USA > Indiana > History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916 > Part 55
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 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100 | Part 101 | Part 102 | Part 103 | Part 104 | Part 105 | Part 106 | Part 107 | Part 108 | Part 109 | Part 110 | Part 111 | Part 112 | Part 113 | Part 114 | Part 115 | Part 116 | Part 117 | Part 118 | Part 119 | Part 120 | Part 121 | Part 122 | Part 123 | Part 124 | Part 125 | Part 126 | Part 127 | Part 128 | Part 129 | Part 130 | Part 131 | Part 132 | Part 133 | Part 134 | Part 135 | Part 136 | Part 137 | Part 138 | Part 139 | Part 140 | Part 141 | Part 142 | Part 143 | Part 144 | Part 145 | Part 146 | Part 147 | Part 148 | Part 149 | Part 150 | Part 151 | Part 152 | Part 153 | Part 154 | Part 155 | Part 156 | Part 157 | Part 158 | Part 159 | Part 160 | Part 161
DELEGATES TO NATIONAL CONVENTION.
At Large-John W. Kern, Indianpolis; Edward J. Fogarty, South Bend; Abraham Simmons, Bluffton; John E. Lamb, Terre Haute.
Alternates-Stephen B. Fleming, Fort Wayne; H. W. Moore, Bloomfield; O. H. Downey, Nobles- ville; J. H. Shea, Seymour.
DISTRICT DELEGATES.
1. John W. Boehne, Archibald Stevenson.
2. Joseph Aiken, William B. Robinson.
3. Thomas Hanlon, Perry McCart.
4. C. B. A. Barnes, W. A. Everroad.
5. Clement C. Hurst, Claude G. Bowers.
6. Ed. Smith, James S. Petro.
7. W. W. Spencer, Jerry Mahoney.
8. Charles C. DeHority, Alden Baker.
9. F. W. Macoughtry, J. O. Behymer.
10. Frederick Henoch, Charles Murphy. 11. J. Fred. France, Frank M. Kistler.
12. S. W. Kann, John W. Engemann.
13. George R. Ogden, James C. Fletcher.
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS.
At Large-Adam Heimberger, New Albany, and John W. Spencer, Evansville. Contingent- John B. Faulkner, Michigan City, and E. P. Shockley, Ripley county.
1. John R. Brill. 8. W. H. Harkins.
2. Frank Wampler. 9. A. B. Crampton.
3. E. A. Gladden. 10. W. F. Howat.
4. R. A. Craigmire. 11. Wm. J. Houck.
5. Eb. Henderson. 12. Dan. M. Link.
6. D. W. Andre.
13. Dan. McDonald.
7. T. L. Sullivan.
THE PLATFORM.
The Committee on Resolutions was com- posed of Thomas Duncan, Royal E. Pur- cell, Charles D. Kelso, F. M. Griffith, John S. McFaddin, John D. Deprez, Charles E. Cox, David E. Smith, Robert C. Houston, Lawrence Becker, F. D. Butler, Edward G. Hoffman and William A. McInerny. Its report was, as is quite usual, accepted and ratified. Comprehensively epitomized, it starts out with a most cordial endorsement of the nomination of William Jennings Bryan for the presidency. Then it de- nounces the Republican party for its failure to legislate against trust evils.
Condemns the protective tariff and favors a tariff for revenue only.
Favors the passage of restrictive laws against trusts and combinations of capital.
Condemns both paternalism and com- munism, but endorses the giving of equal opportunities to all and special privileges to none.
( 405 )
HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916
Condemns the Republican party for cen- tralizing all of the powers of government at Washington.
Affirms an income tax as a part of our revenue system.
Favors a postal savings bank.
Condemns favoritism in the deposit of treasury funds.
Favors the election of United States Senators by a direct vote of the people.
Affirms Panama Canal project.
Favors liberal appropriations for the improvement and development of the in- terior waterways.
Opposes both the Aldrich and Fowler bills.
Favors the conciliation of capital and labor.
Opposes the present ship subsidy bill.
Condemns the indiscriminate use of the power of injunction by the federal courts without notice to defendants and without a hearing.
Disapproves of the efforts of the Presi- dent of the United States to dictate the nomination of his successor.
Condemns extravagance and misman- agement of the Republican party.
Condemns the selling of interest-bear- ing bonds in a time of peace.
Favors pure food and drug legislation. Opposes the creation of useless offices, boards and commissions.
Favors law providing for the weekly payment of employes of manufacturing and mining companies.
Favors honesty in public office.
Advocates the enactment of a law guaranteeing to depositors the immediate payment of their deposits in any bank or trust company of the State. Demands competent and qualified bank examiners and officials.
Favors local option law with regard to temperance-city, ward and township.
Favors such legislation as will justly and adequately protect labor-liability laws, boards of arbitration.
Favors a general primary election law applicable to the selection of all candidates, both State and local.
Favors the appointment, by the Gov- ernor, of the State Inspector of Mines on the recommendation of the joint confer- ence between operators and miners each year.
Favors home rule and the repeal of the metropolitan police law.
Endorses John W. Kern for the office of Vice-President of the United States.
THE STATE TICKET NOMINATED.
Governor-Thomas R. Marshall, Columbia City. Lieutenant-Governor-Frank J. Hall, Rushville. Secretary of State-James F. Cox, Columbus.
Auditor-Marion Bailey, Lizton, Hendricks county.
Treasurer-John Isenbarger, North Manches- ter.
Attorney-General-Walter J. Lotz, Muncie.
Superintendent of Public Instruction -- Robert J. Aley, Bloomington.
Reporter Supreme Court-Burt New, North Vernon.
Chief Bureau of Statistics-Patrick J. Kelleher.
Judge of Supreme Court-Moses B. Lairy, Lo- gansport.
Judge of Appellate Court-, Edward W. Felt, Greenfield.
The only contests were over the Gov- ernorship and Lieutenant-Governorship. Both were sharply and vigorously con- ducted. For the Governorship there were five entries: L. Ert Slack, proposed by Congressman Lincoln Dixon ; Rev. Thomas H. Kuhn, presented by the Sixth district; Carroll K. Mccullough, by the Eighth; Samuel M. Ralston, presented by the Ninth; Thomas R. Marshall, presented by the Twelfth, and Colonel Charles Girard Conn, presented by the Thirteenth district.
A newspaper report stated that between the second and third ballot Mr. McCullough released his delegates and it was believed that they would declare for Ralston, "the Taggart man." However, Marshall and Slack began to get many of them. After the third, Kuhn withdrew. Slack's friends tried to get Kuhn's votes, and at the open- ing of the fourth it looked as though they would succeed. The fourth ballot stood : Slack, 580; Ralston, 453; Marshall, 3121; Conn, 24%. The Slack delegation went wild, and then something happened to jar them. Ralston was on his feet, gesturing for silence. The applause stopped sud- denly. Ralston was as white as a sheet of paper, and his hands trembled visibly as he said: "There seems to be consider- able doubt as to the desirability of my
( 406 )
HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916
nomination. In that case I have something to say to you. I do not wish the nomina- tion if all do not think it would help the party, and therefore I ask that I be al- lowed to withdraw." Marshall was nomi- nated on the fifth ballot.
The Indianapolis News thus noted this stirring episode in political strategy and maneuvering :
"Ralston followed Taggart's bidding and withdrew. The delegates controlled by Taggart were switched to Marshall. Slack made gains, but not enough to overcome the Taggart support thrown to his op- ponent. Marshall was nominated. The
convention went wild. Never before had Taggart men and anti-Taggart men so joined in a jollification. Both sides were claiming Marshall for their own. A com- promise candidate had been found with- out either side looking for him. A man on whom all Democrats might unite had sud- denly advanced to the front. None doubted his ability, all knew his strength of char- acter and mind. 'Tom' Marshall-lawyer, one of the best thinkers, best talkers, best campaigners in the Democratic party; one of the ablest and best attorneys in In- diana ; a man whose reputation is regarded as unquestioned; a Democrat who had never taken part in factional quarrels, and a man who represented no interest and had no string tied to him-had been nominated by the Democrats for Governor."
THE BALLOTING.
1 st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Ballot. Ballot. Ballot. Ballot. Ballot.
Slack
278
342
4833
5803
6303
Ralston
344
375
464
453
Marshall
210
239
325.85
312₴ 7193
Kuhn
198
177
40.8
....
McCullough
208
150
....
...
Conn
133
85
593
243
21}
Total number of delegates, 1,371; neces- sary to a choice, 686.
For Lieutenant-Governor were proposed Frank J. Hall of Rushville, Frank E. Her- ing of South Bend, and William P. O'Neill of Mishawaka. Hering led at the start, but he was opposed by his home delega- tion-St. Joseph-and at the start he rose to tell why they were against him. The convention would not hear him, and what
might have won him the nomination had they listened cost him the prize. On the third ballot Hall had the majority, and the nomination was made unanimous be- fore the roll call on the fourth ballot had begun.
STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE.
1. T. D. Scales, Boonville.
2. Alvin Padgett, Washington.
3. Mark L. Storen, Scottsburg.
4. George S. Pleasants, Vevay.
5. Peter M. Foley, Terre Haute.
6. John Osborn, Greensburg.
7. Bernard Korbly, Indianapolis.
8. Lew G. Ellingham, Decatur.
9. Michael E. Foley, Crawfordsville.
10. J. Kirby Risk, Lafayette.
11. John P. Emshwiller, Montpelier.
12. Edward G. Hoffman, Fort Wayne.
13. S. N. Stevens, Plymouth.
U. Stokes Jackson, Greenfield, Chairman. Gilbert H. Hendren, Bloomfield, Vice- Chairman.
THE CAMPAIGN.
The campaign in Indiana was a hotly- contested one from beginning to end. Popular enthusiasm for Bryan showed no signs of abatement. If anything, it had grown stronger. John W. Kern, having been made his running mate, intensified both interest in and popular sentiment for the ticket. Then, Thomas R. Marshall had gained an enviable reputation as a high- minded citizen, an effective campaigner, and pre-eminently a man of the people. There were no faction troubles to disturb the Democratic camp; so everything was propitious and prospects for victory in In- diana had become quite assuring. Condi- tions on the Republican side of the fence were the very opposite. Distrust, divi- sion and discontent were in evidence all over the State. Hanly's performances were such as to create grave apprehension of disaster in the minds of thoughtful party managers in inner and outer circles. These shrewd, sagacious managers knew that the head of the State ticket, James Eli Watson, was in bad odor with formid-
( 407 )
HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916
able elements of the party. Weeks before the verdict of the ballot had been actually rendered these keen, observing individuals understood full well what was in store for the party that for fourteen years had been singularly free from trials and tribula- tions. While there was felt the utmost confidence in the triumph of the national ticket, discerning Republican leaders were quite prepared for the defeat of Watson and some of the other candidates on the State ticket, the loss of the legislature and with it the loss of a United States Senator. While William Howard Taft carried the State by 10,809 over Bryan, Tom Marshall defeated James Eli Watson for Governor by 14,809; Frank J. Hall defeated his Re- publican competitor for the lieutenant- governorship by 1,672, and the learned educator, Robert J. Aley, was chosen to the important office of Superintendent of Public Instruction over Lawrence McTur- nan, Republican. Eleven Democratic con- gressmen were chosen, as against two Re- publicans. The legislature was made Democratic on joint ballot, insuring the election of a Democratic United States Senator to succeed James A. Hemenway.
The full significance of the verdict of the ballot is made apparent by the sub- joined tabular statement :
THE VOTE FOR PRESIDENT.
William H. Taft, Republican .348,993
William J. Bryan, Democrat . .338,262
Prohibition Elector 18,045
Socialist Elector 13,476
Populist Elector 1,193
Socialist-Labor Elector 643
Independent 398
THE VOTE FOR GOVERNOR.
Thomas R. Marshall, Democrat. 348,849
James E. Watson, Republican. .334,040
Sumner W. Haynes, Prohibition. 15,926
Frank S. Goodman, Socialist. 11,948
Fred J. S. Robinson, Populist. 986
Oliver P. Stoner, Socialist-Labor 573
James M. Zion, Independent. 383
VOTE FOR LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR.
Frank J. Hall, Democrat. . 340,577
Fremont Goodwine, Republican .338,905
Abraham Huntsinger, Prohibition. 16,740
Matthew Hollenberger, Socialist. 12,003
Orlando L. Ross, Populist. 1,186
Gustave A. Dryer, Socialist-Labor 601
William F. Keats, Independent. 398
VOTE FOR SECRETARY OF STATE.
Fred A. Sims, Republican. .339,499
James F. Cox, Democrat .. 339,007
William H. Hill, Prohibition. 17,029
Frederick Guy Strickland, Socialist. 12,138
Richard Bonewitz, Populist.
1,188
Allen B. Cobbs, Socialist-Labor 599
John W. Close, Independent. 410
The pluralities by which the other can- didates on the ticket were elected are as here indicated :
-Auditor of State
John C. Billheimer, Republican. 236
-Treasurer of State-
Oscar Hadley, Republican. 837
-Attorney-General-
James Bingham, Republican. 788
-Reporter Supreme Court-
George W. Self, Republican. 171
-Superintendent of Public Instruction Robert J. Aley, Democrat. 762
-Chief of Bureau of Statistics-
John L. Peetz, Republican
710
-Judge Supreme Court-
Quincy A. Myers, Republican 1,044
-Judge Appellate Court-
David A. Myers, Republican.
1,099
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS CHOSEN.
1. John W. Boehne, Democrat .23,054 John H. Foster, Republican. . 22,965
2. William A. Cullop, Democrat. .27,172 John S. Chaney, Republican .24,609
3. William E. Cox, Democrat. . 24,139
John W. Lewis, Republican. 18,966
4. Lincoln Dixon, Democrat. 25,231
James A. Cox, Republican 20,726
5. Ralph W. Moss, Democrat. 28,844
Howard Maxwell, Republican. 27,361
6. William O. Barnard, Republican 27,053
Thomas H. Kuhn, Democrat. . 25,905
7. Charles A. Korbly, Democrat. .34,686
Jesse Overstreet, Republican. .34,003
8. John A. M. Adair, Democrat. 29,259
Nathan B. Hawkins, Republican. 23,890
9. Martin A. Morrison, Democrat 27,540 Charles B. Landis, Republican 26,449
10. Edgar D. Crumpacker, Republican 32,954
William Darroch, Democrat. 26,742
11. George W. Rauch, Democrat. .25,526
Charles H. Good, Republican .24,313
( 408 )
HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916
12. Cyrus Cline, Democrat. 25,051
Clarence L. Gilhams, Republican. .22,706
13. Henry A. Barnhart, Democrat .28,509 Charles W. Miller, Republican 28,229 13. Short Term- Henry A. Barnhart, Democrat. 28,131
Charles W. Miller, Republican. 27,708
The General Assembly for 1909 con- sisted of 27 Republicans and 23 Democrats in the Senate, and 60 Democrats and 40 Republicans in the House.
BENJAMIN F. SHIVELY CHOSEN UNITED STATES SENATOR.
As soon as the fact had become known that the Democrats had gained control of the Legislature, a sharp canvass for the United States Senatorship began. Benja- min F. Shively had previously been twice honored with the Democratic legislative caucus nominations when successors were to be chosen to Senators Fairbanks and Beveridge. While these caucus expres- sions were purely complimentary, they were effectively interpreted as reflecting Democratic sentiment and preference. In addition to this, it was argued that Mr. Shively had been at the service of the party for a quarter of a century, had represented his district in Congress with marked ability for three terms and a fraction of Major Calkins' term, made a notable though unsuccessful race for the Governorship in 1896, and that his thor- ough understanding of the tariff issue ren- dered it especially desirable that he be made a member of the upper branch of the national legislative body. In behalf of the other contestants for this exalted position varying pleas were made. It was freely conceded that all of the aspirants had claims to merit entitling them to favorable consideration. Yet only one could be chosen at this time, and the final
conclusion of the memorable legislative caucus of 1909 was that the coveted honor be conferred upon Mr. Shively. Twenty ballots were required to effect a nomina- tion. How these ballots stood is revealed by the appended tabular statement.
· The gentlemen whose names were pre- sented for caucus consideration were: G. V. Menzies, of Mount Vernon ; Edward G. Hoffman, of Fort Wayne; John E. Lamb, of Terre Haute; L. Ert Slack, of Franklin; Benjamin F. Shively, of South Bend; John W. Kern, of Indianapolis; Ma- son J. Niblack, of Vincennes; Robert W. Miers, of Bloomington ; Albert Zearing, of Indianapolis.
Ballots.
Kern
Shively
Slack
Lamb
Hoffman
Menzies
First
25
14
12
12
11
5
Second
23
15
14
13
10
4
Third
34
15
14
3
11
5
Fourth
28
22
15
3
12
3
Fifth
27
20
19
3
11
3
Sixth
16
22
18
15
9
3
Seventh
23
17
17
10
12
4
Eighth
23
17
17
10
12
4
Ninth
26
25
11
9
8
4
Tenth
14
22
11
23
9
4
Eleventh
26
25
8
9
11
4
Twelfth
26
25
9
9
10
4
Thirteenth
29
23
10
7
10
4
Fourteenth
29
31
4
7
5
4
Fifteenth
31
32
4
10
3
3
Sixteenth
31
36
3
7
2
4
Seventeenth
31
37
3
7
1
4
Eighteenth
31
37
3
7
1
4
Nineteenth
31
37
3
7
1
4
Twentieth
35
42
4
1
On the first and second ballots Mason J. Niblack received three votes and Robert W. Miers one. On the third ballot Miers received one vote. On the fourteenth bal- lot Niblack received one and a half votes and Albert Zearing one vote.
Mr. Shively's formal election by the General Assembly, in joint session, fol- lowed the action of the caucus.
( 409 )
[CHAPTER LIV.]
NOMINATION OF UNITED STATES SENATORS
BY STATE CONVENTION MADE MAIN ISSUE AT DEMOCRATIC GATHERING IN 1910
F
OR years Democratic State plat- forms contained planks de- manding that constitutional provision be made for the elec- tion of United States Senators by direct vote of the people, instead of by action of the vari-
ous State Legislatures. The original proposition to amend the federal consti- tution to that end in view is in history credited to Andrew Johnson of Tennes- see, who, during the early fifties, pre- sented a strong argument in support of that proposition. A partial beginning in that direction was made in Illinois, in 1858, when by action of the Democratic and Republican conventions Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham Lincoln were made opposing candidates for the United States Senate. In conformity with such proce- dure a series of joint discussions was ar- ranged for by the distinguished contest- ants. These discussions, or joint debates, as they were popularly named, attracted widespread attention, not so much on ac- count of the novelty of the new departure as by reason of the extraordinary charac- ter of the arguments adduced by the rival candidates.
Douglas was champion of what was then popularly known as and perhaps derisively termed Squatter Sovereignty. Senator Douglas himself designated it Popular Sovereignty. The idea embodied in it was that the people of a territory should have the right before admission into the Union to determine to their own satisfaction whether or not slavery should legally ex- ist within its borders. In one of his mas- terly speeches Douglas unguardedly made
the declaration that so far as he was con- cerned it mattered not whether slavery was voted up or down-that was a matter the disposition of which rested wholly with the people of such territory. Lin- coln had planted himself upon higher ground. While by no means a fanatic on the slavery question, he had fully per- suaded himself to look upon slavery as an evil-tolerated in States where it had legal existence, but not to be wantonly extended into free territory. With terrific effect he arraigned Douglas for being instrumental in bringing about the repeal of the Mis- souri compromise, under which slavery was specifically excluded from territory then seeking admission into the Union.
Lincoln startled some of his conserva- tive supporters by boldly exclaiming in one of his earnest pleas for humanity and justice that as the Bible set forth the in- disputable truth that a house divided against itself cannot stand, it was equally true that this country could not always be one-half free and one-half slave.
All in all it was a wonderful debate. If senators could at that time have been chosen by popular vote it is difficult, even now, to make a good guess as to which one of these gladiators would have been the popular choice. Under the then existing apportionment Douglas secured a major- ity of the members of the General Assem- bly, and was by it triumphantly re-elected ; but it has all along been claimed and not denied that the aggregate vote for those members of the legislature who voted for Lincoln was about 4,000 in excess of the vote cast for members who voted for
( 411 )
HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916
Douglas. However that may be, both Douglas and Lincoln were nominated for the presidency in 1860.
The Democratic party being split in two on the slavery question, the election of Lincoln to the presidency was a foregone conclusion. What followed is a matter of history, known to all. There is no doubt about the great debate having proved an inestimable benefit to both Douglas and Lincoln. It had a broadening effect on both, and in course of time brought them into close fellowship. Chiefly with a view . to letting the South know that Lincoln could count on being supported and upheld by Douglas and his followers, the "Little Giant" hastened to the side of Lincoln on the occasion of his inauguration as Presi- dent of the Republic and held his hat while with uplifted hand was registered a sol- emn oath to protect and defend the con- stitution of the United States under any and all circumstances.
There is something about the Douglas- Lincoln debate that renders it to many a very attractive political episode. Narra- tives thereof, popularly and fascinatingly presented, doubtless had much to do with popularizing senatorial election by direct vote of the people. The ablest argument ever adduced in advocacy of its adoption was that of Judge Jeremiah S. Black of Pennsylvania in a letter written to the author of this book and formally promul- gated by the newly organized Democratic State Editorial Association at its first meeting on the 8th of January, 1881. And by far the ablest argument against the direct election scheme was that formu- lated by Senator Hoar of Massachusetts. His objections were never brushed aside by any one who ventured to discuss the merits or demerits of the proposition. Generally they were regarded as unan- swerable, hence they remain unanswered to this very day. Whether for or against the change, since fully consum- mated, it may be stated with utmost posi-
tiveness that no conspicuous or even notable improvement is anywhere visible in changing from legislative to popular election of United States Senators. Where there is an alert electorate, good men are chosen. Where sluggishness and indiffer- ence prevail, senators of that type are in- variably the product.
So many pronouncements in favor of more direct methods of choosing United States Senators having been put forth in conventions and other assemblies, and re- echoed by the press, Governor Marshall reached the conclusion that some step in that direction ought to be taken by In- diana. Accordingly, one day, he fulmi- nated a proposition that at the next Demo- cratic State convention a candidate for United States Senator be put in nomina- tion, such action to be considered binding on the General Assembly. The suggestion stirred up quite a feeling throughout the State and elicited much spirited comment, favorable and unfavorable. At Indian- apolis the evident purpose of at least one conspicuous newspaper was to create sen- timent of irreconcilable hostility. The Governor was unctuously patted on the back, while Thomas Taggart was merci- lessly lambasted as the chief opponent of the Marshall proposition. Some friction caused by the legislative caucus of 1909 in coming to a conclusion as to who de- served to be chosen Senator was vividly brought to mind. An interview by John W. Kern, animadverting with some asper- ity on the "perfidy" of Marion county leg- islators who underhandedly contributed to Mr. Kern's defeat, was industriously util- ized to discredit the old caucus system and to popularize the proposed new departure. Had the discussion been confined to the merits of the issue itself there would have been absolutely no cause for acrimonious discussion or engendering a spirit of bit- terness. It was assumed that because Thomas Taggart opposed the new method he was intent on capturing the next sena-
( 412 )
HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916
torship by the active operation of his ma- chine, the remnants of which, according to his subsequent pronouncement in the convention, had been unceremoniously dumped upon the scrap heap. Disagree- ments and animosities thus created are the direct result of the pernicious personality so often maliciously injected into political activities. Mr. Taggart had as clear a right to oppose the innovation as Governor Marshall had to champion it. Both may justly be credited with having simply fol- lowed their convictions without being gov- erned by selfish or unworthy motives.
A hue and cry was raised over the action of the State Central Committee in arrang- ing that this vexatious question be dis- posed of before the convention proceeded to the performance of the functions for which it had been convened. Instead of having been an unscrupulous device of a "desperate political boss," it turned out to be a wise procedure and resulted in benefi- cently simplifying matters.
So much by way of preface to the re- cording of the doings of one of the most interesting State conventions ever held in Indiana. The convention was held in Tomlinson Hall, Indianapolis, April 28, 1910. What occurred then and there was thus reported in the Indianapolis News of that date :
"After a dramatic debate and intense excitement, the Democratic State conven- tion adopted this morning the Governor's plan for the nomination of a United States Senator. The fight was close and uncer- tain to the last, the final vote standing 8881% to 8581/2, a majority of thirty votes.
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.