James M. Cox is a man of principles; one who has decided opinions with the courage and energy to fight for them. Altho interested in the wage workers he has stood for the freedom of the individual; altho interested in other reforms he has insisted that they be brought about in accordance with law and order.

He is especially democratic in the old-fashioned sense, and is also a crusader as his following assailment of the Republican leaders in the Senate signifies.

“In the midst of war the present Senatorial cabal, led by Senators Lodge, Penrose and Smoot, was formed. Superficial evidence of loyalty to President Wilson was given in order that the great rank and file of their party, faithful and patriotic to the very core, might not be offended. But underneath this misleading exterior, conspirators planned and plotted with bigoted zeal. With victory to our arms they delayed and obstructed the works of peace. If deemed useful to the work in hand no artifice for interfering with our constitutional peacemaking authority was rejected.

“Before the country knew, yea, before these men themselves knew the details of the composite plan formed at the peace table, they declared their opposition to it. Before the treaty was submitted to the Senate, in the manner the Constitution provides, they violated every custom and every consideration of decency by presenting a copy of the document, procured unblushingly from enemy hands, and passed it into the printed record of Senatorial proceedings. From that hour the whole subject was thrown into a technical discussion, in order that the public might be confused. The plan has never changed in its objective, but the method has.

“At the outset there was the careful insistence that there was no desire to interfere with the principle evolved and formalized at Versailles. Later, it was the form and not the substance that professedly inspired attack. But pretense was futile when proposals later came forth that clearly emasculated the basic principle of the whole peace plan. Senator Lodge finally crystallized his ideas into what were known as the Lodge reservations, and when Congress adjourned these reservations held the support of the so-called regular Republican leaders. From that time the processes have been interesting. Political expediency in its truest sense dwarfed every consideration either of the public interest or of the maintenance of the honor of a great political party. The exclusive question was how to avoid a rupture in the Republican organization.”

International Morality

Everyone knows that Senator Johnson has been opposed to the treaty in any form and objects strongly to us entering the League of Nations in any way. When Senator Johnson states that the Republican platform is satisfactory to him and that Senator Harding feels as he does regarding the League of Nations, it naturally makes the League of Nations the primary issue of the campaign and places the contest between Cox who stands for internationalism and Harding, Lodge, Smoot and Penrose who stand for a strictly nationalistic policy. In this connection Mr. Cox stated as follows:

“Senator Harding makes this new pledge of policy in behalf of his party. It is as follows:

“‘I promise you formal and effective peace so quickly as a Republican Congress can pass its declaration for a Republican Executive to sign.’

“This means but one thing—a separate peace with Germany. This would be the most disheartening event in civilization since the Russians made their separate peace with Germany, and infinitely more unworthy on our part than it was on that of the Russians. They were threatened with starvation and revolution had swept their country.

“Our soldiers fought side by side with the Allies. So complete was the coalition of strength and purpose that General Foch was given supreme command, and every soldier in the Allied cause, no matter what flag he followed, recognized him as his chief. We fought the war together, and now before the thing is thru it is proposed to enter into a separate peace with Germany. In good faith we pledged our strength with our associates for the enforcement of terms upon offending Powers, and now it is suggested that this be withdrawn.

“Suppose Germany, recognizing the first break in the Allies, proposes something we cannot accept. Does Senator Harding intend to send an army to Germany to press her to our terms? Certainly the Allied army could not be expected to render aid. If, on the other hand, Germany should accept the chance we offered of breaking the bond it would be for the express purpose of insuring a German-American alliance recognizing that the Allies—in fact, no nation in good standing would have anything to do with either of us.”

Honesty vs. Dishonesty

“This plan would not only be a piece of bungling diplomacy, but plain unadulterated dishonesty, as well. No less an authority than Senator Lodge said, before the heat of recent controversy, that to make peace except in company with the Allies would ‘brand us everlastingly with dishonor and bring ruin to us.’

“Then America, refusing to enter the League of Nations (now already established by over forty nations) and bearing and deserving the contempt of the world, should, according to Senator Harding, submit an entirely new project. This act would either be regarded as arrant madness or attempted international bossism....

“The League of Nations has claimed the best thought of America for years. The League to Enforce Peace was presided over by so distinguished a Republican as ex-President Taft. He, before audiences in every section, advocated the principle and the plan of the present league. Regarding Article X, our own Monroe Doctrine is the very essence of Article X of the Versailles covenant. Skeptics viewed Monroe’s mandate with alarm, predicting recurring wars in defense of Central and South American States, whose guardians they alleged we need not be. Yet not a shot has been fired in almost one hundred years in preserving sovereign rights on this hemisphere.

“These reactionary Senators hypocritically claim that the League of Nations will result in our boys being drawn into military service, when they know that no treaty can override our Constitution, which reserves to Congress alone the power to declare war. They preach Americanism with a meaning of their own invention, and artfully appeal to a selfish and provincial spirit, forgetting that Lincoln fought a war over the purely moral question of slavery, that McKinley broke the fetters of our boundary lines for the freedom of Cuba, and carried the torch of American idealism to the benighted Phillipines. They lose memory of Garfield’s prophecy that America, under the blessings of God-given opportunity, would by her moral leadership and coÖperation become a Messiah among the nations of the earth.”

Appeals for Brotherhood

James M. Cox is essentially a man of broad outlook, big-hearted and anxious to serve. Altho criticized by some as an idealist, his ideals seem to be of the highest as if propelled by the righteousness of the causes which he represents. When referring further to the League of Nations, he said:

“These are fateful times. Organized government has a definite duty all over the world. The house of civilization is to be put in order. The supreme issue of the century is before us and the nation that halts and delays is playing with fire. The finest impulses of humanity, rising above national lines, merely seek to make another horrible war impossible. Under the old order of international anarchy war came overnight, and the world was on fire before we knew it. It sickens our senses to think of another. We saw one conflict into which modern science brought new forms of destruction in great guns, submarines, airships, and poison gases. But scientists tell us that the next war will be much worse. Chemists have already perfected gases so deadly that whole cities can be wiped out, armies destroyed, and the crews of battleships smothered. The public prints are filled with the opinion of military men that in future wars the method, more effective than gases or bombs, will be the employment of the germs of diseases, carrying pestilence and destruction. Any nation prepared under these conditions, as Germany was equipped in 1914, could conquer the world in a year.

“The question is whether we shall or shall not join in this practical and humane movement. President Wilson, as our representative at the peace table, entered the League in our name, in so far as the executive authority permitted. Senator Harding, as the Republican candidate for the Presidency, proposed in plain words that we remain out of it. As the Democratic candidate, I favor going in.

“To me the Harding proposal means dishonor, world confusion and delay. It would keep us in permanent company with Germany, Russia, Turkey and Mexico. It would entail, in the ultimate, more real injury than the war itself. The Democratic position on the question, as expressed in the platform, is ‘We advocate immediate ratification of the treaty without reservations which would impair its essential integrity, but do not oppose the acceptance of any reservation making clearer or more specific the obligations of the United States to the League associates.’”

Reservations that Cox Favors

When discussing with Mr. Cox his attitude on the treaty reservations, he said:

“The captious may pretend that our platform reference to reservations is vague and indefinite. Its meaning, in brief, is that we shall state our interpretation of the covenant as a matter of good faith to our associates and as a precaution against any misunderstanding in the future.”

As to these “interpretations,” Mr. Cox felt that some statement should be made and suggested the following two:

(1) In giving its assent to this treaty the Senate has in mind the fact that the League of Nations, which it embodies, was devised for the sole purpose of maintaining peace and comity among the nations of the earth and preventing the recurrence of such conflicts as that thru which the world has just passed. The coÖperation of the United States with the League and its continuance as a member thereof, will naturally depend upon the adherence of the League to that fundamental purpose.

(2) It will, of course, be understood that in carrying out the purpose of the League the Government of the United States must at all times act in strict harmony with the terms and intent of the United States Constitution, which cannot in any way be altered by the treaty-making power.