Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 35, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 16 September 1892 — REPUDIATING HIS VOTE. [ARTICLE]

REPUDIATING HIS VOTE.

Shockney, the Demogogne, Denounces the Tax Law, But voted for It on Final Vote in the Senate. Forced to Repudiate His Legislative Record by a Millionaire Candidate for the United States Senate—What Official Records Disclose. The Republican candidate for lienten ant governor, ex-Senator Shockney, is stumping the state, confining himself chiefly to the tax question, denouncing the|new tax law and the Democratic members of the legislature for having enacted it. If Senator Sherman should go about the country denouncing the McKiijley tariff law, he would be no more inconsisttent than is Mr. Shockney for his present opposition to the new tax law. “Why did you vote for the McKinley bill, then ?” would be asked of John Sherman.

Mr. Shockney was a prominent member of the last senate. He was one of the principal speakers on the Republican side; he never allowed his voice to remain silent when any measure came up that he did not approve. The Indianapolis Sentinel, Journal and News reported the proceedings of the legislature fully. On all important questions, synopses of the speeches were published by those papers. If there was a time for Mr. Shockney to oppose the law, that time was when house bill No. 487 came up in the senate for final disposition. Yet a reference to the files of the Indianapolis papers does not show that Mr. Shockney uttered a word in the opposition of the passage of the Oppenheim bill (tax law). What does the senate journal show? It discloses the fact that Mr. Shockney voted for the bill on the final roll call, the vote that sent the bill to the governor. Mr. Shockney can not dodge at the official records.

By turning to page 939 of the senate journal for 1891, the Republicans who have heard Mr. Shockney denounce the tax law, will find the following records: The special order for this hour (11:36 a. m.), the consideration of the report of the conference committee on engrossed house bill No. 487 (tax bill). Senator Howard moved that the report of the committee be Concurred in, and on that motion he demanded the previous question. The question being, Shall the senate second the demand for the previous question? The demand was seconded by the senate. The question then being, Shall the main question be now put? The question recurring on the adoption of the report of the conference committee on engrossed house bill No. 487, and the ayes and noes being demanded by Senators Burke and Howard. The roll was called, which resulted as follows: Those voting in the affirmative were: Senators Akin, Boyd (R.), Carver (R.), Caster (R.), Chandler, Clemens (R.), Ellison, Ewing, Foley, French, Gilman (R.), Grose (R.), Hanley (R.), Harlan (R.), Hayden, Hays (R.), Hobson (R.), Howard, Jones, Kennedy, Kerth, Kopelke, Loveland (R.), McGregor, McHugh, Mcgee, Morgan, Moore. Mount (RJ, Shanks, SHOCKNEY (R.), Smith, Thompson of Marion, Thompson of Huntington, Thompson of Pulaski and Wiggs. Total 37. Those voting in the negative were: Senators Burke, Holcomb, Lynn and Sweeney. Total 4. So the report was concurred in.

The four negative votes were cast by Democrats. All the Republicans, Boyd, Carver, Casters, Clemans, Gilman, Grose, Hanley, Harlan, Hays, Hobson, Loveland, Mount and Shockney voted in the affirmative. The tax bill originated in the house and it passed the senate with Various amendments. The house refused to accept the amendments and under the rules a conference committee was appointed, composed of three members from the senate, and three from the house. The conferrees on part of the house were: Beasley, Oppenheim and Claypool; and on part of the senate, Magee, Howard and Hubbel. On Feb. 28, this committee agreed and reported to each house, recommending the bill with various changes. One being the pay of tax commissioners; another, changing the appointment of the tax commissioners by vesting the power in the governor; another, by leaving out the treasurer and attorney general from the board of tax commissioners. The conference report in the senate was made a special order for March 2, at 11:30 a. m. This report had to be adopted by both houses and the vote on |ts adoption was virtually the test vote pn the final passage of the bill. No parliamentarian will dispute this statement. Without the adoption of this report by both houses the tax bill would have died in the conference committee.

Mr. Shockney-will, perhaps, dodge the question by quoting the roll call on the passage of the bill when it first came up |n the senate. On that vote Mr. Shockpey is recorded in the negative. But it paust be understood the bill as it finally passed with Mr. Shockney’s vote was far different from the bill as originally passed against his vote. When it originally passed the senate it was loaded down with amendments; one was especially obnoxious to Mr. Shockney, which |ook the power of appointment of the fax commissioners from the governor. ’This amendment was dropped by the conference committee and Mr. Shockney then voted for the bill as^already