Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-10-22


period than to give our. assent to the
establishment of wrong principle
be lieving and knowing that time would
give the justice and relief to which La
berthe working peopleLare entitletl:"
This bill, then, and hone other, rep
resents exactly the reflex: ahat MIR
Gorppers demands in the way OF anti
injunction legislation; and ifythe state
ment in his letter is CORRECT; this bill
represents what MIR. Bryan and his
party are pledged to in the matter OF
| anti-injunction legislation,
| The injunction plank in the Bryan
lite platform may sound vague and
haZy. but there is nothing vague or
haZy about this bill.
| 1t is more than a bill; it is a pro-
gram OF the most fixed and definite
kind: and if Mr.. Gompers is correct,
this hill becomes, as il were, an au-
tliorized appendix to Mr.. Bryan's plat
form, or a foot note explaining in de-
tail the briefer and wagner injunct ion
plank in that platform.
Does Mr.. Bryan accept it as such?
| MIR Bryan should state publicly
whether he in fact accepts the prin-
ciple 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 pro-
gram its own. Is Mr.. Gompers correct
in this statement?
Either Mr.. Gompers is mistaken, as
to what Mr.. Bryan's party has prom
lSed 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.
MIR. Bryan failed in his letter of &C
ceptance to discuss this la Dor plank of
his partys platform. SO far as I am
aware he has failed to discuss it since.
There should be such discussion as
a 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 ex-
actly where he stands in this matter of
regulating injunctions.
Are we not entitled to know with
y
an stands"
Mr GOmpers' public statements as to
what his party has promised make ct
imperative that Mr.. Bryan declare him
self
This bill. to the principle of which he
says Mr.. Bryan is pledged declares
that the right to carry on a lawful bus
mess in lawful way shall not be re-
,,,< hi kIo<.
to the protection Of court of equity
through the process of an injunction;
and that the right to such protection
which admittedly now exists under the
law shall be taken away.
The counsel for the American FEEDER
alton of Labor on his argument before
the House committee Feb. 5, at which
Mr.. Gompers himself was present, gave
a very frank illustration OF what he
and Mr.. Gompers perceived to be the
consequences of that provision of this
bill which says that the right to carry
on business shall not be entitled to
protection as a property right
His words arc: "SuppoSe that work.
ir ymen, by some opera ton or proceed
ing in the community Qet us say by
violence or persuasion or picketins
away from the premises) reduce those
works to a state Of utter helplessness,
and there was not wheel moving, nor
a process in operation. and this COM
pany had no help at all-that would be
an interference with his right to do
business; and for that ] say he has no
right to be protected by injunction"
Is Mr.. Bryan in reality pledged to
this point of view? - '-
Will he definitely sey either in writ
ing or in public address whether he be-
lievcE with Mr.. Gompers that the pro-
lection heretofore afforded by the
courts of equity to the right to carry
on a lawful business in "a lawful way
is despotic power. and that the Judges
VINO exercise that power are irrespon
sble despots?
So far as the second section of this
bill is concerned. it is perfectly clear
that it would legalize the blacklist and
the sympathetic boycott carried to any
extent 1t would legalize acts which
have time and again been declared OPP
pressive, unjust and immoral by the
best and most eminent labor leaders
| themselves.
Does Mr.. Bryan believe with Mr..
Gompers that he and that part of the
| labor movement that agrees with MN,
has the right morally and should be
given the right legally. to paralyze or
to destroy with impunity the business
OF an innocent third person. against
whom he or they have no direct griev-
ance. simply because this third person
refuses - join with ..,cnf aggressively
in a labor controversy With the real
merits of which he may be utterly I'M
acquainted. because he refuses to class
as his enemy any and every other en-
ployer whom they point out as their
enemy. because he refuses. merely up
on their reremptory order, to excom-
municate some other employer by
ceasing all business relations with him !?
The blacklist and the secondary boy
colt are two Of the most cruel forms
of oppression. ever devised by the wit
| of man for the infection of suffering
| on his weaker fellows.
| No court could possibly exercise any
more brutal. unfeeling or despotic
power than Mr.. Gompers claims for
himself and his followers in this leg
islation. which would permit them
| 1of hi r,ro L ind