Rensselaer Journal, Volume 10, Number 48, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 May 1901 — In Defense of Mr. Crumpacker. [ARTICLE]

In Defense of Mr. Crumpacker.

The following letters are self explanatory. They were written to the Rensselaer Republican, but were not published, for reasons not stated. The Journal takes pleasure in reproducing them, as it considers Mr. Crumpacker one of the brainiest men in Congress, well fitted to represent the 10th Indiana district. April 13, 1901. Friend Marshall: I read with much interest in the issue of April 9tb an article taken from the Chicago Record-Herald in regard to the situation in the 10th district and thinking it might probably do Judge Orumpacker an injustice, 1 take the privilege of enclosing herewith my individual views on the subject and will esteem it a favor if you will publish it in the weekly edition of the Republican. Yours truly, J. W. Powell.

Editor Republican: In your issue of April 9th you reproduce an article purporting to have been written from Indianapolis to the Chicago RecordHerald. After reviewing the political situation in this state in a general way, the' writer addresses himself particularly to Republican politics in the tenth district, and after reviewing Judge Crumpacker’s opposition to the Porto Rican tariff bill at some length he says, “for this reason it is believed that a strong man and a staunch Republican would have a good chance for nomination.” For what reason? For the reason that “Wood’s friends

say that the tenth district congressman is not regarded as being in full and cordial sympathy with some of the administration’s views.” Who is the administration? President McKinley is the recognized head. Surely Mr. Crumpacker’s efforts were in perfect accordance with “our plain duty,” as advised by the President in his annual message to congress, and the fact that the President has since seemed to change his position on this subject, shows conclusively that the way was not so clearly defined, but that there was plenty of room for a very wide divergence of opinion on the subject, even by “staunch Republicans.” And here let me ask of State Senator Wood’s friends, (for I have too much regard for Senator Wood to believe he entertains such views himself) what it takes in their opinion, to

constitute “a strong man and a staunch Republican?” Is a strong man one who is vacillating in his views? One who is willing to conserve his own principles and convictions to tnose advanced by a coterie of self appointed leaders and bosses, that he may be the happy recipient of their social smiles and political favors, or is it a clear headed conservative man, who after carefully weighing the facts and forming his deductions therefrom, has the courage and the manhood to stand by hie convictions notwithstanding the fact that his action may deprive him of honors and rewards, held at the disposal of certain persons, who are supposed by many, to possess all the statesmanship and political brains of the party? Is “a staunch Republican” one who supinely opens his throat like a young bird, and swallows everything as good Republican doctrine that is offered him by the aforesaid individuals, whether it conforms to his opinions or not, or is he a free, fearless, self respecting man, one who aares stand up and combat for what he believes to be the proper course to pursue? But the case admits of no argument; the tenth district does not desire to be represented by a man with neither courage or convictions. While it is true Judge Crumpacker made a strenuous fight against the enactment of the Porto Rican tarifi

bill, it Is also truej th fit 811 the time he fairly represented the views of his Republican constituents of the tenth district. Nor were these views confined to the tenth d strict alone; but they were generally entertained throughout the entire state; so much so, that, almost the entire Republican press was arrayed against the measure and more than one congressional convention passed resolutions condemning it. So marked was this opposition, that Judge Crumpacker was importuned by many good Republicans to be a candidate for governor, and had he not positively refused his permission, his name would have been presented to the state convention, and there is no doubt but what he owes a

considerable share of his greatly increased plurality at the last election, to his opposition to this measure and if Mr. Wood’s friends, or anyone else, would accomplish his defeat in convention, they must do it on some other ground. Besides there is now pending in the supreme court of the United States, a decision covering the whole question and should this decision be adverse to the constitutionality of the law, as many old lawyers, (including the late Ex-President Harrison, who stigmatized it as a departure from right principles) think it will be, what will become of this opposition to Judge Crumpacker? I have never been an enthusiastic Crumpacker man in the past, but under existing circumstances, to my mind he is the logical candidate, and should be renominated and elected. J. W. Powell.