Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-09-07

N'ii''i"N' iVhI II ~ oS'''
ditions are shared hy non-union men as
we'll as by union men.
DO not understand me to say that
| labor organization Is perfect: the king
| can do no wrong can no more he spoken
| of a group than Of individuals The
| la Dor organization is composed of men:
| it's affairs are controlled by human be-
ings and human beings are not perfect.
| All that man touches is stained with
mans imperfections. and his fraiHy can
| be traced through ali his works. But,
| fortunately for the laboring man. the
| judgment pronounced against his mis-
| takes must be tempered by the fact that
those with whom the laboring man comes
| into contact are also likely to err.
'The important lesson to be learned
| by the citizen i'll a government like ours
Is that the ballot is both shield and
sword-it protects him from injury and
enforceS his rights.
Trusts and Labor
THE labor organization has been SER
oustly handicapped by the fact that it has
been-and I am not sure that it has not
been done unwittngly-yoked up with the
industrial combinations known as trusts.
The proneress of trust defenders to use
the labor organization as an excuse for
combinations in restraint of trade has
aroused the suspicion that they have
been classed together for the purpose OF
shielding the combinations of capital. AS
the result Of eighteen years OF antitrust
legislation. only one man has been given
a penal sentence for violating the federal
law this subject. and that man was a
member of d labor organization rather
than a trust magnate. The labOrng man
is justified in his demand that a destinc-
tiCn shall be drawn between the labor
organization and the industrial monopoly.
IF the labor organization needs to be
regulated by Law, let It be regulated 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 fore
stallng Of the market.
Il shall not speak of the eight-hour
day, or of the employers liability act,
because both of the leading parties have
Endorsed these reforms: the only question
to be considered is: Which party can
best he trusted to secure these. reforms?
I need hardly assure you that l am
heartily in favor Of both reforms.
Injunctions in Contempt Cases.
There are two questions. however. init
mately connected with the labor problem
upon which the democratic and republican
parties do not agree. and ! not only feel
at liberty to discuss these, but. under the
circumstances, l have no right to ignore
them. One relates to the issue Of in
functions and the other to contempt
cases arising under injunctions. The re-
publican convention did not deal candidly
with the laboring man on the subject of
the writ of Injunction Secretary Taft
has endeavored to amend his platform in
this respect and to make some promises,
which are not supported by his platform.
but his promises offer nothing substantial
in the way of reform. and are not binding
on republican senator's and members. The
republican Congress has already made a
record on labor questions. and the repub-
lican party cannot escape from that rec
ord.
MIR. Taft's speech may be considered as
binding upon him, but the convention
which selected the republican candidates
Endorsed the republican platform-not Mr..
Taft's personal views. The republican
platform, while pretending to pledge some
modification of the law. contains an ex-
ception clause which reiterates the very
language Of the law. Whether this ex-
ception clause was inserted by accident
or design. the effect is the same. 1t
straining orders shall not issue without
notice except where such order can now
Issue without notice. The platform was a
triumph for those who have been oppos-
ing the laboring man. and they have been
Boosting Of their victory.
The Democratic Platform.
THE democratic platform on this sub
ject copies the language which the la
Dor organizations submitted to the repub-
lican and democratic conventions. Mr.
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 rem
dering it susceptible to one interpreted
ton by one set of men. and q diamet-
rically opposite Interpretation by another.
A Mr. TAft hoc 1,o1 on
the bench. and is therefore skilled In the
Interpretation of language. l ask him to
give us, If he can. two opposite interpre-
tations of the language. That plank de-
mands that all parties to all judicia. pro-
ceedings shall be treated with rigid i'm
partiality.' Surely he cannot find two in
terpretations to the phrase rigid impair
TALLY
Taft and Juries.
Upon the jury question Mr.. Taft clear
ly takes issue with us. He is thoroughly
aroused by what he regards as menace
to the courts. Here is his lament:
Never in the history of the country
has there been such an insidous attack
upon the judicial system as the proposal
to interiect jury trial between all or
ders Of the court made after full hearing
and the enforcement of such orders
This would come under the head of
important IL true But the fact is. our
platform specifically declares that we ia
vor a measure which passed the United
States Senate in 1885, and which repub-
lican Congress has ever since refused to
enact, etc, providing for trial by jury in
cases of indirect contempt. Are not the
proceedings of the United States Senate a
part of the history of the country? This
measure passed the United States Senate
more than twelve years ago and the vote
upon it was SO nearly unanimous that no
roll call was demanded. The bill was not
struggled through without discussion. 1t
was amended in open Senate and the
members of the Senate had ample oppor-
tunity to understand it. It would have
passed Congress and become a law long
ago but for the fact that a few large cor
porate employers of labor have kept lob
by IN Washington ever since. and have
been able to coerce Congress into isnor-
ing the laborng mems plea.
Mr.. Taft is not an unbiased judge
where the jury system Is under consider
alton. He is not only known as the ia
Their of government by Injunction, but he
Is prejudiced against the jury system
Every man is unconscously Influenced
by his environment. and Mr. Taft's long
service upon the bench has led him to un-
derrate the Importance OF the jury sys-