Show 1 SUTHERLANDS DEFENSE DEFENSa i iTHE LOCAL MOUTHPIECE of the trusts rushes to b the THE T defense of George Sutherlands labor record That is s per perfectly reedy natural Mark Hanna or John D deU l Q have bave done clone the same thing bad had either been here bere when their Candidate can candidate for lor congress was under the searchlight of public scrutiny But from rom all accounts neither of these trust magnates would have bave succeeded s ed in in making their congressional candidate quite q ite as aa ridiculous as the Republican organ has bas made Sutherland In Iii its ita editorial defense of r Sutherland the says There were two measures relating to labor one in ill the theand and one ODe m in the senate It goes on to say sly that these bills were combined that the hon hie e bill was merged into the senate sea hiM bijl which 1 J b caw a law la with Mr Sutherlands support This does not BOt agree with the record nor with Candidate Sutherlands explanation of his course which appeared on the first page of yesterdays yesterday Tribune tribune In ex eC explaining explaining the substance of these measures Mr Sut Sutherland is quoted by the Republican organ as as follows fo s The bills bin provided that a corporation colp r tion or Individual indi f should not discharge cl a man because he be belonged to a labor union linion on House Home bill hiU No 26 6 was as as entitled An Jt act to protect employees and guarantee tee their rights to belong to labor Jabor t tc It IL was US reported favorably by C Chairman Glen c c 1 the com corn committee i on labor Jabor yiao strongly urged its passage Mr Suther Sutherland Sutherland l lland land opposed it and after a two days tight LIght the Republican sen senate senate r rate ate Jed el ed by Mr r Sutherland killed the measure on the evening of the day of February 1896 16 The provisions of this bill were not merged into the senate bill and a as Mr Sutherland declares he be is still opposed op d to grant granting granting in ing any protection whatever to members of labor unions against ag i unfair discrimination and aJ d unjust prejudice of corporations ls and employers where w ere organized labor Jabor is concerned The Republican an can organ bungles gies its defense of Mr Sutherlands Sutherland s labor record t badly when it says that he opposed house bill No 26 because it failed too to far for enough and that he voted for its s s provisions when theu they were wen incorporated into another bill Mr Sutherland St dand dandin m in his recent int interview says sty that he voted against the tl e measure and md has not DOt l since changed his mind mindIn n nd T In 1 4 Ja his i attitude on em this question ques tho Republican th pub can candidate for congress says So L d it unwise to pass such a bill and d voted against aga it in lit the senate ate and have no apologies to make to the Demo Democratic Democrat cratic crat party Another ridiculous assertion from the trust organ organ is as follows a It i The e Herald tells of house bill btU 26 6 which was s but buta a partial parti measure and Mr Sutherland S not being bei a member of oj o the house of course did not vote on it Some kind friend of the eminent jurists and legislators who constitute the editorial staff of our suburban contemporary cont ought oU t tto to call a meeting in the sanctum sanctorum and explain to those assembled that mat state senators are generally permitted to vote on OIl bills b s that pass the house bouse And ADd A d in this particular ar instance the record shows that house boue bill No N 26 did pass the house that it was reported to the senate that Mr u led the fight against it ft t that it was voted down in the senate on the motion of George GeorgeM M 1 Cannon seconded by George Sutherland to strike out the me enacting clause It is folly for br ar the trust organ to editorially deny that Sutherland erland erI vo d against this labor union bill bin when on OIl another nother page it prints p aa ii interview from that gentleman admitting the tite truth of The Heralds ts H charge charged d f |