The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1910-11-04

! row Two weeks ago. Mr.. COtteriFS
argument was to our way of thinking
| quite unfair to Mr.. Darrow. In fact
lie used the same tactics he accused Mr..
barrow of doing, those of dressing up
his case in tie lest manner possible
even at the expense of half truths. II
is hardly fair to quote single sentence
or paragraph and proceed to rip il to
pieces because the preceding or follcw
ing sentences often throw totally diff.
ferent construction on the sentence
picked out. A man might quote liter
ally from the Bible the clause There
is no God" but he would be unjust and
ridiculous if he did not add the pre-
face, "The fool hath said in his heart, -
which completely alters the meaning Of
the sentence.
Mr.. Cotterill, by reading in face
tious manner Darrow's words on the
working men with their poor food diet
and their lowly conditions, tried to
make it appear that he had ridiculed
and made sport of the workers. Every
man who heard Darrow will admit that
his entire references We're slap at the
conditions of capitalist society that
made this object poverty among the
working class and that every sentence
he uttered was full of sympathy for
the toier and contempt for those VINO
fattened off his earnings.
1t is comparatively easy for men OF
Mr. Cotteril's oratorical ability to
iuggle with an opponents words and
convey an impression that his opponent
never conveyed nor never meant to con-
vey.
Mr. Darrow asserted that the long
evity of the working man was ten years
less than the longevity of the profes-
sional man and stated that work killed
men.
Mr.. CotterilPs answer was substanti-
ally as follows:
work properly distributed shortens life"
Mr.. Darrow never made any such as
sertion. Mr.. Cotterill assumes a prem
Use, not a condition. Every one knows
that under our present industrial sys-
TEN work is neither healthy nor evenly
distributed and Mr.. Darrow spoke of
conditions and not of premises.
Mr. Cotterill made the sweeping
statement that the workingman always
had to go to the temperance forces for
aid and support and delved into the
legislative records to prove his asser-
tions. In all fairness to Mr.. COtterill
we admit that his whole legislative
record is fair and square with labor
But leaving Mr. Cotterill out of the
equation the record of some of his CO.
legislators will bear investigation.
He stated that the nine dry" sena-
tors stood to a man against removing
the nomination of Supreme Court
Judges from the Direct Primary law
Well, Gov Hay was rabid dry. Did
he or did he not refuse to veto the in
famous action of the legislature in the
iudgeship steal?
It was "dry' representative. MIR
McGregor, the gentleman from Prossel
| to whom Sen. Cotterill referred, who
on floor of the house bitterly denoun
| ced those who would restore the nomi
nations of supreme court judges to tht
Direct Primary and contemptuously re
ferred to this paper as "yellow sheet
because it had raised howl against
the action of the Legislature in putting
the nominations back into party con
vention and had also severely criticised
certain members of the supreme court
It was "dry" senator, who, after
the passage of the coal miners bill at
tempted to induce Gov. Hay to veto
the bill
1t was the "dry" Mr.. Gregor again
house, Mr.. Meigs, who juggled the ini-
tiative and referendum measure on the
calendar and prevented it from coming
to n vote in the house. 1t was Mr.
Meigs also who as long as he could,
aided in holding up liability legislation
It was the "dry" Mr.. McGrebor again
who fought viciously upon the floor
against the eight t-hour law for women
because of the ''irreparablS damage
It would work to the fruit industry in
canning time.
II was a "wet" member of the house
from King county, the executive offi-
GER of the Royal Arch of the state, who
left sick bed to fight for the passage
of the eight hour wGkday for women
wage workers. 1t was "wet" sena-
tor. who aided Representative Campbell
to get his bill creating the office OF
female deputy labor commissioner on
the calendar in the senate shortly be-
fore adjournment.
Were the "drys" in the legislature
all opposed to labor legislation: By
no means. Were the "wets" all favor
able to labor legislationH By no means
Vets and drys lined mp on labor legis-
lation both for or against according to
their previous environment or business