Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-09-08
BRYAN TALKS
 TO UNION MEN,
Makes a Labor Day Speech
 In Chicago.
BUSY TIME AHEAD OF HIM

BUSY llME AHEAD OF hll
 May Continue Speaking Right Up {
 Election Day - In His Address H
 Discusses Questions of Injunction
 and Proper Trial of Cases of Con
 tempt of Court - Declares Juds
 Taft's Views of Labor Legislation Ar
 Biased by His Long Service on tn
 Bench and Calls Him Father of Gov
 ernment by Injunction"
 Chicago, Sept. 7.-Beginning with hi
 arrival here this morning William Jen
 nings Bryan Is spending today one O
 the most strenuous days of his cam
 paign for the presidency. The review
 of the great labor parade, three ad
 dresses to labor men and conferences
 with the leaders of the Democratic
 fight are some of the features of to days overcrowded schedule.
 Chairman Mack called all of the off cials and managers O. the national committee to Chicago to meet Mir. Bry, an, and Editors Henry Watterson and Herman Ridder participated in the con ference.
 MT. Bryan will not return to Lincoln until Oct l. Though he is scheduled to spend the last three weeks of the campaign at home. it is now believed that MT. Taft's taking the stump will cause him to continue speaking right ! up to the election
 After reviewing the parade, in which 10000 union men took part, Mr. Bryan delivered his set speech. He said:
 Two Questions For Labor Day.
 Labor, day is a legal holiday, and it was made so because the legislators thought the wage earners worthy to have day specially set apart for the consideration of themes that concern those who toll.
 There are two questions intimately connected with the labor problem up- on which the Democratic and Repub- lican parties do not agree, and I not only feel at liberty to discuss these, but under the circumstances I have no right to ignore them One relates to the issue of injunctions and the other to contempt cases arising under injunctions. The Republican conven- tfon did not deal candidly with the la boring man on the subject of the writ of injunction. Secretary Taft has en- deavored 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 sena- tors and members. The Republican congress has already made a record on labor questions, and the Republican party cannot escape from that record
 MT. Taft's speech may be consider ed as binding upon him, but the con- vention which selected the Republican candidates indorsed the Republican platform, not Mir Taft's personal views. The Republican platform, while pretending to pledge some modi- fcation of the law, contains an ex, ception clause which reiterates the very language of the law. Whether this exception clause was inserted by accident or design, the effect is the same. It merely provides in substance that restraining orders shall not issue without notice except where such order can now issue without notice. The platform was triumph for those who have been opposing the laborine man, and they have been boasting of their victory.
 Answers Opponents Objection.
 The Democratic platform on this subject copies the language which the labor organizations submitted to the Republican and Democratic conven. tions. MT. Taft in his notification speech objects to the language. He charges that the anti-injunction plank was loosely drawn" and framed for ''the especial purpose of rendering if susceptible to one interpretation by one set of men and a diametrically op posite interpretation by another" AS MT. Taft has had long experience on the bench and is therefore skilled in the interpretation of language, I ask him to give us, if he can, two opposite interpretations of the language. That plank demands that "all parties to all Judicial proceedings shall be treated with rigid impartiality" Surely he cannot find two interpretations to the phrase rigid impartiality"
 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- 'trued or misinterpreted? If words mean anything, that plank means that Tn industrial dispute shall not in it. 'elf be regarded as a sufficient cause Or an injunction. If an injunction ssues in an industrial dispute it must ,e based upon acts which would jus tfy an injunction if there were no industrial dispute involved. There is lothing ambiguous about it; there is lothing that can be misconstrued or nisinterpreted even by one desiring o find a double meaning. Why do he Republican leaders attempt to read ambiguity into those words? Simply (