, declares
Mr.. Taft. which Is the basis or our
present business system: will make the
disturbance OF business Incident 10 such
a change as little as possible.
The speaker then goes on TO score
the Democratic tariff plan and 10 fore
cast It's bad effect on business con-
ditions.
Taft then pats the farmer. upon the
back and reviews the Republican poll
cies that accrue TO the special bepent
OF the tiller OF the soil. namely; re
straining of excessive and unduly dis
ment of the pure food laws; the promo
tion OF scientific agriculture and extern
sion OF free rural delivery
Labor and the G. o. y.
Taft then tackles the labor question.
saying:
the present administration has been an
anxiety to secure for the wage-earheI
an equality OF opportunity and suom
positive statutory protection as shsl
place him on level In dealing with ms
employer. The Republican party has
passed an employers Liability act Tor
Interstate railroads, and has established
an eight hour law for government en-
ployes and on government construction
The essence Of the reform effected by
the former Is the abolition or the lei
low servant rule, and the Introduction
OF the comparative negligence theory
by which an employe injured In the
VI his right to recover because of slight
, negligence on his part. Then there 10
} the act providing for compensation for
injury 10 government employees. to-
! gether with the various statutes re-
curing safety appliances upon inter
state commerce railroads for! the pro-
the hours Of their employment These
are all instances OF the desire OF the
| Republican party to do Justice TO the
| wage-earner.
To give TO employees their proper po-
sltion in such a controversy. to enable
them to maintain themselves against
may well unite. because in union there
| Is strength and without Ii each indi-
viduai laborcr and employe would be
I me,oreTs however i"vS Skilled and un-
skilled. who are not organized into
unions. Their rights before the law
union men. and are to be protected
with the same care and watchfulness.
Rights Of Labor.
| In order TO induce their employer into
a compliance with their request for
changed terms OF employment. work
men have the right to strike In body
| They have right to use such persua-
sion as thsy may. provided IL does not
reluctant co-laborers to join them I'm
their union against their employer. and
they have right IL they choose, to ac-
cuInulate funds to support those en-
gGg ec IN a strike. to delegate to officers
the power TO direct the action OF the
union. and to withdraw themselves and
their associates from dealings with. or
giving custom to those with whom they
are in controversy.
/ What they have-not the right to do is
TO injure their employers property, to
in,ure their employers business by use
of threats or methods OF physical du-
ress against those who would work for
him, or deal with him, or by carrying
on what Is sometimes known as sec
ondary boycott against his customers
or those with whom he deals In bust
ness.
| Use and Abuse Of Injunction.
| The threatened unlawful injuries to
| business, like those described above,
can only be adequately remedied by an
Injunction to prevent them. IL has been
claimed that inJunctfons do not Issue
to protect anything but property rights
and that business liz not a property
right: but such a proposition IL wholly
Inconsistent with all the decisions OF
the courts. The supreme court OF the
United states says that the injunction
is remedy TO protect property or
rights OF a pccuniary nature. and we
may well submit to the considerable
| Judgment OF all laymen whether the
| Tight Of a man in his business is not as
distinctly q right OF a pecuniary nature
as the right to his horse or his house
| or the stock OF goods on his shelf: and
the Instances In which inJunctions TO
protect business have been upheld by
all courts are so many that II IL futile
further TO discuss the proposition.
vague Democratic Plank.
II IL difficult to tell the meaning OF
the Democratic platform upon this sub
joct. IL says:
Questions OF judicial practice
| have arisen especially in connec.
ton with Industrial disputes. We
feem that the parties To all Judi
clal proceedings should be treated
with rigid impartiality. and that
| injunctions should not be issued In
any cases I'm which lnjunctions
would not issue II no Industrial dis
pute were involved
This declaration Is disingenuous. 1t
seems to have been loosely drawn with