History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916, Part 46

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 46

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).

CLERK SUPREME COURT.

Andrew M. Sweeney, Democrat. . 232,154 20,969 William T. Noble, Republican. ... 211,815

Charles L. Jessup, Prohibitionist .. 11,711 Benjamin F. Street, Populist .... 17,517

SUPERINTENDENT PUBLIC INSTRUCTION.

Hervey D. Vories, Democrat. .232,480 20,814

James H. Henry, Republican ..... 211,666

Leander M. Crist, Prohibitionist .. 11,587 William F. Whitney, Populist .... 17,466

CHIEF BUREAU OF STATISTICS.

William A. Peelle, Jr., Democrat. 232,282 20,873 John Worrell, Republican. ... .211,409 Frank DuSouchet, Prohibitionist. . 11,840

John W. Shockley, Populist. .. 17,268

GEOLOGIST.

Sylvester S. Gorby, Democrat. .. 232,118 John M. Coulter, Republican ... .211,370

20,748

Joseph Moore, Prohibitionist .. 11,762 Edward S. Pope (629), Populist .. 17,456

VOTE FOR CANDIDATES FOR CONGRESS. -First District-

William F. Parrett, Democrat .. 17,730 855 James S. Wright, Republican. 16,875

-Second District --

John L. Bretz, Democrat.

14,697

2,701

William N. Darnell, Republican ...

11,996

-Third District-

Jason B. Brown, Democrat.

16,369

3,939

William J. Dunham, Republican'. 12,430

-Fourth District-

William S. Holman, Democrat.

15,639

1,772

John T. Rankin, Republican

13,867

-Fifth District

George W. Cooper, Democrat

17,070

1,704

John G. Dunbar, Republican.

15,355

-Sixth District-

Henry U. Johnson, Republican. .18,786

5,736

David S. Trowbridge, Democrat ... 12,807

-Seventh District-

William D. Bynum, Democrat ..... 27,401 5,315 John J. W. Billingsley, Republican. 22,086 -Eighth District-

E. V. Brookshire, Democrat.

21,391

3,058

James A. Mount, Republican.

18,333

-Ninth District-

Daniel Waugh, Republican.

20,752

1,258

Leroy Templeton, Democrat.

19,453

-Tenth District-

David H. Patton, Democrat

17,262

1,162

William D. Owen, Republican. 16,100

-Eleventh District-

Augustus N. Martin.

20,813

2,813

Cyrus E. Bryant

18,000

-Twelfth District-

Charles A. O. McClellan, Democrat 17,970 4,050

Jason N. Babcock, Republican. 13,920

-Thirteenth District-

Benjamin F. Shively, Democrat ... 20,318 Henry D. Wilson, Republican ..... 17,614

2,704

The Democratic platform of 1892 espe- cially commends the enactment of a new, just and equitable tax law by the Demo- cratic Legislature. The author of this law being a townsman of mine, I asked him to furnish me a statement of the manner in which the enactment was procured. In compliance with this request Judge Howard kindly furnished this comprehen- sive information bearing upon that im- portant subject :

THE INDIANA TAX LAW. (By Hon. Timothy E. Howard.)

"Professor John R. Commons, the noted political economist and secretary of the tax department of the National Civic Federa- tion, has stated, as said in the Indianapolis News of February 21, 1903, that the tax law of Indiana is nearer perfect than that of any other State in the union. Like opinions have been given by many other persons competent to judge of the subject, and several of our sister States, in revising their systems of taxation, have drawn heavily upon the provisions of the Indiana law.

"This law, as has often happened in the case of other beneficent measures, owed its origin to dire necessity. The benevolent, reformatory and other institutions of the State had been extending and improving for years until the revenues had become inadequate for their support, after meet- ing the other expenses of the State govern- ment. The result was that the State had been compelled to resort to the borrowing of money from time to time to meet these expenses. The margin between the annual revenues and the necessary expenditures, instead of being closer, continued to widen from year to year. It became necessary even to borrow money to pay the interest on the obligations already incurred, the State thus paying interest on interest. In this way the outstanding debt of the State

( 336 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

had gone on increasing from year to year until it amounted to more than eight mil- lions of dollars, with no prospects of relief in sight. It seemed suicidal to continue borrowing money, and so putting off the day of reckoning. The Legislature was equally reluctant to raise the tax levy. That is always an unpopular measure. But what was to be done? How save the credit of the State ?

"This was the grave financial situation which confronted the Legislature of 1891. The writer had been a member of the Sen- ate in each of the two preceding sessions and had been impressed with the serious condition of the State's finances. He was satisfied that something must be done to save the good name of the State, and that without delay. A remedy must be found at this session of the Legislature. Borrow- ing money must cease, while an increased levy could not be thought of. An increased levy, to be adequate, must be so great as to incur a storm of opposition on the part of the people, and the members of the Legislature could never be induced to listen to the suggestion. Besides, such an in- crease in the levy would but add to the injustice of the existing system of taxa- tion. The evil was in the unequal valuation of property, and a simple increase of the tax levy would but increase the burdens of those who were already paying more than their just share of taxes.

"Between the time of his re-election to the Senate and the convening of the Gen- eral Assembly the writer had devoted much thought to the grave problem now before that body. During this interval he had visited and consulted with a relative who was then a local assessor at Ann Arbor, Mich. From this visit he brought home with him at least two ideas-one was the necessity of assessing all property at its true cash value. If this standard of valuation should be fixed and adhered to by the taxing officers the great inequality between the assessment of large proper- ties, particularly corporate property, and the ordinary properties of the people would be done away with. The other idea that came from that conference at Ann Arbor was the creation of a County Board of Review. The then existing County Board of Equalization was but a feeble organiza- tion, with little power to revise the work of the local assessors and to correct errors and inequalities.

"On the organization of the Legislature and the appointment of committees, one of the first steps taken was the calling of a joint meeting of the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House. Senator Rufus Magee, formerly Minister of the United States to Sweden and Norway, was chair- man of the Senate Committee and he was called upon to preside over the joint con- ference.

"As said in a late interview by Mr. Jef- ferson H. Claypool, then a Republican member of the House Committee, 'It was evident to all that radical tax legislation was needed, but some of the members of the joint committee did not have a clearly defined idea of how to proceed.' This statement very well expresses the earnest but vague and indefinite character of the various remarks and suggestions made by the several members of the Senate and House Committees in that joint conference. Finally the writer, who was a member of the Senate Committee, gave expression to some thoughts of his own on the subject, referring particularly to ideas that had been suggested to his mind on his visit to Michigan. To his utter astonishment, no sooner had he taken his seat than the chairman announced that he would appoint the writer to prepare a bill for a general revision of the tax laws of the State, to be submitted to a future meeting of the joint committee. Protest was of no avail, Chairman Magee simply saying that the writer seemed to have some practical ideas on the subject of taxation, and as no one else had anything better to propose, there was nothing to be done but await the preparation of the new bill on the lines in- dicated in the writer's remarks. The mem- bers of the two committees agreed with the chairman, and the matter was so de- termined.

"Daily duties in the Senate chamber and on other committees made it necessary that the tax bill should be prepared at night. It was three weeks before the first draft could be reported to the joint com- mittee. As this draft contained two hun- dred and sixty-two sections, the committee waived the reading, doing the writer the honor of accepting his word that the bill had been prepared with the provisions in- dicated at the former meeting of the joint conference. He was only requested to state whether any new provisions had

( 337 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

been incorporated. In answer he said that, to secure the assessment of mortgage loans, bonds, moneys and other concealed property he had thought it necessary to provide for the creation of the office of county assessor and prescribe his duties. A vote was taken in the committee on this provision, and the creation of the office of county assessor was sanctioned. Repre- sentative Claypool, in the interview already referred to, speaking of the writer's preparation of the bill, says: 'He worked at it three weeks, until midnight every night. He had little in the way of sugges- tions from other members, for we felt that he was doing the work acceptably. At the end of three weeks he presented his measure. He said to me, "What do you think of it?" I said it would raise the taxes without a doubt, for while it did not increase the tax rate, it did increase the valuation. I thought it so radical that the people would almost rebel against it. But the committee seemed to think that the bill was along right lines, and it was de- cided to introduce it.' On February 5 the bill was introduced in the Senate, referred to the Committee on Finance and three hundred copies ordered printed.

"As the bill was one for 'raising rev- enue,' it was necessary, by a requirement of the Constitution, that it should 'orig- inate in the House of Representatives.' A printed copy was accordingly introduced in the House, taking the place of three bills already introduced in that body-one by Mr. John T. Beasley, for the creation of a State Board of Tax Commissioners ; one by Mr. William A. Cullop, for the taxa- tion of franchises; and one by Mr. William S. Oppenheim, for paying all railroad taxes into the State treasury. All these pro- visions of the House bills were, however, incorporated in the Senate bill. The first two became a part of the law as finally enacted, but the third provision, that for paying all railroad taxes into the State treasury, proved to be exceedingly un- popular and came near defeating the whole measure. The bill was retained also in the Senate in order to protect the measure and make necessary amendments. This proved a wise precaution. When on February 25 the bill came to a final vote in the House, it was, by reason of the railroad tax pro- vision, defeated by the decisive vote of 53 to 40. This was due chiefly to the un- willingness of taxpayers to be deprived of

the benefit of their share of railroad taxes for local purposes. In many counties the railroad tax amounted to a very large part of the local revenues. On the same day, when this adverse vote was announced in the House, the bill was in committee of the whole in the Senate, and as soon as the news of the House vote came over the author of the bill arose in his place and moved to strike out the obnoxious provi- sions. This was at once agreed to and the bill thus saved. As soon as this action of the Senate was known in the House, the vote on the passage of the bill in that body was reconsidered, the objectionable rail- road clauses stricken out and the bill again placed upon its passage and passed by the vote of sixty-eight to seven.

"This vote showed the favor with which all parties in the House regarded the bill, as was the case also in the Senate, and that it was the railroad provisions alone that caused the opposition in both bodies. On this point Representative Claypool says: 'Both branches of the Legislature that session were overwhelmingly Demo- cratic. They favored some such measure, and though the matter was much debated, its passage was never in doubt after the elimination of the railroad tax feature.'

"On its passage in the House the bill went at once to the Senate, where, on Feb- ruary 26, it passed with the amendments as made by the Senate in committee of the whole. The vote here was thirty-six to nine. A conference committee was ap- pointed to report on the Senate amend- ments. The report of this committee was adopted in the House, without division, on February 28 and in the Senate by a vote of thirty-seven to four on March 2. The bill became a law on March 6, 1891, by the signature of Governor Alvin P. Hovey, who at all stages had favored the legislation.

"Although the law had the approval and support of the Republican Governor, and, as the record shows, at every stage in its passage was supported by a goodly number of Republican votes; yet no sooner had the Legislature adjourned than an active and persistent war was waged against it in every part of the State. While the oppo- sition was chiefly of a political character, still the Democrats themselves seemed rather lukewarm in the defense. In truth the very bulk and extent of the law made it difficult to grasp all its provisions and the Democratic press seemed indisposed

( 338 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

to take up the vindication of a statute which took up over ninety pages of the session laws. The first Democrat outside the membership of the late Legislature who seemed to grasp and understand the provisions of the law was the Hon. Thomas Duncan, now the brilliant and efficient president of the Public Service Commis- sion. Until the appearance of Mr. Dun- can's comprehensive and illuminating article it would seem that the Democrats were almost willing to confess judgment in favor of the determined attacks of the opponents of the law. Some good Demo- cratic editors seemed to fear that the Democratic Legislature had committed a huge blunder and that the party would be ruined in consequence. Mr. Duncan's arti- cle came when the law was in the depths. That article marked the turning point in favor of the legislation. Democratic writ- ers and speakers took heart, though in a sort of desperate mood, and tried to make the best of what they still feared was an inconsiderate piece of legislation.

"But it was the real enemies of the law, those who had thoroughly studied its pro- visions and understood and feared them- it was these men who brought home to the people the true nature of this daring and radical revision of our tax laws. The law had been attacked as favoring corpora- tions. The corporations themselves knew this to be untrue, and they at once went into the courts to overthrow the new act. Not until then did the people open their eyes. If the railroads, telegraph and ex- press companies went into the courts to overthrow the law, well, then, said the people, surely the law must not be in favor of the corporations. Democrats now took renewed courage, studied the law and de- fended its provisions. A great light shone and the tax law was out of the depths. The decisions of the courts followed, sustain- ing the enactment at every point, even in the Supreme Court of the State and the Supreme Court of the United States. It was a great triumph. At last the corpora- tions must bear their just share of the public burdens. The valuation of railroad property alone rose from sixty-nine mil- lions in the State to a hundred and sixty- one millions, and other corporate property in proportion. It was seen that assess- ment of all property at its true valuation meant something. The new county as- sessors, all over the State, found concealed

millions of mortgages, bonds and other securities and moneys that had never paid taxes. The huge State debt would come down. And it did come down, from eight millions and over, down it came, million by million, until finally the State debt of Indiana has become merely nominal, while her great public institutions have been con- stantly enlarged and improved and their inmates properly cared for.

"But it is said that the law has not been properly enforced. That is true. If the law were enforced according to its terms the condition would be ideal. The taxing officers, township assessors, county as- sessors, County Boards of Review and the State Board of Tax Commissioners are but human. Many of these have been admi- rable officials and have done their duties under the law in manly fashion, showing themselves conscientious, wise and cour- ageous men. The State Board of Tax Com- missioners and many county assessors, particularly, have, in the great majority of cases, done their full duty. If all had done so the judgment of Professor John R. Commons, that the Indiana tax law is nearer perfect than that of any other State, would be a simple truism. The law is exceedingly democratic in its provisions. Perhaps there is a fault in this. The ad- ministration and enforcement of the act has been left, so far as possible, in the hands of the people themselves. It may be that if the county assessors, for example, were given larger powers in revising the work of the township assessors, and if the State Board were given larger powers in revising the work of all the assessors and of the Boards of Review, a more just and equal assessment and appraisement of all the property of the State should be secured. Some level-headed, zealous advo- cate of more perfect administration of the law, such a one perhaps as the Hon. Dan Link, present Tax Commissioner, may yet prepare such improvement of the law and show the Legislature the wisdom of adopt- ing it. But, even as it is, when we com- pare the work done under the present with that under the former law, we cannot fail to recognize the immense improvement. This improvement is seen particularly in the work of the county assessors and in that of the State Board of Tax Commis- sioners. Property does not escape taxation now as it did formerly, and the large properties are more adequately taxed.

( 339 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

"It has been said that while the Indiana law may be the best general property tax law in the country, yet that a general property tax law is itself not so satisfac- tory as other systems of taxation. There may be truth in this. If the State were new and we were about to lay down the first system of taxation, it may be that the single tax on land, as in New Zealand, might be satisfactory. But our general property tax system has been in operation for over a century and so radical a change of method would be detrimental to all our long-established methods of business. It is evident that we must be content to im- prove the general property system of tax- ation which we have so long followed. New methods, ideal systems, even though better from an abstract point of view, are yet undesirable when the people have grown familiar with other and perhaps in- ferior systems and methods. Wise taxa-

tion, as is indeed the case with all laws, is rather practical than scientific. That is best which is best for us.

"But many supplementary schemes of raising revenues, not antagonistic in any way with present systems of taxation, are reasonable, practical and altogether desir- able. Such are license taxes, franchise taxes, income taxes, inheritance taxes and others of similar kind. All such taxes bear immediately upon the business and the persons benefited by the tax, are best able to bear the burdens of supporting the Government and its varied needs and in- stitutions. The principal source of public revenues, however, must continue to be the general property tax. Of this method of taxation the Indiana tax law of 1891, with its wise amendments and improve- ments as suggested from year to year, will grow to be as near perfect as human in- stitutions can ever become."

( 340 )

[CHAPTER XLIV.] DEMOCRATIC LANDSLIDE IN 1892

WHAT AT FIRST SEEMED A HOPELESS FIGHT TURNED INTO SWEEPING VICTORY

HERE was sharp division in the T Democratic camp of Indiana in 1892. Hostility to Grover Cleveland was intense; idoliza- tion, on the other hand, just as pronounced. The anti-Cleve- land forces did not center on any one of the several avowed or assumed aspirants. Some favored the nomination of ex-Governor Isaac P. Gray, others were enthusiastic in their support of Senator David B. Hill, and some thought the strongest man to nominate was Senator Arthur P. Gorman of Maryland. These forces were also divided as to the nomina- tion of a candidate for Governor. As a rule the supporters of Grover Cleveland favored the nomination of John G. Shank- lin, former Secretary of State and editor of the Evansville Courier, while the anti- Cleveland men wanted Secretary of State Claude Matthews placed at the head of the ticket. For various reasons I was intense- ly interested in making Claude Matthews Governor of Indiana. He made an enviable record as Secretary of State, displayed sound judgment in matters that came be- fore him for adjustment and had developed many of the traits of a most excellent pub- lic official. Besides, I was partial to having a farmer at the head of the State Govern- ment. When I first talked to him about the Governorship it was plainly apparent that the suggestion struck him quite favor- ably. But soon it became manifest that complications were in the way. In talking the matter over with intimate friends in various parts of the State the notion was hammered into Mr. Matthews' head that in view of the uncertainty of the Guberna- torial contest he must have it understood that if he should happen to be defeated for that position he should be a receptive can-

didate for renomination as Secretary of State. As time passed Mr. Matthews be- came more and more impressed with the idea that this was the only assuring pro- gram for him to adopt. "With the single exception of yourself, all my friends are agreed as to this being the only safe course for me to pursue," he told me one day. He mentioned the names of many of his friends as among those who had thus ex- pressed themselves. I told him that these friends of his might be entirely honest and sincere in their views, but that they were exceedingly short-sighted and laboring under a grievous delusion. "From the moment your candidacy for Governor is announced there will be in the field as- pirants to the office of Secretary of State," I said to him. "Those opposed to you will ridicule your double-geared candidacy and form combinations against you. It is ruinous to entertain a scheme so utterly unfeasible and impracticable. · Abandon it and proclaim yourself a candidate for Gov- ernor and nothing else." Tractable and deferential as he had usually shown him- self in other matters, he seemed to be inseparably wedded to the double-geared proposition. In order to settle the matter once for all, I arranged for a final confer- ence, at which I secured the earnest co- operation and support of ex-Governor Gray. Nearly two hours were spent before Mr. Matthews consented to accept our view of the case. He finally did so, but appar- ently not without misgivings. The formal announcement of his candidacy for Gov- ernor was received with marked favor. A stiff fight was put up in his behalf and he won the coveted prize.

The convention met in Tomlinson Hall on Thursday, April 21, 1892. Senator David Turpie was chosen to preside; Captain

( 341 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

John C. Nelson was again honored with the principal secretaryship of the conven- tion.

The contest over the nomination for Governor was spirited and exciting. The situation was somewhat complicated by the entry of several gentlemen who had not been considered as seriously in the race. The first ballot had hardly been completed when a number of delegations changed their vote, mostly in favor of Mr. Mat- thews. Much enthusiasm was aroused by the announcement of these changes. The vote showed this result: Claude Matthews, 65214 ; John G. Shanklin, 3601/4 ; Mason J. Niblack, 16534; Mortimer Nye, 1243/4. The contest ended by the adoption of a motion that the nomination of Claude Matthews for Governor be made by accla- mation. Mortimer Nye, who was fourth in the race for the Gubernatorial nomina- tion, became the convention's choice for Lieutenant-Governor. The ticket in its entirety was composed of the following- named gentlemen :

Governor-Claude Matthews, Vermilion county. Lieutenant-Governor-Mortimer Nye, Laporte. Secretary of State Captain William R. Myers, Anderson.

Auditor of State J. O. Henderson, Kokomo.

Treasurer of State-Albert Gall, Indianapolis. Attorney-General-Alonzo G. Smith, Jennings. Reporter of Supreme Court-Sidney R. Moon, Rochester.

Supt. Public Instruction-Harvey D. Vories. Chief Bureau of Statistics-William A. Peelle, Jr .. Indianapolis.

Judges of Supreme Court-Leonard J. Hack- ney of Shelbyville, James McCabe of Warren, Timothy E. Howard of South Bend.

Appellate Court Judges-George L. Reinhard, Frank E. Gavin, Theodore P. Davis, George E. Ross.

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 46

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