Political reform in Wisconsin; a historical review of the subjects of primary election, taxation and railway regulation

Foreword

At no period in the history of our state has there been so much political agitation as has made the last ten years memorable, and at no time, not excepting the stormy years immediately preceding and during the civil war, has so much bitterness been injected into our politics. To the student of history there is something strange and unaccountable in the story of recent political events in Wiscon¬ sin. It is an unusual thing to see a community change its public policy, the habits of a lifetime, and its leaders, almost in a breath; it is an unusual thing also to see a state that always has been re¬ garded as one of the most conservative in the union suddenly, as if by the influence of some magic power, transformed into one of the most advanced, impatient, not to say intemperate “reform” states in the entire sisterhood.

While it may be unduly dignifying the change in the political policy effected in Wisconsin at the beginning of the present decade to call it a bloodless revolution, it certainly was more than a mere change of administration, a substitution of one set of state officers ■for another of the same party. x\nd it came suddenly, almost without warning. Whatever mutterings of discontent previously had been heard had all disappeared. While a peaceful calm rested upon the state following a campaign in which there had been pro¬ testations of harmony and good will on all sides; at a time when citizens were looking forward to real progress under the beneficent influences of peace and prosperity, the alarm was suddenly sounded, signal fires were set blazing upon the hill tops, the dogs of war were loosed and the clans were called out in battle array. For what ?

The history of the nations of the world records many revolu¬ tionary movements in the past, but usually there was a satisfactory and sufficient cause for them. It is found that people are, as a rule, slow to rebel against the constituted authorities without some well defined and clearly understood reason. They may protest against the enforcement of oppressive laws; they may revolt against corruption in public office; they may refuse to be unjustly taxed; or there may be other sins of omission or commission on the part of the public servants or rulers, as the case may be, which have be¬ come intolerable and which explain the citizens’ determination to have a political house-cleaning for the general public good.

But that was not the case in Wisconsin. The student of history will look in vain in the records of this state for proof of corruption in public office, for evidence of public scandals of any character wor¬ thy of consideration. He will find no statutes that were oppressive; he will find no indications of extravagance or waste of public re¬ sources by state officials; he will not find statistics to prove that the people were overburdened by taxation for the support of the state

Foreword.

administration, for there had been but one state tax for general purposes for nearly twenty years.

A careful and unprejudiced investigation of the facts of history leads inevitably to the conclusion that there was no public necessity • for the political disturbance that accompanied the change of ad¬ ministration in January, 1901. The political issues fought out in this state and which engendered so much bitterness, so much intem¬ perate discussion, so much hatred and malice, did not involve any vital principles of government that must be conserved. The contest was merely a struggle for leadership and political power. The “is¬ sues” were the means whereby their inventors hoped to attain their ends. They succeeded.

This assertion is sufficiently justified by the experiences of the state under the laws enacted for the reformation of our statutes dur¬ ing the so-called “progressive” period. Certain laws have been amended and other laws have been replaced by statutes radically differing from the originals. The promises to make changes in the laws have been kept to the letter. But the benefits that were to be derived; the advantages that would, it was promised, follow the enactment of these “progressive” measures as a necessary and logical effect following a given cause, have not materialized.

The publication of the outline of recent historical events con¬ tained in the following pages is not designed to revive factional disputes, which were too bitter to be pleasant, or to kindle anew the fires of discord. But it is believed the people of the state are now in a condition of mental repose that will enable them to run over again the data relating to that period without danger to them¬ selves or their neighbors. By now printing the truth about certain legislation, its origin, the means employed to secure its enactment, and the effect of the laws in operation, citizens will be enabled to weigh the results of the contest in which they have engaged and learn for themselves whether the “reform” secured has been worth what it cost.

Did it pay to drive from public life prominent servants who had won distinction for themselves and their state?

Did it pay to embitter neighbor against neighbor, brother against brother, and friend against friend for the sake of enacting the laws we now have that would not have been passed in the ordinary course of events without a fight?

In preparing this historical review it has been the intention to cover the three important subjects of legislation as fully as was practicable in their proper order. The first subject treated is the primary election law. To the end that the progress made prior to the presentation of the bill abolishing all caucuses and conventions may be understood, the evolutionary movement that led up to the enactment of the Milwaukee primary law and the subsequent exten¬ sion of that law to the entire state has been traced step by step. The

Foreword.

effect of the direct primary law in operation has been analyzed, and the fruitless attempt to strengthen a law that has sorely disap¬ pointed its most sincere friends and one that has been repudiated on more than one occasion by its authors and principal champions, are considered.

Following the primary election legislation is a review of the history of taxation legislation which resulted in the creation of the state tax commission, the enactment of important taxation laws and the general reform, so far as was possible in the circumstances, of the taxation system. 'Great progress has been made in this field of political activity—so much will be shown beyond question. But that progress has not been made on the public platform, at the hustings, or in the columns of the newspapers. The men who are entitled to credit for a greater part of the advance made along tax reform lines are the men who have, with painstaking care, patient effort, deep study and an unselfish devotion to the cause in which they were enlisted, accomplished results. These men have left their marks indelibly on the pages of Wisconsin’s history.

The third and last part of the review is devoted to the events which led up to the enactment of laws for the regulation of trans¬ portation companies. There is no disposition on the part of the writer of this history to fly to the defense of the transportation companies. This is a history—not an apology or a defense. But there has been so much matter printed about the regulation of cor¬ porations; there have been so many extravagant statements concern¬ ing public benefits that would be derived from the enactment of laws designed to place the corporations under a more strict super¬ vision by public officers; there have been so many unjust and uncalled for charges laid at the door of public men who did not agree with the radical “progressives” as to the exact form railroad legislation should take ; and there have been so many and such extravagant claims of credit supposed to be due for the passage of the laws now on the statute books, it is but just and right to all parties that the facts should be given to the public.

As has been said, this history is not the outgrowth of a desire to revive past disputes. The controversy is ended. The citizens of Wisconsin have now settled down to await the reward of their labors. They have paid the price—will the progressive leaders “deliver the goods?” Have they delivered the goods? If not, why not? There has been time for the primary election law to scatter its blessings over the state: has it done so? There has been ample time for the new taxation system to reduce the taxes of those who were overburdened: have taxes anywhere been reduced ? There has been ample time to materialize all or most of the benefits promised as the result of railroad rate regulation by the state: can you find those benefits in your business? These are some of the questions that will be discussed in this review.

CHAPTER I. The Direct Primary

The direct primary principle is advocated by citizens who be¬ lieve in sticking as close to the pure democratic form of government as is possible. They believe the citizen should never delegate, his rights and powers as a voter to another when it is possible for him to perform his duties and exercise his privileges himself. They believe the right to vote for candidates for office necessarily carries with it the right to assist in nominating those candidates; that the first step in the exercise of the elective franchise is as important as the second; that the right to cast the first ballot in making a direct choice at the primary is as sacred' as the right to cast the second ballot on election day.

The motives of the men who, during the last thirty years, have publicly advocated primary election reforms in the several states should not be called in question. In the main these progressives, as they like to be called, have been sincere and unselfish in their devotion to a movement believed by them to be designed to purify politics, to improve the personnel of the office holding class, to dethrone the political boss and put his “gang” out of business, and to encourage the better element of the citizenry to actively partici¬ pate in primaries and elections. Many of the advocates of the movement have been members of that “better element” about which so much has been said and written during the discussions that have attended the progress along reform lines. With certain glaring exceptions, they have been men in whom the outward and visible sign of an inward office hunger was not too painfully conspicuous. They simply wanted to arrange the nominating machinery so that men of their own kind would be encouraged to take an active part in politics.

Years ago it was argued in the public press and periodicals that good people did not attend mass caucuses because they were con¬ vinced the results of those meetings always were determined in advance; that the election of delegates to conventions was “fixed up by some job or ring influence.” Also, it was asserted that the better element would not attend political caucuses in the evening or

Political Reform in Wisconsin.

at any hour “at the risk of encountering a crowd, or being hustled or jostled by intoxicated men.” That there was foundation in fact for the statements discrediting the mass caucus in large cities does not require argument. Men who know to what extent the hoodlum element carried their excesses at the primaries—and the elections as well—in metropolitan cities and congested districts, will not make excuses for the abuses complained of or attempt to palliate them.

The result was that the complaints, persistently but not too clamorously made at first, had a tendency to prick the law makers and party leaders to activity and tentative experiments in primary reforms were inaugurated. This was a wholesome movement and it did not call for an acrimonious controversy, as politicians as well as private citizens lent their aid to the effort to remove the defects complained of by judiciously treating the cause. As a matter of fact, from the first voluntary changes in the method of conducting caucuses made by party leaders in Wisconsin before any law on the subject had been enacted, down to the time of the violent outbreak of controversy in 1901, there was little if any public interest mani¬ fested in the movement. Yet noteworthy progress was made in the betterment of conditions under which the primaries were held.

In California the primary .election idea was recognized by law as early as 1866, and in 1872 that recognition was formally incor¬ porated into the codes. Any party or association of electors in any political subdivision of the state was authorized by law to hold a primary election for the nomination of local candidates and the election of delegates to represent them in conventions called for larger districts in which the voters at the primary were entitled to participate. Other states followed in the footsteps of California. Early in the last quarter of the nineteenth century the city of Baltimore regularly elected its municipal officers from candidates nominated by direct vote of the people of that city without the intervention of party conventions. In Baltimore it was reported that the experiment was eminently satisfactory in its results. At a meeting of the Young Men’s Democratic club of Yew York, held in that city in December, 1881, it was asserted of the Baltimore pri¬ maries that:

“There the primary votes directly for the candidate and the polls are open all day. The result has been the extirpation of the political bosses and an extraordinarily full vote. In 1876, when all the municipal offices were to be filled, 6,200 democrats out of 7,500 registered voted on the nominations at the polls at the primaries. If we could obtain any¬ thing approaching to the same proportion of the party vote on nomina¬ tions of both sides in this city, what a gain it would be!”

On the other hand, the experiment in California was not so satisfactory. A citizen of San Francisco complains, in a letter to the Nation Magazine of January 28, 1882, that, while the direct vote primary, when held in the rural districts, uniformly elected a

The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary.

superior class of delegates and nominated good men for office, the result of such elections in the city was that invariably dissensions followed and dissatisfaction was manifested.

Subsequent trials of the primary election plan were made in Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and other states. In each case, however, the option was given to the party managers to call a primary or to nominate by the old caucus and convention plan. It will be noticed that practically all the early experiments with the plan of nominating candidates by direct vote of the mem¬ bers of the party were made in what may be called one party states, and it was the dominant party that made use of the primary election to nominate its candidates. The minority party in each of the states mentioned had no use for restraints imposed by a primary law. They had no contests for nominations. Their principle trouble was in persuading citizens to accept nominations at their hands to be followed by certain failure of election without any attending glory to take the poison from the sting of defeat or to repay them for the loss of time and the expense incidental to the campaign.

All this time experience, growth, development, were doing their work and prominent men who were known as practical politicians, as well as public spirited private citizens, were becoming more and more interested in a movement to devise a workable plan for regu¬ lating the primaries. It may be said all parties and all classes of citizens contributed to some extent toward the solution of the prob¬ lem, for the democrats in strong democratic states and cities, and republicans in sections where they were in control by reason of their majorities, made changes in the primaries, in many cases without a statutory urge, because they believed the matters pertaining to party government should be left to the control of party members. In other cases, when it was found that the authority of law would aid the movement, statutes were enacted giving to party committees a legal status, defining their duties and making provisions for the government of primaries. The progress made was purely evolu¬ tionary in its character and the changes were so natural and logical, following in one another’s footsteps in so orderly a manner, they did not cause surprise or excite bitter contentions.

Political Reform in Wisconsin.

CHAPTER II. The Keogh Law of 1891

The first attempt in Wisconsin to regulate primaries by law was the enactment of what was known as the Keogh law, chapter 439, laws of 1891. This act applied to Milwaukee county only, and was placed in the statute books through the efforts of the Milwaukee delegation in the legislature. No platform pledges had been made to reform the primaries; no campaign had been conducted in the interests of such reform; no public demand made through the news¬ papers had furnished the inspiration or pointed the way; no meet¬ ings were held ; no bands were employed to please or torture the public ear, as the case might be; no impassioned orators appealed to the electorate to rise in its might and hurl from places of power and trust the faithless caucus manipulators. The impossibility of continuing to do party business in an orderly manner at mass caucuses in congested municipal wards had become apparent, and the practice already had been partially abandoned. In a quiet wav, therefore, the representatives of Milwaukee voters attempted to crystallize into a concrete plan the nebulous ideas that had ruled in the government of the primaries for a number of years.

In country districts, villages and small cities the mass caucus had not fallen altogether into disrepute at that time. Contests there had been, it is true, and some sharp ones at that, but as a rule township and ward officers nominated and delegates elected in rural primaries and the smaller municipalities were acknowledged to fairly represent a majority of the parties holding the caucuses. In some sections of the state, like the mining and lumbering regions of the north, complaint was made that at times caucuses were packed and ruled by mob law, and contests in conventions based on charges of that character were not unknown. But these instances were the exception, not the rule.

On the other hand, party managers and public spirited citizens had learned that the members of the parties in a thickly settled ward could not meet in mass caucuses and by a viva voce vote give ex¬ pression to their choice with any assurance that the will of the legal majority would prevail. Where lines were sharply drawn between conflicting interests it frequently occurred that one or the other side would gain an unfair advantage by introducing nonresident strikers and heelers, members of other parties, toughs and hood¬ lums, to the disgust of respectable citizens who would thereby be driven away from the caucuses. In seeking a remedy for this con¬ dition, the party leaders and committeemen already had adopted a rule in many instances that party primaries were to be held open for at least an hour and voting was to be done by ballot. This was a step in the right direction, but it did not go far enough,

The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary.

The Keogh bill, No. 136A, was introduced by that veteran demo¬ cratic legislator, Edward Keogh of Milwaukee, who consented to allow the influence of his name to be used to the advantage of the measure, the democratic party having secured an overwhelming majority at the memorable “Bennett law election” the previous fall. Mr. Keogh had served one term in the state senate and was, at the time this bill was introduced, representing his district in the assembly for the twelfth time. He made it thirteen before he re¬ tired permanently to private life. But while he consented to father the bill, his age and the dignity of his position as the oldest member were such that he left to the younger members of the delegation the real work incidental to the passage of the measure. As it hap¬ pened, Michael Kruszka, then in his first term, full of hard work, enthusiasm, and a desire to do something worth while, became the dry nurse of the measure.

The bill was first referred to the judiciary committee, made up of six democrats and three republicans. The democrats were John Winans of Bock county, chairman; James D. Watson, Fond du Lac; Joshua E. Dodge, Bacine; Neal Brown, Marathon; Conrad Ivrez and H. J. Desmond, Milwaukee. The republicans were Orrin T. Wil¬ liams, Milwaukee; L. H. Mead, Washburn, Charles F. Osborn, La¬ fayette and Green.

This committee failed to discover any constitutional obstacles to the passage of the bill but declined to assume responsibility for it and asked that it be referred to the Milwaukee delegation, which was done. Milwaukee was represented that year by the following members of the lower house:

First district, Humphrey J. Desmond, D.

Second district, William J. Friebrantz, B.

Third district, Edward Keogh, D.

Fourth district, Orrin T. Williams, B.

Fifth District, Conrad Krez, D.

Sixth district, William Pierron, B.

Seventh district, Charles H. Anson, B.

Eighth district, Henry Schuetz, D.

Ninth district, Philip Schmitz, Jr., D.

Tenth district, John Horn, D.

Eleventh district, Ambrose McGuigan, D.

Twelfth district, Michael Kruszka, D.

After deliberating on the measure from February 27 until April 16, this delegation finally presented a report, Mr. Williams dissenting, recommending certain amendments and the passage of the bill when amended. As it applied only to Milwaukee county the delegation was a determining factor in the situation and the bill w r as amended as suggested and passed. Action in the senate was expedited by the Milwaukee members of that body, John J. Kempf and Paul Bechtner, republicans, and Herman Kroeger and Chris-

Political Reform in Wisconsin.

tion Ivoenitzer, democrats, who gave the measure their unqualified indorsement. The bill was passed, signed by Gov. George W. Peck, also a Milwaukee man, and became a law by publication.

This statute illustrates, better than columns of newspaper arti¬ cles could have done, the uninformed condition of public sentiment at the time it was passed and the stage to which the primary reform idea had advanced. The law prescribed how a citizen was to pro¬ ceed in securing a “nomination to any office to be voted for at the election at which he desired to be a candidate/’ and explained how he might have his name printed on the official primary ballot, which was. to be provided by the party committees,. He was re¬ quired to file with the county clerk “a written notice specifying his name, age, residence, giving street and number if possible, occupa¬ tion, nationality, and the office to which he desires to be nominated, which such notice shall he indorsed by at least ten qualified electors and freeholders of the ward or township in which he resides; and any such notice not so indorsed shall not be received or filed by such county clerk/ 5 Caucuses were to be held on the same day for each party and be kept open for a stated period.

On the face of this law a direct vote was required for all candi¬ dates for city and county offices in Milwaukee county. Conventions and delegates were not mentioned in the law or given legal recogni¬ tion in any manner. While they were not specifically abolished or forbidden in terms, no other reading can be given the Iveogh law except that it required a nomination by direct vote of every candi¬ date in the country.

But the thought of abolishing conventions had doubtless not entered the minds of the men who were responsible for the enact¬ ment of this statute. At all events, the only effect of its operation was to cause delegates to conventions to be classed as officers and their names were placed on the official primary ballots and their elections held under the conditions that obtained in the selection of ward and township officers. It did not occur to the members of the legislature or the people of Milwaukee county that the Keogh law had abolished caucuses and conventions and substituted there¬ for a sweeping primary election. But such was the case, nevertheless.

The Evolution and Revolution of the Primary.

CHAPTER III. The Development of the Milwaukee Primary Law

All experience teaches that first attempts at legislation in a new field, where precedents are wanting and the framers of the proposed statute have only their desire to improve conditions and their native wit to guide them, usually fall far short of perfection. There have been few men in the history of the race who could draft a legislative act that would answer the purpose desired without sub¬ sequent changes. Even when the matter under consideration is one that has been mulled over many times before, it is the rule that many an i must be dotted and many a t crossed before the last word is said on the subject.

This was the case with the Keogh law. It was a crude effort at best, and the result of its trial was that the first bill introduced m the assembly in 1893 was for its repeal. This bill was No. 1A, and it was speedily passed and became chapter 7, laws of 1893.

But the reform effort did not stop here. Milwaukee political leaders and business men were not satisfied to go back to the old system. A new bill was introduced in the senate by Michael Kruszka, who had been promoted to that body by his constituents. This bill was numbered 144S, and upon its passage and publication it became chapter 249, laws of 1893, and was called the Kruszka law. Gov. George W. Peck’s name appears on the original bill on file in Madison.

In this statute, which, like its predecessor, applied only to Mil¬ waukee county, some progress was attained and conventions and delegates were specifically recognized. Provision was made for the organization of township, ward and county committees; for the holding of township and ward caucuses at which local officers were to be nominated and delegates elected to district, city and county conventions; primaries were to be conducted like elections, to be in charge of officers appointed by the committees, and votes were to be canvassed and returns made as in the case of regular elections. Only qualified electors were permitted to' participate in these caucuses and penalties were prescribed for all fraudulent voting or attempts to commit fraud.

This bill was also referred to the Milwaukee delegation, which assumed all responsibility for it, and a new law thus came into being and was given a trial in the subsequent campaigns.

When the time came to test the law of 1893 the secretary of the Milwaukee republican county committee, Dr. W. A. Fricke, who was a stickler for order and method and a believer in perfect party organization, found that his work was cut out for him if he was to comply with all its provisions. Not having been built up and fitted together piece by piece, as the result of mature experi-

Political Reform in Wisconsin.

ence and educated statecraft, it was found that the act was equally as valuable as an indication of what should be done and what avoided in framing a new law as it was as a statute for the regula¬ tion of the primaries. The republicans of Milwaukee county had, as the result of an attempt to comply with the Keogh law of 1891, completed a county organization that was the most perfect of any that had been in existence up to that time. In 1893 the committee had reorganized under the Kruszka law and was in still better shape. Now, in order to comply with the new law as far as possible, forms and blanks were prepared by the secretary and an effort made to follow out in detail every provision made for the govern¬ ment of the primaries. This was found to be a difficult problem and it never was satisfactorily solved.

But the experience gained at the spring election in 1894 was worth all the trouble and money it cost, as it enabled the committee to adopt a set of regulations for use at the primaries in the fall of that year that proved to be of value when the time came to frame a.third experimental law in the winter of 1895.

The history of bill number 329S, 1895, is an interesting one. The republican party had once more elected a majority of the two houses of the legislature and Gov. William H. Upham presided in the executive chamber. Senator Kruszka, still in the senate and still interested in caucus reforms, felt that it would be better to have the new bill drawn by him introduced by a member of the dominant party. In this emergency Senator Thomas B. Mills of Superior was appealed to for help and he introduced the measure and championed it, although it still remained a local Milwaukee bill. It was referred to the committee on privileges and elections on Feb. 12 and slumbered in the committee box until April 4.

Meanwhile there had been many conferences on the. subject be¬ tween interested parties, as others besides the original promoters of the movement had become interested. Dr. Fricke, in particular, representing the Milwaukee county republican committee, was active in these conferences. The forms and blanks used at the spring caucuses of the republican party and the carefully prepared regulations drawn up for use in the autumn of that year were brought into the conferences. The result was a substitute bill that more nearly attained the object sought than any previous effort had done, as it represented the best thought of leading men in and out of politics in the state at that time. This substitute was reported by the committee, passed both houses, was signed by Gov. Upham, and became chapter 288, laws of 1895.