OCR Text |
Show COX'S STATEMENT TO LABOR PROVED TO BE GROSSLY INACCURATE Claim He Had "Never Pressed a Soldier Into an Industrial Controversy" Not True. USED OHIO MILITIA TWICE Question Not About Merits of Strike or Need for Military, : but as to Truthfulness. 1" By WlttlAM HOSTER. Columbus, O. Governor James M. Cox's boasted labor record has been shattered by his own official' act Claiming that be had "never pressed a soldier Into an Industrial controversy," controver-sy," tho record of bis action as governor gov-ernor of Ohio In mobilizing the National Na-tional Guard ot this state for service In the steel strike of 1010 has been produced In Oat contradiction of his assertion. Not once, but on two occasions was the Ohio guard, nt nn expense of $23,-000 $23,-000 to the people of Ohio, called Into service and sent to Akron .and held In readiness for action In nearby Canton. The question Is not as to the merits ot the strike or as to tho necessity, for the presence of the guard within striking strik-ing distance of Canton, but concerns wholly tho truthfulness of Governor Cox's statement, obviously made to win favor among the worklngmcn. The facts as brought out In the speech of Republican Slate Chairman George II. Clark, formally opening tho campaign at Columbus, arc as follows: Ordered Guard Out Twice. After the steel strike had progressed for some days, with mora or less disorder, disor-der, Governor Cox on September 28, 1010, suddenly ordered the mobilization of the guard at Akron. A period of quiet followed, and the troops were withdrawn. And then again suddenly on October 25 the guard was once more mobilised nnd sent to Akron, and while It lay there at that strategic point awaiting a summons Into action staff officers representing Governor Cox kept close watch on the situation In Canton. Can-ton. In his speech at Wheeling, W. Vn, on the night of August 14 Governor Cox said: "For six years I have been In executive execu-tive authority In the great Industrial state of Ohio. During all this time I have never pressed a soldier Into an Industrial In-dustrial controversy.'' The question, ,1s, did Governqr Cox tell the truth Answering this question, ques-tion, Chairman Clark In his Columbus speech displayed to his audience a photographic pho-tographic copy of Speclnl Order No. fKi Issued from the Adjutant General's department de-partment of the State of Ohio, dated Columbus. October 1!5, 1010, which designated des-ignated certain officers for Immediate active service aud paragraph 4 ot which reads: Facts Presented. "In nntlclpntlon of the development of a rioting condition ot Canton, ().. the Governor of Ohio hns deemed It necessary neces-sary to assemble n sufficient number of stale troops at Akron, O., to be held In readiness to render aid to the civil authorities au-thorities at Canton, Q nnd has so directed di-rected tho Adjutant General of Ohio, who, pursuant to Biich order, directs Colonel Benson W. Hough to proceed without delay to Akron, 0 to take command of nil stote troops upon arrival ar-rival at Akron, O., and to hold them In readiness for duty, awaiting further orders." ' The order Is signed by the Adjutant General and counter-Blgtied In theso words, "By command of Governor Cox." Did Governor Cox tell tho truth to the worklngmenl Supplementing this documentary proof, Mr. Clark produced photographic photograph-ic copies of headlines from Canton, O., newspapers of concurrent date, which read: "State troops mobilising for duty here. All available companies are or. dered out" And. "Governor orders troops for duty here, Ohio soldiers reporting re-porting to armories following trouble," Truth Should Be Known. The surprising thing about It all It that Governor Cox In his Whecllm.'' speech should have made so tint nn n sertlon when all of thu facts with regard re-gard to his mobilization of the guard were still fresh In the public mind, at least In Ohio OJ course It Is not to e expected thai workliiginen els-ewhorr In the United States would bo familiar with the clrcunistnnces, nnd It was fur thai ii'ui-ua thai Stale Chairman Clark In his speech stressed the necessity for the people all over tho country to be Informed that Governor Cox's usserllon that he "never pressed a soldier Into nn Industrial controversy" was absolutely abso-lutely at varlence with tho truth. Publication of theso official facts hns utterly confounded tho ndvocates of Governor Cox's election, who have been making n special plea to the working-men working-men on the bnslj of his West Virginia speech. The revelations i,s to Mr. Cox's moblllwit'on of the troops uro being compared with the sworn statements state-ments of liquor league contributions to his gubernatorial campaign fund In refutation of his etntemcnt that "the wets hqve never contributed one dollar to any of. my campaigns." In both cases the point Is made' that the Issue Is not as to the merit ot his mobilisation mobilisa-tion of the troops, on the one hand, or as to the status of the wet and dry question, on the other hand, but that the real Issue Is ns to the degree ot truth and accuracy absolutely necessary neces-sary In one who seeks to be president of tho United States. |