The Washington herald., 1914-03-13
U,e..,iae.d, M. conp.r..


lis right in his contention that labor
unions should be- exempted from the
Operations of the Sherman antitrust
law and that The Herald is wrong in its
opinion that the law should apply to all
interests alike and that to exempt labor
organizations would be class legislation,
to which we are opposed.
Certain portions of Mr.. Gompers' COM
munication we shall decline to discuss,
because they are made up of unsupported
or irrelevant assertions lacking substance
or evidence to support them.
As included in this category we dis
miss Mr.. Gompers' assertion that he is
fully persuaded" that The Herald has
been dominated and influenced by the
wiles of the disreputable National Asso-
ciation of Manufacturers and its allies"
We confess that we know very little of
this organization and could not name a
single one of its officials without con-
sulting a directory. Whether it is a
benevolent organization or "disreputa-
Bile" one, as Mr.. Gompers describes it,
we have never been called upon, and are
not called upon now, to decide. In con-
nection with this organization Mr.. Com
pers mentions two names, "Mr. Emery
and Mr.. Davenport" We do not know
that they are connected with the Ma
tional Association of Manufacturers. We
take Mr.. Gompers' word for it. Whether
they are or are not has nothing to do
with the question at issue. For the en-
llightenment of Mr.. Gompers, however,
and for his future guidance we will
state that no official or editor, or any
one connected with The Washington
Herald has any acquaintance or rela-
tons with any official-or so far as we
know any member-of the National
Association of Manufacturers. Concern
ing knowledge of this organization and
its officers Mr. Gompers has greatly the
advantage of us. More than likely, when
we learn something about the objects,
aims, and policies of the National Asso-
citation OF Manufacturers, we may feel
called upon to criticise it. This we shall
feel as free to do as in the case of Mr..
Gompers or the American Federation of
Labor
Alike irrelevant is Mr.. Gompers' COM
plant of delay in replying to his first
letter. If any one is interested in the
reasons they may be stated in few
words. First, great deal of our time
and space has been devoted to defend
ing the people of Washington against
proposed oppressive taxation by Con-
gress, and second, We desired 10 have
at hand all of the views and arguments
of Mr.. Compers and his friends on the
question at issue. consisting of letters.
resolutions of labor bodies, articles in
labor newspapers, and threats of boycott
made to Washington merchants. Mr..
Gompers says he does not believe that
threats OF boycott have been made to
merchants. Merchants have informed
The Herald that they have. On the one
hand we have belief" on the other de-
liberate assertions, so there the matter
must rest.
In all of the foregoing we can detect
nothing to strengthen Mr.. Gompers'
contention for exemption of union labor
from the operations of the law. He
does, however, make some important
points which we are perfectly willing to
concede We concede the right of any
and all citizens to patronize those news
papers which they may, for one reason
or another, prefer. We concede the
right of union labor TO do itDutmost to
secure its exemption from the provisions
of the antitrust law. But we claim for
The Herald an equal right to express
the opinion that such exemption would
be wrong. We reiterate that we believe
in labor unions and we believe they are
strong enough to stand on equal footing
under the law with other interests and
that they should not ask for special
privileges. For holding these views we
do not apologize. Public sentiment, we
are convinced, will not support the per-
secution of newspaper for expressing
them.
For calling Mr.. Gompers despot,
however, The Herald does apologize.
The word, which has harsh sound,
was used with too little consideration,
and Mr.. Gompers convinces us that it
was misapplied.
On the subject of class legislation Mr..
Gompers is unconvincing. He, of
course, does not deny that exempting
the laboring class from the operation of
law is class legislation, but points to
other examples of alleged class legisla-
ton, none of which The Herald has in
dorsed. We believe. it unnecessary to
enter into discussion of what does or
does not constitute class legislation,
though we cannot refrain from express
ing the opinion that neither the tariff
act nor the exemption of fraternal So
cieties, etc, from the operations of a