The Washington herald., 1908-02-25
GOMPERS ANSWERS
COURTS DECISION
Continued from Page One.


its Judgments. We must accept them. be-
cause under our form Of government, the
Supreme Court Is the highest legal tri-
bunaL Right OF wrong. there is no ap-
peal from it's decision Il is true that
this is the only country possessing such
tribunal. and II is a subject for serious
speculation. whether we mighl not do
better under some other form OF pro
cedure: but such speculation is useless so
FAR as the immediate future is concerned
We are proud or the Institutions Of our
country. and try TO uphold them with all
our power, but we do protest against the
assumption Of law-msking power by the
courts In assuming such functions, they
invade the sphere Of the legislative and
executive which must necessarily result
injuriously to the very fabric Of our re
public Such action By the courts not
being contemplated by the Constitution.
there are no safeguards. no checks, as TO
what may be attempted This assump-
ton Of power, even under The guise of
constituting existing law. Is none the less
dangerous, for the decision OF the court
then becomes a law without the people
ever having had an opportunity 10 take
part in the making or rejection OF Il.
Medieval Procedure.
I'VE trust il viii not be considered
lese majestic If we say that, in our opin-
| ion the Supreme Court in this and other
recent decisions affecting labor tends 20
revert to medieval procedure rather than
make the application OF legal principles
to the present industrial situation. The
conditions, with all their complications
are here. and not Of our making. Why
should our highest legal tribunal ignore
them and plunge the people into con-
| fusion and distress? However. Il is not
so wonderful that the court takes this
attitude. The lifelong environment of the
respected gentlemen who compose the
supreme bench has been such that they
/ have not been brought into personal con-
/ tact with Industrial problems On the
contrary. their associations have been
| largely with business and financial men
and men or affairs.
/ Naturally. a man absorbs mort Of his
point o. view from his environment. Ii
is quite understandable 10 US that ius-
! tees Of the Supreme Court should have
/ little knowledge OF modern industrial
| conditions, and less sympathy with the
efforts or the wage-worSers 70 adapr
! themselves 10 the marvellous revolution
/ which has taken place In industry in the
past half century. The language OF the
hattsrs' decision makes II clear that the
| Supreme Court has not informed itself on
/ modern economies
/ In its opinion. the rights OF hats seem
/ 10 be greater than the rights OF man.
/ II seems TO regard a hat as a sacred
emblem Of the rights Of property. hence
/ its protection IS imperative. No effort.
l however. is made 10 protec1 the right OF
man 70 4 fair return for MS labor. and
/ the opportunity 10 labor under the pre-
vailing conditions
| In fact the decision goes to an IN
/ heard-of length in furnishing the workers
I for the exercise OF their rights We re-
gret exceedingly that this Is So While
| again expressing our belief IN the integ-
/ rity OF the court. we vet are convinced
/ that il Is the duty Of this high tribunal
I 20 inform itself OF the great PRINCIPLES
underlying the economic conditions OF our
/ time. Were It's members to do this. we
/ believe they would perceive that a labor
union can neither be trust nor subject
10 trust laws.
/ Union Not n Trust.
Mr.. Gompers goes on to argue that the
labor union is not a trust; none Of IT'S
achievements in behalf OF its members
and society at large. he contends. can
properly be COMPOUNDED with the per
nicious and selfish activity Of the illegal
trust
A trust. even at its best. was an or
ganizatiOn Of the few To monOpOlize the
production and control the distribution OF
a material product OF some kind. The
voluntary association Of the workers for
mutual benefit and assistance was essen
| TALLY different Even IL they sought 10
control the disposition OF their labor
power. II must be remembered that the
power TO labor was not a material COM
! modify. There could not be "A trust in
| something which was not vet produced
Taking up the sherman antitrust law.
! Mr.. Gompers says he warned the unions
at the time ii was passed that il was
so drawn that Il might apply to the
union instead OF 10 the trusts IL was
intended 10 restrain. That event has now
come 10 pass. The law had long been
admitted 70 be OF no value in restrain
| ing or really Furnishing trusts Useless
as an instrument of good. II had now
| been made an instrument Of positive mis-
| chief, and perverted from It's original in
| tent
He then quotes from the Congressional
debates to show that il was the intention
of each House TO except labor erganiza-
tons from the operations Of the law. and
yet because they did not Jointly adopt a
specific provision to tina; effect. the
Supreme Court had assumed that they
were. included.
I'VE must protest. the editorial says.
| against the penalizing OF the labor
unions under the carelessly worded pro-
visions of an antitrust law. which we
| understand, since the courts decision. has
resulted in the grand Jury OF New Or
leans indicting seventy-two workmen TN
der its provisions. while at the same time
the most vicious and rapacious trusts
flourish and wax great upon the restraint
OF trade and commerce, which they are
able 10 exert. yet not all the machinery
of our government or courts seems ade-
quate 70 bring these real trust offenders
to the place where the Sherman anti
trust law really applies TO them In the
confusion caused by this misapplication
OF the Sherman Law to the labor unions
the illegal and vicious trusts are likely 10
still further escape punishment Thus
they may profit by the injustice done to
labor.
The Sherman Law.
The present Congress, Mr Gompers
says, is expected TO take prompt action
20 SO amend or modify the Sherman law
that there shall be no question as to its
application.
Bankers to Give Social.
| Washington ChaDter American T,,eti-