The Virginia enterprise., 1908-08-21

gument. Can you blame men for CIV
ing in to this cry? l don't! Suppose
the head of a factory or plant says
he will have to shut down. if a GER
tain man isn't elected. The employe
| may reason to himself: 1T doesn't
| make any difference to me who's
elected, but if this plant shuts down
l lose my job. If I lose my job I'm
! on the street" To expect him to "as-
sert the God-given right of the fran
| chise," as some orators put it, is to
expect him to ignore the rule that
| selfpreservation is the first law of
nature" You can't hand that poppy
cock" to a man with wife and fam
lily depending on him for their exist
ence. I don't mean for their comfort,
I mean literally for their existence.
A certain Judge in our city was up
for reelection. He had hit labor's
head every time it appeared before
| him. He had earned the title of the
| "Injunction Judge He was a re-
spected and reputable citizen, man
of blameless private life Rut he did
| not decide in favor of labor unions.
am not impugning his motives nor his
integrity. And the supreme court af
| firmed his decisions.
| Our party made extraordinary ef
forts to beat this man. Circulars call.
ing attention to his decisions were cir
culated among the laboring element.
The labor unions had representatives
among every class and race calling
attention to these decisions, and his
attitude toward the labor unions. Good
speakers, without in any way STOPPING
to abuse or unfairness showed the la
Dor element that this particular jur-
| list, if reelected, could reasonably be
expected to drive a nail into labor's
coffin every time he had an OppOrtu.
nifty. There was no difficulty in the
way of labor 'plumping' it's solid vote
against this particular candidate, fol
all that was necessary was to put
cross in the ring in front of the oppo
sition candidate.
Day in and day out, week in and
week out the campaign was steadily
waged against this man. 1t was not
simply because of his party; nor be.
cause his decisions had sent men tc
cells for what they believed was exer
cising the right to privileges guaran.
teed them by the state constitution
and the constitution of the United
States. These men may have ex
ceeded their rights. The supreme court
of the state said they did. Let it &c
at that! But he was candidate we
wanted to beat, and his adversary was
an entirely reputable lawyer, standing
as high in the estimation of the com
munity as our antagonist.
The day of election came and the
Judge we were trying to defeat, with
the aid of the labor vote in addition
to our own strength, was triumphant
ly elected. The labor" vote did not
materialize. 1t was voted, all right,
for the registration did not disclose
any great array of "stay-at-homes." !"
But the labor vote did not throw its
strength against the man who had so
often decided against it in his court
room. If labor had gone solidly
against him, no possible detection
from our strict party ranks would
have saved him, for the labor vote, so
far as numbers was concerned, would
have overwhelmed him.
There are two sides to this granting
Of injunctions, you know. Both great
parties are now getting out state plat.
forms protesting against the abuse of
this power. But suppose We say, for
the sake of argument purely, that this
Judge was absolutely right in every de-
cision that he made Even if this
were admitted (Which I deny) he was
Judge whom labor had every reason
in the world to wish to retire to prt
vate life.
Take it from me, with my sympathy
always with the labor element as an
entirety (because it has the hardest
row to hoe), that the tabor vote"
and all this pifle about the "labo,
vote' Is the merest "monkey-moo1
shine"
ERNEST M'GAFFEY.
(Copyright. 100. by Joseph B. Bowles.l