The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-08-30

the outstanding figure in the fight for
but one measure which might be call
ed labor law in the strict sense Of
the term. Except for the fight led
by him in behalf Of the enactment
of the Seamans Law, Senator La
Toilette has not been directly con-
nected with any noteworthy labor
legislation.
1t is true he voted for the Woman
Suffrage Amendment, the proposed
Child Labor Amendment, the estab-
lishment of the Department of Labor,
and the eight-hour day for government
employees. It is true he was against
the Ship Subsidy Bill, the Esch-Cum-
minis Act, and the Fordney McCum-
Der Tariff Bill. But these votes could
scarcely be interpreted as signs of
genuine progressivism, as evidence of
unrelenting hostility to the employing
class interests. Many Republicans
and Democrats have voted for and
against those measures precisely in
the same way as LaFollette did. Yet,
no one would on his account call these
congressman and senators progress
ives worthy of the support of the
workers and farmers. Many of those
who have voted for the Yoman's Suf-
frage Amendment or the Howell-Bark-
ley Bill for abolishing the Railroad
Labor Board are today ardent adj
coates of the election of Coolidge OF
Davis.
Progressivism On Wane
If we analyze LaFollette's attitude
towards such pressing questions in
Congress as the raising of revenue,
the regulation of business and the Ia
riff, we will find that the Wisconsin
Senator has not been fundamentally
antagonistic to the corporate interests
of the country and has consciously ex-
pressed and fought for the needs of
the middle and smaller capitalists as
against the encroachments of the big
gests capitalist groups. At no time
has LaFollete spoken or worked for
the laborers as a class against the
employers exploiting them.
Then LaFollette's insurgent group
in the House has even less cause to
speak of its being genuinely progress
i've. We have seen that their leader,
John M. Nelson, now LaFollette's ma
tional campaign director, voted for the
CONSUMPTION law. In the feeble effort
made to liberalize the rules Of pro-
cedure in the House and in the half
hearted attempts at shifting the bur
den of honorous taxation from the
poor to the rich, the LaFollette pro-
gressives acted disgracefully.
When LaFollette first entered con
gress he was a regular in every sense
of the word. His Senate radicalism,
whatever there has been of it, is on
the wane.
In such questions as the restriction
of immigration, the giving of more
power to our capitalist government to
control the movements of workers, or
in the matter of Japanese exclusion,
LaFollette has not taken a command
ing position to stay the hands Of the
exploiters in utilizing these occasions
to divide and weaken the workers.
Not Against Big Capitalists
In debating the various revenue
measures preparatory to Americas
entering the war Senator LaFollette
made it very plain in offering his
amendments that he did not relish
the idea Of being considered foe of
the business interests of the land.
Thus he declared, on February 2S,
1917, in behalf of his own amendments
before the U. S. Senate. "These
amendments. embodying as they do a
complete scheme of raising revenue
without the tax on business and the
bond issue, should be voted on bloc"
Continuing to assure the demo
cratic defenders of the big capitalist
groups that he was not in fundamental
disagreement with them on the basic