Arizona republican., 1908-09-08

of reform, and are not bind ing on republican senators and members. The republican con- gress has already made a record on labor questions, and the re- publican party cannot escape from that record.
 MT. Tafts speech may be consid- cred as binding upon him, but the con vention which selected the republican candidates endorsed the republican platform-not MT. Taft's personal views. The republican platform, while pretending to pledge some modifica- tions of the law, contains an exception clause which reiterates the very lan- guage of the law Whether this ex- ceptiOn clause was inserted by acci- dent, or design, the effect is the sanie It merely provides, in substance, that restraining orders shall not issue with out notice except where such order can now issue without notice. The plat form was a triumph for those who have been opposing the laboring man, and they have been boasting of their victory.
 "The democratic platform on this subject copies the language which the labor organizations submitted to the republican and democratic conventions. Mir. Taft, in his notification speech, objects to the language. He charges that the anti-injunctiOn plank was loosely drawn and framed for the especial purpose of rendering it sus- ceptible to one interpretation by one Sat of mon and a dia,natricaIIv onDO- site interpretation by another As MT. Taft has had long experience on the bench, and is therefore skilled in the interpretation of language, l ask him to give us, if he can, two oppo- site interpretations of the language That plank demands that all parties to all judicial proceedings shall be treated with rigid impartiality.' Sure ly he cannot. find two interpretations to the phrase rigid impartiality.'
 Speaking of industrial disputes, the platform declares that injunctions shall not be issued in any cases in which iujunctions would not issue if no industrial dispute were involved. How can that language be miscon- strued or misinterpreted? If words IlitdH dIlN lDllS. llldl blctllh llltdIlS llld l an industrial dispute shall not, in 1t self, be regarded as a sufficient cause for an injunction. If an injunction is sues in an industrial dispute, it must be based upon acts which would justi- fy an injunction if there were no in- dUstrial dispute involved. There is nothing ambiguous about it; there is nothing that can be misConstrued or misinterpreted, even by one desiring to find a double meaning. Why do the republican leaders attempt to read ambiguity into those words? Simply because they cannot meet the propo- sition presented. Even MT. Taft at tempts to avoid the issue by saying that no one has ever maintained that the fact that a dispute was industrial gave any basis for the issuing of an injunction in reference thereto. If il is true that no one maintains that then why find faut with our platform on that subject? If nobody opposes our position, we ought to have no diff ficulty in securing the passage of a law in harmony with this plank.
 Upon the jury question MT. Taft clearly takes issue with us. He is thor oughly aroused by what he regards as a merace to the courts. Here is his lament:
 Never in the history of the coun- try has there been such an insidious attack upon the judicial system as the proposal to interpret a jury trial be- tween all orders of the court made af- ter full hearing and the enforcement of such orders