Page images
PDF
EPUB

Publicity
of

Campaign
Funds

Taft's Warfare Against the

Trusts

shippers had made no complaint. Also by the law of 1910 proposed new rates might be suspended in their operation by the order of the commission, and if they were found by that body to be unjust or unreasonable they could not be put into operation at all. Thus the Mann-Elkins Law gave the Commission very great power in the regulation of railroad rates. Another progressive measure of the Taft administration had for its aim the regulation of contributions to campaign funds. The lavish expenditure of campaign committees, amounting in some instances to several millions of dollars at a single election, caused the public to inquire into the origin of the contributions. In 1911 Congress, responding to the demand for publicity, passed a stringent act providing for the publication before and after election of all receipts and expenditures of any candidate for a federal office and limiting the amount that might be lawfully expended. The movement for publicity was not confined to federal elections, for by 1914 most of the States had enacted some sort of legislation providing for the publication of campaign expenditures and regulating the use of money at elections.

President Taft's administration also showed a progressive spirit in the legal warfare that it waged against the trusts. During President Roosevelt's administration the Department of Justice began (1906) in a federal circuit court a suit against the great Standard Oil Company on the ground that it was violating the Sherman Anti-Trust law. In 1911 the case reached the Supreme Court of the United States, and that tribunal decided that the Standard Oil Company was violating the Sherman Act and that it must be dissolved; that it must relinquish its control over the constituent companies, of which there were thirty-three, and give to each of these minor companies its proportional share of the stock. Two weeks after the decision in the Standard Oil case was handed down a similar decision was rendered in the case of the American Tobacco Company, and that great trust was dissolved.

The enforced dissolution of these two mammoth organizations was hailed as a great victory over the trusts. But it

was not

very useful victory. In the case of the Standard Oil Company the men who owned the combination became the very men who controlled the independent companies. The officers of seven of the important independent companies remained in the quarters the parent company had occupied, and "coöperation rather than competition continued to prevail.”

A legal victory had been gained by the dissolution, but its economic effects were imperceptible: competition in the industries affected was not restored; monopoly was not checked. "The Sherman Law in its practical enforcement," said J. M. Beck, soon after the decisions were handed down but some years before it became his official duty as solicitor-general to enforce the law, "is little less than a delusion. It has accomplished practically nothing."

THE ELECTION OF 1912

At the time the trust decisions were handed down the politicians were beginning to take thought of the coming campaign. That there was trouble ahead for the Republicans everybody could see. The Insurgents were now calling themselves Progressives and were outspoken in their opposition to the renomination of President Taft. Prominent among the leaders of the Progressives was Senator Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin, who had led a reform movement that had made his State a thoroughly progressive community. La Follette had an enthusiastic following among Progressive Republicans in parts of the West and Middle West, and relying upon this following for support he offered himself as a candidate for the Republican nomination. But there was also a strong sentiment among the Progressive Republicans that ex-President Roosevelt should be nominated. In February, 1912, the governors of seven States addressed a letter to Roosevelt declaring the belief "that a large majority of the Republican voters of the country desired his nomination and a large majority of the people favored his election as the next President of the United States.' Replying to this letter Roosevelt said he would accept the nomination if it were tendered to him. When this

The

Candidates

for the can Nomi

Republi

nation

The

for the Republican Nomination

decision of Roosevelt was announced, Taft, who was a candidate for reëlection, declared that nothing but death would prevent him from striving to secure the nomination.

Thus the campaign for the Republican nomination opened Campaign with three candidates in the field. The contest for delegates was exciting and at times acrimonious. When the convention met at Chicago (June 18) there was another bitter contest over the seating of delegates. Out of 254 disputed seats 235 were awarded to Taft men by the national committee, which was controlled by anti-Roosevelt forces. The Roosevelt men charged fraud, and when the action of the committee was sustained by the convention Roosevelt advised his delegates to refrain from further participation in the proceedings. On the first ballot for the nomination of a candidate Taft received 561 votes, Roosevelt 106, and La Follette 41, the votes of 19 delegates being scattered and 344 having refrained from voting. So President Taft received the nomination, but it was clear that the Republican party was split in two.

The Democratic Nomi

nation

Three days after the adjournment of the Republican convention the Democratic national convention met at Baltimore. The pre-convention campaign of the Democrats had been quiet and uneventful, but the convention itself was a stormy affair. A large portion of the delegates desired a conservative candidate and a conservative platform. Another large portion desired a progressive candidate and a progressive platform. After a long struggle the progressive element under the leadership of Mr. Bryan, who was a member of the convention, gained the ascendency. The four most prominent candidates before the convention were Judson Harmon of Ohio, Oscar Underwood of Alabama, Champ Clark of Missouri and Woodrow Wilson. On the tenth ballot Clark received the votes of a majority of the delegates, but as the two-third rule (p. 301) was still in force this did not constitute a choice. The voting continued until the forty-sixth ballot was taken, when Wilson was nominated by a vote of 990, Clark receiving 84 and Harmon 12.

At the close of the Republican convention the Roosevelt forces resolved to organize a new party. Accordingly, Au

ganization

Progres

sive

gust 5, 1912, a convention met at Chicago and organized the The OrProgressive party, selecting ex-President Roosevelt as the can- of the didate for President and adopting a platform declarative of the principles of the party. The Progressive platform resembled in many respects the one which had been adopted by the Democrats and which was the handiwork of Bryan.

The Socialists, for the fourth time, nominated Mr. Debs and declared substantially for the social and political reforms they had demanded in previous campaigns (p. 547).

Party

Socialists

The

The campaign of 1912 was characterized by excitement The and uproar. Not since the days of "Tippecanoe and Tyler too" had the appeal to the voters been so spectacular. The issues at stake were not clearly defined, yet in one respect the contestants all stood on common ground: the platforms all Campaign reflected the spirit of the progressive movement. Even the Republicans declared for laws limiting the hours of labor for women and children, for working-men's compensation acts, and for other reforms of a progressive character. The question that received the most attention was the tariff. Upon this subject the Democrats declared for a tariff for revenue only on the ground that a protective tariff is unconstitutional. The Republicans declared for the "maintenance of a protective tariff with a reduction of duties that may be too high." The Progressives demanded "immediate downward revision of those schedules where duties are shown to be unjust or excessive." From first to last the campaign was dominated by Roosevelt's marvelous personality. But there was little doubt what the outcome of the election would be. From the moment that Roosevelt entered the field as a candidate it seemed certain that he would draw enough votes from the Republican party to defeat its nominee. And that is what happened: Taft was defeated, and so overwhelmingly that Roosevelt, when the returns were reported to him on election night, was led to exclaim: "We have annihilated the Republican party." Of the 531 electoral votes Wilson received 435, Roosevelt 88, and Taft 8. The popular vote was 6,293,019 for Wilson, 4,119,507 for Roosevelt, 3,484,956

for Taft, and 901,873 for Debs. Thus the great Republican party, which had been in control for sixteen years, went down in defeat.

President
Wilson

and the Progressive Movement

President
Wilson's
Program

PROGRESSIVE LEGISLATION

The newly elected President could bring to his high office only a small practical experience in public affairs, for his political career had been extremely brief. Within two years after his first appearance in public life he was elected to the Presidency. He was nevertheless a born politician, using the word in the very best sense, and the genius of his mind fitted him for the tasks of government. His political sagacity was shown in his attitude. toward the progressive movement. Realizing that although the Progressive party had been defeated at the polls progressivism was the controlling force in American life, he made friends of the Progressive leaders, appointed them to office, and adopted reforms that they advocated. After working along progressive lines for four years he felt justified in saying: "We have come very near to carrying out the platform of the Progressive party as well as our own."

[graphic]

U. & U.

Woodrow Wilson.

On March 4, 1913, President Wilson in the presence of the largest throng that ever assembled in front of the Capitol delivered an inaugural address that was brief, eloquent, and lofty in sentiment. Referring to the change that had brought the Democrats into power, the President said: "It means much more than the mere success of a party. The success of a party means little except when the Nation is using that party for a large and definite purpose." The purposes the President had in mind were foreshadowed in the following words: "We have itemized with some degree of

« PreviousContinue »