History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916, Part 43

Author: Stoll, John B., 1843-1926
Publication date: 1917
Publisher: Indianapolis : Indiana Democratic Pub. Co.
Number of Pages: 1104

USA > Indiana > History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916 > Part 43

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).

"We also profoundly deplore that during a brief period of time the Nation, and par- ticularly the Democratic party, has suf- fered the loss of four other eminent citizens in the person of the gallant leader, George B. McClellan; the superb hero, Winfield Scott Hancock; the pure and wise statesman, Horatio Seymour; and more recently the demise of that dis- cerning statesman, sagacious counselor and profound political philosopher, Samuel J. Tilden. The career of these illustrious men may well serve as examples for those upon whom shall devolve the responsibility of leadership.

"Resolved, That taxation of the people for other purposes than raising revenue for the expenses of the Government, eco- nomically administered, is robbery under the forms of law. We are, therefore, in favor of a reduction of the present unjust tariff to a revenue basis, and we hereby

(313 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

reaffirm the principles laid down in the Chicago platform on that subject and heartily indorse the action of the Demo- cratic Representatives in Congress from this State for their fidelity to the cause of tariff reform.

"Resolved, That the Democratic party of Indiana is now, as it has always been, opposed in principle to all sumptuary laws and prohibitory legislation, but it is in favor of just and proper measures for regulating traffic in spirituous and intoxi- cating liquors under a license system designed to repress the evils of intem- perance, and it favors a reasonable increase of the license tax, discriminating between malt liquor and wines and distilled spirits so as to place the highest license on dis- tilled spirits. The proceeds of such tax to be applied to the support of the common schools.

"Resolved, That in the enactment of all laws a strict regard should be had for the rights of the laboring masses; that taxa- tion should be restricted to the lowest amounts required by an economical ad- ministration of public affairs; that wage- workers should be protected by legislation from the oppressive power of monopolies and corporations; and that all laws not in harmony with the foregoing purposes should be repealed."

The remainder of the platform is de- voted to a declaration approving the forfeiture of about one hundred million acres of railroad grant lands; condemning alien ownership of land in Indiana; favor- ing gold and silver and convertible paper money as a circulating medium; bestow- ing praise on Democratic officials then in power for their efficiency and fidelity ; de- manding the repeal of all laws that do not bear equally on capital and labor; paying tribute to the soldiers and sailors who saved the Union ; favoring a revision of the tax law so as to bring about equitable valuation of property; approving a pend- ing amendment to the Constitution mak- ing the term of all county officers four years; felicitating Ireland on the pros- pective establishment of home rule; ap- proving increased pensions to the widows

and dependent parents of deceased soldiers and to soldiers who were disabled in the Union army.

Nominations having been declared in order, Dr. Thomas H. Harrison of Leb- anon presented the name of James McCabe of Warren for Lieutenant-Governor. Alonzo Green Smith was also placed before the convention, but he immediately arose and declared that he could not be a candi- date. Dr. Harrison withdrew the name of Mr. McCabe. Thereupon Michael L. Fansler presented the name of Captain John C. Nelson of Logansport, whose nomination was effected by acclamation.

For Secretary of State, Robert W. Miers of Bloomington ; Lewis Jordan of Indiana- polis ; Samuel R. Downey of Ohio county, and Myron D. King were proposed by their respective friends. After the second bal- lot Mr. King made a motion, seconded by Mr. Jordan, that Robert W. Miers be de- clared the unanimous choice of the con- vention for Secretary of State. It was so decreed.

Charles A. Munson of Fort Wayne, Gerard Reiter of Vincennes and A. B. Pitzer of Tipton were named for Auditor of State. On the first ballot Mr. Munson received 6181/2 votes, Reiter 3371/2, Pitzer 275. Mr. Munson, having received a ma- jority of all the votes cast, was declared duly nominated.

No one ventured to contest with popular Thomas B. Byrnes of Evansville the nomination for State Treasurer, and he was accordingly made the nominee by acclamation.

For Attorney-General James V. Kent of Frankfort and Hugh D. McMullen entered the race. McMullen was nominated on the first ballot by receiving 7041/2 votes, Kent 5151/2. On motion of Mr. Kent the Mc- Mullen nomination was declared to be the unanimous action of the convention.

Four candidates for Superintendent of Public Instruction were placed before the convention : Andrew M. Sweeney of Dubois county, John W. Holcombe of Por-

( 314 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

ter county, Frederick S. Caldwell of Ran- dolph county and Benjamin F. Morgan of Wayne county. After the second ballot Mr. Holcombe moved that Mr. Sweeney's nomination be made unanimous. It was so declared.

The business of the convention having been completed, adjournment was ordered. There was in the minds of the assembled delegation an abundance of hopefulness, but positiveness as to victory seemed to be lacking.

The ticket as nominated was composed of strong men, all of them possessing a high degree of personal popularity. A combination of greater cleverness could hardly have been formed. A more admir- able selection for the head of the ticket could not have been conceived. Captain John C. Nelson, as man, soldier and law- yer, had the respect and confidence of all who enjoyed the pleasure and good fortune of his acquaintance. But this did not save him from defeat at the November election. Democratic disaffection, attributable to Cleveland's ostentatious flirtation with mugwumpery, rendered Democratic defeat at the polls inevitable. The result of the election for Lieutenant-Governor is thus officially recorded: Colonel R. S. Robert- son, Republican, 231,922; Captain John C. Nelson, Democrat, 228,598. The figures as to the other candidates on the two State tickets did not vary much from those credited to the candidates for Lieutenant- Governor.

The election of members of the General Assembly proved unfortunate in this, that on account of its closeness on joint ballot complications arose that are not credit- able to the State. What these complica- tions were will be found narrated at length later on.

In the election of Representatives in Congress, the Democrats met with several deplorable losses. They lost out in the Evansville and the Fort Wayne districts. In the latter district there were so many hungry and inferentially thirsty patriots

whose appetite Judge-Robert Lowry could not appease that he was defeated in his third race for continuous Congressional service. No man ever so little deserved defeat as did Judge Lowry. He had made many sacrifices for his party, had rendered it much valuable service, was a man of superior ability, and ought to have been kept in Congress as long as his party could retain its ascendancy. But because he was unable to meet the voracious demand for official loaves and fishes he was ruthlessly slaughtered at the polls and mercilessly relegated to private life.

Alvin P. Hovey, Republican, was elected in the First district. Upon his election to the Governorship in 1888 he resigned his seat in Congress and was succeeded by Frank B. Posey, also a Republican. John H. O'Neall, Democrat, succeeded Thomas R. Cobb, Democrat, in the Second. Howard, Holman, Matson and Bynum, all Democrats, were triumphantly re-elected, as were Browne, Johnson, Owen and Steele on the Republican side of the House. Joseph B. Cheadle of Frankfort, a Repub- lican, succeeded Tom Ward in the Lafay- ette district. James B. White, a popular Fort Wayne grocer, defeated Judge Lowry in the Twelfth. One term satisfied George Ford, of the South Bend district, and he was succeeded by Benjamin F. Shively.

By reason of the commotion created by the refusal of the State Senate to permit the newly-elected Lieutenant-Governor to take his seat and preside over the State Senate, I desired to obtain the version of a gentleman who not only participated in what was done during that exciting period, but who also had the ability and the in- clination to state the facts in the case fully and reliably. What he says on this subject in the following pages contains historic information of high value. I doubt if any other Indianian now living could equal in comprehensive complete- ness the story of the legislative imbroglio of 1887 as written by Judge Timothy E. Howard. Fortunately there has been no

( 315 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

recurrence of any such outbreak since those unhappy days of partisan frenzy.

THE LEGISLATURE OF 1887.

(Written upon special request by Hon. Timothy E. Howard, representing St. Joseph county in the State Senate of 1887.)

The Indiana Legislature of 1887 was in many respects one of the most remarkable that ever assembled at the State Capitol. The Senate, as organized, consisted of thirty-one Democrats and nineteen Repub- licans. The House, as organized, consisted of fifty-two Republicans, forty-four Demo- crats and four members of the Greenback Labor party. A United States Senator was to be elected at that session to succeed the Hon. Benjamin Harrison, whose term would expire on the fourth day of March, following. No party had a majority of both Houses and the outcome was exceed- ingly uncertain. The Greenback Labor vote seemed to be able to control the elec- tion. As the Houses were organized, the Democrats had a majority in the Senate and the Republicans in the House. The vote in joint convention would be: Demo- crats 75, Republicans 71, and the third party 4. It was known that three mem- bers of the Greenback Labor party would probably favor the Republican candidate rather than the Democrat, while the fourth member had strong Democratic affiliations. Seventy-six would be a major- ity on joint ballot, and it was of the utmost importance that the Democrats should maintain their plurality of 75 and also gain the vote of one of the third party in order to succeed in the election of a United States Senator. The Republicans having a majority in the House, their plan seemed to be to unseat enough Democrats in that body to secure the needed majority of 76 on joint ballot. They appeared to forget that the Democrats controlled the Senate and might retaliate by unseating such Republican Senators as might be found to have defective titles to their places.

On January 14 the Republicans unseated

Cornelius Meagher in the House and seated a Republican in his place. On Janu- ary 17 the Senate unseated Senator Mc- Donald, a Republican, and seated a Demo- crat in his place, thus restoring the rel- ative strength of the parties as it stood before the unseating of Meagher. Both parties then concluded that this suicidal procedure had gone far enough. Senator Kennedy, a Republican farmer, whose own seat was not free from danger, gave his colleagues the safe advice that it was very poor policy to trade four-year-olds for two- year-olds-Republican Senators for Demo- cratic Representatives. Accordingly a modus vivendi was "proposed by the Com- mittee of the Republican Caucus to the Democratic members of the Fifty-first General Assembly," which was accepted by the latter and thereafter acted upon by both parties. One provision of this agree- ment was, "That the roll of each House is to stand and be called as it existed on Tues- day, January 18, 1887." The Democrats thus secured their seventy-five votes on joint ballot, as the same had been elected by the people.

But to secure the additional vote neces- sary to make up the seventy-six believed to constitute a majority on joint ballot, care must be taken in nominating a candi- date for United States Senator who should be acceptable to at least one of the third party members.

Isaac P. Gray was at the time Governor of the State. General Mahlon D. Manson, a distinguished veteran of the civil war, was elected Lieutenant-Governor with Governor Gray. It was Governor Gray's ambition to be elected United States Sen- ator from Indiana. As General Manson was desirous of becoming Governor of In- diana, it seemed that two laudable ambi- tions were to be satisfied, Governor Gray going to the Senate and General Manson succeeding to the Governorship. How- ever, certain influential Democrats were unwilling that the Governor's ambition should be gratified, and they sought to

( 316 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

have the brave old General resign his office of Lieutenant-Governor and accept a petty Federal office in its place. In a weak moment the General consented, and Governor Gray was too good a Democrat to seek the Senatorial toga without leav- ing the office of Governor in the hands of a man chosen by the people.

In this dilemma the Governor conceived the idea of seeking the election of Lieuten- ant-Governor in the place of General Man- son. The Attorney-General advised that such an election would be constitutional, and both parties nominated candidates for the office of Lieutenant-Governor, to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of General Manson. But here again Governor Gray was disappointed. The Democratic candidate, Captain John C. Nelson, another civil war veteran and a most competent gentleman, was defeated by the Republican candidate, Colonel Robert S. Robertson.

The House of Representatives recog- nized the election of Colonel Robertson as Lieutenant-Governor, but the Senate de- clined to do so, claiming, by resolution duly passed, that there could be no election of Lieutenant-Governor "except at times prescribed in the Constitution," that is, "at the time and place of electing members of the General Assembly in the year 1852, and every four years thereafter." Hold- ing, therefore, that there was no Lieuten- ant-Governor elected, the Senate refused to allow Colonel Robertson to preside over its deliberations, but continued to recog- nize Senator Alonzo G. Smith as the only chosen President of the Senate. The case was to be taken to the courts, and in the Marion Circuit Court a temporary restrain- ing order was issued forbidding Colonel Robertson from attempting to preside over the Senate. An appeal was taken from this order to the Supreme Court, where the injunction was dissolved, the Supreme Court holding that the question raised was one for the decision of the Legislature and that the courts had no jurisdiction over it. The case was very elaborately considered

in the Supreme Court, all the judges writ- ing separate opinions, and the record extending over eighty pages of the reports. (See 109 Ind. Reports, page 79 to page 159.)

According to the famous agreement heretofore referred to, "proposed by the Committee of the Republican Caucus to the Democratic members of the Fifty-fifth General Assembly," and assented to by the Democrats, the position taken by the Sen- ate, including the rights claimed for Alonzo G. Smith as President of the Sen- ate, was acknowledged, in so far as per- taining to the joint convention of the House and Senate for the election of United States Senator, and in conformity with that agreement the election finally took place.

The Republican candidate was Benjamin Harrison, then filling the office and candi- date for re-election. The Democratic candidate was long in doubt. Under the circumstances, Governor Gray refused to be a candidate. It was understood that he desired his friends to vote for William E. Niblack, then one of the judges of the Supreme Court. Joseph E. McDonald, formerly a United States Senator, was also a candidate, and it seemed at first that either of these would be selected. How- ever, when the first vote in the Democratic caucus was announced it was found that five ballots had been cast for David Turpie, also a former United States Senator from Indiana. There was no concert of action on the part of those casting these five votes. It was afterward discovered that the two Representatives and the Senator from St. Joseph county, in deference to the sentiments of their constituents, had cast three of the Turpie votes. The venerable Dr. Thompson, Senator from Marion coun- ty, cast the fourth vote, but whose was the fifth is unknown to the writer. After several ballots the friends of Senator Mc- Donald, preferring Mr. Turpie to Judge Niblack, voted solidly for the former, and he was declared the candidate. The nom-

( 317 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

ination of David Turpie proved to be a happy one, in view of the strong labor sentiment in the Legislature. His selec- tion was at the same time received with favor by the friends of the Governor, as well as by those of Judge Niblack and ex- Senator McDonald.

On January 18 the candidates for United States Senator were formally placed in nomination in each House and a vote was taken. The vote in the Senate showed 32 for David Turpie and 18 for Benjamin Harrison. In the House the vote stood: Harrison 53, Turpie 43 and Jackson H. Allen 4. On the next day the two Houses met in joint convention. The party agree- ment heretofore referred to was presented by the Speaker of the House, as presiding officer, and "was read for the information of the joint convention." By the terms of this agreement the duties of the presiding officer were, in a manner, divided between the President of the Senate and the Speak- er of the House. President Smith was to call the convention to order, while Speaker Warren G. Sayre was to conduct the sub- sequent proceedings, "no legal right of the said Smith to be thereby waived or affected." The President of the Senate was to order the calling of the Senate roll, and the Speaker of the House the roll of the House. A very important provision was that "The result of the balloting by said joint convention shall be announced by the said Smith, and the Speaker shall thereupon adjourn the joint convention." An express provision was added that Colonel Robertson was "to take no part in the holding of said joint convention, or in anywise to attempt to participate therein."

The first joint ballot showed the vote to be as in the separate vote of the Houses on the previous day, namely: Senators- Turpie 32, Harrison 18. Representatives -Turpie 43, Harrison 53 and Allen 4; total on joint ballot, Turpie 75, Harrison 71 and Allen 4; necessary to choice, 76. A motion was then made to adjourn, which was lost, 74 for and 76 against. On this

vote the four third party votes were di- vided, three voting with the Republicans and one with the Democrats. This vote foreshadowed the final result, namely, that one of the third party men, Mr. Robinson, would, in the end, vote for the Democratic candidate, Mr. Turpie, and so it proved. A second ballot for Senator showed no change. Thereafter, until the second day of February, the two Houses met in joint convention at 12 o'clock each day, taking fifteen ballots in all, without change of result. On February 2, on the sixteenth ballot, the four third party men, as antici- pated, voted one for Turpie and three for Harrison, giving Mr. Turpie 76 votes and General Harrison 74 votes. The elec- tion of David Turpie was thereupon de- clared and the joint convention adjourned in a storm of excitement and protest.

The peace agreement, under the terms of which David Turpie was elected United States Senator, having come to an end on his election, and the Supreme Court hav- ing decided that the courts had no juris- diction to decide whether Mr. Robertson had been elected Lieutenant-Governor or not, the old quarrel between the House and Senate on this subject was reopened with more virulence than ever. The court had held that the question was one to be decided by the Legislature and not by the courts. But the Legislature was itself divided on the question. The House main- tained that Mr. Robertson was elected in one form by vote of the people, while the Senate contended that, by the terms of the Constitution, there could be no valid election of Lieutenant-Governor except at the four-year periods provided in that in- strument for the election of Governor and Lieutenant-Governor.

Accordingly, on February 24, 1887, when Mr. Robertson proceeded to take his place as President of the Senate, by virtue of his office of Lieutenant-Governor, the Senate refused to allow him to take the seat, and on his persisting in his effort, he was led out of the chamber by the door-

( 318 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

keeper of the Senate. The result of this action was that the House refused to have any further intercourse with the Senate. More than this, the eighteen Republican Senators, while retaining their seats in the Senate chamber, refused any longer to an- swer to their names on roll-call or to take any further part in the proceedings of the Senate.

Here arose, it is believed for the first time in an American legislative body, the practice of counting those present and not voting as a part of the quorum necessary to transact business. Ordinarily, the prac- tice had been, in order to determine whether a quorum was present or not, to call the roll, and only those answering to their names on the roll-call were counted as making up the quorum. President Smith, however, directed the clerk to mark as present those actually in their seats and not answering to their names, quite the same as if they answered when their names were called. This practice of "counting a quorum" was at the time stigmatized as arbitrary and even tyran- nical, but Speaker Reed, of the United States House of Representatives, after- ward resorted to the same practice, and though his action was also criticised, yet the reasonableness of the practice con- tinued to gain favor with deliberative bodies, and Vice-President Marshall has recently "counted a quorum" in the United States Senate by noting the presence in their seats of Senators "present and not voting," even as President Smith did in the Indiana Senate in 1887.

Since, however, the House refused to receive any communication from the Sen- ate after February 24, the usefulness of the Legislature was practically at an end from that date. Still some very necessary legislation was enacted in a peculiar and unusual manner. Though the two Houses did not communicate with one another, yet each was in communication with the Gov- ernor, and a few bills were so passed from House to House through the hands of the

Governor and thus became laws. The volume of the session laws of 1887 is accordingly a very thin publication, con- sisting, with tables of contents and in- dexes, altogether of only seventy-seven pages. It was for a time called, in derision, "Green Smith's primer." It is remark- able, however, that this little volume con- tains some of the most important laws of the State of Indiana, among them "An Act to Authorize the Erection on the State Grounds at Indianapolis, of Monuments to Thomas A. Hendricks and Schuyler Col- fax," both of which have since been erected; "An Act to Regulate the Practice of Dentistry;" "An Act to Establish at Fort Wayne a School for the Feeble- Minded ;" "An Act to Establish at Knights- town the Indiana Soldiers and Sailors' Orphans' Home ;" and "An Act to Provide for the Erection of a State Soldiers and Sailors' Monument in the Circle Park at Indianapolis." These patriotic laws will always reflect honor upon the Legislature of 1887, as indeed they do upon the great State of Indiana. Notwithstanding the un- happy disagreement between the two Houses, it may confidently be asserted that no Legislature of the State ever contained more eminent men or men whose acts proved in the end of greater benefit to the commonwealth than the wise and brave men of the Legislature of 1887.

The real character of the victory of the Democrats in the Legislature of 1887 has been somewhat obscured by the spectacu- lar nature of some of the circumstances connected with it. The victory did not consist in maintaining Alonzo Greene Smith as President of the Senate. That was an incident, a means to the end to be secured. Neither did the victory consist in the election of David Turpie to the United States Senate. That was the most notable result of Democratic success, but the victory itself was something greater.

The people had elected a Democratic plurality of the Legislature. The mem- bership of that body consisted of seventy-

( 319 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

five Democrats, seventy-one Republicans and four Greenback-Labor men. The Democratic victory consisted in maintain- ing the plurality given to the party by the vote of the people. The Republicans, by their control of the House, proposed to un- seat Democrats in that body and thus upset the verdict of the people. No secret was made of this purpose. The determina- tion to elect General Harrison could not be more emphatically asserted than it was if the Republicans themselves had the plurality, or even the majority, in the Legislature. Nor did they conceal the means by which this result was to be ac- complished. They would unseat Demo- cratic Representatives enough for the purpose. A large number of Democrats in the House were notified that their seats were to be contested. The causes alleged were generally of the flimsiest character. For example, Representatives William H. Stull and Edward A. Metzger, of St. Joseph county, were to be unseated, although one had received over 80 majority and the other over 100. The reason for this ex- traordinary proposition was based on an accident in transmitting a telegraphic dis- patch from South Bend. In answer to an inquiry from Indianapolis, this reply, in substance, was sent: "Stull and Metzger have been elected by a fair majority." The telegram as received at Indianapolis read, "Stull and Metzger have been elected by four majority." It was accordingly con- cluded that, in a contest, these four votes could be thrown out and the two Democrats could be unseated. Under such circum- stances the Democrats in the Senate proposed to use their power in that body to fight fire with fire and so preserve the plurality given them by the people. The Republicans evidently did not think the Democrats would attempt to go so far. Besides, the Republicans would have the Lieutenant-Governor to preside over the Senate, and through his power the Senate majority would be unable to carry out its plans. That boast sealed the fate of the

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.

History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916, Part 43

Author: Stoll, John B., 1843-1926 Publication date: 1917 Publisher: Indianapolis : Indiana Democratic Pub. Co. Number of Pages: 1104

Author: Stoll, John B., 1843-1926
Publication date: 1917
Publisher: Indianapolis : Indiana Democratic Pub. Co.
Number of Pages: 1104