History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916, Part 53

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 53

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).

In 1896 Indiana's total vote was 637,305. Of this Mckinley had 323,754; Bryan, 305,753. Four other candidates received, respectively, 3,056, 2,268, 329, 2,145, the latter being John M. Palmer's Democratic gold standard vote.

In the electoral college in 1896, McKin- ley had 271 votes to Bryan's 176. In 1900 McKinley's electoral vote was increased to 292, while Bryan's was reduced to 155. How this came about is thus told by Col. McClure :

"Bryan knew that it would cost him many votes thus to force the distinct af- firmation of the silver policy, but he na- turally asumed that his chief loss would be in States which were hopeless under any circumstances, and that he would gain largely by the Free-Silver Republican vote in the Western States, which had formerly been Republican, but were apparently de- voted to free silver. The result proves that this was an error on the part of Bryan, as it saved none of the Western States which he would not have carried under any circumstances, and lost him some of the strong Republican States which he had carried in 1896. He under- estimated the general revulsion against the cheap money (16 to 1) policy, but he hoped by his active campaign to hold the Western debatable States. In this he cal- culated erroneously. He saved Colorado by less than 30,000 that he had carried by 135,000 four years before; he lost Kansas by over 23,000 that he had formerly car- ried by over 12,000; he lost Nebraska, his own State, by nearly 8,000, that he had formerly carried by 13,500; he lost South Dakota by 15,000 that he had carried be- fore by 183; he lost Washington by nearly 13,000 that he had formerly carried by about the same majority ; he lost Wyoming by 4,200 which he had formerly carried by 600, and he lost Utah by over 2,000 that he had carried by over 50,000 in his first battle. The only State he gained in his second battle was Kentucky, that gave

( 387 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

an average majority of 280 for the Re- publican electors in 1896, with the single exception of one Democratic elector, who was chosen and voted for Bryan, and gave 8,000 for Bryan in the last contest."

VOTE ON STATE TICKET.

-For Governor-

Winfield T. Durbin, Republican . 331,531

John W. Kern, Democrat. 306,368

-For Lieutenant Governor-

Newton W. Gilbert, Republican 331,774 John C. Lawler, Democrat. 305,934

The pluralities by which the other can- didates on the Republican State ticket were elected are as here indicated :

Secretary of State, Union B. Hunt. .25,913

Auditor of State, William H. Hart. .26,110

Treasurer of State, Leopold Levy. .25,971

Attorney General, William L. Taylor 26,223

Reporter Supreme Court, Charles F. Remy. 26,316 Supt. Public Instruction, Frank L. Jones. . 26,257 Chief of Bureau of Statistics, Benj. F. John-

son 25,903

Judge Supreme Court-First District,

James H. Jordan. 26,106

Judge Supreme Court-Fourth District,

Leander J. Monks.

26,027

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.

No. 1-For-314,710. Against-178,960.

No. 2-For-240,031. Against-144,072.

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

1. James A. Hemenway, Republican .22,262 Alfred Dale Owen, Democrat. .22,060

2. Robert W. Miers, Democrat. .22,420

Peter R. Wadsworth, Republican. 21,799

3. William T. Zenor, Democrat. 24,049

Hugh T. O'Connor, Republican 19,440

. 4. Francis M. Griffith, Democrat. 24,249

Nathan Powell, Republican. 22,641

5. Elias S. Holliday, Republican 25,932

Frank A. Horner, Democrat. . 24,244

6. James E. Watson, Republican 24,203 David W. McKee, Democrat. 21,320

7. Jesse Overstreet, Republican. .31,021

Frank B. Burke, Democrat. 27,012

8. George W. Cromer, Republican. 31,949

Joseph T. Day, Democrat . 28,180

9. Charles B. Landis, Republican .24,138 David F. Allen, Democrat. .22,624

10. Edgar D. Crumpacker, Republican. .29,537

John Ross, Democrat. . 23,045

11. George W. Steele, Republican. .29,177

William J. Houck, Democrat. .23,688

12. James M. Robinson, Democrat. . 22,750 Robert B. Hanna, Republican. .22,122

13. Abraham L. Brick, Republican. 26,592 Dr. Clement C. Bower, Democrat. 24,376

This made the Indiana delegation stand nine Republicans to four Democrats.

The political complexion of the General Assembly of 1901 was: Senate-33 Re- publicans, 17 Democrats; House-61 Re- publicans, 39 Democrats.

( 388 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

JUDGE DANIEL P. BALDWIN'S CRITIQUE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

(From the Indiana Law Journal, Volume III, No. 3.)

It is never fair to measure a single judge or a court composed of several judges by their occasional lapses. The Supreme Court of the United States has made some unpardonable mistakes-for example, the Dred Scott decision, the Legal Tender cases and the Income tax case; still he would be a very unjust critic who would on this account ignore its century of splendid work in and by which it has proven itself our greatest constitutional and social bulwark.

Chief Justice Taney was a very great judge, notwithstanding the Dred Scott de- cision. There never has been a time when that great tribunal has been without a great judge, beginning a century ago with John Marshall, and ending today with Mr. Justice Harlan. And it is so in a less de- gree with our Indiana Supreme Court. While it occasionally, as I have pointed out, makes a line of erroneous decisions, still upon the whole it has produced some emi- nent judges, and its work for the last thirty-five years has been an honor both to it and to the State. If it has had no great judges we must remember it takes a vast deal more to make a great judge now than it did seventy-five years ago.

The history of our Supreme Court em- braces two periods; one under the Consti- tution of 1816, and the other under that of 1851. During the first period, when In- diana was in its formative state, it did excellent work, and was graced by such jurists as Blackford, Sullivan, Dewey and Stevens. Its last years were its poorest, and when it closed its work in 1851 the name of Blackford alone redeemed it from obscurity. When it was reconstructed in 1852 its first bench elected that year were fair average men; unfortunately its work deteriorated; so much so that in 1860 it became almost a disgrace to our State. It

is doubtful if in the whole Union there are ten more trashy volumes of reports than from the tenth to the twentieth In- diana, each inclusive. Some of the opinions are not even grammatically expressed. The Court's principal aim seems to have been to dodge as many questions as possible. The word "slipshod" is none too severe to apply to its work from 1857 to 1862. And yet, even in those days when it was at its lowest judicial ebb, it had one very su- perior judge-James L. Worden-who held this position for over eighteen years, and who often wrote, when the spirit moved him, a very able opinion. In 1864 the long- wished-for change came. Under the leadership of James S. Frazer our Supreme Court abandoned its former disreputable practice of dodging, and met difficult ques- tions fairly and squarely. Any one who will compare the reports from the twenty- first to the thirty-first with those from the tenth to the twentieth will fully bear me out in this statement.

James S. Frazer was in many respects a great judge. It is currently reported that he came very near being appointed under Grant the successor of Chief Justice Chase at Washington. Had this occurred he would have proven himself as conspicuous and able a man as Chief Justice Waite. The bench of 1864 was succeeded in 1870 by four Democrats, who kept up the standard set by their immediate Republican prede- cessors. Later on a fifth judge was ap- pointed - Andrew L. Osborn - a very competent man, who only served about eighteen months, not long enough to bring before the public his great ability. In 1876, owing to a scandal that arose, three of the four judges elected in 1870 were compelled to retire, and two new men came in and served for twelve years thereafter who added great credit to the bench. These

( 389 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

were Justices George V. Howk and William E. Niblack, both of them very sound law- yers and eminent judges. In 1880 they were reinforced by two other men of equal ability-William A. Woods and Byron K. Elliott. The Court reached its highest point in 1881, when these four gentlemen, with James L. Worden, constituted the bench. It was then that its best record was made, and it is entirely safe to say that no State court in the Union presented better opinions to the profession than then did the Supreme Court of Indiana. Each judge was a host in himself. Unfortunate- ly, about this time a side court was organ- ized, called the "Commissioners," whose work, owing to the frequent changes in their personnel, whose appointment was influenced more or less by political con- siderations, was somewhat inferior and de- tracted from the reputation of the Su- preme Court proper, which had to assume the burden of some very weak decisions. In 1884 Joseph A. S. Mitchell was elected, who proved a very superior judge. His lamented death cut short a growing repu- tation. From 1882 the changes were pain- fully frequent, but the Court was never without one or more especially strong men, of whom Silas D. Coffey and Timothy E. Howard are examples. The State has never had better judges than these two last-named gentlemen, and it is very un- fortunate that the exigencies of party politics defeated their re-eletion.

Let me pause a moment here and recall the names of the eminent members of the Supreme Court for the last forty years: James L. Worden, James S. Frazer, George V. Howk, William E. Niblack, William A. Woods, Byron K. Elliott, Joseph A. S. Mitchell, Silas D. Coffey and Timothy E. Howard. If they had had a wider sphere they would have all made national reputa- tions. I say "wider sphere," for we must remember that we have five and forty States, each with a highly organized court of last resort; each with local jurispru- dence upon which the best energies of

their respective judges must be exhausted, so that it is seldom, indeed, that such judges acquire reputations beyond State lines.

The court which has just been broken up, and which served from 1893 to 1899, fully maintained the high standard of its predecessors. Leonard J. Hackney and James McCabe were both very hard work- ing, conscientious, able men, and, barring an occasional mistake, deserve the highest commendation. And so with the two pres- ent hold-over judges-Leander I. Monks and James H. Jordan, and while the three new men elected last fall have yet their spurs to win, their high reputations as lawyers make it a certainty that in the very near future they will win them.

In 1891 the Appellate Court was organ- ized. Unfortunately, the terms were too short and the election too uncertain to give its members a fair chance. In less than eight years sixteen different men have been appointed or elected, and only one of them-George L. Reinhard-held his office six years. But he made a reputation upon the Appellate Bench which places him in the front rank of Indiana judges.

Concerning the reports and revisions, in 1860 we had twenty volumes-eight of Blackford and twelve of Indiana-with a wretched slipshod digest and a work on practice quite as bad. Now we have one hundred and seventy-eight volumes of re- ports, with digests, indexes and well-writ- ten text-books by Indiana authors, of whom we have just reason to be proud. The revision of our statutes in 1881 by Frazer, Stotsenburg and Turpie was a mas- terpiece, and had the merit of being con- densed into a single, easily handled, inex- pensive volume, instead of the four bulky, high-priced books, largely built for revenue, commonly called "Burns's Re- vision."

Since 1860 our reports have appeared at the rate of four volumes every year, but the price is so low that no one complains. It is seldom that a volume issues which

( 390 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

does not contain a dozen or more opinions of very great research and ability, but which, so great is the pressure of legal business upon the ordinary practicing law- yer, and so high is the standard of judicial opinions, attract no special attention; whereas, had these same opinions appeared sixty years ago they would have made the judges who wrote them famous all through the United States.

One must needs learn to read between the lines of our reports to see and enjoy the kaleidoscopic views of life of which they are the outcome. Almost every case is a tragedy, at least for the losing party. Here are mingled the record of crimes of the blackest dye, temptations yielded to by inexperience, marriage hopes blasted, rosy speculations nipped in the bud, frauds un- covered, labor's grievances, the poor man's sorrows and the proud rich man's triumphs -each representing a life and death per- sonal struggle. It is amazing if we only stop to reflect what enormous power these

five quiet, unpretending gentlemen wield, and comforting to know how conscientious and considerate they are of the rights of three million people which constitute their bailiwick. Every precaution is taken to get on the right side of a case, and it is the verdict of even the defeated lawyers, of whom there must be one or more in every decision, after the disappointment and smart is over, that upon the whole a large majority of all the cases submitted are correctly decided. So long as judges are men and the personal equation exists, it is impossible but that there should be mistakes made in our courts of last resort.

"Justice freely administered and with- out purchase; completely and without de- nial; speedily and without delay," is a con- stitutional ideal, a "glittering generality" only approximately true ; while justice ulti- mately and expensively attained and often defeated through senseless technicalities is the reality.

Logansport, Ind., Feb. 10, 1899.

( 391 )

[CHAPTER L.] HARMONY PREVAILED IN 1902

MOST OF THE NOMINATIONS WERE MADE BY ACCLAMATION

HE State convention of 1902, T which met in Tomlinson Hall, Indianapolis, June 4, was pre- eminently harmonious from opening to close. There were few contests for any of the places on the ticket, and the best of feeling prevailed over the selec- tions made.

John W. Kern of Indianapolis presided over the convention and Dr. John W. Nus- baum of Auburn served as principal sec- retary.

COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS.

G. V. Menzies, Mt. Vernon.

Royal E. Purcell, Vincennes.

John H. Stotsenburg, New Albany.

David Emig, Columbus.

Isaac R. Strouse, Rockville.

George W. Pigman, Liberty.

Frank B. Burke, Indianapolis.

Hugh Dougherty, Bluffton.

Samuel M. Ralston, Lebanon.

Edward P. Honon, Jasper county.

Dr. M. T. Shively, Marion.

James M. Barrett, Fort Wayne.

Benjamin F. Shively, South Bend.

This committee submitted its report, in which the Democratic party of Indiana was committed to these declarations and recommendations :

Denounces the Republican party for its surrender to an alliance with the trusts; favors suppression and destruction of trusts.

Denounces the Dingley Tariff; favors tariff for revenue only.

Condemns the Republican party for re- fusing to give the Interstate Commerce Commission power to enforce its decisions against discriminations in railroad rates.

Favors the restoration and expansion of the United States merchant marine. Denounces ship subsidy bill.

Opposes Fowler Bank Bill. Condemns its proposal of bank concentration and formation of a great banking trust.

Recognizes as an economic fact the in- crease of standard money arising from the vast increased production of gold, and points to the result consequent upon this increase of circulating medium as a dem- onstration of the truth of the quantitative theory of money.

Condemns and denounces the Philip- pine policy of the present administration.

Favors liberal pensions to soldiers and sailors of the republic and their depen- dents.

Deplores the cruel and wanton destruc- tion of the republics of South Africa.

Favors construction and control of an Isthmian canal by the United States.

Favors the election of United States Senators by popular vote.

Favors freedom of debate in the legis- lative bodies of the State and nation.

Deplores the death of President Mc- Kinley ; denounces anarchy.

Indorses the course of Democratic Rep- resentatives in Congress.

Favors the enactment of legislation in the interest of labor.

Denounces the hypocrisy of the Repub- lican party in assuming to itself credit for the reduction of the State debt.

Favor the principles of local self-gov- ernment.

Opposes granting to the corporations of any other State or States the power to acquire any railroad organized and oper- ating under the laws of the State.

Favors the restoration to the citizens of the State the right to appeal to the Su- preme and Appellate Courts in any civil case within the jurisdiction of a Justice of the Peace, where the amount in contro- versy, exclusive of interest and costs, ex- ceeds fifty dollars.

Condemns the vicious and cruel prosti- tution of the State penal and benevolent institutions by the Republican party to partisan ends.

Condemns the late Republican Legisla- ture of Indiana for its reckless and dan- gerous abuse of legislative power.

Condemns the Republican Governor of Indiana for his refusal to honor the

( 393 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

requisition of the Governor of Kentucky upon regularly returned indictments for murder against fugitives from justice.

The resolutions as submitted were ap- proved with a whoop and a hurrah.

THE TICKET NOMINATED.

Evidently the convention was actuated by a desire to proceed expeditiously in naming candidates for the various offices to be filled at the following election. The Twelfth district presented the name of Otis L. Ballou of Lagrange for Secretary of State. This was quickly followed by Senator Stephen B. Fleming of Fort Wayne proposing the name of Albert Schoonover of Attica. The latter was nominated by a vote of 828 to 719 for Bal- lou. On motion of the latter Schoonover's nomination was made unanimous.

After Mr. Schoonover had delivered his speech of acceptance, Benjamin F. Shively made formal announcement that the com- mittee on resolutions had a supplemental report. This report recommended and urged the appointment of the Hon. Thomas Taggart as chairman of the Dem- ocratic National Committee. Unanimous and enthusiastic approval of the recom- mendation was the convention's response.

Thereupon the following nominations were made by acclamation :

For Auditor of State-James R. Riggs of Sullivan.

For State Treasurer-Jerome Herff of Peru.

For Attorney-General-Senator Wm. E. Stillwell of Sullivan.

For Clerk of the Supreme Court-Adam Heimberger of New Albany.

For Superintendent of Public Instruc- tion Samuel L. Scott of Jeffersonville and James L. Glasscock of Lafayette were placed in nomination. The vote stood: Scott, 829; Glasscock, 718. On motion of the latter Scott's nomination was made unanimous.

For Judge of the Supreme Court, Fifth

district, Timothy E. Howard of South Bend was nominated by acclamation.

For Appellate Judges, John R. East, Wm. H. Bracken and John D. Megee were nominated by acclamation for the South- ern division. For the Northern division four candidates were entered. The three nominated and the vote received by each were: Richard H. Hartford, 1,493 votes; James T. Saunderson, 1,312; Henry G. Zimmerman, 1,404. N. G. Bozarth of Val- paraiso, received 424 votes.

DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE.

1. John J. Nolan, Evansville.

2. Gilbert H. Hendren, 'Bloomfield.

3. James R. Duffin, New Albany.

4. Lincoln Dixon, North Vernon.

5. John G. McNutt, Terre Haute.

6. John D. Megee, Rushville.

7. Joseph T. Fanning, Indianapolis.

8. John A. M. Adair, Portland.

9. A. T. Livengood, Covington.

10. Daniel W. Simms, Lafayette.

11. J. Fred France, Huntington.

12. Stephen B. Fleming, Fort Wayne.

13. James C. Fletcher, Knox. William H. O'Brien, Lawrenceburg, Chairman.

VICE-PRESIDENTS.

John C. Haines, Rockport.

John A. Gunn, Lawrence county.

John Benz, Crawford county.

L. E. Black, Franklin.

George W. Brill, Danville.

U. S. Jackson, Greenfield. James L. Keach, Indianapolis.

John J. Netterville, Madison county.

Walter N. Evans, Hamilton county.

James T. MeCabe, Warren county.

John P. Spurgeon, Peru. Harry Stone, Albion.

Frank E. Hering, South Bend.

ASSISTANT SECRETARIES.

Isham Taylor, Boonville.

William M. Moss, Greene county.

J. R. Simpson, Paoli.

Frank M. Law, Versailles.

John Redmond, Dana.

W. S. Chambers, Newcastle.

Elliott Hooten, Indianapolis.

Lew G. Ellingham, Decatur.

A. B. Crampton, Delphi.

J. B. Faulknor, Michigan City.

George Guyer, Wabash.

C. H. Ramsey, Angola.

William P. O'Neil, Mishawaka.

( 394 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

TAGGART'S ADVENT INTO NA- TIONAL POLITICS.

The action of the State convention of 1902, proposing and urging the selection of Thomas Taggart as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, renders fitting and appropriate the reproduction of the following sketch of his life. It is from the pen of the widely known publicist, Jacob P. Dunn, of Indianapolis.

"It has fallen to the lot of very few, if any, men to exercise as much influence over Indianapolis as Thomas Taggart has exercised, though he is not of one of the old families of the place. He was born in County Monaghan, Ireland, November 17, 1856, a son of Thomas and Martha (Kingsbury) Taggart. The family came to America and located at Xenia, Ohio, in 1861. Here young Thomas received his common school education, and, as a boy, began his business career as clerk in a rail- way hotel and restaurant. His affable manners and good sense made him valu- able to his employers, and he was sent to Garrett, Indiana, in 1874, and to Indian- apolis in 1877. Here he had charge of the Union Depot eating room, and after a few years bought his employers (the Ohmers) out and conducted it himself. It became famous among railroad and traveling men. Dozens of Indianapolis people went there for Sunday dinners, and nobody went habitually who did not become a personal friend of Mr. Taggart.

"Thomas Taggart's popularity brought him the Democratic nomination for county auditor in 1886, with little effort on his part, but in the campaign he showed him- self a phenomenon as a political organizer and worker. His administration of the office was satisfactory to everybody, and although the custom was to give only one term in a four-year office, no one came out for it in 1890, and he was nominated with- out opposition and elected. He had been made Democratic chairman in 1888 anď was made State chairman in 1892 and again in 1894. In 1895 he was elected mayor, and re-elected in 1897 and 1899. During all this time he continued his pri- vate business, and in the meantime left the depot eating room to conduct the Grand Hotel. He later took on the management of the New Denison and the extensive

French Lick establishment. His business capacity is extraordinary, with a remark- ably accurate judgment of men, and a fac- ulty for dispatching work rapidly, he un- doubtedly has disposed of more work, pub- lic, private and political, in the last thirty years than any other man in Indianapolis.

"And he did his work well. Mistakes were made, of course, but not from lack of attention. Mr. Taggart never pretended to be a 'statesman,' but he always heard what the 'statesman' had to say, and made his judgment on the case presented with the addition of such practical information as he saw advisable to secure; and his judg- ment was usually good. Such has been the opinion of his associates, and there have been plenty of them who were competent judges. He was made a member of the Democratic National Committee in 1900, and chairman of that body in 1904 for a term of four years. He has been contin- ued as committeeman from Indiana to the present.

"Like all men of such political promi- nence, Mr. Taggart has his own warm ad- mirers and bitter enemies, with all shades of opinion between them, and the truth well at the center. He has been the object of numerous assaults from newspapers, notably the Hearst papers after his op- position to Hearst's nomination for the presidency. He is charged with being a 'machine politician,' which is true enough -there are few of any other kind-but his adherents have always called him 'the easy boss.' He has always stuck to his friends, even at times when it would have been more judicious to crucify some of them; and probably more of the hostility to him is on account of his friends than on account of himself. Friends and foes alike concede his amiability. He has a good disposition. He does not treasure malice, and there is nothing mean re- corded against him. Political emergencies have at times required him to spear some aspiring countryman, but he always used an anesthetic when possible; and he has always carved the tragedy on his con- science and made reparation afterwards when in his power.

"Mr. Taggart was married on June 16, 1877, to Miss Eva D. Bryant. He is now understood to be quite wealthy, and it may be noted that his money was not made from politics. In addition to a profitable hotel business, he was one of a number of

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 53

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