Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1897-09-14
DISGRACE OF REPUBLICAN RULE
IN IOWA

held yesterday, ana as l have not had
the time to carefully consider the pro-
ceedings, shall not treat of state is
sues in this opening speech as fully
as L will hereafter. The situation in
this state, for which the republican
management is solely responsible, is
OF such character that it will be a
difficult task to discuss it with the use
OF temperate language. One feels
tempted to- step over the boundary.
The democratic platform makes use
OF no milk and water phraseology in
its indictment of the dominant party's
managers. 1t plainly charges them
with the crimes they have deliberately
committed against the people and the
law.
Even if all other misdeeds standing
to the credit, (or rather discredit), OF
the republican party could be lessened
in degree by actually existing extenu-
ating circumstances, or if they could
be wholly wiped out, for instance by
establishing the fact that the system.
attic stealing of the states money was
the work of unfortunate kleptomanl.
acs, and hence no responsibility was
incurred in the stealing; eve.., say,
if all this could be successfully done,
enough guilt and disgrace would at
tach to some Legislative acts that
should retire the evil-doer from the
field of active politics. One is the
pitiably fareical, the miserably hypo-
critical performance of outlawing and
legalizing one thing at the same time.
| Defining the sale or giving away of a
glass of beer, as constituting crime
| against society, and then legalizing
this. crime where fine, for the sake
of committing it, is paid in advance by
what the law asserts to be and treats
self-confessed criminal. Were it
ossible to bottle up and preserve in al
cohol the contradictory provisions of
the prohibitory and mulct laws passed
by the republican party, it would beat
for unsightliness any misbegotten
monstrosity that was ever exhibited in
any medical museum.
Take another legislative act: what is
known as the anti-fusion amendment.
This provision of law is in its essence,
in its intent and purpose unqualifiedly
Infamous. Its enactment was not
prompted by single patriotic mo-
tive. 1t was the outgrowth of not a
single honest desire. There is no pre-
tense that it serves single just pur-
pose. Had it not been for the hope
that partisan advantage would re-
suit, this amendment to the election
law never would have been formula
ted. A legislature, bound by a solemn
oath and charged by the constitution,
to legislate in the interest of the whole
people, resolved itself into partisan
assemblage and legislated for the ben.
eft of itself. 1t destroyed the political
liberty of parties and individuals in
such way and in such an important
particular, as to amount to no less
than political crime, an open, undis
guised, deliberate violation of the spir.
it of the constitution. Among free
people where political parties are not
only lawful organizations, but where
they are the only instrumentalities
through which to conduct govern.
ment, the latitude of these parties as
to their political action should be in
no sense circumscribed. The law
should afford every possible facility
and provide every opportunity to have
their functions widened and extended
to the end that not an emasculated
freedom, but actual liberty, be enjoy
ed. This is the only safe principle.
Once have the idea sanctioned that
majority party may for it's own ben
eft enact political legislation, by cur
failing the liberty of political action,
and how long would free government
last? Why should a party be denied
the liberty of placing upon it's own
ticket the name of an individual who
may happen to have been nominated
by another party? The right SO to do
is not an unimportant, not an inciden-
tai, but fundamental right; the de-
struction of which should not be toler.
ated. Suppose this same name should
appear upon half a dozen different
party tickets on the official ballot; can
any one tell me whom it would wrong,
or what interest would be jeopardiz-
ed? 1t would in no particular facili-
tate or encourage the commission OF
fraud. 1t would initiate in no sense
against the standing of a rival candi-
date on another ticket. Why then in
terfere with the fundamental right Of
voters to arrange their tickets to suit
themselves, and vote for the candi-
dates of their choice under such party
names as their judgments may APP
prove of? Why should the law arbi-
trarily step in and deprive them OF
this liberty? Any election law is a
piece of tyranny which diminishes the
liberty of action of any political or.
ganization, or of any citizen beyond
what is absolutely necessary to secure
an orderly and Ineligible result at
an election. That regulations must
be formulated having the power of law
to govern elections so the will of the
voter may be ascertained and secured
to him, is not denied. What we insist
upon is that the law should not go
further than secure this result. Any
regulation that reaches beyond this
point is not in harmony with the
spirit of freedom which alone can give
permanency to free institutions.
The disgraceful disclosures made
through Investigating committees OF
the 26th general assembly give to our
state high rank among rotten COM
monwealths. The rascalities perpe-
trated were not of timid kind. They
possess every characteristic OF bold
ness. The perpetrators were in no
sense restrained by the caution in
stinctively practiced by the tenderfoot.
Their operations show they were well
acquainted with the lay Of the land.
: 4 |. 4 a. =