The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1905-09-26


to the people their heritage OF free and
untrammeied Independence and liberty.
II remains for you and the voters to
decide on the 7th day OF November
whether the work OF this great body OF
representative men shall be approved or
rejected.
On the 24th OF May there was held
at Columbus another convention. under
the auspices OF the great Republican
party, or to speak more correctly, under
the supervision and dictation Of certain
bosses and so-called leaders OF that
party This was not representative
body OF the people. but II was a repre-,
sentative body OF the bosses, both great
and small or rather OF the one mighty
boss and his followers. The whole ticket
was planned beforehand, and II is said
that the pre-ordained nominee for COVER
nor was not permitted even to select the
man Of his choice to place him In nomi.
nation, as one worthy to occupy the ex-
ecutive chair.
It is difficult for free citizens OF Ohio
to healize that a candidate for the high
est office in the gift OF the people should
find such a course necessary and should
feel compelled to submit to the degrada-,
ton of thus proving his serfdom to the
boss. Everything was previously PLAN
ber was allowed to express any opinion
or sentiment, or to make any protest
against the dictotion 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?
1t is for you and the voters Of Ohio on
the 7th day Of November to say whether
you will approve the action Of such q
convention or whether you will reject Il.
The 6rannook 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 to
prevent the honest and lawful expression
Of the general assembly and the wishes
OF a great majority Of the people Of the
state. The Brannock bill as originally
passed by a large majority vote Of both
branches OF the legislature was fair
measure for the protection of the people
living in residence districts who did not
want saloons in their midst II was Just
and In the interest OF the home and the
people; It was In strict harmony with the
principles OF homo rule. The measure
had been thoroughly discussed in the
legislature and by the press, and there
was every evidence that II was favored
by tho great masses of the people. The
governor had a right to veto this or any
other measure II he thought 1t was un-
constitutional or 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 10 veto, this or
any other measure that was for the best
interests of the people. at the diotation
OF any special interest or because OF any
pre- election promise made in return for
contribution to a corrupt campaign fund.
We arraisn Governor Herrick for his
subservience to the great boss Of Ohio.
as indicated by his own efforts and the
effoSts 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 It 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 in
the convention.
We charge the governor that in th'
interest or 165stsIn, II net at the penesr
Of the boss himself. he approved tho 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 legisla-
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 It had
been changed to suit the boss. -a,5
We charge that the making OF vice
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-haf 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 a bill which repealed oil 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. 49,
We arraign the governor for his ap-
proval OF the bill to gerrymander the
Seventh Judicial district so as to put
two judges out OF ONCE 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-
vida f,Ianaa for raitftnaI frianAa "a x.,aa