$50,000 in Marion county alone! Now we cannot attend to everybody, but it seems to me we ought to attend to that part of it suggested by Mr. Ketcham's paper, and I therefore offer the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the Committee on Legislation are hereby instructed to prepare a bill to be presented to the General Assembly of Indiana, at its next session, providing for the punishment of any person or persons who shall solicit from any candidate for judicial office the payment, directly or indirectly, of any sum or sums of money for political purposes."

I move the adoption of that resolution.

Chester Bradford: I second that motion.

The President: Gentlemen, you have heard the resolution read by Mr. Fishback, and the question is upon its adoption, which motion has been seconded. Is there any desire to discuss it?

W. H. H. Miller: I move that the resolution be amended by inserting after the word "solicit" the words "or receive."

Nathan Morris: "Solicit, receive or give."

W. H. H. Miller: It is very easy to bring a moral pressure which has all the effect of a demand, and a statute of that kind, in order to escape political committees, must be many sided and embrace a great many things.

W. P. Fishback: I will insert that word by permission.

L. P. Hackney: A gentleman over here has suggested that, for Mr. Fishback's benefit, it be made retroactive, so as to require the reimbursement of contributions to political committees during the last six or seven years.

The President: Gentlemen, the resolution offered by Mr. Fishback has been amended pursuant to the suggestion of Mr. Miller, and is now before the house.

I am

Charles L. Jewett: Before a vote is taken on that matter, compelled to do what I rarely have to do, and it is always unpleasant to oppose, particularly, my dear friend, Judge Fishback. I believe

the passage of this resolution unnecessary, probably, certainly ineffectual, and that it is, to a certain extent, a reflection upon the practices, or the necessities, or the misfortunes of the gentlemen who are now holding, and for years past have held, judicial stations in the State of Indiana. There was a time, you may remember it, when I had something to do with the collection of money for the purpose of keeping one of these political organizations a going concern—and I did not finally succeed in doing it, but that is aside— judges were assessed as other candidates were assessed, for the legitimate expenses of the campaign. That the practice is wrong, that it is discreditable, I not only entertain no doubt, but I have the most profound conviction that the use of money in the manipulation of elections is a crime against the security, against the Constitution, against the dignity of the State and Nation. I am thoroughly convinced about that point, but any action which should be addressed to this matter should be comprehensive, should include all candidates for office, from the highest to the lowest, and ought not to single out the judiciary of Indiana. I do not believe that any gentleman has ever sat upon the Supreme or Appellate bench of Indiana during my professional career whose opinions upon any subject have been influenced except by the highest considerations of honor and duty. And I do not like the passage of this resolution. It will do no good. If a political committee desires to extort from a candidate money, it will find a way to bring pressure to bear upon him, and if a candidate desires to contribute, he will find a way to contribute, notwithstanding all the statutes you can pass, and all the enactments of the Indiana Legislature. Therefore, as it would, in my judgment, be merely a reflection upon the past practices of judicial candidates, and would, I think, subserve no proper end, I feel that it should be left to the time, which I believe will some time arrive, when the people, having sunk still further in the degradation of politics, which, in the last twenty or twenty-five years has dominated municipal, state and, I fear, in some instances, national elec

119

tions, will rise to a higher conception of citizenship, that will not only make such practices unnecessary, but reprehensible, and afford no advantage to those engaged in them. But in the present state of the public mind and public morals, I believe that the resolution is unnecessary. And really, from Judge Fishback's remarks, I think he feels that it is not so much a matter of assessments, but the size of the assessment. (Laughter.) I noticed that he made no objection to the fact that he only paid $7 for an office extending into seven counties, but now it seems the price is higher, and it is the amount of the assessment, and not the practice itself, that is reprehensible. I want to know, my dear brother, if there is any difference between the practice then and now. I understand the judges do contribute now. They don't pay as much, Mr. Howe, as they do in New York. It used to be $1,200, but is now $2,500 to $3,000, evidenced by paper that is not negotiable in any bank in the State. I therefore oppose the adoption of the resolution.

W. A. Pickens: Mr. President, I do not think we can be enlightened on this question by discussion. We have another address to hear this morning, and I therefore demand the previous question.

The demand for the previous question prevailed and the resolution as amended was adopted.

The President: The next order of business on the programme, gentlemen, is the paper by John T. Dye, of Indianapolis, on the subject of "Limitation upon the Freedom of Contract."

THE EXTENT AND LIMITS OF LEGISLATIVE

CONTROL OVER THE FREEDOM

OF CONTRACT.

Paper by JOHN T. DYE.

When the people are disturbed by any change in economic and social conditions from which they apprehend real or imaginary evils, the first impulse is to repress the movement by legislation. But, as economic and social laws are sometimes stronger than legislative enactments, these attempts have not always been successful. Such legislation often produces results entirely different from those intended, and sometimes accelerates the very movement it is designed to repress.

Great changes have taken place in the occupations and methods of production and distribution in this country in the last threequarters of a century. New conditions have arisen. Four or five millions of people on the Atlantic coast, employed chiefly in agriculture, with little commerce and few manufactures, have grown into more than seventy millions, occupying the continent.

Our productive power has become far greater than our capacity to consume the products of our industries. Great numbers of people are already dependent for their support upon industries which can only be kept in operation by finding an outlet and sale for their products in the markets of the world.

The habit of saving, which has largely grown up during the last half century among the laboring classes, has swelled the accumulations of capital in banks, savings societies and life insurance companies to such an extent that it is possible to carry on the business

of production and distribution on a scale unknown before. And this capital must be employed in productive industry, or become stagnant. If unemployed, instead of being distributed in wages it must be hoarded, or wasted in luxury in oriental fashion.

We have acquired new methods and facilities of co-operation. Enterprises of great magnitude are now carried on by the voluntary associated action of multitudes of men.

This kind of voluntary co-operation, under the sanction and protection of the law, has been encouraged by statutes authorizing individuals to combine in corporations, in all the states.

In the language of Justice Field, twenty years ago, "There is nothing that is lawful to be done to feed and clothe our people, to beautify and adorn their dwellings, to relieve the sick, to help the needy, and to enrich and ennoble humanity, which is not, to a great extent, done through the instrumentalities of corporations."

The extent and variety of the voluntary co-operation of individuals protected by law, under institutions which secure liberty to all, is the most striking feature of the civilization of the democracy of the New World.

The completion of our railroad system of necessity required the employment of vast amounts of capital in single undertakings, and the employment of great numbers of men in one kind of business, under unity of management.

This has furnished a great object lesson in the organization of industry. History furnishes no example of any laboring class equal in numbers which will compare favorably with locomotive engineers and the higher classes of railroad employes, in comfort, intelligence and character.

Manufacturing industries have grown up, necessarily requiring large plants, vast aggregations of capital, and employing thousands of laborers under one control. The obvious economic advantages of unity of management and administration have caused the same method to be applied in other kinds of business. Combinations have