The Washington herald., 1914-02-21
SAMUEL GOMPERS
TAKES EXCEPTIONS
Gives His Reasons for Amending the
Sherman Antitrust
Law.
MAKES THEORETICAL PARALLEL

Editor The Washington Herald: In
your issue Of today on the editorial page.
you published a statement under the cap
| ton. "A Problem for the President"
which Is SO extremely misrepresentation
Of the facts that l am impeIled TO write
you in reply. The statement (for l can
not bring myself to believe that IL is an
editorial sutteranceI. is printed in the
unusual form of double column, and
deals with a principle which the organized
workers OF our country are endeavcring
to persuade Congress to enact as amenda-
tory of the Sherman antitrust law,
which, IL enacted, would restore to the
organizations of the workers the rights
TO which they were entitled, pricr TO the
Interpretation Of that law by the courts,
perverting the law TO apply TO the normal
activities Of the workers. This is an in
depreciation which the Senator's who
passed the bill refuted and repudiated in
advance.
Under that Interpretation. the Sherman
antitrust law Is now made TO apply par
ticularIy to the working people and the
personal and Normal activities. which are
exercised by every other citizen OF our
country without let or hindrance, are de-
clared to be unlawful
Is IL conceivable that there should be
placed in the same legal category men
who deal in merchandise and the products
of labor and who control and monopotiZe
them, and the men and the women who
toll, who own and control nothing but
their labor power, which is part of their
very being and which cannot be separated 1
from their very lives? Surely. there
must be some different legal and logical
concept of the combinations and corpora
tons dealing In material things, and the !
association Of men and women. who for |
their own interest and for the public well |
fare, merely seek to control their own |
physical and mental power to produce |
wealth. Or, is it your concept that in
animate matter, material things. are in |
the same category as human hearts and |
human souls?
But quite apart from the natural. norm |
al and constitutional rights involved in
mans ownership OF himself. where pray
Is the justification for your statement |
that ;'every decent citizen in the United |
states will uphold the Executive in inter-
posing his veto against the enactment Of
a law which shall secure the justifiable
relief for which the working people con-
tend? Upon what grounds can YOU Just
ify the statement that IL the President
should sign such a bill, when passed by
congress that his act would defy the
sense OF justice" of the people of this
Are you aware that in the last Presi-
GENITAL campaign, both the Democratic
party and the Progressive party speci-
i,caliy declared in their platforms for
the legislation which the workers of our
country urge, that is, for the right of
associated effort for the working people
In order that the organizations of the
workers should not be held as illegal
combinations in restraint of trade, and
for the limitation and regulation Of the
present abuse OF the injunctive writ.
and that together these parties received
a vote for their Presidential candidates
Ok 10,l2,9s2 and that the Republican
party. which embodied in its platform no
such declaration, .eceived for its can
1idate vote Of as, $50? When the
Of the United States had
cast 20 per cent of the votes in favor of ,
these declarations, surely you do not in
Lerpret their intelligence correctly when
you say either that the enactment of
4 law in compliance with these declara-
tons VIII defy the sense of Justice"
1f the American people or that such a
aw is repuSnant to every decent citi-
zen' in the country
A week ago today. that is. February
=, you published an advertisement in
serted by the president Of that dIscredit-
81 organization, the National Associa-
lion of manufacturers. There is such
l simils r.ty of expression and purpose
II the advertisement and in the editorial
statement to which this letter refers,
hat the question has arisen whether I
he advertisement and the statement did
not emanate from the same source. The I
question. has oeen asked of me whether
{ would not have been fairer to your &
eaders had the statement contained the 1
egai' requirement. "sdvt-'' &
VIII you have the fairness to publish
his letter? SAMUEL GOMPERS.
resident American Federation of Labor. {
NOTE-The article to which MIR. Comp i
re refers, not being an advertisement, {
| did not come within the legal re. n