USA > Indiana > Vigo County > History of Indiana from its exploration to 1922, Vol II > Part 36
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
Although the politicians administered every known sedative, the movement would not quiet down. September 23, 1890, found representatives of the same class again in Indianapolis forming the Peo- ple's party of Indiana. In its platform these dele- gates stated the political questions that were to con- front Indiana voters for two decades. Not all the platform of course was original. A searching exam- ination of the state government was to be made in the interests of economy and good business; child labor was to be outlawed, bonuses to corporations by cities or counties were to be abolished, soldiers were to receive a per diem pension, experts were to be em- ployed in the civil service, school books were to be furnished by the state, non-partisan boards were to
3 Indiana State Journal, June 25, 1890, p. 8:
It was further resolved that when the leading political parties failed to nominate men identified by occupations and education with the farmers, "We deem it our duty and pledge ourselves to nominate such men independently and will strive by all honor- able means to secure thelr eiection."
1052
HISTORY OF INDIANA
manage state institutions, and a great many other specific demands were made.
At the following election the People's ticket polled 17,354 votes, the Prohibitionists, 12,006, the Republicans, 214,702, the Democrats, 233,881.
The election brought no cessation in political ac- tivity. On the following November 20, the Farmers' Alliance, 80 delegates, representing 400 lodges, and 15,000 members, renewed their demands in the form of resolutions for the General Assembly. It was a state program largely." There is not space here to follow up the movement in detail, but the state, coun- ty and township governments, political methods of parties and officers, and the secret influences that controlled them were all studied carefully. The re- sult was a political reformation and reorganization which is still going on.
May 27, 1892, representatives of the People's party from 72 counties of the state met at Indianap- olis and formulated a program and nominated a state ticket. A state central committee was named and. a vigorous campaign planned.
It seemed and now seems strange that a political party in Indiana at that time should have almost nothing to say on the tariff, but the farmers, during this whole period, disregarded that issue, treating it as entirely secondary. It was from this attitude there came a demand for a tariff board and the withdrawal of the subject from party politics.6
4 Documentary Journal, 1890, I, 230; State Journal, Nov. 19, 1890.
5 State Journal, Nov. 26, 1890.
6 Indianapolis Sentinel, May 28, 1892. As a sample of the sentiment back of the Populist party at this time the following preamble to the national platform, written by Ignatius Donnelly, is interesting :
"The conditions which surround us justify our cooperation. We meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral,
1053
POPULISTS
StJoseph
Elkhart Lagrange Steuben
Laparte
143Y
1264, 1
4703.
6077 -1-22 0 275
3 $ 30 38 73 930 192
196
Lake 3010 2958 147 4 5
Porter 1937 2187 195 129
3548 104 102
107
Noble 2879
Dekalb 2801
Starke 6 1003
Kosciusco 3064-
19
123
3223
29 35°
99
228
Whitley
Fulton
6 6
1758
2247
2059
176
1 15*
245
42
Wabach
125
White
CASS 4006 3 300
Mion
2413
Wells
Adams 290€
2274
250
134
1668
329
270
453
118
3
Grant
66
Tippegame
191 237
Howard 2351
4 99 5
1340
Jay
Warren 979 1849
Clinton
794
314
Delaware
7 52
51
Fountain
12 2331
Montgomery
Boone
Hamilton 24925-
3627
28?'
264
$23
106
3104 3136 .91 3 67
4151
329
406
84
1877 33/3 6
Wayne
Hendricks
Marion
Hancock,
3726
/013
PatHom
201426
6/4
2 503. 178
2754 2789 1169
92
581
266
Fayette Union
Vigo
1193
Morgan
2606 2 093
2664
79
.96
Owen
243
102
74
1739 1569
Monroe
2547
1937
Brown 1378 656 40 93
4%
Jennings
2442 2250 574
51
1381
23
Ohio
Knox
Daviess Mortiam 25 29
76
3417
2498 2 670
34
Scott
043
242
908
$29
Pike
Dubois
1957
284
2038
Crawford
Floyd
234
/60
598
Horrison
Vonder-
Warrick
Perry
2464 2/11 71
166
Spencer
60
183
477
2496 2478 Ly
169
DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS, PROHIBITIONISTS, POPULISTS (Election of 1892)
11
6)159
lay 3558 3/08
2 3 77
167
292
Franklin 2859
179
Decatur
460
2419 K4 Z
Dearborn 3397
Greene
2017
129
95
2214
2809
347
6
4/1
Jackson 9 363 2212
Lawrence 2134
Jefferson
G&Z
Switzerland Ist
2653
1198 1283 L45 1194
156
Orange
Washington 2322
/629 16 53 30
1893 2 6
Clark
2460 1737
64
1529 /276
Posey 22660 2077 79 379
2/46 2018
2074 21890 14
1247 100
Benton 1391 1617
1896 1207 173 217
Carroll
294
189
2361 2230
3590
4386 4856 208 53
3006 3222 2 32 397
TırF
Madison 5733
2162 4908 282
Randolph 1994
.2 379
384N
72
38/37
3020 219
19)551
2329 7932 71 198.
Rush
3/3
368
Shelby
2216 25/6
14
3490
151
2014
3217 2 277
Ripley
A61 '18
Parke
2028
Johnson
Henry
2359 2414
74
Josher 937 1364 .66 362
Pulaski 1752 916 96
2239-
Allen 100 NO 5416
Wewtor 879 1191
173 .90
Huntington 3460 3784
3617
3413
2823
2 499 198
1858
7v6
Marshall 31/3
2.00
Bartholomew
Sullivan 9159 1784 128 391
...
7%
1054
HISTORY OF INDIANA
The election of 1892 in Indiana was contested principally by General Harrison for re-election and Grover Cleveland also for re-election, the latter car- rying the state by a plurality of 7,125. Claude Mat- thews, Democrat, defeated Ira J. Chase, Republican, for governor by a plurality of 6,978. Leroy Temple- ton, Populist candidate for governor, received 22,017 votes, and the Prohibitionists polled 12,960, eleven of the thirteen congressmen elected were Democrats."
Before the election of 1894 was held the state was in the midst of the worst financial depression it had ever known. Factories were closed, strikes became more and more prevalent, interspersed with boycotts and lockouts. Farm produce sank in price to the low- est level in our history. All but a few of the rail- roads went into the hands of receivers and a large majority of all the banks suspended.
The off year election of 1894 reflected the panic. The party in power was overwhelmed by the then un- precedented majority in Indiana of 44,773 votes on the state ticket. The Prohibitionists and Populists about held their own, the former polling 11,144 votes, the latter 29,935. The Republicans secured 81 of the
political, and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot box, the legislatures, congress and touches even the ermine of the bench. The people are demoralized. The newspapers are largely subsidized or muzzled; public opinion silenced; business pros- trated; our homes covered with mortgages; labor Impoverished and the land concentrating in the hands of the capitalists. The urban workmen are denied the right of organization for self pro- tection ; imported pauperized labor beats down their wages; a hireling standing army unrecognized by our own laws is established to shoot them down, and they are rapidly degenerating into European conditions. The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few. From the same prolific womb of governmental injustice we breed two great classes -tramps and millionaires."
7 Indiana State Journal, Nov. 30, 1892.
1055
POPULISTS
100 state representatives, 30 of the 50 senators, and elected for the first time since party lines were closely formed in the state a solid party delegation to congress.8 The party landslide indicated not so much a change in party affiliation as it did the deep distress of the people and the demoralization of the Democratic party.
The campaign of 1896 was an attempt by the poli- ticians to account for the hard times. The Republi- cans insisted that the Democratic tariff was the cause and the remedy they offered was a high tariff. Wil- liam Mckinley was therefore their candidate for the presidency. The Democrats were just as confident that the low tariff was not the trouble, but that what was needed was a greater amount of currency. They thus joined the Populist party in a demand for the free and unlimited coinage of silver at the ratio of sixteen to one.
The Republicans began, after W. J. Bryan was nominated on a "free-silver" platform, a systematic campaign of education, backed up by every art known to party managers. A press bureau and a speakers' bureau, furnished with ample funds, sent literature and speakers into every section of the state. Lists of voters were prepared with thousands of names, indi- cating nationality, church affiliations, and party. To each voter was sent the literature, the speakers or the person that might induce him to vote the Republican ticket. A group of young Republicans, among whom were James E. Watson, Albert J. Beveridge, J. Frank Hanly, John W. Griffith, E. D. Crumpacker, C. W. Fairbanks and a score of others, dispensed such eloquence as had not been heard in the state since 1840 and 1844. Above them all in the fascination of his oratory and his power to attract audiences was the Democratic candidate for the presidency. The 8 Indiana State Journal, Nov. 21, 1894.
1056
HISTORY OF INDIANA
result appeared extremely doubtful. The Democrats were weakened by the withdrawal of the "sound money" faction, while thousands of Republicans were impressed with the argument for more money. The Republican issues were better presented, the cam- paign more ably organized and managed and, above all, more amply financed and at the polls that party was successful by a plurality of 18,622 and a majority of 10,992. James A. Mount, Republican candidate for governor, a distinguished farmer and Granger, was elected by a plurality of 26,058 over B. F. Shive- ly, of South Bend, a former Greenbacker, showing the value of Mr. Mount's affiliation with the farmers. While by far the larger portion of the Populists sup- ported the Democratic ticket, a so-called "Middle-of- the-Road" Populist ticket polled 7,664 votes.9 The election marked the culmination of the Populist move- ment. By the end of the decade it had disappeared as a political party of strength, though the issues it raised remained for the Republicans and Democrats to settle. It had done a good work, but it lost its identity in the fusion of 1896 and died, as all third parties have done in similar instances.10
For twelve years following 1896 the Republicans controlled Indiana, carrying the elections by substan- tial majorities. The political interests of the people were generally attracted to national questions. The protective tariff policy was unchallenged. Business revived, prosperity was everywhere and in 1900 and 1904 thousands of Democrats did not take enough in- terest in the election to go to the polls. No third party arose to threaten seriously the repose of the old parties. In 1900 Col. W. T. Durbin defeated John Kern, the Democratic candidate for governor, by 25,-
9 Indiana State Journal, Nov. 18, 1896.
10 "Populism in Indiana," by E. D. Stewart, Mss.
1057
POPULISTS
Laporte
SIJOSELA 5-947 11. 46 311 374
Elkhart
Lagrange
Struben 1260
2864
Lake 2933 6429
Porter 1437 3/62 7.2
102
Marshall
Noble 2785
Dekalb 2927
Starke 1121
1177 3001
Kosciusko 2913
1 27
173
46 91
37
whitley
318
2282-
14
2359
2394
17
19
Wabash
Huntington 3290
White
Cass 4357 5282
Miami 3665 4124
4516
Wells 3/27
Benton 1470
2679 228 34
Carroll
69
318 178
420 78
2
Tippecanoe 40 BU
Howar .97
Grant 46168 9550 17 68 375
251/
Jay 1702 3612
2208 113
3/12 4053 3 3 %
Tipton 1279
Madison
Delaware
6
Pourto.
65
9697
Randolph 1921 5179
4 547 /297 20
36 32 227
2 47
36
22
24,82
Wayne
318, 159.
Parke 2.76 3468 $ 64 127
Putnam
Hendricks 2164 3434 215
Marion 22 936
Hancock 2806
21
73.90 13'20
3000 2586 176
7
3 64
2363
$ 28
Johnson
3 012 215
1154
61625 10)327
Clay
9119
2882 2174 300 12
12 94 3+
Franklin 2501
893
1 721
234X
7
493
95
Monroe 2186 3042 98 8
Brown 1157 760 93 11
3038 3510
46
178
Ripley
1
2 40
Jennings
218
Jachsory 34473 17.25
1,39 99
Knox 4093 4 278
SDaviess Martin 2802 3612 169
91 70
iscott
2 . . 51
Washington
1090
228
164
Orange 1817 2458 80
2314
2094 132
Clark
Pike 2224 23.96
Dubois 3119
tson
Crawford
Floyd 34'22
113 58
4
1509 1470
Posey 72825
Warrick
Vander
2494 2 796
Spencer
2419
2195
Perry 2142 2105 19
3.17
19
DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS, PROHIBITIONISTO, SOCIALISTS (Election of 1904)
116
7
349
3565
Owen 1841
41
Decatur
Bartholomew
3 /79
Sullivan 3601 3076 3 11 131
Grepene 35359 4649
414
Lawrence 2472 1924
6 Jefferson
Sa.tzerle ad
2442 9195
265
1575 1809 $5 10
Shelly
Forethe Union
Vermillion 1437, 27142
2560 30 60 183 17
Montgomery 3747
Boone
Hamilton
3263
2469 4832
848
436
Adams 2913 1967 21,. 17
2098 1 32
2410 247/ 2 20
236
2.28
Allen 92/50 1076
Newton 951 1803 113 11
Jasper 1341 2137 151 7
Pulas AŞi 1641 1719 155 13
Fulton
2182
114
276 533
2381
2.96
389
Wannen 964
6591 261 96
Clinton
621 13
3673
6681
1512
4 391
2633
RusA
V1/90
Morgon
2428
12
Dearborn 3264 2581 101
$ 7
4472 5952
4023 6518 721 524
214
9416 343
502
rison 132570 254
Henry
1058
HISTORY OF INDIANA
259, the Prohibitionists casting 13,453 votes, the Pop- ulists 1,504, the Social Labor 644, the Social Demo- crats 2,239.11
In 1904 J. Frank Hanly, Republican, was elected over John W. Kern, Democrat, for governor, by a plurality of 84,364, Roosevelt carrying the state by 93,944 votes. The Prohibitionists increased their vote at this time to 22,690, the Populists received 2,065, the Socialists, 10,991, and the Social Labor party, 1,437.12
§ 196 SOCIALISTS
Socialism has never received much support at the polls in Indiana, but owing to the close division of the voters between the two principal parties, consider- able attention has been given to its demands. So- cialism has been strongest in Indianapolis and Terre Haute, not so strong in numbers as in the character and reputation of its leaders.
The Socialist movement is almost a century old but it never attracted much political attention in In- diana until the beginning of 1897 when Eugene V. Debs, an organizer and leader of the railroad em- ployees, joined the party. It was his hope at that time to affiliate the American Railway Union with the Socialist party. March 6, 1900, the Social Demo- cratic party met in national convention at Indianapo- lis. Eugene V. Debs and Job Harriman, both natives of Indiana, were nominated for president and vice- president. Mr. Debs at first declined but was later induced to take the nomination.13
The party in general stood for public ownership of the soil and all the elements of the production of
11 Indiana State Journal, Nov. 21, 1900.
12 Documentary Journal, 1904, I, Sec. of State, 334.
13 Indianapolis Journal, March 10 and 11, 1900; Morris Hill- quitt, Socialism in the United States, 333.
1059
SOCIALISTS
wealth except labor. More attention was given to the organization of the party at this time than to its plat- form. Each delegate had the proxy of the members he represented and voted in the convention accord- ing to the number of Socialists in good standing which he represented.14 All revenues of the party were to be raised by assessment on the members. Contributions from other sources were not accept- able. As noted above, their combined strength in 1900 was only 3,000.
There was a division of the party at first but at a convention in Indianapolis, June 29, 1901, these fac- tions were united into the one Socialist party.
The platform of Socialism is not usually changed by the ordinary nominating convention as in other parties. The party is built up more on the plan of a church. Creeds or planks in its platform are usually adopted by referendum. For this reason there has never been entire harmony among Socialists on a detailed program. They are united only on the plan to transform the ownership of the means of produc- tion and distribution from private to public hands, and thus destroy capitalism. This is the one con- trolling purpose of the party at present.
This great goal they do not hope to reach until the body of workingmen is in better mental and ma- terial condition. As a means to this they advocated first the public ownership of the means of transpor- tation and public utilities; reduction of hours of
14 Ora E. Cox, "The Socialist Party in Indiana," in Indiana Magazine of History, XII, 101-103: "The management of the Socialist party of Indiana shall be administered by its officers, an executive committee, a state committee, locals and branches, party conventions, and general vote of the membership. The officers and committees of this organization shall consist of a Chairman, State Secretary-Treasurer, Woman Correspondent, Executive Committee of five members and a proper quota of National Committeemen."
1060
HISTORY OF INDIANA
labor, leaving more opportunity for reading and self- improvement; state insurance; public industries for those out of employment; state aid for school chil- dren in the way of books, clothing and food; equality of the sexes politically; initiative, referendum, and recall of representatives. This platform has been supported with consistency since the Indianapolis convention of 1901.15
The growth of the party by years is indicated by the following votes: In 1902 the vote was 7,111; in 1904 it was 12,013; that of 1906 was 7,824; in 1908 it was 13,476; of 1910 was 19,632; of 1912 was 36,931; of 1914 was 24,563; of 1916 was 23,514. Only a few local officers have been elected by the party but its influence has been noticeable in all the elections in Indiana since 1900.16
§ 197 PROGRESSIVES
Numerically the strongest third party ever organ- ized in Indiana was the Progressive. Its platform was largely national and its history belongs to the wider field of national politics. The party was made up of Republican insurgents and a small number of Democrats. These men were out of patience with the slow progress of the Republican party and its ap- parent indifference to social conditions. The first serious factional struggle came up in congress over the Payne-Aldrich tariff bill. In that struggle the western Republicans found themselves in opposition to those from the east. The laboring classes, princi- pally, constituted the revolt though no divisive lines can be drawn to which there are not numerous excep-
15 Hillquitt, Socialism in the United States, 338 and 350. The literature of Socialism Is too extensive to refer to here by individual title. Any public library contains a number of volumes. 16 The best discussion of the Socialist party in Indiana is by Ora Ellen Cox, in Indiana Magazine of History, XII, 95-130.
1061
PROGRESSIVES
tions. There was a widespread impression among all parties that during the long regime of the Republican party the capitalists had secured too many govern- mental favors. Progressives spoke of some myste- rious, invisible power controlling the government in the interest of capitalists. This power was said to be encroaching on the public domain, securing for itself property and privileges meant for the public. A pro- gram of conservation of natural resources occupied a prominent place in Progressive thought. Their plan of social betterment included such humanitarian de- mands as an anti-child labor law, an eight-hour law for women workers, higher wages for shop girls, workmen's compensation, and vocational education. In the way of governmental reform the party de- manded the referendum, initiative, recall, popular election of United States senators, a corrupt prac- tices act, woman suffrage, a constitutional convention for Indiana, home rule for cities, competitive selec- tion for civil service, federal regulation of all inter- state business, and prohibition of the liquor traffic.
None of the planks of the platform were original and many were common to at least two or more other parties in the state. Obviously the platform itself did not contain the whole reason for the existence of the third party. The principal reason, it seems, must be sought in the feeling that the two old parties could not be trusted to carry out the programs they en- dorsed. This feeling was expressed time and again by Progressive speakers.17 The old parties, it was claimed, were subservient to their leaders, popularly called "bosses," so that neither was able to carry out its own platform.
17 See Roosevelt's Address to the Progressive National con- vention ; Speech of Beveridge at the same place; or Beveridge at Indianapolis, Sept. 7, 1912.
1062
HISTORY OF INDIANA
From an educational standpoint the campaign of 1912 in Indiana was one of the best ever known. Its conduct, though earnest and sometimes personal, was on a high plane. The speeches of Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt and W. H. Taft, candidates for the presidency respectively of the Democratic, Pro- gressive and Republican parties ; of Samuel M. Ral- ston, Albert J. Beveridge and Col. W. T. Durbin, their respective candidates for governor, were lis- tened to and read by thousands who for years had paid little attention to politics. Teachers, preachers, reformers, literary men, agitators of all kinds threw themselves into the great revival. Some had political sense, some only enthusiasm, but it made little differ- ence. The people were thoroughly aroused and since then many of the changes advocated by the Progres- sives have been put into practice, though that party was defeated in the election. No election in our his- tory has clarified the political atmosphere so much as that of 1912. Not only did the politicians look to their ways, but the people learned that many an hon- est servant in the government had been misrepre- sented by the "muckrakers." The fault was just as much with the people, who had neglected their gov- ernment, as with the officers, both of parties and state, who had neglected the people. In the years following 1912 there was a much healthier public opinion. A few of the real political criminals were ostracised and the others were given definite instructions for their future labors. In this lies the compensation for such political revolutions as that of 1912.
The Democrats carried the state by a large plur- ality, receiving on the presidential ticket 281,890 votes, the Progressives 162,007, the Republicans 151,- 267, the Prohibitionists 19,249, and the Socialists 40,061. While Wilson ran 119,883 ahead of his near- est competitor, he still lacked 86,291 of a majority.
1063
PROGRESSIVES
StJoseph
Elkhart Lagrange Steuben
Loparte 4847 2 70 1
539/0 3/ 46 524.
4300 1199 4533
1402
Lake
Poster 1352 1510 /241 132
2749
958
Noble
DekalHy 2766
5176
2 998
5659
/208
21/7
760
1623
1372
646
181
2096
Allen
Fulton
233
19/82
2022 2
990
7 4
4
246
694
149
7 8
Wabash
Miam) 3366
2371
Wells Adams
Whit e
2260
264
338
SY2
Carroll
216
1995
732
10 30
2275
Grant
139
796 32
Tippecanoe 4 4/4 30
926
43,90 39 39
1651
872
Clinton
Tipton
2165
Madison
Delaware
46. Fountain
2499
Montgomery 3824 2777
Boone
Hamilton 2 +43 5 23 47 18345
4-7.50
PER
2 47/
1246
20 14
109.
104
2677
Parke
Hendricks Mario n
6fo, 5* 7/
203/ 1891 684 357
Putnam
2372
29/105
493
4,41 57
596
Rush
Fayette union
Shelby
231/2
70 **
Vigo
$ 98
Johnson
3432
72+6
2 52
4988
3297
1336
62
3 40
1906
1494
211
6614
784
Brou n 909
Bartholomew
1263
Sullivan
173
3\7347
-
Dearborn
3 707 1406
Ripley
2957 6
10 68 11 38
.
11/46
Jackson
$39
Kno
Daviess Martin
23
4448
2759
2305
2005*
9 31
Scott
13/6
1061
366
25
7/2
Pike
Dubois
5
1984 $325
30 59 666 606
Crawford
Floyd
489
1159% 669
5+2
362
Warrick
133
Wander-
Furt
2218 1421
Spencer 1931
1193
YTJY
2428
520
196
1142 157
1130 39
1773
12 66
7-2 20
45
1
/372
Marshall
Kosciusko
2859
1096
1742
491
Whitley
2200
Wewtor
Jasper 1292 1238 674 15
Pulasks ٢٥ ١٤ 729
56/59 84133
965 892
Huntington 3119
633 28
Cass 4421
Benton 1425
2059 1613 8 22 46
1467
Howa
Warren
150
2 65*
11$3
2138 194
3255 2182 / 2 8/ 243-8
1362
6676 /77/
4018,
- 7-9 98
/067 161
3280
2/04
292
Henry
180
1479
318.0 4
2922 1 354 1.079
1439 91495 55
2170 924
1254
3 /03
Clay
Owen
1353
1408
19 69
Franklin
1621
Decatur
211
2746
.6 30 3/
2396
3 05
1921
1389
He
14
1497
211
Jennings
2430 1492
100
1577
88
955
Lawrence 2579 1613
99/1
89
Jefferson
2106
236 189
1440/ 9755 553
Washington
Orange
2233
1:30 152! 84
3
331.
Gibson 32 50 2266
302
113
Harrisonisto
302
Posey 2767
Perry
J32106 900 1319 131
V52
2 7
Green 33.73 2156
213
1604
7451
1931
643
1 075-
21
2608
83
2306 7.29.
728
Monroe
Hancock 2594 738 /375 142
034
14.48
Vermillion 1710, 1621
1596 218
695
#3/3 2018
Randolfk
454
1050
36
1343
5136
4 45 Starke
60
1639
296X 917
Jay 2786 /212
Wayne
Morgans
4004
978
Clark
2453
819 347
DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS, PROGRESSIVES, SOCIALISTS (Election of 1912)
1064
HISTORY OF INDIANA
Mr. Ralston was elected governor by a vote of 275,- 357 over Mr. Beveridge with 166,124 votes and Colo- nel Durban with 142,850.18 A solid Democratic dele- gation of congressmen was elected for the first and only time in the state's history.
That the chief grounds for the formation of the Progressive party were in party management and personal rivalries was shown in its subsequent his- tory. The Republican party divided almost in the middle in 1912, but on fundamental policies there was general agreement, much more than between either wing and the Democratic party. For that reason the party rapidly reunited after 1912. In 1914 the Pro- gressive ticket polled 108,581 votes for Mr. Bever- idge for United States senator, as against 226,766 for Hugh Th. Miller, the Republican candidate, and 272,249 for B. F. Shively, the Democrat, and in 1916 it practically disappeared. A cursory glance at the election statistics will show from what party the Pro- gressives came and whither they returned, leaving, as all the third parties have, a larger and larger independent vote in the state.
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.