Jasper County Democrat, Volume 15, Number 44, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 September 1912 — S. N. RALSTON RIDDLES WATSON [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

S. N. RALSTON RIDDLES WATSON

Masterful Discussion of State Issues at Anderson, Ind. EXPOSES THE FALLACIES And Falsehoods of Opposition—Analyses the Financial Condition of State Under Republican and Democratic Management. The following Is, in part, the speech delivered by Samuel M. Ralston, Democratic nominee for Governor of Indiana, at the opening of the campaign in Anderson on the night of August 29: ' ' ■ Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: When the date and place for this meeting were fixed it was not known by me or by those who had the arrangements in hand that Col. Durbin of Andefson, would be one of my distinguished opponents in the gubernatorial contest. The Colonel and his friends will, therefore, understand that no particular significance attaches, so far as he is personally concerned, to my making the opening speech of the Democratic campaign in his home city. I have had the honor

of his friendship in rather a formal way for many years, during which time I have watched his career with marked interest, and I have not failed to discover that in both business and political affairs he has outstripped the achievements of most men—his success signal. I recognize him, 4herefore\ as I do my other distinguished oppongnts for the great office of governor of n‘Cy state, as foes worthy the steel of any man. Indeed, if this contest had to be determined by strength of intellect, force of character and laurels won in the commercial and political world, I could with perfect propriety be asked to give up my position on the ticket of my partv. Happily for me and for men like me, no such a test is applied in this country to the citizen who is ambitious to serve his countrymen in an official capacity. Fitness to hold office is determined by the principles and policies for which the candidate stands, his grasp of the problems affecting the people and the rectitude of his purposes. With such a standard by which to be measured, I dare to ask the people of Indiana to choose me for their chief executive. Capacity of People to Rule. I am an optimist. I have faith in the capacity of the American people for self-government. Their silence in the presence of wrongdoing dops not necessarily indicate inability on their part to discover they have been wronged. What at times seems to be ignorance or indifference on their part is but patience in bearing their burdens. They are slow to wrath, but swift and terrible in vengeance when they decide to administer punishment for the betrayal of public confidence. Unless all signs are misleading the people have determined to transfer their national government from the party in power to a party of their own choosing next November, and the change will not be made without a just cause. All the Democrats, all the Prohibitionists, all the Socialists and fully one-half of those heretofore constituting the party in power, agree there should be a change iri the administrative policy of the government. ( n , Abuse of Taxing Power. What is the source of the people’s grievance against the Republican party? The (juery is not difficult to answer. This is a government of delegated powers and the Republican party in the administration of the government has perverted those powers’to the building of fortunes for favorite individuals and combinations to the injury of society. This it has done chiefly through the power to tax—a sweeping power. Upon its wise exercise the maintenance of the government depends. Through its abuse the property of the citizen may in effect be confiscated and transferred without consideration to another. In the language of Chief Justice Marshall, “the power to tax is the power to destroy:” The abusive exercise of this power appears most prominently in the working of our tariff system. AU agree that this system, which is a

system of indirect taxation, affords the most convenient method for the government to derive the revenue necessary to defray its expenses. But the Democratic party insists that in operating this system no more than money should be taken from the/people than is necessary to defray the expenses of the government economically administered, while the Republican party maintains that in levying a tariff a w’age for the laborer and a profit for the manufacturer should be included, in addition to its revenue feature. In other words the difference between the two parties is the difference between a tariff for revenue and a tariff for protection. The one through this system seeks to get money from the private citizen into the public treasury for public purposes, cheerfully acquiescing in any incidental advantage, if any, thereby afforded the laborer and the manufacturer. The other through this system, under' l 'the guise of the general welfare, seeks to get money from the private citizen beyond the needs of the government so as to enhance the profits of some other private citizen or corporate combination of private citizens engaged in a private enterprise. “This,’’ declared Justice Miller, “is none the less robbery because done under the form of law, and is called taxation.”

The Paramount Issue. It is apparent that in the national contest this year the tariff will be the paramount issue in connection with its. brood of evils. Let us consider briefly then the position of the Democratic party on this question as set forth in the Baltimore platform. And just here let me digress long enough to observe that no greater convention ever assembled on American soil than the Baltimore convention, It was composed of masterful men. They were big of brain, of heart and of stature, and the first among them was he whom Indiana always delights to honor and whose name is revered the world around, wherever the home and the republican form of government are held sacred—the .first citizen of the republic, William Jennings Bryan. Power Limited to Raising Revenue. That convention made bold to declare the doctrine to which our party has held for more than a century that the federal government has no constitutional authority to levy a tariff for any purpose except that of revenue. It charged the Republican party with being the cause of the unequal distribution of wealth, and with imposing unjust burdens upon the farmer qnd laborer through its policy of tariff favoritism. The people have long borne the oppression visited upon them by a high tariff, but this does not indicate it has the sanction of the constitution. When the constitutional phase of a tariff ik considered the question is: Can the, government through its power to tax take the property of one citizen and bestow it upon another citizen without consideration therefor? That this may be the working effect of a tariff law’ can not be challenged by the high protective advocate. If such a law may not thus operate it is hard to conceive the drafting of a tariff act that would work to the advantage of one citizen and to the disadvantage of another. Republicans must either admit this conclusion or confess they have for years been making meaningless, if not deceptive, declarations on the subject in their state and national platforms. So long ago as 1868 the national platform of the Republican party declared that “It is dueto the labor of the nation that taxation should be equalized and reduced as rapidly as the national faith will permit.” This has been in effect the quadrennial promise of that party from that date to the present. If a high tariff does not work to labor’s disadvantage, on what ground can it be said that “it is due to labor • • • that taxation should be equalized?"

The Democratic Record. The Democratic party is worthy the confidence of the American people. It is the friend of labor and the champion of a liberal pension policy. It has led the fight for the right of trial by jury in cases of indirect contempt. It insists that injunctions shall not issue in industrial cases if they would not issue in cases where no industrial question is involved. It holds that labor organizations for the purpose of improving labor conditions should not be held as illegal combinations. It believes there should be a department of labor, represented separately in tire president’s cabinet. It has led the fight for the election of United States senators by a direct vote of the people and for an income tax. It proposes the only practical method for dealing with private monopoly and its record of constructive statesmanship in the sixty-second congress embraces so many of remedial legislation for the people that the want of time forbids my commenting upon them. Let it not be forgotten, therefore, that in that congress Democracy labored. to put food in the mouth of hunger, raiment on the limbs of nakedness and red blood in the veins of the nation’s childhood. State Affairs Discussed. Passing from national to state affairs, we find that the record of the Democratic party is likewise creditable, notwithstanding criticisms to the contrary. In the Republican keynote speech, to which I have already referred, many charges were made of mismanagement of the finances of the state by the present administration. These charges were not well founded and were based upon figures grossly misleading. I have not the time naw to discuss them all, but in due time the erroris they contain will be satisfactorily pointed out to the people. I shall Iconfine myself at this time to indicating the glaring inaccuracies in a few of the charges made by Mr Watson. Many references were made by him to the appropriations of 1910 and 1911 as Democratic. He was well aware that the upper branch of the legislature, making those appro-

prlations, was Republican and that it was not until 1911 that the Democrats secured control of both branches of the legislature. The speaker was also aware that the Republicans were in,control of the state board of finan e until December, 1910. If, indeed there were any excessive appropriations of the people’s money for the fiscal years of 1909, 1910 and 1911, our Republican friends cannot be heard to complain inasmuch as they had an equal hand in making such appropriations. In fact, a Republican senate in 1909 increased the appropriation bill fall,ooo after it had passed the Democratic house, and that, too, in the face of the report in detail by the Republican auditor of state of the estimated revenues of the state being several hundred thousand dollars below this amount, thus creating a deficiency, which they knew was sure to occur before the end of the fiscal year of 1911. For sixteen years the Republican party had been in full control of the state finances and had conducted the affairs of the state apparently upon the theory that the state could expend annually more than the amount of its income without creating a deficiency! Hanly Predicted Financial Embarrassment.

In his inaugural message to the legislature on January Bth, 1905, Governor Hanley said, “Revenues for the present year have been anticipated to the extent of $529,659.03,” and he said further, “This condition of the finances will become an actual embarrassment to the treasury before the end of the current year.” So we have it directly from Gov. Hanley that at the conclusion of Col. Durbin’s administration the finances of the state wpre in an unsatisfactory condition. In May, 1908, in the closing year of Governor Hanley’s administration, the state was begging advance payments from the counties, in order to meet its current obligations. In that month, when the Republicans were in full control, the Indianapolis News said, with reference to a demand by the state upon Marion county, for SIOO,OOO and threatened legal proceedings to get it: “The state is sorely in need of money and this is the reason drastic efforts are to be made to collect the SIOO,OOO. It is declared that the state will not have enough to take care of this month’s pay roll unless the advance payment is made. It is contended, also, that if Marion county refuses to make the advance payment, other counties may do the same, and the, condition of the state treasury, until June Ist, when the next semi-annual settlement is to be made, will be extremely bad.’’ Seeking advance payments from the counties is not then a new scheme inaugurated by the present administration, as Mr. Watson would have you believe. Advance payments have been called for every year since 1853, except the years 1858 and 1859. I assert that money going to the state through county treasurers may be legally demanded at any time after a county treasurer has collected it from the people. The expenditures for the Republican fiscal year 1908 exceeded the income of the state $506,778.30. The last Republican administration, therefore, left as a legacy to the present administration an admitted deficit of $506,778.30, exclusive of outstanding Colisseum bonds, amounting with interest to $103,000, for the payment of which no provision had been made and which were due November 1,1910. This burden of $609,778.30 was assumed by the present administration. Yet, notwithstanding that handicap and the attempt of the Republican senate of 1909 to further embarrass the administration by Increasing the appropriation bill of 1909, $511,000, Democratic officials set to work to overcome that deficit and in 1911 the Democratic administration, controlling both branches of the legislature, reduced the 1909 appropriation bill $710,000. Mr. Watson says that the deficit for the year 1911 was $51,185.02. In this he is in error. The actual deficit for 1911 amounted to $45,495.63. In addition to reducing the deficit of $506,. 778.30 for 1908 to $45,495.63 for 1911, the Democratic party has paid $103,000 Colisseum bonds and Interest, which were inherited from and should have been provided for by the Republicans: $150,000 of the state bonds, thus reducing the bonded indebtedness of the state $250,000 and has provided for the future so that at the expiration of the fiscal year of 1913 the finances of the state will be on a satisfactory basis. The Democratic party is, therefore, abundantly willing to stand upon its record for economical administration of the state’s affairs. Watson In Error Again. There is 1 one specific indictment, however, made by the Republican key-note orator that I cannot bring myself to pass without comment thereon. Mr. Watson said that the Democrats “borrowed of sacred common school fund 4n 1911, $9,987, which sum, must, of course, be replaced by those who borrowed it.” That statement is not in accord with the facts. The amount so “borrowed of sacred common school fund,” as Watson charges, was never a part of the school fund/ of Indiana. This money was held in the state treasury to the account of “sale state lands.” A Republican legislature in 1907 passed two bills. Senate Bills 17 apd 18, which were approved by a Republican governor On February 25th and 13th, 1907, respectively. Senate Bill 17 declared moneys held in the state treasury constituting five different funds, to-wit: “Common school fund balance,” “old sinking fund,” “surplus revenue fund,” “school lands” and “sales swamp lands,” to be a part of the common school fund of the state; but the $9,987 to which Mr. Watson referred constitute no part of any one of these funds. And the Republican legislature, by the passage of Senate Bill 18, expressly recognized that the money held to the account of the fund designated “sale state lands" did not belong to the common school fund, but to the general funds of the state and. so declared. It cannot truthfully be said that

tee Democratic party ever dealt recklessly with public funds set apart for educational purposes. The friendly interest it has always taken in the educational system of the nation is an assurance of its solicitude for an educated citizenship. The edm cation of the masses was a passion with the father of Democracy in America, and those who are familiar with his life recall how zealously he urged the preaching of a ■ crusade against ignorance and that those in authority should “improve the law for educating the common people.” It was his view, to use his language, that “if a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” Jefferson was president for eight years of this wondrous nation. His administration added territory to our public domain sufficient in area and wealth to constitute and sustain a nation, but it was not his will that these facts be disclosed on the stone at his grave, but he did ask to have it chiseled thereon that he was the father of the University of Virginia. A party inspired by the life of such a man will never misuse a fund set apart for the diffusing of knowledge among the people. The citizens of the state of Indiana are not so much interested in the particular fund to which their taxes are charged as they are in the amount of their taxes and the application made of them. And what of the record of the two parties? Mr. Watson boastfully exclaims: debt sinking fund, used in 1908, to pay current bills, none. State debt sinking fund, used in 1909, to pay current bills, none." And why was none of the state debt sinking fund used in 1908 to pay current bills? Because the Republicans, in order to meet their excessive appropriations, used the money that should have been collected to pay the state’s bonded indebtedness in paying the general expenses of their extravagant administration. Prior to 1905 the state tax levy was as follows:

Levy for general fund 9c Levy for benevolent institutions.. .5c Levy for sinking fund .3c The legislature of 1905 (all Republican) enacted a law abolishing the sinking fund tax levy for the years 1905, 1906 and 1907 and fixed the tax levy for the years 1905, 1906 and 1907 as follows: Levy for general fund 12c Levy for benevolent institutions.. 5c In other words, the Republican legislature of 19‘»5, by its act, kept the total state tax levy at 17 cents, 12 cents of which was to be used for general purposes, instead of 9 cents as formerly, and no sinking fund tax was provided for and no sinking fund existed in the years 1906, 1907, 1908, nor until June, 1909. Of course, the Republican administration did not use in 1908 the sinking fund to pay current bills for the reason its legislature had abolished that fund, but the Republican administration got the money that otherwise would have gone into the sinking fund and used it for the payment of current bills. In 1909, the first year of the present administration, the legislature fixed the state tax levy for the years 1910 and 1911 as follows: Levy for general fund 9c Levy for benevolent institutions. 5c Levy for state debt sinking And by this act privilege was granted to transfer the state debt sinking fund to the general fund. The Democratic legislature of 1911 fixed the tax levy for the years 1912 and 1913 as follows: Levy for general fund ....9c Levy for benevolent institutions.sc Levy for state debt sinking And by this act the Democratic legislature, expressly prohibited the transfer of any money in the state debt sinking fund to the general fund, and directed the state debt sinking fund to be used for the payment of the state debt only. It is clear, then, that the present administration, besides reducing the heavy Republican deficit of $506,778.30 to the nominal amount of $45,495.63, has paid $250,000 of the state’s bonded indebtedness, provided for the future finances of the state, established a sinking fund for the payment of the state’s bonded indebtedness, and, at the same time, reduced the tax levy, H 4 cents, which means a saving to the taxpayers of the state of $300,000 per year. This is, I submit, no mean record. Legislation of 1911. A political party intrusted with power is the servant of all the people. It has no right to bestow favors upon classes. It is not within the skill and wisdom of any party to maintain equality among men in the distribution of legislative favors. When a favor is granted through legislation to one man, some other man is thereby deprived of some of his rights. Legislation, therefore, should be general.

Much is heard these days about reactionary and progressive parties. It makes no difference by what name a party is known, it is a reactionary party if it grants favors to a man or a class through the wrongful exercise of the powers of governmenL On the other hand, the party that stands for protecting, through the exercise of these powers, the citizen in his rights as a member of society, is a progressive party—a party after the hearts of the fathers who gave us this republic. The Democratic party of Indiana is a progressive party. It believes in obedience to the people and when the people are obeyed, the people rule. The record of the present Democratic administration and the work of the Democratic legislature of 1911 show how completely the people rule when Democrats are in power. Every department of state has been honestly and efficiently managed. No odor of corruption emar nates from any department, and when the present incumbents of the state offices retire to private life, they will not take with them a dollar belonging to the public. A Democratic administration in Indiana is not a hotbed of official scandal. For the first time in 18 years the

Democratic party of Indiana came into complete control of state affairs in 191 L The record of the legislature of 1911 is a good one, and by it the Democratic party is willing to be judged. It would be folly on my part to attempt a discussion of all the laws enacted by the last legislature. The most that can be reasonably expected of me, under the circumstances attending this meeting, is to make a brief reference to a few of them and this I do, in part, by calling attention to the declaration of the recent Democratic state convention, endorsing the work of the legislature in the following words: Record of Good Work Done. “We approve and indorse the record of the last Democratic legislature of Indiana, and especially commend its efforts to secure the purification of the suffrage, and to provide better facilities for the prompt and speedy administration of justice. We warned the. people that without honest elections, popular government is a sham and a delusion. The existing corruption of suffrage is notorious, notwithstanding the efforts of the Democratic party to remove it, beginningwith the Australian ballot law in 1889. The attainment of honest elections lies at the foundation of all other reforms, and of all progress. • • ♦

“We indorse the record of the last legislature for national, progressive legislation. It ratified the income tax amendment to the federal constitution. It promoted honest elections by a general registration law, and rigid corrupt practices and campaign publicity law. It did a long deferred act of justice by passing a liberal employers’ liability law, which abolishes technical and unjust assumption of contributory negligence, the fellowservant rule and the working-men’s waiver of equal rights. It also passed a law for the weekly payment of wages by corporations and prohibiting the use of time and credit checks where money wages were due. It enlarged the powers of the railroad commission and empowered it to fix the rates of common carriers. Child labor laws were strengthened; a cold Storage limitation was imposed; a standard of weights and measures was established; sanitary school houses with medical inspection of pupils are required; the block signal was rendered obligatory on all sfbam and electric railroads; a bureau of inspection for factories, mines and boilers was established; a commission to advance agricultural and industrial education was formed; building and loan associations were brought under state control; and a system of uniform public accounting for all offices, large or small, throughout the state was perfected." Laws Regulating Liquor Traffic.

The people of Indiana are for temperance and law enforcement. In the interest of society, the liquor traffic must be subjected to strict regulation and the people given laws by which they can control the business. The Democratic party in the legislature of 1911 enacted a law that would seem to meet every requirement of an effective regulative statute. It increases the fee for a liquor license. It limits the number of saloons that may be licensed to do business in the respective units named by law. It abolishes the Brewery saloon and provides that a license shall be forfeited for the violation of the criminal laws of the state. It fixes the standard of fitness much higher for the applicant seeking a license and requires of him compliance in the conduct of his business, with much more exacting statutory provisions than any former law contained. I am not indifferent to the fact that some people have criticised the Democratic party for changing the local option unit from the county to the city and township. But there is no moral element or question involved in the difference between these units. Prohibitionists admit that in substituting the city and township units for the county as a unit the moral law was not infracted and it would seem that all persons would have to concur in this view. Personally I am devoted to the principle of local self-government. If there is one principle of government for which the Democratic party has stood uncompromisingly for a hundred and twenty years, it is the right of the people to control their local affairs, and the Democratic legislature was, in my judgment, in harmony with this doctrine when it designated the city and township as the units of the present local option law. I shall have no quarrel with any man who may feel keenly that I am wrong in commending the present law. I have always been frank with the people on this question, however much any one may feel I have been in error in my position. I think I am not mistaken in saying that I was the only candidate of any party in this state, seeking the nomination for governor in 1908, who took an open and definite position for a local option law prior to the Democratic and Republican state conventions of that year. Neither the Republican party nor the anti-saloon league was favoring such a law at the time I began advocating it. I stood originally for the smaller unit, for the reasons I have indicated but when the special session of the legislature enacted, in the fall of 1908 the county option law, I then felt and so stated, that the law should be given a fair trial. And when the legislature convened in January, 1909, and a movement was put on foot to repeal it, I gave out a public statement through the press, urging that the law be given a fair trial, using in part this language: “I have not changed my opinion that from a governmental .viewpoint the city or the township should be the unit, but since the people now have a law, making the county the unit, they should be allowed amnia time to test IL” As I felt then with reference to the law having the county as a unit I feel now, with reference to the present law. It should be given a fair trial. By the liquor laws now in force in

Indiana the people are afforded means for controlling the liquor business, as it carried on by saloons, even to the point of prohibiting it entirely. In the event of my election, I shall recommend the retention of the liquor remonstrance laws and whatever legislation found to be necessary to suppress the indefensible blind tiger. Future Legislation. I shall, in the event of the success of my party this fall, ask that Its platform be carried out. Questions not touched upon in that platform, I shall treat in a manner most likely, in my judgment, to meet the requirements of the people. The evils of child labor must be abolished. Improved sanitary conditions for Uiose who work in shops and factories and live in tenements are humane and public necessities Public health is a public asset. Unlike individuals, corporations are the creatures of the law,’ but like individuals, they must obey the law Governor Marshall informs me that he intends to recommend to the legislature the passage of a public utilities law, and if such a law comes to me with the sanction of the Constitution, properly safeguarding both private and public rights, it will receive my approval as Governor. I do not propose to enter upon a wild crusade in this campaign for legislation the people cannot now possibly secure, nor to allow myself to be diverted from a discussion of the grievous wrongs long suffered by the people from which they can be granted relief through the power now possessed by their government. Such questions as the initiative, referendum, and recall, presidential and vice-presidential preferential primaries, woman’s suffrage, workman’s compulsory compensation law and home rule for cities, not to mention others, cannot be legislated upon in this state in the absence of proper amendments to our state Constitution, or unless a new Constitution is adopted, authorizing the enactment of such laws. My party has not expressed itself on the advisability of the next legislature taking the proper steps for a Constitutional Convention. Personally, I favor such a convention, but I have no authority to commit my party to it, and I shall not attempt to do so. The people hold sacred their organic law, and I want them to determine through their legislators when a movement shall be inaugurated to amend their Constitution or to adopt a new one. I shall, in so far as I can, during the campaign, ascertain the opinion of the people with reference to a Constitutional Convention, and in the event of my election, I shall, without regard to my individual views, make such recommendations to the legislature relating thereto as I believe fairly represents the will of the people.

Labor and Capital. Labor and capital are indispensable to public progress. Their relar tion with one another is very much like that of friends mutually dependent upon one another. The state in its efforts to promote the happiness of man, should demand justice between these two great civilizing force. Without capital there is no employment for labor. Without labor there is no increment for capital. Discord between them is a public enemy, and the destruction of either by the other will be the maelstrom of civilization. Preserve them both is the command of Democracy. But in seeking to preserve them the Democratic party does not fail to recognize that capital has the ability to get on in the world better than labor. For this reason the Democratic party has always insisted that in the legislative policies of the state and the nation the encroachment of capital upon the rights of labor must be guarded against in the interests of society. The boy with his pick on his shoulder has as strong a claim upon society as the boy with his interestbearing bond in his pocket. The man with the tin bucket must not be lost sight of in the rush to bestow favors on the man with the iron box. The man with his flocks and herds on the farm deserves as well of his government as the man with the bulls and bears on WaU street. In short, the man who labors is the nation’s builder in times* of peace and the nation’s preserver in times of war. Labor creates; capital absorbs. So the heartbeat of the world bids us recognize that in the finality of things the difference between labor and capital is the difference between immortality and materiality. ,

Wilson and Marshall. Before closing I want to congrat* ulate the Democracy of Indiana upon the honor bestowed upon It by the Democracy of the United States in nominating for vice-president Governor Thomas R. Marshall. He has served the people of his state honorably and ably as chief executive, and if elected vice-president he will likewise serve the people of the nation. I congratulate you also upon your party’s nominee for president— Woodrow Wilson. He is a man of high ideals, and in every way thoroughly equipped to serve the people in their highest office. Wilson and Marshall are entitled to and will receive the united support of their party. My fellow citizens, I hope I have a proper appreciation of the responsibility I shall assume if I am made Governor of Indiana. If that responsibility becomes mine, I shall endeavor to serve impartially all the people. The institutional life of this state, shall not be prostituted to party ends,, and the public wards shall be treated as the objects of the state’s keenest solicitude. The different departments of the government and their separate functions will be respected. A Governor should not forget that he Is neither called upon to make nor to Interpret the law for the people. I want the support of every man who has the right to cast an honest vote, and who will want me, if l am elected, to stand for the enforcement of law and the maintenance of the peace and dignity of the state.

SAMUEL M. RALSTON, Democratic Nominee for Governor.