“During these forty years David Turpie has been a Democrat, and whether leading a forlorn hope under dark and lowering skies with defeat inevitable, or whether at the head of a victorious column making a final charge to victory already assured, he has been equally brave and earnest, never wavering for a single moment in his devotion to the cause so dear to his heart. While others faltered and tired, Turpie was renewing his vigor and preparing for a renewal of the fray. While others were dealing with questions of policy and debating the feasibility of new departures, Turpie laid fresh hold upon the teachings of Jefferson, and pressed forward in the cause of honest money, home rule, personal liberty and constitutional method.”
“During these forty years David Turpie has been a Democrat, and whether leading a forlorn hope under dark and lowering skies with defeat inevitable, or whether at the head of a victorious column making a final charge to victory already assured, he has been equally brave and earnest, never wavering for a single moment in his devotion to the cause so dear to his heart. While others faltered and tired, Turpie was renewing his vigor and preparing for a renewal of the fray. While others were dealing with questions of policy and debating the feasibility of new departures, Turpie laid fresh hold upon the teachings of Jefferson, and pressed forward in the cause of honest money, home rule, personal liberty and constitutional method.”
It was during this session that he disclosed the courageous attitude toward public questions which distinguished him ever afterward, and in the light of that record it is difficult to understand the partial success of his political opponents in fixing upon him the reputation of being a trimmer. Among the many measures no longer of interest and pertaining particularly to Indianapolis affairs we are concerned only with one relating to the amendment of the city charter providing in the case of street paving that the crossings should be paid for by the property owners directly affected. For many years it had been the policy to pay for these crossings through general taxation. In the older sections of the city, where property was more valuable and property owners more prosperous, the crossings had been paved, and the poorer classes in less favored sections had been taxed to pay for them. It was the conviction of Mr. Kern that it would be an injustice to change that policy at a time when the poorer sections were preparing for improvements. His view was at war with that of powerful elements. The city administration, a Democratic administration presided over by a mayor who had been twice placed in nomination by Kern himself, favored the amendment to the charter. The Commercial Club, composed at that time of 400 of the leading business men of the city, was aggressively behind it, and the press of the city was insistent upon it. A trimmer lacking in courage would scarcely have undertaken to stem the tide. This Kern did in his first important speech of the session, and while he lost his fight he made an impression that confirmed the general opinion of his ability. In describing this, his first argumentative speech in the state senate,The Indianapolis Sentinelsaid:
“When Mr. Kern rose all the senators wheeled their chairs around to listen better. This was to be Mr. Kern’s first argument on an important measure, and those who had never heard him in joint discussion wanted to see how he would acquit himself. His reputation as an orator extends all over the state, and though he espoused a losing cause yesterday he did not disappoint his friends.”
“When Mr. Kern rose all the senators wheeled their chairs around to listen better. This was to be Mr. Kern’s first argument on an important measure, and those who had never heard him in joint discussion wanted to see how he would acquit himself. His reputation as an orator extends all over the state, and though he espoused a losing cause yesterday he did not disappoint his friends.”
It was in connection with labor legislation that Kern at this time fashioned his reputation as a public man—a reputation that was to make him ardent friends and powerful foes. Throughout his life his instincts had always impelled him to take up the cudgels for the lowly and oppressed. Even before entering the state senate he had written many bills for the legislative committee of the state federation of labor and the working classes naturally looked to him for leadership. The first battle along these lines in which he participated was in connection with legislation relating to the legal status of the labor union. In the first part of the session a bill had been introduced to legalize the unions and this had been instantly met by the introduction of a bill “for the protection of non-union laborers.” The Democratic caucus quickly disposed of the latter by rejecting it, and Francis T. Hord, its sponsor, threatened for a time to resign his seat. The former bill was bitterlycontested and Kern had charge of the measure when it reached the senate. The “business interests,” as they called themselves, were greatly outraged at what they pretended to look upon as a direct interference with their rights. The purport of it was to make it a misdemeanor punishable by fine or imprisonment for any employer of labor to discharge or threaten to discharge an employee because of his connection with labor organizations, or to exact a pledge from them that they would not affiliate with the unions. Only a little while before Pinkerton detectives had shot down the laborers of the Carnegie plant to the applause of that element in the country which pretended to conservatism and respectability. That Kern’s views on the labor question were early formed, deeply felt and consistently held will be seen in the rather fiery speech he made in advocacy of the Deery bill:
“It is a crying shame that in this year, 1893, and in Indiana, there should be a demand for legislation of this kind. It is outrageous that the representative of a great corporation, created by public favor, clothed with the extraordinary power of eminent domain, grown fat and rich by favorable legislation, should have the hardihood to strike at the liberty of its workingmen by demanding of them that they give up membership in their unions, to which they are as devotedly attached as they are to church or party, under penalty of dismissal from employment. Inother words, the alternative presented is “renounce your allegiance to your union or go forth without employment to face possible penury and want. ‘I hold in my hand the constitution of one of these organizations in which the purpose of its existence is set forth. It is a high and noble purpose—to rescue our trade from the low level to which it has fallen, and by mutual effort to place it on a foundation sufficiently strong to resist further encroachments; to encourage a higher standard of skill, to cultivate feelings of friendship, to assist each other to secure employment, to relieve our distress and to bury our dead.’“This is the creed of the men whose organization is imperiled by the arrogant demands of corporate power and wealth and who are compelled to come to this body to ask protection. Mr. President, the paramount object of law is to protect the weak against the strong. Here is a case in which the protection of the laws is most properly invoked. It is an undisputed fact that in this city, where more than 10,000 labor union men are engaged in daily toil—earning a livelihood and piling up wealth for their employers—all loyal and law-abiding citizens, a great corporation, through its authorized agents, drives out its employees, faithful and honest, for the avowed reason that with true American spirit they declined to surrender their sovereignty and at the bidding of the master give up cherished principles and attachments.“This anti-Pinkerton law was conceded to be and is a most beneficial measure, yet according to the arguments here it would fall under the ban of classlegislation. So of the anti-pluck-me-store law and every other enactment in the interest of labor. Organized labor is the outgrowth of organized capital. Labor was organized in self-defense. For years and years and years organized capital was fostered and fed by favorable legislation, until it grew defiant and insolent and refused to treat with decent respect to the rights of the men whose toil gave them wealth. As a result labor organized that it might live—that it might have a share of its production. Its organization brought respect and dignity with it. It Americanized the laborer who had long been denied many of the rights of citizenship. Better work, better morals, better men, happier homes and firesides have resulted. The bill is right. No man who loves liberty should oppose it.”
“It is a crying shame that in this year, 1893, and in Indiana, there should be a demand for legislation of this kind. It is outrageous that the representative of a great corporation, created by public favor, clothed with the extraordinary power of eminent domain, grown fat and rich by favorable legislation, should have the hardihood to strike at the liberty of its workingmen by demanding of them that they give up membership in their unions, to which they are as devotedly attached as they are to church or party, under penalty of dismissal from employment. Inother words, the alternative presented is “renounce your allegiance to your union or go forth without employment to face possible penury and want. ‘I hold in my hand the constitution of one of these organizations in which the purpose of its existence is set forth. It is a high and noble purpose—to rescue our trade from the low level to which it has fallen, and by mutual effort to place it on a foundation sufficiently strong to resist further encroachments; to encourage a higher standard of skill, to cultivate feelings of friendship, to assist each other to secure employment, to relieve our distress and to bury our dead.’
“This is the creed of the men whose organization is imperiled by the arrogant demands of corporate power and wealth and who are compelled to come to this body to ask protection. Mr. President, the paramount object of law is to protect the weak against the strong. Here is a case in which the protection of the laws is most properly invoked. It is an undisputed fact that in this city, where more than 10,000 labor union men are engaged in daily toil—earning a livelihood and piling up wealth for their employers—all loyal and law-abiding citizens, a great corporation, through its authorized agents, drives out its employees, faithful and honest, for the avowed reason that with true American spirit they declined to surrender their sovereignty and at the bidding of the master give up cherished principles and attachments.
“This anti-Pinkerton law was conceded to be and is a most beneficial measure, yet according to the arguments here it would fall under the ban of classlegislation. So of the anti-pluck-me-store law and every other enactment in the interest of labor. Organized labor is the outgrowth of organized capital. Labor was organized in self-defense. For years and years and years organized capital was fostered and fed by favorable legislation, until it grew defiant and insolent and refused to treat with decent respect to the rights of the men whose toil gave them wealth. As a result labor organized that it might live—that it might have a share of its production. Its organization brought respect and dignity with it. It Americanized the laborer who had long been denied many of the rights of citizenship. Better work, better morals, better men, happier homes and firesides have resulted. The bill is right. No man who loves liberty should oppose it.”
This extract will suffice to indicate the general character of Kern’s defense of labor unions, and the speech was received with hearty commendation in labor circles throughout the country.
To appreciate the courageous nature of Kern’s act it should be borne in mind that organized labor was in its infancy; that the Knights of Labor only a little while before had gone to pieces; that the national government but four years before had not hesitated to turn the guns of American troops upon striking unionists; and that men calling themselves “conservative” were bitterly opposed to the new movement resulting in the organization of the AmericanFederation of Labor four years before. But in addition to all this, there were local conditions which made Kern’s act one of rare courage. Scarcely a year before, when an effort had been made to organize employees of the street railroad company, the employers resorted to extreme methods to prevent the organization. A serious strike resulted. For several weeks Indianapolis was without street car service. The press, the business element, the “conservatives,” denounced the strikers and finally brought such pressure to bear that the mayor reluctantly consented to furnish police to accompany the cars. The strike was lost. The feeling was bitter. The most powerful influences in Indianapolis were uncompromisingly opposed to unions.
Kern’s speech was consequently notable, not only because it was a supremely courageous performance, but the first one ever uttered in the state senate of Indiana in advocacy of union labor.
The bill was passed and became a law. Labor never forgot the service—and neither did the enemies of labor.
Even more epoch-making was the passage during this session of the first employers’ liability law ever enacted in Indiana, and at a time when not more than three other states had passed such legislation. The bill was introduced in the house by S. M. Hench,and after a rather spirited fight it passed that body and reached the senate, where it was diverted from the committee on labor to the judiciary committee. Here it seemed destined to remain. Every effort on the part of its author to get a report was unavailing. Meanwhile a powerful railroad lobby had swooped down on the capitol and was exerting itself in the open to encompass its defeat. It was generally understood that Lieutenant Governor Nye, who was a railroad lawyer with a professional view of the measure, was strongly opposed to it, and when, after having reached the senate on February 17th, the month of March came, with the certainty that but four days remained for the passage of bills, it became apparent that extraordinary measures would have to be taken if it were to become a law. The railroad men’s legislative committee had reached the end of its rope. On the morning of March 1The Indianapolis Sentineldemanded action upon it in an editorial that placed the lieutenant governor in an embarrassing position by the significant suggestion that “the bill should not have been referred to the judiciary committee in the first place;” and that put the Democratic members on their mettle with the warning that in the event of the failure of its passage “the Democratic party will be held responsible.” This editorial, the first of several that were to appear, was bitterly resented by Mr. Nye and the members of the judiciary committee,who were, nevertheless, thereby placed on the defensive. Other editorials charging responsibility upon the railroad lobby, put all the members of the senate on their guard.
On March 3 the labor leaders appealed to Kern to make one final effort. He was in hearty sympathy with the measure, but up to this time had not been asked to take the active management of it in the senate. On the night of that very day he appeared before the judiciary committee and debated the merits of the bill with the railroad lawyers, who were there to oppose it. The committee, unfriendly from the beginning, and rather embittered, no doubt, by the editorial reflections upon it, stubbornly refused to report the bill unless the railroad employees would agree to accept a certain amendment. On the morning of the 4th, the last day it could be acted upon, Kern called a meeting of the legislative committee of the Federation of Labor, and it was agreed by them that the acceptance of the amendment would be preferable to no bill at all. This agreement on their part was then reduced to writing by Kern, and with the signatures of the legislative committee affixed he hastened to the judiciary committee and insisted upon a report. When the bill was reported with the recommendation that it pass as amended, he moved concurrence in the report, the suspension of the constitutional rules, and its passage. It was nowrather late in the day and the amendment required its repassage in the house—a fact that the enemies of the bill doubtless counted upon. But the moment it passed the senate Kern hastened to the house and saw Captain James B. Curtis, the speaker, who had all other business suspended to consider the bill as amended. It only required twenty minutes to get it through the house the second time, and Kern personally took it to the governor for his signature.
This was one of the greatest victories that labor ever won in the Indiana legislature. Since that time the world has moved far in the way of remedial legislation, and the employers’ liability law of 1893 has long been antiquated, but at a time when only two or three states in the union had enacted such legislation it was a signal and significant triumph for the labor cause in Indiana.
This, too, was a service that laboring men never forgot—and this, too, contributed to fix Kern’s status in the minds of the enemies of labor as dangerous and demagogic.
During this same session Kern took a leading part in the passage of a child labor law, a fact that was recalled more than a quarter of a century later when the president of the United States placed upon him the responsibility of piloting through the United States senate the first national child labor measure ever written in the statutes.
Quite as indicative of his life-long attitude toward labor problems was his introduction of a bill to establish a state board of conciliation for the settlement of controversies between employers and employees. This bill reached third reading, but failed of passage.
The close of the session found Kern more of a state figure than he had ever been before. He had been easily the dominating figure, the interesting personality. His speeches had been characterized by more substance, more sparkle, more originality than are customarily heard in the Indiana legislature. His humor and ridicule had delighted the objects of them. His social qualities had endeared him to all his colleagues. And among members of the opposition it was understood that while he was intense in his political convictions there was nothing bigoted or bitter in his estimate of men who opposed them. This was disclosed in many graceful little incidents, as when he moved that the senate adjourn in respect to the memory of James G. Blaine.
The state senate of the session of 1895, due to the political upheaval of 1894, was Republican, and Kern found himself in the rôle of leader of the minority—the only time in his career where he appeared as such. It is significant of his personal popularity and standing among Republicans that the majority in the making of committee assignments placed him upon the judiciary committee from which he had been excluded by a Democratic lieutenant governor, and he was continued on the rules committee and of course with the committee dealing with legislation relating to Indianapolis. Neither the journal of the senate nor the newspapers of the time indicate that he was particularly persistent in his opposition until toward the close of the session. The proceedings of the majority were flagrantly partisan and in many other ways open to censure. The majority was lead by Albert W. Wishard, an Indianapolis lawyer and politician of high professional standing, one of the most brilliant men who ever served in the Indiana legislature, for whom Kern entertained a warm personal regard. The partisan bitterness, however, which developed toward the close of the session did not prevent the latter from warmly defending the Republican leader against the charge of feigning illness to escape a vote. This kind of chivalry characterized him throughout his life, but signally failed to protect him in later years from the most vicious personal attacks on the part of a large portion of the Republican press of the state.
This bitterness of partisan feeling was engendered by the Republican plan for the gerrymandering of the state. The bill agreed upon by the Republican caucus represented partisanship gone mad. Themost grotesque combinations of counties were made for congressional and legislative purposes. The most vehement protests of the Democrats and of citizens of sufficiently independent character to resent injustice were of no avail. The Republicans, booted and spurred, rode rough shod over all opposition. A United States senator was to be elected the next year and nothing in the way of the juggling of legislative districts that would make more difficult the re-election of Daniel W. Voorhees was left undone. Appreciating the impossibility of preventing the consummation of the plan, Kern withheld his fire until the bill was put upon its passage, and then in an excoriating speech, all the more severe because every count in the indictment he drew was notoriously true, he voiced his protest in a general denunciation of the legislative record made by the party in power during the session. This speech is historically interesting, especially the following:
“In 1887 you denounced the rules of the senate adopted by the Democratic majority under the leadership of Green Smith as ‘outrageous, brutal and revolutionary,’ and yet on gaining power you re-enact those rules without the dotting of an i or the crossing of a t.“In former years you have denounced the Democratic legislatures on account of the number of their employees; and yet here in the senate chamber senators can scarcely get in and out of the chamber without stumbling over the crowds of idle and useless employees who swarm about performing no service.“You have denounced the Democratic ‘profligacy’ in the little items of expenditures about the general assembly, and yet I call your attention to the fact that of the twenty-eight sets of Burns’ statutes purchased by the senate for the state at the commencement of the session every set except three have been stolen and carried away.“You lay claim to a record of economy and yet, leaving your officers with their princely salaries, you seek to make the record good by taking food and clothing and the comforts of life from those of God’s unfortunate children who are confined in the asylum of the insane, and those who are being educated and cared for in the institutions for the deaf and dumb and blind.“You have claimed to favor the abolishment of the spoils system from the politics of the state and yet under your legislation of this session politics has been carried into the public schools for the first time in the history of the state.”Interruption—“How about the Nicholson law?”Kern—“I am obliged for the interruption. The Democratic party has never posed as the great and only party of morality and temperance. The Republican party has. Do you remember your recent campaign waged under the banner—the Home Against the Saloon? If the Democratic party had made such pretenses as these I am sure its members would not, when the Nicholson bill was called, as it was yesterday, have been found running in all directions likefox chases to dodge a vote. They would have had the courage of their convictions. The Democratic party in the last campaign had no deal with the liquor element of Evansville or elsewhere. It had no entangling alliances that drove its members out of the chamber when the roll is called in order that they might dodge the consequences of a vote. Republican senators here who have been loud in their pretenses of temperance and morality in the years gone by turn pale and tremble and run like hounds at the mere mention of the Nicholson bill. At last they have been smoked from under the cover of hypocrisy and are appalled at the sight of the light of day, which is finally turned upon them.“The end of these false pretenses is come at last.... And that is why I say that at the close of this session, with this record, it is fitting that there should come this gerrymander which in its iniquity is sufficient to cause the old original Gerry to turn in his grave at the thought of his utter incapacity in that line when compared with the modern Republican reformers of Indiana.”
“In 1887 you denounced the rules of the senate adopted by the Democratic majority under the leadership of Green Smith as ‘outrageous, brutal and revolutionary,’ and yet on gaining power you re-enact those rules without the dotting of an i or the crossing of a t.
“In former years you have denounced the Democratic legislatures on account of the number of their employees; and yet here in the senate chamber senators can scarcely get in and out of the chamber without stumbling over the crowds of idle and useless employees who swarm about performing no service.
“You have denounced the Democratic ‘profligacy’ in the little items of expenditures about the general assembly, and yet I call your attention to the fact that of the twenty-eight sets of Burns’ statutes purchased by the senate for the state at the commencement of the session every set except three have been stolen and carried away.
“You lay claim to a record of economy and yet, leaving your officers with their princely salaries, you seek to make the record good by taking food and clothing and the comforts of life from those of God’s unfortunate children who are confined in the asylum of the insane, and those who are being educated and cared for in the institutions for the deaf and dumb and blind.
“You have claimed to favor the abolishment of the spoils system from the politics of the state and yet under your legislation of this session politics has been carried into the public schools for the first time in the history of the state.”
Interruption—“How about the Nicholson law?”
Kern—“I am obliged for the interruption. The Democratic party has never posed as the great and only party of morality and temperance. The Republican party has. Do you remember your recent campaign waged under the banner—the Home Against the Saloon? If the Democratic party had made such pretenses as these I am sure its members would not, when the Nicholson bill was called, as it was yesterday, have been found running in all directions likefox chases to dodge a vote. They would have had the courage of their convictions. The Democratic party in the last campaign had no deal with the liquor element of Evansville or elsewhere. It had no entangling alliances that drove its members out of the chamber when the roll is called in order that they might dodge the consequences of a vote. Republican senators here who have been loud in their pretenses of temperance and morality in the years gone by turn pale and tremble and run like hounds at the mere mention of the Nicholson bill. At last they have been smoked from under the cover of hypocrisy and are appalled at the sight of the light of day, which is finally turned upon them.
“The end of these false pretenses is come at last.... And that is why I say that at the close of this session, with this record, it is fitting that there should come this gerrymander which in its iniquity is sufficient to cause the old original Gerry to turn in his grave at the thought of his utter incapacity in that line when compared with the modern Republican reformers of Indiana.”
The reference to the Nicholson law was thoroughly understood by all his hearers. In the campaign of 1894 the Republicans had laid claim to being the party of temperance and had held forth the promise to the temperance people that a Republican assembly would mean temperance legislation. This pretense was accepted at face value by the temperance workers. At the same time it was generally understood that one of the Republican leaders had entered into a secret understanding with the “wets” at Evansville that any temperance measure presented would be either pigeonholed or passed in a form that would make it utterly worthless for its purpose. Soon after the legislature met Representative Nicholson had introduced his bill and the game of hide and go seek was on. Seldom if ever have more exciting scenes been witnessed about the state house during a legislative session than those of this period. On days when it was known that any phase of the bill would be discussed in either branch of the assembly the galleries were packed to overflowing and great throngs jostled about in the corridors. The temperance forces were organized and awake. In the pulpits of the capital on Sundays the ministers demanded the passage of the bill. This general interest was embarrassing to the Republican politicians, who had not counted upon being called on to do their tricks of legislative legerdemain in the white light of publicity. There was no opportunity to stop the progress of the bill in the house, but when it reached the senate it was referred to the temperance committee, whose chairman, strangely enough, was notoriously unfriendly to temperance legislation. Here it was expected to slumber—and here it slumbered for quite a while.
It was at this juncture that Kern entered the story. At this time he held the traditional views of the Indiana Democracy on the subject of personal liberty and sumptuary legislation. He was himself a teetotaler. But he had a profound contempt for hypocrisy, and in his fight to expose the perfidy of the double-dealing policy of the opposition it is probable that he, more than any other one man, was responsible for the passage of the Nicholson law.
On March 4th, toward the close of the session, he threw a bomb into the opposition camp by offering a resolution instructing the temperance committee to have the bill before the senate, with or without recommendation, by 3 o’clock on the following afternoon. This did not harmonize with the plans of the committee or its chairman, but the resolution was adopted and the fun commenced. The Evansville agreement had been given a tremendous jolt. The temperance forces took their cue and flocked to the senate. The white light of publicity began to beat unmercifully upon the proceedings. Taken unaware and not yet prepared to submit a report the committee on the following day asked for another day’s delay, which was granted over the protest of ten members led by Kern, who jocularly moved after the vote was taken that a committee be appointed “to draft resolutions of respect for the late lamented Nicholson law.” These tactics, by casting suspicionof the sincerity of pretended friends of the measure, made further delay impossible, and on the following day the bill was reported with amendments. After this Kern applied himself to amendments. He was one of four who voted in favor of permitting the saloons to remain open until midnight in cities having a population of 25,000 and over. And he followed this by his own amendment, known as the “drug store amendment,” for which he has always been remembered. This provided that it should be unlawful for any spirituous, vinous or malt liquors to be sold or given away in drug stores except on the written prescription of a reputable physician. This amendment was adopted and a motion to reconsider was lost. When the bill as amended went to a vote Kern was one of nine who voted against it.
But this was not to be the end of the fight. In the house the Kern amendment was rejected and in conference the amendment was changed to read that in drug stores liquor should not be sold or given away without prescription in any quantity less than a quart. When the conference report was submitted in the senate Kern made an onslaught on the drug store proviso as changed, resulting in a spirited debate which gave him an opportunity to attack the sincerity of the majority. Accused of introducing the drug store amendment in the interest of the saloons, he demanded to know whether the bill was intended“to advance the cause of temperance or mainly for the purpose of legislating against one business in favor of another,” and in a scathing denunciation of the spirit of hypocrisy he pictured the sanctimonious double-dealer, well known at that time, who loftily attacked the saloon while stopping at the corner drug store on his way home from church for his dram or bottle behind the prescription case.
That the dominant party’s plans had been sadly disarranged by Kern’s activities was disclosed in its resentment toward him manifested in the passage of a resolution two days after the passage of the bill “extending on behalf of the majority our thanks to the minority and the governor for their assistance in passing the Nicholson law, and especially to Senator Kern of Marion for his drug store amendment to said bill, which he failed to honor by his affirmative vote.”
This resolution was not a mere bit of jocularity, but an attempt to at least neutralize the responsibility of the Republican party in violating the Evansville pledge to the “wets.” Governor Matthews had taken no part in the fight and had merely signed the bill when presented to him in due course for his signature, and the introduction of his name was merely intended to call the attention of the “wets” to the fact that a Democratic governor had signed and not vetoed it. And the special reference to Kern was in line with the excuse made to the “wets” for failureto smother the bill or to hopelessly emasculate it that but for his resolution calling upon the committee to report it would not have seen the light of day. In this they succeeded. There was never a time after that when Kern was not looked upon as unfriendly by the so-called liberal element, and his mandatory resolution compelling a report on the Nicholson bill was always given as evidence of his hostility. As a matter of fact he was not in favor of the bill. He expressed his views in his vote on the final passage. But the Republican leaders had solemnly pledged the party to genuine temperance legislation and had been overwhelmingly placed in power with that understanding—at the same time receiving the support of the liberals through a secret understanding. The hypocrisy of their position disgusted Kern, who deliberately set about to compel them to legislate in accordance with pre-election promises to the temperance forces whose support they had received, or to expose their hypocrisy. He succeeded in both, and he was never forgiven by either the Republican politicians or the liberals. It is not recorded either that he ever profited greatly from the temperance people. But he satisfied himself.
All in all the session of 1895 was one of the most vicious in the history of the commonwealth. The charges made by Kern in his speech against the gerrymander were true. It was literally true thatthe Burns’ statutes purchased with the state’s money for the state, to be used during the session by members, were actually stolen and carried away. But he might have added that there have been few sessions of the Indiana legislature during which there was so much general talk of the corrupt use of money. The hotels swarmed with lobbyists, and even the female lobbyist, a rather rare species at that time in Indiana, made her appearance, and in one instance created something of a scandal by being ejected from a hotel. Until then most of the lobbying had been done in the capitol, openly, but this session ushered in a new departure—the lobbyists did their work in hotels and other places.
This ended Kern’s career in the state senate. It had profited him greatly in that it had presented to the Democracy of the state a new Kern—a Kern seasoned, sobered by experience, who retained his youthful fire, intensity and eloquence. He entered the senate personally popular and widely known, but generally looked upon as a merely effective campaign speaker; he left it a recognized leader of the party in the state.
The estimate of his colleagues has been furnished me by Hon. M. A. Sweeney of Jasper, who served with him:
“He was by common consent, and without the least assumption on his part, the admired and belovedleader of our party there. I feel fully justified in asserting that no member on either side of that body of legislators ever questioned his mental superiority, personal integrity or magnanimity. In that arena of public debate, in which the flow and ebb of acrimonious clashings in verbal swordsmanship afford so splendid an opportunity to draw the line of cleavage between the cheap politician and the true gentleman and statesman, it was there he stood without a peer, personifying the calmness of power.“His kind assistance to, and his painstaking patience with the embryonic, ambitious, would-be statesmen of his own or of the opposite party, were almost paternal in him; if your cause had merit, you ever found a true and helpful friend. No matter how arduous and exacting his senatorial duties were, and they were multifarious and onerous, he never hesitated to listen graciously to our crude ideas of state craft, and he gave very much of his valuable time in aiding and advising us in whipping into legal forms statutes the vain glory for which was worn by others, while he was always willing to remain unknown in all such affairs. He did not have an enemy in that body, and if he had it was not Senator Kern’s fault, for his suavity of manner and his courtliness of bearing toward every one won all to him.“His arguments before the senate, or before its important committees, coming from his well-stored and well-balanced mind, always gained keen attention, for they were characterized by clearness, force, and dignity of diction; they were made to enlighten and instruct his audience, and he never permittedhimself to descend to buncombe, billingsgate, specious pleading, or petty politics. His language was chaste Anglo-Saxon ‘from the pure well of English unalloyed.’ He preferred to inform his hearers by presenting plain, pertinent facts rather than to resort to the tricks of the rhetorician in order to secure the passing tribute of applause.”
“He was by common consent, and without the least assumption on his part, the admired and belovedleader of our party there. I feel fully justified in asserting that no member on either side of that body of legislators ever questioned his mental superiority, personal integrity or magnanimity. In that arena of public debate, in which the flow and ebb of acrimonious clashings in verbal swordsmanship afford so splendid an opportunity to draw the line of cleavage between the cheap politician and the true gentleman and statesman, it was there he stood without a peer, personifying the calmness of power.
“His kind assistance to, and his painstaking patience with the embryonic, ambitious, would-be statesmen of his own or of the opposite party, were almost paternal in him; if your cause had merit, you ever found a true and helpful friend. No matter how arduous and exacting his senatorial duties were, and they were multifarious and onerous, he never hesitated to listen graciously to our crude ideas of state craft, and he gave very much of his valuable time in aiding and advising us in whipping into legal forms statutes the vain glory for which was worn by others, while he was always willing to remain unknown in all such affairs. He did not have an enemy in that body, and if he had it was not Senator Kern’s fault, for his suavity of manner and his courtliness of bearing toward every one won all to him.
“His arguments before the senate, or before its important committees, coming from his well-stored and well-balanced mind, always gained keen attention, for they were characterized by clearness, force, and dignity of diction; they were made to enlighten and instruct his audience, and he never permittedhimself to descend to buncombe, billingsgate, specious pleading, or petty politics. His language was chaste Anglo-Saxon ‘from the pure well of English unalloyed.’ He preferred to inform his hearers by presenting plain, pertinent facts rather than to resort to the tricks of the rhetorician in order to secure the passing tribute of applause.”
IN the summer of 1895, after the adjournment of the legislature, Mr. Kern, on the advice of his physician, went to Europe for a period of rest and relaxation, and spent a few weeks in France and England. We are permitted glimpses of him in his meanderings through letters written at the time to his father and sister, Mrs. Sarah E. Engel. He sailed from New York on June 29th on a German ship “not fashionable but substantial and safe.” Landing at Southampton, he hurried on to London, greatly impressed by “the beautiful agricultural country—said to be the finest part of rural England, and rivaling in appearance any part of America I have seen,” but amused at “the little Jim Crow cars” and the “freight cars about the size of covered wagons.” In London, where he stayed at the Morley Hotel, he was fascinated by the throbbing greatness of things. “It is as far ahead of New York as New York is ahead of Indianapolis,” he wrote. Here he settled down to seeing London in his own way, and we find him seated beside the driver of an omnibus, “getting a bird’s-eye view” of the city, and for an additional six pence having pointed out the great parks, the British Museum, St. Pauls, London Bridge, the Bankof England, the Tower, the Mansion House, the Temple, Westminster, and the various churches. Having thus got his bearings he settled down to intensive touring, delighted with everything he saw except the people whose condescension he resented. General Patrick Collins of Boston, a friend, and then consul-general to London, was attentive, and he had a letter to T. P. (Tay Pay) O’Connor, the famous member of the Irish parliamentary party, who pointed out the lions of English public life in the House of Commons. He spent some time in the courts, visited points of historic interest, and attended services in St. Pauls, which he found “bewildering.” “The music of the great double organ and all the hundred voices of the choir, reverberating throughout the arches and the domes, was beautiful, but awe inspiring.”
At the Morley Hotel he met Judge Alton B. Parker, a prominent member of the New York bar, destined to be his party’s nominee for the presidency nine years later, and discovering many mutual interests and friendships, an attachment was formed which existed to the day of Kern’s death. The two lawyers tramped the tourist’s path together and had many a chat at the Morley.
After little more than a week in London he crossed to Paris, where his personal friend and political co-worker, Samuel E. Morss, editor ofThe Indianapolis Sentinel, was consul-general, and here he was given every advantage that the official prestige of his friend could bestow. He was delighted with Paris, “the most beautiful city in the world,” and especially with the French people. “The people of all classes are happy,” he wrote his father, “and go in for having a good time. The very poorest classes are bright, cheerful, and clean. I don’t think I saw a sad face in France. They are quite prosperous and show great evidence of thrift.” Morss turned his office over to his subordinates and devoted his entire time to entertaining the man from home, and it is not improbable that not a little Hoosier politics was discussed between the two.
While it was his intention to visit Ireland, his experience in channel crossing on his return to England was so disheartening that he abandoned his original plan of visiting Dublin and the Killarney lakes. On learning that the weather at the time was abominable in Scotland he decided to spend the remainder of his time in England and see some of the country outside London. “One of the most interesting trips I have made,” he wrote Mrs. Engel, “was to the Shakespeare country. I went from London to Harrow, then to Rugby, made famous by Tom Hughes’ great book, then to Coventry, then to Lemington, a great watering place, thence by coach along the banks of the Avon to Stratford-on-Avon, whereShakespeare was born and is buried. This trip—thirteen miles—was through the most beautiful country I have ever seen. Stratford is a little city of 8,000, and one sees and hears nothing but Shakespeare. The house in which he was born, and the cottage where Ann Hathaway lived and in which he courted and married her are very old, but are preserved by trustees. The house in which he was born is filled with Shakespearian relics of every description. His tomb and monument are in the village church. The people get their principal living from tourists. There have been over 20,000 visitors there this year, and each one has something to pay every time he turns around.”
On this trip, too, he visited Warwick Castle, and later on Windsor Castle. Like a true Democrat he did not fail to “drive out three miles to the fields of Runnymede, where the English barons compelled King John to sign the Magna Charta;” and the sentimental side of his nature impelled him to make a journey of reverence to the tomb of Gray, the poet, and the church whose curfew “tolls the knell of parting day.” Contrary to the spirit of the average tourist, he took a deep interest in English farms and farming and in a letter to his sister, who lived upon a farm, he observed: “The farming here is splendid. Every foot of ground is made to produce and produce well. There is no poor farming here, and nopoor crops this year. The wheat is now being harvested. They raise no corn here—but produce an article called ‘horse beans’—something similar to our peas, which the horses thrive on. The horses are splendid beasts. Those used for draft purposes look nearly as large as elephants, and their driving horses are very fine. It is a great mutton-eating nation, and sheep are raised by the thousand—you see them everywhere.”
By the latter part of August he admits that he has “had his fill of sightseeing and anxious to get back home and to work.” His health was greatly benefited by the change when he reached New York in the first week of September.
At the time of his return to Indiana the great debate to determine the position the Democratic party was to take on the money question had commenced. The administration of Grover Cleveland had lost the confidence of the major part of the party in the state. The bond issue stuck in the craws of the masses. The silver wave was sweeping over the country, destined to leave many wrecks in its wake and to throw upon the rocks many new lights of party leading. In Indiana the silver forces were militantly aggressive and were busily engaged in perfecting an organization which was to make history. In view of his subsequent intimacy with Mr. Bryan and the radical forces of the party, it is interesting to find that during the period of the preliminary debate Mr. Kern remained unresponsive to the fervent appeals of the friends of silver. As the time for the state convention approached, the conservative members of the party took counsel in the hope of stemming the tide which gave promise of committing the party aggressively to the cause of the free and unlimited coinage of silver without awaiting the action of any other nation. Many of the most influential and prominent party leaders in the state were strongly opposed to such action, and were convinced that such a course would work irreparable disaster to the party prospects for years to come. It was not a new party battle in Indiana. In other days, when the fiat money idea was uppermost in the public mind, it required all the prestige of the leadership of Hendricks and McDonald to dissuade the party from adopting a radical platform in conformity with the greenback philosophy.
About the middle of May, 1896, a free silver conference was held in Indianapolis which bubbled with enthusiasm and seethed with the spirit of revolution. Some of the leaders in the movement boldly announced that the failure of the party to stand for the free and unlimited coinage of silver would release them from all allegiance to the party in the campaign. The conservatives, or gold men, determined to challenge what they considered a dangerous movement at a mass meeting which was called at the English Opera House in Indianapolis on the evening of May 28. This meeting was addressed by some of the most popular leaders in the state and was presided over by Captain W. R. Myers, long an idol upon the stump. Speeches were made by Alonzo G. Smith, former attorney-general, former Congressman William D. Bynum, who had been a prime favorite with the Indiana Democracy and enjoyed a well-deserved national reputation, former Congressman George W. Cooper of Columbus and Mr. Kern. Resolutions were adopted on the motion of Pierre Gray, son of Governor Isaac P. Gray, four years before Indiana’s candidate for the presidency. A committee was appointed to work for “the cause of sound money” at the coming convention, consisting of such well-known Democrats as Thomas Taggart, John W. Holtzman, S. O. Pickens, John R. Wilson, Capt. W. R. Myers, William D. Bynum, James E. McCullough, James L. Keach and John W. Kern. It would be a travesty of history to ignore the fact that previous to the action of the national convention at Chicago Mr. Kern was strongly opposed to the free and unlimited coinage of silver without regard to the action of any other nation. He realized early the trend of the times and the difficulty of changingthe drift. Times were hard. The party had been shamefully betrayed by the Interests in the making of the tariff law. The bond issue had divorced the confidence of the rank and file of the party from Cleveland. The spirit of revolution was in the air. It required courage to stand forth and command the tide to turn back.
One week later this mass meeting was met by the silver forces with one of their own at the same place which was addressed by John Gilbert Shanklin, the brilliant editor ofThe Evansville Courier, and former Congressman Benjamin F. Shively, who was, by long odds, the most eloquent champion of silver in the state.
The battle was on.
Seldom has a more turbulent, revolutionary convention ever met in Indiana than that which was called to order in Tomlinson Hall to fight out the party differences on the money question. Bynum, who had made himself a party idol by his mastery of the tariff question and his haughty defiance of Tom Reed, was hooted to silence repeatedly when he attempted to speak. He stood stubbornly minute after minute waiting for the lull in the storm that never came and finally took his seat. Later the motion of John E. Lamb of Terre Haute to grant him ten minutes for a hearing was hooted down. The gold delegation from Marion county (Indianapolis)was thrown out over the written protest of Kern, the only member of the committee on credentials who was not a silver man. Governor Mathews was indorsed for president, and only the personal plea of Shanklin prevented the convention from making him a delegate at large in the place of a gold man personally selected by the governor. Mr. Shively was nominated for governor and started out on his remarkable canvass in which his speeches were only approached in brilliancy by those of Bryan. Samuel M. Ralston also began his career in state politics as the nominee for secretary of state. And a little later at Chicago Bryan swept the convention off its feet with his famous “cross of gold and crown of thorns” speech and set forth on the most amazing canvass in the history of the republic.
Then the nation began to boil and bubble as never before. Silver men deserted the Republican party, and gold men proclaimed rebellion from the Democratic ranks. Families were divided and father arrayed against son and brother against brother. Nowhere was the schism more pronounced than in Indiana.
The Democratic state organization was disrupted and the state chairman thrown out in the midst of the campaign. Through the summer and on until the election in November great crowds surged and argued and fought at all the principal street corners ofIndianapolis from early morning until night, and peaceful citizens were awakened from sleep at 5 o’clock in the morning by wrangling newsboys, embryo politicians, debating in loud and angry tones beneath their windows.
Many Democrats who had opposed the free silver men before the convention and remained within the party during the campaign found themselves the object of suspicion and distrust. Some of these stoically maintained silence. Others tried to make their party loyalty beyond question by promptly reversing themselves on the platform.
“Where are you going?” asked a friend of the eloquent Frank B. Burke, then United States district attorney.
“I am going down to Jeffersonville to answer an absolutely unanswerable speech against free silver made down there two weeks ago by a man named Burke,” drawled the district attorney without a smile.
Many, long prominent in the party councils, openly espoused the cause of Palmer and Buckner. Some crossed the twilight zone into the Republican party, where most of them remained.
The one Democrat in Indiana who had fought for gold whose fidelity to the party was never questioned after the Chicago convention spoke was John W. Kern.
He had made it clear in the English Opera Housespeech that he would abide by the will of the majority. Believing as he did that the public interest is wrapped up in the success of the general underlying principles of the Democratic party, he was unwilling, because of his disagreement with some one plank in the platform in any one campaign to be a party to the wrecking of the organization. That alone, and his willingness to abide by the will of the majority, would have kept him within the party and at its service.
But it was not long until he had other grounds for actively espousing the cause of the party under the leadership of Mr. Bryan. The instant rallying of the Black Horse Cavalry of the special interests against him, the methods of open intimidation and coercion of workingmen, the political blackmailing of bank depositors, the collection and distribution of a corruption fund never before thought of in American history soon gave to the conflict the aspect of a battle between plutocracy and democracy. The silver question became a mere incident in the struggle. It carried with it other issues to which he was ardently attached—the income tax, the popular election of senators, the protection of workingmen from the coercion of their employers at the polls, the correction of the evils of the injunction. On the broader issues of that campaign he threw himself with his customary zest into the fight. Early in the campaign he metMr. Bryan for the first time. In his interview he made it bluntly known that before the convention he had fought against silver, and his frankness and directness at that time so won the confidence and respect of The Commoner that he said he “could ask no stronger support.” He emerged from the campaign stronger with the masses of the party than ever before, and more than ever convinced that in view of the sinister trend of the times the wrecking of the party would have been one of the greatest tragedies in American history.
THE Democratic leaders in Indiana approached the campaign of 1900 with a feeling of considerable pessimism. The disaffected element which had left the party in 1896 on the money issue had not yet returned to the fold, and it seemed improbable that the white-heat enthusiasm of Mr. Bryan’s following in his first campaign could be maintained. The election of 1898 had brought no rift in the clouds, and the party in power seemed hopelessly entrenched. With conditions prosperous, our armies but recently victorious, our possessions increased through the acquisition of Porto Rico and the Philippines, with all the pomp and circumstances of a national triumph with an enemy waving the flag, the Democratic party was about to make its appeal to the people on an abstract question of political morals. We were to discuss the wrongs of a people thousands of miles distant, of another race and color, of whom hundreds of thousands of Americans had never heard. And while these wrongs could not inevitably react upon our own people the practical politician and psychologist of the stump was painfully conscious of the difficulty of making that point sufficiently impressive. Under these circumstancesthere was no great demand for places on the state ticket, and as late as the first of May no one had manifested any desire to lead the party as its candidate for governor. About the first of May, Frank B. Burke announced his candidacy. He was in many respects one of the most remarkable men in the political history of the state, at times under the proper inspiration thrillingly eloquent, courageous as a lion, and possessed of a personality that endeared him to friend and foe alike. As United States district attorney under Cleveland he had won the admiration of the bench and bar and made an impression upon the people in the streets. But with all his splendid qualities he was lacking in one of the essentials of safe leadership—he was utterly deficient in tact and always preferred a fight to a compromise. In brief he was a genius with all that that sometimes implies of weakness.
At that time I was writing editorials onThe Sentinel, and, being one of Burke’s youthful idolaters, I wrote a fervent editorial eulogy on the day of his announcement and took it to Samuel E. Morss, the editor and former consul-general to Paris, for his approval. He read it with evident amusement and tactfully suggested that while Mr. Burke was a brilliant and able man, there might be other candidates and it would not be advisable forThe Sentinelto take such a pronounced stand that early. I did notknow at the time, being scarcely out of my teens, that the “organization” forces were bending every effort to persuade Mr. Kern to enter the lists. The first choice of the organization was Mayor Taggart, who persisted in his refusal to make the race. It was then that the politicians turned to Kern.
Independent of politicians associated with what may be described as “the organization” were scores of Democrats throughout the state, personal friends and admirers of Mr. Kern, who were insisting that he become a candidate. He had made up his mind definitely that he would not. Aside from the unattractiveness of the political prospects he had personal reasons for preferring to stay out. But with the announcement of Burke, who was not popular with the “organization,” and the resulting necessity for an early challenge of his candidacy, the forces at that time predominate in the Democratic party in the state centered with practical unanimity upon Kern.
On the evening of May 15The Indianapolis Newscarried the item that “Last night influential Democrats were in conference at the home of Samuel E. Morss, editor ofThe Sentinel, until after midnight, and it is taken for granted that they were discussing the platform on which Kern will conduct his campaign.”
It was not the first time that newspapers have misinterpreted the purpose of a conference of