Chapter VII: Gubernatorial Battles

I

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 circumstances there 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 on _The 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 for _The Sentinel_ to take such a pronounced stand that early. I did not know 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 15 _The Indianapolis News_ carried the item that “Last night influential Democrats were in conference at the home of Samuel E. Morss, editor of _The 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

Taken while addressing the people at the monument, Indianapolis, by Leslie Nagley, staff photographer, _Indianapolis Times_]

politicians. Mr. Morss, who aspired to be something of a Warrick, and whose ability and prestige as the editor of the state organ of his party gave him considerable influence in party councils determined to force the issue upon Kern, and with that in view he invited about twenty prominent party leaders to a dinner at his home. Among those invited was Mr. Kern. The victim of the dinner tenaciously held out against the insistence of his friends, until toward midnight he was being charged with being a party ingrate for his refusal to respond to the demand. It had been the hope of Mr. Morss that a formal announcement could be prepared that night for _The Sentinel_ of the following morning, but it was not until the party broke up and Mr. Kern had been followed into the street with importunities that he finally agreed to be a candidate. It was then too late to prepare a formal announcement, but the wily Morss, in probable fear of a recantation on the morrow, took the precaution to announce in the paper the next morning that “in answer to a direct question,” Mr. Kern had said that he would be a candidate. On the following day he did prepare a short formal statement announcing his candidacy.

The contest for the nomination was one-sided. All the organization forces were with Kern. He and Burke attended a number of county conventions, and the latter made many warm admirers by the remarkable eloquence with which he assailed the imperialism of the hour. Mr. Kern found himself in the position of being “the machine candidate” and had to stand the brunt of that. At the eleventh hour, with all the delegates in Indianapolis and a large part of them crowded into the corridors of the Grand Hotel, a new element was injected into the situation, when Benjamin F. Shively, who had been the nominee in 1896, entered the lobby and was greeted with great enthusiasm. He had made a brilliant canvass four years before. A man of imposing presence, tall and slender, and dressed that night in a light gray suit which served to accentuate his physical advantages, it is not surprising that his appearance carried with it the suggestion of a third candidate. The fact that he went to his room immediately and into conference and refused to be interviewed gave color to the rumors afloat that he would be a candidate. This was set at rest, however, on the morrow, when the chairman of the convention read a letter from Shively positively removing himself from consideration. It required one ballot to nominate and Kern was an easy victor. It was in moving that the nomination be made unanimous that Burke thrilled the convention with what was perhaps the most moving bit of oratory ever heard in Indiana.

It is needless here to review the campaign which followed. It began with imperialism, the paramount issue following Mr. Bryan’s remarkable arraignment in his speech of acceptance at Indianapolis, but other issues such as the tariff and the trusts soon entered, and throughout the campaign Kern discussed them all together with state issues that now have no historic interest. The only incident of special interest was the attempt of the Republican papers to create divisions in the Democracy by circulating the report that the friends of Kern were engaged in an effort to trade off Bryan for him. This, of course, was a peculiarly mean and malicious falsehood and was denounced by Kern as “an atrocious lie.” It is true that Kern did run a little ahead of the national ticket, but this was due to local conditions, personal friendships, and the fact that some conservative Democrats who had left the party in 1896 and did not vote the national ticket in 1900 voted for Kern. The entire ticket was defeated--Kern had made his sacrifice and it was not to be his last.

II

Before describing Mr. Kern’s second race for governor in 1904 it is necessary to a proper appreciation of his political character to refer to a few events of the intervening four years, one of which served to definitely fix his political status not only in Indiana but in the nation. While his tendencies had always been progressive and his instincts had always impelled him to battle for the under dog, we have seen that the startling, revolutionary incidents of the national convention of 1896 had momentarily threatened to divert him from his natural course. He had not comprehended instantly the momentous meaning of that revolution. And while his party loyalty had never wavered he had been ranked among Indiana politicians as a conservative. He had become a warm supporter of Mr. Bryan before the campaign of 1900, but henceforth he was to burn all bridges behind him and stand forth quite frankly not only as a progressive, but as a radical. In doing so, however, he was inclined at all times to hold forth the olive branch to those who had left the party in 1896.

In the December following the election he was given an opportunity to develop his point of view, and under circumstances calculated to attract national attention. It was the occasion of the annual dinner given by the Jefferson Club of Lincoln, Nebraska, to Mr. Bryan, an event of the greatest political significance. While several speakers of national prominence were on the program, “the eloquent and stalwart Democratic leader of Indiana,” as he was described by _The Omaha World-Herald_, was easily the feature of the evening aside from the guest of honor. By attending the dinner he had conclusively cast his political fortunes with that of the great Commoner, and in his speech of this occasion he left no doubt as to his position. Beginning with a reference to the natural conservatism of the Indiana Democracy and the policy of Hendricks to always conciliate party differences when it could be done without a compromise of principles, he continued:

“But while the Democratic party of Indiana is still the
conservative party it was in the days of Hendricks, ready now as
then to strive to find common ground upon which all Democrats who
believe in constitutional government may stand in coming conflicts,
it is to-day holding no parley with deserters. Its ears are closed
against words of advice gratuitously offered by alleged Democrats
who vote the Republican ticket, or by those who in the struggle of
1900 withheld both voice and vote from the cause of the people and
could see in that mighty contest only ‘a painful and distressing
situation.’

“During the next four years the best thought and most conscientious
effort of Democratic leadership should be exerted to bring about
complete harmony within our ranks, and a perfect union of all
forces opposed to the revolutionary schemes of the party in power.

“In this intervening period the work of organization and education
should not be neglected, but should be carried on in every precinct
of the union. There is no occasion for crimination or recrimination
as between Democrats, but there should always be a generous and
patriotic rivalry as to who will render the most effective service
in the work of building up the party organization and
strengthening the party lines for the coming conflict.”

Referring then in terms of commendation of the action of men like Olney, Cockran and Watterson in returning to the party in the campaign of 1900, he continued:

“And these men, and all others who had faltered in the campaign of
1896 because of economic questions involved, received a most royal
welcome on their return to the Democratic household. It is in no
spirit of bitterness that I add that there were a few men, once
prominent in the Democratic ranks, who in the midst of all the
stirring scenes of this mighty contest remained unmoved and silent,
except that now and then they took occasion to furnish aid and
comfort to the enemy by making public denial that they were in
sympathy with the cause of the people. For the sake of the future
welfare of the party I shall attempt no harsh criticism of the
course of these gentlemen, but I will not forbear saying here and
everywhere that alleged Democrats who could not afford to stand
with Bryan, Cockran and Watterson in a contest between imperialism
and republicanism, between tariff for revenue and protection,
between monopoly and the people, and between plutocracy and
democracy, need not be surprised if any gratuitous counsel which
they may seek to thrust upon the millions of loyal Democrats who
fought the good fight and kept the faith shall fall upon reluctant
ears.”

Continuing he predicted that the fight in 1904 would be based upon the demand “that the encroachments of the great financial and industrial monopolies upon the rights of the people shall cease and that legislation shall be enacted that will strip them of the power to control the political destiny of the nation.” He followed this with a bitter denunciation of these powerful interests for their brazen resort to coercion and intimidation in both the campaigns of 1896 and 1900, and concluded with a tribute to Mr. Bryan which carried a prophecy:

“I want to say to all men who are interesting themselves in party
organization or reorganization that any attempt in any quarter, at
any time, to belittle the splendid and heroic service rendered in
1896 and 1900 by that magnificent leader and tribune of the
people--William Jennings Bryan--or to cast stigma or reproach upon
him, in any degree, however slight, will meet with stern and quick
rebuke from the millions of Democrats who followed his banner in
those memorable contests.”

The speech of Kern aroused his hearers to a high pitch of enthusiasm, and called forth comment and speculation in political circles over the country. The Washington correspondent of _The Indianapolis Journal_ interpreted the speech to mean that the speaker “has been selected by Colonel Bryan as his choice for the presidential nomination in 1904,” and said “Kern must now be reckoned among the possible candidates for the presidential nomination four years hence.”

One thing the speech did do--it put Kern to the fore, in the minds of the masses, as the chief lieutenant of Mr. Bryan in Indiana, and he was destined to hold this position until his death. It thoroughly established him in the leadership of the masses of the party, and when the state convention met in 1902 he was chosen to deliver the “keynote” speech. This address, harmonizing in spirit with that at Lincoln, dealt with the problems of imperialism, the destruction of the Boer republics through the connivance of the national administration, the ship subsidy measure for which Senator Fairbanks, a candidate for re-election, had voted, the Dingley law and the trusts. It was in this speech that he touched upon one of the scandals of the Spanish-American war--the wholesale distribution of officers’ commissions among the sons of the rich and the politically influential without regard to qualification. Fifteen years later and in private conversation I heard him discussing this scandal and in language indicative of the sincerity of his disgust. After referring in his speech to an attempt by the son of an Indiana millionaire, who had been thus honored and had afterward left the Democratic party, he said:

“I reflected as I listened to his tirade, delivered with all the
zeal of a new convert and the malice of an apostate, that the
Democratic party is the soldiers’ truest friend; that when the war
with Spain was inaugurated the Democratic party believed that the
soldiers who for years had served their country and endured the
hardships of drill and camp life on the frontier, looking forward
to a promotion--the soldiers’ only reward of merit--should receive
the commissions of captain and lieutenant, which were about to be
distributed with a lavish hand. Those brave boys had waited long
and served their country faithfully, and now hopefully looked for
recognition, but while they were in the trenches and on the march a
force in the rear was at work against them. The sons of
millionaires, senators and congressmen--men with a political pull,
who had never seen an hour of military service, were preferred, and
received the commissions, and the soldier boys waited on, and in
the ranks, fought on and won new glory and honor for their
country.”

This speech was published as a campaign document and scattered broadcast over the state. On the stump that fall Mr. Kern participated in his sixteenth campaign, in demand all over the state. No Democrat stood higher in Indiana; no Indiana Democrat stood so high in party circles in the country. Such was his political status when the forces began to line up for the campaign of 1904.

III

In the late winter of 1903 there was a general feeling of optimism among Democrats everywhere. The greater portion of the men who had left the party in 1896 had returned to the fold. The bitterness incidental to their leaving had been mellowed by time. Mr. Roosevelt, who had succeeded to the Presidency on the assassination of McKinley, had never been popular with the working forces of his party, and in the role of the proverbial bull in the china shop he was keeping business in such a state of constant agitation that there was a general feeling that this element, which had been the most potential enemy of the Democratic party in the two previous presidential campaigns, would take revenge upon him by throwing its influence to the Democracy. Mr. Bryan had made it clear that he would not be a candidate, thus leaving the field clear for other men. Acting upon the theory that a man unknown in national politics would probably possess more strength than one with a record to defend, and that this man should be found in the state of New York, an organization was perfected to urge the nomination of Alton B. Parker, an able lawyer, with an unblemished political career, and a distinguished record as a jurist. The majority of the Indiana leaders took kindly to the suggestion, even the venerable David Turpie breaking his rule of silence to bestow upon it his hearty commendation. The candidacy of Judge Parker made a personal appeal to Mr. Kern. While in Europe in 1895 he had stopped for some time at the same hotel in London where the New York lawyer was staying, and a personal friendship had resulted which had been strengthened by occasional meetings in the nine years intervening. Thus it was that he had become a strong partisan of the Parker candidacy.

But Judge Parker was not to have the Indiana delegation without a contest. William Randolph Hearst, the journalist, and a multi-millionaire, became a candidate and immediately set to work with the liberal use of money to build up a strong organization in every state. Perhaps we shall never know how much was spent, but if as much money was expended elsewhere as in Indiana a liberal fortune was squandered. At no time did Mr. Bryan manifest the slightest interest in Hearst’s candidacy, and it was well known that he looked with considerable distrust upon the sincerity of the editor’s progressive protestations. He was able to appeal, however, to many locally influential Democrats who were attracted by his radicalism, and had not failed to be impressed with the support given Mr. Bryan in his papers at a time when few metropolitan papers were not picturing the Nebraskan as an anarchist and a repudiationist. These sincere men--and among them were many who were then and afterward among Mr. Kern’s most valued personal and political friends--were augmented by the sordid and disreputable element of the larger centers of population. Agents authorized to spend money lavishly were sent out over the state to capture the delegations to the state convention that was to meet in May for the exclusive purpose of electing delegates to the national convention. The result was the creation of an intense feeling.

In the state delegate convention the contest was bitter, the speakers on both sides being interrupted with jeers and insults. Mr. Kern, who had taken a positive position for Parker, while addressing the convention in his behalf, was interrupted with the threat--“You need never ask for anything again.” Thoroughly aroused, he replied that “threats like that from men higher up in the Hearst crowd have been made, but I have no fear of Hearst or the Hearst papers.” The convention resulted in the selection of a Parker delegation, but the contest left behind some bitter scars. The prospects of the party in Indiana had been compromised.

This might have been smoothed over before the election but for the incidents in the national convention, the insulting attitude toward Mr. Bryan, the advertisement of the rejection of all his suggestions, the blatant anti-Bryan attitude of some of the Parker forces, and all climaxed by the telegram of Judge Parker after his nomination declaring that he would run only with the distinct understanding that he stood for the gold standard. No Indiana Democrat will ever forget the stunning effect of that telegram when it was flashed upon the bulletins. It practically assured the state to the Republicans, for it was interpreted by the rank and file of Mr. Bryan’s followers as a direct insult to their idol.

Such was the situation, misunderstood by few, as the convention approached in August for the nomination of a state ticket. The dearth of aspirants for places on the ticket told the story. No one expressed the slightest desire for the gubernatorial nomination, and again, as had come to be its wont, the party turned to Kern.

To all such suggestions he gave a stern denial--and yet he finally agreed to make his second sacrifice. It was the fashion among his enemies during his lifetime to refer to Mr. Kern as a persistent office seeker, a “perpetual candidate,” when, as a matter of historic truth, he seldom sought a nomination and in most instances was forced by tremendous pressure from his party to accept nominations his judgment warned him against.

He became a candidate for governor in 1904 on the earnest personal request of Judge Parker, the presidential nominee of his party.

Having always understood this to be the case, I personally appealed to Judge Parker for the facts, and the following letter to me definitely settles the matter:

“My first acquaintance with John Kern began in London in 1895. We
both happened to be stopping at the same hotel, and, as we knew
about each other, we soon came together and formed a friendship
that I always treasured.

“The story that you have heard from time to time, as you stated,
that I requested Mr. Kern to accept the nomination for governor of
Indiana in 1904 is quite true. But I did this only after seeing
quite a number of the leading Democrats of the state. Without
exception, these men said that Mr. Kern would be the very strongest
man that the party could nominate. But some of them, and I think it
is no exaggeration to say that all of them were of the opinion that
he would much prefer not to make the race. Reaching the conclusion
that his nomination would strengthen the party in the state, I
telegraphed him, asking him to visit me, which he did, at my home.
After discussing the party situation in the state with him, as I
had with many others from the state, I told him that without
exception every man I had seen from Indiana had said that he would
be the strongest nominee that the party could find, and hence I
ventured to urge him to accept the nomination if the convention
should, as I believed it would, tender it to him unanimously. The
result you know.”

Having responded to the personal request, which as a good party man he considered a command from the commanding officer of his party in that campaign, Mr. Kern plunged into the campaign with his usual zeal and made a thorough canvass of the state. The extent of the Republican landslide that year is a matter of history. Kern had made his second sacrifice.