TUESDAYEXPECTEDimpartiality.’ Surely he cannot find two | interpretations to the phrase ‘ rigid im- i partlaility.’“ Speaking of industrial disputes, the platform declares that ‘injunctions shall not be issued in any cases in which injunctions would not issue if no industrial dispute were involved.’ If words mean anything, that plank means that an in- j dustrial dispute shall not, in itself, be re- j garded as a sufficient cause for an' injunction. Why do the Republican leaders j attempt to read ambiguity into those wotds? Simply because they cannot meet the proposition presented. Even Mr. Taft attempts to avoid the issue by saying that ■* no one has ever maintained that the fact that a dispute was industrial gave any basis for the issuing of an injunction in reference thereto.’ If it is truethat no one now maintains that, thenwhy find fault with our platform on that subject? If nobody opposes our position, we ought to have no difficulty in securing the passage of a law in harmony wdth this plank. .“ Upon . the jury question Mr. Taft clearly takes issue with us. He is thoroughly aroused by what he regards as a menace to the courts. Here is his lament:“Never in the history of the country has there been such an insidious attack upon the judicial system as the proposal to interject a jury trial between all orders of the court made after full hearing and the enforcement of such orders. .Too Expensive to Bring Crowds.* 19 » ' * . *to a Front-Porch Campaign,* * ^So He Will Co to Them.It came out yesterday that there is a eircumstance behind the decision of Mr.