Evening Republican, Volume 17, Number 239, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 7 October 1913 — KEEPING UP FIGHT AMONG DEMOCRATS [ARTICLE]

KEEPING UP FIGHT AMONG DEMOCRATS

Babcock Either Writes or Inspires , Article in Indianapolis News Attacking Murphy. Editor Babcock, defeated candidate for the Rensselaer postoffice, a position that he had no claim whatever for, is proving himself the prize bad loser of the decade. The Indianapolis News of Monday made a front page article of Babcock’s wail, republishing an article Babcock printed which alleged that Congressman Peterson was controlled by District Chairman Charles J. Murphy, and was a victim of the Tom Taggart-Crawford Fairbanks’ machine. The article places Governor Ralston in the corrupt machine and indicates that every wire was pulled to keep Babcock from getting the postoffice. The article was so ridiculous to any person familiar with the local democratic fuss as to prove quite conclusively that the sensational “Billy” .Blodgett had permitted the Babcock-Honan crowd to put one over on him.

The article deliberately misrepresents Babcock’s attitude toward the dominent men in the party; It says: ( “The first victim of Murphy and the machine was Frank E. Babcock, of the Jasper County Democrat. Understand, now, there is no question of Mr. Babcock’s. Democracy. He is a real Democrat—a Woodrow Wilson-William Jennings Bryan Democrat—and personally and in his paper he has fought the cause of Mr. Bryan since 1896. He was one of the original Woodrow Wilson Democrats in Indiana.” • On Jan. 21st, 1912, Babcock printed an editorial as follows: “The Democrat is publishing some political matter relating to the candidacy of Woodrow Wilson for the presidency, bi|t Woodrow iS not The Democart’s choice for the nomination by any means. Governor Harmon, of Ohio, has been our choice since the last general election, and still is our choice. A man who can carry the rock-ribbed state of Ohio, the last time by over 101,000 plurality; who has. given the Ohioans a splendid business administrationand can carry the state for the presidency over any candidate the republicans can name, by more than a hundred thousand votes at least, whose experience in state-craft pronounces him safe and sane candidate who would sweep the entire country next November, should not be overlooked in choosing candidate to head the democratic national ticket.” That shows - where Babcock stood as a candidate booster only a few months convention. On Feb. 14th the only editorial in The Democrat was a column article boosting Governor Harmon and copied from The Indianapolis News. The Woodrow Wilson plate service -seems to have been entirely discontinued. A careful examination of The i Democrat up to April 17th divulges no mention of Wilson or Bryan. In the issue of that date the editorial columns of The Democrat tell of the Jefferson day banquet in Indianapolis, and ‘ quotes from Bryan’s speech, which scorched Taft and Roosevelt, but it has nothing complimentary to say of Bryan and does not mention Wilson. In the same issue is printed a press dispatch’ from Omaha which was complimentary to Governor Judson Harmon.\ On April 24th, 1912, The published an editorial based upon an article in The Cincinnati Enquirer and headed: “Wilson Has Little Strength In Indiana.” It says in part: “Only two members of the delegation are for Governor Wilson. They are the ninth district delegates— Goodbar and Gifford. Governor Marshall does not favor Wilson for second choice and most of the organiaation men are now leaning toward Champ Clark. If there should be a break in the line-up it is regarded now as likely that fourfifths and probably more of the Indiana delegates would vote for Clark. At no stage of the game does it appear that Wilson can ever get more than four Indiana votes.” All the “editorials” in the issue of April 27th -told of a big Are at Ambia and another dispatch from Lafayette saying that locomotives are too large. Not a word about WoodTow Wilson. The next mention of either Harmon or Wilson is in The Democrat of May 29th, which says: “There has been no change In the democratic standing in Ohio. Harmon holding 31 to Wilson’s 11.” It also mentions the line-up of delegates chosen: "Clark 328; Wilson 202; Harmon 46; Underwood 83; Marshall 30; uninstructed 183.” No support by The Democrat of Wil-

son had yet developed. There was not a. word of praise for Wilson in all the issues of The Democrat from Jan. Ist up to the day the convention named him, and in an article in the same paper that told of Wilson’s nomination was the following scathing criticism of Bryan, whose work on the convention floor defeated Clark and nominated Wilson. The Democrat of that issue said: “The democratic .convention at Baltimore seems to be going the recent republican convention one better in damfoolism, and, as in the case of the Chicago convention, one man is causing all the turmoil and dissention. .The public is getting awfully tired of this sort of thing of one man bossing or trying to boss an entire convention. It is time we had a new set of party leaders on both sides who will set down on this one man domination. Although it has been the custom for the past seventy years whenever a candidate for the presidency in a democratic convention received a majority of the votes of the convention for the convention to ratify his nomination by enough of the delegates to go over and give him the necessary two-thirds, yet through Bryan’s influence the nomination was withheld from Champ Clark although he received a majority vote of the delegates on eight consecutive ballots.”

At about the same time Babcock met W. R. Nowels in the postofflee. Nowels was a Wilson democrat and approved Bryan’s course at the convention. Babeock assailed Bryan and the two had a very heated argument and The Republican was informed by a bystapder that Babcock said he would not support a Bryan candidate. Babcock denied that he made any such statement and Mr. Nowels said that he did pot, but that the criticism had only to do with Bryan’s course at the convention. This disproves the claim that Babcock was an original Wilson man or any other kind of a Wilson man, and also that Babcock was not a Bryan man. Surely Blodgett, of The Indianapolis News, has permitted Babeock and Honan to put one over on him and if The News prints an article sCnt by Chairman McFarland, of the local democratic city committee, it will show just what Babcock’s position was toward both of these men. It is very probable that Charles J. Murphy, of Brookston, did not even know who the local postofflee candidates were. This was a framedup excuse by Babcock to he used by him in an effort to prevent the democrats of the city and county from the facts In the case. The facts were simply these: Mr. Littlefield has been a hard-working and consistent democrat: he has given much of his time to the support of the party: he is a citizen of the highest standing: he Is- qualified for the office: he had the endorsement of life-long democrats who were voting the democratic ticket when Babcock was considered a republican In Goodland. Babcock had built up a prosperous buisness because of party patronage and the party owed, him nothing that had not been repaid as it went along. The belief we have tried to hold for many years that Blodgett was as honest as he tried to make himself appear, has suffered a severe jolt at this time, for evidently he has accepted the statement of Babcock’s loyalty to Wilson and Bryan from some very unreliable source and thus weakened himself while accomplishing nothing for the Bab-cock-Honan faction of local democracy. , •