The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1905-09-28

| 1t is difficult for free citizens OF Ohio
| to healizo that a candidate for the high
| est office In the gift of the people should
find such n course necessary and should
| feel compelled to submit to the degrada-
| tion of thus proving his serfdom to the
boss. Everything was previously plan
| ned, the platform meaningless; no mem
| Der was allowed to express any opinion
| or sentiment, or to make any protest
| against the dictation of the imperious
and triumphant boss
Even Ohio's great citibzen, Secretary
| Taft, would not have been permitted to
| preside over this body had he dared to
express himself against the boss and his
| methods, as had been his wont on any
| and all former occasions. Is 1t true that
| the boss can make and unmake COVER
| nors and senators, and that he must be
| ''reckoned with before any Ohio Repub-
| lican can expect to reach the presidency?
II is for you and the voters of Ohio on
| the 18th day of November to say whether
you will approve the action of such
| convention or whether you will reject II.
| The Brannock Bill.
We arraign Governor Herrick for his
| attempt to trample on the constitution,
| for his efforts against the Brannock bill,
| in interfering with the legislative depart
| ment by threatening to use his veto 20
| prevent the honest and lawful expression
| Of the general assembly and the wishes
| OF n great majority of the people of the
| state. The Brannock bill as originally
| passed by large majority vote of both
| branches OF the legislature was a fair
! measure for the protection of the people
| living in residence districts who did not
| want saloons in their midst. 1t was just
and in the interest of the home and the
| people; 1t was In strict harmony with the
| principles OF home rule The measure
had been thoroughly discussed In the
1 11rr t,I, A,,w- h. nvNd l,arn
| was every evidence that it was favored
| by the great masses of the people. The
| governor had right to veto this or any
| other measure II he thought 1t was un-
| constitutional was vicious legislation
| or against the best interests OF the state,
| but he had no right to interfere with the
| legislative department while they were
| performing their duties, and he had no
| right to veto, or threaten to veto, this or
| any other measure that was for the best
| interests of the people, at the dictation
| of any special interest or because of any
| prediction promise made in return for
contribution to a corrupt campaign fund.
| We arragn Governor Herrick for his
subservience to the great boss OF Ohio,
| as indicated by his own efforts and the
| efforts of his party friends to induce the
| boss to consent to and approve of his
nomination.
We charge that the governor and his
strong political friends were obliged to
| ask the boss to approve of his candidacy;
| that he did ask this approval either per'
| sonally or by his leaders. and that 1t was
| thus obtained. We believe that the power
| Of the boss was so great and his organ
| ization" so strong that the great masses
| of honest Republicans throughout the
state realized that no successful fight
| could be made against his supremacy fI-
| lne convention.
| We charge the governor that in the
| interest of bossism, II not at the behest
| of the boss himself, he approved the bill
| doing away with spring elections.
We charge the governor with the ap-
| proval of measures involving. in the ag-
| gregate, large sums of money for the
needless increase OF salaries and for sal
aries Of additional employees whose SER
| vices were not necessary.
| We charge him with improperly using
his executive influence by threats and
otherwise with members Of the leglsla-
ture to secure the passage Of the in
iquitous inheritance tax law.
We arraign the governor for approving
| the school code, which we believe was
drawn or advised by George B. Cox. and
| was intended to partisanize the whole
school system of the state.
We arraign the governor for approving
the new municipal code bill after 1t had
| been changed to suit the boss.
| We charge that the making of Vice
| mayors and various boards and providing
for the large increase in salaries of vari-
Gus officers was in the interest of the
Organization" and not for the benefit OF
| the people.
The Bonding Bill.
We arraign the governor for his ap-
proval of the bonding bill which was to
compel all individuals, trustees and all
officials to secure bonds in bonding COM
panies at one-half of 1 per cent on the
total liability to be paid. and that this
was enacted for the benefit of certain
corporations and not in the interest OF
the people.
We arraign the governor for his ap-
| proval of bill which repealed all the
accounting provisions of the original law,
so that no record of the expenses in
| CURED and money received is now kept
by the state auditor, as the original law
required.
We arraign the governor for his ap-
proval of the bill to gerrymander the
Seventh Judicial district. 50 as to put
two judges out of Office simply because
they were members OF a different party
and to constitute a second subdivision
and to provide for the election therein of
two additional judges who were not
needed. We charge this was done to pro-
vide places for political friends and was
not done in the interest of justice.
We charge Governor Herrck and the
last legislature with continuing in office
persons who drew money from the state
treasury and did no service.
We ask the governor to explain wheth-
er the people of the state received sufi-
cient benefits in the year 1900 over those
of 1890, to justify the expense Of the
various departments in the statehouse OF
81, ,025, 301. As in 1904 as against $529. .074. 40
in 1890 We ask him to explain why It
required 1879 for the employees OF the
legislature in 1904 and only $21, ,57653 in
800, when the last session OF the legisla-
ture was two days shorter and the num-
ber OF members about the same: we
would ask him to explain why there were
104 employees OF the Legislature In 1904,
when only II were required In 1890; why
the total state expenditure for tho year
1s9o-91 was sT1e1.T17.34 and that for
190i-05 was s12. .377. .393S3, the increase of
population being less than IL per cent,
while that OF the state expenses was over
72 per cent.
There was a fight for reform in ST.
Louis and Folk. who sent two score of
the leading grafters OF that city TO the
pententiary. was elected governor by the
good stizens OF all parties. There was
a battle for honest government few
years ago In Minneapolis. and the boss
and his thieving associates were de-
throned. Philadelphia was the byword
Of the nation-a place where graft and
corruption held high carnival for many
years. 1t is said that over 30.0 900 votes
were registered Of persons whose bodies
were in the graveyards and OF others who
existed only in name. and that certain
corporations and individuals shared In