The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1908-10-22
TEDDY ATTACKS BRYAN AND GOMPERS

moving. nor a process In operation. and
| this company having no help at all
! that would be an interference with his
right 10 do business; and for that l say
| he has no right TO be protected by In
! Junction"
Is Mr.. BRYAN In reality pledged TO this
| point OF view? VIII he definitely say
either In writing or in q public address
whether he believes with Mr.. Gompers
! that the protection heretofore afforded
/ oy the courts OF equity TO the right &c
carry on a lawful business in Lawful
way Is despotic power, and that the
, Judges who exercise that power are ir-
| responsible despots?
So far as the second section OF tho
| Dill is concerned, II is perfectly clear
that 1t would legalze the blacklist and the
! sympathetic boycott carried to any cX-
/ tent II would lcgalize acts which have
tlme and again been declared oppressive,
unjust and immoral by the best and most
eminent labor leaders themselves.
Question for Bryan,
Does Mr.. Bryan believe with Mr. Com
perS that he and that part OF the labor
movement that agrees with him has the
rignt morally and should be given the
IlBht legally To paralyzc or destroy with
lmpunity the business OF an innocent
third person, against whom he or they
nave no direct grievance, simply because
this third person refuses to Join with
them aggressively in labor controversy
with the real merits OF which he may be
utterly unacqualnted. because he refuses
W N.dSS Us MS tIttllN any anu every Vlb''
employer whom they point out as their
enemy, because he refuses. merely upon
their peremptory order TO eXcommuni,
cate some other employer by ceasing all
business relations with him?
The blacklist and the secondary boycott
are two OF the most cruel forms oi op-
preston ever devised by the wit OF man
for the infliction OF suffering on his
weaker fellows No court could possibly
exercise any more brutal. unfeeling or
despotic power than MIR. Gonpers claims
i-,ncz y, ", lie nDi
lation. which would permit them without
let or hindrance OF any kind to carry on
every form and degree OF the secondary
boycott.
The anthracite strike commission, as
faIr-minded and distinguished a body OF
men as ever passed Judgment on an IN
dustrlal question thus refers to the sec, sec
ondary form OF boycott. that Is. the boy
colt of Innocent persons refusing to take
aggressive part in controversy when
they have no concern:
Amounts to Conspiracy.
ITO say this is not to deny the legal right
refrain from social intercourse or busi-
ness relations with any persons whom he
or they. with or without good reason dis
likes. This may sometimes be unchriS-
tian, but IL Is not illegal. But when IL is
a concerted purpose of number OF per
sons not only TO abstain themselves from
such intercourse but TO render the life
of their victim miserable by persuadins
and intimidating others to refrain, such
purpose is malicious one and the con-
certed attempt to accomplish IT Is
conspiracy at common law, and merits
and should receive the punishment due to
such a crime.
The commission further states that this
boycott can be carried to an extent
(which was condemned by Mr.. Mitchell,
president OF the United Mine Workers OF
America In his testimony before the COM
mission and which certainly deserves the
reprobation OF all thoughtful and law
abiding citizens"
Does Mr. Bryan agree with Mr., Com
pers that all existing legal restraint on
boycott should be withdrawn, that the
industrial communication OF the inno-
cent merchant who refuses TO render un-
questioned obedience to the orders of Mr..
Gompers should be legalized and encour-
aged or does he believe with US, and
with Mr.. Mitchell and other labor leaders
who differ with Mr.. Gompers In this mat
ter than this form OF the boycott is moral
ly wrong, that labor at war should hght
with its enemies and respect the rights
of neutrals, that innocent third parties
In industrial disputes to which they are
in no degree parties under penalty of
having their business attacked and de-
troyed?
Taft VS.. Bryan.
MI Taft is perfectly definite on this
where does Mr.. Bryan stand7
The citizen who votes for or against
Mr Taft on this proposition does so with
his eyes wide open and with clear un-
derstanding from Mr., Taft himself OF his
position. He has frankly discussed this
subject time and again with working
men themselves. both In this campaign
and prior to his nomination: He has
been willing to express his position clear
ly and TO assure worlingmen that to
protect them in their rights he is willing
TO go to the limits Of what he considers
justice but that he will not go farther,
His definition OF Justice to labor does
not, as we understand II. include either
OF the principles contained in Mr.. Com
pcrs's programme, as set forth officially
In this bill.
Does Mr.. Bryan disagree with Mr.. Taft
on these propositions?
VIII he state publicly. definitely. cate
gorcally. whether he accepts the pro-
gramme outlined in this bill. as Mr..
Gompcrs in his letters has assured the
public that he does2
Mr. Bryans party platform paid n
high tribute 10 our courts of justice, II
stated.
I'VE resent the attempt of the Re-
publican party to raise a false issue re-
specting the judiciary. II Is an unjust
reflection upon a great body OF our citl-
zens TO assume that they lack respect
for the courts
THE great body OF our citizens" to
whom this platform refers. are admitted
ly Mr.. Gompers and his followers.
Roast for Gompers.
Mr., Gompers. now Mr.. Bryan's open
and avoWed ally, has in the letter herein
quoted attacked the federal courts In un-
measured terms of reproach because, by
O. long line OF decisions, the equity courts
have refused TO make an outlaw OF the
business man: because his right 10 carry
on lawful business under peace OF the
law has been protected by the process of
Injunction; because, in word. one OF
the most vital and most Fundamental
rights OF the business world. the right
Of q business man TO carry on his busl-
ness. has been sustained and not denied
by the processes OF the courts of equity.
This sweeping attack OF Mr.. Gompcrs
upon the judiciary has been made In Il
frank and open effort To secure votes for
Mr Bryan. Are these attacks made with
Mr. Bryans consent?
Do they meet with his approval?
Does he indorse them does he repu-
diate them:
Mr.. Bryan has frankly questioned MIR
Taft during the. progress OF this cam
paisn. and very properly so. asking him
TO make clear his stand on public mat
ters on which the public is entitled TO
be enlightened, In turn, with eouaI
trankness and with equal proDr,cty. Mr.
Bryan should be asked to break n long
continued silence and make definite and
certain his own position IN regard to the
matter which concerns not only hneIpnee