The morning journal-courier., 1908-09-08

man. and not by a law that was aimed to prevent the cornering of com modity or the forestalling of the mar kct.
 l shall not speak of the clght-hour day. or of the employers liability act. because both of the leading parties have endorsed these reforms; the only question to he considered is which party can best he trusted to secure these reforms? need hardly assure you that am heartily in favor of both reforms.
 There are two questions. however, intimately connected with ,he labor problem upon which the democratic and republican parties do not agree, and not only feel at liberty to dis cuss these, but, under the circum- stances. l have no right 10 Ignore them. One relates 10 the issue of in- functions, and the other to contempt cases arising under injunctlons. The republican convention did not deal candidly with the laboring man ou the subject of the writ of injunction. Secretary Taft has endeavored to amend his platform in this respect and to make some promises. which are not supported by his platform. 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.
 Mir. Taft's speech may he considered as binding upon him. but the convcn- ton which selected the republican candidates endorsed the republican platform-not Mir. Tafts personal views. The republican platform, while pretending to pledge acme mod. iflcation of the law. contains an ex- ception which reiterates the very lam guage of the law Whether this ex- ception clause was inserted by acci- dent or design. the effect Is the same. lt merely provides, In substance, that restraining orders shall not issue with out notice except where such order can now issue without notice. The platform was triumph for those who have been opposing the laborng man, and they have been boosting of their victory.
 The democratic platform on this sub ject coTles the language which he la- bor consultations submitted tJ he re- publican and democratic, conventions Mir. Taft, in his notification speech, ob- jects to the language He charges that the anti-iniunctIon plank was loosely drawn" and framed for the especial purpose Of rendering 1t susceptible to one interpretation by one set of men. and dlametrically opposite nterprs- tation by another" As Mir Taft has had long experience on the bench. and Is therefore skilled In the interpreta- ton of language. I ask him to give us, | 1T he can, two opposite interpretations of the language. That plank demands that Fall parties to all judicial pro- ceedings 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 injunctlons would not issue If no industrial dispute were involved How can that language be misconstrued or thing, that plank means that an indus trial dispute shall not. in itself be re- garded as a sufficient cause for an in- Junction If an injunction issues In an industrial dispute it must he based up- 1 on acts which would justify an injunc- tion if there were no industrial dispute involved. There Is nothing ambiguous about it. there is nothing that can be misconstrued or lsinterpreted even | by one desiring to find double mean | Ing Why do the republican leaders at tempt to read ambiguity into these words7 Simply because they cannot meet the proposition presented Even Mir. Taft attempts to avoid the issue | by saying that Tho one has ever main- taned that the fact that a dispute was industrial gave any basis for the lssu- l Ing of an injunction in reference there, to- If if Is true that no one now main l tans that, then why find fault with our platform on that subject? If mo- body opposes our position, we ought to have no difficulty in securing the pass age of law in harmony with this plank
 Upon the jury question Mir. Taft clearly takes issue with us. He Is thoroughly aroused by what he re. aards AS menace ito the courts Here Is his lament:
 "Never in the history of the country has there been such an insidious at tack upon the judicial system as the proposal to nterject a jury trial be- tween all orders of the court made af- ter full hearing and the enforcement of such orders"
 This would come under the head of Important, if true" But the fact Is our platform specifically declares that we favor g measure which passed the United States senate in 1896, and which republican congress has ever since refused to enact, etc, providing for trial by jury In cases of indirect con tempt, Are not the proceedings of the | United States senate a part of the history of the country? This measure passed the United States senate more than twelve years ago, and the vote upon It was so nearly unanimous that no roll call was demanded, The bill
 ---------------------