LEADER IN THE INDIANA SENATE--’93 AND’95
I
It is not often in the recent political history of Indiana that a man
with a state reputation as a leader established has aspired to a seat in
the state senate, and this made Mr. Kern’s candidacy in 1892 notable.
His election assured the Democratic party a leadership in that body of
more than ordinary sagacity and militancy. The election of 1892 had
resulted in a clean sweep in Indiana for the Democracy, which had not
only delivered the electoral vote to Cleveland, but had elected Claude
Matthews governor and a large majority in both branches of the
legislature. The Kern of this period was quite a different man from the
Kern who had retired from the office of reporter of the supreme court
four years before. He had entered upon the more serious phase of his
career, having put behind him definitely the conviviality of other days.
Easily the best known and most eloquent member of the senate, he had the
further advantage of being recognized as one of the ablest lawyers who
ever sat in the state senate chamber. By sheer force of superior ability
and personality he immediately took rank as the leader of his party
whatever may have been the intentions of some in position to determine
committee assignments. Mortimer Nye, the lieutenant governor, who made
the assignments, was generous to Kern in the number of the committees to
which he was appointed, including rules, finance, roads, public
buildings, the city of Indianapolis, and the chairmanship of the
insurance committee, but his failure to place him on the judiciary
committee, in view of his position in his profession, was considered by
many as remarkable. Indeed Mr. Nye’s committee assignments were quite
generally criticized and _The Indianapolis Sentinel_, the state organ of
the party, commented pointedly upon Kern’s absence from the judiciary
committee. The lieutenant governor was to prove rather obstreperous and
out of harmony with party policy on several notable occasions, and to be
something of a thorn in the side of Governor Matthews.
Mr. Kern at this time was described by the legislative correspondents as
“among the best-dressed men in the senate.” He appeared habitually in a
Prince Albert coat, and when on the streets in a black polished silk
hat. His manner was cordial and ingratiating then, as always, and
notwithstanding his marked partisanship at this period, the charm of his
personality and his chivalric attitude toward opponents made him none
the less popular on the Republican than on the Democratic side of the
chamber. The legislative session of 1893 was distinguished by several
notable new departures in the legislative policy of the state,
especially in the line of labor legislation, and here Mr. Kern was a
potent factor. He spoke frequently and with marked effect, often with
force and eloquence, but more often in his brief remarks speaking in the
vein of humor or ridicule.
His first prominent participation in the work of the senate must have
been in the discharge of a congenial duty. He had charge of the
interests of United States Senator David Turpie, who was up for
re-election. In the state convention of 1892 he had undertaken, in
conjunction with James M. Barrett of Fort Wayne and a few others, to
make Turpie’s re-election a certainty by making an unsuccessful fight
before the committee on resolutions for a party declaration in his
favor. While David Turpie was one of the most scholarly and worthy
champions of Democratic principles the state has produced, he was not
given to the graces of typical politicians and, lacking the more
spectacular qualities of men like Voorhees, he was never properly
appreciated by the rank and file. He might be properly styled a leader
of the leaders. After the election an effort had been made in some
quarters to inject John G. Shanklin, the brilliant editor of _The
Evansville Courier_, into the contest, but that gentleman refused his
consent and favored Turpie. Notwithstanding his position, one vote was
cast in caucus for him over the protest of Kern, who was authorized by
Shanklin to make it. The speech in which Kern presented Turpie’s name,
while eloquent and in better taste than such addresses usually are, is
chiefly interesting here for the light it throws on the speaker’s
personal attitude toward party leadership. The following excerpt might
have been taken from a tribute to Kern himself:
“During these forty years David Turpie has been a Democrat, and
whether leading a forlorn hope under dark and lowering skies with
defeat inevitable, or whether at the head of a victorious column
making a final charge to victory already assured, he has been
equally brave and earnest, never wavering for a single moment in
his devotion to the cause so dear to his heart. While others
faltered and tired, Turpie was renewing his vigor and preparing for
a renewal of the fray. While others were dealing with questions of
policy and debating the feasibility of new departures, Turpie laid
fresh hold upon the teachings of Jefferson, and pressed forward in
the cause of honest money, home rule, personal liberty and
constitutional method.”
It was during this session that he disclosed the courageous attitude
toward public questions which distinguished him ever afterward, and in
the light of that record it is difficult to understand the partial
success of his political opponents in fixing upon him the reputation of
being a trimmer. Among the many measures no longer of interest and
pertaining particularly to Indianapolis affairs we are concerned only
with one relating to the amendment of the city charter providing in the
case of street paving that the crossings should be paid for by the
property owners directly affected. For many years it had been the policy
to pay for these crossings through general taxation. In the older
sections of the city, where property was more valuable and property
owners more prosperous, the crossings had been paved, and the poorer
classes in less favored sections had been taxed to pay for them. It was
the conviction of Mr. Kern that it would be an injustice to change that
policy at a time when the poorer sections were preparing for
improvements. His view was at war with that of powerful elements. The
city administration, a Democratic administration presided over by a
mayor who had been twice placed in nomination by Kern himself, favored
the amendment to the charter. The Commercial Club, composed at that time
of 400 of the leading business men of the city, was aggressively behind
it, and the press of the city was insistent upon it. A trimmer lacking
in courage would scarcely have undertaken to stem the tide. This Kern
did in his first important speech of the session, and while he lost his
fight he made an impression that confirmed the general opinion of his
ability. In describing this, his first argumentative speech in the state
senate, _The Indianapolis Sentinel_ said:
“When Mr. Kern rose all the senators wheeled their chairs around to
listen better. This was to be Mr. Kern’s first argument on an
important measure, and those who had never heard him in joint
discussion wanted to see how he would acquit himself. His
reputation as an orator extends all over the state, and though he
espoused a losing cause yesterday he did not disappoint his
friends.”
II
It was in connection with labor legislation that Kern at this time
fashioned his reputation as a public man--a reputation that was to make
him ardent friends and powerful foes. Throughout his life his instincts
had always impelled him to take up the cudgels for the lowly and
oppressed. Even before entering the state senate he had written many
bills for the legislative committee of the state federation of labor and
the working classes naturally looked to him for leadership. The first
battle along these lines in which he participated was in connection with
legislation relating to the legal status of the labor union. In the
first part of the session a bill had been introduced to legalize the
unions and this had been instantly met by the introduction of a bill
“for the protection of non-union laborers.” The Democratic caucus
quickly disposed of the latter by rejecting it, and Francis T. Hord, its
sponsor, threatened for a time to resign his seat. The former bill was
bitterly contested and Kern had charge of the measure when it reached
the senate. The “business interests,” as they called themselves, were
greatly outraged at what they pretended to look upon as a direct
interference with their rights. The purport of it was to make it a
misdemeanor punishable by fine or imprisonment for any employer of labor
to discharge or threaten to discharge an employee because of his
connection with labor organizations, or to exact a pledge from them that
they would not affiliate with the unions. Only a little while before
Pinkerton detectives had shot down the laborers of the Carnegie plant to
the applause of that element in the country which pretended to
conservatism and respectability. That Kern’s views on the labor question
were early formed, deeply felt and consistently held will be seen in the
rather fiery speech he made in advocacy of the Deery bill:
“It is a crying shame that in this year, 1893, and in Indiana,
there should be a demand for legislation of this kind. It is
outrageous that the representative of a great corporation, created
by public favor, clothed with the extraordinary power of eminent
domain, grown fat and rich by favorable legislation, should have
the hardihood to strike at the liberty of its workingmen by
demanding of them that they give up membership in their unions, to
which they are as devotedly attached as they are to church or
party, under penalty of dismissal from employment. In other words,
the alternative presented is “renounce your allegiance to your
union or go forth without employment to face possible penury and
want. ‘I hold in my hand the constitution of one of these
organizations in which the purpose of its existence is set forth.
It is a high and noble purpose--to rescue our trade from the low
level to which it has fallen, and by mutual effort to place it on a
foundation sufficiently strong to resist further encroachments; to
encourage a higher standard of skill, to cultivate feelings of
friendship, to assist each other to secure employment, to relieve
our distress and to bury our dead.’
“This is the creed of the men whose organization is imperiled by
the arrogant demands of corporate power and wealth and who are
compelled to come to this body to ask protection. Mr. President,
the paramount object of law is to protect the weak against the
strong. Here is a case in which the protection of the laws is most
properly invoked. It is an undisputed fact that in this city, where
more than 10,000 labor union men are engaged in daily toil--earning
a livelihood and piling up wealth for their employers--all loyal
and law-abiding citizens, a great corporation, through its
authorized agents, drives out its employees, faithful and honest,
for the avowed reason that with true American spirit they declined
to surrender their sovereignty and at the bidding of the master
give up cherished principles and attachments.
“This anti-Pinkerton law was conceded to be and is a most
beneficial measure, yet according to the arguments here it would
fall under the ban of class legislation. So of the
anti-pluck-me-store law and every other enactment in the interest
of labor. Organized labor is the outgrowth of organized capital.
Labor was organized in self-defense. For years and years and years
organized capital was fostered and fed by favorable legislation,
until it grew defiant and insolent and refused to treat with decent
respect to the rights of the men whose toil gave them wealth. As a
result labor organized that it might live--that it might have a
share of its production. Its organization brought respect and
dignity with it. It Americanized the laborer who had long been
denied many of the rights of citizenship. Better work, better
morals, better men, happier homes and firesides have resulted. The
bill is right. No man who loves liberty should oppose it.”
This extract will suffice to indicate the general character of Kern’s
defense of labor unions, and the speech was received with hearty
commendation in labor circles throughout the country.
To appreciate the courageous nature of Kern’s act it should be borne in
mind that organized labor was in its infancy; that the Knights of Labor
only a little while before had gone to pieces; that the national
government but four years before had not hesitated to turn the guns of
American troops upon striking unionists; and that men calling themselves
“conservative” were bitterly opposed to the new movement resulting in
the organization of the American Federation of Labor four years before.
But in addition to all this, there were local conditions which made
Kern’s act one of rare courage. Scarcely a year before, when an effort
had been made to organize employees of the street railroad company, the
employers resorted to extreme methods to prevent the organization. A
serious strike resulted. For several weeks Indianapolis was without
street car service. The press, the business element, the
“conservatives,” denounced the strikers and finally brought such
pressure to bear that the mayor reluctantly consented to furnish police
to accompany the cars. The strike was lost. The feeling was bitter. The
most powerful influences in Indianapolis were uncompromisingly opposed
to unions.
Kern’s speech was consequently notable, not only because it was a
supremely courageous performance, but the first one ever uttered in the
state senate of Indiana in advocacy of union labor.
The bill was passed and became a law. Labor never forgot the
service--and neither did the enemies of labor.
III
Even more epoch-making was the passage during this session of the first
employers’ liability law ever enacted in Indiana, and at a time when not
more than three other states had passed such legislation. The bill was
introduced in the house by S. M. Hench, and after a rather spirited
fight it passed that body and reached the senate, where it was diverted
from the committee on labor to the judiciary committee. Here it seemed
destined to remain. Every effort on the part of its author to get a
report was unavailing. Meanwhile a powerful railroad lobby had swooped
down on the capitol and was exerting itself in the open to encompass its
defeat. It was generally understood that Lieutenant Governor Nye, who
was a railroad lawyer with a professional view of the measure, was
strongly opposed to it, and when, after having reached the senate on
February 17th, the month of March came, with the certainty that but four
days remained for the passage of bills, it became apparent that
extraordinary measures would have to be taken if it were to become a
law. The railroad men’s legislative committee had reached the end of its
rope. On the morning of March 1 _The Indianapolis Sentinel_ demanded
action upon it in an editorial that placed the lieutenant governor in an
embarrassing position by the significant suggestion that “the bill
should not have been referred to the judiciary committee in the first
place;” and that put the Democratic members on their mettle with the
warning that in the event of the failure of its passage “the Democratic
party will be held responsible.” This editorial, the first of several
that were to appear, was bitterly resented by Mr. Nye and the members of
the judiciary committee, who were, nevertheless, thereby placed on the
defensive. Other editorials charging responsibility upon the railroad
lobby, put all the members of the senate on their guard.
On March 3 the labor leaders appealed to Kern to make one final effort.
He was in hearty sympathy with the measure, but up to this time had not
been asked to take the active management of it in the senate. On the
night of that very day he appeared before the judiciary committee and
debated the merits of the bill with the railroad lawyers, who were there
to oppose it. The committee, unfriendly from the beginning, and rather
embittered, no doubt, by the editorial reflections upon it, stubbornly
refused to report the bill unless the railroad employees would agree to
accept a certain amendment. On the morning of the 4th, the last day it
could be acted upon, Kern called a meeting of the legislative committee
of the Federation of Labor, and it was agreed by them that the
acceptance of the amendment would be preferable to no bill at all. This
agreement on their part was then reduced to writing by Kern, and with
the signatures of the legislative committee affixed he hastened to the
judiciary committee and insisted upon a report. When the bill was
reported with the recommendation that it pass as amended, he moved
concurrence in the report, the suspension of the constitutional rules,
and its passage. It was now rather late in the day and the amendment
required its repassage in the house--a fact that the enemies of the bill
doubtless counted upon. But the moment it passed the senate Kern
hastened to the house and saw Captain James B. Curtis, the speaker, who
had all other business suspended to consider the bill as amended. It
only required twenty minutes to get it through the house the second
time, and Kern personally took it to the governor for his signature.
This was one of the greatest victories that labor ever won in the
Indiana legislature. Since that time the world has moved far in the way
of remedial legislation, and the employers’ liability law of 1893 has
long been antiquated, but at a time when only two or three states in the
union had enacted such legislation it was a signal and significant
triumph for the labor cause in Indiana.
This, too, was a service that laboring men never forgot--and this, too,
contributed to fix Kern’s status in the minds of the enemies of labor as
dangerous and demagogic.
During this same session Kern took a leading part in the passage of a
child labor law, a fact that was recalled more than a quarter of a
century later when the president of the United States placed upon him
the responsibility of piloting through the United States senate the
first national child labor measure ever written in the statutes.
Quite as indicative of his life-long attitude toward labor problems was
his introduction of a bill to establish a state board of conciliation
for the settlement of controversies between employers and employees.
This bill reached third reading, but failed of passage.
The close of the session found Kern more of a state figure than he had
ever been before. He had been easily the dominating figure, the
interesting personality. His speeches had been characterized by more
substance, more sparkle, more originality than are customarily heard in
the Indiana legislature. His humor and ridicule had delighted the
objects of them. His social qualities had endeared him to all his
colleagues. And among members of the opposition it was understood that
while he was intense in his political convictions there was nothing
bigoted or bitter in his estimate of men who opposed them. This was
disclosed in many graceful little incidents, as when he moved that the
senate adjourn in respect to the memory of James G. Blaine.
IV
The state senate of the session of 1895, due to the political upheaval
of 1894, was Republican, and Kern found himself in the rôle of leader of
the minority--the only time in his career where he appeared as such. It
is significant of his personal popularity and standing among Republicans
that the majority in the making of committee assignments placed him
upon the judiciary committee from which he had been excluded by a
Democratic lieutenant governor, and he was continued on the rules
committee and of course with the committee dealing with legislation
relating to Indianapolis. Neither the journal of the senate nor the
newspapers of the time indicate that he was particularly persistent in
his opposition until toward the close of the session. The proceedings of
the majority were flagrantly partisan and in many other ways open to
censure. The majority was lead by Albert W. Wishard, an Indianapolis
lawyer and politician of high professional standing, one of the most
brilliant men who ever served in the Indiana legislature, for whom Kern
entertained a warm personal regard. The partisan bitterness, however,
which developed toward the close of the session did not prevent the
latter from warmly defending the Republican leader against the charge of
feigning illness to escape a vote. This kind of chivalry characterized
him throughout his life, but signally failed to protect him in later
years from the most vicious personal attacks on the part of a large
portion of the Republican press of the state.
This bitterness of partisan feeling was engendered by the Republican
plan for the gerrymandering of the state. The bill agreed upon by the
Republican caucus represented partisanship gone mad. The most grotesque
combinations of counties were made for congressional and legislative
purposes. The most vehement protests of the Democrats and of citizens of
sufficiently independent character to resent injustice were of no avail.
The Republicans, booted and spurred, rode rough shod over all
opposition. A United States senator was to be elected the next year and
nothing in the way of the juggling of legislative districts that would
make more difficult the re-election of Daniel W. Voorhees was left
undone. Appreciating the impossibility of preventing the consummation of
the plan, Kern withheld his fire until the bill was put upon its
passage, and then in an excoriating speech, all the more severe because
every count in the indictment he drew was notoriously true, he voiced
his protest in a general denunciation of the legislative record made by
the party in power during the session. This speech is historically
interesting, especially the following:
“In 1887 you denounced the rules of the senate adopted by the
Democratic majority under the leadership of Green Smith as
‘outrageous, brutal and revolutionary,’ and yet on gaining power
you re-enact those rules without the dotting of an i or the
crossing of a t.
“In former years you have denounced the Democratic legislatures on
account of the number of their employees; and yet here in the
senate chamber senators can scarcely get in and out of the chamber
without stumbling over the crowds of idle and useless employees
who swarm about performing no service.
“You have denounced the Democratic ‘profligacy’ in the little items
of expenditures about the general assembly, and yet I call your
attention to the fact that of the twenty-eight sets of Burns’
statutes purchased by the senate for the state at the commencement
of the session every set except three have been stolen and carried
away.
“You lay claim to a record of economy and yet, leaving your
officers with their princely salaries, you seek to make the record
good by taking food and clothing and the comforts of life from
those of God’s unfortunate children who are confined in the asylum
of the insane, and those who are being educated and cared for in
the institutions for the deaf and dumb and blind.
“You have claimed to favor the abolishment of the spoils system
from the politics of the state and yet under your legislation of
this session politics has been carried into the public schools for
the first time in the history of the state.”
Interruption--“How about the Nicholson law?”
Kern--“I am obliged for the interruption. The Democratic party has
never posed as the great and only party of morality and temperance.
The Republican party has. Do you remember your recent campaign
waged under the banner--the Home Against the Saloon? If the
Democratic party had made such pretenses as these I am sure its
members would not, when the Nicholson bill was called, as it was
yesterday, have been found running in all directions like fox
chases to dodge a vote. They would have had the courage of their
convictions. The Democratic party in the last campaign had no deal
with the liquor element of Evansville or elsewhere. It had no
entangling alliances that drove its members out of the chamber when
the roll is called in order that they might dodge the consequences
of a vote. Republican senators here who have been loud in their
pretenses of temperance and morality in the years gone by turn pale
and tremble and run like hounds at the mere mention of the
Nicholson bill. At last they have been smoked from under the cover
of hypocrisy and are appalled at the sight of the light of day,
which is finally turned upon them.
“The end of these false pretenses is come at last.... And that is
why I say that at the close of this session, with this record, it
is fitting that there should come this gerrymander which in its
iniquity is sufficient to cause the old original Gerry to turn in
his grave at the thought of his utter incapacity in that line when
compared with the modern Republican reformers of Indiana.”
V
The reference to the Nicholson law was thoroughly understood by all his
hearers. In the campaign of 1894 the Republicans had laid claim to being
the party of temperance and had held forth the promise to the temperance
people that a Republican assembly would mean temperance legislation.
This pretense was accepted at face value by the temperance workers. At
the same time it was generally understood that one of the Republican
leaders had entered into a secret understanding with the “wets” at
Evansville that any temperance measure presented would be either
pigeonholed or passed in a form that would make it utterly worthless for
its purpose. Soon after the legislature met Representative Nicholson had
introduced his bill and the game of hide and go seek was on. Seldom if
ever have more exciting scenes been witnessed about the state house
during a legislative session than those of this period. On days when it
was known that any phase of the bill would be discussed in either branch
of the assembly the galleries were packed to overflowing and great
throngs jostled about in the corridors. The temperance forces were
organized and awake. In the pulpits of the capital on Sundays the
ministers demanded the passage of the bill. This general interest was
embarrassing to the Republican politicians, who had not counted upon
being called on to do their tricks of legislative legerdemain in the
white light of publicity. There was no opportunity to stop the progress
of the bill in the house, but when it reached the senate it was referred
to the temperance committee, whose chairman, strangely enough, was
notoriously unfriendly to temperance legislation. Here it was expected
to slumber--and here it slumbered for quite a while.
It was at this juncture that Kern entered the story. At this time he
held the traditional views of the Indiana Democracy on the subject of
personal liberty and sumptuary legislation. He was himself a teetotaler.
But he had a profound contempt for hypocrisy, and in his fight to expose
the perfidy of the double-dealing policy of the opposition it is
probable that he, more than any other one man, was responsible for the
passage of the Nicholson law.
On March 4th, toward the close of the session, he threw a bomb into the
opposition camp by offering a resolution instructing the temperance
committee to have the bill before the senate, with or without
recommendation, by 3 o’clock on the following afternoon. This did not
harmonize with the plans of the committee or its chairman, but the
resolution was adopted and the fun commenced. The Evansville agreement
had been given a tremendous jolt. The temperance forces took their cue
and flocked to the senate. The white light of publicity began to beat
unmercifully upon the proceedings. Taken unaware and not yet prepared to
submit a report the committee on the following day asked for another
day’s delay, which was granted over the protest of ten members led by
Kern, who jocularly moved after the vote was taken that a committee be
appointed “to draft resolutions of respect for the late lamented
Nicholson law.” These tactics, by casting suspicion of the sincerity of
pretended friends of the measure, made further delay impossible, and on
the following day the bill was reported with amendments. After this Kern
applied himself to amendments. He was one of four who voted in favor of
permitting the saloons to remain open until midnight in cities having a
population of 25,000 and over. And he followed this by his own
amendment, known as the “drug store amendment,” for which he has always
been remembered. This provided that it should be unlawful for any
spirituous, vinous or malt liquors to be sold or given away in drug
stores except on the written prescription of a reputable physician. This
amendment was adopted and a motion to reconsider was lost. When the bill
as amended went to a vote Kern was one of nine who voted against it.
But this was not to be the end of the fight. In the house the Kern
amendment was rejected and in conference the amendment was changed to
read that in drug stores liquor should not be sold or given away without
prescription in any quantity less than a quart. When the conference
report was submitted in the senate Kern made an onslaught on the drug
store proviso as changed, resulting in a spirited debate which gave him
an opportunity to attack the sincerity of the majority. Accused of
introducing the drug store amendment in the interest of the saloons, he
demanded to know whether the bill was intended “to advance the cause of
temperance or mainly for the purpose of legislating against one business
in favor of another,” and in a scathing denunciation of the spirit of
hypocrisy he pictured the sanctimonious double-dealer, well known at
that time, who loftily attacked the saloon while stopping at the corner
drug store on his way home from church for his dram or bottle behind the
prescription case.
That the dominant party’s plans had been sadly disarranged by Kern’s
activities was disclosed in its resentment toward him manifested in the
passage of a resolution two days after the passage of the bill
“extending on behalf of the majority our thanks to the minority and the
governor for their assistance in passing the Nicholson law, and
especially to Senator Kern of Marion for his drug store amendment to
said bill, which he failed to honor by his affirmative vote.”
This resolution was not a mere bit of jocularity, but an attempt to at
least neutralize the responsibility of the Republican party in violating
the Evansville pledge to the “wets.” Governor Matthews had taken no part
in the fight and had merely signed the bill when presented to him in due
course for his signature, and the introduction of his name was merely
intended to call the attention of the “wets” to the fact that a
Democratic governor had signed and not vetoed it. And the special
reference to Kern was in line with the excuse made to the “wets” for
failure to smother the bill or to hopelessly emasculate it that but for
his resolution calling upon the committee to report it would not have
seen the light of day. In this they succeeded. There was never a time
after that when Kern was not looked upon as unfriendly by the so-called
liberal element, and his mandatory resolution compelling a report on the
Nicholson bill was always given as evidence of his hostility. As a
matter of fact he was not in favor of the bill. He expressed his views
in his vote on the final passage. But the Republican leaders had
solemnly pledged the party to genuine temperance legislation and had
been overwhelmingly placed in power with that understanding--at the same
time receiving the support of the liberals through a secret
understanding. The hypocrisy of their position disgusted Kern, who
deliberately set about to compel them to legislate in accordance with
pre-election promises to the temperance forces whose support they had
received, or to expose their hypocrisy. He succeeded in both, and he was
never forgiven by either the Republican politicians or the liberals. It
is not recorded either that he ever profited greatly from the temperance
people. But he satisfied himself.
All in all the session of 1895 was one of the most vicious in the
history of the commonwealth. The charges made by Kern in his speech
against the gerrymander were true. It was literally true that the
Burns’ statutes purchased with the state’s money for the state, to be
used during the session by members, were actually stolen and carried
away. But he might have added that there have been few sessions of the
Indiana legislature during which there was so much general talk of the
corrupt use of money. The hotels swarmed with lobbyists, and even the
female lobbyist, a rather rare species at that time in Indiana, made her
appearance, and in one instance created something of a scandal by being
ejected from a hotel. Until then most of the lobbying had been done in
the capitol, openly, but this session ushered in a new departure--the
lobbyists did their work in hotels and other places.
This ended Kern’s career in the state senate. It had profited him
greatly in that it had presented to the Democracy of the state a new
Kern--a Kern seasoned, sobered by experience, who retained his youthful
fire, intensity and eloquence. He entered the senate personally popular
and widely known, but generally looked upon as a merely effective
campaign speaker; he left it a recognized leader of the party in the
state.
The estimate of his colleagues has been furnished me by Hon. M. A.
Sweeney of Jasper, who served with him:
“He was by common consent, and without the least assumption on his
part, the admired and beloved leader of our party there. I feel
fully justified in asserting that no member on either side of that
body of legislators ever questioned his mental superiority,
personal integrity or magnanimity. In that arena of public debate,
in which the flow and ebb of acrimonious clashings in verbal
swordsmanship afford so splendid an opportunity to draw the line of
cleavage between the cheap politician and the true gentleman and
statesman, it was there he stood without a peer, personifying the
calmness of power.
“His kind assistance to, and his painstaking patience with the
embryonic, ambitious, would-be statesmen of his own or of the
opposite party, were almost paternal in him; if your cause had
merit, you ever found a true and helpful friend. No matter how
arduous and exacting his senatorial duties were, and they were
multifarious and onerous, he never hesitated to listen graciously
to our crude ideas of state craft, and he gave very much of his
valuable time in aiding and advising us in whipping into legal
forms statutes the vain glory for which was worn by others, while
he was always willing to remain unknown in all such affairs. He did
not have an enemy in that body, and if he had it was not Senator
Kern’s fault, for his suavity of manner and his courtliness of
bearing toward every one won all to him.
“His arguments before the senate, or before its important
committees, coming from his well-stored and well-balanced mind,
always gained keen attention, for they were characterized by
clearness, force, and dignity of diction; they were made to
enlighten and instruct his audience, and he never permitted
himself to descend to buncombe, billingsgate, specious pleading, or
petty politics. His language was chaste Anglo-Saxon ‘from the pure
well of English unalloyed.’ He preferred to inform his hearers by
presenting plain, pertinent facts rather than to resort to the
tricks of the rhetorician in order to secure the passing tribute of
applause.”