The daily Nome industrial worker., 1916-08-23
REPORTS COURTEOUS.

the matter of the GOmpers denun- Danbury Hatters decision while on the Supreme Bench, IS as effective as far as it goes. He interpreted the law. And when they rub it in by quoting the Wilson declaration that unionization had a demoraliz- ing effect upon industry, they struck ten spot which ought req sonably enough to demolish Comp CTS the capitalist politician.
 As far as Gompers is concerned the Danbury Hatters decision can not be used against Hughes. He has upheld the law passed by Con- gress and a law which manifestly enough was considered excellent by him as well as many laborites. There is no reason to think that had Wilson been elevated to the Supreme Bench from Princeton Uni versity, instead of having to play politics, his decision would not have been identical with Hughes.
 Wilson's viewpoint as a college president, removed from the infiu- ence of the madding crowd and the especially madding political crowd, was almost identical with that of Hughes: just as reactionary, just as narrow and just as conventional and respectable as the republican candidate. And there is no reason whatever to believe that the high minded nonsense concerning the re- lations which should exist between capital and labor to which Hughes is now giving utterance, is not marking the different pronuncia- mento which would be given by the politician to that which is voiced in the reactionary atmosphere of d Supreme Bench.
 For Hughes is nothing if not a man of the Wilson type. They are both highly respectable men. They are both men who have conformed to all the requirements of public usage, public habit, public form.
 Hughes even when on the Supreme Bench supported the minority de cision in the Kansas black list law, whereby a man could not be dis charged because of his being a union man. And his attitude in the Danbury Hatters case is the attitude would have beer t5k79 tY nine tenths of the capitalist judges, de mocrat or republican alike.
 The decision was in effect an in depreciation of the law.
 Now Gompers has refused to re- cognize the class distinctions that are easily recognizable in the in stitutons of this later day demo- cracv. And for that reason he may not retort upon the republicans that if Hughes interpreted the law when 10 labor's disadvantage in the Dan- F1ry Hatters case, he certainly did not interpret the law when to Ca pilal's disadvantage in the Standard oil and Tobacco trust cases.
 Therein there was no question of personal guilt; yet the very men who refused to interpret the law, but amended it instead, showed a complete familiarity with the lawless and criminal methods of both corpo- rations as trusts in restraint ot trade.
 Yet there are clauses in that Sher- man Act which were in full force long before the Clayton bill was signed, which would have enabled Wilson to amend the wrong done by that Supreme Court decision, but which he never did and could never expect to do.
 Gompers brings his own politics to bear in directing the matters Of the Federation of which he is pre- sident, but he refuses to allow the rank and file to act similarly.
 He has been so hard pressed of late to combat the ideas of socialist politicians, which ought not to be so difficult matter, that he has be- gun to fiirt with the anarchist views of society and certainly to sustain their position as to working class political action.
 Anything that comes from ca- pitalist party finding favor in the