The Birmingham age-herald., 1908-09-16

Davenport, Iowa. September 7.-Fol- lowing is the speech delivered here Labor Day by William Randolph Hearst:
 My Friends:-I intend to talk poli- tics, because we are all thinking pol tics and talking politics at this time, but do not intend to make political speech or a partisan speech.
 I do not intend to speak in behalf of the republican party, or in behalf of the democratic party, or in behalf of the independence party.
 I intend merely to have friendly talk among friends upon matters that interest us as American citizens and as workingmen.
 I claim to be worker I suppose might have been an idler if I had wanted to be one, but I have always had a hearty contempt for dudes and drones, and a deep, sincere admiration for the men who do the useful work of the world.
 I have always desired to be enrolled among the ranks of the workers. and l am truly pleased and truly proud when I am invited every Labor Day by union men to appear before them and speak on matters of interest and importance to them.
 I have always been exceedingly friendly to labor unions, but I wish to make it quite clear that they have been Gt a tn | hax haa to them.
 I am not one of those benefactors of labor who stand somewhere on a pinnacle away up in the clouds and hand down boons and blessings to la boring men.
 l have been associated in business with unions on exactly equal terms.
 I have come to know union men and respect them as my business associates and l only hope that l have been as valuable to them in their affairs as they have been to me in my affairs
 l regard business as a partnership arrangement between employer and employees. The business object of this partnership is the creation of wealth and the moral obligation of this part nership is a just division of wealth. l believe that the equable distribution of wealth which labor unions tend to secure is of benefit not only to work ingmen, but to the whole community. I. therefore, indorse labor unions and I believe that lahoring men should be active in business to protect and promote their unions, and that they should be active in politics to pre- serve their unions.
 When I first urged labor unions to go into politics MT. Gompers disagreed with me in his Federationist, and de- clared that labor unions ought to keep out of politics.
 I was surprised, therefore when one day in Washington 1 was invited to appear before the officers of the Fed eration of Labor and give my reasons for urging labor unions to go into politics.
 I was more surprised when l saw in the papers the next morning that the officers of the Federation of Labor had decided that labor unions ought to go into politics, and I was most sur prised of all when Mr Gompers came out in the F'ederatonist and said: "Of course labor unions ought to go into politics. Why not?"
 Now, MT. Gompers agrees with me that labor unions ought to go into pol itics, but I don't agree with him on
  politics, and inasmuch as he was wrong and I was right before. maybe he is wrong now and I am right now.
 MT Gompers thinks that the right way is for all labor unions to lay their votes in his basket like a lot of good, dutiful political hens, and for him then to take his basket to market and peddle the contents to the repub- llcan party or the democratic party. The objections to this plan are many and they are convincing and conclu- sive:
 1. You cannot afford to repose so much power with any man or any set of men. There is a distinct danger that the contents of the basket would be peddled more for the benefit of the owner of the basket than for the ad- vantage of the honest, trustful layers of the votes. There would be com petition for the contents of the basket of kind that would debauch and de- stroy your organization without bene- fitting the number members.
 ?. You would never be harmonious in your ideas of how the votes should be delivered. You would be divided by differences of opinion; you would be disrupted by dissensions.
 3. You would get little or no result
 
 ed would be primarily democrats or re- publicans. They would be your friends before election, but would forget all about you after election.
 4. You have tried out the old parties time and time again and have found them wanting every time, and it would be abusurd for you to waste your tune and your opportunities persistng In d policy that has continually proved a failure.
 In 1892 you workingmen had become disgusted with the insincerity and in- difference of the republican party and you turned your votes to the demo- cratic party, and by so doing you. more than any other force in the United States placed that party in power.
 In 1894, only two years later, the democratic administration sent federal troops into the sovereign state of Illinois, against the protest of it's gov- ernor, to terrorize and subdue work ingmen battling for their rights Then you turned in indignation from the false and treacherous democratic party, but you did not start a new party. You put the old, discarded re- publican party back into power. The republican party has been just as in- sincere and indifferent as it was be- fore, and of course you are just as disgusted and discouraged as you were before.
 Now, what are you going to do? Are you going to put back into power the old false and treacherous demo- cratic party to deride you and betray you once more, or are you going to try to get a square deal through new deal?