Indianapolis Journal, Indianapolis, Marion County, 16 September 1886 — Page 2

2

jin ago? In 1831, a Republican Secretary of Hie Treasury called and paid $121,000,000 of cot•rnment bonds; in IHB2, $173,000,000; in 1&83, $86,000,000, and in 1884, over $70,000,000, wherem, m the first sixteen months of President Cleveland's administration only $58,133,000 of the public debt was paid. The average payment for the last four years by Republican Secretaries of the Treasury, was $153,000,000 evsrv sixteen months, as against $58,000,000 paid In the same time Secretary Manning. The Treasury statement shows that on July 1, 1886. the total cash lathe Treasury was $492,017,173.34, or nearly $100,000,000 more than the amount assumed by Mr. Hendricks, to be in the Treasury in September, 1884. The form of the monthly Treas wry statement was changed by Mr. Jordan, and comparison with jhe former statements cannot be made without understanding two or three things. In the new form of statement the fractional silver, now nearly $30,000,000, is not coanted, as formerly, as a part of the available cash on hand, and the daily interest upon the whole debt is charged up each day against the cash on hand, which was not done before. It must also be remembered that the surplus is to be ascertained by first deducting all funds held for specific uses. The Morrison resolution expressly recognized that, m addition to the other large Bums held for such uses. $100,000,000 was to bn held as a redemption fund for the greenbacks. Now, upon this basis the surplus io the Treasury available for the payment of hoods was, on Deo 1, 1884—the first statement after Mr. Cleveland’s election—slo,ooo,ooo. Not desiring to embarrass the incoming administration, the surplus was allowed by President Arthur to Increase, and when Mr. Cleveland was inaugurated had reached $20,000,000. But this surplus was not thought by Secretary Manning to be enough. Bond calls were suspended until December. 1885, when a call for $10,000,000, payable in February. 1886, was made. At that time the surplus in the Treasury bad increased to $80,000,000, and on Aug. 1 last this enormous surplus was still maintained—the bond calls made not being sufficient to make any Inroad upon it. Mr. Warner, of Ohio, a Democrat, said in the House that from March 31, 1885, to June 30,1886, the surplus in the Treasury had been increased Dearly $62,000,000. My Demo cratio friends, when you voted in November, 1884, a want of confidence in the Republican party upon this question, there was a surplus of $10,000,000 in the Treasury. You are now asked to give a vote of confidence to Mr. Cleveland, who is obstinately holding a surplus of $80,000.000. Do your platform-makers carry your consciences? This policy of hoarding was accepted by the Democrats in Congress as the settled policy of the administration. So slow to pay ont the Treasury surplus, so greedy to hoard, so fearful of the silver coinage act, was the Secretary that an attempt was made by Democratic leaders in the House to take from him that discretion which a Democratic House had never attempted to deny to Republican Secretaries. On the 14th day of Jily, 1886, the following resolution, introduced by Mr. Morrison, of Illinois, passed the House of Representatives: Resolved, etc, That whenever the surplus or balance in the Treasury, including amount held for redemption of United States notes, shall exceed thefsum of $100,000,000, it shall be, and is hereby made, the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to apply such ex'-ess, in sums not less than ten mi.'lions per month, daring the existence of any such surplus or excess, to the payment of .the interest-bearing indebtedness of the United States, payable at the option of the government. The surplus or balance herein referred to shall be the available surplus, ascertained aocovetyng to the form of statement of the United States Treasurer, of the assets and liabilities of the Treasury of the United States employed on June 30, 1886. This was a direct, emphatic condemnation of President Cleveland's administration in its most distinct and prominent policy. It said: We cannot trust you with the discretion we have safely •onflded to Republican administrations; we must put the constraint of law upon you. and leave you no discretion. When this resolution came to the Senate, Mr. Fairchild, acting Secretary of the Treasury, in the absence of Secretary Manning, was called before the committee on finance of the Senate to give his views upon it. He said: Congress has always heretofore permitted the Secretary of the Treasury to decide at what times and for what amounts bond calls should be made. * * It has been left,to the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, he being always on the watch and in a position daily to get information to guide him in the exercise of this discretion. lam not aware that this custom has been harmful to the country under former administrations; some mistakes may have been made, but on the whole the country has been benefited. Os the exercise of this discretion under this administration and by the present Secretary of the Treasury. I E refer not to speak. ** * Its only effect as to im [the Secretaryj is to take from him a discretion which has always been his; hence the fundamental idea of this resolution, so far as the Secretary of the Treasury is concerned, is that his judgment is not considered worthy of trust.

The committeo on finance of the Senate amended the resolution so as to allow the Secretary of the Treasury, if he thought it necessary', to keep on hand a working balance of $20,000,000, in addition to the $100,000,000 referred to in the resolution, and to allow him a discretion in an extraordinary emergency, not now existing, to suspend the bond calls, reporting his reasons therefor at once to Congress. The resolution, as finally adopted by both houses, was as follows: Resolved by the (Senate and House of Representatives, etc., That whenever the surplus or balance in the Treasury, including amount held for redemption of United States notes, shall exceed the sum of SIOO,OOO 000, it shall be, and is hereby made, the duty of the Secretary of the Troasury to apply such excess, in sums not less than ten millions per month, during the existence of any such surplus or excess. |to the payment of the interest-bearing indebtedness of the United States payable at the option of the government. The surplus or balance herein referred to shall be the available surplus, ascertained according to the form of statement of the United Treasurer, of the assets and liabilities of the Treasury of the United States employed on Juno 30. 1886: Provided. That no call shall be made under the provisions of this resolution until a sum equsl to the call is in the Treasury over and above the reserve herein mentioned: And provided further, That the (Secretary' of the Treasury, in his discretion, nay have in the Treasury, over and above the foregoing sums, a working balance not exceeding $20.000,000; and whenever, in the case of any extraordinary emergency not now existing, and when, because thereof, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury, the public interests shall require it, he mar. by written order, postpone the further call for the payment of such indebtedness for such period of time as shall be necessary to maintain the public credit unimpaired: and that such postponement, and the reasons therefor, shall be reported to Congress within ten days afver its next meeting, or immediately, if Congress shall be in session. Id tho House more thau two thirds voted in favor of the resolution as amended. It went to the President for his approval on the 4th day of August, 1886. His attention had already been called to the discussion upon the resolution, and he bad ample time to have returned it if he had been eo minded. Since the adjournment of Congress he has filed with the Secretary of State his objections to the resolution in the following words: This resolution involves so much, and is of such serious import, thv. I do not deem it best to discuss it at this time. It is not approved, because Ido not be.ieve it to be necessary, and because I am by no means .onvinced that its mere passage and approval at this ime may not endanger and embarrass the successful and useful operations of tho Treasury Dcpartmet and impair the confidence which the people should have in the management of the finances of the government. It is thus mnde clear that if Congress had remained in session long enough to compel the President to return the resolution to the House it would have come back with a veto message. If the resolution, as finally passed—giving. as it did, to a Democratic Secretary of the Treasury some small part of the full discretion that Republican Secretaries had possessed— met President Claveland’s disapproval, it is olear that the original reflation, which left him no discretion, would have been vetoed. And yet Governor Gray, ia his recent speech at Logansport, said of the Morrison resolution: The Republican party, true to its servility to the money power, emasculated it of ail its efficient features, so as to make it useless for the purposes it was untended. Whose “servility to the money power” was it that hoarded this surplus and held it with a death grip? A Democratic President—a Democratic Secretary of the Treasury did that They do not pay it out because they will not, though the present law suggests and authorizes it And yet the platform indorses and commends them. Governor Gray’s assault upon the Senate passes over that body—his charge of “servility to the money power” rests at the White House and at the Treasury. Indiana Democrats who believed with Mr. Hendricks that a large surplus in the Treasury was hurtful to all public and private interests are asked, in this campaign, to indorse the policy of President Cleveland, which ir„ this respect, as in almost every oilier, was out of harmony with the teachings <if that State leader whom they so much loved

aod so implicitly trusted. If Mr. Hendricks was right in saying that a distribution of the Treasury surplus would bring fair prices for farm products aud good wage* to the laborer, we can fix the responsibility for 75 cent wheat and the hard times which have come upon our workiogmeu. TURN THE RASCALS OUT. But oar Democratic friends, in 1884, supplemented their complaint that we had too much money in tne Treasury with the further suggestion, apparently a little paradoxical, that there was not enough—that some of it bad been made away with. Slanderous and vague imputations upon the integrity of those who were disbursing public money as a class were freely indulged. They did not know who, but somebody—they did not know where, but somewhere. They professed their inability to give a bill of particulars until the books were turned over to them. Well, the books have been turned over and the cash has been counted. The balances have been verified, and the result has been an unwilling but magnificent tribute to the integrity and intelligence with which the public affairs have been managed. The malicious charges against the integrity of Republican officials have been disproved. The instances of defalcations have been rare, and the per cent of loss exceedingly small —smaller than under any Democratic administration. An attempt has been made, in a recent publication issued by the Democratic congressional committee, to support the slanders of the last campaign. It is only the propping of one lie against another. AIJ of the balances against public officers, as shown by the Treasury books, since 186 L are a Ef?regated, aud are called defalcations. Now. a very large part of these*balances represent an honest difference of opinion between the disbursing officer and the accounting officers of the Treasury. The officer has paid out the money for a public use, believiug that the law authorized the payment, the Auditor or Comptroller decide! otherwise, and will not allow the credit, and the payment is stopped. There has been no stealing, no corrupt motive in these cases. No responsible officer of the Treasury has said or will say so. But without attempting to separate this class of balances from those which involve corruption, and taking the aggregate of $12,800,000, since 1861, as stated in this campaign document, the loss is only about one-tenth of 1 per cent, of the money collected and disbursed. But it must not be forgotten that Andrew Johnson, though elected as a Republican. did not remain such—did not select his appointees from that party. If we deduct the losses during his term, the loss is only about 90 cents on the thousand dollars; while during President Jackson’s administration the losses were $7.52 on the SI,OOO, during Polk’s $4 08 and under Buchanan S3.BL lam not one of those who believe that the line which divides the honest men from the dishonest is a political line, but I do take great satisfaction that the average faithfulness, integrity and efficiency of the civil service has been so high under our administration of public affairs. It will be time enough to reproach us when the Democracy have given us one with as small a per cent, of loss. Bnt as long as it continues true that the aggregate losses of the Nation in twenty-five years, as stated by our adversaries, is less than one-third as much as was stolen from the city of New fork in three years by a Democratic ring, the Republican party will still insist that the turniug outof Republicans and the putting in of Democrats is not necessarily, or even probably, an elevation of the standard of official integrity. The Indianapolis Sentinel, on the 26th day of January. 1886, said of the men who were receiving official recognition from the party in Indiana: With duo respect, we would suggest to the powers at Washington, and all others concerned therein, that the time has fully come when a halt should be called in the business of appointing unworthy characters to office in this State. In our opinion, the seeming attempt to rival the Republican party in making and maintaining bad appointments to office is an unworthy ambition, and the sooner it is abandoned the better. The honest Democratic masses of the State have already been sufficiently humiliated —the grand old party of the people damaged quite enough, surely, for a halt. With becoming modesty, we would venture to suggest to the forces inspiring and controlling appointments here that there is no lack of honest, competent Democrats in our State. In view of this fact, we eonfoKs to our inability to make out any sufficient reason for the selection and appointment of thieves, highwaymen, bribers, dead-beats, and the like. &i7e honest, competent Democrats a chance. I do not believe that any honest, candid Democrat in Marion county would say that, man for man, or in the aggregate, the changes in the official list here have resulted in securing a higher standard of intelligence or integrity. Ido not believe that there is one such who will say that the public is batter served I know that many are sayiDg that in one great department the service is execrable.

DEMOCRATIC ECONOMY. Next in the schedule of Democratic complaints was tho charge of extravagance. They pledged themselves to reduce expenses and to inaugurate an era of economy and simplicity. In the course of the speech from which I have quoted, Mr. Hendricks said: “During the period I have mentioned the receipts aud expenditures aggregated a sum so enormous that 1 find myself unable to express them in words or figures within ordinary comprehension. I will take, for illustration, the year ending June 30. 1883. The receipts into the Treasury were above $398,000,000, and the ordinary expenditures were above $265,000,000.° No doubt, Mr. Hendricks believed that the pledge of economy made by him to the people of Indiana would be redeemed by the administration of which he was to become an honorable, but not an active or influential part. At the beginning of every session of Congress, a book of estimates is submitted by the Treasury Department, showing the amount which, in the opinion of the heads of departments, it will be necessary to appropriate in order to conduct the public business for the- coming fiscal year. The estimates for the year ending June 30, 1887, submitted by Secretary Manning, showed the total appropriations asked for by the administration to be $406,583,447.24. But Congress did not give all that was asked. Instead of appropriating $406,000,000. as it was requested to do by this reform administration, it appropriated $383,915,676.11, or $118,000,000 more than the startling gum which so excited the criticism, and even the suspicion, of Mr. Heudricks in the expenditures for 1883. Senator Allison, of lowa, who has been for many years the chairman of the Senate committee on appropriations, and whoso accurate knowledge of such matters is known to all his associates, in a recent speech said: Appropriations of public money are not a sure index to the public expenditures. If they were, a comparison of tho last few years would make a most favorable showing for the Republican party. Tho total annua! appropriations for 1883-4 were, in round numbers, $232,000,000; for 1881-5. $235,000,OOO; for 1885-6, $219,000,000, and bv the Congress just adlourned, for the current year, $265,000,000. in round numbers. So that the appropriations for this year are $30,000,000 more than the highest suras appropriated by the government for ordinary operations of the government during the last four years, and $45,000,000 more than the appropriations made for the last fiscal year. It has been stated that the ordinary expedituros of the last fiscal year wore, in round numbers, $18,000,000 less than they were for the fiscal year euding June 30, 1885. Thia is true, hut is easily accounted for by a few item* of expenditure of an extraordinary character made in 1885 and entirely omitted from the expenditures of last year. Os this Bum. $8,000.000 was expended for rivers and harbors, there being no appropriation for rivers and harbors last year; $1,000,000 for the repayment of deposits made by individuals for Burveyiug public lands; $3,500,000 for Alabama claims judgments; $4,500,000 on aceound of the sinking fund to the Pacific railroads; $1.000,000 to the New Orleans exposition, and $1,500,000 on account of repayment to importers. 80 that, of this $19,500,000, no portion of it cau be credited to economies introduced by tha new administration into the public service. The expenditures for every purpose for 1885, including the items I have named and including indefinite and permanent appropriations and the sinking fund, amount to $351,000,000 in round numbers, whilst tha expenditures of 1886 of every kind, including the sinking fund, amount to $330,000,000 in round numbers, or a reduction of $21,000,000, which l have already accounted for. except $1,500,000 which was a reduction of the amount of the sinking fund of 1886, as compared with the amount of that fund in 1885. This is the state of the account oompariug the last year of President Arthur’s administration with tho first year of Mr. Cleveland's administration. The appropriations of this year are $54,000,000 in excess of the expenditures of the last year. This, in brief, is the net result of the experiment of an economical Democratic administration of public expenditures as disclosed by eighteen months’ experience $34,000,000 more than was expended in 1885, and $54,00(\000 more than was expended in 1886. I make this comparison not for the purpose of showing that this administration has been guilty of profligate and wasteful expenditure of public money, nor for the purposo of showing that their extraordinary demands made upon Congress for increased appropriations this year were intended to put in their hands public ru*>ney to be used for improper and wasteful pnr poses, but more to show either the ignorance or malignity with which they pursued the Republican party through all the years of the past with

THE INDIANAPOLIS JOUHNAL, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 188.

reference to its methods of expending the public money. But it may be said that this increase of appropriations is in part accounted for by the river and harbor bill and by the increase in pension appropriations; but if both of these items are deducted the appropriations this year for the expenses of the government are $15,000,000 iu excess of the appropriations for last year. A table showing the items of increase and decrease was presented by Senator Allison to the Senate, and I give it here. Increase over Reduction Title of bill. 1836. from 1686. Agricultural $68,925.00 Army $260,995.29 Diplomatic and consular. 121,140.00 District of Columbia..... 98,567.79 Fortifications 725.000.00 Indian., 216,249.86 Legislative 722,362.33 Military Academy 12,216.64 Navy. 2,080,936.75 Pension 16,075,200.00 Postoffice 664,823.25 River and harbor 14,473,900.00 Sundry civil 4.421,746.91 Deficiencies 9,034,025.07 ‘540,536,431.11 *57,439,501.79 Mi5ce11ane0u5............ 2,822,351.80 Alabama claims 5,709,015.28 Increase of naval establishment 3,500,000.00 Total $52,627,798.19 $7,439,501.79 "Net increase above, $33,096,929.33. Net increase made by appropriation* for 1887 over 1886, $45,188,296.41. It is worth while, perhaps, to mention in this connection that the Secretary of the Treasury, in his annual report to Congress, estimated the revenue for 1887 at $315,000,000, to which is to be added the estimated postal revenue for the year, $47,542,252.64, making the total estimated revenue for the year $362,542,252.64, which is, iu round numbers, $44,000,000 less than the appropriations asked for the expenses of the government during the same year. INCREASE’OF CIVIL LIST —REVENUE REFORM. Mr. Hendricks thought a largo saving might be made by reducing the civil list. He said: Reform in the civil service requires its redaction perhaps thirty thousand. It seems to be constantly increasing. Who can check the evil and discharge all who hold position and receive pay without useful etn-' ployment? Not the party who created the positions and appointed its favorites to fill them. This suggestion has not been repeated by any Democrat since the power of appointment passed into Democratic hands. It has passed into “innocuous desuetude.” Who so bold now as to suggest that the number of salaried places under the government should be reduced? Mr. Holman is quoted as saying in the last days of the session, when the sundry civil bill was under consideration: I greatly regret the unexampled increase of offices in this bill, but at this late hour I will not on that account retard the adoption of the report. The Secretary of the Navy demanded an assistant secretary; the Commissioner of Indian Affairs an assistant commissioner in place of the chief clerk, who had discharged those functions under Republican administrations. And so through nearly the whole list The new administration found itself unable to discharge the duties required of it with the force provided, and from every department, except the Treasury, came a demand for an increase of the civil list and for an increase of pay to those employed, and in response to this urgent demand every department, except the Treasury, received an increase of force.

We heard a great deal of revenue reform in the last campaign. There was no agreement as to what it meant, but it sounded well. Mr. Yoorhees, who has had the courage to avow himself a protectionist and to vote for protective duties, placed his own interpretation upon this platform declaration, and was re-elected to the Senate as a protection Democrat. This year the same party has raised tho same battle-cry, and will probably name as their candidate for the Senate a man who regards protective duties as robbery. Is it any wonder that a Democratic House of Representatives, with a majority of forty, and a little Republican help besides, was unable so much as to bring to consideration a revenue bill during an eight months' session? One new article —bogus butter—was placed on the tax-list, but the promise to reduce the revenue was not kept in the smallest particular. The Democratic party as a revenue-reform party serves but one purpose, but serves that well. It holds a club over our productive industries and keeps them iu fear. It represses enterprise. Men are waiting instead of working. The furnace does not blow in until Congress blows out. Forecast becomes impossible—things must run from day to day. Labor gets half time—while tho country watches the play between Mr. Morrison and Mr. RandalL The only favorable condition in the whole situation is the growing confidence in the inability of tho Democratic party to do anything. It is not my purpose at this time to discuss the particular tariff measures proposed by Mr. Morrison and Mr. Randall, or indeed the general question of the tariff. 1 believe that tariff duties should have regard not only to the revenue to be raised but to the interests of our American producers, and especially of our American workmen. It is clear to my mind that free-trade, or a tariff for revenue, or for revenue only—and these last are essentially the same thing—involves necessarily a sudden and severe cut in the wages of the working men and women in this country. I know it is said that his diminished wages will have an enlarged purchasing power—that after he has submitted to a cut of from 15 to 30 per cent, in his wages, what he has left will still buy as much as before. But all this is speculation; the workman has no indemnifying bond, only a philosopher’s forecast. The question must be settled by the intelligent workingmen of the country. If they do not want protective duties, then they will go. If they believe that it is good policy for them that an increased amount of the work necessary to supply the American market should be done in foreign shops, by foreign workmen, then it will come to pass. Many of them have thought upon the question and have reached a conclusion. During last winter I received petitions from a large number of the Knights of Labor assemblies of this State protesting against the passage of the “free ship" bill. They said that in their opinion our ships should be built in American shops by American workmen, and not on the Clyde by British workmen; and when I said, in response, that I agreed with them, several of the assemblies sent me a vote of thanks. Ail that I have said relates only to the question whether, in framing a tariff bill, we shall think of nothing but the revenue to result, as the Democratic party contends, or whether we shall also consider the effect of particular duties upon the prosperity of our American industries; whether protection shall be intelligent, of design, or fortuitous and accidental. I stand with my party for the former. But in saying this I am not committed to specific rates, or to the existing law in all its details. lam ready to consider any necessary changes—reforms, if you please to call them such—but it will be in the light of the general principles I have announced. A revision of the tariff from any staud-point is a most difficult and delicate work, and, for one, I will not consent to hold the sponge and allow the unfriendly and blundering Democratic leaders of the House to use the knife. Ido not believe in horizontal cuts. II there is a call, as I think there is, for changes in the administrative features of the law, and in some particulars as to rates. I shall insist, for one, that they stall be made by friendly hands. A CHANGE WANTED. But among the specious pleas put forward by our adversaries in the last campaign none was perhaps more alluring than the demand for a change. Restlessness is an American characteristic. Well, the change came, and, outside of the favored few who succeeded iu getting their hands into the public crib, where is the man who has found relief from any real or supposed trouble? Has work been more plenty or wages better? Have farm products brought better prices? You know the contrary is true. The year has been fuil of business disturbances and labor troubles. Money that would, as Mr. Hendricks said, have stimulated trade has been hoarded, and the threat of tariff changes has hung like a cloud over our industrial enterprises Our Democratic friends are now inclined to withdraw the suggestion that a change is a good thing; but 1 believe the people, in view of broken pledges aud disappointed hopes, will make at least one mora But if the hopes of individual benefit from the election of Mr. Cleveland ha-ve been disappointed, has any gain come to the Nation? Has its honor or its oredit been lifted up? Have we any more reason to be proud that we are Americans? Has our diplomacy gained us increased respect? Has patriotism and loyalty been reorowned? No. my countrymen. The flag has dropped to half-mast in honor of a man who was not only disgrace-

fully unfaithful to a civil trust before the war, and a rebel during the war, but who, from a safe haven in Canada, sought by his hired emissaries to give our peaceful cities to the flames. An unreatored rebel was named to rep resent this country at the court of St Petersburg, unmindful of the fact that the Czar was ou our side during the Rebellion. The courts of Europe were canvassed to And a place for a man who had declared the government he was to represent “a bloody usurpation.” Our fishermen are badgered in Canadian waters, while the peaceful retaliatory powers confided by law to the President are unused. So general has been the condemnation of our diplomatic dealings with Mexico that our distinguished Secretary of State is said to believe that the whole country has entered into a conspiracy against him, while the Jockey Club iu Mexico has debauched his special envoy. The dying appeal of Mr. Tilden was not enough to arouse the patriotism of a Democratic majority in the House to make an appropriation for our coast defenses. The modest bill for new warships—carrying $6,500,000—was, by decree of the Democratic steer* ing committee, reduced to $3,500,000, under a threat that it should not otherwise have consideration. Wounded and deserving soldiers have been expelled from public office upon secret charges, and their appeals to know the character of the charges have been treated by an arrogant head of department with contemptufJUs silence. Civil sorvice, a reform inaugurated under a Republican administration, was confided by the votes of its special champions to Democratic care. It has not thrived. The law has in many of the public offices been shamefully evaded and set at naught The reform is iu the rapids. Its great danger is that those who claim to have its destiny in charge will stamp as genuine the article which this administration has put before the country. If the system of removal upon secret charges is civil-service reform, then the country will have none of it. Governor Gray speaks of this policy as a mistake—it was a crime. It is a hopeful sign that in our own State our civil-service friends still know the genuine article and have the courage to expose this base imitation. The reform can be saved if its special champions are not more anxious to justify thpir choice in 1884 than they are to save it. THE INDIANA GERRYMANDER. is fortunate, I think, that we have in this campaign some matters of absorbing State interest to be considered. And first among these, in importance and urgency, is the question of recovering to the majority of our people their equal political influence. The duty of dividing the State into suitable districts for the election of members of the .State Legislature, and of the lower house of Congress, devolved upon the last Legislature, which was Democratic in both branches by large majorities. In the pretended discharge of this duty, laws were passed re districting the State for legislative and congressional purposes. These were not the result of an honest effort to deal justly by the people, and to preserve, as far as might be, the equal influence of every voter, but are the progeny and fruit of a conspiracy which involved not only the majority in the Legislature, but many leading and ambitious Democrats outside of it, who were not willing to submit their ambitions to any fair test before the people. The requirements of the Constitution, which tho members had sworn to support, were absolutely disregarded, and the necessities of the Democratic party and of certain of its statesmen were alone considered. The title of the legislative apportionment bill, if it had been given an honest name, would have read: “An act to enable a Democratic minority of tho voters of Indiana to make its laws, and to choose a United States Senator.” It was intended to take such odds that the party might hold its power against a revolt in its own ranks as well as against its adversaries. It was intended to make the bosses and party manipulators independent of the people—to destroy the value of the National and Prohibition vote in localities where they might hold a balauee of power. In a word, to make our State government a government by a minority and not by a majority. The Constitution provides that every sixth year there shall be an enumeration of the voters of the State. Section 5, Article 4, declares the basis of the apportionment, and is as follows: Tho number of Senators and Representatives shall at the session next following each period of making such enumeration be fixed by law. and apportioned among the several counties, according to the number of male inhabitants above twenty-one years of age in each.

The next section provides that the districts shall be composed of contiguous counties, if of more than one, and that no county shall be divided for senatorial purposes. It must not be forgotten that the law in force when the present one was enacted, the law of 1879, was of Democratic origin, and that under it the Republicans had carried the State in 1880 by a plurality cf 6,600, but failed to secure a majority in the Senate, while in 1884 the Democrats carried the State by a plurality of 6,500, and had a majority of sixteen in the Senate and thirty in the House. The odds of that law were against us; it was unfair. It was a “gerrymander.” Its unfairness was exposed by Hon. J. W. Gordon, in the campaign of 1880, with a force of figures and logic that could not be answered. But the odds were not enough to secure a Democratic majority on joint ballot in 18S0. The report of Mr. Rice, Auditor of State, of the enumeration taken as the basis of the present apportionment shows that each 4.946 voters were entitled to choose a Representative, and each 9,893 voters to choose a Senator. (And. Rep., 1883, p. 127.) The vote of Indiana in 1884 was: Cleveland 244 992 Blaine 238,480 Butler. 8.293 St. John 3.028 Total 494,793 The Democratic party lacked 4,809 votes of having a majority of all the votes cast It had only 6,512 votes more than the Republican party. This plurality was only 1,500 more than the number required for one Representative, as shown above, and was over 3,000 less than the number required for ono State Senator. It is apparent, then, that a fair apportionment for legislative purposes—one which preserved as far as possible the equal influence of each voter — would, upon the vote of that year, give the Demoarats a very small advantage. But, upon the basis of the vote bf that year by counties for President, they would have, under this apportionment, thirty-three Senators, leaving only seventeen to the Republicans, Nationals and Prohibitionists, though the aggregate votes of those parties constituted a majority of the voting population of the State. In the House, upon the basis of the same vote, the Democratic minority would take sixtv-two members, leaving only thirty-eight to the parties having a majority of nearly 5,000 of the legal voters of the State. Or, to state the result in another form, the districts are sg manipulated that every 7,424 Democratic votes select a State Senator, while 14,694 votes are used or suppressed for each opposition Senator elected. That is, every Democratic vote is given very nearly twice the power in the election of a Senator that is given to a Republican, National or Prohibition vote. In the House, every 3,951 Democratic votes is made, on the same basis, to count in a member, while 6,573 votes are used or suppressed for each opposition member chosen. I know that absolute equality of rrpresentation is not attainable—3orae unrepresented fractions are unavoidable—bat this law shows deliberate and ingenious study and contrivance. The problem given was to reduce the influence of the nonDemocratic voter to the smallest possible value. There is no honest Democrat in Indiana who will say that the apportionment is fair, or who believes that any thought of fairness entered into its construction. Mr. Kellison, a Democratic member of the House from Marshall county, said'of the bill while it was under discussion: I want to stamp this measure as infamous. Looking upon ray oath, I cannot support it. Why should I follow a Democratic caucus in this when I was taught from my infancy that party was the friend of justice and equity? My object in supporting the Democrat!® party was to correct abuses. If my position on this question takes me out of the party, then I say A men . But it is said the Republicans passed an unfair legislative apportionment bill in 1872. I do net think it was an eqnal apportionment, but its unfairness did not approximate the collosal proportions of this recent Democratic achievement, and its party results were not such ns to encourage that sort of work. In 1874 an election was held under the apportionment law of 1872, and a Democratic Legislature was elected in spite of, or, as you than said, by reason of, our unjust apportion ment. In a speech made during the campaign of 1874, Mr. Hendricks, speaking of the legislative apportionment law of 1872, said: The history of such nefarious efforts has generally beau that they turn against the guilty party. How

shall it be now? Will the people of Indiana become a direct party to it by o voting as to give them tho benefit of a wrong? * * * As we all have to obey the laws, it is fair and rijc-ht, and by all fair and honorable men recognized as fair and right, that we shall have an equal voice in making the laws. * * * If this work of apportionment cannot otherwise be fairly done, let all who are opposed to disfranchisement for opinion’s sake unite in passiug a constitutional amendment that will bo limit the*discretion of the Legislature as to make these “gerrymanders” impossible. The congressional apportionment is out of the same piece of cloth. The Democrvt* have attempted to take ten out of the thirteen districts. A minority of the vote of the State demands ten-thirteenths of the power of the State in the national House of Representatives, and gives to the majority three-thirteenths. Districts were made Democratic for the benefit of certain po litical pets, while the hopes of other Democrats were ruthlessly slaughtered by adding a Republican county to their districts. The indications are that some of these legislative pets will not receive popular majorities in the districts made to promote their ambitions. f _ THE LIQUOB QUESTION. The interest in the temperance question in Indiana is very general and very intense. It was quite manifest at our recent State convention that this question holds a front rank in the thought of our people. Asa social question—one affecting the happiness of the individual and the family, it has for many years attracted the interest and enlisted the efforts of consecrated men and women. But another aspect of the question has of late years come into much prominess—the business or economic relation of the traffic in iiquors to public order and to the tax rate. This attack starts from a lower plane—it has to do with money rather than with morals. The argument is, that tho traffic costs the community that it imposes burdens. But whatever the line of approach to the question, every man not absolutely blind to passing events must admit that the temperance sentiment has made an extraordinary growth in the last ten years. There are still wide differences of opinion among those who may justly claim to be temperance men, as to the lines upon which the fight should be waged—as to the methods of restraint and repression. But I am persuaded *that a majority of the people of Indiana agree that our present legislation is not abreast with the times, either in the kind or degree of restraint it imposes, and that an advance must be made. But at this point divisions appear. There has come into some of the temperance organizations a spirit of intolerance that will have no man’s help who will not accept their one and only admissible method of dealing with the question. These will not aid in an effort to ameliorate or diminish the evils resulting from the traffic, but demand its immediate and universal extinction. Some even declare that they prefer a free to a restricted traffic. I have no unkind words for such persons, and perhaps no appeal I could make would reach them. But to those more practical temperance men who do not demand the unattainable, tho Republican party does appeal in this campaign. If some of us will not engage to accept the goal you have in view, need we part company till we get to the forks of the road? It would not have been good military tactics for Grant’s army before Petersburg to have refused to unite in an assault until his soldiers could agree upon the precise terms of reconstruction. The first duty in hand was to whip Leo. The Liquor League ls’entrenched in this State behind the Democratic party and the legislative gerrymander. It has levied its assessments to create campaign funds for Democratic uses, and to corrupt legislatures. The Republican party has boldly declared that it3 repressive hand must be shaken off and its corrupt influence in politics destroyed. Is not that a work in which all men who favor temperance reform can unite? Can such afford to 4ivide when that issue is presented? I have quoted once before this extract from a speech delivered in Chicago, in 1881, before the Distillers’ Association by Mr. Shufelt, its president. Ho said: A membership of 5.000 would give us in the way of annual dues, at $lO each, $50,000, to say nothing of the extra assessments exacted of and cheerfully paid by the distillers. With $50,000 annually at our command, I feel confident that the association would find little difficulty in staying the wave of fanaticism and intolerance, which, if not checked, threatens to sweep over our fair laud. There would no longer arise a necessity for the calls that are made with singular regularity upon individual members of our trade during each recurring session of our State Legislatures. This last sentence needs no comment. It will be great gain if we can elect in Indiana a Legislature over which such influences can have no power. The exact form which our legislation upon this subject shall take, if we control the Legislature, I would not venture to predict I am sure it will bo more responsive to temperance sentimeut than anything the Democratic party will do. I believe it should compel the traffic in liquor to bear its own proper burdens; that the taxing power should be freely used as one means of regulation and restriction, and that an ample measure of local control should be given to the people.

STATE BENEVOLENCES AND THE TREASURY. The benevolent institutions of the State have been the pride and care of onr people. We have given generously to their construction and equipment. It is a disgrace to our State that these institutions should be drawn into tbe strifes of political parties; that official places connected with the care, treatment and instruction of the insane, deaf and dumb, blind, imbecile, and of the orphans of our soldiers should be regarded and distributed as a part of tbe spoils of politics is a public scandal—a reproach to our civilization. These institutions must be rescued and placed nnder a strict civil-service. Skill, intelligence and a humane disposition, and not a ward following, must be the test. The abuses that were shown to exist in the Soldiers’ Orphans’ Home, at Knightstown, by the investigation made a year ago, were the natural result of a partisan administration of that most interesting charity. Debauchery, thieving and cruelty found easy access and slow exposure. The other benevolent institutions will show the same results, in greater or less degree, if some other test of fitness for service in them than the applicant’s politics is not established by law. Our penal institutions should also share in this reform. As I had occasion to remark at onr State convention, the inordinate desire expressed by our Democratic friends to open tho books did not, it seems, extend to books kept by Democratic book-keepers. At the last session of the Legislature Hon. W. D. Fonlke, a Republican Senator from Wayne county, on the 14th day of January, called attention to that portion of Governor Porter's message relating to the condition of the State Treasury, and moved the appointment of a committee to investigate its condition, with power to send for persons and papers. After a good deal of delay, a concurrent resolution was finally adopted directing a joint committee to be appointed thereunder, to consider that portion of Governor Porter’s message relating to the State Treasury, and to report, among other things, whether an investigation into the affairs of the State treasury was Jnecessary or proper. The Democratic members of this committee reported that such an investigation was not necessary. The committee found that on the 28th day of January, 1885. the Treasurer wa9 chargeable with $486,881.04. Os this sum only $7,700 was found in actual cash in the treasury. For the balance due the State the Treasurer exhibited bank drafts, packages of money marked as special deposits in some of the Indianapolis banks, certificates of deposit, certain county warrants, etc. The minority of the committee asked Mr. Cooper whether he had received any interest, bonus or gratuity for the use of the State money, but the question was objected to. and the majority of the committee decided that it should not be answered. The minority also asked leave to inquire of Mr. Cooper as to the actual ownership of tbe certificates of deposit and drafts presented, with a view of ascertaining whether they had been simply furnished by the banks for the occasion or actually represented money deposited by Mr. Cooper, as Treasurer. The Democratic majority of the committee refused to allow this inquiry to be made or any inquiry tending to the determination of the question whether the State funds were actually safe and intact. The minority state that cf the asssets shown to the committee $96,000 was deposited by the State Treasurer within two days prior to the investigation. That $45,000 was deposited in tho Merchants National Bauk, whose president and cashier were on the Treasurer’s bond, on Nov. 16, 1884, which was Sunday; that a number of the vouchers shown to the committee, purporting to be several months old, were. In the opinion of the minority, freshly written and recently made. They were cot allowed to inquire whether those vouchers bore tho true date. The

minority further state, in their report that as to the $60,00Q deposited in tho Meridian National Bank, they were informed and believed that this money had been recently borrowed by certain persons from ths bank and was not the property of the State Treasurer at the time the voucher was exhibited; that this information was reported to the full committee, but the majority refused to allow any inquiry into the matter. They also state that they hadinformation that $42,000 of the funds of the State had been deposited in two Indianapolis banks that had failed, but the majority would allow no inquiry into the matter. The minority of the committee say,- iu conclusion: We regard the present condition of the State Treasury as extremely critical, as it is our belief that there is a large deScit therein, although we are unable to state with certainty the amount, owing to the refusal of the majority to enable u* to make any inquiry. Wo have grave fears, however, that it exceeds the entire penalty of the Treasurer’# official bond. It is our clear conviction that an immediate and thorough investigation is imperatively demanded, and we earnestly request the respective houses of the General Assembly Aqhave it instituted without delay. This we do irre*sp&Hiye of all partisan considerations. The minority report was promptly laid upon the table by Democratic votes, and the majority report adopted, which declared that, in view of all these facts, no investigation was necessary. I do not believe the honest tax payers of the State will approve of these methods of supprea siou. If there was force in the suggestion of tho last campaign, that the books of the national Treasury should be turned over to the Democrats for inspection, we submit that the public interests will be subserved if the next Legislature is composed of representatives who will deem it their duty to ascertain beyond all doubt that the money taken from the people by taxation is safely and properly cared for, and that such amendments shall be made to existing law as will secure frequent, careful and impartial inquiry as to the safety and use of the public funds. LABOK QUESTION. I believe that a large majority of our people—not themselves wage workers—sympathize with, and will give their aid to every reform calculated to make the burdens of labor lighter, and its rewards more adequate. These, added to the vast army of wage-workers, can and will brinp on in orderly procession those well-digested reforms which experience and study have suggested, and will yet suggest A contented and thrifty working class is the surest evidence of national health, and the best pledge of public security. The men who fought the war for the Union were its working people. It was true of the army as of the kingdom of heaven—not many rich. The reforms suggested have relation, first, to the health and comfort of the workman. I believe the law should vigorously, and under severe penalties, compel all employers of labor to reduce the risk to health and limb to the lowest practicable limit Overcrowding, ill-ventilation, unhealthful surroundings should be made unlawful and unprofitable. The life of man or woman ought not to be woven into a fabric. Every appliance for safety should be exacted. I believe that the wages of the laborer should be given such preference as will secure him against loss. As long ago as 1878, in a public speech, I said upon this subjeet: “If any railroad or other business enterprise cannot earn enough to pay the labor that operates it and the interest on its bonds, no right-minded man ean hesitate to say which ought to be paid first. The men who have invested money in the enterprise or loaned money on its securities ought to have the right to stop the business when net earnings fail, but they cannot fairly appropriate the earnings of the engineer, or brakeman, or laborer. I believe the law should require the prompt payment of wages in money. I believe that the number of working hours can in most of our industries be reduced without & serious loss to production, and with great gain to the health, comfort and contentmentof our working classes. I advocated and voted for the law of Congress prohibiting the importation of laborers under contracts made abroad, and beiievo that such legislation is just and wise. But I cannot extend this discussion further. The recent State platform of our party, in its declarations upon this subject, meets my entire approval. The labor reform needs only to trust to reason and fair argument to secure success. Its two worst enemies are anarchy and the demagogue. If it escapes these it will succeed. The masses of our people are disposed to be kind, just and liberal—hospitable to reason and reform. But the majority in favor of law and public order is overwhelming. Nothing can succeed upon the line of lawlessness. It is the most hopeful sign that attends this great movement that the great body of its promoters have not failed to see this truth, and have united with their fellow-citizens in denouncing the fierce and destructive doctrines of the Anarchist and his bloody work.

PENSION VETOES. Mr. Cleveland has won great eminence—l will not say fame—by his extraordinary exericise of the veto power. He has vetoed more bills than all of his predecessors, from Washington down. I must defer to another time a discussion of this feature of his administration. But as we have been challenged to examine his vetoes of private pension bills. I will refer to one. Sallie Ann Bradley was the widow of Thomas J. Bradley, who served as a private in Company D, Twenty-fourth regiment Ohio Volunteers, from June 13, to Oct. 9, 1865. He was pensioned on account of a shell wound in the back, received at Murfreesboro, Tenn., Jan. 2, 1862, and died Oct. 21, 1882. The Commissioner of Pensions decided that his death was not entirely attributable to his military service, and that his widow could not secure a pension under existing law. She was seventy years of age, as helpless as an infant, without means of support, or friends able to assist her. Four of her sons followed their father to the war. Two of them were killed upon the battle-field, and the other two returned, one with the loss of an eye, the other of an arm. The bill gave her a widow’s pensiOD, sl2 a month. In his veto of this bill Mr. Cleveland said: “No cause is given of the soldier’s death, but it is not claimed that it resulted from his military service, her pension being asked for entirely because of her needs and tbe fatbfnl service of her husband and her sons. This presents the question whether a gift, in such cases, is a proper disposition of money appropriated for the purpose of paying pensions. The passage of this law would, in my opinion, establish a precedent so far-reaching, and open the door to such a vast multitude of claims not on principle within our present pension laws, that I am constrained to disapprove the bill under consideration.” Does this case need any comment? Would the question have been raised in any other mind whether, what the President is pleased to call a gift, was proper in such a case? A gift of sl2 per month, and in exchange for what? What gift had she made to her country? Two sons that she had nourished at her breast lying in unknown graves upon distant battle-fields. Two more, her only ones, came back from the war maimed in linrb and crippled in their ability to maintain the mother that bore them. A husband upon whom she had leaned for support returned to her no longer the stalwart helper and defender he had been, and is called before her to the grave. She is alone. Cannot a great, rich government like ours take caro of this patriotic woman? Must she go to the poor-house or die of want? May not a nation do ont of its great resources what an individual, not lost to a sense of justice, would do under like circumstances? Our President seems to think that only a policeman’s club or afire engine stands related to the public safety and tbe substantial welfare of tbe people. Those finer spiritual influences, patriotism, courage, heroism, he would probably call sentimeutal and not substantial. Patriotism saved this country from a revolt that the policeman’s club could not quell—it extinguished in blood a flame that water could not quench—and the Nation can afford to honor it, and relieve the bnrdeus it brought upon its heroes and their families. The K. of L. Entertainment To-Night. The fourth anniversary of Armstrong Assembly, No. 2212, K of L.. will be celebrated by an entertainment, at Tomlinson Hall, to-night, and it is expected that the attendance will be very large, as the s"le of tickots for the affair baa been heavy. The entertainment will consist of literary and musical exercises by the several tocal assemblies of Knighte of Labor. A statistician (bachelor of course) insist* that courtships average three tons of coal each, and we would add, scores of bad cough* and colds; but then every prudent gnll&nt is provide# with a bottle of Dr. Buli’e Cough Syrup. Pricey 25 cents.