Jasper County Democrat, Volume 11, Number 32, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 19 August 1908 — BALD-FACED LYING. [ARTICLE]

BALD-FACED LYING.

Ever since the bankruptcy of the

Indianapolis Star became common property by the appointment of receivers, It has seemingly lost all regard for the truth. * Day after day the most villainous lies have been given prominence on the first page, assertions known to be Iles by the writer, Louis Ludlow, and the publishers of this Irresponsible sheet now being run under the direction of a U. S. Judge. The most offensive of these falsehoods is a series of articles which have appeared from day to day, misstating the Democratic position on the liquor question; and to add insult to outrage on August 13 these false and unfounded assertions were given editorial indorsement without reservation by the gang in charge ofj this sheet. One of the most glaring of these lies purports to have been written by Louis Ludlow at Berne, a little town In Adams county, from which we quote:

“That the local option plank of the Democratic state platform is a delusion and a snare, and a trap for the unwary, is the substance of a charge made in an interview today by Fred Rohrer, who, perhaps, is the most prominent and experienced German temperance worker In Indiana. “In the fierce fight which we have waged against the saloons in this township I have filed twentyfour remonstrances, and I believe I have an accurate idea as to the workings of the remonstrance system. I have no hesltaney in saying that It furnishes an easy way of handling the saloons as compared with township and ward local option, which will supercede it la the event the Democrats win in the state election.” Ludlow is using Fred Rohrer as a mouth-piece to tell the people of Indiana through the bankrupt Indianapolis Star, what he knows to be a malicious, deliberate and premeditated falsehood, and that is that the Democratic party say In their platform that they will repeal both the Nicholson and Moore laws in the next General Assembly, and thereby take away the right to remonstrate saloons out of existence, and also the right to give another power of attorney to sign a remonstrance that will be as valid as if signed by the party himself; and to crown this infamy the Star endorses this assertion, attempting to give it credence, because a paper is responsible for the truth or falsity of assertions made by authority of its management. Here is its editorial endorsement:

“A curious but almost unnoticed aspect of the liquor question in Indiana is the fact that the Democratic proposals contemplate a much more violent and subversive change of our saloon code than is involved tn the Republican program. “The Nicholson law and the Moore remonstrance >.ave given universal staisfaction. It is inconceivable that the people of Indiana would sanction a direct proposal for their repeal. But their repeal is just exactly what the Democratic platform calls for, in its substitution of elections for remonstrances in wards and townships. “We should say that the only possible chance of a Democratic victory on this issue lies through a failure of the people to apprehend exactly what the Democratic proposals mean —the overthrow of the existing saloon code and the substitution of one in every w’ay more obnoxious and less effective.”

That these assertions are false, and were penned knowing them to be maliciously and infamously false when written, is easily proven by a reading of the plank in the Democratic platform as adopted by the state convention. We quote it in full:

“We recognize the right of the people to settle the question as to whether intoxicating liquors shall be sold in their respective communities. and to that end we favor the enactment of a local option law under which the people of-the 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 election; but we declare that such law shall be supplementary to the now in force relating to remonstrances against the . granting of snch license." Does this say or by implication that the Democrats are going to repeal the Nicholson or Moore laws? Could it say any plainer than it does that the local

option law proposed Is to “be supplementary to the laws now in force relating to remonstrances against the granting of such license?” During this republican riot, In progress for the last 14 years, has the word supplementary been so revolutionized that it now means “to repeal” Instead of “to add to,” as it once did? Will Ludlow or his bankrupt employers kindly point out the "trap” in this plank? Is there anything about It that looks suspicious, crooked or ambiguous? Doesn’t It propose to leave the units—township and ward—just as they are now? Doesn’t every community have the right to remonstrate or vote as best suits its convenience under this proposed law? Doesn’t It say so? Isn’t it written in language plain enough, that anyone with a little horse sense can read and understand it? Is there anything proposed In this plank that can in any way be construed to mean that an election can be used to shorten the term of, or to upset entirely a remonstrance already In force in the township or ward where the election is held? Does this plank propose to do anything but “to add to” the right of remonstrance—and the right to give another person power of attorney to sign all of their names in the township or ward as the case may be, if the voters therein so will; the right to vote on the question of license or no license if the voters prefer the vote to the remonstrance? Hasn’t all that has

been accomplished so far in this state been accomplished by using the township and the*ward as units? “The Nicholson law and the Moore remonstrance (law) have given universal satisfaction,” says the Star. If so, can any satisfactory reason be given why the republican party wants to make the county a unit instead of the township or ward? Fred Rohrer is made to say, “Another advantage of the present system is that it is inexpensive, while a law requiring elections to be held in every ward and township would be a costly burden upon the taxpayers.” And yet he is an ardent champion of county unit local option which will require an election in every precinct in the county! A dandy logician, isn’t he? Does Louis Ludlow and his bankrupt republican organ think they can play the people of Indiana for fools and greenhorns? If so they will be taught a lesson one of these days that neither will soon forget.

There is great interest throughout the state in the Kern notification meeting at Indianapolls l August 25th. Mr. Bryan and many other distinguished men from outside the state will be present. A great crowd is expected in the capital city on that day.

The same offices which cost $431, 000 a year under the last Dgipocratic administration now cost 000 a year under Republican sraminlstration. This is an increase of more than 100 per cent. This is one of the facts that the Republican campaign managers want the taxpayers to forget.

Realizing the weakness of their national issues and the desire to divert attention from the panic, the Republican machine of Indiana has commenced to throw mud on the liquor proposition. It Is presuming op the ignorance of the voters, and here is where it will be fooled. The voters of Indiana* are not ignorant on this subject. The close alliance existing between the Republican state machine and the liquor interests for the past fourteen years, is not so soon forgotten, nor is there any evidence that it does not still exist in secret, as it has always existed. The machine is playing the same game this year wfth the temperance element, promising everything during the campaign and giving nothing after the election. It is simply a question of how much longer the temperance element will be humbugged.—Newcastle Democrat. ■

The Republican panic has thrown so many persons out of employment that the tariff barons and the Republican managers think “the people” will not be able to contribute much to the Democratic campaign fund. It is true that hundreds of thousands are thus affected, but there are still many that have a few dollars left, and most of them are willing to give a little In order that they may get a chance to earn something in the future—not only to earn it, but to keep it out of the clutches of the trusts.

The person who really favors local option must of necessity, in this state, be for the township and ward unit. There is no other definition for “local” government in this state the way our statute and constitution read. The civil government of the state is based on the township unit. This applies to the poor, the conduct of the schools, the roads, the libraries and many other things. Who ever heard of the county poor until the charges were first township poor? Or the county school? Or the county library? The basis of local government in this state is the township.—Brazil Democrat.

The Republican papers have been so busy with their fake “paramount issue” that they neglected to give attention to the failure of the Pills-bury-Washburn Milling company at Minneapolis. After nearly twelve years of Republican control of all branches of the government, this great milling company was compelled to go into the hands of a receiver. Its stock and bond liabilities alone reach nearly ten million dollars. Its debts to the banks and others aggregated a large sum in addition, and it was upon petition of the creditors that the receiver was appointed. Evidently that “prosperity” wave that was started out by Republican politicians July Ist failed to reach Minnesota, just as it failed to reach other localities where there have been large industrial disturbances.