The Washburn times. [volume] (Washburn, Wis.) 1896-1976, 1920-03-04

but he is opposed to the bill generally
for he is an advocate of government
ownership. The. union labor leaders
were waiting until they could study
the compromise bill, but they were
expected to join with the opposition
to the measure. The sections dealing
with wage adjustments do not please
them.
Samuel Gompers, who several times
| lately has felt his throne tottering,
has come out strongly against the or
ganization of political labor party
and urges that organized labor devote
its effort to the election of members
of congress who will be friendly to
it. The third party plan is especially
favored by the Plumb plan leaders,
but Mr.. Gompers warns that it would
be fatal to the interests of organized
labor. His attack on congress was
decidedly bitter, and called forth sew
eraI vigorous replies, particularly from
Senator Sherman of Illinois and Rep
resentative Blanton of Texas.
The antagonism between union Ia
| Dor and the farmers was accumulated
| last week when representatives of the
| National grange, the American Farm
| Bureau federation, the Cotton States
| board, and the Association of State
10, n
Washington and drew up memorial
| to congress denying that any group
| of organized workers possesses an in
herent right to strike. Abiding
especially to strikes of transportation
| workers, the memorial says:
"Those who believe that labor has
| an inherent right to organize strike
believe that such organizations have a
right to starve the people of the cities
| to death, on the one hand, and to de-
| stroy the property of the farmers on
| the other.
mo such right had ever existed and
no such right exists now.
mo set of men has ever had the
moral or legal right to destroy prop
erty or cause suffering by conspiring
together.
what would be the verdict of the
| people if the farmers of the United
| States should suddenly decide to go
on strike and refuse to supply the
| wants and needs of those who are not
| in position to produce food and cloth
ing for themselves? They would be
| condemned from one end of the cOun-
try to the other and the fact would be
pointed out that they, as the owners
and tillers of the land, had no right,
either moral or legal, to bring about
such calamity.
eff the farmers have no such rights,
those who handle their products have
no such rights"
Hope springs eternal. and it is now
the turn of the peace treaty compro-
misers to hope that their efforts will
be crowned with success in the near
future. President Wilson's latest let
ter to Senator Hitchcock on the sub
| ject. apparently written before Wis
count Grey's announcement but made
public much later, was interpreted as
showing yielding spirit, and the ma
neuvering to reach an agreement was
renewed. At this writing hope for
early ratification rested largely on the
report that the mild reservationists,
Senator Lodge and group Of Demo
Gratis had agreed tentatively on a sub
stitute for the Lodge reservation on ar.
ticle ten. This substitute declares the
United States assumes no obligation
to preserve the territorial integrity or
political independence of any other
country, and Senator Hitchcock indig-
nantly asserted it was no compromise
and that it's acceptance would be a
complete surrender on the part of the
supporters of the president. Lodge
also proposed series of amendments
modifying the language of his reserya
tons. The president, it is stated, has
so far recovered his health and
strength that he has taken personal
direction of the Democratic forces in
the present fight over the treaty III the
senate.
The council of the League Of Ma
tions opened its meeting in London on
! Wednesday, with Arthur J. Balfour in
the chair. The nations represented
were Belgium, Brazil, Great Britain
France, Greece, Italy, Japan ant
Spain. Both Mr. Balfour and Leor
Bourgeois of France expressed regret
that the United States was not repre-
sented. 10 M. Bourgeois was intrust
ed the preparation of plans for the or
ganization of the permanent court OF
international justice, and orher steps