USA > Indiana > Public men of Indiana : a political history, 1890-1920, v. 2 > Part 7
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
The Circuit Court at Marion County, in which the case was brought, sustained his contention and enjoined the State officials and the latter appealed
106
to the Supreme Court of the State. The Supreme Court at that time was composed of three Demo- cratic and two Republican judges. Judges John W. Spencer, Douglas Morris and Charles E. Cox were the Democrats, and Leander J. Monks and Quincy A. Myers the Republicans.
The court decided that the proposed constitution and the methods of its adoption as provided by the legislature was not within legislative power or, in short, that only the people themselves can initiate such powers and make constitutions, and that they had delegated no such powers to their representa- tives as they had attempted to exercise.
There was, however, a dissenting opinion written by Judge Morris and concurred in by Judge Spencer. The majority opinion was written by Judge Cox and concurred in by Judges Monks and Myers. Both opinions are most interesting and instructive, exhibit great research into legis- lative, judicial and other history, and great learn- ing in respect to the principles and powers of gov- ernment. They will be found in Volume 178 of the Supreme Court Reports under the title of Ellingham v. Dye.
It was well understood that Governor Marshall was the proponent of this new constitution that became termed as the "Marshall Constitution," and some of those who opposed his views went so far in their condemnations as to quote him as a fol- lower of Chief Justice Marshall in his political views, and in the majority opinion there are some sentences that might be construed as an expression
107
of the belief of the court that desperate, if not despotic, powers were being resorted to in the attempt to foist it upon the people, such as the following: "In that remote and despotic period, when the Sovereign King chartered rights and liberties to his subjects-the people-all govern- mental powers were assumed to be his by Divine right. In him were combined the legislative, execu- tive and judicial powers of government. He was the law giver, interpreter and enforcer. On this continent we came to the time when the people by revolution took upon themselves sovereignty, and in exercising supreme political power chartered governments by written constitutions."
The legislative enactment that the majority of the court held invalid did not in its terms deprive the individual voters of the State of the last word upon the question. of approving or disapproving of the proposed constitution; upon the contrary, it expressly reserved that right to them and re- quired that it should receive a majority of all the votes to give it any effect whatever. It could well be questioned whether the court in annulling it did not extend its jurisdiction to the settlement of a political question, and whether by its decision de- priving the people of the right to vote upon it did not go as far in the impairment of their rights and privileges as the legislature had.
108
CHAPTER XVI
T AFT and Roosevelt were rival candidates for the Republican nomination for president in 1912. Taft was nominated. The supporters of Roosevelt withdrew from the convention and formed what they called a National Progressive party and nominated Roosevelt for president and Hiram Johnson, of California, for vice-president.
The methods that had been resorted to in the selection of delegates from the Southern States, who were nearly all for Taft, were the basis of complaints by the friends of Roosevelt, who sought to seat contesting delegates, but were ruled against by the Committee on Credentials and its decision was confirmed by the convention. The Repub- lican party organizations in the Southern States had availed themselves of the precedents that the "Carpet bag governments" had provided for the returning boards before the presidential election of 1876, and were a legitimate Republican inher- itance that had not been denied in any preceding conventions.
The platform of the new National Progressive party was so extreme in its utterances as to virtually condemn the representative system of government and appealed strongly to socialistic sentiment. It demanded a re-establishment of
109
:
democracy and that there be given the people more immediate and fuller control of their parties and their government, such as popular elections of senators, nominations by direct primaries, popular elections of delegates to national conventions, even the popular choice of presidential candidates, and more general introduction of the referendum and recall. It also championed a reduction of the tariff and favored a system of reclamation of overflowed lands, the construction of inland waterways, and the conservation of natural resources.
The campaign that followed consisted mainly of the abuse of each other by these hostile camps of former Republicans. The Democrats nominated Woodrow Wilson for president and Thomas R. Marshall, of Indiana, for vice-president on a plat- form that was moderate in its declarations of Democratic principles in comparison with the Pro- gressive platform, but the latter caught no great number of Democratic votes. The result of the election was at no time in doubt. The almost equal division of Republican voters insured the Demo- cratic success that followed.
In Indiana the Democrats elected a full State ticket, and the entire delegation in Congress. The elected members of the legislature were 95 Demo- crats, 4 Republicans, and 1 Progressive. The Senate consisted of 42 Democrats and 8 Republi- cans who held over from the previous election. County offices were filled by Democrats in every county of the State for the first time in its history. Wilson and Marshall received the electoral vote of
. 110
the State in accordance with their enormous popu- lar plurality. Roosevelt and Johnson received 162,000 votes, Taft and Sherman 151,000.
The Democrats were again successful in the elec- tion of 1914, re-electing their State ticket by a greatly reduced plurality, and eleven of the thirteen congressmen. Merrill Moores, of Indianapolis, and William R. Wood, of Lafayette, were the only Republicans elected and have been re-elected at every election since. In the counties the Pro- gressive voters had drifted back into the Repub- lican fold so that county officers were elected as they had been before 1912.
And this drift continued so that in 1916 the greater part of the Progressives were again march- ing under the Republican banner and name, but during these years of Republican disaster the powers of the Republican organization continued to be held by what was termed the "stand pat" crowd. In Republican political parlance the term "standing pat" was first heard of and adopted about 1896, when it was proposed to reduce the high tariff rates, when the high protectionists declared they would "stand pat" on the rates as they existed. The appropriateness of the application of the term is manifest and some people put card gamblers and tariff gamblers in the same respectable class.
In 1916 the Republicans and Progressives showed a disposition to "get together" under the Republican banner and to be of a compromising spirit. The "cohesive power of public plunder" that rules the office-seeking class was not without
111
F
its effect, and the sickening sight of Democrats holding nearly all the public offices was more than they could stand. The cry for a reunion went up from all quarters and at the Republican National Convention, before which there was no avowed can- didate, the selection of the candidates least objec- tionable to either Progressive or "stand patters" . were Charles Evans Hughes for president and Charles W. Fairbanks for vice-president, both of the "stand pat" variety. Hughes was a man of great ability and respectability, had been twice gov- ernor of New York and was serving as a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States by the appointment of President Taft. Upon the nomina- tion being tendered to him he immediately resigned the high judicial position he held and at once en- tercd into a vigorous campaign for the presidency, making a tour of the country from Maine to Cali- fornia, making speeches in every State. He re- ceived a majority of the popular and the electoral vote of Indiana and the Republicans made a clean sweep for their State ticket and members of Con- gress. The members of Congress elected and again re-elected in 1918 were John S. Benham, Oscar E. Bland, James W. Dunbar, Richard N. Elliott, Louis W. Fairchild, Andrew J. Hickey, Milton Kraus, Oscar R. Luhring, Merrill Moores, Fred S. Purnell, Everett Sanders, Albert H. Vestal and William R. Wood. In 1916 Thomas Taggart was nominated by the Democrats to be United States senator to succeed himself. He had been appointed by Governor Ralston when Senator Shively died
112
to serve until the next election when the people should decide who should fill out the unexpired term. His Republican opponent was James E. Watson. Harry S. New had defeated Watson in the Republican primary election in 1916. The death of Shively enabled Watson to become the candidate to fill the vacancy and he defeated Tag- gart, and New was also elected. Watson was again elected over Taggart in 1920 to serve until 1927.
The State candidates of the Democrats who were successful in 1914 were Homer L. Cook for secre- tary of state; Dale J. Crittenberger, auditor of state; George A. Bittler, treasurer of state; Richard M. Milburn, attorney general; J. Fred France, clerk of the Supreme Court; Charles A. Great- house, superintendent of public instruction; Ed- ward Barrett, state geologist; Moses B. Lairy, Supreme judge. For judges of the Appellate Court, Edward W. Felt, Milton B. Hottel, Fred- erick S. Caldwell, Joseph G. Ibach, Frank M. Powers.
Samuel M. Ralston was elected governor in 1912, as already mentioned, over Albert J. Bev- eridge, Progressive, and Winfield T. Durbin, Republican. William P. O'Neill was elected lieutenant governor over Frederick Landis, Pro- gressive, and Thomas T. Moore, Republican. The Democrats elected to the other offices, in 1912, were Lew G. Ellingham, secretary of state; Wil- liam H. O'Brien, auditor of state; William H. Vollmer, treasurer of state; Thomas M. Honan, attorney general; Philip Zoercher, reporter of the
113
Supreme Court; Charles A. Greathouse, superin- tendent of public instruction; Thomas W. Brolley, chief, Bureau of Statistics. Judges of the Supreme Court, John W. Spencer and Richard K. Erwin. For Appellate judge, Joseph H. Shea.
The members of Congress elected in 1912 were Charles Lieb, William A. Cullop, William E. Cox, Lincoln Dixon, Ralph W. Moss, Finley H. Gray, Charles A. Korbly, J. A. M. Adair, Martin A. Morrison, John B. Peterson, George W. Rauch, Cyrus Cline, Henry A. Barnhart, and all were re- elected in 1914 except Korbly and Peterson.
114
CHAPTER XVII
J ENNINGS County became well known to peo- ple of other parts of the State for its many contests between the towns of Vernon and North Vernon for the location of its courthouse and county seat. It also produced a number of men who be- came well known throughout the State as well as at home. John G. Berkshire, a Republican, was for a number of years judge of the Circuit Court and became a Supreme judge. Jeptha D. New, Democrat, served many years as Circuit judge and was nominated for judge of the Supreme Court in 1892, but died before the election, and Leonard J. Hackney, of Shelbyville, was substituted as the candidate and elected Alonzo Greene Smith be- came attorney general of the State. John Over- myer was a member of the legislature and proni- nent in State politics. His brother, David B. Over- myer, was an able lawyer and moved to Topeka, Kansas, where he became prominent in Democratic State politics.
The names of Webster and Lincoln Dixon would indicate a Whig and Republican ancestry, but nevertheless they both became active in Democratic politics. Webster, the older brother, was an elo- quent stump speaker and canvassed the State in 1874 and 1876, but failing health caused his retire-
115
ment. Lincoln Dixon served eight terms in Con- gress as appears by the foregoing record. He was a member of the important Ways and Means Committee. He was active and successful in the general law practice before election to Congress and resumed his activities when he retired from Con- gress. His name is frequently mentioned as a prob- able Democratic candidate for governor at the next general election in 1924.
The name of President Lincoln is never spoken or written but that touching events in his life are brought to the mind. Of the many that have been written about by his biographers none are more descriptive of his kindness of heart than was one once related in the hearing of the writer by Thomas A. Hendricks.
On one occasion while he was United States senator a poor, friendless woman called upon him and told him the story of her woe and the cause of her coming to Washington. Her husband had been arrested as a spy, condemned by a court- martial and sentenced to be shot. She desired to sce President Lincoln and make a personal appeal to him to save her husband's life and begged Sen- ator Hendricks to go with her and secure an in- terview with the President, which he did, taking her to the executive mansion. She told her simple story to the President, assured him that her hus- band was innocent of intentional wrong, that his life was dearer to her than all else in the world, and implored him to grant pardon now as he him- self hoped for mercy and pardon on the last day.
116
The President's heart was moved and his eyes were filled with tears. The senator could not suppress his own emotions. Without the executive mansion just across the Potomac were the contending armies of the great rebellion. Thunders of columbiads could almost be heard in the city of Washington. A million of men were in the field in deadly con- flict. But the commander in chief of our armies and this distinguished senator, afterwards elected vice-president of the United States, were so imbued with the finer instincts of their nature as to give heed even in the midst of war to the plaintive story of a heart-stricken wife pleading for the life of her husband. She did not plead in vain. A pardon was immediately granted and the two great states- men, President and senator, and the little woman wept together in joy.
117
CHAPTER XVIII
A LBERT J. BEVERIDGE was probably the first man in the United States to be elected to the United States Senate without previous legis- lative experience and without having held any other public office.
Without material assistance from any source, but with means that he himself earned, he acquired his education at Asbury, now DePauw University, from which he graduated with high honors. Before his twenty-first year he had held many audiences "spell bound" by his eloquence and convincing courses of reasoning in publie addresses.
He engaged in the law practice at Indianapolis very soon after becoming of age and was quite suc- cessful.
He was called upon to engage in political cam- paigns as a political speaker as early as 1884 and took an active part in all of them until 1898, fol- lowing which, in 1899, he was elected to the United States Senate by the members of the Indiana legis- lature.
In the campaign of that year and previously he had spoken in a number of legislative districts that elected Republican representatives, but did not dis- close his intention to become a candidate for senator to any of them, if he had then any such intention,
118
and only announced his candidacy a few days be- fore the Republican party caucus met. His can- didacy was not regarded as a very serious matter by other candidates, or in fact by any one, but when it came to voting in the caucus many members whose election had been brought about in part because of his cantpaign speeches remembered him and to the surprise of the party organization and people gen- erally he was nominated on an early ballot, defeat- ing many much older men who sought the honor. He was not then nor has he been at any time since a favorite with the powers that manipulate party machinery.
Before his election he had become known in literary circles in parts of the country as the author of works of literary merit, many volumes of which he has written. After his election, when not devot- ing his time and studies to legislation and related subjects, he continued his work as an author.
After retiring from the senate he wrote the life of Chief Justice Marshall that has recently been published. Whether it was in preparation while he was in the senate is not known to the writer of this article, but it is probably the outgrowth in great part of his previous views on principles of government that were confirmed and expanded as a consequence of his senatorial experience. The work is a masterly production and in the estima- tion of this writer the book is more deserving of admiration than its subject. The Marshall doc- trines are far from being in harmony with the pro- gressive views of the Progressive party with which
119
Senator Beveridge became identified, and he has in a measure been the subject of political crucifixion because of them. Centralized power in government is patterned after in the governing forces of party organizations, and it is to this party power that the defeats of the senator when he ceased to bow to it are chargeable.
The Progressive party of 1912, headed by Roose- velt and to which Beveridge gave his support and was its candidate for both governor and senator, condemned almost everything for which the old Federalist party to which Hamilton, Marshall and that school of statesmen belonged stood for, and it went out of existence, never to appear again, dur- ing the presidential term of John Adams, who appointed Marshall as chief justice.
The class of statesmen who composed it freely predicted and earnestly hoped that the American republic would be a failure, and were in entire sym- pathy with a system of government that did not rest on the consent of the governed, and preferred one based on wealth and aristocratic forces.
Beveridge was the Progressive candidate for gor- ernor in 1912 and received 166,000 votes.
Governor Durbin was the Republican candidate and received 142,000 votes, while Ralston, the Democratic candidate, received 282,000 votes.
In 1914 Beveridge was the Progressive candi- date for United States senator against Hugh Th. Miller, the Republican nominee. The vote stood 226,000 for Miller and 109,000 for Beveridge, while Benjamin F. Shively, Democrat, received 273,000.
120
-
--------
While serving in the senate Beveridge was known as an insurgent or progressive. In fact, he was the leader of the group that would not follow the reac- tionary or "stand pat" senators who adhered to the older order of things. He favored the people's direct participation in affairs of government, the direct primary and other measures that aimed at the destruction of the party caucus system and that recognized the principle that this is a government of the people, by the people, for the people, as dis- tinguished from the doctrines of Marshall that have recently led to the enactment of so many laws cen- tralizing much greater powers in the Federal Gov- ernment than existed before the World War. Many of these may have been justified purely as war measures, but their enactment did not cease when it closed. Upon the contrary, they have so greatly multiplied that many notes of warning about their effect are now being heard from many sources.
The last United States senator from Indiana that was elected by the legislature as a caucus nominee was in 1909, when Benjamin F. Shively was elected over John W. Kern, whom he had defeated in the caucus. The first choice for election by the people was in 1910. At the Democratic convention of that year it was proposed by Governor Marshall that it should indicate its choice for a United States senator and declare him its nominee. The proposi- tion brought forth a vigorous opposition. Among others who argued against it was Senator Shively, who declared that such a nomination would be a
121
9
usurpation of the power of the people and reminded the convention that for years the Democratic party had declared for the election of United States sen- ator by direct vote and said, "Let the candidates go before the people of this State, let them assist in the battle."
Samuel M. Ralston also supported this view, but by a close vote it was decided that the conven- tion make the nomination. A number of candi- dates were proposed and balloted for and the nomination finally went to John W. Kern. The selection of Beveridge by the Republican party in 1910 for a third term was made and they were pitted against each other in a battle before the people, but did not engage in any joint debates as did Douglas and Lincoln in earlier days.
The divisions in the Republican party that had appeared so prominently in 1908 tended to widen in 1910 and Kern's popular vote over Beveridge was about ten thousand. At the same election the Democrats were successful in electing their State ticket and members of Congress. Lewis G. Elling- ham was elected secretary of state; William H. O'Brien, auditor of state; William H. Voll- mer, treasurer of state; Thomas M. Honan, attorney general; James Frederick France, clerk of the Supreme Court; Charles A. Greathouse, state superintendent of public instruction; Thomas W. Brolley, state statistician, or chief of Bureau of Statistics as the office is called; Edward Barrett. state geologist; Douglas Morris and Charles E. Cox for judges of the Supreme Court; Milton B.
122
Hottel, Edward W. Felt, Andrew A. Adams, Moses B. Lairy and Joseph G. Ibach for judges of the Appellate Court. The same Democrats were elected to Congress as at the previous election, and Finley P. Gray, of the Richmond district, was added to the list.
John W. Kern has been the subject of so many biographical sketches during his many political campaigns and while in the senate that but brief mention of his personal and public career will be here attempted. He was born at the village of Alto in Howard County in 1849, was educated in the public schools of that county in the primary branches of education, but sought higher education and completed a classical course in the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and then passed into the law department of the same institution, where he graduated before he reached his twenty-first year. In 1869 he was admitted to the bar at Kokomo, where he practiced for a number of years. In 1884 he was nominated by the Democratic State Convention for reporter of the Supreme Court and elected for a term of four years and moved to Indianapolis while holding that office, and at the close of his term began the law practice there and continued in it until his election as United States senator and meanwhile was elected State senator from Marion County and was city attorney of Indianapolis. He was active in all political cam- paigns from 1868 until his death which occurred soon after his term ended as United States senator. He was much sought after in all parts of the State
123
1
٠ ٨
to make campaign speeches. He was an able debater of public questions and always had atten- tive listeners to his speeches which were both witty and profound. His nomination and race for vice- president, with Bryan, brought him into promi- nence throughout the United States, and upon en- tering the senate he was at once placed in the leader- ship on the Democratic side of the chamber.
124
٣
CHAPTER XIX
W TAYNE County, largely populated by Quak- ers, famous for its yearly meetings of that sect at Richmond, and ever reliable in returning Republican majorities at general elections, was not as harmonious in the political sentiments of its peo- ple in early days, preceding the formation of the Republican party, as in later years. They were so divided in opinions on the subject of slavery that on the occasion of a visit to Richmond in 1842 by Henry Clay, then a candidate for the presidency, the opponents of slavery declared it to be their pur- pose to present a petition to him asking him to free the slaves that he was the owner of. His sup- porters deelared that to do so would be to insult him, but the opponents persisted in their determina- tion and the petition was presented to him, which he answered in these words that are reproduced from a contribution to the Indianapolis News in 1921:
"I know the predominant sentiment in the free states is adverse to slavery ; but, happy in their own exemption from whatever evils may attend it, the great mass of our fellow-citizens there do not seck to violate the Constitution or to disturb the har- mony of these states. I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the institution of slavery.
125
I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that we have derived it from the parental govern- ment and from our ancestors. I wish that every slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors. But here they are and the question is how may they best be dealt with? If a state of nature existed, and we were about to lay the founda- tions of society, no man would be more strongly opposed than I should be to the incorporation of the institution of slavery among its elements. But there is an incalculable difference between the orig- inal formation of society and a long-existing or- ganized society, with its ancient laws, institutions, and establishments. Now, great as I acknowledge, in my opinion, the evils of slavery are, they are nothing, absolutely nothing, in comparison with the far greater evils which would inevitably flow from a sudden, general and indiscriminate emancipation. *
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.