Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 40, Number 101, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 28 August 1908 — Mr. WATSON IS MORE THAN CLEAR ON ISSUE [ARTICLE]

Mr. WATSON IS MORE THAN CLEAR ON ISSUE

No Mistaking the Attitude of the Republican Nominee for Governorship.

THE PARTY’S HISTORIC RECORD In Opening the State Campaign at Fort Wayne, Mr. Watson Makes a Notable Declaration.

oause it provided only for a remonstrance against the particular individual making the application for the 11oeuse, but did not prohibit other periods In the same township or In the same ward from Immediately applying, thus keeping the township or ward in Incessant strife by the circulation of remonstrances. Increased Public Bentlment. In obedienoe to increased public sentiment on this question and desiring to voice in legislation the earnest demands of the majority of the people, the legislature in 1905 passed what Is known as the Moore law, as an amendment to the Nicholson law. This act provides that a remonstrance may be circulated in a township in the country or ward in the city against either a specific individual applying for a license or against the business as such. If a majority of the voters in said township or ward Bign the remonstrance against the individual, that particular person is prevented from selling Intoxicants In said township or ward for the ensuing two years, hut if the remonstranoe be against the business, and If a majority of the voters in ■aid township or ward sign said remonstrance, then the business is ex oluded from that township or ward for the next two years. Like previous legislation on this subjeot, the Moore law is a Republican law. A majority of the Demoorats in the House opposed it, and a majority of the Democrats in the Senate voted against it, and it took Republican votes to place it on the statute books.

In his keynote speech delivered a\ Fort Wayne, Mr. Watson discussed na> (tonal and state issues at oonsiderabls length, and then took up the question et the Indiana temperance laws. On ftis subject the speaker said: Do his speech at Lebanon on the sth day of June, my honorable opponent need this language: "I want to allude to the question which gentlemen upon (he other side, in my judgment, are evading. I refer to the liquor questten.” I want to examine this proportion in the light of past history tor ithe purpose of determining whether or not the Republican party Is endeavorlng to evade this issue, and as to fchloh party, If any, is attempting to eooape responsibility at this time. For more than half a century provisoes to this year, the Demooratlo party In praotloally all of Its stste platforms Awriared against sumptuary legislation. When they mentioned reetriotions on ’dke liquor trafflo, they mentioned such Vestrlctlons only to oppose them. They declared unequivocally against legislation. of this character, and in no slngie lnatanoe was this line of conduct altered or this theory of government varied.

with, or regulation of, matters which lie within the domain of individual -Judgment and conscience.” But I shall not quote further. Enough has been given to show that the Democratic party for more than half a century In Indiana has consistently and persistently opposed all restrictions on the liquor traffic, and all legislation looking to the curtailment of the business. Our Party’s Historic Attitude.

On the other hand, the Republican party early declared in favor of local option/ so that its platform this year is In perfect harmony with its previous announcement of principles on this question. In 1886 this plank was adopted by the Republican state convention: "The attempted domination by the liquor league of polltioal parties and legislation Is a menace to free Institutions which must be met and defeated. The trafflo In Intoxicating liquors has always been under legislative restraint, and believing that the evils resulting therefrom should be rigidly repressed, we favor such laws as will permit the people In their several localities to Invoke such measures of restriction 'as they may deem wise, and to compel the traffic to compensate for the burdens It Imposes on society and relieve the oppression of local taxation,” which, as everybody understands, Is ao emphatic declaration in favor of local option. Following up thlß declaration, the platform in 1888 announced the position of the party that year In this language: "Politics and legislation must be kept free from the Influence of the saloon. The liquor traffic must obej the law. We favor legislation upon the principle of local option, whereby the various communities throughout the state may, as they deem best, either control or suppress the traffic In Intoxicating liquors.” Is not the platform this year In entire harmony with that declaration, and does the announcement of the Republican position this year vary In the least from the principle enunciated in 1888? Adherence to the Principle. But the Republican party was not content with this declaration of policy, and in 1890 again announced their adherence to the principle of local option In this language, which may be applied with entire propriety to the situation In Indiana today: "The efforts of the saloon to control political parties and dominate elections must be met and defeated. The trafflo in intoxicating liquors has always been regarded as a proper subject for legislative restraint, and those engaged In It should be compelled to obey the law. We favor legislation upon tha principle of local option whereby the various communities throughout the state may, as they deem best, either control or suppress the traffic.” Does this seem like an evasion of the subject? Is there any attempt In any of these platforms to escape from the principle of local option, or to announce any policy at war with that principle?

This law has been so utilised that today In Indiana out of a total of 1,016 townships, 830 are now dry, while 30 county seat towns have taken advantage of Its provisions to rid themselves of saloons, and Innumerable city wards have exercised the same privilege. Thus the Republican position on this question Is clearly defined, Is entirely consistent and unbroken, and there has never been at any time any attempt at evasion or equivocation on this subject. Democracy’s Backward Step. This year, after more than half a oentury of unbroken opposition to legislation of this character, the Democratic party in state convention assembled, declared In favor of local option by townships and city wards, but their platform demands an election in such township or ward as may desire to test the question, instead of the circulation of a remonstrance. Why this change? If the Deffieeratrc paHy reaTTy helfeved In this legislation, why did they not endorse the existing law under which a large portion of Indiana has been made dry, and under which other portions of Indiana may be made dry? Why the proposed change from a remonstrance to a vote In order to determine the will of the people on this question? The provisions of the existing law are well understood, its operation is entirely inexpensive, It has been tried In many cities and townships in the state, and people understand it; it affords an easy and costless way of ascertaining the wishes of the majority; It has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Indiana—why change it? Why- alter the-method-after these years of successful trial? The reason is so evident that It need but to be stated to satisfy any reasonable mind. This plan was purposely designed by the men who dominated the Democratic state convention in order to weaken the existing law on this subject, and take a backward step In legislation on this Issue.

I Beme Sample Declaration*. In 1864 they declared: "Resolved. That we regard all political organizations based upon the single idea of temperance reform as dangerous to the herpetulty of our republican form of government.” In 1866 they said “That aR prohibitory liquor laws, all laws affaoting the private rights of citizens to use their own time In Innocent pursuits, or to force men to abstain by l*w, under pains and penalties, are InJirioui to the cause of personal temperance and morality, and should be i|lsoountenanced.” In the same platform they further declared, “We shall Oppose all radical temperance and Other schemes having for their object the annoyance of any class of our people.” In their platform in 1868 they made fhlfl declaration : "Thar the attempt to regulate the moral Ideas and aspects Bf the people by legislation Is unwise and despotlo, and we are opposed to that class of legislation which seeks to prohibit the people from the enjoyment of all proper appetites and riusements.” In 1870 they expressed In this way: “That any attempt to ragulate the. moral ideas, appetites.or Innocent amusements of the people by Itgislation, Is unwise and despotic."

Unvaried Democratic Attitude. In 188 t this language was employed to express the unvaried Democratic attitude on this question: "The Democratic party is now, as it always has teen, opposed to all sumptuary legislation." In 1884 they declared themselves to be opposed to "Any legislation which unjustly Interferes with the personal liberty of the people as to what they shall eat or drink, or as to the kind of olothlng they shall wear, baUsving that the government should be administered In that way best calenlaSed to confer the greatest good on the greatest number, without sacrificing the rights of the person or of property, and leaving the Innocent creeds, habits, easterns and business of the people unfettered by sumptuary laws, elass legislation or extortionate mon opollesln 1886 that party declared "That the Demoeratlo party Is now, as It always has been, opposed In principle to all sumptuary laws and prohibitory legislation." In 1804 they declared the attitude of the Demoeratlo party to be that "It has ever been opposed to all sumptuary laws as oontrary to the principles of free government, and favor the largeet individual liberty of the cltlsen, eensonant with good government" . This platform was practically repeated In 1806, and In 1198 was emphasized In the following language: "We adhere firmly to the teachings and prac ties of the Demoeratlo party In favor Of the largest measure of personal lib «rty consistent with public security and social order. We are opposed to an projects of lagisiaifvt lnttrf<?rsß«s

And thus, as far as platforms oan oommit parties to a definite line of action, the Democratic party has ever been opposed to all legislation on this question, while the Republican party, not only In Its platforms, but In the laws It has enaoted, has clearly demonstrated Its belief In, and Its .adherence to, the policy of local option. Pursuant to these platform declarations, and In obedience to public sentiment on this question, the Republican party In 1896 passed two laws looking to the further restriction of the liquor traffic. First, the Moore law, permitting a city counoll to define residentialdistricts from which saloons might thereafter be excluded, and, secondly, the Nloholson law, which provides, among other things, for the method of remonstrance by townships In the oonntry and wards In the city, whereby a majority of the voters can prevent an applicant from selling Intoxicating liquor In such township or city ward for the ensuing two years. These laws were passed by a Republican House and by a Republican Senate, and in both bodies a majority of the Democratic members voted against both propositions, so that these laws are purely Republican. The Nicholson law proved unsatls factory after some years of trial, be-

A Doubls Purpose In View. For the first time In many years the Democratic state -convention In Indiana was held .’.jfore the Republican state convention Why! They came together, and under the Influence of certain leaders, turned their backs on the whole history of their party on this question, renounced all previous party declarations on this subject and planted themselves on the local option platform. Why did they adopt this course? Evidently with a double purpose—first, to lead the temperance element In the party, an element well represented In their convention, though In 'the minority, to believe that the adoption of the local option plank was a I forward step for their party; and. secondly, to satisfy the brewery element in their party that, even though that plank In their platform commits them to local option, yet, in comparison with the existing law. It is not a forward step, but Is in reality a baekwarl movement. So far as the Democratic party Is concerned. It is a step forward, but so far as the people of Indiana are concerned and the laws of Indiana are ooncerned. it Is a facing toward the rear. A part of the double wish of these leaders Is being gratified, for there is not today a brewery or a brewary* saloon keeper in Indiana who la not

vigorously at wortt for the Democratic ticket; but it remains to be seen whether or not the other element in their party can be satisfied with what, after careful analysis, must appear to be only a false pretense. t Attempt to Undermine Law. At the time the Democratic convention met, one week before the Republican convention, its members could not possibly foresee what action on this question the Republican convention would take when it met. They oould not possibly foretell that the Republicans would demand county local option, but they did know that the Republican convention would indorse the existing law. Therefore the plank In the Democratic platform on the question was aimed at the existing law. If the framers of that document believed in that law, why did they not simply Indorse it? They knew that four-fifths of Indiana was now dry, and that, under the operation of this law, more would soon be made dry, and, if they really wanted restrictive legislation, why did they not announce their approval of this law? But that is exactly what they did not want, and the adoption of their platform is proof positive that they were Intent on undermining the Moore law and preventing further restrictions of the liquor traffic under Its provisions.

Effort to Repeal Moore Law. Why would the Democratic platform If enacted into law, weaken the existing statute? After favoring a ward and township local option law, that platform states: "But we declare that such laws shall be supplementary to the laws now in force relating to remonstranoe against the granting of such license.” This would seem at first glance to be an endorsement of existing law, but In reality it Is nothing more or less than an attempt to Indirectly repeal It. Reason and experience alike show that the local option election law for wards and townships will nullify the remonstrance law now in effect in Indiana. This Is evident for various reasons: First, In order to avoid publicity many persons when asked to sign a remonstrance would say that they preferred an election. This would not subjeot them to any boycott on the part of the saloon forces In the community, nor would it hold Riem up to whatever eoora or ridloule might result from a refusal to sign. In other words, they prefer the secrecy of the ballot to open action on this question. Secondly, where the moral sentiment of the community is aroused and a voter’s wife and children are taking a deep interest in the question, it would be much easier for him to record his vote In favor of the saloon than to put his name on a remonstranoe where all men could be fully apprised of his position.

The Brewery’s Influence. And the third and more significant reason la, as has been demonstrated over and over again In other states, that, where an election Is held, the Influence of the brewery can be more successfully used, and made far more powerful, than in contending against a remonstrance. They can colonize voters in the particular ward In which the question Is being tested. They oan corrupt the voter and debauch the electorate. and tHus. hy means of fhese baneful and sinister Influences, overthrow the will of ths bona fide residents of that ward, whereas, under the present system, such practices are reduced to the minimum. And, in these days of good roads and modern methods of travel, one wet ward in any city Is equivalent to a wet county. That Is tha very thing these gentlemen wanted, else why did they favor that system as against the existing one? There Js no other anawer. In the fourth place their proposition would repeal .the existing law, because local option by election and local option by remonstrance cannot both operate at the same time, and In tht same territorial unit. Suppose, for Instance,, that the first ward In the city of Fort Wayne holds an election tinder the Democratic plan and votes wet. Can someone opposed to the result set out the next day or the next week or the next month, with a remonstrance In the same ward with a view to having a re-trial of the question? And suppose that a majority of the. legal voters In the ward should sign the remonstrance, which would control, the “wet" election or the "dry" remonstrance?

To Satisfy Wicked Demands. It is very evident that two different methods of determining the same question cannot operate In the same unit at the same time, but that one or the other must cease to be operative or practical. In this Instance there Is not a thinking man who does not know that the remonstrance law would pass out of existence and the election legislation stand. In my Judgment, the passage of such proposition as embodied In the Demoeratlo platform would repeal by necessary Implication the existing law, but, even If that were not true, it cannot be disputed that In practical effect It would work the complete overthrow of the remonstrance legislation known as the Moore law. Why should this be done? But for one reason, and one only, and that Is to satisfy the demands of those who are opposed to further legislation on this subject. There can be no other basis for such proposed action. The present law Is well understood by all our people, for multiplied thousands of them have taken advantage of Its.provisions. Thousands of Democrats In Indiana have takes advaa-

tag* of this Republican law to express their wish with reference to (he saloon question in their locality, and I want now to warn them that, if the plank proposed In the platform of their party should become the law in Indiana, the statute that has enabled them to rid themselves of the saloon In their various localities will be wiped'from the books, and thus the method by which they have been permitted to achieve the result they have so long desired, will no longer be available, bnt will be wrested from their hands by those who are unalterably opposed to all restrictions on this traffic.

The Republican Party Demands. The Republican party this year demands that the majority of the people in the county shall be permitted, at a special election held for that purpose, to determine whether or not their county shall be wet or dry. What are the reasons for this movement? Wards in the city can, within certain limitations, be changed by the city council. Townships may be changed by boards of county commissioners at any time. These units are therefore not fixed and invariable, but depend upon the whims of the persons who control them and who can practically alter them at will. It Is conceivable that, where townships or wards in cities are voted dry, and those who have the power to gerrymander township or ward lines are opposed to all temperance legislation, it is conceivable, I say, that they could alter their township oil ward lines so as to overcome the will of the people, and hare at least one wet ward In a city or a wet township in the country against the manifest wish of the majority of the people in the city or in the township or in the county. This cannot be said of the county unit. It is a well-known geographical unit and a well-defined territorial unit. The people In the county are usually a homogenous people. They come together oftener for an purposes than the people of any other unit known to onr system of government. Fanners usually trade at the county seat; the young men and the young women from the farm constantly visit the town; county conventions of all kinds are held in the center of population, which Is usually the oounty seat. People In the county oome together for commercial purposes, for social purposes, for polltloal purposes, and for all other purposes more frequently than the people ol any other geographical unit, and are better acquainted with the w&ntß and desires and wishes, of one another thaD the people of any other unit

Prime Unit of Government. Licenses are issued by county com mlssioners, a portion of the county machinery, and'the people In the county ought to have the right to say whether or not their machinery shall thus operate. The state laws are largely enforced through means provided by the various counties. Judges are elected by one or more counties. Sheriffs and clerks are elected in each county to assist in the administration of the law in that county. A treasurer is elected to collect the taxes for that county; commissioners are chosen to transact the business of the people of that county, and local self-government la more nearly exemplified through the oounty unit than any other known to our people.

By means of election methods, a vard In any city may be kept wet and saloons retained within Its borders, but that ward does not pay the taxes to bear the burdens occasioned by these institutions. Those taxes are paid by the whole county, and juries and county officers and jails and almshouses are supported by taxes levied on the people of the whole county to carry the burdens Imposed by the people In one ward. This Is a species of taxation without representation, and should not be permitted where any method of relief Is at all possible. In other words. In our system of government a county unit is the natural one for the determination of this question, and thus reason and experience both support the Tcrontentfon of fhb Republican party In this campaign In demanding that the people in each county shall be permitted to determine what they shall do with reference to the saloon In their borders. But we are met with the objection that the passage of a county local option law will repeal the existing law, and that we are not sincere when we claim that the plan proposed by the Democrats cannot operate successfully aide by side with the existing law, while our proposed legislation can be made to do so. In other words, some Democrats are claiming that our plan will repeal the existing law, which our platform pledges us to maintain, while thair plan will not. I have argued the latter proposition fully and shall not refer to It again, and only desire to call the attention of the people to the faot that various courts In the United States have already decided that the plan we propose Is valid and constitutional and entirely consistent with existing law, and that these decisions should be final In determining this question at this time. The reason why our plan will operate successfully with the existing law, and (heir plan will not. Is that they seek to have two dissimilar methods operating In the same unit at the same time, while the Republican plan la to have different methods operating in different units at different times. In other words, a county may vote wet at an election and yet the Moore remonstrance law operate in townships and city wards in that oounty, whereas if a county votes dry all the territory within the borders of that county shall Be from that day exempt from the pretence of a saloon.