The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1908-10-22

lite platform may sound vague ana
hazy, but there is nothing vague ana
hazy about this bill 1t is more than
bill; it is a program of the most
fixed and definite kind. and If Mr..
Gompers is correct, this bill becomes,
as it were. an appendix to Mr.. Bryan s
platform, or a foot note explaining in
detail the briefer and wagner injunc-
ton plank in that platform.
Does Mr.. Bryan accept 1t as such?
Mr. Bryan should state publicly
| whether he in fact accepts the princi-
pie of this bill. which is the official
program of Mr.. Gompers and those
| who stand with him.
Mr. Gompers announces publicly
| that Mr.. Bryan's party has made this
program its own. Is Mr.. Gompers
correct in this statement?
Either Mr.. Gompers is mistaken as
| to what Mr.. Bryan's party has prom
| ised him in this matter of anti-injunc-
ton legislation or those who drafted
his party's platform, in their haste,
| failed to make the promise SO clear
| that the general public would under
stand it precisely as Mr.. Gompers I'M
derstood it.
Mr.. Bryan failed in his letter of ac-
ceptance to discuss this labor plank of
| his party's platform. So far as l am
aware he has failed to discuss it since.
There should be such discussion as
| matter of common fairness not only
| to labor, but to all citizens alike. On
a question of such grave consequence
| the people are entitled to know where
Mr.. Bryan stands.
| Mr.. Taft has repeatedly explained
exactly where he stands in this mat
+ ter of regulating injunctions.
| Are we not entitled to know, with
equal clearness, exactly where Mr..
| Bryan stands?
Mr.. Gompers' public statements as
to what his party has promised make
| it imperative that Mr. Bryan declare
himself.
What the Bill Declares.
| This bill to the principle to which
he says Mr.. Bryan is pledged declares
that the right to carry on a lawful
business in a lawful way shall not be
regarded as a property right or EMIT
led to the protection of a court of
equity through the process of an in
| junction and that the right to such
protection, which admittedly now ex-
lists under the law. shall be taken
away.
The counsel for the American Fed
GRAFTON of Labor, in his examination
| before the house on Feb. 5, at which
Mr.. Gompers himself was present,
gave frank illustration of what he
and Mr.. Gompers believed to be the
consequence of that provision of the
bill which says the right to carry on
business shall not be entitled to pro
lection as property-right. His words
are:
| Suppose that workingmen, by some
operation or proceedings in the com
munity-let us say by violence or per
suasion or picketing away from the
premises-reduce those works to a
state of utter helplessness and there
was not a wheel turning, nor process
in operation, and this capital had nc
help at all-that would be an interfer.
/ ence with his right to do business, and
1 III lAdt ody IC HdS uO LIZ III W UG
protected by Injunction
Is Mr.. Bryan in reality pledged to
this point of view? Will he definitely
say, either in writing or in a public
address whether he believes with Mr.
Gompers that the protection hereto
fore afforded by the courts of equity
to the right to carry on a lawful bust
ness in lawful way is despotic pow
er, and that the judges who exercises
that power are Irresponsible 6espots
So far as the second section of this
bill is concerned, it is perfectly clear
that it would legalize the blacklist anG
the sympathetic boycott carried tt
any extent 1t would legalize act!
which have time and again been de
clared oppressive, unjust and immora
by the best and most eminent labo
, leaders themselves.
VIII Bryan Make Answer.
Does Mr.. Bryan believe with Mr.