Decatur Democrat, Volume 50, Number 34, Decatur, Adams County, 25 October 1906 — Page 2

RALSTON’S GREAT SPEECH In Reply to Hanly— Delivered at Greenfield on October 16,1906. * Hon. Samuel M. Ralston, of Lebanon, in a great speech delivered at Greenfield on October 16, before a large audience, gave special attention to state affairs. He took up Governor Hanly’s speech at Tipton opening the Republican campaign and laid bare its sophistry and misrepresentation, proving beyond cavil the malice and Insincerity with which it abounds. By irresistible facts and argument Mr. Ralston demonstrated why the Republican party should be driven from power in the state and why the management of the state’s business should be restored to the Democratic party with its long record of honorable and faithful service. The speech follows in full and it should be read by every good citizen from beginning to end: Mr. Chairman and Fellow-Citizens—ln-diana is a great state. Her soil is rich and productive. Her climate is mild. Rarely has she known serious droughts or violent storms. The destructive forces of nature have spared her. Among the riches imbedded within her bowels are to be found the finest building stone, vast fields of coal and reservoirs of oil. She is one of God's most bountiful gifts to man, where there has been developed a citizenship unsurpassed by that of any other state in this splendid republic. lam proud of her, and so are you. Mutually we rejoice in her citizenship and swear allegiance to her institutions. It is of the administration of the government of this magnificent commonwealth that I want to speak to you tonight. It is a representative government and therefore a popular government. A popular government is a government administered through political parties. No country has ever enjoyed a government by the people in the absence of political parties. So it is our boast that we have m state and nation a government ofpolitlcal parties and by political parties, but not for political parties; and the man who rails against these organizations has not familiarized himself with the simplest of the basic principle? upon which popular government rests. . ' Instead, therefore, of a political campaign being looked upon by the people as a hardship unnecessarily imposed upon them, they should welcome the opportunity these political contests afford them of learning what the party in power has accomplished, why it has not accomplished more and what it proposes to accomplish for the public good, if its lease of power be extended; and to judge of these things in the light of the criticisms offered , and the things proposed by the party out of’ power. Harry’s Tipton Meeting. Governor J. Frank Hanly, in a speech delivered at Tipton on Sept. 24 last, discussed at lengtn state issues and his administration in the presence of an audience largely composed of supreme and apellate court judge, state officers and their attaches, including the lady stenographers of the statehouse. The governor was at his best and we are told in a published account of his meeting that the stenographers at times cheered him enthusiastically. The governor was enamored of his theme, but ha suffered himself to digress long enough to tell the eminent jurists present how he expected them to write the law in certain cases now pending in their courts. There is nothing—! nearly said small, but I mean modest—about the governor. In the course of bis keynote slogan he eulogizes without coercion, his own administration and just as cheerfully criticizes, stigmatizes and condemns every administration, Democratic and Republican alike, this state has had from 1872 down to his own. But notwithstanding the eulogy he pronounces upon his own record, he nevertheless has some misgiving that all his fellow-Kepublicans may not view it as he does, for he tells them they have no right to refuse to support his adminisration because "of passion, personal pique, the personality of the man who happens to be back of it, or adverse party affiliation.” The personality of the men back of the administration seems to press itself upon governor’s mind. I wonder why? Isn’t he satisfied with himself? The Governor’s Integrity Task. But he goes on to tell of the corruption and defalcation of his friend Sherrick, and what an ordeal he passed through upon making this discovery, "for,” using his language, "there were those who counseled condonation and secrecy, and the continuance of the defaulter in office,” and how, when the light broke in upon him, “before him stretched the path of duty, rugged and thprny, but straight and true and sure.” This is, however, only one of many crises, we are info; med. through which he had to pass in his -offiXal career of less than two years. He says, In summing up the work of his administration, to use his language, "It has restored and maintained, under trying and delicate circumstances, integrity in the administration of public offices.” That is to say, as I understand it, and evidently as he intended the public to understand, that it is under delicate circumstances he is now maintaining integrity in the administration of. the different offices in the statehouse. What a certificate of character this is for Bigler, Sims, Hill, Attorney-General Miller and the other state officials. In view of this declaration of the governor I am amazed that he did not accompany his attorney general on his recent exploits of the French Lick hills and valleys! What a risk the executive took in permitting this limb of the law to scamper about that section of our state with the famous one-eyed constable unprotected by executive watchfulness. What a plight this statfe would be in if oar rosy-cheeked attorney general had lost his official virtue in the French Lick valley. Keeping the Judges Straight. Upon reading this passage of the governor’s speech, it was at once made clear to me why he had Judge Hadlev, Judge Monks and Judge Jordan along with the other jurists to attend his opening meeting of the campaign. In addition to telling them how to write the law he desired to inform them in the most public manner possible that he was having the task of his c° malnt alo official integrity in the statehouse, and that they must be sfraight, ?? . y ou tolerate no foolishness or questionable conduct on their part. Surely the writer of proverbs had these times in his vision and our governor’s administration in Wind when he declared “When the righteous areTri authority the people rejoice, but when the wicked beareth,,rule the people mourn.” Our governor does not only keep all the Republican officials under him honest, but h* furnishes the material for the platforms of his party. He says, referring to its present platform: “Its plstfohn “s not a subterfuge upon which to get into office. Most of its provisions grew out of the perlences of the last two years and the 8 thnt haTe been disclosed So you see the governor is the whole thing, and you do not have to prove It on him. He will admit it. And if it were not for the biblical inhibition that “flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven ” I would hesitate even in prophecy to fix boundaries to the jurisdiction he would ultimately assume over the heavenly orbs. Democrats and the Railroad Law. Doming now to the governor’s speech more in detail, what claims do we find him making for himself and his party, but more particularly for himself? He calls attent.o.B first to the railroad rate regulation of

Qg iasr legislature, enacted upon ntsr recommendation and gives in detail the workings of his commission and the supposed benefits resulting therefrom to the people at a total cost of $16,753. But he does not tell the people that the Democrats, as a party, stood by him for this legislation and that the Democrats in both branches of the legislature voted for the passage of the bill, and that the only objection they made to it was that the people were entitled to a better law. Nor does the governor inform the people that he was utterly unable to persuade the Republicaus Os the legislature to pass this rate bill in any form until after the railroad lawyers placed their O. K. upon it. Hon. John W. Kern led the fight for this legislation as the attorney for the shippers, and it was in his office that the bill was finally agreed upon in the form in which it became a law; and up to the time of this agreement there was never any show for the governor or anyone else to secure the passage of the bill. The situation was controlled by the influence that always controls the governor's party. But. my friends, it Is a late day for the governor to shriek himself hoarse in insisting upon the honor due him or his party for this character of legislation. For the sentiment in this country that has ripened into this sort of legislation, honor is due to another. The honor belongs to a man whom the governor has slandered in the past and in the Imitation of whom as a reformer he is now making himself ridiculous. Railroad Plank of 1896. In 1896 the Democratic national platform contained this plank: “The absorption of wealth by the few, the consolidation of our railroad systems, and formation of trusts and pools require stricter control by the federal government of those arteries of commerce. We demand the enlargement of tne powers of the interstate commerce commission, and such restrictions and guarantees in the control of railroads as will protect the people from robbery and oppression.” That plank, my friends, was denounced by the governor of your state and the national platform of his party has never contained a similar declaration. It was the torch that lighted the way for ail the laws that have been enacted on this subject, and it was suggested by and borne aloft in the hand of that great commoner, the first statesman of the civilized w-orld, William Jennings Bryan. Without the assistance of Democrats the Republicans could have accomplished • nothing on this question in their last congress, and they were only enabled to pass the emasculated bill they finally got through, when a Democrat assumed, tne leadership of the tight. No. my friends, there Is no reason for any Democrat betray.ng his party to assist Governor Hanly and h.s partisan followers, because of anything they may have done for railroad rate legislation in the last legislature. Sherrick and Storms. But let us pass to the next subject discussed by the governor—the defalcations of certain Republican officials. And 1 want to preface what I shall say on this part of his speech by the statement that I do not desire to deprive him of any honor in the premises. Whatever he did that was right, ne should have credit for. Now how did he propose to deal with the situation when he found himself face to face with these defalcations? In searching for the answer to this question we should not overlook the fact that the governor is posing before the country as a genuine reformer—as an executive who believes in the enforcemnt of all laws without fear or favor and denounces in unmeas ured terms compromises with crime. If in truth and in fact he is a reformer of this fiber and an executive of the character I have indicated, then he instantly knew, appreciated and resolved that Sherrick should be sent to the penitentiary upon his confessing he had converted to his own use $145,000 of the people’s money, but did he so resolve, and if so, when? I charge the fact to be tbdt before Sherrick sent him his resignation he, the governor, through James P. Goodrich, chairman of the Republican state central committee, assured the Hon. Addison C. Harris, attorney for Sherrick, if the defaulting officer would resign and give up his office, he, the governor, would protect him from prosecution. If he denies this, then I ask him to say if when he was trying to secure the resignation of Secretary Storms, for whom the Hon. Addison C. Harris was also appearing as counsel, this conversation, in substance, didn’t take place in his rooms in the statehouse: Hanly’s Veracity. Mr. Harris saying: "I advised Sherrick to resign and was criticised for it throughout the state. In that case a man came to me as an emissary for the governor and represented that if Sherrick would resign and turn over to the governor the securities in his possession, that that would end the matter. With this understanding, on my advice, Sherrick sent his resignation and all the securities in his possession to the governor. The same evening the governor placed the matter in the hands of the prosecuting attorney.” And if thereupon he, the governor, didn't say, “Hold on, Mr. Harris, I never authorized any person to make any such representation to you.” And if thereupon Mr. Harris didn’t say, “The man who came to me saying that he came from you is in this room and someone has lied.” And if thereupon Mr. Goodrich, chairman of the Republican state central committee, didn’t say, “I made only such representations as I was authorized by the governor to ihake, and I am not the liar”; and if thereupon Mr. Harris, looking at the governor, didn’t say, “Thto, Governor Hanly, you are the liar.” I repeat I challenge the governor to deny. Then if Sherrick did resign with the understanding that the governor would not ask that he be or that be would ask that he be not prosecuted, I submit the governor cannot consistently plead with Democrats to support his administration on account of its moral tone, until he himself quits forming an alliance with criminals. Getting Money From Sherrick. Besides the record in the Sherrick case now pending in the supreme court shows that in 1904 Hanly got at one time $250 and at another time SSOO belonging to the state from Sherrick as auditor, and that he didn’t repay the state until after the exposures came late in 190-5. I am told by an attorney who Is conversant with the fact, that If Sherrick is kept in the penitentiary, it will be on the count of the indictment charging him with the conversion of the money of the state, a part of which was the money the governor bad. How the governor, while Sherrick remains in the penitentiary, can go into the pulpits or this state and preach civic righteousness without experiencing the sensation of the ball and chain about his ankle is beyond my comprehension. But in what better light do the facts in the Storms case place the governor before the good citizenship of this good state? He tells us that his commission laid bare the wrongdoing in the secretary’s office His language is: “A little later, a misappropriation of funds by' the secretary of state—a conversion of public money to his own use—was laid bare.” And then he tells how he demanded the resignation of the secretary and how that official refused either to resign or to permit an examination of his books, but that finally, rather than have the general assembly convene to impeach him. he gave up the fight handed over his resignation and left his office. Storm* and Question of Crime. , Let’s analyze this situation. If the secretary had converted public money to his otai use he was guilty of the commission of a crime, and no one knew that better than the governor, for hi is not onto a lawyer, but also a good constitutional lawyer, and if he is to be believed, he has.a real passion, for the enforcement of law. He delights in telling hia preacher and eivlc audiences how the constitution enjoins upon him that "he • hall care that the laws be faithfully executed, and how all taws look alike to alm, ana that it is his unbending purpose to enforce them, even at the risk of cutting short his political career. That is to say, he wants the people to understand that he is for law enforcement, even if such a course in the future deprive his country of his services as president How do his acts square with his words? He admits that the evidence showing the commission of a crime by his secrets rv of state was laid before uim and that it was so conclusive of guilt that it enabled him to compel the derelict official to flee from his office. The evidence then was W? tr ?? g u X. as ln th « Sherrick case. Why, then. Was the one sent to prison and i ?! her all °wed to go free? why, then 1 did the governor send for the prosecuting attorney in the one case and lay the facts

showing guilt before him and insist upon a proecution and in the other case remain silent? Do great governors do this way when they ars seeking to ferret out criiuel Can you imagine a Folk acting in this way under similar conditions? And Is surh a course in harmony with his interpretation of that provision of the constitution he enjoys reading to the preachers that the “Governor shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed? I make the charge that he does not dare to tell the people of this state why he has not insisted upon the prosecution of his defaulting secretary of state. Storms Case and Consistency. With what consistency can the governor insist that prosecuting attorneys should see to it that ail felons be prosecuted, in view of the position eh has assumed as regards the felony committed by Storms? Does he answer that Storms made good his defalcations and gave up the office? If he does, a man does not have to to-be a lawyer to tell him that that doesn't satisfy tne law. Any felon in the clutches Os the law would make good the value of stolen property and leave the state if that would buy his liberty. Does he answ-er that an assurance had to be given Storms that he would not be prosecuted before he would agree to hand in his resignation? If he does, then the official who is keeping that assurance good is guilty of compounding a felony and should be sent to "the penitentiary with Sherrick. Again I charge that tne governor doesn’t dare to tell the people of this state the truth as to why Storms has not be.en prosecuted and until he does make a satisfactory showing as regards such failure, he Is not in a position to appeal either to Democrats or self-respect-ing Republicans to support his administration. But he does not only insist that be Is entitled to great honor for getting Sherrick, Storms and the adjutant-general out of office, but that much credit is due him for collecting of these taree defaulting Republican officials the money they had converted to their own use. Each of these officers had a gobd bond on file, and a very ordinary lawyer can draft a good complaint for the breach of a bond. The governor, however, is grappling at straws, and no incident that win serve to bolster up his administration must be overlooked. Hanly’s Motives. Now the truth is, my friends, the governor hadn’t been in office long until the fact became known to him that the state house, under Republican administrations, had become rotten to the core and that rumors of the condition were then reaching the public, and he was nut long in convincing himself that when the wh<He truth got to the public the righteous indignation of the people would sweep his party from power. So he became desperate and at once conceived the scheme of starting an investigation of the records in certain officesback as far as 1872 with the hope of being able to scandalize the official record of some Democrat and in this way mollfy in some degree the outraged feeling of the people toward his party. The first one he makes an attack upon is a dead Democrat, James H. Rice, who while living bore a reputation for honesty second to no man. And the charge is made that Rice, while auditor, failed to account for certain money that he received officially, and that his snortage now amounts to including more than $46,000 interest; A proper appreciation of the value of character and of good reputation usually suggests to a fair-minded man the importance of stating all the material facts, when he is proposing to ask the judgment of his countrymen thereon, upon the conduct of a fellow man. And especially is this true when the judgment is asked against on who is dead. James H. Rice’s Case. I charge that the governor has not given to the people all the facts In James H. Rice’s case, and that he has purposely, with evil intent, witheld them. Notice the,, language of hig speech: “For some unaccountable reason the books are missing and can not be found.” By that statement he meant for the people to understand that all the books or James H. Rice are missing, when the truth is, the records are only missing for six months of his official term, as 1 have been informed, and the books covering his term, so I am told, all except this six months, show his accounts to be correct to a cent. Why didn’t the governor disclose that fact to the people when he was dealing with the honor of a dead man? Is it customary for apostles of spotless purity to deal with the dead in this wav? How, then, did the governor and his commission arrive at the amount of Rice's alleged shortage? Why, he says: “It is based upon the average receipt of reciprocal fees for a term of years before and after Mr. Rice’s term.” But that doesn’t necessarily show that any part of the alleged shortage went into his hands. I submit, therefore, in view of all the facts, if the governor had wanted to be fair and decent in his dealing with Rice, he would have refrained from making his vicious attack upon his official record, But no, he couldn’t do that. He had to have a Democratic victim to break the rising tide of opposition to his party and to get his victim he repairs to the grave of this Irish patriot—this old soldier—and with fiendish cruelty clawing into the sepulchre of the dead, he draga out the skeleton and rattles It, with ghoulish glee, In the face of the multitude. I leave him with the skeleton. Increased Taxation. In his Tipton speech the goveronr takes exception to the charge made In the Democratic state platform of 1906 that since 1894 the Republican party “has Unnecessarily and largely increased the number of officers, the salaries of officials, the expenses of the public business and the burdens of the taxpayers.” He seeks t* break the force of this arraignment by saying that if the expenses and burdens of the people have Ineerased, they have been increased without a raise in the tax levy. This sort of statement doesn’t deceive any one. Why didn’t he tell his audience how much the assessed valuation of the property in the state had increased during this period? The most ordinary citizen understands that a 8-cent levy, for illustration, will produce twice as much revenue on a valuation of S2OO as it will on a valuation of SIOO.. Now the truth is the receipts of the state for the year ending October 31, 1904, were nearly a million dollars greater than for the year ending October 31, 1895. And yet whin the legislature met in January, 1905, the governor announced in his Inaugural address that he found the state’s finances “embarrassed,’’ and cited a, deficit of a half million dollars. This was followed by drawing $994,000 in advance from the counties up to October 31, 1905, and the embarrassment mentioned bv the governor forced the raising of the levy for current expenses three cents on the hundred dollars, which increased the taxes for such expenses about a half million dollars a year. Why didn’t the governor, in his Tipton speech, tell the truth? i State Office Expenditures. Again a Republican legislature appropriated for the expenses of the Auditor’s office from 1903 to 1907, $82,303.90. Under the law as enacted by a Democratic ,Jeg-, islature, If Governor Hanly’s interpretation of that law be correct, J. O. Henderson’s total legal compensation as auditor for four years was only $3,478.43, as against $82,303.30 for the same office for the same period under a Republican law. Matthews and Myers, both Democrats afl ®toi«tefed the office ot secretary of state from. 1891 to .1895, four years under a Democratic J*w-. tor $41,461. For the same length of time, from 1893 to, 1907, under a Republican law, it cost $53,600 to run the same office} that is, $12,119 more than it did under the Democrats. Saying nothing of the different contingent funds upon, which the governor has been liberally drawing, the office of governor for 1905, cost the people more than HOMMn^ excess of what it did in 1896, But the’ governor, In his speech, argues that the four offices or governor, secretary of state, auditor of state and attor-ney-general cost the people, under Democratic laws, more than SIOO,OOO in excess of what they are now costing under Republican legislation. He is enabled to reach this conclusion by taking the attornevgeneral's office, When the Hon. Alonzo Greene Smith was the incumbent, under a law that was prepared by Attorney General Michener, and approved by Governor Hovey, both of whom were 'Republic Ans, and under which the attorney-gen-eral was, in fact, allowed fees that made him a large compensnfon. A fairer way tc ha«-e presented the question, I suggest,

would' ha've keen to have compared th* compensation of Smith with that of Mich. ener, as tucy both operated uuder the same law. But the governor couldn’t do this and make the point he was seeking to establish, as he knew Michener’s compensation was many thousand dollar* more than Smith’s. ; Ex-Attorney General Smith's Services. ' 1 concede that Mr. Smith was well compensated for his services, but no man, not even the governor, has ever charged that Alonzo Greene Smith took a cent from that office that the law did not give him. 1 hold no brief for Mr. Smith, but I cheerfully defend him as a Democratic official and just as cheerfully bear witness to the great ability he displayed in the discharge of his official duties. He was ever vigilant and watchful in protecting the state’s great interests entrusted to his care. Indiana has had many able attorney-generals, but she never had one who has served her to a better purpose than Smith. In the campaign of 1890 the Democrats took the position that the wealth of the state, especially the corporate wealth, was not bearing its fair part of the expenses and burdens of our state government, and following its triumph at the polls, it enacted by its legislature of 1891, the tax law, having for its object the equalization of taxation. No sooner was this law passed than the great corporate interests of the state, assisted and encouraged by the Republican party, including the present governor, began to plan to render it ineffectual and ultimately to overthrow it. Under the leadership of Senator Fairbanks the Republicaus incorporated in their state platform of 1892 a plank condemning the law, and they never ceased to oppose the law until it was fought through and upheld in all tae courts, including the supreme court of the United States. These fights were with the railroads, the express companies, the telegraph companies, the Banks and the Republican party. Smith, ably assisted as he was, led in all these contests on the side of the state. s He not only did all tnis in the case of the tax law of 1891, but he discovered, while in office, that none of the great sleeping car companies had ever paid a cent of taxes to the state of Indiana. So he prepared the bill that afterward was passed by the Democratic legislature of 1893, over the protest and votes of the Republicans in the legislature, providing for the taxation of these companies. As a result of his labors millions of dollars have gone into the different treasuries of the state from properties not previously bearing their part of our government expenses. And when the governor, in his Tipton speech, boasted of the work of his state tax commission, in increasing in 1905 and 1906 the assessed valuation of these properties $29,261,000, he unconsciously boasted of the successful working of the law he voted against in the legislature. But there was something vastly more important Involved in the fight Mr. Smith and his party made to uphold the tax law than the amount taxes were increased under it. It Involved the right of a sovereign state to increase whatever taxes upon property it might be necessary for the legitimate purposes of government without regard to the wishes of either man or corporation. Fee System and Hanly. We are informed by the governor that bls views concerning the law under which Smith received his compensation “are not new born,” and that he opposed it in the general assembly on account of the excessive compensation -it provided for the attorney-general. Is this possible in the light of the record? In 1890 the Democratic platform contained this plank: “We favor the total abandonment of the system of fees and perquisites tn the payment of state and county officers; and we demand the enactment of a law by the next legislature. fixing fair salaries for all public officials, the same to go into effect as soon as practicable.” The next legislature was in 1891 and it was Democratic and It redeemed that pledge made to the people by passing the general fee and salary law. The passage of this law was opposed in every manner conceivable by the County Officers’ association of the state and this association was assisted in its opposition to the passage of this measure by J. Frank Hanly, who was then a state senator. And the. fact is that Attorney-General Smitn stood with his party for the enactment of tnis law. which meant a saving to the people all over tiie state, and actually prepared with his own hand a provision of the law that reduced his compensation on collections forty per cent, below what had been paid Michener for like services. Every one understands, of course, that the most fruitful source of income in the attorney-general’s office has been on collections. And the governor tells us he voted against that law. 1 Then he voted to give Smith a greater compensation than he was asking, and I submit he is now estopped to find fault with the legal charges of this Democratic official. ? | Proposed Insurance Legislation. I We” are told at length by the chief executive of the things he hopes to accomplish, if the Democrats will. join in voting him a Republican legislature and in filling the state house with his partisan friends. The governor has The art of begging as highly developed as the man who turns his crank or thrusts his hat under your nose on the street corner. He pledges a great service in dealing with the insurance companies in the event the people will give him a legislature that will do his bidding. He seems to Want to deal principally with the local companies, and informs the public that the foreign companies are not children of Indiana, and ttiat the governor does not bear the same relation to them as he does to the home companies. He admits, however, that their management has beeen’as bad as that of the local companies. Now, since the governor is pleading so zealously with Democrats to vote his way, I would suggest to tuose Democrats, if there are any who are seriously considering gratifying his wishes, that they might get up a little reciprocity scheme with him. The Democratic platform of this year pledges the party to prevent the old line insurance companies from doing any new business in’ this state until “a good faithful effort snail be made to recover the money” corruptly given to the Republican national committee for the purpose of debauching the voters of the country. If the governor is earnestly in favor of decency - and clean things in public life, he should not do less than to stand with his Democratic supporters on this plank of their platform. But he will not do it. . He can not afford to. t He was one of the beneficiaries of the theft and he has no” disposition to interfere to any considerable extent with the way these foreign companies carry on their business, since they are not children of Indiana and he is their beneficiary. Liquor Traffic. I I But I must not overlook the fact that the governor makes the uspal biennial claim of the opposition of hto party tb the Jiquor traffic and yet It is notorious that the liquor influence of this state has for years past almost solidly supported the Republican party. I do not wish to be understood as saying that there are no sgloon keepers who vote the Democratic ticket. There are many of them who do that. But I mean, that the capitalists in the business—the .„ wapfifaetnArs and wholesalers—line up with the Republicans, as a rule. Although it was a Republican legislature thatu passed the Nicholson ICw t t¥f to niverhad the bill hutig up in th* committee on temperance, and that there It would have died if John W. Kern, then a senator, had not had the bill called from the committee for action upon it. As recent as the, last campaign Kern lost thousands of votes because of the part he took in getting the bill out of the hands of the committee. It would seem from this that the whisky element believed ft had more to fear from Kern than from the governor. And if you will stop to think about it, beyond what he says on law enforcement, you cannot tell where the governor stands on the liquor question in thto campaign. Does he favor more stringent legislation on the subject, or is he it standpatter? Let him speak, if he has the courage. State Institutions. ! The governor, true to the custom of Republican politics, praises his party for the nonpartisan management of our state institutions, and he assures the public that

• they shall be kept free from political conic trol. One not conversant wlia the facts • would conclude from wnat Republican 0 leaders say on the subject that their party g alone rescued these institutions from pari- tisan control and placed them uuder non- « partisan management. The nonpartisan I law governing these institutions was apt proved by a Democratic governor, and the first nonpartisan beards appointed under i- it were named by him. At the head of the I, I Central Hospital for the insane at Indlil i ana polls he placed Dr. Edenharter; over t the Deaf and Dumb Institution he Installed e Richard O. Johnson; Dr. smith was given j t toe management of the Institution for the j c Insane at Richmond, and Dr. Rogers was - appointed to a similar position over a sima I liar institution at Logansport. These men . e are all old fashioned jacksonian Demo- 1 •- crats, stiii serving the public in the posi--1 tions given them by Governor Claude Matti thews, and the credit is due to them more e than to anyone else for the humanity, the e economy and the improvements in the management of these institutions. So sats isfactory has their services been that the e Republicaus, in their maddest moments, s have not dared, and they do not dare, to s remove them. Building New Institutions. c When the governor comes to consider i what'his party has done «n cne way of pro- ? vldiug penal and benevolent institutions s for tbe state he finds himself embarrassed r for the want of a record—for the want of - something that has been accomplished by t his party along that line, ana he is obliged . to content himself with telling what he - hopes his party may do in the future. i 1 ortunately for tne state and the Demo- - cratic party, the Democracy of Indiana 1 has a record of works accomplished in bet half of our unfortunates and the state in general to which it proudly points. From 1 1875 to 1895, during nearly all of which - time the legislature and administrations - were Democratic, the following buildings and institutions were constructed: The s main building of the Central Hospital for j the Insane, the statehouse, the Northern Hospital for the Insane, the Southern Host pital tor the Insane, tne Eastern Hospital , for the Insane and the school for Feeblet Minded Youth at Fort Wayne. Besides, i Democratic legislatures made necessary appropriations for numerous additions to 1 other institutions and for erecting addl- ? tlonal buildings at the State University, ’ Purdue University, the State Normal ; School, Soldiers and Sailors’ Orphans’ s Home at Knightstown, for the State Sol- ? diers’ Monument at Indianapolis, and for f the Reform School for Boys and the state r i prisons. Don’t you think the governor will - [ have to be kept in office a long time to 5 ■ make a showing that will compare with i that? i Paying the State Debt The Republican party Is constantly, lauding what it has done in the payment of the > state debt, and yet neither in its platforms nor from the stump has it ever told how > it was enabled to make any payments upon i this debt. I cannot at tliis time discuss r this subject at length, but I can very brfefl ly show to whom honor is due fqr the in- - crease in the debt The devising of a i method for the payment or the debt was 7 first taken up by the Democratic party in : its legislature of 1889, upon the recom- • mendation of Governor Isaac P. Gray, and under an act that session of the general assembly and under the Democratic tax law of 1891, and the sinking fund act ; 1 passed by, the Democrats in 1893, every ; dollar has been raised that has been applied on this debt by any party up to this i ; good day, except the amount of an old war • debt, amounting to $635,859.20, which was • ! paid in 1902 by the national government i: to our state and applied on this debt. So you see the debt, has diminished and is ■ | being wiped out througn methods originl . ated and put in operation through the I , wisdom and statesmanship of the DemoI I cratic party, and the only credit Republican officials deserve in the premises is that U they have refrained from stealing and , I properly applied the money. For this I an! ; willing to concede they are entitled to i great honor in the light of recent disclosures. Cleaning the State House. What does it cost to keep the statehouse Clean under a Republican administration? , My question has no reference to the salaries and fees of the officials. It onlv embraces whitewash and disinfectants. Governor Hanly took his office in January, | 1905, and up to Septeruuer, 1906, he has paid out of the state treasury for recent investigations of state offices, including attorney fees, the following amounts: Out of the governor’s military and civil contingent funds 5,420.00 Out of the governor’s contingent fund for Institutions 5,984.65 Out of the governor’s emergency fund 2,841.85 Out of the escheated estates fund. 100.00 | Total $14,346.50 I submit it cost entirety too much to keep Republicans straignt in office, and this within Itself ought to be a sufficient reason for a change of naministratioq.j House Rent snd Bipartisan Graft I The attack the' governor makes on what ’ that “every donbt hap been solved against the state and in favor of the official.” His words penetrate like arrows in hto denunciatlop of th,e .hateful system he so righteously abhors, and tie leaves the impression that under no possible circumstances he be seduced to join the organization of the bipartisan grafters. But let’s judge of him by hto record-not by hto eloquence or power of Invective. The law under which he is serving the people provides generously for him. It contains thto provision: "For the executive Re y» llar of governor, $1 800’” reDt governor’s reridenee, Eighteen hundred dollars a year for rent to at the rate of $l5O a month. He Was inaugurated January 8, 1905, and lived in the Claypool Hotel In Janury and February of that year. March, 1905, he drew rent for January, 1905. less nine days, $lO5, and tor February, 1905, $l5O, and in all $255. He will doubtless welcome the opportunity to explain where it was that he. had a house rented during this period. But he draws his rent at the rate bf $l5O a month to and including September, 1905. Then a thought dawns upon him, and he concluded he had better write a letter to his attorney-general and get an opinion. He was prompted to write this letter beyond doubt by the peculiar condition of affairs then existing in the statehouse. He had been drawing rent at the rate of $l5O a month, but hadn’t been paying that amount for a house. Asking Attorney-General’s Opinion. 1 He closed down on Sherrick on September 14,, and soon thereafter it became apparent to him that he might be-called upon to give an account of how he find been handling funds upon which be was authorized to draw under proper conditions. So Oct. . 21, 1905. he begins to get ready to justify his conduct' and he calls the attention of the legal department to the section of the constitution that provides: “The governor shall, at stated .tloaea, receive for hto i services a compensation which shall nelth- t er be increased nor diminished during the term for which he shall have been elect- i ed”; and then he says to the attorney general' in a letter, “I desire to be advised bv 1 you whether the provision for rent of the < governor’s residence to within the meaning 1 of the word ‘compensation’ contained in < the Section of the state constitution above But’ fearing that the attorney general’s 1 proprWte to his own use the whole of the SI,BOO set apart by the state tor his honae rejit, Ae trfHhotoer question at the 1 torney general, naff here it is: 1 . "is, the governor entitled to draw toe J SI,BOO tor house rent provided by thto an- ! proprlatioD without regard to the amount ’ J of rent actually paid tor the residence oc- 1 cupled by him? , j Now It would seem that it ougbt to have 1 occurred to Mr. Hanly that if the legisla- 1 tore had intended, that he should have by 1 way of compensation tor his services more 1 than SB,OOO annually, it would have said I ao by increasing the amount of the stated I salary, and the attorney general so inform- 1 ed him in effect. Mr. Miller’s Reply. But the legal department of the state I comes to the governor's relif on his sec- « i ond question. I quote from the opinion of I the attorney general: ' “It is a well-known fact that in 1901 the 1 legislature- very seriously considered the < erection and maintenrnce of an executive | mansion, and that a bill to that effect was I

« — introduced is the legislature, and it to res senable to presume that tne increase it the amount of nouse rent was made to sulf serve the purpose of an ex<ieutive mansion. “This being true, it to my opinion thal this appropriation can be properly used t< provide a home in a habitable cpndltioz , for the chief executive, and this would in elude necessary light, heat and water, at well as repairs, tor the comfort of the chlel . executive and hto family.” 1 think it will be generally conceded bj ' the legal profession that Governor Hanly'l t attorney general has suggested a new caj» • on of statutory’ interpretation. What lawvbr ever before heard it contended that thi * interpretation of a law may be determined by or will depend upon the character of s bill introduced in the legislature on somf j other subject? And who before ever heard it suggested by the learned or the unlettered in the law that house rent meant coal and gas and water? How many farmers do you suppose there are in Indiana who feel it is their duty to supply theii tenants with coal oil? Os course there is no law preventing 8 landlord from agreeing to furnish his ten ant, in connection with the house, gas and coal and other necessities. But he cannol be compelled to furnish these things unless they are in the contract. Now, if I were going to search tor ,a presumption springing from the introduc tlon of a bill for the construction of an ex'ecutive mansion, I would say that the attention of the legislature having been called! to the needs of an executive mansion and taking no action thereon, but afterward enacting a law giving the goverfcoi a specified amount for house rent without any reference to lights and fuel, the presumption would arise that the law-making power did not intend to provide light and fuel tor him. , (**' I submit it would be more reasonable tc Indulge this presumption tfian the one suggested by the attorney general; but th« truth is, they neither one arose, and no one knew that better than the governor and his legal adviser. Early Lack of Itemized Interest In the legislature of 1897 a Democrat secured the passage of a law’ providing that when voucners are presented to the auditor of state tor a warrant, they shall be accompanied by itemized accounts and statements. This is a wholesome law, and its object is at once apparent, but our governor failed to comply with it the first year he was in office, unless he paid $l5O a month for his house alone and of course he will not claim he did that. There 1s evidence in the auditor’s office showing he pays tor his house alone at the rate of SBS per month, which is but $lO more than onenaif of the amount he has been drawing. In June, 1906, Mr. Hanly received a Warrant drawn on his house rent fund, tor $721.54, and in thto instance he accompanied his voficher to the auditor with an itemized statement showing how he expended the money. It will be of interest to you to know how he did it, and here is hto shewing: For telephones he paid $24; tor repairs of his landlord’s house he paid $18.45; tor gas for light and heat, $81.09; tor fuel, $155, and tor rent, $425. Now if the governor believed that house rent included telephone rent or cnarges, house repairs, gas and fuel, why did he file his itemized statement? Why didn’t he just write his voucher tor house rent? Does anyone doubt how Mr. Hanly would have solved the doubt had he been in the position of Dally and Henderson in the auditor’s office? I believe that upon this showing alone the bi-bartisan grafters could be persuaded to admit the governor and his legal adviser to their organization. Fails to Publish Receipts. The constitution provides that “an accurate statement of receipts and expenditures of the public money shall be published with the laws of each session of the general assembly.” The purpose of this provision of the organic law is to furnish the people a means of knowing what their state government is costing them. Thousands of citizens of the state seldom if ever get to the state capitol, where a record of those things is kept. They therefore have no way of gaining such Information except in the manner pretvided by the constitution. The acts of the general assembly are distributed in all sections of the state, so that any citizen may obtain the desired information with but little trouble to himself. Former administrations have yielded obedience to this constitutional mandate. Governor Hanly is at the head of the board of public printing that has oharge of the publication of the laws, but he omitted to publish w'lth the acts of 1905 a statement of the receipts and expenditures of the public money. He may make his explanation tor this omission, if he has one, but I surmise the people will experience no trouble in reaching their own conclusions tor hto failure to perform this duty. It is costing the people, according to the reported receipts, more than three million dollars a year more to run the state government than it cost under the last Democratic administration, and yet we have Governor Hanly’s word at the time of his inauguration that there was a large deficit in the public funds. If it were not that the counties have come to the relief of the administration by making enormous advances, the state would’ have to issuebonds to get money to meet her obligations, -And Republican leaders call this condition of affaire “business managementi” Hanly and Taggart The governor is giving much time in hl» speeches to the Democratic chairman. I have not been commissioned to represent Mr. Taggart. In a contest with hu assailant he does not need any defense at my hands. He has always taken care of himself in the past, and I'think ir is reasonably certain he will iqanage to do so in# the quarrel the governor to insisting upon having with him. Mr. Taggart understands that if he has violated the penal laws of bis state he will have to make his own de2:* i gence of Democrats when he asks them to support hire in this campaign because of the charges he is making against their n&tlonal chairman, in view of the fact that up to this time the courts have found for Taggart and against him. But to break the force of Taggart’s judicial victory over him, ne says to ths public: “Taggart won in hig own court, but the state will win in the snproms court.” This to a vicious, anarchistic assault upon the courts of our state. Under the circumstances, it is as much of a condemnation of our supreme court as it is of the Orange circuit court, and is a part of the vocabulary of the “Red Flag” organization. Honorable Thomas B. Buskirk, who presides over the latter cou-t, belongs to one of the old prominent ana substantial families of the state. He had served his country well. When a boy h» shouldered his musket and undeJLthe folds of the flag fought tor four years to preserve the nation, and it has been left tor tne governor of Indiana to call in question for the first tjme the high character of his citizenship and patriotism, for if he is a corrupt judge he has no more patriotism than a grafting governor. On April 30, 1904, nt a reception given the governor and that other eminent Republican, Daniel E. Storms, upon their return home ofter their nomination respectijely for governor and secretary of state,. Mr. Hanly, in addressing his remarks, particularly to the soldiers present, said in a trembling voice: - “O, sirs, but for you there would be today no proud republic; but for you there would be not starry emblem; of the .fljie, teaching the nations ,of the world lessons of civilization, freedom and patriotism: *>J»t tor ypu state of. Indiana tor me to be ,govenior.of.” How npw sound, when viewed in the light of the treatment Judge -Buskirk is receiviar by the man who uttered them. to beat hto partr to 19081 arisen he hopie to be its nominee for president. It Is never frtter alttaya eom first Bat in order that the Democrats may have no doubt about It King their dirty to vote tbe RepuNtoan ? c V t .’.JL e 3 D<)tM Mr j Bryua’s statement, tsat "The honesty of the party’s purpose I* shown, not merely by its platform or the ■leeches of its candidates and supporters, but by the character of the men who attt iatpwted with the party management.” and then he pulls a poker chip from his pocket and asks “if that doesn’t impeach the Democratic party.” Well, if it does, what is going to become of' U* governor and his party when the Bryan test is applied to them? Now the goveror will admit, of course, head of tne management < tbe Republican party in Indiana, and I that tbe governor’s aversion to■ea who wen poker chips to new born. It -- - • ■ ----- ,-