Jasper County Democrat, Volume 19, Number 56, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 11 October 1916 — AWFUL REBUKE TO GOODRICH FROM HIS OWN PARTY ORGAN [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

AWFUL REBUKE TO GOODRICH FROM HIS OWN PARTY ORGAN

Governor Samuel M. Ralston and Senator Thomas Taggart opened the campaign in Henry county, speaking at three meetings during the afternoon. They had large and most responsive audiences, two ot these being to laboring men exclusively. It was a great day for Henry county democracy—Governor Ralston handled Goodrich and his campaign against the charitable institutions most effectively. His remarks on the Adamson eight-hour law were the best that have been made by any speaker, since he went further back of the scenes in analyzing the motives of the Hughes attacks, illustrating with the Mulhall lobby.

Governor Ralston Answers At* tacks Made on Non-Partisan Boards of State Charitable Institutions. Speaking of the State Institutions Governor Ralston said, in part: Mr. Goodrich, the Republican candidate for Governor, is charging that money is extravagantly expended in the management of our penai, correctional and benevolent institutions. He is willing to be elected Governor at the expense of creating distrust in the minds of the people touching the management of these institutions. I want to speak just as strongly in commendation of their management as Mr. Goodrich has spoken in condemnation of them. When I was nominated for Governor of Indiana I assured the people that these institutions would not, under my administration, be dragged into politics, and that they should be humanely and honestly administered. I do not believe that a man or woman can be found, with whom I have been in any way connected touching these institutions, who will say that I have been lacking in my interest in them, or that I have in any sense sought to prostitute them to political ends. No man will come forward and say that I have ever asked for the employment of a single individual in any one of these institutions on the ground that he was a Democrat. On the contrary, two institutional heads have been changed during my administration —the superintendent of the Woman’s Prison and the superintendent of the Southeastern Hospital for the Insane. I do not know the politics of the former superintendent of the Woman’s Prison, nor do I know the politics of the present superintendent. In the case of the Southeastern Hospital for the Insane, the trustees thereof chose a Republican to fill the position made vacant by the resignation of a Democrat, who had been superintendent, and the board had my approval in its selection of a Republican for the position. Non-Partisan Boards of Trustees. The voters should not overlook the fact that these institutions are managed by non-partisan boards of trustees. They are composed of four members and not more than two of such members can belong to the same political party. That is why they are called non-partisan. These boards are composed of able and conscientious men and women. There is not a weakling on any one of them, nor do I have any knowledge of any one of them being indifferent in the discharge of his duties as a member of his board. No one of the candidates on the Democratic state ticket will have anything to do in the management of these institutions in the event of his election, except the candidate for Governor. The Governor, of course, by reason of his official position, has a most intimate connection with them. The Auditor and Treasurer of course receive and pay out money in connection with them, but they do so only as a sort of conduit, without any voice or any power beyond those pertaining to these institutions in a general way. Whatever just criticism, therefore, there may be made of the management of these institutions it should be laid against the Governor, the Board of State Charities’and the trustees and superintendents of the Institutions. Mr. Goodrich has made the criticism. Whom has he condemned thereby? Mvself as Governor, the Board of State Charities composed of John H. Holliday. Father Francis Gavisk. Demarcus C. Brown, Judge Charles Oribson. Mrs. John B. Elapi and Dr. Mary A. Spink, all of Indianapolis: b« their secretary. Mr. Amos Butler, a recognized authority on that line of work, and the board of trustees and the head of every one of the state institutions. I might add. incidentally, in this connection, that the majority of these persons are Republicans. I wish it were possible for the voters of Indiana to take up the reports made to me and study and analyze them. They would be prouder than they have ever been of what their state is doing for the unfortunates of their citizenship, and they would be unsparing in their condemnation of any man who seeks to ride Into office by making false charges against the noble band of men and women. I want to call your attention to an excerpt from a communication to me by that student of affairs and master of thought. Hon. John B. Stoll, of South Bend. Mr. Stoll says: “While reading and unreservedly conceding the propriety and justice of the exercise of such right, the Board of Trustee# of the Indiana State Prison bold that it is manifestly unjust for individuals as such, or as representatives of organizations, to engage in the dissemination of statements calculated to create in the public mind the mischievous impression that indiscriminate charges of mismanagement and extravagance in the conduct of official affairs are inseparably associated with the public service. I hold’ that filling the public mind with suspicion of graft, dishonesty and corruption has a tendency to undermine faith in official integrity and fidelity to the public interest. Persistence in these periodical attempts at besmirching those for the time being in charge of public institutions must inevitably, in course of time, have the effect of discrediting popular government.” More Institutions. Higher Prices. I am not contending, and I shall not contend in this campaign, that it is not requiring more money to keep these institutions properly going than it did during the Republican panic years of 1907 and 1908. We now have four more institutions than we then had. and we have a larger population than we then had. What I insist upon is that they are economically and humanely and efficiently managed, and I challenge any man to show to the contrary. The bead of every family in this country knows that it is costing more today to support his family than it did in 1907 and 1908. Mr. Goodrich might as well understand now as later that he will not deceive the voters of Indiana by his unwarranted charge of extravagance against these institutions. But Mr. Goodrich says that the Governor of _lndiana made a speech at Richmond. Jnd.. in October. 1915, in which he stated that $250,000 a year ought to be aaved in the management of these institutions. But Mr. Goodrich should have been frank enough to have given the promises upon which that statement was made. I advocated another system, a different method of control. I was arguing in favor of a central board of control for our penal, correctional and benevolent Institutions. I was Insisting that snch a board would be able to purchase supplies and necessities for them at greatly reduced prices by purchasing in large quantities for all the Institutions at one and the same time. Instead of buying one carload of flour, for illustration, they could buy a carload for each of the eighteen or nineteen institutions and get it cheaper than a single board can now purchase a single carload. I was polntingjHit that a central board of control woula also standardize the supplies to be furnished and the inmates of all the institutions would be more nearly treated alike than it is possible to treat them now in purchasing necessities and supplies for them. What I said then I repeat now, but this is not a charge that there is mismanagement of these institutions under the law and method now governing them. It is my candid judgment that no body of men can in justice to the inmates manage these institutions under the present system more economically and efficiently than the men and women now in charge of them are doing. Mr. Goodrich points out that different hoards pay different prices for identically

the same character of goods. In this he is correct, and as long as the present system for the management of these institutions is in force that condition of necessity will always exist. It has existed under every Republican administration and every Democratic administration alike. It is incident to the system. It is the flimsiest sort of nonsense to talk about nineteen boards of nineteen different places purchasing in nineteen different markets the same articles in nineteen different quantities at the same prices. Now. the truth is Mr. Goodrich is as strong for the central board of control as I am. but he has failed to say so in his attack upon these institutions. In his keynote speech he says: "Believing as I do that under the present system of control an economical administration is attainable by the application of simple business methods in Conducting the business of the State, and in the light of the effiecient record of three Republican administrations, I am opposed, at this lime, to the creation of a central board and the abandonment of our present system.” Foxy Mr. Goodrich. You will note from this statement that he limits bis opposition to a central board of control to tbe “present time.” In other words, he says, “I am opposed, at this time, to the creating of a central board.” Note the significance of the phrase, “at this time.” Mr. Goodrich meant to make a statement upon this subject that would leave him free, in the event of his election, to advocate the creation of a central board of control, but knowing that in the majority of cases the heads of these institutions are against a central board and that the majority of the trustees are against such a board, he hopes to allay any opposition on their part te bis candidacy by stating that “at this time” he is opposed to a central board. Just at what time during his administration, if he is elected, does he expect to take his stand for such a board? I have promised him, if he is •1 acted, I will stand with him to gef such a board in s 6 far as I may have any influence. If he Bays now, when he is face to face with opposition to it, that he is against such a board, and is really opposed t° why did he limit his Opposition to a boBT * ot control by the phrase, "at thia time”?

Beveridge Should Not Forget the Murder of Eight Hour Law By Mulhall Lobby and Republican Congress.

Speaking of the Adamson eighthour law Governor Ralston said in part: It seems that our Republican fribnds have but one question to talk about —seriously to talk about—iu the national campaign, and that is the Adamson law that has for its object the establishing of au eight-hour day for employes of interstate common carriers. When Mr. Hughes first launched out upon his campaign this lawhad not been enacted, and he labored with a f«w other questions, but to no purpose. On them he could arouse no enthusiasm. It was common talk on all hands that his campaign was a failure, and this fact evidently bore in upon him so severely that he brought his speaking tour to au abrupt close and took to the woods, where he remained in perfect silence until the threatened strike was averted by the enactment of this law. The President had exhausted all his efforts and good offices to bring the railroad heads and the heads of the brotherhoods to an agreement, but without success. At that time the entire nation was in a nervous state over the critical situation. Everybody knew that a strike for twenty-four hours would result in the loss of millions in. property and that a strike of three days would result in hunger and suffering. To contemplate the tying up of the great railroads of this nation for a week is to appall the imagination. No man can picture the fearful result that would follow in the wake of such a condition, and this was the menace confronting the President of the United States at tbe time he went before Congress with his clear and forceful statement of the case. At that time Mr. Hughes was as much the leader of his party as was President Wilson of his party, and as much as he (Hughes) will be if he shall ever become President. It was time for serious thought. The nation was demanding the ripest wisdom in tbe field of statesman ship for tlie solution of the controversy. It was the time for the display of patriotism and for the suppression of partisanism; and to the everlasting credit of the majority of the Republican members of the House, they took their stand on the side of patriotism and voted for what they thought was the best solution of the question. Their candidate for President, however, although a man of wide experience. had not a Single suggestion to make looking to the deliverance of his country from the awful catastrophe threatening it. Condition, Not a Theory. President Wilson was indeed “confronted by a condition, and not a theory.” No man can measure the extent of such a disaster. It would be a national calamity, paralyzing commerce and industry, as well as transportation, congesting natural and manufactured products, breaking down the prices of supplies at their source, while raising prices to the limit at the point of consumption. The farmer would suffer, the merchant would suffer, the laboring men would suffer—all producers and all consumers would alike be victims of such a nation-wide disaster. What a contrast there is between the position assumed by the President toward this vexed question when he took it before Congress and the position assumed toward it at all times by Mr. Hughes. When tbe President failed to living the contending parties together in settlement of their controversy he did not turn to Congress with a mist of high-soundjng platitudes and phrases nor becloud tbe situation by advancing theories of ancient vintage, but he went before Congress with a matured program. He did not ask Congress to take a position that he was not willing to assume before his countrymen. He did not content himself with theorizing without touching anything practical on the subject and in insisting upon Congress to solve the problem itself. But, in effect, he said: “Gentlemen, I will assume all the responsibility I can with you in connection with the problem we have to meet, and therefore I submit to you the solution I have worked out in my Gethsemane, and here it is.” You will recall, no doubt, that the law provides that the President shall appoint a commission to observe the operation and effect of the eight-hour standard working day, and the facts and conditions affecting the relations between tbe railroads and their employers during the period of not less than six months nor more than nine months, and within thirty days thereafter make its report to the President and Congress. Beveridge Has His Say„ I see from tlie papers that Senator Beveridge has recently made a statement on this subject, and that he has come to the support of Mr. Hughes, and in bitter invectives denounced the methods resorted to to secure the enactment of the measure. He argues that it was enacted in obedience to force. Senator Beveridge in the past has had a great deal to say about the “invisible government” and “the powers that prey,” fostered by the policies of the Republican party. These became so destructive to public interests that Senator Beveridge had to withdraw from the party that had honored him twice with a seat in the United States Senate. No man knows better than Senator Beveridge that the special interests that dominated his old party when he left it are still in control. Mr. Beveridge has not quite forgotten that in 1913 an investigation was made bv the judiciary committee of the United States Senate as to the question whether or not there had been a lobby at Washington for the purpose of influencing legislation. In that investigation a great mass of evidence- was given and one Martin Michael Mulhall testified before the committee, his testimony covering nearly 1,200 pages: oYu have also heard of Mr. Mulhall. He is on very intimate terms with many of our prominent citizens, and but a few months ago he paid the Republican central committee a visit at Indianapolis. And he even condescended to honor some of our local Republican statesmen with a call. Mulhall Again. In his testimony Mr. Mulhall tells how he, assisted by the secretary of tbe National Manufacturers’ Association and other Republicans, defeated the eight-hour bill that had been introduced in the United States Senate. His testimony is very voluminous. I wish you might have the opportunity to read it all. Nothing was too treacherous, nothing was too deceitful or corrupting to be resorted to for the defeat of this eight-hour nfeasure in the Republican Senate. It constitutes one of the most disgraceful chapters in the political history of this country. The story embraces a conspiracy between Big Business and Big Politicians, in which a chosen leader in a labor organization was debauched and his followers made tools of. Suppose the labor organizations had demanded the enactment of the Adamson law, which they did not do. It was done in the open. The President sent for them. Their position was frankly stated. No public servant was corrupted; there was no law violated; there was no attempt on their part to do anything in secrecy. la it any worse to ask for shorter hours or higher wages than to ask’for and receive extortionate profits by act of Congress? The truth is the record made by the Democratic party in enacting the Adamson law under all the circumstances when contrasted with the way the Republican Congress dealt with the eight-nour day bill and/when compared with the Republican servility to Big Business should bring to the support of the Democratic party every citizen of this republic who in i truth and in fact stands for justice in America’s Industrial Ufa |

Lexington Green in eastern Massachusetts, where British regulars first fired on American colonists, attracts hundreds of automobilists each day during the summer. Here on the 19th of April, 1775, a regiment of eight hundred British regulars dispatched from Boston by General Gage to sieze stores of' ammunition supposed to 'have been hidden in Concord by the colonists, were met by seventy provincials. Failing to disperse on command, the patriots were fired on by the British and sixteen of them were killed.

This, the “Battle" of Lexington, fired the country and within a short time an army of sixteen thousand men had gathered about Boston, the first organized defiance of British rule in America. Fine state roads led to Lexington from every direction and every road has its historic points and scenes. Many of the original houses about Lexington Green are still standing and are still fine residences. The white house seen in the picture is the Harrington homestead at the doorway of which .John Harrington

who was fatally wounded when Pitcairn commanded the British to fire on the assembled “rebels,” expired at the feet of his wife.

The road from Boston to ton is over the original route of Paul Revere's ride, “through every Middlesex village anti farm’ and from all parts of the country come tourists who react in their minds the stirring scenes of revolutionary times as they glide over perfect roads at speed and comfort never even dreamed of in those early days of our country's history.

Scene of sHE LEXINGTON MASSACRE