USA > Indiana > Vigo County > History of Indiana from its exploration to 1922, Vol II > Part 29
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42
4 Full election statistics are given in Documentary Journal,
.
956
HISTORY OF INDIANA
Thirteenth." The national Greenback ticket polled 13,520 votes, a gain over 1880 of 534 votes. The total falling off in the poll was 26,066, of which the Re- publican ticket lost 21,934.
The temperance issue was present in the cam- paign in the form of a constitutional amendment for prohibition, passed as a joint resolution by the pre- ceding General Assembly and opposed in the Demo- cratic platform of 1882. The Republicans declared the amendment was non-partisan and while not put forward as a party measure the party favored leav- ing the question to a vote of the people. Likewise the Republicans had passed a joint resolution for woman suffrage, for making all county and state offices four years. These four amendments would have to pass the next General Assembly and their opponents, it seems, took this plan of registering their opposition.e
The underlying political issue in Indiana in the four presidential campaigns from 1880 to 1892 inclu- sive was the protective tariff. This issue was more or less obscured at times by state issues or personal rivalries, but remained the one great divisive issue between Republicanism and Democracy. The state was gradually changing from a rural, agricultural society to one more equally divided between rural and urban, with more diversified interests. The Re- publican party, inheriting the traditions of the Whigs, has always been on the alert to improve the economic and commercial enterprises. They now put forward the protective policy as one calculated to diversify home industries and build up a home market with a view of ultimately exporting the sur-
Pt. I, 1880. Secretary of State, 131.
5 Indianapolis Journal, Nov. 22, 1882.
6 Charles Kettleborough, Constitution Making in Indiana, II,
207. Laws of Indiana, Special, 1881. Jolnt Resolutions, 719-720
957
INDIANA AND THE TARIFF
plus as finished products, rather than as raw ma- terials. Although there were all shades of belief in both parties, the Democrats favored, generally, free- dom of trade, applying home labor and capital to that form of industry most favored by location and natural resources and remaining unhampered to buy in the open markets of the world.
The Greenbackers first awakened the dormant po- litical sentiments of Indiana in 1884 with their na- tional Greenback convention at Indianapolis, May 28 and 29, 1884. They placed General B. F. Butler at the head of their ticket on a platform declaring gen- erally for federal regulation of commerce, especially of railroads, for an income tax, laws providing for sanitary places for workmen to labor, inspection of mines, and protection of workmen from dangerous machinery, against the importation of contract labor, for popular election of United States senators, and for woman suffrage. They straddled the tariff by declaring it a secondary issue and that the one great issue was the currency."
The Republicans of Indiana were not entirely harmonious over the nomination of James G. Blaine for president at Chicago. The old followers of Grant and Morton would have preferred some other candi- date, their only assigned reason being that Blaine could not be elected. However, there was no one but President Arthur for his opponents to unite on and Arthur had no enthusiastic supporters in Indiana. The Republicans met in state convention in Indian- apolis, June 18, 1884, and nominated William H. Calkins, of Laporte, a soldier with an unexception- able record, who had been a representative in con- gress from the Tenth and Thirteenth districts since 1877. The platform declared in favor of calling a
7 Indianapolis State Journal, June 4, 1884.
958
HISTORY OF INDIANA
constitutional convention and of making places where labor was employed sanitary and safe. It denounced contract prison labor and the Metropoli- tan police law passed by the Democrats of the last General Assembly. Col. Will Cumback tried hard to get a hearing on the temperance question but failed. The platform was practically a copy of that of 1880, the defeat of 1882 having been attributed to the in- clusion of strange doctrines into the platform of that year.
The Democrats had no trouble in nominating Col. Isaac P. Gray for governor over David Turpie and Gen. M. D. Manson, the latter receiving the nomina- tion for lieutenant-governor. The platform was long and raised no state issue with the Republicans ex- cept on the constitutional convention and the Metro- politan police law.8 Practically the same recognition was given labor as in the Republican and Greenback platforms.º
The Democrats made an effort this year to secure the nomination for the presidency for Joseph E. Mc- Donald but it seems Thomas A. Hendricks, who was nominated for the vice-presidency at Chicago, July 11, on a reform ticket headed by Grover Cleveland, was the more popular. The campaign which followed was marred by personalities disgraceful to the press of the state and culminated in a libel suit by James G. Blaine against the Sentinel. The personal and family affairs of the two presidential candidates were examined in a way that would hardly be per- mitted in a police court. The result of the election was a plurality in Indiana of 6,512 for Cleveland.
8 This law took the appointment and control of the Indian- apolis police out of the hands of the city government and placed them with a board appointed by the governor, secretary, auditor and treasurer of state. Laws of Indiana, 1883, ch. LXXIV.
9 Indianapolis Sentinel, June 26, 1884.
959
INDIANA AND THE TARIFF
The Prohibition party received 3,018 votes, the Greenbackers 8,716, showing that the latter party had about run its course. The General Assembly was overwhelmingly Democratic.
The off year election of 1886 created no wide- spread interest so far as significant issues were con- cerned. The Democrats declared a protective tariff legal robbery, favored the law recently passed pro- hibiting aliens from owning lands in the state, de- murred to the surplus in the United States treasury, declared for a license system for regulating the sa- loons, and finally favored the constitutional amend- ment making county offices four years, which they had so recently opposed. The Republicans did not hold their convention till September 2. Their plat- form was little else than an indictment of the Demo- cratic party. The temperance party failed to get any concession from either old party. The tariff remained the issue. The Republicans reversed the decision of 1884 and won the state offices by plurali- ties less than 5,000. The state senate remained Dem- ocratic and the house became Republican. Seven out of the thirteen congressmen elected were Repub- licans.
Third party dissatisfaction grew from year to year. Chief of the insurgents were the Prohibition- ists, the civil service reformers and the various or- ganizations seeking some aid for laborers. A fight over the office of lieutenant-governor in which the Democrats succeeded in keeping it from Robert S. Robertson who had been elected to fill a vacancy, helped to keep up party strife.
Political corruption, it seems, had been increasing since the war. The old election law permitted great opportunities for fraud at the polls. Each party had shouted corruption and fraud at each other, especial- ly since 1876. There can hardly be any doubt that
960
HISTORY OF INDIANA
repeating, colonizing, vote buying, ballot box stuffing and stealing were practiced, but how much can never be told. Two notorious cases of the kind mark this period. One of these was exposed in the famous Talley Sheet forgery at Indianapolis at the Novem- ber election, 1886. Sim Coy, Democratic county chairman of Marion and W. F. A. Bernhamer, an election inspector of the same party, were sent to prison by the United States courts.1º
§ 173 AN INDIANA PRESIDENT
The Republicans were presented with the same difficulty and the same opportunity in 1888 as the Democrats had had in 1884. They had not only one, but a pair of favorite sons, Benjamin Harrison and Walter Q. Gresham, both being considered of presi- dential size, just as McDonald and Hendricks had been in 1884. Both Gresham and Harrison had served in the army with distinction, the former be- coming major general, the latter a brigadier. Each had been honored by state and national office, the former in the legislature, in the President's cabinet and on the federal bench, the latter as reporter of the supreme court and United States senator. Both were men of unchallenged character and conceded ability. Both were loyal Republicans but Gresham was the more liberal in his views. His position at Washing- ton and on the federal district and circuit benches had kept him from the wide personal acquaintance which Harrison had made in his several campaigns over the state. The Republican convention, Septem- ber 2, 1886, had endorsed Harrison and a powerful organization supported him at the Chicago national convention, June 19, 1888, where on the eighth ballot
10 Coy himself gives an interesting account of this in The Great Conspiracy. Coy was a city councilman at the time and was not put out of office for his crime, but was later re-elected.
961
AN INDIANA PRESIDENT
and on the sixth day of the convention he was nomi- nated. This was the first time Indianians had had a chance to vote for a "favorite son" for the presi- dency with any prospect of electing him, and this was the most distinctive feature of the campaign.
But there were other candidates in plenty. The Prohibitionists at Indianapolis, March 15, nominated Jasper S. Hughes for governor on a platform sup- porting prohibition and woman suffrage.
The Democrats, April 26, nominated Courtland C. Matson for governor on one of their favorite "re- form" platforms, a reform of the tariff, of the civil service and of industrial laws.
The Prohibition national convention also met at Indianapolis, May 30, and nominated Clinton B. Fisk for the presidency. The Republicans at Indianapo- lis, August 8, nominated Gen. Alvin P. Hovey for governor, on another "reform" platform denounc- ing Democratic gerrymandering, "infamous man- agement of the insane hospital," the "usurpations of Green Smith and his theft of the office of lieutenant- governor," "the Sim Coy forgeries," and the "wholesale corruption in the Southern Prison."
President Cleveland of course was standing for re-election on a tariff "reform" platform, tinctured lightly by civil service "reform." Both parties rode the word "reform" hard. It had been a rather at- tractive term since 1876. One not conversant with the situation would think from the literature and documents of the period that the platform makers were a party of missionaries but just arrived on a mission of reform to an ignorant and debauched peo- ple. One almost regrets that Sim Coy was not per- mitted along with W. W. Dudley to help in this great reformation. There is also another humorous side to the campaign. What was the unfortunate Presi- dent Cleveland, who had sent a substitute to the
962
HISTORY OF INDIANA
war, to do in company with Generals Harrison, Mat- son, Myers and Hovey? It was obviously impossible for him to keep up with these men on horseback and in the finish he was left behind.
The campaign was not pitched on a high plane. Criminal accusations were bandied back and forth in the press and on the stump with a freedom found only in barrooms and police courts. This does not apply, however, to the leading candidates. Harrison and Cleveland took no part and Matson and Hovey conducted a campaign becoming men of the highest type. But on the streets and in the byways and alleys there was pollution and filth.
The issue was the tariff. Both old parties put forth every effort. Speakers of national reputation spoke in almost every county of the state. James G. Blaine spoke in Indianapolis, October 11. Governor Hill, of New York, answered him next day from the same platform. General Harrison was assailed for his position on the labor question, was charged with having been a corporation attorney, with having voted in the United States senate on every occasion against labor interests, with having said that if he were governor he would quell strikes with the mili- tary power, forcing laborers to their posts at the point of the bayonet, and with having said that one dollar per day was wages enough for any laboring man. Senator Joseph W. Bailey was brought from Texas to speak in Indiana on that subject. Harri- son's position on the Chinese question was also scanned. He was charged with favoring "Coolie" importations to take the place of laboring men. A. C. Rankin, a prominent Knight of Labor, was brought from Pittsburgh by the Republicans to stump the state and show how inseparable prosperity for lab- orers and the protective system were. Scarcely a public orator of any note in the United States but
963
AN INDIANA PRESIDENT
was heard in Indiana. Train loads of political lit- erature were distributed.
All this was legitimate and worth while but be- neath this, sinister movements were carried on that compromised seriously the reputation of the state. There had been no time since the state was organized but that 10,000 votes would change the result in the state. The Democrats controlled a "solid south," the Republicans controlled an equally solid block of electoral votes. No active campaign was necessary by either party in these strongholds. A few doubtful states such as New York, Indiana, New Jersey, Ohio, and Illinois in the order named were regarded as pivotal and became a political battle ground.
What this means may be shown by a brief review. Since the Civil war Indiana and New York have taken part in fourteen presidential campaigns. In only one campaign has there been no candidate on one of the dominant party tickets from one or the other of these states. In 1868 Horatio Seymour rep- resented New York and Schuyler Colfax, Indiana; in 1872 Horace Greeley represented New York, in 1876 Samuel J. Tilden and William A. Wheeler were from New York and Thomas A. Hendricks from In- diana; in 1880 Chester A. Arthur was from New York and William H. English from Indiana; in 1884 Grover Cleveland was from New York and Thomas A. Hendricks from Indiana; in 1888 Cleveland and Levi P. Morton were from New York and Benjamin Harrison from Indiana; in 1892 the representative candidates remained the same except that Whitelaw Reid of New York took the place of Morton; in 1896 no representative was on either ticket from the two states; in 1900 Roosevelt was from New York; in 1904 Roosevelt and Alton B. Parker were from New York and Charles W. Fairbanks from Indiana; in 1908 John W. Kern was from Indiana and William
964
HISTORY OF INDIANA
Sherman from New York; in 1912 Roosevelt and Sherman were from New York and Thomas Marshall from Indiana ; in 1916 Charles E. Hughes was from New York and Fairbanks and Marshall from Indi- ana; in 1920 Franklin D. Roosevelt was from New York. Out of twenty-seven leading candidates for the presidency during the period the two states have furnished twelve; Indiana two and New York ten; out of the same number of candidates for vice-presi- dent they have furnished seventeen, Indiana nine and New York eight. During twenty years the presi- dent has been from one of the two states and during thirty-six, the vice-president. Only twice during that time has the vote of Indiana been given to an unsuccessful candidate. In 1876 its vote went to Tilden by a plurality of 5,515; in 1916 to Hughes by a small plurality. For this reason Indiana has been a political battle ground where the fight never ceases and where every officer is a political soldier and every voter a politician.
As suggested above it would be strange if unfair methods did not often find employment in such a field. October 31, 1888, there was printed in the In- dianapolis Sentinel a letter from W. W. Dudley, na- tional treasurer of the Republican party, to a Re- publican county chairman, explaining in some detail the last resort methods in political campaigns. These instructions in brief, were to locate and dissipate if possible your opponents' treasury; then make out lists of the floaters in each precinct, divide them up into small groups-"blocks of five"-over which appoint a man with necessary funds to buy them; secure a considerable number of reliable men to stand around the polls on election day to see that no untoward accident happens. The money to purchase floaters was gathered from the four corners of the earth by a system of conscription varying all the
965
AN INDIANA PRESIDENT
way from extremely voluntary boodlers and corpor- ations down to blackmailed, petty, political officers, often extending down to an assessment on school teachers. There had been rumors of wholesale cor- ruption funds coming from outside sources to aid in "carrying Indiana" for a number of years. In 1876 the Democratic national committee telegraphed the party managers to buy "seven more mules" for it, during which time the eastern Republicans carried on a lively correspondence with certain "Indian agents" in Indiana. In 1880 the two national com- mittees were personally represented by financial agents at Indianapolis. It was charged that they disbursed a half million dollars. This doubtless was an exaggeration for neither party would care to pur- chase more than 20,000 votes and the purchase price was usually less than ten dollars each, with "an added ten to get the oil to the hot box." This would only necessitate a corruption fund of about $200,000 from outside sources. Bad as the case was it is only representative of a period through which democratic government was passing. As soon as the truth be- came generally known that every dollar of corrup- tion money had to be replaced by society, usually in the form of taxation, a remedy was found.
The result of the campaign of 1888 was a Repub- lican victory of small proportions. Harrison carried the state by 2,387 votes over his chief competitor; Hovey for governor was elected by 2,200. The Union Labor party polled 2,694 votes; the Prohibition 9,877.11
11 Documentary Journal, Secretary of State's Report, 1888, for the election statistics of this year. A good account of this campaign is by R. C. Buiey in Indiana Magazine of History, X, 302.
CHAPTER XXXIII
INDIANA CITIES
§ 174 EARLY CONDITIONS
The settlers of Indiana were not city builders. The ancestors of those of Irish, Scotch and English blood for time out of mind had been countrymen, and those of the Germans had quit the cities a century be- fore the settlement of Indiana. It is not surprising then that the early Indiana towns, excepting Vin- cennes, New Harmony and perhaps Vevay, were merely neighborhoods. There never has been in In- diana any fast social line between the rural and urban dwellers; what little distinction has existed has been the result largely of statute law. The early commoners of Vincennes, the founders of Harmonie and the proprietors of New Harmony and the vine- dressers of Vevay were the only city folks of the early days.
The first General Assembly of Indiana enacted a general law for the incorporation of towns. By this the town government was vested in the hands of a board of five trustees, elected annually. This board had power to preserve order, restrain vice, and regu- late or provide supplies of food and water.1 It was as
1 Laws of Indiana, 1816, ch. XVII. The board of trustees "shall have full power from time to time, and at all times, to make, ordain, establish and execute, such by-laws and ordinances in writing, not inconsistent with the laws and constitution of this state, as they shall deem useful and necessary for the good government of said corporation, and to prevent and remove nuisances, to restrain and prohibit gambling, to provide for licensing, regulating or restraining theatrical or other public shows or amusements within the corporation, to regulate and establish
967
EARLY CONDITIONS
simple as the old New England township govern- ment, after which it was patterned. The next Gen- eral Assembly made the matter still simpler, enabling speculators to lay off and organize towns before the coming of settlers by filing a plat of the town with the county recorder.2
Special acts of incorporation began with the first General Assembly at Indianapolis. February 3, 1825, Madison in a special charter was given power to buy a fire engine and compel a company of firemen to drill. Four years later the town board was allowed to license "tippling houses," "suppress im- morality, intoxication and rioting" and pave the streets at the property owners' expense when two- thirds of them so petitioned.3 The charter of Salem, January 20, 1826, provided for seven trustees, who, when elected, should appoint for the town a clerk, assessor, collector, and treasurer. The trustees were furthermore required to publish a list of their ex- penditures semi-annually in the Indiana Farmer, a local paper at Salem. The Assembly of 1826 forbade the trustees of Jeffersonville from levying a tax on lots higher than fifty cents on the hundred dollars of value.
It soon became the fashion for each town to have a special act or charter. The form was general though each had certain peculiarities. While the grant of power was general in the law of 1824 yet it seems few towns undertook anything except routine duties without special authorization from the Assem-
markets, to sink and keep in repair public weils, to keep in repalr all necessary streets, alleys and drains, and to pass regulations necessary for the same, agreeable to the plan of said town."-Sec. 8, p. 128. Compare this with the borough government of Vincennes; Indiana Magazine of History, V, 1.
2 Laws of Indiana, 1817, ch. LXXXII.
3 Laws of Indiana, 1828, ch. XXXIV.
968
HISTORY OF INDIANA
bly. Thus in 1831, the Madison board was permitted to appoint a marshal.^ In Lawrenceburg under the charter of 1815 the voters elected a "president and council" to conduct the town government. The an- cient "Borough of Vincennes" had its charter so amended in 1831 that it might elect, besides the board of trustees, three assistant trustees from each ward, a president, and a borough constable." This second body of assistant law-makers seems to have been a novelty. The borough was also to own the ferry over the Wabash.
The charter of Richmond, January 31, 1834, after declaring that only "all free white male citizens of this state of the age of twenty-one years and upward, residing within the limits of the town, assessed for and having paid a town tax, shall be taken and deemed citizens thereof," provided for the election annually of a council of thirteen members, a first and a second burgess, one high constable, one treas- urer, one clerk, one assessor, and such other officer as might be deemed necessary. The council had power to appoint a board of health, erect street lamps, hire night watches, approve weights and measures, regu- late auctions, license theatres, shows, saloons and re- strain gambling, to declare the weight of loaves of bread, the size of bricks, regulate the cordage of wood and declare whether it was of merchantable quality, appoint wood corders and fix their fees, reg- ulate party walls, build and own a market, regulate the sale of horses and sweeping of chimneys, erect and mend a pump, appoint inspectors of liquor, flour, salted meat, lumber, weigh hay, lime, coal and grain and superintend the storage of gun-powder, lay and collect a fine on the harborers of dogs, erect a prison
4 Also: "The citizens in the first and second additions to the town shall have the right to build a market house in Broadway." 5 Laws of Indiana, 1830, ch. XXV.
969
EARLY CONDITIONS
and put men in it and let them out. This was by far the most pretentious charter issued up to that date and was to be accepted or rejected by popular vote. Later, if the people should forget or otherwise fail to hold an election on the appointed day the govern- ment of the city should not thereby cease.6
This charter is only a sample of the large number enacted by the General Assembly during the period from 1830 to 1850. Every town of note and many long since disappeared were provided with similar government. In general the government was vested in a single council consisting of from five to twenty members, presided over by an executive either chos- en by the council or by popular election. The later the charter was issued, in general, the more of the city officers were chosen by popular vote. It was not considered legal for the council or town board to do anything for which specific power had not been granted by the Assembly. The courts construed these grants of power narrowly, so that, unless spe- cifically clothed, the authority of the town govern- ment could not vacate an alley. The Michigan City charter of February 8, 1836, contained thirty-one specific grants of power including the right to pre- vent forestalling and regrating, to regulate the time and place of bathing, to prevent bringing dead car- casses into the town or rolling hoops on the streets, to compel persons to keep snow, ice or dirt off the sidewalks, to regulate the police and the quality of bread. The council might raise by taxation any sum not exceeding $8,000 for lighting the streets. A city board of health composed of three citizens was pro- vided for and the council might at its discretion ap- point a "health physician" whose duty was to visit every sick person reported to the board of health
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.