Jasper County Democrat, Volume 11, Number 11, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 6 June 1908 — A RINGING KEY-NOTE [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

A RINGING KEY-NOTE

Hon. Thomas R. Marshall Sounds the Slogan of the Coming Campaign. AN ARGUMENT TO THE VOTERS r — ■ Clear, Reasonable and Logical Pres* entation of Democratic Principles as Applicable to Indiana. jUfHY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SHOULD BE RETURNED Candidate for High Office of Chief Executive of the Proud Old Hooeler State Qlvee Rea tone. Some Unanswerable Arguments PreI sentod In a Ringing Addresa Delivered at Rlohmond. Richmond, Ind., June 3.—Ron. Thoß. R. Marshall, candidate for governor of the state of Indiana on the Democratic ticket, made a ringing "keynote” speech In this city last evening, his atirrlng words being enthusiastically applauded by the thousands who had gathered to hear what is looked upon as the slogan of the party In the present important campaign In this state. Mr. Marshall said: Chosen by the voice of my party to be Its candidate for Governor, It beoomes encumbent upon me to fully present to the voters of the state such arguments as I may truthfully advance, why the Democratic party should be returned to power. In accordance with the constitution of thiß state, the governor is only its chief executive, and has no right to coerce or compel the legislative or judicial branches to do anything which they may not desire to do. The right of veto which was given to him Is valueless unless he can convince the legislature by his veto that It has erred in its judgment, because an act vetoed by him can at once be repassed by a majority of the members of both branches acting separately. Aside from his clerical duty, the transacting necessary business with the officers of

the government, obtaining knowledge as to the mauner in which they are conducting their offices, granting reprieves, commutations and pardons, and filling vacancies in office, his duty is summed up in the general statement that he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. It is not said that he shall make the laws or eompel the legislature to make them. His is only an advisory power, and he ought not to compel the legislature to pass a law over his veto unless that law is clearly unconstitutional or so vlelous that by his veto he can convince the legislature of its error. It is not said that he shall execute the laws, bnt that he shall take care that they be faithfully executed. The duty of executing the law abides in the courts of this state, and it seems to me that the governor has fully discharged his duty to the people when he sees to It . that the proper offloials promptly prosecute all aetiona and promptly endeavor to puniah all infractions of the law. The law must always be administered in the courts. Public opinion may be manufactured upon the platform and through the press. Tbst public opinion may be crystallised by the legislator* into taw, but the law canaot be enforced either upon the platform or In the press. It must be enforced In tte courts of this state. To try men outside of the courts is only producttve of anger discussion and aocompltabes no good purpose. While this is true, a candidate is expected to tenth fully discuss suoh public goes Mans an seem *f moment to him, al-

thongh in the final analysis he may 1 have no right to enforce his views. ' ■•, ■ l The Form of Our Government. Such Is the form of our government' that national and state campaigns are held at the same time, and the elections occur upon the same day. So, although It Is true that they have but little to do with each other In theory, In practice they seem to be so interwoven as to require at the hands of candidates the discussion of both state and national Issues. I recognize the truthfulness of those who keep close watch upon political affairs, In making the statement that, after all, party platforms In the pass have had too little to do with the result of electiona. lam sorry that this has been so; that the platform has been used only as e place from which to address the citizen and appeal to his pride, his passion and his prejudice, Instead of being used for the purpose for which such party machinery was intended. I am also sorry that platforms have been ueed like those of railroad trains —not to stand on, but Just to get in on. It is not, however, true that what has always besn must inevitably always be. A lawyer brought from the privacy of his law offloe Into the political arena, I am to be pardoned If I say that from my personal standpoint, I trust and believe that the Democracy of Indiana not only said In convention what It meant, but.also meant what it said. In the hope and with the belief that this year Is to witness the presentation of certain qnestions squarely to tbs people, and with an abiding confidence that the people will settle these questions upon principle, I desire to address myself to the reasons which appeal to me for a return dr Democracy to power. Democracy vs. Aristocracy. In what I shall have to say in the way of criticism, It must be remembered that £ am criticizing measures, not men. As a man may say, "I have been" and ‘1 am,” but God alone can say “I will be,” so a man may say, “I have not done certain things,” “I am not doing them,” but God alone can tell whether I will do them. Fairness to a political opponent demands that you take into consideration his point of view. The lawyer knows that most all men are all right from the neck down. The difficulty Is that men use their Intellects for the purposes of persuad Ing themselves that certain courses of conduct are right. Looking at these things through their own particular spectacles, they deem certain courses of conduct both in legislative and administrative affairs, to be entirely fit and proper They are not. therefore, to be criticized or blamed. An effort should be made Instead of criticizing them, to get the voters of the state to not put on the spectacles through which these men look at public affairs. Aside from mere environment, there Is also a difference Id the mental makeup of men. From the beginning, while all men have desired liberty, some have desired It for the entire race, while others have desired liberty for themselves and slavery for those who did not agree with them. The line of demarkatlon Is not now necessarily a party line. The man who believes inherently in his fellow-man, who thinks with Abraham Lincoln, that God never made a man good enough to be another man’s master without that man’s consent, who puts his trust, not in the passionate opinion of the public, but rather In the calm and deliberate judgment of his fellow-citizens, who be lleves In local self-government, who thinks that as little should be ceded away from the Individual citizen as is necessary for the public good, who thinks, that what the township can look after it should look after; what the county can look after, it should look after; what the state can look after, It should look after; who believes that we are a people living under a written constitution; that this constitution has provided for three coordinate branches of government : The executive, the legislative and the judicial; who thinks that the business of the executive is to administer the laws and from time to time give to the legislative his views upon public ques tions; who thinks that It Is the business of the legislative to enact the laws for the people and who recognizes the duty of the court to construe those laws although such construction may work injury, leaving to the injured person an appeal to the legislative for redress; who thinks that all men are to be treated alike in legislative matters; who does not admit that either directly or by indirection, a legislative body has any right, power or authority at the instance of any man or set of men, to enact any law which, working to the benefit of one man or set of men will work to the detriment of another man or set of men; such a man, regardless of the fact as to whether he votes the Republican or the Democratic ticket, is, at heart, what I am pleased to denominate a Democrat. Upon the other hand, that man who thinks God made some men better than other men, endowed them with larger civil rights, made them by nature commanders and rulers; who believes In a strong government, compactly managed by one or by a few men; who thinks that the destiny ol the people may not be safely left in a people’s hands; who looks upon legis 1 attires as a means of obtaining advantage over hts fellow-men; that man, - whether he vote the Democratic or Re publican ticket. Is one whom 1 denom tnate aa an aristocrat. The conflict between aristocracy and democracy ii ever old yet ever new. {t will not i oease to be until the lion and the lamb i shall lie down together or the lamb •hail He down Inside the lion. Aria . tooracy has had many manifestation!

In the age# gone by. It proclaimed the divine right of kings to rule. It arrogated to Itself In Rome the power to make gods of its mortal emperors. It bpllded up, in our own republic, a slave-holding oligarchy, and I trust my eye is not jaundioed, my heart embittered, nor my Judgment biased, when I declare that In the latey hours of the republic, it has built up an aristocracy of special privileges and gives the Individual citizen the right to vote If that aristocracy Imagines that he will vote all right. It Is against this aristocracy of money that the Democratic party protests. It declares, and I hope all those who vote with it this fall will sincerely believe, that no interest on earth has any right to any special legislation at the hands of either the national or the state legislative departments. A Condition, Not a Theory. There Is a vast deal of difference between the publicist who expresses his views upon the platform, and the official who speaks as one having authority. If I have any right to voice the sentiments of Democracy, that party Is not the enemy of capital. It believes in vested rights and in the protection of those rights by the courts. It does not, however, believe in vested wrongs. It does not think that stolen property can be so long retained as to put good title In the thief. Demanding the repeal of all laws which are calculated and which have given certain classes of citizens an undue and an unjust advantage over other citizens, it pledges itself to not retaliate by the enactment of like legislation. It realizes that dishonesty is not a mark of condition in life, but rather the mark of the man. The poor man may be honest or dishonest; so, too, may the rich man. It believes that the rich rascal, If such an one exists, ought to be hunted out, prosecuted and punished. It, however, believes that such punishment rests with the courts and with the courts alone. It deprecates, therefore, the general assault upon the thrift, enterprise and business interests of this country. It views with alarm the general assaults which have been made upon capital without regard to the question as to whether the individual capitalist is honest or dishonest. It cannot help thinking that unless the man who Is believed to be dishonest Is specifically pointed out, a general assault upon the theory that all capital is dishonest is calculated to do more harm than good to the people of this country. Utopia is not here. It Is not likely soon to be. We are confronted by conditions and not theories. One of our principal arguments against the trust has been that It destroyed the individuality of the young American; that it

made of him but a servant of servants; that it prevented him from jumping into the arena of life and making his own fight with the weapons with which God had endowed him. If this criticism is a just one, and it seems to be, then the indiscriminate assault upon dishonesty among men of money is wholly unjustified. This condition of affairs has arisen by reason of the fact that in this as in all other matters, we have lost sight of the different branches of our government. 9o long as executives imagine that they have a right to try the motives of men and yet are powerless to enforce their decrees, that long this state of affairs will continue. Whenever we get executives in this country who have constitutional knowledge enough to know that the place to try the rascal is in court, and courage enough to put him upon his trial there, that soon will we have contributed somewhat to the peace, quietude, good order and prosperity of the people of this country. All, except those who are its beneficiaries, and by all I mean 80 per cent of the people of this state, are agreed as to the iniquities of the present trust system, whether it be one which arises out of the natural condition of the product itself or whether it be one which has been created by law. Both parties have been declaring against this economic condition for many years last past, yet nothing to speak of has been done. True, an injunction against the beef trust has been issued, but my steak has grown tougher as the price has gone up; true, the Standard Oil company has been fined, but the price of coal oil and gasoline has been advanced sufficiently so that out of the united purchases of the people, that fine has already been paid. I do not pretend to be a distinguished political economist; I am simply a lawyer. I believe we began to go wrong when we began to discuss ths question as to whether a high protective tariff was a good or a bad thing for the people of this country. So long as we discussed the question of the right of the general government to levy a revenue large enough to pay the expense of running the general government, economically administered, that long we were upon safe ground. When we began to discuss the question as to whether it was a good or bad thing, from that moment we made of the tariff what we laughed at General Hancock for saying it was—a local Issue. The protection of American in dustries naturally led to a desire upon the part of these industries to combine. Having successfully driven out t all foreign competition, observing the income which arose to them as stockholders by reason of this special legislation, it stands to reason, without any criticism of the men themselves, that they desired to still further increase , their abundance, and this increase of abundance, competition having been llrat throttled, was easy to bring about by the formation of the treat With Reference to Indiana. We come now to a somewhat anomalous situation in the state of Indiana,

and you will observe that I speak with reference to Indiana alone, for, while the Democrats everywhere are In favor of a tariff for revenue only, the Republican pgrty In different states Is torn, divided add In dissension upon this question. Some want reform, some desire to stand pat, and some. If they could be heard, would like to advance. The Democratic platform of this state declares for a tariff for revenue only, and that all articles entering Into competition with articles controlled by the trust, shall be immediately placed upon the free list. The Republican platform announces that at Its last convention it declared In favor of revision of the tariff whenever such revision would do more good than harm; that protection was never a matter of schedules, and while reaffirming the time-honored doctrine that there shall always be discrimination in duties that will fully protect the wage-earner of the United States, It never desired a higher rate than would accomplish that purpose and has always contemplated revision from time to time as the ever-changing conditions might make wise. I beg to differ with the statement of the Republican atate platform upon this question. I maintain that for many years it distinctly affirmed that Its purpose was not only to fully protect the wage-earner, but that it was also to build up and foster Infant industries. The platform of this year continues: “That we believe that revision would be now beneficial, and to minimize the harmful disturbance that tariff changes necessarily produce, we insist that revision be speedily done." This speed Is to be accomplished by an extra session of congress based upon data furnished by experts, but Is always to maintain the protective principle as heretofore. This seems to me to be a wonderful, wonderful statement. I have never been able to understand how a thing which would be beneficial would, at the same time, produce a harmful disturbance, yet such this platform declares to be the condition of affairs; that while the country wants and needs and would be benefited by the revision of the tariff, still if they do revise It, there will be a very harmful disturbance of affairs. It has seemed to me that If the Republican theory of protection was correct, If it was true that prosperity and the Republican party went hand In hand, If the higher up you place the tariff rates the surer you were to see the wheels of industry moving and the American workingman with a full dinner pail, large wages, ample opportunity for rest and refreshment and for the saving of a comfortable sum for his old age, then, in this awful hour of financial and material disturbance, when factories are closed, machinery stopped, the tracks full of idle cars, the bottom dropped out of the dinner pall, and many a

splendid specimen of American workingman is passing from door to door begging for the necessities of life, if forty years of Republican theory as to what tariff schedules would do for these industries and these theories are correct, then here and now is the hour, and this is Indeed the accepted time whn instead of revising the tariff and reducing the schedules, we ought to put them up another notch, still further strengthen our weak-kneed industries, give to the American laboring man a further opportunity for a livelihood, a full dinner pail and a contented mind. Nor can I pass this point without calling attention to the fact that the present condition of affairs discloses the selfishness of mankind as embodied in the tariff schedules. This fact is made apparent by the information which the public press discloses. Almost every prominent, high-tariff editor ip this country ls„ now besieging the halls of congress and, thus far, knocking in vain, asking that the tariff tax shall be taken off wood pulp. Why? I had always been led to believe from the reading of their papers, that the foreigner paid the tax. If they have seen a great light on their way to Damascus, if they have been stricken dumb by the iniquity of high tariff taxes, if they have realised that they have been persecuting the saints all these many years, then I beg of them iajfelrness to the American people to not only hammer at the doors of congress with reference to free wood pulp, but to also insist on freeing the necessaries of life, and to ask that that same spirit of justice which they demand toward themselves shall also be exhibited toward their less well Informed and their less influential fellow-citizens. May I be permitted also to suggest that this promise of after-election reform ought to be accepted by the people with a grain of salt? It is one thing for the Republican convention to call for it, and another thing for that convention to demand it and to See its accomplishment No one can dispute that the present speaker of the house and the machinery of the house of representatives are thoroughly in control of the special interests. I imagine that the tariff declarations of the Indiana Republican convention were looked upon as simply a platform on which to get into power again. If the president of the United States, who is now a Republican, can acoofnplish nothing exoept by constant force as against the interests which have controlled legislation for many years past, do you believe that these men returned to power again will do the things you want done? It is net perhaps thoroughly elegant, it is certainly very ancient, but the following la applicable; •The devil was sick, The devil a monk would be; The devil got well, Devil a monk was he.” The Question es Tariff Reform. When I reed this plank in the Ha

publican platform of Indiana, I was , reminded of a scene which you have , often witnessed. Travelling upon the , trains of Indiana, passing some farm- | house, you have seen a splendid dog ] rush out and take after the train. ] There have been two things that have : always impressed you with reference to this scene. One was. does the dog want to catch the train; the other, if , he caught It, what would he do with it? Upon the subject of tariff reform, I leave It to you to answer whether the present Republican congress wants to catch up with it, and, secondly, if It does, what would it do with it? Reverting to the question of tariff reform, I respectfully submit that under the constitution there is no authority to levy a tax, a tariff tax, save for revenue only; that If all other tax was wiped out and trust articles are put upon the free list, that either the trusts themselves will rapidly dissolve by reason of their own disintegration, or they can be rapidly pu£ out of busness. We have been talking too much for the last twelve years and not doing enough. We h&ve been crying for more legislation when I think what we needed was better lawyers. A corporation Is the creature of the state. It has just such functions and powers as the state furnishes It. It has no lawful authority to do any more than the state authorizes it to do. Whenever It exceeds these functions, does something which Its corporate franchise doee not grant to it, that moment it becomes an outlaw and without any act of the legislature, either state or national, there Is an inherent common law right to dissolve the corporation and forfeit its franchise. The discussion which has gone on has been essentially valuable in the molding ot public opinion, but the hour has come in which talk must cease and action must begin. If Roosevelt and Bonaparte have failed, let us put In Bryan and some Duke of Wellington who will succeed. The proposition Is up to you, the 80 per cent of the people of this country, as to whether you want a president to voice your views who Is constantly compelled directly or Indirectly to take his big stick and attempt to hammer the legislature into doing of your will, or whether upon the other hand, you will choose an executive to voice your will and send to the legislature, those who are anxious to accomplish the purposes you have In view, and to pass the legislation which you desire. The question is squarely up to you, my fellow-citizens, as to whether you will risk accomplishing your purposes In violation of the constitution by simply retaining your ancient political affiliations, or whether you will accomplish your purpose strictly In accordance with the constitution by electing an executive and legislative body who are in thorough accord.

“Friar Tuck Legislation.” Did the Republican convention when assembled at Indianapolis, have some latent doubt about a genuine desire upon the part of congress to revise and lower the tariff schedules? Was It fearful that if it demanded that the gentlemen who are receiving $7,500 per year for serving the people should continue in session and should immediately take up this question, that not having mingled with their constituents and not knowing the crying demand there is everywhere in the West for such revision, that they might fail to carry out this recommendation? Was It for this reason and #as it for the reason that they feared that the elections once being carried, that unless these members were at once haled to Washington while the cry of the people was yet in their ears, that thsy would forget between early in November and the first Monday in December, that which the people wanted? Did they imagine that if the people can stand It from now until early in November they could not also stand it until the first Monday in December? Is it not true that a large number of the representatives of this country have serious doubts about the genuineness of the professions of many of their leaders with reference to tariff reform? The other day I came across an old editorial written in 1844, by William Cullen Bryant, which seems to be apropos to the present time. It 1b headed: "Friar Tuck Legislation.” The article is based upon a legend told in some of the old chronicles of Robin Hood and his Merry Foresters at a time when they were assembled to deliberate on the distribution of a very large amount of spoils. They were persuaded to leave the forming of a law for the distribution thereof to Friar Tuck, who so formed it as to get the larger portion of the spoils himself. A controversy at onoe arose over the fairness and integrity of such a law. The Friar was a bold man and promptly made the Merry Foresters of England this inquiry; "For whose benefit are laws msde, I should like to know.” And then, without waiting for gn answer, "Except first, for the benefit of those who make them, and afterward, as it may happen. Am I not the lawmaker, and shell I not benefit by my own law?” Thereupon the Friar proceeded to take his share of the booty and left his unreasonable companions to make the best of that which remained. Without imputing personal motives and conceding that it is a matter of education, ' environment and viewpoint, I may in- ' quire if a large number of you are not convinced that the present attitude of | most of the representative officials is ’ not the attitude of Friar Tuck? Do they not believe that laws are enacted for the benefit of those who make them and afterward as it may happen? Have they not fqr years been imposing high duties, filling the pockets of the interests they have served, taking ■ I all they could get, letting such inter- ■• . >

ests take all they could get. and as to the people, the great mass of laborers and consumers, why, has not It been just as it may happen? There has been but one difference in the legislation of Friar Tuck and the legislation of the interests of recent years. Friar Tuck was bold enough to avow . that he made the law for his own benefit, but these gentlemen have been beguiling the people by the statement that it was made in their Interests and in the interests of this republic of ours. It may be that it is only my own point of view, but I cannot look upon great material prosperity as absolutely essential to the greatness of a people. Vast domain does not fix the status of unpeople in the history ot the world. Alexander at twen-ty-five had conquered the habitable globe, and yet upon his death, his empire sank into nothingness. Russia is a vast domain, hot not one of the great powers of tho world. You may -take the map of Europe, if you please, and with your thumb nail you may cover a little spot called Greece. It is not large in territory, but so long as ait, sculpture and literature are loved, the name of Greece must be lisped lovingly upon the human Him. Off the coast of Europe you wifi see a little island about the sice of a pinhead. This is the Island of Corsica, barren, inhospitable, yet so long as military prowess and gentus shall charm the world, that long shall the Island of Corsica not be forgotten. It Is not great material prosperity, either, that marks the status of a people. In the inaccessible Alps there dwell a people so poor as to have but barely the necessities of life, and yet for 400 years Swltxerland has been tree and the Swiss a happy people. No one knows who was the richest man when Aristides ruled over Greece. No one knows who had gathered to himself the most gold when Caesar found Rome brick and made it marble. No one knows who was the wealthiest man when Shakespeare sounded for England and for all time the shoals and depths of human passions; no one knows who had the most money when the footsore soldiers of Washington incarnadined the snows of Valley Forge with their lifeblood. No one knows, and no one cares. Let us make honest money if we can, hut let us know of a verity that liberty and justice and truth and righteousness are the great powers which make and keep safely a people. A Question of Ethics and of Politics. I desire now to address myself for a moment to -the question of labor capital. It is both a question of ethics and of politics. The ethical side of it is so well known that It need not be discussed. If I know anything about Democratic tendencies, the party is not thoroughly understood in its attitude toward capital. It does not frown down upon wealth nor the accumulation of wealth. It is not what you have, but how you got it and use it that fixes your status from a Democratic standpoint. It believes that capital is as essentially necessary in this country as labor; that It is entitled to the same rights and privileges and Immunities as labor. It does not believe that you should have any special legislation to the injury and detriment of labor, nor does it believe that labor should have any special legislation to your injury and to your detriment It does demand, however, that the dollars which you accumulate shall be clean enough for your children to cut their infant teeth upon them. And if Instead of coming out into the world as an individual, you seek a corporate creation at the hands of the state, the Democratic party does believe that It

has some right, having crested you, to control you. The platform of our party not having spoken definitely upon the state railroad law, I may b« permitted to use it as an illustration oi what I think the Democratic attltnds is. At least It voices my own view with reference to the condition of railroads. None of us can disguise ths fact that the building of the vast net work of railroads throughout out stats has besn of inestimable value to its citizens. They have helped to mark our progress and Importance in the world of affairs. He is not a good citizen who wants to injure the men who have built these roads. Therefore, it has seemed to me that the railroads of this state were entitled to representation upon the State Railroad Commission; that the men who riak their livea and expose themselves to all the inolemeades of the weather that you and I may ride in speed and comfort to and from various points, are likewise entitled to compensation and not a mere living; to enough wages to enable them to put by 'for a rainy day; these men also are entitled to representation upon the State Railroad Commiseibn; and we, the private citizens of this state, who mast pay for the comfort, convenience, luxury and safety that we enjoy, ought to pay in way of transportation rates and in the way of passenger fare, a sufficient sum to not only amply compensate ths railroad man, but to give the man whe builds the road a liberal return upon hie money investment This is Demo cratic doctrine. Equality before ths law, equal privileges for all and spe cial privileges for none. I may be permitted to return foi just a moment, to voice my objection! to the present idea of government ) am not quarrelling with most of ths things which ths president of ths United States is endeavoring to obtain at the hands of congress, and what 1 say with reference, to the president may be applied with equal frankness to the present governor of the state My protest comes from a failure to understand, or it understanding, a fatlurs to carry out the theory of our govern--1 ment.

Prom my standpoint tie executive has no right to force hli opinions mpon the legislative body. Many things 'bought to be done, but the people must understand that good government Is only to be obtained In this country of ours by a careful watch of the people of all their officeholders. They must know, not after election, but before election and at election time, that the sending of a fool to the legislature will result In foolish legislation; of a knave, of knavish legislation; and of a man representing special Interests, special legislation, and they must, understand that if they obtain legislation of this kind, it is their fault and not the fault of the executive. On many matters of reform, in most, in fact, the attitude of the president meets with my approval; his ponduct with my disapproval. If congress must do what W says, and the courts must decide ms he declares, then let us regularly change our fom of government and have a monarchy, and •embody In the president of the United States, not only executive, but judicial and legislative functions. You may laugh at me and say that so long as we obtain what we want, and that which is right, It Is Immaterial how we obtain It, but If you wfll apply that principle to the affairs off everyday life you will find chaos, confusion, disorder and riot in society. We know no way in the community tn which we live to obtain our rights except through the regularly constituted legal tribunals. We know no way to change an evil law except by an appeal to the legislature, and if theaa things will not work to our individual communities, be sure they will not work in our state and national life. A precedent is the most dangerous thing that can be established tn civil government. A precedent, with the president or the governor usurping all the functions of government, assumed by a good man and nsed for a good purpose may speedily he assumed by a bad man for a had purpose. I beg you, my fellow-citizens, to keep forever in mind the distinctions between the different branches of government, and maintain them with fidelity until they shall he «, regularly changed by amendments to our written constitutions; to strictly adhere to the written letter of the law If forking present hardship will result In future good. The Democratic party, however, is not in accord with the president of the United States in seeking to strengthen the powers of the gsneral government. It looks with suspicion on the taking away from the people of their right of local self-gov-ernment I never made but one speech upon the subject of Imperialism, and I promised myself to never make another. Those who did not go to sleep, left the hall. I asked myself why this -theory of imperialism which was opposed to all the doctrines of the fathers, in violation of the constitution of tito United States and every public utterance of Abraham Lincoln, (ell so like a wet blanket upon an audience. I discovered that these yellow brothers of ours were about 7,000 miles away from us; that we have not seen them, we do not care for them, they are not part of our lives. It Is a lesson that taught me that whatever else might come, I would resist with voice and pan any encroachments of the government of the rights of the state or the right of local self-government, for be sure. If your affairs are transferred to Washington your representatives there wfll be so engaged In weightier matters that they will have no time to look after the complaints of a small community in Indiana.

Man Who Ought to Pay Taxes. I do not speak upon the constitutionality of the Income tax. I only say that from the ethical standpoint it meets with my approval. If your could see the widow who has less than SSOO painfully wending her way to the county treasurer's office twice a year to pay her little pitiful tax for the support of the government, I think from the standpoint of ethics, you would agree with me that the men whose business affairs are protected by our system of government, are the men who ought to pay our taxes. There have always been two theories in Anglo-Saxon law, one that a man charged with the commission of a crime ought to be tried by a jury of his peers, and the other that he ought not to be tried before an interested judge. Injunctions ought not to indiscriminately ißsue. True, there are doubtless times when it is necessary to issue a temporary restraining order, but so soon as notice can be given, the merits of the matter ought to be entered into and the question determined whether a permanent injunction should issue while the facts are yet fresh and easily ascertainable. A violation of that injunction is criminal In its character. A person arrested for such violation ought to have a trial by jury and he ought to have an opportunity to be tried before an impartial judge. Improvement of Our Waterways. I have recently been up Salt River, In the Territory of Arizona. I went early to spy out the land and see whether I should like it as a permanent place of residence after next November. I there ascertained that the government had in process of construction a dam which in honor of the • president of the United States, is called the Roosevelt dam. When this is completed it will furnish a sufficient amount of water to irrigate the whole Salt river valley, reclaim 300,000 acres of land, and furnish homes for a half million of prosperous, contended and happy people. How' startling the comparison between this *rork begun and the $500,000,000 which we have put in the Philippines in a vain endeavor to reconcile imperialism with democracy.

Our advocacy of Cha improvement of our waterways is no new thing. We began most of the things that the Republican party is now. talking about Much discussion is had as to a waterway from Toledo to Chicago. We believe In the expenditure of public money that will lessen the expenses of transportation for the people and will furnish facilities for merchandise and passengers. New Bystem of Government Of recent years a new system of government has grown up In Indiana. Instead of holding the officer to strict accountability for the faithful discharge of the duties of his office, it has been deemed wiser in township and county by the Republican party, to appoint a board of guardians. In its platform of this year, It says that It will not falter or halt, but will advance the cause reform and better government as fast as the same can be wisely worked out with the approval and continued support of the people. It congratulates the people that ft has enforced the maxim that a public office is a public trust, and has always fought for honesty and integrity to every poblic office. If this is to he taken as true In spirit as well as in letter, it might be well to inquire what reform and better government is needed than has been provided for by the Republican party? It has had possession of the state machinery for the last twelve yeans. It has had every opportunity and every power to make things jnst exactly Tight. Is there something that needs reform, and do we require better government In the state of Indiana? If thit be true, then it seems to me that the way to obtain it is not by the multiplication of offices, the large increase in salaries, the vast expenditure of money, but rather in a watchfsfl care upon the part of the people that the man who goes into office shall discharge his duty. If he steals, give him a hatr-cut and a striped suit of clothes; if he fails to do his duty, remove him from office. The remedy 1b not in the multiplication of •Offices and Increase in salaries, but the remedy 1b rather In the man and in the public attitude toward the administration of affairs.

The Currency Question. The business of this country was never done upon the currency of the country, and tt never will be done upon such a basis. I am not a banker and cannot speak upon so abstruse a business as banking, but I know that one of toe things which ails toe present financial condition of the state and nation, is the lack of confidence of the people in the solvency and responsibility of many banks. For a number of years past the Republican party has been devoting a great deal of time and attention to the banking system. It has Introduced a number of measures looking toward the strengthening of the system, as It says. The best that is proposed is denominated by its champion as a “cyclone cellar measure.” What is going to happen to the people of this country in the way of a financial cyclone none of us plain citizens know. With the Republican party entrenched in power in state and nation with the ability to do whatever it pleases, with a flaunting declaration in the face of the people that toe Republican party and prosperity go hand In hand, Isn’t it marvelous that we should now be expecting the arrival of a cyclone? I suppose the answer to that will be, the danger of the election of a Democratic governor in Indiana. Just as a plain lawyer who has had some knowledge of bank failures in Indiana, I may be permitted to say that while the entire problem will not be solved, still you will have gone far toward it, when you make the depositor absolutely safe in his deposit. The Democratic party is in favor in state and nation of a bank tax to secure the depositor so that in the event of insolvency the state or the nation will promptly pay depositors. When this Is done many a bureau drawer will be robbed of Its treasures, many a blue stocking will be emptied of Its contents, and the deposits of banks will thereby be Increased. Demand for Primary Elections.

Slowly but Inevitably, if not in this campaign, In some future campaign, the 80 per cent who believe that the people ought to rule are going to see to it that the people do rule. They are going to prevent the interests from manipulating affairs of the state and nation. They are going to prevent combinations of candidates, nominations for special purposes, and nominations by special interests. They are going to get Into their hands the machinery by which they cannot only make but also elect their own officers. To this end the Democratic party of Indiana declares itself in favor of the passage of a primary law for the selection of all candidates, both state and local, and the election of all delegates to all conventions. The Republican platform, however, is not satisfactory to the average man. It simply declares for a practical primary law. What this means is subject to interpretation by the man who interprets it. He may declare that it is a law that works well, or a law that works for bis party, or a law that works for his Interest, or a law that works in a way Je wants It to; it has not declared Itself in favor of a primary election law that will give the people an opportunity to select all of its candidates, both state and local, and all delegates to all conventions. “

The Republican platform also declares In favor of the revision of the corporation laws of this state. Unless I am much mistaken, it appointed a commission some years since to revise the corporation laws in this state. That commission made a report to the legislature of this state of a codittoa-

•on Kti tfie corporation laws, which made thorn of New Jersey look like thirty cents. Had it not been for the splendid services of a Republican lawyer, the Hon. Addison C. Harris of Indianapolis, and the splendid services of the State Bar Association of the state qf Indiana, Indiana by this time, at the request, by the consent and with the approval of a Republican administration, would have been the nesting ftace of every trust that could not Build its nest so satisfactorily In any other state. Everybody knows that the corporation laws of this state are not what they ought to be. They are not so bad in themselves as they are in the ability of the courts to determine under what particular law a corporation is organized. A general revision may be advisable, hut let us not have the corporation laws revised, like the tariff, by its friends. If the friends of a system are the proper ones to revise Its laws, why not let the liquor Interests revise the license laws of this state?

The Liquor Question. I come now to toe consideration of the liquor question, which is engrossing the attention of many communities in the state of Indiana. I have such an abiding faith In the desire of the people of my native state to maintain the present system of government until the same shall be changed lawfully, that I make bold to ask their candid consideration of what I shall say, unbiased by any personal views which they may entertain upon the subject. This may be difficult to do, but ft is possible.

Either oura is a government designed to exercise its powers under toe limitations of a written constitution, or it is not. Prom the academic standpoint wo one will dispute that it is such a government. But I fear that in toe mad rush of the individual citizen to obtain that which he desires, he has lost sight of this fact and has made up his mind to obtain what he wants, constitution or no constitution. While Thomas Jefferson was the •author of the bill for religious freedom in Virginia and thus brought about the dis-association of church and state in America, 1 presume that there are -nst yet many Americans who are desirous of reuniting church and state. It may be that our dißtaste of this idea arises, to a certain extent, from the fact that we are not quite sure that our own particular branch could be made toe state religion. For more than one hundred years, therefore, in the domain of morals, the church has been toe final authority. It is the Bible which says; “Thou shalt not steal," •"Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not hear false witness.” The state has never said to its citizens any of these things. It has confined itself to the enactment of penal statutes in which it has affixed a penalty for larceny and murder and perjury. No one disputes the right of a people to Institute the particular form of government under which they may desire to live. No one disputes the right of a people -to change the form of government under which they are living. But In America we hare a pretty well defined idea that if there is to be a change in the form of government, that change shall be made In the way provided in the written constitutions by virtue of which our different governments now exercise their powers. It is idle to dispute the fact that there are people in the state, of Indiana who look upon the manufacture and sale and use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, as a crime against the law of God. There are those who believe that, notwithstanding the repeated decisions of the courts, the traffic in Intoxicating liquors is a crime In and of itself, and by that I mean a crime which arises out of the moral nature of mankind; and not out of any act of the legislature. Such persons as these are, at heart, prohibitionists. They cannot yield their assent to the right of the state to grant a license for the sale of intoxicants. They look upon it as inherently a crime. When I speak to such persons as these, I assume that they believe that all legislation which tends to restrict a traffic in one part of the state and permit it in another, is but toying with crime. Such of these people, however, as I have personally known, I believe to be people who are genuinely In sympathy with our system of government. Desiring prohibition, they do not desire it in any other way than in a lawful way, and they are therefore impressed with what is unqualifiedly both the truth and the law, that the only way la which to accomplish this purpose is to amend the several constitutions, change the organic law of the people so as to prohibit the manufacture, the sale and the use of intoxicants as a beverage. Church and state being disunited. however, It has been from the beginning the policy of this state to regulate the sale of such intoxicants. That regulation has heretofore been provided for by the legislature of the state of Indiana in throwing around the sale of Intoxicants such safeguards as the legislature In the exercise of the police power of the state deemed necessary and appropriate, and in placing certain restrictions with reference to the obtaining of licenses and in providing that under certain circumstances, licenses should not issue. From the beginning of our government the Democratic party has been the champion of local self-governmeht. It has believed that what the ward or the township could safely take care of, ought not to be transferred to the city or the county; that what the county could take care of, ought not to be transferred to the state; and that what the state could take care of, ought not to be transferred to the general govyS "

eminent Strictly In accordance with this time-honored Idea, in Its platform of this year the Democratic state convention has unequivocally declared that it will submit to the voters of a ward in the cltyy and to the voters of a township where there is no city, the question as to whether or no any license for the period of two years shall Issue for the sale of intoxicating | liquors in such ward or In such township. Neither the Democratic nor the j Republican party Is a Prohllbtion party. Neither party Is attempting by an act of the legislature of Indiana to make men wise, honest, truthful, Industrious or temperate. Each Is simply seeking to regulate the, sale of Intoxicating liquors. If, therefore, the Democratic doctrine of local self-gov-ernment In which I myself believe, meets with the approval of the people of this state, then the unit provided In the Democratic platform Is the unit upon which the vote with reference to the sate of Intoxicants should be taken. When each of the parttles recognizes the right of the state to license the sale of Intoxicants, then, manifestly, It must he true that a vote upon that question should be reduced to the lowest unit of local self-government; otherwise the doctrine of local self-gov-ernment is a farce, because it must be apparent to anyone who is at all advised as to the condition of affairs in Indiana, that a county vote would enable some voters to prevent licenses being Issued in towns apd cities which such voters do not enter once In ten years; and upon the other hand, it would permit such voters to foist upon townships and wards the sale of such liquors, when a vote in the individual township or Individual ward would have prevented such sate. It is true that the remonstrance laws each party pledges are still to remain In force, but a vote once having been taken upon the question, it is my deliberate judgment that no use whatever will ever be made of toe remonstrance law. It will not add to the strength of this argument to elaborate upon the subject further. If there is to be prohibition In the state of Indiana, let us submit the question squarely to the voters of toe state, amend toe constitution, and accomplish that purpose in a lawful way. If the policy of the state with reference to the granting of licenses Is to oontinue, and the people are to have any voice in that question, let us maintain our ancient doctrine of local self-government and let each unit of the Mate determine that question for itself. In this •connection, however, may I be permitted to suggest to many right-minded men who have been unable to appreciate the frankness and clearness of the Democratic platform upon this question, that if they have toe slightest idea of voting against Democratic candidates for the legislature upon the theory that the Republican candidate will vote for a county option bill, and that the Republican platform declares for rach a vote, that before you desert the ancient ideals of the republic, and while you are seeking prohibition in spots, that you obtain from the Republican candidate a written statement that he will vote for and work for the enactment of a law submitting to toe voters of the county the question as to whether a license shall Issue in such •county for the sale of intoxicating liquors for a period of two years. In eo many ways in the past have I seen the people beguiled by pledges made in Republican platforms, which never came to fruition in legislation, that I think I ought not to be charged with unfairness when I declare that the Republican plank with reference to the liquor question is a delusion and a snare. Examine the Platform. Go home, get out the Democratic platform and see If it does not declare in favor of a local option law under which the people of city wards or townships shall have the right to determine whether the sale of such liquors shall be licensed in their respective wards or townships for the two years ensuing, by vote at a special elf ntion. Then turn, if you will, to the Republican platform and see if it does not declare In favor of the enactment of a county local option law extending to the people of the respective counties of the state, the right to exclude the saloon therefrom by a vote at a special election. What does the word "saloon” mean In a political platform? Does it mean what we commonly and ordinarily understand as a saloon? Does it exclude therefrom clubs, hotels, restaurants and other places in which, now, it is possible for a man to obtain intoxicating ilqoors? In other words, would the men* hers of any social or fraternal dab fa Indiana feel that I was a gentleman If I alluded to their club as a sateen? And would they feel that the Republican platform covered their clubs whoa it declared upon the subject of tfcn saloon? Examine it still further ami see how long they propose to exclude even the saloon from the county. Is it to be for thirty days or thirty years? Are politicians charged always with being absolutely frank with the people? Why did they not use the language that they would submit to the voters In the oounty at a special election, the question as to whether a license should issue for the sale of intoxicating liquors? Before deserting the ancient ideals of the republic upon this legislative question, be sure that the Republican candidate for the legislature has unequivocally put himself upon record that the legislation which he proposes has to do with the issue of license for the sal£ of Intoxicating liquors and not with reference to the saloon alone, be sure that all the candidates of /the Republican party for legislative / office have all the same views on this ■ ■ ....

subject and have the same pledge to make you. . ...

State Expenditures. The constitution of the state of Indiana provides by Article 10, Section 4, that an accurate statement of the receipts and expenditures of the public money shall be published with the laws of each regular session of the General Assembly. This constitutional provision, It has seemed to me, was intended to enable the people of this state to know how much money they were paying for the expenses of good government, and to what different departments the same was allowed. For many years prior to the year 1901, there waß an exhaustive statement of receipts and expenditures published with the acts of the General Assembly. This general statement enabled the people of this Btate to know how much the governor's office and the various other offices of this state were costing them. How much toe different institutions, whether penal or charitable in their character, were costing them. How much was being paid out in the way of education, and how much in the way of interest; what the indebtedness of the state was. Compliance with the constitutional requirement was made and the average man by picking up the acts of the General Assembly could know something about toe financial condition of his state. Iu 1901 there was adopted an abbreviated policy attempting to comply substan-

tially with this constitutional requirement without giving the people of the state any information by such compliance. The acts of 1901, 1903 and 1907 contain this abbreviated statement. So far as Its value Is concerned, it complies strictly with that old story so often told about the report of the township trustee to the board of county commissioners. He disclosed that the money was all paid in and that the money was all paid out It shows how much was paid out of the general fund, benevolent institution fund and certain other funds, but it does not give the people of this state any idea as to the actual expenses of the different Instrumentalities of government Prior to 1901 it was possible for the average man to pick up the actß of the legislature and ascertain how much It cost to run the governor’s office. Now he has no method of knowing unless he goes to Indianapolis, employs an expert and ascertains those facts, for I presume It is not the business of the officials to stop their work and tell all inquiring citizens just how much it costs to run the governor’s office in Indiana. What is said with reference to this office is true with reference to all others. I will be pardoned, therefore, if hi my ignorance I inquire how it comes that the total expenditures for the fiscal year ending Oct 31, 1894, being the last statement published under the administration of Governor Matthews, shows an expenditure In round numbers of 36,458,000, while the expenditures as shown for the fiscal year ending Oct. 31, 1906, being the last published report In the acts under the administration of Governor Hanly, shows a disbursement of $9,099,000. Where has toe money gone? Who has gotten it? Has it been expended In increased salaries, in the creation of new and unnecessary offices, in unwarranted, unjustifiable and unnecessary allowances? If not, why was not the statement published with the acts of 1907 to show just to what different purposes this amount of money was applied? More than $2,600,000 was expended in the state of Indiana from 1905 to 1906 than there was from 1893 to 1894, and, strange as It may seem, the school revenue for tuition, instead of increasing during those years, was decreased more than SIOO,OOO. I am not making a statement charging any dishonesty upon any public officer in the state of Indiana. I know of no dishonesty, and I am too much of a lawyer to suspect dishonesty where none is proven. But I am also acquainted with that trait in human nature which enables it to expend recklessly, if It has the power, the money of another. II has doubtless all been honestly and legally expended. but if the facts had been put before the public, I rather imagine that by this time, groaning under the burdens of taxation, the people would have insisted that the legislature and the officeholders be not so liberal in the expenditure of other people’s money. There is but one way to correct this manifest abuse, and that is to have a new deal all round. Put new men in and let them understand that the people of this state not only require economy in public expenditures, but that they will require a knowledge of the way in which their money has been expended. No one, from the acts of 1907, can tell how much Indiana is In debt I am myself no niggard. I believe that the workman is worthy of his hire, but I also believe in the equitable adjustment of salaries, and instead of a horde of petty officeholders parading the state of Indiana and drawing salaries out of Its treasury, I should prefer some of this money to be expended in Increasing the salary df such men as Dr. J. N. Hurty, men whose life, whose talents and whose learning are being devoted to the upbuilding of the mental, and moral, and the physical welfare of the people of this state.

Compliments to "the Big Stick.” I have heretofore said that in a large number of measures, I am In accord with the president of the United States. I meant to speak of all those measures which have to do with the making of fair dealing between man and man, and the amelioration of the aondltion of the laboring classes. Ido not, however, agree with the president of the United States either In his attempt to centralize power at Wash

lngton or In himself. And white tt is not a political question. 1 may b* pm* mitted to voice my views upon a subject about which, doubtless, you and I will not agree. It has nothing to do especially with politics, but I feel that I ought tojfcay what 1 think upon that subject. I allude to the theory of the pret* dent of the United States that the only way in which to keep peace with your neighbor 1b to convince your neighbor that you are either big enough to lick him, or have more bowie knives, revolvers and guns in your possession than he has. What applies to the individual will Inevitably apply to society at large. If, In order to be at peace with/ my neighbor it Is necessary for me to wear a revolver, and when he gets two, for me to get three, then, in the Twentieth century of Christian civilization, It is indeed necessary that every time the nations abroad shall build a war vessel, It will be necessary for us to build two. I cannot agree with the economic views of Vice President Fairbanks, but he has my hearty commendation in his statement made at Chicago, that instead of more preparations for war, this world needs greater preparations for peace; that schools and colleges and churches and hospitals and libraries will do more to bring about the era of universal peace than all the military armament which man can devise. I myself believe in the old couplet:

“You cannot tame the tiger. You dare not harm the dove; But every gate you shut to hate Will open wide to love.” We ourselves stood in the forefront of nations with a small standing army and a comparatively insignificant navy, so long as we maintained the ancient ideals of the American republic, peace with all nations, entangling alliances with none. While we held strictly to the Monroe doctrine and had not ourselves gone into the larceny business, the moral force of our position was worth a million armed men, but when we receded from that doctrine and began our system of Imperialism, then of necessity we began to tramp around the world with a chip on our shoulder, asking somebody to knock it off.

I have sometimes found it difficult in my own life to retrace a false step, but, by the grace of God, it has been possible to do that thing. What a man may do a nation can do. Let us retrace our false steps. Let us say to the world at large that we are not anxious to engage in controversy, that while physical prowess is to be admired, national prosperity is to be desired, yet, after aUL the American people only desire to be a peace and liberty loving people opening its doors to those who choose to come in, and finding no fault with those who want to stay out. In this, as in all other matters, my humble voice must always be lifted for a return to the ideals and the principles of the fathers.

Dangerous Trend in Public Affairs. The contention which I have heretofore made with reference to the dangers arising from one branch of the government interfering with the duties of the other, has received a startling proof in the rumors of the last week, to the effect that certain corporations have made bold to inquire of the executive whether they might do Illegal things without the danger of prosecution. A bare mention of this fact Is sufficient to show how really dangerous this trend in public affairs is. If these things may be done, or If the suspicion that they are done gets into the public mind, how long will it be until in the lower walks of life every man who desires to break the law wfll first retain as his counsel the prosecuting attorney? I may not stop to elaborate, toe public press furnishes full details. In our state affairs another startling thing is taking place. With increased expenditures and increased tax levies, the corporations have at last succeeded with the state board of equalization in getting their tayables reduced. May I inquire what reduction has been made to the farmer, the merchant, the lawyer, or the widow on account of hard times? Surely the hour is ripe for the 80 per cent to voice their sentiments I have already spun out the thread of my verbosity finer than the line of my argument, and yet have not touched upon some questions which seem to deserve attention. It is time, however, to close. In all that has been said to you, nothing has been said about the prospects of material prosperity. The purpose of this address haß been to attempt to recall your minds to the ancient ideals of the republic; to get you to be willing to divorce business and politics; to have you soberly consider whether you ever want to change your form of government in any other way than the way provided by law; to plead with you to cease trying to obtain things which you want regardless of the law; to warn yon that the mere following of a man is dangerous. Thrice Caesar thrust away the crown, and yet when the blood gushed out of Brutus’s wound it was the blood of an emperor of Rome. The first consul prated loudly of his love of liberty and yet he died, exiled emperor of France. The constitution and the law are the two things as citizens that, you may safely venerate. Following them, your liberties are secure. Why ask the people to obey the laws, when every day officials violate the constitution? If it was thought a glorious privilege to die that the constitution might be preserved, may every drop of blood such martyTS shed rise up tn judgment against us If to serve our own ends, we impiously break open this Ark of the Covenant

THOMAS R. MARSHALL