Decatur Daily Democrat, Volume 6, Number 133, Decatur, Adams County, 3 June 1908 — Page 3

MARSHALL SOUNDS KEYNOTE OE CAMPAIGN

The Democratic Nominee for Governor Turns on the Dogs of War

GREAT PLEA FOR CONSTITUTION

The Issues of the Campaign Eloquently Portrayed

A MAN OF IDEALS The Democratic Platform and Democratic Principals Discussed * BASIS OF CAMPAIGN His Splendid Address Should Be Read by Every Patriotic Hoosier Richmond, Ind., June 3. —Amid cheering 'from ithe hundreds of Wayne county and Sixth district Democrats for Democratic success, Thomas R. Marshall. Democratic nominee for governor, at the Jefferson banquet in Richmond's big Coliseum, last night, sounded the party’s slogan and let loose the war dogs for the battle next November. There was a pronounced optimistic vein in all the speeches. The women of the Penny Club provided the banquet. Covers were spread for 400. Besides the Wayne county and Sixth district Democrats members of the party fropa all sections of the state were present, including State Chairman “Stokes” Jackson of Greenfield and a number of delegates to the national convention at Denver. Mr. and Mrs. Marshall arrived at 3 o’clock in the afternoon and were met at the Pennsylvania station by a reception committee. They were escorted to the home of Dr. F. S. An-

What is a Democrat? BY THOMAS R. MARSHALL The man who believes inherently in his fellow man, Abraham Lincoln, that GoO never made a man good enough o be man’s master without that mans consent; wopu s is le liberate judgpassionate opinion of the public, but rather in t e w jj o ment of his fellow citizens; who believes in local del- governmant^ who thinks that as little should be ceded away from the m hip ca n is necessary for the public good; who thinks that what the. owns hip ca look after, it should look after; what the county can look after, it should look after; what the state can look after, it look after wh lieves that we are a people living under a of ‘ governmentconstitution has provided for three coordinate branchy g business the executive, the legislative and the judicial; who thinks thsUhe bus of the executive is to administer the iaws an ro the the legislative his views upon public question, who that rec . business of the legislative to enact the laws° r although such conognizes the duty of the court to g C °^ rUe d person an appeal to the struction may work injury, leaving ; t h a]ike ln legislative for redress; who thin h or by indi . legislative matters; who does not or authority at the infection, a legislative body has any g . which working to the stance of any man, or set of men > ‘ t 0 the detriment of another benefit of one man or set of men, w whether he votes man or set of men, such a man, regardless of th fact as the Republican or Democratic ticket, is, at heart, what P denominate, a Democrat. '**

derson, where they were entertained. Early in the evening they rode in an automobile and were shown the interesting places in the city. While the banquet was in progress a reception and dinner were tendered Mrs. Marshall at the Westcott hotel by Mrs. Richard Schillinger, wife of Mayor Schillinger; Mrs. Webster Parry, Mrs. Charles Beck, Mrs. Clifton W. Merrill, Mrs. Pettis A. Reid, Mrs. Thomas H. Kuhn, and Miss Edna Johnson. At the Coliseum the guests were seated at the banquet tables shortly after 6 o’clock. The crowd gathered outside and at 7:30 the public was admitted to the balconies and galleries that extended along three sides of the building. The auditorium had been decorated with long streamers and large festoons of the national colors. Palms and ferns were placed around the walls, at the banquet tables and on the speakers’ platform. The tables where the candidates sat were placed on an elevated platform. Not in years have the Democrats of Wayne county, one of the Republican strongholds of the state, shown as much enthusiasm over an event of this kind. Special interest centered in the address of Mr. Marshall, as he laid the basis for the Democratic campaign in Indiana this year. Mr. Marshall was last on the program. His subject was “The Campaign of 1908.” Chosen by the Voice of my party to be its candidate for Governor, it becomes encumbent upon me to fully present to the voters of the state such arguments as I may truthfully advance, why the Democratic party should be returned to power. In accordance with the constitution of this state, the governor is only its chief executive, and has no right to coerce or compel the legislative or judicial branches to do anything which they may not desire to do. The right of veto which was given to him Is valueless unless he can convince the legislature by his veto that it has erred in its judgment, because an act vetoed

by him can at once be repassed by a majority of the members of both branches acting separately. Aside from his clerical duty, the transacting necessary business with the officers of * — ■ A.'K. THOMAS R. MARSHALL. the government, obtaining knowledge as to the manner in which they are conducting their offices, granting reprieves, commutations and pardons, and filling vacancies in office, his duty is summed up in the general statement that he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. It is not said that he shall make the laws or compel the legislature to make them. His Is only an advisory power, and he ought not to compel the legislature to pass a law over his veto unless that law is clearly unconstitutional or »o vicious that by his veto he can convince the legislature of Its error. It is not said that he shall execute the laws, but that he shall take care that they be faithfully executed. The duty of executtqj the law abides in the courts of this state, and It seems to me that the governor has fully discharged his duty to the people when he sees to it that the proper officials promptly prosecute all actions and promptly endeavor to punlsl all infractions of the law. The law must always be administered in the courts. Public opinion may be manufactured upon the platform and through the press. That public opinion may be crystallized by the legislature into law, but the law cannot be enforced either upon the platform or In the press. It must be enforced in the courts of this state. To try men outside of the courts is only productive of angry discussion and accomplishes no good purpose. While this is true, a candidate is expected to truthfully discuss such public questions as seem of moment to him, al*

though in the final analysis he may have no right to enforce his views. The Form of Our Government Such is the form of our government that national and state campaigns are held at the same time, and the eleo tions occur upon the same day. So, although it is true that they have but little to do with each other in theory, in practice they seem to be so interwoven as to require at the hands of candidates the discussion of both state and national issues. I recognize the truthfulness of those who keep close watch upon political affairs, in making the statement that, after all, party platforms in the past have had too little to do with the result of elections. I am sorry that this has been so; that the platform has been used only as a place from which to address the citizen and appeal to his pride, his and his prejudice, instead of being used for the pur pose for which such party machinery was Intended. I am also sorry that platforms have been used like those of railroad trains—not to stand on, but just to get in on. It is not, however, true that what has always been must inevitably always be. A lawyer brought from the privacy of his law office into the political arena, I am to be pardoned if I say that from my personal standpoint, I trust and believe that the Democracy of Indiana not only said in convention what it meant, but also meant what it said. In the hope and with the belief that this year is to witness the presentation of certain questions squarely to the people, and with an abiding confidence that the people will settle these questions upon principle, I desire to address myself to the reasons which appeal to me for a return of Democracy to power. Democracy vs. Aristocracy. In what I shall have to say in the way of criticism, it must be remem-

bered that 1 am criticizing measures, not men. As a man may say, “I have been” and “I am,” but God alone can say "I will be,” so a man may say, "I have not done certain things,” "I am not doing them,” but God alone can tell whether I will do them. Fairness to a political opponent demands that you take into consideration his point of view. The lawyer knows that most all men are all right from the neck down. The difficulty is that men use their intellects for the purposes of persuading themselves that certain courses of conduct are right. Looking at these things through their own particular spectacles, they deem certain courses of conduct both in legislative and administrative affairs, to be entirely fit and proper. They are not, therefore, to be criticized or blamed. An effort should be made instead of criticizing them, to get the voters of the state to not put on the spectacles through which these men look at public affairs. Aside from mere environment, there is also a difference in the mental makeup of men. From the beginning, while all men have desired liberty, some have desired it for the entire race, while others have desired liberty for themselves and slavery for those who did not agree with them. The line of demarkation is not now necessarily a party line. The man who believes inherently in his fellow-man, who thinkswith Abraham Lincoln, that God never made a man good enough to be another man’s master without that man’s consent, who puts his trust, not in the passionate opinion of the public, but rather in the calm and deliberate judgment of his fellow-cltlsens, who believes in local self-government, who thinks that as little should be ceded away from the individual citizen as is necessary for the public good, who thinks that what the township can look after it should look after; what the county can look after, it should look after; what the state can look after, it should look after; who believes that we are a people living under a written constitution; that this constitution has provided for three coordinate branches of government: The executive, the legislative and the judicial; who thinks that the business of the executive is to administer the laws and from time to time give to the legislative his views upon public questions; who thinks that it is the business of the legislative to enact the laws for the people and who recognizes the duty of the court to construe those laws although such construction may work injury, leaving to the Injured person an appeal to the legislative for redress; who thinks that ail men are to be treated alike in legislative matters; who does not admit that either directly or by indirection, a legislative body has any right, power or authority at the instance of any man or set of men, to enact any law which, working to the benefit of one man or set of men will work to the detriment of another man or set of men; such a man, regardless of the fact as to whether he votes the Republican or the Democratic ticket, is, at heart, what I am pleased to denominate a Democrat. Upon the other hand, that man who thinks God made some men better than other men, endowed them with larger civil rights, made them by nature commanders and rulers; who believes in a strong government, compactly managed by one or by a few men; who thinks that the destiny of the people may not be safely left in a people's hands; who looks upon legislatures as a means of obtaining advantage over his fellow-men; that man. whether he vote the Democratic or Republican ticket, is one whom I denominate as an aristocrat. The conflict between aristocracy and democracy is ever old yet ever new. It will not cease to be until the lion and the lamb shall He down together or the lamb shall Me down inside the lion. Aristocracy has had many manifestations

in the ages gone by. It proclaimed the divine right of kings to rule. It arrogated to itself In Rome the power to make gets of its mortal emperors. It builded up, in our own republic, a slave-holding oligarchy, and I trust my eye is not jaundiced, my heart embittered. nor my judgment biased, when I declare that in the later hours of the republic, it has built up an aristocracy of special privileges and gives the individual citizen the right to vote if that aristocracy imagines that he will vote all right. It is against this aristocracy of money that the Democratic party protests. It declares, and I hope all those who vote with It this fall will sincerely believe, that no interest on earth has any right to any special legislation at the hands of either the national or the state legislative departments. A Condition, Not a Theory. There is a vast deal of difference between the publicist who expresses his views upon the platform, and the official who speaks as one having ate thority. If I have any right to voioe the sentiments of Democracy, that party is not the enemyof capital. It be-

lieves in vested rights and In the protection of those righty by the courts. It does not, however, believe in vested wrongs. It does not think that stolen property can be so long retained as to put good title in the thief. Demanding the repeal of all laws which are calculated and which have given certain classes of citizens an undue and an unjust advantage over other citizens, it pledges itself to not retaliate by the enactment of like legislation. It realizes that dishonesty is not a mark of condition in life, but rather the mark of the man. The poor man may be honest or dishonest; so, too, may the rich man. It believes that the rich rascal, if such an one exists, ought to be hunted out, prosecuted and punished. It, however, believes that such punishment rests with the courts and with the courts alone. It deprecates, therefore, the general assault upon the thrift, enterprise and business interests of this country. It views with alarm the general assaults which have been made upon capital without regard to the question as to whether the individual capitalist is honest or dishonest. It cannot help thinking that unless the man who is believed to be dishonest is specifically pointed out, a general assault upon the theory that all capital is dishonest is calculated to do more harm than good to the people of this country. Utopia is not here. It is not likely soon to be. We are confronted by conditions and not theories. One of our principal arguments against the trust has been that it destroyed the individuality of the young American; that it made of him but a servant of servants; that it prevented him from jumping into the arena of life and making his own fight with the weapons with which God had endowed him. If this criticism is a just one. and it seems to be, then the indiscriminate assault upon dishonesty among men of money is wholly unjustified. This condition of affairs has arisen by reason of the fact that in this as in all other matters, we have lost sight of the different branches of our government. So long as executives Imagine that they have a right to try the motives of men and yet are powerless to enforce their decrees, that long this state of affairs will continue. Whenever we get executives in this country who have constitutional knowledge enough to know that the place to try the rascal is in court, and courage enough to put him upon his trial there, that soon will we have contributed somewhat to the peace, quietude, good order and prosperity of the people of this country. All, except those who are its beneficiaries, and by all I mean 80 per cent of the people of this state, are agreed as to the iniquities of the present trust system, whether it be one which arises out of the natural condition of the product itself or whether it be one which has been created by law. Both parties have been declaring against this economic condition for many years last past, yet nothing to speak of has been done. True, an injunction against the beef trust has been issued, but my steak has grown tougher as the price has gone up; true, the Standard Oil company has been fined, but the price of coal oil and gasoline has been advanced sufficiently so that out of the united purchases of the people, that fine has already been paid. I do not pretend to be a distinguished political economist; I am simply a lawyer. I believe we began to go wrong when we began to discuss the question as to whether a high protective tariff was a good or a bad thing for the people of this country. So long as we discussed the question of the right of the general government to levy a revenue large enough to pay the expense of running the general government, economically administered, that long we were upon safe ground. When we began to discuss the question as to whether it was a good or bad thing, from that moment we made of the tariff what we laughed at General Hancock for saying it was —a local issue. The protection of American industries naturally led to a desire upon the part of these industries to combine. Having successfully driven out all foreign competition, observing the income which arose to them as stockholders by reason of this special legislation, it stands to reason, without any criticism of the men themselves, that they desired to still further increase their abundance, and this increase of abundance, competition having been first throttled, was easy to bring about by the formation of the trust. With Reference to Indiana. We come now to a somewhat anomalous situation in the state of Indiana, and you will observe that" I speak with reference to Indiana alone, for, while the Democrats everywhere are In favor of a tariff for revenue only, the Republican party In different states is torn, divided and in dissension upon I this question. Some wan* reform, some desire to stand pat, and me, if they could be heard, would like to advance. The Democratic platform of this state declares for_a tariff for_rev-

enue only, and that all articles entering into competition with articles controlled by the trust, shall be immediately placed upon the free list. The Republican platform announces that at its last convention it declared in favor of revision of the tariff whenever such revision would do more good than harm; that protection was never a matter of schedules, and while reaffirming the time-honored doctrine that there shall always be discrimination in duties that will fully protect the wage-earner of the United States, it never desired a higher rate than would accomplish that purpose and has alwajTß contemplated revision from time to time as the ever-changing conditions might make wise. I beg to differ with the statement of the Republican state platform upon this question. I maintain that for many years it distinctly affirmed that its purpose was not only to fully protect the wage-earner, but that it was also to build up and foster infant industries. The platform of this year continues: “That we believe that revision would be now beneficial, and to minimize the harmful disturbance that tariff changes necessarily produce, we insist that revision be speedily done." This speed Is to be accomplished by an extra session of congress based upon data furnished by experts, but is always to maintain the protective principle as heretofore. This seems to me to be a wonderful, wonderful statement. I have never been able to understand how a thing which would be beneficial would, at the same time, produce a harmful disturbance, yet such this platform declares to be the condition of affairs; that while the country wants and needs and would be benefited by the revision of the tariff, still if they do revise it, there will be a very harmful disturbance of affairs. It has seemed to me that if the Republican theory of i protection was correct, if it was true i that prosperity and the Republican party went hand in hand, if the higher . up you place the tariff rates the surer | you were to see the wheels of industry moving and the American workingman with a full dinner pail, large wages, ample opportunity for rest and refreshment and for the saving of a comfortable sum for his old age, then, in this awful hour of financial and material disturbance, when factories are closed, machinery stopped, the tracks full of idle cars, the bottom dropped out of the dinner pail, and many a splendid specimen of American workingman is passing from door to door begging for the necessities of life, if forty years of Republican theory as to what tariff schedules would do for these industries and these theories are correct, then here and now is the hour, and this is Indeed the accepted time whn instead of revising the tariff and reducing the schedules, we ought to put them up another notch, still further strengthen our weak-kneed industries, give to the American laboring man a further opportunity for a livelihood, a full dinner pail and a contented mind. Nor can I pass this point without calling attention to the fact that the present condition of affairs discloses the selfishness of mankind as embodied in the tariff schedules. This fact is made apparent by the information which the public press discloses. Almost every prominent, high-tariff editor in this corfntry is now besieging the halls of congress and, thus far, knocking in vain, asking that the tariff tax shall be taken off wood pulp. Why? I had always been led to believe from the reading of their papers, that the foreigner paid the tax. If they have seen a great light on their way to Damascus, if they have been stricken dumb by the iniquity of high tariff taxes, if they have realized that they have been persecuting the saints all these many years, then I beg of them in fairness to the American people to not only hammer at the doors of congress with reference to free wood pulp, but to also Insist on freeing the necessaries of life, and to ask that that same spirit of justice which they demand toward themselves shall also be exhibited toward their less well informed and their less influential fellow-citizens. May I be permitted also to suggest that this promise of after-election reform ought to be accepted by the people with a grain of salt? It Is one thing for the Republican convention to call for It, and another thing for that convention to demand It and to see Its accomplishment. No one can dispute that the present speaker of the house and the machinery of the house of representatives are thoroughly In control of the special Interests. I imagine that the tariff declarations of the Indiana Republican convention were looked upon as simply a platform on which to get into power again. If the president of the United States, who is now a Republican, can accomplish nothing except by constant force as against the interests which have controlled legislation for many years past, do you believe that these men returned to power again will do the things you want done? It is not perhaps thoroughly elegant, it is certainly very ancient, but the following Is applicable: “The devil was sick. The devil a monk would be; The devil got well, Devil a monk was he.” The Question of Tariff Reform. When I read this plank in the Republican platform of Indiana, I was reminded of a scene which you have often witnessed. Travelling upon the | trains of Indiana, passing some farm- | house, you have seen a splendid dog

rush out and Take after the "train. There have been two things that have always impressed you with reference to this scene. One was, does the dog want to catch the train; the other, it he caught it, what would he do with it? Upon the subject of tariff reform, I leave it to you to answer whether the present Republican congress wants to catch up with it, and. secondly, if it does, what would it do with it? Reverting to the question of tariff reform, I respectfully submit that under the constitution there is no authority to levy a tax, a tariff tax, save for revenue only; that if all other tax was wiped out and trust articles are put upon the free list, that either the trusts themselves will rapidly dissolve by reason of their own disintegration, or they can be rapidly put out of busness. We have been talking too much for the last twelve years and not doing enough. We have been crying for more legislation when I think what we needed was better lawyers. A corporation is the creature of the state. It has just such functions and powers as the state furnishes it It has no lawful authority to do any more than the state authorizes it to do. Whenever it exceeds these functions, does something which its corporate franchise , does not grant to it, that moment it I becomes an outlaw and without any j aet of the legislature, either state or national, there is an inherent common law right to dissolve the corporation and forfeit its franchise. The discussion which has gone on has been essentially valuable in the molding of public opinion, but the hour has come tn w’hich talk must cease and action must begin. If Roosevelt and Bonaparte have failed, let us put in Bryan and some Duke of Wellington who will succeed. The proposition is up to you, the 80 per cent of the people of this ' country, as to whether you want a president to voice your views who is constantly compelled directly or indirectly to take his big stick and attempt to hammer the legislature into doing of your will, or whether upon the other hand, you will choose an executive to voice your will and send to the legislature, those who are anxious to accomplish the purposes you have in view, and to pass the legislation which you desire. The question is squarely up to you, my fellow-citizens, as to whether you will risk accomplishing your purposes in violation of the constitution by simply retaining your ancient political affiliations, or whether you will accomplish your purpose strictly tn accordance with the constitution by electing an executive and legislative body who are in thorough accord. “Friar Tuck Legislation." Did the Republican convention when assembled at Indianapolis, have some latent doubt about a genuine desire upon the part of congress to revise and lower the tariff schedules? Was It fearful that if ft demanded that the gentlemen who are receiving $7,500 per year for serving the people should continue in session and should immediately take up this question, that not having mingled with their constituents and not knowing the crying demand there is everywhere in the West for such revision, that they might fail to carry out this recommendation? Was it for this reason and was it for the reason that they feared that the elections once being carried, that unless these members were at once haled to Washington hile the cry of the people was yet in their ears, that they would forget between early in November and the first Monday in December, that which the people wanted? Did they imagine that if the people can stand it from now until early in November they could not also stand it until the first Monday in December? Is it not true that a large number of the representatives of this country have serious doubts about the genuineness of the professions of many of their leaders with reference to tariff reform? The other day I came across an old editorial written in 1844, by William Cullen Bryant, which seems to be apropos to the present time. It is headed: “Friar Tuck Legislation.” The article is based upon a legend told in some of the old chronicles of Robin Hood and his Merry Foresters at a time when they were assembled to deliberate on the distribution of a very large amount of spoils. They were persuaded to leave the forming of a law for the distribution thereof to Friar Tuck, who so formed It as to get the larger portion of the spoils himself. A controversy at once arose over the fairness and integrity of such a law. The Friar was a bold man and promptly made the Merry Foresters of England this inquiry: “For whose benefit are laws made. I should like to know.” And then, without waiting for an answer, “Except first, for the benefit of those who make them, and afterward, as it mav happen. Am I not the lawmaker, and shall I not benefit by my own law?” Thereupon the Friar proceeded to take his share of the booty and left his unreasonable companions to make the best of that which remained. Without imputing personal motives and conceding that it is a matter of education, environment and viewpoint, I may inquire if a large number of you are not convinced that the present attitude of most of the representative officials is not the attitude of Friar Tuck? Do they not believe that laws are enacted for the benefit of those who make them and afterward as it may happen? Have thev not for years been imposing high duties, filling the pockets of the interests they have served, taking all they could get, letting such iuter-