The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1908-10-22

edies which labor had already submit
ted to congress" is perfectly clear
and definite statement.
The remedies" which Mr. Gompers
has already submitted to congress are
matters of record and the Identification
of his remedy against injunctions in
labor disputes is easy and certain. This
remedy" is embodied in house bill No.
IA, of the first session Of the sixtieth
congress, the complete text of which
is hereto appended. The gist of the
bill, as can be seen by referring to the
complete text, is this:
F'irst-After forbidding any federal
Judge to issue a restraining order for
an injunction in any labor dispute ex-
cept to prevent irreparable injury to
property or a property right, it speci-
fically provides that mo right to carry
on business of any particular kind or
at any particular place, or at all. shall
be construed, held, considered or
treated as property Or as constituting
a property right"
Second-It provides that nothing
d5I ecu upoA VI ooIiC ny wv VI AIoiS
parties in connection with a labor dis
pute shall constitute conspiracy or
other criminal offense or be prosecuted
as such unless the thing agreed upon
would be unlawful IL done by single
individual.
Bill Is Gompers' Remedy.
The bill here described is not only
the remedy that Mr.. Gompers has
already submitted to congress" but 1t
is the one and only remedy" which he
and those associated with him in his
present movement have announced that
they will accept In the matter of his
grievance against the courts on the in
junction issue.
The counsel for the American FEEDER
alton Of Labor and Mr.. Gompers its
president, are on record to this effect.
d nearing before the house COM
mittee on Judiciary the counsel for the
American Federation of Labor, on Feb.
5, 1903, las appears from the printed
hearings, stated:
1.-THE bill was considered by at least
two sessions of the executive council
of that organization and unanimously
approved. 1t was considered by two of
its national conventions-the two lat
est-and by these unanimously Indoors
ed. And in the face of many PROPOSE
lions to amend it, in the face of many
proposed substitutes, in the face of
pressure from every direction, from
high sources and sources not SO exalt-
ed, the organization has stood by, ana
is today standing by, this bill without
amendment"
Mr. Gompers himself in discussing
this bill before the same committee on
Feb. 81 1908 (as appears from the
printed hearings), went on record as
follows:
Events have demonstrated clearly
to my mind that there is only one bill
before the committee that can at all be
effective to deal with this abuse, with
this invasion of human rights and that
is the Pearro bill"
Further on in the same page Of the
hearings Mr.. Gompers states:
II will say this, that l think I will
try to make my position clear that the
American Federation of Labor has so
declared itself that it must insist upon
the principles involved in the Pearro
bill, and that l explained as best
could the position of labor-that we
would rather be compelled to bear the
wrongs which we have for longer pc
riod than to give our assent to the es-
Establishment of a wrong principle, be-
lieving and knowing that time would
give the justice and relief to which
labor-the working people-are en-.
titled
Both Should be Satisfied.
This bill, then, and none other, re
presents exactly the relief that Mr.
Gompers demands in the way of anti
injunction legislation and, If the state
ment in his letter is correct. this bill
represents what Mr.. Bryan and his
party are pledged to in the matter O
anti-injunction legislation.
The injunction plank in the Bryan