Decatur Democrat, Volume 51, Number 40, Decatur, Adams County, 15 October 1908 — Page 4

THE DEMOCRAT RVESYTHURSDAYMORNING RY LEW G. ELLINGHAM, Publisher. 1 ■ n.OO PRK YEAR IN ADVANCE. Eatsre4 et the postoffieest Decatur.lndiana xs seoond-clase mail matter OFFICIAL PAPER OF ADAMS CO. BELONGS TO THE 4-ETTER WRITING CLASS Mr. Jesse C. Sutton is a candidate for representative on the republican ticket. He has written a letter to his democratic opponent asking that very worthy young man wnether he stands for the repeal of the county local option law. The Democrat is not conversant with the reply that Mr. Gottschalk may make to the inquiry, but we will bank in advance that he stands where every patriotic citizen stands for the preservation of all laws, and for the enactment of any additional legislation that will better preserve the peace and dignity cf this great state. He stands where his father always stood, and the Democrats of Adams county will be only too glad to pin their faith to the citizenship and character es the Gottschalks as they are known in Adams county. In addition, he will vote for the election of a Democratic United States Senator. Where do you stand upon this important public question, Mr. Sutton? He will vote to reduce the expenditures of the state government, and put out of commission an officeholding trust, known as the Fairbanks machine. Adams county now sends more money to Indianapolis to maintain her share of the state government than is required to pay the administration of county government in Adams county. The administering of state government has more than doubled since 1592. Mr. Gottschalk stands with his party against this squandering of the people’s money. TJje Republican party or no other party has a mortgage on the temperance sentiment so prevalent the country over. The south, strongly Democratic, have taken the lead in practicing, not preaching temperance. In this state both the Democratic and Republican parties took advanced ground, the only difference being as to the unit, the Democrats designating the ward or township, and the Republicans the county. Both are for temperance, and it is mighty cheap and demagogic tor Republican candidates to impose upon the people their great and moral views upon temperance. The Indiana legislature has

been overwhelmingly Republican since 1894, and two years ago they refused to enact a local option law, with any unit. The Littlefield bill in congress, a temperance measure, has died in comtmittee, and permitted to die there when James E. Watson was whip of the house and could have called it up at any time. Yet James E. Watson is talking temperance to Indiana voters. He is a fraud. Since the late legislative session George W. Cromer has assured the saloon men in Muncie that the Republican organization will assist them in keeping Delaware county wet. This is no doubt part of the plan of the state organization, to secure, as they have always secured, the temperance vote, the church vote, the brewery vote and the saloon vote. Thus it is now with Mr. Sutton and also Judge Vesey. They have been drafted by their party to dothings for the sake of their party. It is politics with both of them. They have never yet torn their shirt and wept briny tears over this great and worthy, but not political cause. Neither has ever been identified with the Prohibitionists or the Anti-Saloon league. No one ever knew they were interested one way or another. Yet over night they blossom like mushrooms into great champions of temperance. They try to put to shame that brave little band of Prohibitionists, who have labored for years and labored, too, without the slightest look of concern from these sudden but great apostles of temperance. But It Is politics, nothing but politics. That the winning of public office is of more concern to them than their live for principle was never better demonstrated than in their dirty fight on John Adair. From one end of the

district to the other they are scandalizing themselves by talking in parables about his record as county clerk of Jay county twenty years ago. Think of it. They are so intent upon defeating John Adair that they go back twenty years and make charges against him that never will or never can be substantiated. His record in congress is unassailable. He has served the people and served them ! well. That makes no difference as i they want his place, and they would I even blacken his character to get it. This serves as an illustration of the insincerity cf the Republicans in their apparent moral fight for temperance. 1 Indiana Jis for temperance without I the aid or consent of any party, and i no matter who is elected or what party succeeds, the temperance sen|timent and temperance laws will pre- ' vail. The election of Bryan and the elec--1 tion of every Democratic candidate is this year dear to the heart cf ev- ■ ery Democrat. It is the first time for sixteen years that hope ran high in the Democratic breast. The signs of the times points to a ; Democratic victory in the nation and in the state, but success depends en- ' tirely upon the casting of every Democratic vote for his party candidates. It is time for temperance Democrats to resent the imputation that they stand for intemperance. It is time tco, to resent the position assumed i by the Republicans that they—for this campaign—stand for temperance. They stand for the offices —that’s all. It is time for every individual Democrat to concern himself and to take a part in making it a glorious Democratic victory.

THEY ONLY OPPOSE DEMOCRATS Going back to the race for congress, the expected opposition to Congressman Foster because of his attitude toward the Littlefield bill, governing interstate shipment of liquors, has not materialized. As a member of the subcommittee of the judiciary committee having this measure in charge, Mr Foster refused to vote in favor of reporting it. The opposition in the subcommittee was such as to prevent it being reported to the full committee for action. Mr. Foster makes a close study of the constitutional phases of every question that comes before him, and he wrote an elaborate and convincing opinion in which he held that the Littlefield bill, which seeks to enable state authorities in dry territory to confiscate interstate shipments of liquor, is unconstitutional. The same view was propounded in an exhaustive opinion by such an eminent legal luminary as Senator Knox. Mr. Foster also declined to register his vote against the restoration of the canteen to the national soldiers’ homes. For these reasons the officials of the National Anti-Saloon League declared about the time congress adjourned, that they intended to invade Mr. Foster’s district and “make an example” of him. They indicated that they would put forth extraordinary efforts to arouse the temperance sentiment of this district, but not one of them has appeared to sound the tocsin of war.—Louis Ludlow, in Star League. The above shows the deceit that is being practiced, not alone by the Republicans, but also by the managers of the Anti-Saloon League in Indiana. Here is a member of the committee having the Littlefield temperance measure in charge. He wrote an opinion against its constitutionality and voted against reporting the bill to the full committee. He has been notorious in his efforts to defend the liquor interests. All this and yet no AntiSaloon worker, no Republican organization and no Governor Hanly has appeared to defy the despoiler of the home. His apponent is a temperance reformer, Mayor Boehme. of Evans--1 ville, and a man who has gained con- • siderable fame in his warfare against the saloon. Even this fails to bring to his aid those warriors who pretend to fight for temperance and Prohibi-

tion in season and out of season. I Why? 1 Mr. Foster is a Republican. What’s more, he is a Republican i candidate. Governor Hanly appeared before Mr. Foster’s committee and asked that. this bill be reported and passed by • congress. Mr. Foster voted against • Governor Hanly’s request, yet our I. great Prohibition governor has neYer 1 uttered a word cf protest against the ; action of this Republican congressman. ; Why? Governor Hanly is not opposing Republicans. He opposes none but Dem-'; ocrats. He speaks in Democratic, communities and against Democratic i candidates, for any office for which i they may be seeking. Political advan- ■ j tage for the Republican party is his ; first thought. This shows, too. the', i insincerity of the Republicanr in this 1 campaign. They want to win the of- ; flees, and they want to win them ; through the false declaration that the ; Republics - party stands for Prohibi- i tion and the Democrats for intemper- j i ance. Forty counties in Indiana have j been remonstrated dry, and a sum- ,] mary shows that half of them are j Democratic counties. Does this indi- ; cate that Democrats stand for intern- ( perance. No, |iut it floes Indirrate j that the temperance sentiment is not ( divided along political lines. It in- j dicates that no matter whether the , Republicans or Democrats win the ] offices, temperance will travel in the even tenor of its way, receiving ear- j nest support from members of all ] political parties. ] This is the time when Democrats, j and especially temperance Democrats, . should show their resentment of the ] unholy methods of the Republican , party to snare their votes in a politi- < cal election. This is the time for ; every - Democrat to be true to the party » of his faith. The signs of the times j point to a Democratic victory. The ( tide is with Us, and all it takes is ] for every Democrat to be up and do- ] ing. Get busy. I WATSON IS FOR ANY OLD THING ( Immediately after the passage of the j county local option law by the special 1 session of the legislature, James P. I Godrich, chairman of the Republican i state committee announced rather i glibly that local option as an issue was i now out of the campaign. When ! Thomas R. Marshall, commenting on i the Godrich declaration, intimated that i in that event it might be possible to : discuss a few of the issues on their merits, then Mr. Goodrich got scared : and placed county local option again in the race. James E. Watson so discusses it—where it is popular —and where it is not, he sort ’er winks the other eye. Like all other Republican leaders except Governor Hanly, he has no sympathy with the law. He be- : lieves it is goed campaign thunder, and for this purpose he is working it to the limit. At times he really grows eloquent in its defense, but any one that knows Jim Watson, knows that he can grow passionately eloquent on a very small provocation. He is at his best, however, when “cut with the boys’’ and when the cares of defending Prohibition is the farthest from his thoughts. Some great campaign stories are told on Jim, the assumed Prohibition, but in reality the Republican candidate for governor of Indiana. We assume that most of these stories should be taken with a dcse of salt, but the public record of Mr. Watson is so well known that the voters of the state* will really ascribe much truth to them. He has wobbled on so many public questions, been so weak and vascilating on others, in fact had so manyentangling alliances in which the people expected much and received but little, that it is hard to restore confidence in Jim. The American people are much the same. They expect their public men to be strong, sturdy and reliant They do not expect them to always agree with their own id-ess, but they do expect them to stand firm tc their own convictions and to defend them, sincerely and honestly. Jim 1 Watson is a sort of a hocus pocus politician—we will not say statesman. He carries all sorts of patent applied for and made to order opinions. He is what the curbstone politician calls

foxy. In his smooth and oily way he finds out the sentiments of a community or what is uppermost in the mind of a particlar individual and he is I Johnny on the snot with this particular i pleasing doctrine. When time for ac- ' tion comes, he has expressed forty different views, and force compels him ! to act contrary to thirty-nine of those expressed views. That is Jim Watson. iThe story is not new. It is as he is ' generally known throughout the length and breadth of Indiana. That being true, his devotion to prohibition and temperance is not taken as a serious asset in his campaign for governor. ' What he says and what he does is so separate and distinct that no connection is possible. Such a man at the 'head cf our state government is not ' a pleasing thought. Indiana is a great -state. Iler resources are large, and her industries and state institutions are important. Too important to place at the head of the state government a man whose chief recommendation is that he is a practical politician. Independence in thought and action is what is needed, and such a man is Thomas R. Marshall. He is brilliant, of high mind and pure thought. He has no alliance with any one, and as governor of Indinaa, he would be governor in fact as well as in name. Such a governor can be trusted and no interest no matter what that interest may be, will receive special favors at his hands. Thomas R. Marshall! How that name should inspire every Democrat. It should inspire him net alone as to his own duty, but it should inspire him to action and to work. Your neighbor and your neighbor's neighbor should be importuned to help in the great work of placing at the head of our state government a man of high ideals

and a clean and wholesome purpose. There are no strings tied to Thomas R. Marshall. His appeal is the appeal of independence itself, and should be heded by every Democrat—and Republican as well. UNCLE NATE THE BOOTLEG CANDIDATE The bootleg methods of ycur "Uncle Nate” are the limit. Think of asking the electorate of the largest and most intelligent district in the United State to support his candidacy for congress, bis only recommendation being blackmail and attempts to charge dishonesty to his minority opponent. It is the most disgraceful spectacle ever presented to the voters of Indiana and we doubt whether there is another man living who is so mentally and morally small, as to follow the degrading methods adopted and in use by “Uncle Nate” and his paid experts. Experts, who for the money would make any sort of a report about any living person. Experts who would swear away the life of a human being, providing “there* was enough in it.” Nate Hawkins pays these men to make reports and swear to reports abcut the public record of John Adair. He does it too as the candidate of the Republican party, the nomination being given him by George Cromer, and it has been openly charged and never denied that the consideration was fifteen thousand dollars. Think of it. Cromer placing the Republican nomination for congress upon the auction block. Nate Hawkins bids the limit and gets the high honor, while Cromer walks oft with the swag. And after getting the nomination and with it a majority vote of mere than five thousand, Uncle Nate” employs experts. Not experts to boost himself, hut experts to make figures lie. Experts to make John Adair look dishonest and unpopular with the voters of the eighth district.

What is the offense against John Adair?

Why, he is the Democratic candidate for the same office to which your "Uncle Nate” aspires. He is popular, in good standing, elected once to congress and made a great record. "Uncle Nate” wants to go to congress and try to fill the place so ably represented by John Adair. Malice is in his heart and in order to accomplish this purpose he is besmirching the name of John Adair. The voters of the eighth district are wise. They believe in uprightness, honesty and integrity. If there is no other reason on fearth for John Adair's election, the

Hawkin’s method and manner of opposition is sufficient. The voters of the eighth district should now and forever place their disapproval upon : this shameful .attack. They should say to “Uncle Nate” that such methods are forever barred, and any one who tries togain public favor by dis-1 crediting another shall himself forfeit their good will. THE DRIFT TOWARD BRYAN After spending a couple of days in Ohio, Walter Wellman has come to 1 the conclusion that the Buckeye state is one of the mest doubtful states in 'the union. Wellman finds that the ' laboring men are drifting to Bryan in spots and that the spots are large land numerous. There may be anywhere from 40,000 to 60,000 sucii changes and there may be more of them. It is impossible to get aj the figures accurately. Taft is out on a tour of the state this week trying to break up the drift to Bryan, but it is probable that he will only make a bad matter werse. The state has twenty-three electoral votes and they will help out Bryan in nice shape. It is not alone in Ohio that the labor vote is tending Bryanward, but all over the country. The republicans are counting pn gains aimong (the farmers, but there are changes there also. The farmers are not to be fooled this year. They are getting a lesson just now in the price of wool, I sheep, hogs, hay and clover seed. They know the republican party has not been making good in the last year. The panic and the subsequent hal'd times in the cities are bound to reduce the prices of farm products, and the farmers know this, and they know that the republican party was in power and could not prevent such a condition from coming upon the country. ' - ■ Hear Congressman Adair at the court room tonight. It is the only opportunity the voters and others of this city will have to hear a candidate for congress speak. “Uncle Nate” is making his campaign by experts. He will not face a public audience with his character blackening system of soliciting the suffrage of the eighth district voters. Congressman Adair will tell you of his accomplishments as a congressman. He will reason with you and be honest, open and above board. It is not hard to conclude which of the two should be trusted.

Prof. Charles W. Eliot, president of Harvard university, in a recent communication to the Reform league of New York, delivered a telling blow to the high tariff system under which the country is now suffering, and by which the many are being robbed for the benefit of the favored few. Prof. Eliot’s letter is a stinging rebuke to the system which builds up monopolies and increases the cost of products to the American consumer and at the same time enables the trusts created by the tariff to sell their goods cheaper in foreign markets than at home. His statements are particularly interesting in view of the fact, not only that he is one of the leading educators and foremost economic scholars in the country, but he is also at the head of the institution of which President Roosevelt is a graduate, a position which it has been said President Roosevelt would like to occupy at some future time. A.l his life Tax Title Hawkins has worked on the theory that money is the ruling power, not only in business but in politics. He is acting upon that theory now. It may hire agents to malign his opponent and It may capture a few votes on election day, but it will never appeal to the militant force of the better element of the eighth district, who, regardless of party, are demanding that the man they vote for must be honest honorable in his dealings, and a man who possesses the ability to represent them in congress. Do they know Mr. Hawkins possessing a single one of these qualifications’ He has not dared to go out over the district and attempt to defend his position realizing that if he were to do so he would only expose his own incompe-

tency, hence he has chosen <h e agent, back door policy, relying | on mudslinging tactics Sn(l great wealth to carry him through Portland Sun. Congressman Adair, the representative of the Eighth district introduced a bill at the session to give every ex-soldier of tu civil war a pension of $1 per a 1 Speaker Cannon and his aides. Jam M ] S. Sherman and James E. Watson I smothered the bill, giving as their & cuse that it would cost the countrr I $17,000,008 a year. And then thev 1 went right ahead and voted for a sub.] sidy of $75,000,000 to the ship owners’j trust. Millions for the trust; nctonj cent for the soldiers.—Fort WayiJ Journal-Gazette In 1904 Wm. H. Taft tc congress and congress passed a lav whereby the United States government guaranteed the railroad builders in the Philippines 5 per cent profit on bonds amounting to $1,500,000 a year for 20 years. This meant the guaranteeing of a return cf 5 per cent to railroad constructors or $30,000,000 all told. Mr. Taft was willing to subsidize railroads and have the government guarantee their interests, but he is opposed to guaranteeing to the 15,000,000 bank depositors in the United States the security of their savings. Hanly has not answered Mr. Marshall’s question whether when he was cleaning out the graft in the state house, he played favorites and permitted one man high in public life to pay back into the state treasury the sum of SBOO, and no prosecution was instituted and the whole scandal hushed up, all with Hanly’s knowledge and consent. Sherrick wanted to do the same thing, but Sherrick had to go to the penitentiary and Dan Storms had to become a fugitive from justice, all to the end that the Hanly halo might shine more respendently. Mjarshall is firing the question at him every day, and Hanly will have to answer or get off the stump.—Columbia City Post.

“In amount, the failures of the last< nine months exceed in number the failures of the corresponding nine months of 1893, and the difference be- j tween assets and liabilities is greater this year than it was in 1893, aithcugh the total number of the liabilities was greater in 1893 than this year. But it must be remembered that the McKinley law was still in force in 1893. It was in force until the summer of 1894. The Wilson bill was not passed until the summer of 1894. The failures of that year were not as great either in number or in the amount of liabilities as they are this year. The failures in 1896 were not equal to the failures of this year in number or in amount of liabilities, and yet in 1896 the republicans were talking about a democratic panic and promising prosperity.”—Wm. J. Bryan's Speech. As we understand Mr. Roosevelts defense of the Harriman campaign contribution—1. It was entirely proper for Mr. Roosevelt to solicit this money, because he intended to bunco Harriman and did bund him. 2. Secrecy was necessary because Mr. Roosevelfs motives might have been misconstrued by’ low-minded persons who would see in the transaction a sordid attempt on the part of Harriman to control the presidency through the use of tainted money. 3. Publicity of such a contribution before election might have thwarted the high moral purpose of Mr. Roose velt in separating Harriman from hi’ money without giving him anything ia return. 4. Other presidential candidates should never be permitted to engage in similar negotiations, because eve’ were they sufficiently patriotic to repudiate the moral obligation would not be sufficiently practical » deceive a man like Harriman. 5. The fact that it was Theodore Roosevelt who did this is a comP lete answer to all hostile criticismHaving defended the contributionperhaps Mr. Roosevelt will ncW eX ' plain just how the money was Harriman said, to turn 50,000 votes 10 the election.