Jasper County Democrat, Volume 9, Number 29, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 20 October 1906 — HANLY RIDDLED [ARTICLE]

HANLY RIDDLED

Ex-Attorney General Smith, In a Speech at Franklin, Exposes the Governor’s Deception. The Truth Told About the Attorney General’s Office. In a speech at Franklin on Oct 11, Hon. A. G. Smith, former attorney general, took occasion to i nmask the hypocrisy of Governor Hanly and to call him to account for the willful misrepresentations that the governor is repeating over the state. Mr. Smith said: The office of attorney-general waa created by statute in the year 1855. From the first the power to collect moneys due the state was given to that office, and the attorney-general deducted from such collections the commission allowed by law. During the legislative session of 1889, the/ law governing that office and fixing the powers and duties thereof was revised and re-enacted. TJhis statute was passed and approved March 5, 1889. It was a Democratic legislature that passed it, and a Republican governor who approved and signed it. The law was drafted by Hon. L. T. Mltchner, then attorney-general and a Republican, and its enactment was urged by the superintendent of public instruction and the highest school officers of the state; the reason for urging its enactment was that large amounts of school funds were diverted from their lawful channel, commingled with other funds, and practically lost to the schools of the state, and much of this fund had been lying dormant in the counties and in the hands of defaulting and negligent officers for many years; and the existing laws made no provision for the correction of these evils or for the restoration of this fund. This statute made provision for the appointment of collectors, sometimes called assistants. by the attorney-general, and provided that for the collection of any fund by the attorney-general or his assistants, which did not bear the expense of its collection, such expense should be paid out of any money in the treasury, not otherwise appropriated. This provision of the statute was intended by the legislature to compensate the attorney-general for expenses incurred in making such collections. The law provided that for all collections made by the attor-ney-general of whatever kind or character there should be paid to him a commission of practically twenty per cent, and to his assistants who made such collections a sum not exceeding ten per cent on the collected. It Is well to mention here that the assistants engaged in making collections for the attorney-general’s office were simply expert accountants, and had nothing whatever to do with the legal machinery of the office. And It Is unnecessary, perhaps, to say that the cost of making the collections was, in many cases, in excess of the amount allowed by law, in which case the excess was borne by the attorneygeneral. At this point I wish to call your attention to the fact that the act just mentioned was dratfed and caused to be Introduced under the management of Mr. Mltchner, who was then attor-ney-general, without my knowledge or participation, and it was approved by Governor Hovey. Under the provision of this statute Attorney-General Mltchner operated for nearly two years. His collections were very large and the amount of money he earned under thlA law exceeds the amount earned by all of his successors In office. I mention this to call to your mind that if an officer is to be condemned because he has made too much money under the law, then it Is but common decency that all be placed upon the same level and be subject to the same treatment, however indelicate it may appear from a partisan political point of view. Mr. Mltchner is a Republican politician. He is a clever gentleman and an honest man. So far as collections were concerned, he conducted that branch of office exactly as I did and as was afterwards done by William A. Ketcham, Republican, who succeeded me. I made the same class of collections as Mr. Mltchner made; Mr. Ketcham made the same class of collections that I made. Practically the same assistants who collected funds for Mitchner were retained by me through my term and continued to work for Mr. Ketcham during the period that he operated under the law of 1889. I know of no better lawyer than William A. Ketcham: nor do I know of any man possessing a higher order of integrity. When he succeeded me he was familiar with the powers and duties of the attorney-general’s office. He knew the kind of funds that were being collected by the office, and the law under which they were collected, and the method of collection and the compensation paid for such work, and If he ever changed the method. I have no knowledge of it. His work in thia regard, as in quite everything else connected with that office, is an approval of what I did while there? and I am satisfied <o remain in bis class, I repeat, only to that In so far aa the administration of the

attorney-general’s office relates to collections made under the law of March 5, 1889, is concerned, the work of Mr. Mltchner, myself and Mr. Ketcham is identical, and as to earnings does not differ in kind, but only in degree. Both my immediate predecessor and my immediate successor in that office are Republicans. "They are alive,” and they are reputed to be rich. Now why are they left out of the calculation when the tongue of slander, falsehood and detraction Is waged against me? I agree that nothing hurtful can be said of these gentlemen. But I stand just where they do, and what may be said of me in regard to collecting public funds under,the law of March 5, 1889, can be said of them. Am I singled out at this late day as the victim of the shafts of insinuation, falsehood and malice simply because I am a Democrat? I was attorney-general of Indiana from November, 1890, to November, 1894, and it was my pride to give to the people of this state a faithful, honest and useful administration, and barring possible mistakes and errors, my record is clear. No attorney-gen-eral ever went out and made collections of delinquent funds himself. The most that a careful officer could do was to select competent assistants and trufft the work to them, and after exercising all the care possible, if mistakes occur, they are simply mistakes and should be corrected when fully ascertained. The governor says I made too much money while attorney-genera), In the manner as he stated it. And then he asks dramatically, ‘‘was he worth it?” I need not accept or deny the correctness of his statement of the amount I made. That is of no consequence if what I earned was earned under the law. If the law was too liberal, it is for the legislature to change it, and to reduce the compensation it allows. My compensation was fixed by the law and every effort was made to comply strictly with its provisions. I will later on discuss the question whether I got more than I was worth. The question now is, had I a right .to take it? Would you have taken it? Would the governor have taken it? Would any official who operated under a law fixing his compensation have refused to take that which the law gave him? It seems not. The question answers itself. Did I Earn More Than I Was Worth? Let us look into this proposition. In 1891 the legislature enacted what is known as the new tax law. It was a Democratic caucus measure. It was strongly opposed in the legislature by nearly all of the Republican party and a few members belonging to the Democratic party. It finally became a law, and under it a new valuation of all the property in the state was directed. Then the fight to defeat it began in earnest. Politicians and newspapers demanded its overthrow, and the great corporations took the lead to defeat the power of the legislature to enact such a measure. They declared that it was unconstitutional and the valuations of property fixed under its authority were void. Railroad corporations doing business in this state went before the tax board and resisted the assessment of their property on the ground that the law was invalid. The board, however, overruled these objections and increased the valuation of railroad property for taxation from $69,000,000 to $160,000,000, an increase of $91,000,000 in a single year. To defeat this assessment, all of the large railroad corporations brought suits to annul the law for the alleged reason that it was in violation of both the state and federal constitution, and the assessment of $160,000,000 against their property was void. These suits wore commenced in various parts of the state at the same time, and temporary injunctions granted to stay the collection of taxes until a final hearing could be had. To sustain the law and save possible loss to the state, the attorney general employed additional counsel and began a vigorous defense of the law. There is no denying the statement that at that time the whole Republican party of the state was up in arms against the law. The Republican state convention met at Fort Wayne and resolved against the law, stigmatising it as fraudulent and demanding its repeal. Mr. Fairbanks made a speech against it and the whole party machinery was set in motion to overthrow the law. I went before the people to defend the law; I followed the accusations of the corporations against the law into the courts and fought it out there. From one court to another for over two years, I followed these corporations in defense of this law and finally landed in the supreme court of the United States, where I met and defeated all the corporate power centered in Indiana. The victory was a great one for the people of the state. The constitutionality of the law was sustained and the assessment against railroad property, amounting to $160,000,000 was affirmed—an increase of $91,000,000 over the old valuation When the decision of the supreme court of the United States was made final, these corporations owed four years’ taxes to the people of this state. I forced the payment of these taxes to the people of the state. I forced the payment of these taxes into the proper treasuries, amounting to millions of dollars. In this great conflict I received nothing and paid my own expenses. Do you now ask the question, “Wdz he worth it?” Did he earn his pay while serving the people as attornoy general? Let me go a step further. By examination I discovered that the great I properties owned by the sleeping car | companies, the express, telegraph and - - -

telephone companies, doing business in Indiana, were paying no tax on their invested capital and valuable franchises, and that there was no law in the state whereby this property could be adequately assessed and valued for taxation. So during the session of the ‘legislature of 1893, I had prepared a bill providing for the assessment of this great property. It was Introduced in the house and after much delay, occasioned by a lobby interested in the defeat of the measure, it passed the house and was transmitted to the senate. There the most powerful lobby attempted to defeat the bill and held it up on third reading until six hours before adjournment. It passed the senate, however, after the most persistent fight ever made over a single measure in that body. I bore the brunt of that fight. No sooner had the bill become a law than these corporations assailed it in court. I met these suits and fought them until the last hour of my official life, and banded the unfinished business over to my successor in office. The law was finally upheld in all its parts by the courts, and the property owned by these corporations have ever since been paying taxes to the state on the same basis as railroad property. I am not prepared to say how much taxes the people have received from these corporations. The sum is large. It is safe to say it is up into the millions. Before the passage of that law those corporations paid nothing on the capital invested. It was through my personal efforts as attorney general that they are paying now. Do you still ask the question, “Was he paid too much?” Let me go a step further. In 1892, the Union Railway and Belt Railroad of Marion county brought suit to set aside and have held void an assessment of $6,000,000 on their property. They refused for about three years to pay any taxes. I appeared and answered that suit- I filed a counterclaim asking judgment for the amount of their delinquent taxes. The case was tried before Judge Reinhard, sitting as circuit judge, and after a hotly contested trial, with Hon. A. C. Harris for the plaintiff, I recovered Judgment for $130,000 against these two corporations. Pending an appeal to the supreme court, I went out of office. After that the judgment was paid, but I received no compensation for my work. Now do you ask, "Was he paid too much?” The work I did while attorney general is still bringing rich rewards to the people of the state, and it will continue until the end of time. The money I forced from corporations and put into the public treasury has made it possible to discharge the public debt of the state as it becomes due; it has made it possible to support the penal and benevolent institutions of the state, without borrowing moifey; it has made it possible to discharge the obligations of the various counties and the municipal governments of the state and to lighten the burden of taxation upon the whole people. With this view of the matter do you hear someone say. “He was paid more than he was worth”? Additional Counsel.

Complaint is made that additional counsel was employed In these cases and paid out of the funds of the state. That is true. When the corporations assisted by political partisans assailed the very existence of the state and sought to sap its life by defeating the legislative power of taxation, the only means by which government can live, I deemed it wise to employ assistance In that great emergency to aid the state against the aggression of corporate power which was seeking to become greater than the state itself. I accordingly employed Hon. William A. Ketcham, Hon. John W. Kern, and Hon. Albert J. Beveridge, and that employment was approved by the state board of tax commissioners. Their employment was valuable to the state and was made and completed according to law. I still compliment these gentlemen for the able assistance they rendered the state in that great contest for the power and majesty of constituional government. I wish to keep it prominently before you that that contest was waged by corporate power against the sovereign power of the state, and if the corporations had been successful in that contest the state would have been before their power, and instead of the state being a government by the people and for the people, it would today be a plutocracy dominated by sordid wealth and corporate power paying Just such taxes to the people as they 1rected the legislature to authorize. I say this because in the legal contest to sustain the tax law of 1891, it was shown that the valuation of railroad property under the old system was >69,000,000, which amount had been fixed and determined by the railroads themselves, which amount they offered to pay upon without furtb r contest. The real contest, therefoi 4, being on the increase of >91,000,000 fixed by the state’s assessment maue under the new law. It was this valuation of >91,000,000 which I fought to sustain and won in the courts, and which the railroads tried to escape from paying upon. Make your own computation. These corporations have been compelled to pay taxes on this valuation (which I fought for and upheld in the highest court) for fourteen Take the average rate for state and local purposes for fourteen years, then add to It the additional revenue paid under the sleeping car -law of 1893, and you will have the net result of the benefit you have received from my administration as attorney general of Indiana. And as I have said, tne'beneficial result of my labors for the state is going on, and will continue to bear rich

rewards until through mismanagement and corrupt methods corporate power shall again seize the legitimate functions of our state government. Do you hear anyone say, “He received more than he was worth”? The work I have .briefly stated to you was neither light nor pleasant. It was hard, laborious work. The questions involved were original and of the highest moment to the state. Defeat meant financial disaster to the state and a denial to the people the right to exercise through the law-mak-ing department of government the sovereign power of taxation independent of the wish and demand of corporations and trusts. Nothing more need be said on this subject except that since the conclusion of this labor these corporations have pursued me with unrelenting opposition. They still feel the sting! But the mill grinds on! The governor asserts tn his speeches that during the session of the legislature in 1891, when he was a senator, that he observed that I put in the whole winter lobbying for a bill to increase the compensation of the attorney general, and that he, as a senator, opposed that bill at every step and stage, even to voting to sustain Governor Hovey’s veto. To say the least of this statement, it is reckless. The only bill introduced in the legislature of 1891 affecting the compensation of the attorney general was the general fee and salary law, which was a caucus measure of the Democratic party. The policy of the measure was to reduce and grade down compensation allowed to state and county officers from 25 to 50 per cent. When that measure was pending I consented and the committee having it in charge to reduce the commission allowed the attorney general under the law of 1889, from 20 to 12 per cent, a reduction of 40 per cent, which change was made and became a part of the law, which is shown at page 424 of the Acts of March 9. 1891. The governor says he opposed the passage of that law from start to finish and at every stage and step, because it was intended to increase the compensation of the attorney general. The record shows that this law was intended to, and did, decrease the compensation of the attorney general 40 per cent on collections, and nowhere added any additional powers, duties or compensation to that office. Whoever voted against that bill voted to allow the attorney general 40 per cent more on collections than I asked the legislature to put into the law itself. I knew that a powerful lobby of the county officers were present and attempted to defeat the bill, not because they favored the attorney general, for they were opposing him, but simply because the defeat of that measure would keep fees and salaries of these officials at high-water mark. So it is easy to see that a member of the general assembly who voted to defeat that bill voted with the county officers’ lobby and against the reduction of all fees —and voted to keep the attorney general’s compensation 40 per cent higher than that officer had consented andzrecommended to have It fixed. One word more on this subject: I never at any time in my life lobbied for a measure pending in the general assembly. I never aided, abetted or advised, directly or indirectly, in the work of any legislative lobby. When In office I never worked or assisted others to put a law through the legislature which added a penny to my compensation. Put up your team at Vance Collins' new feed and hitch barn near the river bridge. I still have a large stock of all wool Pants on hand, therefore do not buy cotton mixed stuff at high J trices when I sell all-wool pants or less money. Li. Wildbbbg, Clothier.