Personal Opinion
I cannot resist the temptation of expressing my feelings in this chapter. They are as follows: If a referendum of the American people had been taken in 1915 or 1916, 90 per cent would have voted for neutrality. Furthermore, it is not yet known when America would have entered the war had not Germany lost her moral sense and become almost insane. But under the circumstances there was only one thing to do; namely, to put Germany under control. After she was put under control, America felt that it would be time enough to discuss the merits of the case. This means that we should not only refrain from criticizing those who stood for neutrality, but it means that now that Germany is under control we should see that a League of Nations is formed and that the fourteen points, in consideration of which Germany signed the Armistice, should so far as we are able be carried out. If we are truly honest men, it is now up to us all to fulfil the post-war promises of our representatives. For this James M. Cox is fighting, believing that the promise of a nation is as sacred as the promise of an individual.
There is altogether too much loose talk about “patriotism.” Much of this is put forward by the reactionary interests of this country in order to block progress and reform. When any one raises his fist to oppose present wrongs, he is called “unpatriotic.” The flag is being constantly used, not for the protection of liberty for which it was designed, but for the protection of the oppressor who is using it as a cloak. Investigations in Ohio show that both candidates are sane on this point and Cox with his larger vision is desirous of extending his democracy to other nations. This probably explains why the great missionary leaders of the world are so enthusiastic for the League of Nations and are earnestly praying that James M. Cox may some day be President.
Mr. Cox also showed the courage of his convictions many years before the war when he was in Congress. He believed in the United States having an army and a navy adequate to protect our people, but he did not believe that the end justifies every means or that the government is greater than the people who make it up.
Hence, when the Naval Appropriation Bill was under consideration he made in Congress a bitter attack on the Republican Administration’s method of obtaining recruits. He produced evidence showing that recruits were obtained under false pretenses; that boys were encouraged to state an age older than they really were; and that even liquor and bad women were used to lure men to enlist. Hence, he succeeded in attaching to the Appropriation Bill a clause requiring the production of birth certificates in connection with the recruiting for the Navy. Every mother and father should bless him for his moral courage.
In talking these things over one day, Mr. Cox said to me:
“I believe not only in international democracy, but also in domestic democracy. But most of all I believe that reforms can be permanent in America only as they extend to other nations. I reason the same relative to financial, industrial and other local problems. I see that in order for the labor movement not to harm the manufacturer in America, labor legislation must be international in operation. For the eight-hour day to permanently succeed in America, it must apply to Europe and Japan. Otherwise industry here may ultimately suffer in competition with foreign producers. Notwithstanding Senator Lodge’s ‘America First’ standard, we cannot be ‘first’ in the long run by being selfish. We all are brothers one of another, rich or poor, American or European. Sooner or later we must all suffer or prosper together. We can save ourselves only as we save others. The only way America can truly come out first is to forget herself as Jesus would teach us to do. We can save ourselves only as we will forget ourselves and save others. We must work by the Golden Rule rather than by the rule of gold.”
CHAPTER VII
PROHIBITION AND WOMAN SUFFRAGE
I am proud of Governor Cox’s record on prohibition, because both he and I have been for many years practically teetotalers. I am proud of his courage in not being scared by the Anti-Saloon League which was opposed to him and fought him at every turn.
In the gubernatorial campaign between Willis, who is radically dry, and Governor Cox, the Anti-Saloon League naturally worked with Willis. But I claim that the Anti-Saloon League of Ohio is tied up with the Republican Party of that State and controlled by the Republican leaders. Whatever Mr. Cox’s attitude on prohibition, the Anti-Saloon League, in the gubernatorial election, would have been opposed to Mr. Cox. Of course, Mr. Cox stood for a less rigid prohibition program than did Mr. Willis. No man who was honest with himself could help doing so. I have always voted for prohibition but I admire Governor Cox. After the election of Mr. Cox as Governor, moreover, the Anti-Saloon people so fully recognize his fairness in methods of enforcing the law that they now take no sides between Mr. Cox and Mr. Harding as to national matters.
The temperance people of the country feel that the country has gone prohibition and the only question they ask is whether or not the Governor will enforce the law. No Governor has a better record for law enforcement than has Governor Cox.
The history of temperance legislation in Ohio is very peculiar. In 1851 the people of the State adopted an unusual Constitution, containing an ambiguous clause regarding the sale of intoxicating liquors. Saloon men and prohibitionists voted in favor of it on opposite construction of the clause. It was carried by 8982 votes. The same clause authorized the legislature to provide against the evil arising from the sale of liquors.
No law was passed until May, 1854. By this law it was forbidden to sell intoxicating liquors to be drunk on or about the premises or in an adjoining room. It was made unlawful to sell to minors, persons intoxicated or in the habit of becoming intoxicated. Places where the law was violated were declared nuisances. There also was an important proviso attached to Section 1, that the law should not apply to “wine manufactured of the pure juice of the grape cultivated in the State of Ohio, or beer or ale or cider.”
The subject was a continual source of irritation in Ohio and the legislature was continually harassed for changes as the different interests obtained power. Under this old Constitution it was held that a law of regulation, which amounted to license, was invalid. Then followed the Pond law, the Scott law, the Dow law, the Adair law, the Rose law and many others providing for county, township, city or city residence district local option, and finally increasing the tax levied from $100 to $1000. All of this legislation was in the interests of the liquor people and tended to nullify the constitution. There was little Sunday observance in spite of the severe penalties inflicted. The partnership between the saloon and the then dominant party, the Republican, was as complete as if signed and sealed by the parties.
The people were disgusted with the entire matter. Hence when the Constitutional Convention of 1912 met, among other matters submitted to the people by a separate vote was the following: Shall a license to sell intoxicating liquors be granted in Ohio. This was submitted as a separate test vote. The people voted “yes” by a majority of 84,536. This vote took place September 3, 1912.
Governor Cox was inaugurated for the first time in January 1913, and it became his duty to enforce and obey all laws passed under the new Constitution, including the license law. A stringent, high license law was passed, and was in successful operation when the later vote was taken during the war, establishing Prohibition in the State. The provisions of this law were faithfully enforced so far as the Governor was concerned, including one compelling the observance of Sunday. Ohio had been noted for wide open saloons on Sunday in the big cities, especially in Cincinnati, where the partnership between the saloon and the Republican leaders was most effective. The Governor gave notice that the law must be observed, and it was. At the next election his action was resented and his courageous conduct in this regard contributed largely to his defeat in 1914.
Governor Cox, before prohibition as such became an issue, did sponsor and secure the passage of a license system which reduced the number of saloons and provided for self-enforcement of temperance laws by depriving the law violator of the right to continue in the liquor business or ever again be engaged in it. The law under the license amendment was approved by both the Anti-Saloon League and the Liberal League.
In the period following Governor Cox gave Ohio its first example of strict law enforcement, the result of which was his defeat for re-election as a result of a definite deal entered into which would provide for a little less strict enforcement program. This deal was made in certain wet centers by dry leaders in behalf of a professional dry candidate. The spectacle which followed brought definite recognition of Cox as a law-enforcement official.
In Ohio the Anti-Saloon League has always been the Republican Party auxiliary, and has always opposed Governor Cox, who has adhered to the definite principle of recognizing no class of people, holding himself answerable to all the people in strict conformity with his oath of office. That was his stand in 1918 and when Ohio voted prohibition into the state Constitution and re-elected Cox for the third time as chief executive.