The Washington times., 1924-07-10
SOUGHT To
DESTROY


American politics.
The final and complete tale of the
adventures Of labor in this conven.
ton Is as follows:
First Mr.. Gompers and his fellow.
labor leaders, representing several
millions Of voters, were assured
that they would be amply regarded
and considered in the platform.
Then, when the platform came
out, it was thought by these labor
leaders to be altogether wishy.
washy and unacceptable on almost
every point, including especially
the point Of child labor.
On child labor, the labor leaders
wanted a ringing declaration ex.
horting all State legislatures to vote
for the ratification OF the anti.child-
labor federal constitutional amend.
Mlent or else confess themselves to
De unworthy of associating with
Thomas Jefferson.
Compromise on Plank.
Instead, the declaration went
really no farther than to state thar
without Democratic votes the anti
child labor amendment could not
have got through the House CT
Representatives and the Senate in
Washington.
This was a compromise decIara-
ton necessitatsd by the fact that
many Southern Democratic States
are in need of child labor in their
new cotton mills.
1t was also recessitated by the
fact that the Democratic party any
nj
ton to Federal interference with
matters within the States. 1t was
also necessitated by the considera-
ton that large number of Demo
Gratis in the House of Representa-
tives voted in fact not for but
against the anti.child labor amenl-
ment.
In any case, the result was that
here in New York the assembled
representatives of national organ
lied labor, when they came to read
the labor plank in the Democratic
platform. and particularly when
they came to read the child-labor
part Of it, were reused to a frenzied
Indignation and resentment.
That was stage one. Stage two
was when they were assured that
the Presidential nomination would
be satisfactory to them.
Numerous leaders of the conven.
ton gave them that assurance. They
were told that John w. Davis, of
West Virginia, could not possibly be
nominated.
The case of John w. Davis is a
tremendous and dramatic paradox,
Was Debs' Attorney.
He Is in temper most distinctly
q progressive. In his speech to the
convention in the midnight hours
OF this morning it was noticeable
that he appealed to "progressives'
and liberals" He never once
used the words safe" or the word
sound or the word sane" in
any appeal to conservatives.
One Of the most distinguished Of
conservative national Journalists re-
marked, as he listened to Mr.. Davis
speech, that there was nothing in
1t for him and that Mr.. Davis
seemed to be cultivating the radicals.
Mr.. Davis, in fact, to this writ
er's sure knowledge, is much more
disposed to go in the so-called
progressive or liberal direction than
In the direction commonly called
Teactionary.
1t is well known that Mr.. Davis
In his youth was lawyer for
Eugene V. Debs and for Mother
Jones and for the window Glass
Workers Union and that as u
member of Congress and subse.
quently as Solicitor General of the
United States, he earnestly defend
ed the anti-injunctiOm Clayton law
and the eight-hOur rallrOad-IabOr
AdAmsOn law, both Of which at
that time were tests OF fidelity tn
the labor cause.
Nevertheless, since returning to
the private practice of law, Mr..
Davis has had certain client and
a certain case rendering him
peculiarly obnoxious N organized
labor.
Basis of LabOrSD Ire.
The client ana the case haWs, 10th.
ing to do with J. Pierpont Morgan
4 Co. William Jennings Bryan had
attacked Mr.. Davis for being Mr.
Morgan's attorney. OrgaGized labor
IL not really much concerned with
that point. 1t is realized that Nor
gan & Co. might have many law
suits, which have nothing to do with
any issues except private personal
business disputes.
The point that labor has against
Mr.. Davis is that he made an argu.
nnent before the Federal judiciary
on behalf of client Of his called
the Coronado Coal Company.
This coal company maintained
that IL any member of a union,
whether by direction of the union
or without direction from the union,
committed depredatiOns upon the
property of the company, the union
should pay for IL.
This rule might have destroyed all
the union treasures anil DlI the
unions i'm the United States.
Moreover, in the West Virginia
delegation, supporting Mr.. Davis as
q candidate for the Presidency, there
was Don Chafin, the two-fisted and
double-barreled West Virginia sheriff,
who is believed by union miners 70
be responsible for more murders OF
union miners than any other lndi.
vidual in the whole United States.
1t happens that in Ohio there are
$4,000 thousand union miners. In
Indiana there are $4,000. In Illinois
mere are 100000. They and their
wives and their trades.people are a