The life of John Worth Kern

by Claude G. Bowers

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.