Richmond Palladium (Daily), Volume 33, Number 164, 28 July 1908 — Page 7

THE RICHMOND PAL JLADIU3I AND SUX-TE LEGKA 31, TUESDAY, JULY 28, 1908.

PAGE SEVEN WILLIAM H. TAFT ACCEPTS REPUBLICAN NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT TODAY In Speech Which Sparkles With Bright Thoughts He Sizes Up the Great Questions of Today and Deals With Them in a Masterly Manner-He Pays Tribute to President Roosevelt and Speaks of the Work to be Done and Which Will Be Best Done in Hands of Republican Party.

Senator Warner and Gentlemen of the Committee: I am deeply sensible of the honor which the Republican National ConTentfon has conferred on me in the nomination which you formally tender. I accept it with full appreciation of the responsibility it Imposes. Republican Strength. Gentlemen, the strength of the republican cause in the campaign at hand Is in the fact that we represent the policies essential to the reform of known abuses, to the continuance of liberty and true prosperity, and that we are determined, as our platform unequivocally declares, to maintain them and carry them on. For more than ten years this country passed through an epoch of material development far beyond any that ever occurred in the world before. In its course, certain evils crept In. Some prominent and influential members of the community, spurred by financial success and in their hurry for greater wealth, became unmindful of the common rules of business honesty and fidelity and of the limitations imposed by law upon their action. This became known. The revelations of the breaches of trust, the disclosures as to rebates and discriminations by railways, the accumulating evidence of the violation of the antitrust law by a number of corporations, the overissue of stock and bonds on interstate railways for the unlawful enriching of directors and for the purpose of concentrating control of railways in one management, all quickened the conscience of the people, and brought on a moral awakening among them that boded well for the future of the country. What Roosevelt Has Done. The man who formulated the expression of the popular conscience and who led the movement for practical reform was Theodore Roosevelt. He laid down the doctrine that the rich violator of the law should be as amenable to restraint and punishment as the offender without wealth and without influence, and he proceeded by recommending legislation and directing executive action to make that principle good in actual performance. He secured the passage of the so-called rate bill, designed more effectively to restrain excessive and fix reasonable lutes ,and to punish secret rebates and discriminations which had been general in the practice of the railroads, and which had done much to enable unlawful trusts to drive out of business their competitors. It secured much closer supervision ot railway transactions and brought within the operation of the same statue express companies, sleeping car companies fast freight and refrigerator lines, terminal railroads and pipe lines, and forbade in future the combination of the transportation and shipping business under one control in order to avoid undue discrimination. President Roosevelt directed suits to be brought and prosecutions to be instituted under the anti-trust law, to enforce its provisions against the most powerful of the industrial corporations. He pressed to passage the pure food law and the meat inspection law ,in the interest of the health of the (public, clean business methods and great ultimate benefit to the trades themselves. He recommended the passage of a law, which the republican convention has since specifically approved, restricting the future issue of stocks and bonds by interstate railways to such as may be authorized by federal authority. He demonstrated to the people by what he said, by what he recommended to congress, and by what he did, the sincerity of his efforts to command respect for the law, to secure equality of all before the law, and to save the country from the dangers of a plotocratic government, toward which we were fast tending. In this work Mr. Roosevelt has had the support and sympathy of the republican party, and its chief hope of success in the present controversy must rest on the confidence which the people of the country have in the sincerity of the party's declaration in its platform, that it intends to continue the policies. Must Secure Progress. Mr. Roosevelt has set high the Btandard of business morality and obedience to law. The railroad rate bill was more useful possibly in the immediate moral effect of Its passage than ven in the legal effect of Its very useful provisions. From its enactment dates the voluntary abandonment of the practice of rebates and discriminations by the railroads and the return by their managers to obedience to law in the fixing of tariffs. The pure food and meat Inspection laws and the prosecutions directed by the president under the anti-trust law have had a similar moral effect in the general business community and have made it now the common practice for the great industrial corporations to consult the law with a view of keeping within its provisions. It has also had the effect of protecting and encouraging smaller competitive companies so that they have been enabled to do a profitable business. But we should be blind to the ordinary working of human nature if we did not recognize that the moral standards set by President Roosevelt will not continue to be observed by those whom cupidity and : a desire for financial power may tempt, unless the requisite machinery is introduced into the law which shall in its practical operation maintain these standards and

secure the country against a departure from them. Function of Next Administration. The chief function of the next administration, in my judgment, is distinct from, and a progressive development ot that which has been performed by President Roosevelt. The chief function of the next administration is to complete and perfect the machinery by which these standards may be maintained, by which the lawbreakers may be promptly restrained and punished, but which shall operate with sufficient accuracy and dispatch to intefere with legitimate business as little as possible. Such machinery is not now adequate. Under the present rate bill, and under all its amendments, the burden of the interstate commerce commission in supervising and regulating the operation of the railroads of this country has grown so heavy that it is utterly impossible for that tribunal to hear and dispose, in any reasonable time, of the many complaints, queries and issues that are brought before it for decision. It ought to be relieved of Its Jurisdiction as an executive, directing body, and Its functions should be limited to the quasi-judicial investigation of complaints by Individuals and by a department of the government charged with the executive business of supervising the qperation of railways. There should be a Classification of that very small percentage of industrial corporations having power and opportunity to effect illegal restraints of trade and monopolies, and legislation either inducing or compelling them to subject themselves to registry and to proper publicity regulations and supervision of the department of commerce and labor. Work of Next Administration. The field covered by the industrial combinations and by the railroads is so very extensive that the interests of the public and the interests of the businesses concerned can not be properly subserved except by reorganization of bureaus in the department of commerce and labor, of agriculture, and the department of justice, and a change in the jurisdiction of the interstate commerce commission. It does not assist matters to prescribe new duties for the interstate commerce commission which it is practically impossible for it to perform, or to denounce new offenses with drastic punishment, unless subordinate and ancillary legislation shall be passed making possible the quick enforcement in the great variety of cases which are constantly arising, of the principles laid down by Mr. Roosevelt, and with respect to which only typical instances of prosecution with the present machinery are possible. Such legislation should and would greatly promote legitimate business by enabling those anxious to obey the federal statutes to know just what are the bounds of their lawful action. The practical constructive and difficult work, therefore, of those who follow Mr. Roosevelt is to devise ways and means by which the high level of business integrity and obedience to law which he has established may be maintained and departures from it restrained without undue interference with legitimate business. v Railway Traffic Agreements. It 13 agreeable to note in this regard that the republican platform expressly and the democratic platform impliedly, approve an amendment to the interstate commerce law, by which interstate railroads may make useful traffic agreements if approved by the commission. This has been strongly recommended by President Roosevelt and will make for the benefit of the business. Valuation of Railways. Some of the suggestions of the democratic platform relate really to this subordinate and ancillary machinery to which I have referred. Take for instance the so-called "physical valuation of railways." It is clear that the sum of all rates or receipts of a railway, less proper expenses, should be limited to a fair profit upon the reasonable value of its property, and that if the sum exceeds this measure, it ought to be reduced. The difficulty in enforcing the principle is in ascertaining what Is the reasonable value of the company's property, and in fixing what is a fair profit. It is clear that the physical value of a railroad and its plant is an element to be given weight in determining Its' full value; but as President Roosevelt fn his Indianapolis speech and the supreme court have in effect pointed out, the value of the railroad as a going concern, including its good will, due to efficiency of service and many other circumstances, may be much greater than the value of its tangible property, and it Is the former measures the investment on which a fair profit must be allowed. Then, too, the question what is a" fair profit is one involving not only the rate of interest usually earned on nor mally safe investments, but also a sufficient allowance to make up for the risk of loss both of capital and Interest In the original outlay. These considerations will have Justified the company In imposing charges high enough to secure a fair income on the enterprise as a whole. The securities at market prices will have passed into the hands of subsequent purchasers from the original investors. Such circumstances should properly affect the decision of the tribunal engaged in determining whether the totality of rates charged is reasonable or excessive. To ignore them might so seriously and unjustly impair settled values as to destroy all hope of restoring confidence and forever to end the in

ducement for investment in new railroad construction which, in returning prosperous times, is sure to be essential to our material progress. As Mr. Roosevelt has said in speaking of this very subject: "The effect of such valuation and supervision of securities can not be retroactive. Existing securities should be tested by laws in existence at the time of their issue. This nation would no more injure securities which have become an important part of the national wealth than it would consider a proposition to repudiate the national debt." The question of rates and the treatment of railways is one that has two sides. The shippers are certainly entitled to reasonable rates; but less is an injustice to the carriers. Good business for the railroads is essential to general prosperity. Injustice to them is not alone injustice to stockholders and capitalists, whose further Investments may be necessary for the good of the whole country, but it directly affects and reduces the wages of railway employes, and indeed may deprive them of their places entirely. From what has been said, the proper conclusion would seem to be that in attempting to determine whether the entire schedule of rates of a railway is excessive, the physical valuation of the road is a relevant and important, but not necessarily a controlling factor. I am confident that the fixing of rates on the principles suggested above would not materially impair the present market values of railroad securities in most cases, for I believe that the normal increase in the value of railroad properties, especially in their terminals, will more than make up for the possible overcapitalization in earlier years. In some cases, doubtless, it will be found that overcapitalization is made an excuse for excessive rates, and then they should be reduced; but the consensus of opinion seems to be that the railroad rates generally in this country are reasonably low. This is why, doubtless, the complaints filed with the interstate commerce commission against excessive rates are so few as compared with those against unlawful discrimination in rates between shippers and between places. Of course, in the determination of the question whether discrimination is unlawful or not, the physical valuation f the whole road is of little weight. Should Be Physical Valuation. I have discussed this, with some decree of detail, merely to point outthat the valuation by the interstate commerce commission of the tangible property of a railroad is proper and may from time to time be necessary in settling certain issues which may come before them, and that no evil or injustice can come from valuation in such cases, if it be understood that the result is to be used for a just purpose, nd the right to a fair profit under all the circumstances of the Investment is recognized. The interstate commerce commission has now the power to ascertain the value of the physical railroad property, if necessary, in determining the reasonableness of rates. If the machinery for doing so is not adequate, as is probable, it should be made so. The republican platform recommends legislation forbidding the issue in the future of interstate railway stocks and bonds without federal authority. It may occur in such cases that the full value of the railway, and, as an element thereof, the value of the tangible property of the railway, would be a relevant and Important factor in assisting the proper authority to determine whether the stocks and bonds to be issued were to have proper security behind them, and in such case, therefore, there should be the right and machinery to make a valuation of the physical property. Control of Commerce Corporation. Another suggestion in respect to subordinate and ancillary machinery necessary to carry out republican policies is that of the incorporation under

, national law or the licensing by na tional license or enforced registry of companes engaged in Interstate trade. The fact is that nearly all corporations doing a commercial business are engaged in interstate commerce, and if they all were required to take out a federal license or a federal charter, the burden upon the interstate business of the country would become intolerable. It is necessary, therefore, to devise some means for classifying and insuring federal supervision of such corporations as have the power and temptation to effect restraints of interstate trade and monopolies. Such corporations constitute a very small percentage of all engaged In interstate business'. Roosevelt's Classification. With such classification in view Mr. Roosevelt recommended an amendment to the anti-trust law, known as the Hepburn bill, which provided for voluntary classification, and created a strong motive therefor by- granting immunity from prosecution for reasonable restraints of interstate trade to all corporations which would register and submit themselves to the publicity regulations of the department of commerce and labor. Democratic Classification. The Democratic platform suggests a requirement that corporations In interstate trade having control of 25 per cent, of the products in which they deal shall take out a Federal license. This classification would probably include a great many small corporations engaged in the manufacture of special articles, or commodities whose total value is so inconsiderable that they

are not really within the purview or real evil of the anti-trust law. It is not now necessary, however, to discuss the relative merit of such

propositions, but it is enough merely ! to affirm the necessity for some meth od by which greater executive supervision can be given to the Federal Government over those businesses in which there is a temptation to violations of the anti-trust law. , Anti-Trust Law. The possible operation of the antitrust law under existing rulings of the Supreme Court has given rise to suggestions for its necessary amendment to prevent its application to cases which it is believed were never in the contemplation of the framers of the statute. Take two instances: A merchant or manufacturer engaged in a legitimate business that covers certain States, wishes to sell his business and his good will, and so in the terms of the sale obligates himself to the purchaser not to go into the same business in those States. Such a restraint of trade has always been enforced at common law. Again, the employes of an interstate railway combine and enter upon a peaceable and lawful strike to secure better wages. At common law this was not a restraint of trade or commerce or a violation of the rights of the company or of the public. Neither case ought to be made a violation of the anti-trust law. My own Impression is that the Supreme Court would hold that neither of these instances are within its inhibition, but, if they are to be so regarded, general legislation amending the law is necessary. Democratic Plank to Limit. The suggestion of the Democratic platform that trusts be ended by forbidding corporations to hold more than 50 per cent, of the plant in any line of manufacture is made without regard to the possibility of enforcement or the real evil in trusts. A corporation controlling 45 or 50 per cent of the products may by well known methods frequently effect monopoly and stamp out competition in a part of the country as completely as if It controlled 60 or 70 per cent, thereof. Plank Impractical. The proposal to compel every corporation to sell its commodities at the same price the country over, allowing for transportation, it utterly imprccticable. If it can be shown that in order to drive out competition, a corporation owning a large part of the plant producing an article is selling in one part of the country, where it has competitors, at a low and unprofitable price, and in another part of the country, where it has none, at an exorbitant price, this is evidence that it is attempting an unlawful monopoly, and justifies conviction under the antitrust law; but the proposal to supervise the business of corporations in such a way as to fix the price of commodities and compel the sale at such price is as absurd and socialistic plank as was ever inserted in a Democratic platform. Republican and Democratic Policies. The chief difference between the Republican and the Democratic platforms is the difference which has heretofore been seen between the policies of Mr. Roosevelt and those which have been advocated by the democratic candidate, Mr. Bryan. Mr. Roosevelt's policies have been progressive and regulative; Mr. Bryan's, destructive. Mr. Roosevelt has favored regulation of the business in which evils have grown up so as to stamp out the evils and permit the business to continue. The tendency of Mr. Bryan's proposals have generally been destructive of the business with respect to which he is demanding reform. Mr. Roosevelt would compel the trusts to conduct their business in a lawful manner and secure the benefits of their operation and the maintenance of the prosperity of the country of which they are an important part; while Mr. Bryan would extirpate and destroy the entire business in order to stamp out the evils which they have practiced. Advantage of Combination. The combination of capital in large plants to manufacture goods with the greatest economy is just as necessary as the assembling of the parts of a machine to the economical and more rapid manufacture of what in old j times was made by hand. The Gov- ; ernment should not interfere with one any more than the other, and when such aggregations of capital are legitimate and are properly controlled, for they are then the natural results of modern enterprise and are beneficial to the public. In the proper operation of competition the public will soon share with the manufacturer the advantage in economy of operation and lower prices. ' The Unlawful Trust. j When, however, such combinations J are not based on any economic principle, but are made merely for the purpose of controlling the market, to maintain or raise prices, restrict output and drive out competitors, the public derives no benefit and we have a monopoly. There must be some use by the company of the comparatively great size of its capital and plant and extent of Its output, either to coerce persons to buy of it rather than of some competitor or to coerce those who would compete with it to give up their business. There must usually, in other words, be shown an element of duress In the conduct of its business toward the customers in the trade and its competitors before mere aggregation of capital or plant becomes an unlawful monopoly. It is perfectly conceivable that in the Interest of economy of production a great number of plants may be legitimately UMmkUd outer the ownership of one

corporation. It is important, therefore, that such large aggregations of capital and combination should be controlled so that the public may have the advantage of reasonable prices and that the avenues of enterprise may be kept open to the individual and the smaller corporation wishing to engage in business. Aggregation of Capital. In a country like this, where, in good times, there is an enormous floating capital awaiting investment, the period before which effective competition, by construction of new plants, can be introduced into any business, is comparatively short, rarely exceeding a year, and is usually even less than that. Existence of actual plant is not, therefore, necessary to potential competition. Many enterprises have been organized on the theory that mere aggregation of all, or nearly all, existing plants in a line of manufacture,1 without regard to economy of production, destroys competition. They have, most of them, gone into bankruptcy. Competition in a profitable business will not be affected by the mere aggregation of many existing plants under one company, unless the company thereby effects great economy, the benefit of which it shares with the public or takes some illegal method to avoid competition and to perpetuate a hold on the business. Treatment of Trusts. Unlawful trusts should be restrained with all the efficiency of injunctive process, and the persons engaged in maintaining them should be punished with all the severity of criminal prosecution, in order that the methods pursued in the operation of their business shall be brought within the law. To destroy them and to eliminate the wealth they represent from the producing capital of the country would entail enormous loss, and would throw out of employment myriads of workingmen and working-women. Such a result is wholly unnecessary to the accomplishment of the needed reform, and will inflict upon the innocent far greater punishment than upon the guilty. Policy of Democratic Platform. The Democratic platform does not propose to destroy the plants of the trusts physically, but it proposes to do the same thing in a different way. The business of this country is largely dependent on a protective system of tariffs. The business donte by many of the so called "trusts" is protected with the other businesses of the country. The Democratic platform proposes to take off the tariff in all articles coming into competition with those produced by the so called "trusts" and to put them on the free list. If such a course would he utterly destructive of their business, as is Jntended, it would not only destroy the trusts, but all of their smaller competitors. The ruthless and impracticable character of the proposition grows plainer as Its effects upon the whole community are realized. Democratic Plans on Business. To take the course suggested by the Democratic platform in these matters is to involve the entire community,

innocent as it is, in the punishment of the guilty, while our policy is to stamp out the specific evil. This difference between the policies of the two great parties is of especial importance in view of the present condition of business. After ten years of the most remarkable material development and prosperity, there came a financial stringency, a panic and an industrial depression. This was brought about not only by the enormous expansion of business plants and business investments which could not be readily converted, but also by the waste of capital, in extravagance of living, in wars and other catastrophes. The free convertible capital was exhausted. In addition to this, the confidence of the lending public in Europe and in this country had been affected by the revelations of irregularity, breaches of trust, overissues of Btock, violations of law, and lack of rigid State or national supervision in the management of our largest corporations. Investors withheld what loanable capital remained available. It became impossible for the soundest railroads and other enterprises to borrow money enough for new construction or reconstruction. Restoration of Prosperity. Gradually business is acquiring a healthier tone. Gradually all wealth which was hoarded is coming out to be used. Confidence in security of business investments is a plant of Blow growth and is absolutely necessary in order that our factories may all open again, in order that our unemployed may become employed, and In order that we may again have the prosperity which blessed us for ten years. The identity of the interests of the capitalist, the farmer, the business man and the wage earner In the security and profit of investments cannot be too greatly emphasized. I submit to those most interested, to wage earners, to farmers and to business men, whether the introduction into power of the Democratic party, with Mr. Bryan at its head, and with the business destruction that it openly advocates as a remedy for present evtls, will bring about the needed confidence for the restoration of prosperity. Doctrine of Protection. The Republican doctrine of protection, as definitely announced by the Republican convention of this year, and by previous conventions, is that a tariff shall be imposed on all imported products, whether of the factory, farm or mine, sufficiently great to equal the difference between 'the cost of production abroad and at home, and that this difference should, of course,,

include the difference between the higher wages paid in this country and the wages paid abroad and embrace a reasonable profit to the American producer. A system of protection thus adopted and put in force has led to the establishment of a rate of wages here that has jrreatly enhanced the standard of living of the laboring man. It is the policy of the Republican party permanently to continue that standard of living. In 1S97 the Dingley Tariff Bill was passed, under which we have had. as already said, a period of enormous prosperity. Revision of Tariff. The consequent material development has greatly changed the conditions under which many articles described by the schedules of the tariff are now produced. The tariff In a number of the schedules exceeds the difference between the cost of production of such articles abroad and at home, including a reasonable profit to the American producer. The excess over that difference serves no useful purpose, but offers a temptation to those who would monopolize the production and the sale of such articles in this country, to profit by the excessive rate. On the other hand, there are other schedules in which the tariff is not sufficiently high to give the measure of protection which they should receive upon Republican principles, and as to those the tariff should be raised. A revision of the tariff undertaken upon this principle, which is at the basis of our present business system, begun promptly upon the incoming of the new administration, and considered at a special session with the preliminary investigations already begun by the appropriate committees of the House and Senate, will make the disturbance of business incident to such a change as little as possible. Democratic Tariff Plan. The Democratic party In its platform has not had the courage of its previous convictions on the subject of the tariff, denounced by it In 1904 as a system of the robbery of the many for the benefit of the few, but it does declare its Intention to change the tariff with a view to reaching a revenue basis and thus to depart from the protective system. The introduction into power of a party with this avowed purpose cannot but halt the gradual recovery from our recent financial depression and produce business disaster compared with which our recent panic and depression will seem small indeed. The Farmer and G. O. P. Ab the Republican platform says, the welfare of the farmer is vital to that of the whole country. One of the strongest hopes of returning prosperity is based on the business which his crops are to afford. He is vitally interested in the restraining of excessive and unduly discriminating railroad rates. In the enforcement of the pure food laws, in the promotion of scientific agriculture, and in Increasing the comforts of country life, as by the extension of free Rural Delivery. The policies of the present Administration, which have most industriously promoted all these objects cannot fall to com

mend themselves to his approval; and it Is difficult to see how with his intelligent appreciation of the threat to business prosperity involved In Democratic success at the polls he can do otherwise than give his full and hearty support to the continuation of the policies of the present Administration under Republican anspices. Labor and the Party. We come now to the question of labor. One important phase of the policies of the present Administration has been an anxiety to secure for the wageearner an equality of opportunity and such positive statutory protection as shall place him on a level in dealing with his employer. The Republican party has passed an employers' liability act for interstate railroads, and has established an eight hour law for government employes and on government construction. The essence of the reform effected by the former is the abolition of the fellow-servant rule, and the introduction of the comparative negligence theory by which an employe injured in the service of his employer does not lose all his right to recover because of slight negligence on his part Then there is the act providing for compensation for injury to government employes, together with the various statutes requiring safety appliances upon Interstate commerce railroads for the protection of their employes, and limiting the hours of their employment These are all instances of the desire of the Republican party to do justice to the wageearner. Doubtless a more comprehensive measure for compensation of government employes will be adopted in the future; the principle In such cases has been recognized, and In the necessarily somewhat slow coarse of legislation will be more fully embodied in definite statutes. Employer and Employe. The Interests of the employer and the employe never differ except when It comes to a division of the Joint profit of labor and capital Into dividends and wages. This must be a constant source of periodical discission between the employer and the employee as Indeed are the other terms of the employment. Advantage of Union. To give to employes their proper position In sifch a controversy, to enable them to maintain themselves against employers having great capi tal, they may well unite, because In union there la strength and without It each Individual laborer and employe would be helpless. The promotion of Industrial peace through the Instru

mentality of the trade agreement ! often one of the results of such union, wlien intelligently conducted. Other Labor. There is a large body of laborers, however, skilled and unskilled, who are not organized into unions. Their . rights before the law are exactly the same as those of the union men, and are to be protected with the tarn care and watchfulness. flights of Labor. In order to induce their employer into a compliance with their request for changed terms of employment, workmen have the right to strike In a body. They have a right to use such persuasion as they may, provided it does not reach the point of duress, to lead their reluctant colaborers to join them in their union against their employer, and they have a right, if they choose, to accumulate funds to support those engaged in a strike, to delegate to officers the power to direct the action of the union, and to withdraw themselves and their associate

from dealings with, or giving custom to those with whom they are In controversy. What they have not the right to do is to injure their employer's property, to injure their employer's business by use of threats or methods of physical duress against those who would work for him, or deal with him, or by carrying on what is sometimes known as a secondary boycott against his customers or those with whom he ueais in Dusiness. All those who sympathize with them may unite to aid them in their struggle, but they may not through the Instrumentality of a threatened or actual boycott compel third persons against their will and having no Interest in their controversy to come to their assistance. These principles have for a treat many years been settled by the courts of this country. Threatened unlawful Injuries to business, like those described above, can only be adequately remedied by an injunction to prevent them. The Jurisdiction of a court of equity to enjoin in such cases arises from the character of the Injury and the methods of inflicting it and the fact that suit for damages offers no adequate remedy. The unlawful injury is not usually done by one single act, which might be adequately compensated for in damages by a suit at law, but It la the result of a constantly recurring series of acts, each of which in itself might not constitute a substantial InJury or make a Buit at law worth while, and all of which would require a multiplicity of suits at law. Injuries of this class have since the foundation of courts of equity been prevented by injunction. It has been claimed that injunctions do not issue to protect anything but property rights, and that business is not a property right; but such a pro. position is wholly inconsistent with, all the decisions of the courts. The supreme court of the United States says that the Injunction is a remedy, to protect property or rights of a pecuniary nature, and we may well submit to the considerate Judgement of all laymen whether the right of a man In his business V not as distinctly a right of a pecuniary nature as the right to his horse or his house or the stock of goods on his shelf; and the instances In which Injunctions to protect business have been upheld by all courts are so many that It is futile further to discuss the proposition. It is difficult to tell the meaning of the democratic platform upon this subject. It says: "Questions of judicial practice havs arisen especially, in connection with Industrial disputes. We deem that the parties to all Judicial proceedings should be treated with rigid Impartiality, and that Injunctions should not be issued in any cases In which injunctions would not Issue If no Industrial dispute were involved." This declaration Is disingenuous. It seems to have been loosely drawn with the especial purpose of rendering It susceptible to one Interpretation by one set of men and to a diametrically opposite interpretation by another. It does not aver that injunctions should not Issue in industrial disputes, but only that they should not issue merely because they are Industrial disputes, and yet those responsible for the declaration must have known that no one has ever maintained that the fact that a dispute was Industrial any basis for issuing an Injunction la rererence thereto. The declaration seems to be rfnwn in Its present vague and ambiguous snape in order to persuade some people that It Is a declaration against the Issuing of injunctions in any Industrial dispute, whfle. at the same time It may be possible to explain to the average plain citizen who objects to class distinctions that no such lntn. tion exists at alL Our position Is clear and unequivocal. We are anxious to prevent even an appearance of any injustice to labor in the issuance of Injunctions, not in a spirit of favoritism to one set of our fellow citizens, but of Justice to all of our fellow citizens. The reason for exercising or refusing to exercise the power of Injunction must be found In the character of the unlawful Jnjury and not In the character or class of the persons who inflict this injury. - The man who has a business which Is being unlawfully injured Is entitled to the remedies which the law has always given him, no matter who has Inflicted the injuries. Otherwise, we shall have class legislation nnjnst in principle and likely to cap the foonda-. tions of a free government. Before Issue of Injunction. I come now to the Question of notice J