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.
COX’S LETTER TO POLLOCK
In this connection I was shown the copy of a letter which Governor Cox
wrote to John H. Pollock, a Kansas City attorney. The letter was dated
June 23, 1920, and was in response to a letter which Pollock wrote to
the Governor on this question. The Governor’s reply was as follows:
“I have read your letter with interest. The question before us
now is law enforcement. As the constitution and statute stand,
they are the express mandate of the people and must be respected
by public officers and citizens as long as they remain. There is
no difference between neglect of the law by public officers and
an attack against our institutions by the Bolsheviki. We
contend, and properly so, that there is no need of revolution in
this country because we have the government facilities to change
the existing order by rule of the majority, but we can hardly
create the proper attitude among aliens, unaccustomed to our
ways, if public officers close their eyes to their oath and
obligation.”
Investigation shows that Governor Cox signed every piece of
legislation on prohibition enforcement which passed the Ohio
legislature. The Anti-Saloon people themselves state that he was the
first Governor of Ohio who closed the saloons on Sunday. So far as the
amendment of the Federal Constitution goes, this has been passed once
and for all. Moreover, the Governor plainly tells his friends so. “We
must never turn back the hands of the clock. We must go forward and
not backward,” says he.
He knows this and the intelligent brewers know it also. Hence they are
changing over their plants for the manufacture of legitimate products.
Moreover many of them are now making more money than in the old days.
Although some people may vote for Cox with the hope of a more lenient
policy, I am sure they will be much disappointed. Personally, I have
no fears in this direction. No one recognizes the evils of
intemperance more than does James M. Cox. He is earnestly interested
in eliminating these evils. He simply wishes to do what will be best
for humanity in the long run and to avoid making hypocrites of the
people.
POSITION ON SUFFRAGE
James M. Cox’s record on suffrage should be distinctly pleasing to all
who are interested therein. He has worked for the passage and signed
every bill which has been helpful to the suffrage cause. Not only is
this shown by a study of the records, but by the violent opposition
which he is getting from the Anti-Suffrage leaders.
Furthermore, Mr. Cox’s interest in suffrage was not a “death-bed
repentance.” Unlike his opponent (as the Democratic speakers now
insist upon emphasizing) and others who are now for suffrage, he did
not continually fight it until he saw that it was inevitable. From the
first James M. Cox encouraged the suffrage leaders and helped them in
every way.
In the fights in Tennessee and other states for suffrage, Mr. Cox took
a very active part to help the suffragists. In his speech of
acceptance on August 7, 1920, Mr. Cox said:
“The women of America, in emotion and constructive service measured up
during the war to every requirement, and the emergency exacted much of
them. Their initiative, their enthusiasm and their sustained industry,
which carried many of them to the heavy burdens of toil, form an
undying page in the annals of time, while the touch of the mother
heart in camp and hospital gave a sacred color to the tragic picture
that feeble words should not even attempt to portray. They
demonstrated not only willingness but capacity. They helped win the
war, and they are entitled to a voice in the re-adjustment now at
hand.
“Their intuition, their sense of the humanitarian in government, their
unquestioned progressive spirit will be helpful in problems that
require public judgment. Therefore they are entitled to the privilege
of voting as a matter of right and because they will be helpful in
maintaining wholesome and patriotic policy.”
All know, however, how the presidential candidates now stand on the
subject. They both favor suffrage. To stand otherwise would mean
certain defeat. But it is worth while to consider how they stood
before suffrage victory was assured. Others can speak for others. Let
me speak for James M. Cox. History shows that he repeatedly placed
himself on record in favor of giving the vote to women. He signed
every bill coming to him intended to enfranchise women in Ohio, and in
a special message to the legislature urged the ratification of the
federal amendment.
After presenting these facts, however, permit me to add that I can not
feel that the record of a candidate on suffrage should ever be used as
campaign material to bid for women votes. Women should cast their
ballots as citizens and not as women, and the fact that Senator
Harding at one time opposed the franchise should not affect their
judgment on present-day issues.