Los Angeles herald., 1908-09-08
Democratic Leader Discusses Vital Labor Problems

milton, and the executive is entitled to
the assistance which such an official
could render him. l regard the inaug-
uration of this reform as the opening
of new era in which those who toll
will have a voice in the deliberations
of the presidents council chamber.
The labor organization has been
seriously handicapped by the fact tnat
it has been--and am not sure that It
has not been done unwittingly--yoked
up with the industrial combinations
known as trusts. The proneness OF
trust defenders to use the labor or
ganization as an excuse for compina-
tions in restraint of trade has aroused
the suspicion that they nave peen
classed together for the purpose OF
shielding the combinations of capital.
AS the result of eighteen years of anti
trust legislation, only. one man mas
been given a penal sentence for violat-
ing the federal law on this subject,
and that man was member of labor
organization rather than trust mag
nate. The laboring man is justified in
his demand that a distinction shall be
drawn between the labor organization
and the industrial monopoly.
The trust and laboring organization
cannot be described in the same Ian
guage The trust magnates have> used
their power to amass swollen fortunes,
while no one will say that the labor
organization has as yet secured for Its
members more than their share of the
profits arising from their work. But
there are fundamental differences.
The trust is a combination of dollars;
the labor organization is an associa-
ton of human beings. In a trust
few men attempt to control the pro-
duct of others: in a labor organiza-
ton the members unite for the protec-
tion of that which is their own, name
ly, their own labor, which, being
necessary to their existence, is a part
of them. The trust deals with dead
matter: the labor organization deals
with life and with intellectual and
moral forces. No impartial student of
the subject will deny the right of the
laboring man to exemption from the
operation of the existing antitrust
law.
If the labor organization needs to be
regulated by law, let 1t be regulated by
a law which deals with man as man,
and not by a law that was aimed to
prevent the cornering of commodity
or the forestaling of the market.
/ shall not speak of the eight-hour
day. or Of the employers liability act,
because both of the leading parties
have indorsed these reforms; the only
question to be considered is: Which
party can best be trusted to secure
these reforms? I need hardly assure
you that 1 am heartily in favor of both
reforms.
Two Questions Involved
There are two questions, however.
intimately connected with the labor
problem, upon which the Democratic
and Republican parties do not agree,
and 1 not only feel at liberty to dis
cuss these, but, under the circum-
stances, have no right to ignore them.
One relates to the issue of injunctions
and the other to contempt cases arising
under injunctions. The Republican con-
vention did not deal candidly with the
laborint, man on the subject of the
writ of injunction. Secretary Taft has
to amend his platform in
this respect and to make some promises
which are not supported by his plat
form, but his promises offer nothing
substantial in the way of reform, and
are not binding on Republican senators
and members. The Republican congress
has already made a record on labor
questions, and the Republican party
cannot escape from that record.
Mr.. Tafts speech may be considered
as binding upon him, but the conven-
ton which selected the Republican
Endorsed the Republican
platform - not Mr.. Tafts personal
views. The Republican platform,
while pretending to pledge some modif1- |
cation of the law, contains an exception
clause which reiterates the very langu-
age of the law. Whether this excep-
ton clause was inserted by accident or
design, the effect is the same. 1t merely
in substance, that restraining
orders shall not issue without notice
except where such order can now issue
notice. The platform was a
triumph for those who have been op-
posing the laboring man, and they have
been boasting of their victory.
The Democratic platform on this sub
ect copies the language which the labor
submitted to the Re-
publican and Democratic conventions.
A,r. Taft, in his notification speech, OBJ
ects to the language. He charges that
he anti-injunction plank was loosely
lrawn," and framed for the especial |
purpose of rendering it susceptible TOT
,ne Interpretation by one set of men,
md a Numerically opposite interpre-
alton by another" AS Mr.. Taft has
lad long experience. on the bench, and
s therefore skilled in the Interpretation
If language, ask him to give us, If he
AN, two opposite interpretations of the
anguage. That plank demands that
ali parties to all judicial proceedings
shall be treated with rigid impartial
ty." Surely he cannot find two inter-
oretations to the phrase rigid i'm
Speaking of industrial disputes the
platform declares that "injunctions
shall not be issued in any cases in
which injunctions would not issue If
10 industrial dispute were involved"
How can that language be miscon-
itrued or misinterpreted? If words
mean anything. that plank means that
IN industrial dispute shall not, in it
ielf, be regarded as sufficient cause
or an injunction. If an injunction is
'ues in an industrial dispute. it must
,e based upon acts which would justify