Evening Republican, Volume 14, Number 261, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 November 1910 — AGAINST LABOR IN LEGISLATURE [ARTICLE]

AGAINST LABOR IN LEGISLATURE

Bill ts Restrict Labor Vote Was Democratic. JOKER A6AINST THE TOILERS Registration Feature Opposed by Men Who Labor—lnjustice in Every Provision of Clark Bill, Which Had the Support of Marshall and Other Democratic Party Leaders. “A bill for the restriction of the industrial vote” is a fitting and proper title for Senate Bill No. 2, which was offered by Senator Clark, Democrat, and which was supported by Democratic leaders in senate and house at the session of 1909, of the Indiana legislature. The bill is of especial interest to labor. It is well to call attention to the possibilities in the way of the restriction of suffrage rights under the legislation proposed and urged by the Democratic party leaders, including Governor Marshall. The bill provided for the registration of voters six months before election day. This would mean that after such a registration had been taken, with the knowledge it would give as to the number of labor votes registered, any political party might nominate outspoken foes of labor and elect them by using this same measure to restrict the labor vote. Labor men who investigated the bill at the time and who opposed its passage with all their might, declare this is not guesswork. The bill provided for the making of copies of all lVkts of registered voters for any qualified voter, on request. The machinery for putting the facts in the hands of politicians was perfect. It is held to be plainly evident that many workingmen would have been unable to register under the Clark bill. Under the measure, men whose occupations took them away from home, would have been forced to go before an officer and make oath and application, which application must be mailed, before the absent voter could register and save his vote. Nothing but sickness was pefmitted to stand as an excuse for not registering. Absence from home was not taken to be an excuse for failure to register six months ahead of the election. By far the most important and dangerous feature of the Democratic bill to disfranchise labor voters was the power given to the challenger to bully, intimidate, delay and hinder the voter in the exercise of his suffrage rights. The whole design of this provision was to restrict the vote so far as possible. And it is safe to say that the politicians who seek to restrict suffrage or cut down the number of votes are not working for the good of the people. It is plain to see that such politicians fear the result of a full vote on election day. They fear to trust government by the people. Under the Democratic bill 88 questions were proposed to be filled out by the voter who had been challenged. This would mean much time lost in making out papers to meet the whim or evil purpose of the challenger. Constant or even frequent challenging, under such a law, would mean many waiting voters deprived of their rights. This would be true especially in the early and late hpurs, when labor men must Tote. It is a well-known fhet that the man who works for his living must vote on his way to work, early in the morning, or he must cast his ballot after working hours in the evening. The early rush and the late congestion ought to be obviated as much as possible. The Democratic politicians back of the Clark bill proposed in that measure to put in the power of the challenger the great army of industrial voters. The hill would have left it to the challenger to say whether or not labor should cast its ballot. Labor men consider at this time that the Clark hill was urged by men who were elevated to office by labor’s votes two years ago. Labor men will see to it that these men gain no further power.