The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-04-15

1
| clusion that Mr.. Romeis was not entitled to the
seat. If the historic fox who stood at the mouth
| of the lions den, hesitating whether he would
accept an invitation to dinner had listened TO
the arguments of the lions friends that he should
not attach too much Importance to any individ-
ual tracks that led into the den. he would have
| listened to arguments as convincing and conclu-
| sive as the arguments OF the friends or Mr.
| Romeis, but it was the fact that all the tracks
led in one direction-into the den that preserved
| the fox from the celebrated feast. So it was in
this case-ali the tracks pointed to violation of
| the law. The purity OF the ballot-box should be
held sacred, and the way to make it sacred was
that when it spoke the voice of fraud, when IL
was made to utter lies, those who got the benefit
of 1T should be driven from the halls of Congress,
and it should be written all over American iurs-
prudence This voice shall be Loyalty heard and
it's august behest shall be Loyalty obeyed"
The floor was then accorded to the contestant,
Mr.. Hurd, to speak in his own behalf. He took
a position far back on the Democratic side of the
House, at the desk which he occupied during the
Forty eighth Congress, and from which he de-
livered his speeches upon the tariff question.
The inattention which had characterized the
conduct of members during the previous discus
sion was suddenly transformed into attention as
Mr.. Hurd opened his argument with the state
ment that he would not have addressed the
House but for the fact that he wished to show to
this body and the American people that he had
good cause to claim that he had been elected in
| the Tenth Ohio district. His sense of duty to
| who had so often honored him, compelled him
to speak day, nor did he overlook the interest
the public had in the questions he would discuss.
Before and beyond all interest which either the
| sitting member himself had in the con-
troversy was the interest of the public.
1t made but little difference who the
legislator was, provided the source of his power
was pure and uncontaminated lastly. above the
question, and greater than the question as to
who was Representative was that other ques-
ton, has the election on which he relies been
fairW For without pure and free elections, the
Republic was like the spleniors of tropical
chimes when the fragrance and the color had
departed. He would indicate the penalty which
selfshness had attempted to impose on the honest
advocacy Of a cause believed to be true. He would
point out the means by which monopoly and i'll
gotten wealth had tried to throttle free discus
sion. He would show the attempt that had
been made to thwart the will Of the people in
one district, at least, and whatever the result
might be. he would not consider the occasion
lost il it enabled him to arouse public attention
to the great danger which was brooding
of ballots by corruption, and in the enslave-
ment Of labor by terror at the polls. Mr..
Hurd then went into an examination of
the testimony, giving his attention first to the
case of Precinct B, Ward g. In this precinct,
he argued. the return was false and had been ia
tally impeached, and there had been IRREGULAR
ties there such as to leave the result in an I'M
certainty in which it impossible to ascertain
| the true result Between the close or the eI0c-
ton and the close of the count twelve tickets
had disappeared. Not only had there been
violation of the law IN the exposure of the bal
lots, but there had been an actual tampering
with them. There had been fraud at the ballot
box, and to place fraud in the ballot box was to
throw a corpse into fountain-the outpourings
would thereafter flavor of death. For this
son alone the precinct should be thrown out.
But, again, there had been bribery at this pre-
clnct, and a conspiracy had been entered into to
hac ha yva fpoa- rad he
sanctty OF the ballot-box had been invaded, ands
| no atonementcould be made for it; the certificate
had been stained, and no waters could purify it;
the ballot had been poisoned and nothing
could cleanse 1t; the return itself was
lie, and neither this House nor any other power
could make it true. He next discussed the Kel-
ley Island precinct, where it is alleged that in
timidation was practiced by an employer by the
name of Kelley upon his employees. He main
tanned that the fact of intimidation had been
clearly shown, and he controverted the correct
ness of the law, as laid down by the majority,
that as it had not been proved that the intmi-
dation had had its effect, notice should be
taken of it. There was something revolving to
him in the intimidation of employees by their en-
ployers. Shame on the cause which would per-
petrate such a crime against labor in its own in
terest; shame on the party that would deliber
ately engage in the work of unmanning men.
Applause Kelley had stated that he was pro-
tecting his business. He MIR. Hurdl did not
know of any business which required violation
of law in its interest Enterprises might loom
into seeming prosperity, lines of trade might be
cast in every direction, wealth might be gathered
from all nations, but if the business must succeed
through crime and violation Of law, the day
would come when the enterprises would fail,
the trade would be lost, and the wealth would
not remain. He wanted Kelley and every other
employer to understand that they might own
their acres, their plant, their machinery, but
they did not own their men, [Applause.] There
was line beyond which they should not go.
They might persuade, they might argue, they
might convince, but they must not threaten,
they must not coerce. they must not compel.
That was the lesson which the law taught: that
was the lesson he would have the House teach
to-day. Let it teach every employer in America
that if he intimidated any man in his employ
he did it at his risk, for every such vote he at
tempted to influence would be lost unless it was
afirmatively shown that the influence did not
effect its purpose. Let it teach employers to
respect the dignity of labor and the dignity of
manhood. Let it teach them that no wealth.
however great. san rob the humble citizen of
the right of suffrage, and no manufacturing in
terests, however potential, shall be permitted to
interfere with the freedom of elections.
In conclusion. he said:
II do not deem it improper to call attention to
the election at which was defeated. 1t was the
October election in Ohio, in 1884 The Democratic
party OF that State was engaged in the first great
battle of that canvass. All the forces were con-
centrated on its soil The fate of the Republic
an party was held in its hand. If Ohio went
against the Republican State ticket, Ohio was
lost to the Republican candidate for President
1t is matter of public notoriety that whatever
wealth, or power, or organization could do,
done. Members of the different departments at
Washington were in Ohio, the campaign was
managed under the eye of the great leader of
the Republican party, and the Republican can
didate for President was in Ohio. in my district,
in my city, on the night before the election. The
eyes of the whole Nation were turned to it. The
battle everywhere else was. suspended but it
went on in Ohio, and how it went on, with such
effort, against such fearful odds, with such palms,
strength and vitality none can know except the
gallant Democrats of Ohio who were engaged in
the contest 1t was in this battle-in the very