tions to secure for the seamen equal right with all others have been denied and a disposition shown to extend to other workmen the system of compulsory labor.

Under the guise of a bill to subsidize the shipping industry a provision is incorporated, and has already passed the Senate, providing for a form of conscription, which would make compulsory_naval service a condition precedent to employment on privately owned vessels.

Having in mind the terrible and unnecessary loss of life attending the burning of the Slocum in the harbor of New York, the wreck of the Rio de Janeiro at the entrance to the Bay of San Francisco, and other disasters on the waters too numerous to mention, in nearly every case the great loss of life was due to the undermanning and the unskilled manning of such vessels, we presented to Congress measures that would, if enacted, so far as human law could do, make impossible the awful loss of life. We have sought this remedy more in the interests of the traveling public than in that of the seamen, but in vain.

Having in mind the constantly increasing evil growing out of the parsimony of corporations, of towing several undermanned and unequipped vessels called "barges," on the high seas, where, in case of storm or stress, they are cut loose to drift or sink, and their crews to perish, we have urged the passage of a law that shall forbid the towing of more than one such vessel unless they shall have an equipment and a crew sufficient to manage them when cut loose and sent adrift, but in vain.

The antitrust and interstate-commerce laws enacted to protect the people against monopoly in the products of labor, and against discrimination in the transportation thereof, have been perverted, so far as the laborers are concerned, so as to invade and violate their personal liberty, as guaranteed by the Constitution. Our repeated efforts to obtain redress from Congress have been in vain.

The beneficent writ of injunction intended to protect property rights has, as used in labor disputes, been perverted so as to attack and destroy personal freedom, and in a manner to hold that the employer has some property rights in the labor of the workmen. Instead of obtaining the relief which labor has sought, it is seriously threatened with statutory authority for existing judicial usurpation.

The Committee on Labor of the House of Representatives was instituted at the demand of labor to voice its sentiments, to advocate its rights, and to protect its interests. In the past two Congresses this committee has been so organized as to make ineffectual any attempt labor has made for redress. This being the fact, in the last Congress labor requested the Speaker to appoint on the Committee on Labor Members who, from their experience, knowledge, and sympathy, would render in this Congress such service as the committee was originally designed to perform. Not only was labor's request ignored, but the hostile make-up of the committee was accentuated.

Recently the President issued an order forbidding any and all Government employees, upon the pain of instant dismissal from the Government service, to petition Congress for any redress of grievances or for any improvement in their condition. Thus the constitutional right of citizens to petition must be surrendered by the Government employee in order that he may obtain or retain his employ

ment.

We present these grievances to your attention because we have long, patiently, and in vain waited for redress. There is not any matter of which we have complained but for which we have in an honorable and lawful manner, submitted remedies. The remedies for these grievances proposed by labor are in line with fundamental law, and with the progress and development made necessary by changed industrial conditions.

Labor brings these its grievances to your attention because you are the Representatives responsible for legislation and for failure of legislation. The toilers come to you as your fellow-citizens, who, by reason of their position in life, have not only, with all other citizens, an equal interest in our country, but the further interest of being the burden bearers, the wage-earners of America. As labor's representatives we ask you to redress these grievances, for it is in your power so to do.

Labor now appeals to you, and we trust that it may not be .in vain. But if perchance you may not heed us, we shall appeal to the conscience and the support of our fellow-citizens.

Very respectfully,

Samuel Gompers,
James Duncan,
James O'Connell,

Max Morris,

Dennis A. Hayes,

Daniel J. Keefe,

Wm. D. Huber,

Joseph F. Valentine,
John B. Lennon,
Frank Morrison,

Executive Council American Federation of Labor.

The above presentation of labor's grievances was approved by the representatives of the leading seventy-seven labor organizations of America.

LABOR IN THE CABINET.

In the Democratic platform for 1908, as in the Democratic platform for 1900, promise is made that a department of labor represented separately in the President's Cabinet will be created.

This plank merely proposes to do what is right by the labor interests of the country. When the creation of the Department of Commerce and Labor was before the Interstate Commerce Commission, Representative William Richardson (Democrat) of Alabama, asked that the labor department be not included in the Department of Commerce. In the House Mr. Richardson made a motion to recommit the bill to establish the Department of Commerce and Labor with instruction to bring in a measure providing for two departments, one for commerce and one for labor. The yeas and nays were taken and the Republicans voted solidly against this proposition to create a new department for labor, while the Democrats voted solidly for it. The facts will be found on pages 927, 928 and 929 of the Congressional Record, House Proceedings, for January 17, 1903.

THE BUSINESS MAN AND THE MASSES.

Mr. Bryan recently gave to the newspapers the following state

ment:

"My attention has been called to a pamphlet, issued by the National Association of Manufacturers, and signed by James W. Van Cleave. It concluded with the following statement in black type:

"It is the duty of American business men, regardless of their party, to bury Bryan and Bryanism under such an avalanche of votes in 1908 that the work will not have to be done over again in 1912, or

ever.

"Mr. Van Cleave's pamphlet contains four pages of printed matter; beginning with an explanation as to why the National Manufacturers' Association did not go to Denver it is devoted almost entirely to a condemnation of the labor plank adopted at Denver. Mr. Van Cleave insists that he is not talking party politics, that he is not making an appeal 'to either Republicans or Democrats as such,' but that he is 'talking as a business man to business men on a subject which has a vital concern for all of us.'

"Mr. Van Cleave's pamphlet raises two questions: First, is there anything in the labor plank of the Democratic platform to which business men can justly take exception and, second, is the labor question so important to business men as to justify them in ignoring all other issues?

"Before answering the first question, it may be well to ask: 'Who are business men?' Mr. Van Cleave is the president of a society known as the National Association of Manufacturers. Manufacturers are not the only business men in the country, and yet Mr. Van Cleave's appeal is to 'business men.' Every man who is engaged in a work which is useful to society is a business man; every man who contributes by brain or muscle to the nation's wealth and the nation's progress is a business man. Can it be said that all who are engaged in any honorable and helpful work have a 'vital concern' in the defeat of the Democratic party?

"But suppose we narrow the definition of business men to those who are engaged in production, distribution and transporation. Can it be said that the labor plank of the Democratic platform is a menace to all these? Shall we so define the term 'business men' that it will include only the employer of labor? Has the manufacturer an interest so distinct from those whom he employs, and through whose labor he produces, that he has a 'vital concern' in opposing legislation beneficial to his employes? Are the interests of the merchant so distinct from the interest of the clerks whom he employs that the merchant has a 'vital concern' in defeating legislation beneficial to his clerks and employes? And has the corporation which is engaged in transportation interests so distinct from the interests of those who carry on its work that it has a 'vital concern' in opposing legislation asked by the employes?

"Or does Mr. Van Cleave limit his definition to big manufacturers and big merchants and big railway corporations? It might be well for Mr. Van Cleave to furnish plans and specifications with his appeal so that the public will know exactly who are included in the phrase 'business men.' Surely not all of those who are pecuniarily interested in manufacturing, merchandising and railroading will feel that they are called upon to enlist in a war against the laboring

man.

"But what is this labor plank which is of such 'vital concern' to those for whom Mr. Van Cleave would speak? It asks that a labor department be created, with a cabinet officer at its head. Does this offend the business men? Are the wage-earners presumptuous or impudent in asking for recognition in the President's council chamber? Those known as wage-earners constitute a considerable percentage of the population; is it unreasonable that they should have special champion in the cabinet, to represent them in the discussi of public questions? It was some time before a department of a

culture was created; will anybody doubt that the creation of this department was wise? Will anybody dispute that this department has been of immense advantage to the farmers of the country? What reason have we to doubt that a department of labor would in like manner justify its creation? We have more lately created a department of commerce and labor, but the head of that department has represented commerce rather than labor.

"The platform draws a distinction between associations of wage earners and producers, organized for the protection of wages and the improvement of labor conditions, and industrial corporations which act in restraint of trade. The difference between a labor organization and a trust is so apparent that no disinterested person will deny that they should be treated separately. To class the two kinds of organizations together, and deal with them under one law, is bound to do injustice to one or the other. Surely the business men can have no 'vital concern' in including the labor organizations in the anti-trust laws.

"The Democratic platform also declares in favor of the eight-hour day on government work and the employers' liability act, but as these planks are also in the Republican platform, they can not, of course, be offensive to Mr. Van Cleave.

"The Democratic platform also favors the passage of a measure which passed the United States Senate in 1896, but which a Republican Congress has ever since refused to enact, providing for trial by jury in cases of indirect contempt. Can this raise a question of 'vital concern' to business men? The business man has the right of trial by jury; every man charged with a crime has the right of trial by jury. What public interest is there that will suffer by the granting of this safeguard to wage earners? The right of trial by jury in cases of indirect contempt is no reflection upon the court. Is it a reflection upon the court if a party to the trial of a case at law asks for a jury? Is it a reflection upon a criminal judge that he must permit the accused to be tried before a jury of his peers? Where the contempt is not committed in the presence of the court, it must rest upon evidence. In such a case, the judge has no information except that which he secures from witnesses, and it is the special function of the jury to weigh evidence and to decide upon the credibility of witnesses. An attempt has been made to raise a false issue in regard to the courts and to make it appear that the demand for trial by jury is an assault upon the integrity of the courts. Those who make this argument might as well insist on the abolition of the jury in all cases, for the jury system itself is just as much a reflection upon the bench as is this demand for trial by jury in these particular cases. But, as a matter of fact, the jury is the bulwark of the court as well as of the accused, for the courts would be very much more liable to criticism if juries were abolished than they are today, for now the judge devotes himself mainly to the decision of points of law.

Do

"But there is another labor plank that Mr. Van Cleave probably had in mind, namely, the plank that declares that parties to all judicial proceedings should be treated with rigid impartiality and that an injunction should not issue in any case in which an injunction would not lie if no industrial dispute were involved. Do the business men insist upon partiality in judiciary proceedings? they insist that the mere fact that there is an industrial dispute should justify an injunction? That plank does not attempt to interfere with the issue of an injunction where other conditions justify it, but it does oppose the issue of an injunction merely for the purpose of bringing the court into the discussion of an industrial dispute. What proportion of the real business men of the country find a menace in this part or any other part of the labor plank of the Democratic platform?

"Mr. Van Cleave asserts that this plank arouses a 'class spirit,' and constitutes a demand for 'class favors.' But this is not true. It is a declaration that the writ of injunction should not be used for the purpose of creating a class or favoring a class. The laboring men resent an attempt to discriminate against them in favor of any other class.

"Now, as to the second question: Have the business men of the country no concern in the other planks of our platform? Is the labor question the only question in which business men feel a 'vital concern?' What about honesty in elections? Have business men any interest in this subject? Are they not vitally concerned in the publication of campaign contributions before the election? Can they be indifferent to the corruption which has followed the domination of politics by the great corporate interests?

"And the election of Senators by the people; is this not a matter of importance to the business man? Is he not concerned in bringing the government nearer to the voter and making it more responsive to the will of the people? Is the tariff question entirely lost sight of in the business man's agitation over labor? Does it make no difference to the business man whether his taxes are just or unjust? It is hardly to be expected that a business man, who has opposed a protective tariff all his life, will immediately forget the iniquities of a high tariff, whenever the labor question is mentioned.

"And are there no trusts for the business man to fight? Does he view with indifference the encroachment of the private monopoly upon his own business? Are not the small merchants the victims of the rigid rules which the trusts are laying down and enforcing? Will the small manufacturer be reconciled to gradual extermination, he can only bury the Democratic labor plank? Is not industrial

independence a matter of 'vital concern' to the manufacturers who are outside of the trusts, and to the merchants who must deal with the trusts?

"There, too, is the railroad question. Are not rates, rebates and discrimination a matter of concern to the business man? Is he not interested in knowing the value of the railroads and in stopping the over issue of stocks and bonds?

"The business man is a bank depositor, and he loses when a bank becomes insolvent. He is also injuriously affected by a bank failure in his community. Would he not be greatly benefited by a banking system under which the banks would be compelled to contribute to a guaranty fund and thus protect depositors?

"The business man has an opinion upon the subject of government. He knows that imperialism is antagonistic to the doctrine of self-government, and he knows what an expensive burden imperialism has been.

"Must he forget all these because, forsooth, the laboring man asks for remedial legislation?

"There are a number of other planks in the Democratic platform that present issues which concern the business man. Very few business men have swollen fortunes, and all of them are interested in the reforms that have for their object a more equitable distribution of the proceeds of human endeavor. The business man, the little one as well as the big one, contributes to the country's welfare, and he is vitally concerned in such a readjustment of conditions as will secure to each man a reward proportionate to his work.

"Mr. Van Cleave is entirely too narrow in his definition of the business man, and he does the business man an injustice in assuming that his waking hours are filled with fears of the wage earners and that his night's rest is broken by imaginary disputes with those who toil. The business man is an important factor in society-more than that, he is a necessary factor, and the Democratic party has not overlooked him. The Democratic platform is broad enough for all to stand upon. It breathes the spirit of reconciliation between labor and capital; it pleads for harmony between all elements of society and urges co-operation in the work of advancing civilization. The business man is one of the common people; his interests are interwoven with the interests of the masses, and Mr. Van Cleave will fail in his appeal to class spirit and in his effort to array the business men against the reasonable and necessary reforms to which the Democratic party is pledged."

SAMUEL GOMPERS' EDITORIAL.

Samuel Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor, printed in the August number of the Federationist the following editorial:

Recently the two great political parties of the country have held their conventions, set forth their respective platforms, nominated their candidates for President, and appealed to the voters for support. The President and members of the Executive Council of the American Federation of Labor attended both the Republican and Democratic conventions for the purpose of presenting labor's demands and asking their incorporation in the platforms in a manner which should clearly affirm the position of the workers, especially in relation to the abuse of the injunction and the right to organize and carry on the legitimate business of organization without being classed as trusts under the Supreme Court interpretation of the Sherman anti-trust law.

These because they deal with fundamental principles of right, freedom and justice, are the two most important issues raised on the part of labor. We shall, in this editorial, discuss chiefly the recognition-or lack of it-which was accorded the official representatives of labor at the hands of the two great political conventions and the moral which is obvious in each case.. We shall set forth what we asked and what reply we received in each instance. We shall endeavor to make it clear to all upon what issues the present campaign is to be fought and our reasons for urging the support of the party which incorporated in its platform labor's rights and grievances.

We now know at first hand the exact attitude of the two great parties and what treatment to expect at their hands.

To state the case briefly, the National Convention of the Republican party, at Chicago, refused to incorporate the demands of labor in its platform, and instead inserted a plank on injunctions which endorses the existing abuses of the injunction as applied to labor disputes.

The Democratic Convention at Denver, on the other hand, nade labor's demands a part of its platform.

This much doubtless is familiar to ail our readers through the reports furnished by the daily press, but we desire here to render an exact account of the proceedings in each case in order that there may be no misunderstanding or misrepresentations of the fundamental issues upon which labor is waging the campaign this

year.

PLANKS PROPOSED BY LABOR TO THE REPUBLICAN

CONVENTION.

The Republican party is in accord with the great emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, when he declared that "labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much more consideration.” Through his wise and humane policy the shackles were stricken from the limbs of four million chattel slaves. The Republican party has been the staunch defender of property and property rights, yet holds and declares that personal rights and human liberty are and must of necessity be entitled to the first and highest consideration. Recognizing the new conditions arising from our marvelous industrial development, our people and our nation realize the fact that the wheels of industry and commerce of our time require that new law and new concepts of law must be enacted to conform to modern industry and commerce and advance freedom in line therewith.

We therefore pledge the Republican party to the enactment of a law by Congress, guaranteeing to the wage-earners, agriculturists and horticulturists of our country, the right of organized effort to the end that such associations or their members shall not be regarded as illegal combinations in restraint of trade.

We pledge ourselves to the enactment of a law to prohibit the issuance of injunctions in cases arising out of labor disputes, when such injunctions would not apply when no labor disputes existed; and, that in no case shall an injunction be issued when there exists a remedy by the ordinary process of law, and which act shall provide that in the procedure for the punishment of contempt of court, the party cited for contempt shall when such contempt was not committed in the presence of the court be entitled to a trial by jury.

We pledge the Republican party to the enactment of an amendment extending the existing eight hour law to all Government employes, and to all workers, whether employed by contractors or sub-contractors doing work for or on behalf of the Federal Government.

We pledge the Republican party to the enactment of a law by Congress, as far as the Federal jurisdiction extends, for a general employers' liability act for injury to body or loss of life of employes.

We pledge the Republican party to the enactment of a law to the extent of Federal jurisdiction granting women's suffrage, and to submit a constitutional amendment for ratification to the States for the absolute suffrage of women co-equal with men.

We pledge the Republican party to the enactment of a law creating a Department of Labor, separate from any existing department, with a Secretary at its head having a seat in the President's Cabinet.

We pledge the Republican party to the enactment of a law for the creation of a Federal Bureau of Mines and Mining, preferably under the proposed Department of Labor, and the appropriation of sufficient funds to thoroughly investigate the cause of mine disasters, so that laws and regulations may be recommended and enacted which will prevent the terrible maiming and loss of life in the mines.

We pledge the Republican party to the enactment of a law for the establishment of United States Government Postal Savings banks.

The platform Committee after listening to the arguments of labor's representatives reported and the Republican Convention adopted the following: